Press release

More schools use Pupil Premium well, but others still struggle

A growing number of schools are now using their Pupil Premium funding effectively to raise achievement levels among poorer pupils.

A growing number of schools are now using their Pupil Premium funding effectively to raise achievement levels among poorer pupils, Ofsted’s Chief Inspector said today.

However, a significant minority are still struggling to show how the money is making any meaningful impact in terms of narrowing the gap between pupils from low income and more affluent families.

Sir Michael Wilshaw was speaking on the day that Ofsted published a new survey report into the Pupil Premium, which draws together some of the effective practice that inspectors have observed during school visits.

He said there was evidence that many schools were now grasping the importance of spending the funding effectively, following an earlier Ofsted report which criticised the performance of many schools in this regard.

The Pupil Premium was introduced by the Coalition Government in April 2011 to provide additional support for looked after children and those from low income families. Schools are free to spend the money they are allocated as they see fit.

Ofsted followed up its initial report into the Pupil Premium last September by visiting a wide range of nearly 70 primary and secondary schools during the autumn term 2012 to see how effectively these schools were spending the funding to maximise achievement.

Sir Michael said:

Following my criticism of schools last year, it is clear more schools are now taking their responsibilities seriously when it comes to using the Pupil Premium money and our inspectors have found evidence of some very good practice in their recent visits.

Crucially, many of these good schools are concentrating on the core areas of literacy and numeracy to break down the main barriers to accessing the full curriculum. They are also focusing on the key stages of a child’s development in their school career.

However, some schools still lack good enough systems for tracking the spending of the additional funding or for evaluating the effectiveness of measures they have put in place in terms of improving outcomes.

We will continue to take an active interest in this issue in the coming months. Where we find funding isn’t being spent effectively on improving outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, we will be clear in our criticism.

It is vital that schools get this right. Every child who leaves school without the right qualifications faces a far more difficult path to fulfilling their potential and finding employment.

Sir Michael also said that the government should consider diverting at least part of the central pot of money it has made available for secondary schools to run summer schools for disadvantaged primary school leavers – to go instead directly to schools to pay for extra support for poorer pupils during the vital Year 7 period. He said that inspectors found the take-up of the summer school money has to date been patchy and by allocating it directly to schools, Ofsted would be able to properly monitor and report on whether the money was being used effectively.

Today’s report says that where schools were spending the Pupil Premium funding successfully to improve achievement, they shared many of the following characteristics. They:

  • carefully ring-fenced the funding so that they always spent it on the target group of pupils
  • never confused eligibility for the Pupil Premium with low ability, and focused on supporting their disadvantaged pupils to achieve the highest levels
  • thoroughly analysed which pupils were underachieving, particularly in English and mathematics, and why
  • drew on research evidence and evidence from their own and others’ experience to allocate the funding to the activities that were most likely to have an impact on improving achievement
  • understood the importance of ensuring that all day-to-day teaching meets the needs of each learner, rather than relying on interventions to compensate for teaching that is less than good
  • allocated their best teachers to teach intervention groups to improve mathematics and English, or employed new teachers who had a good track record in raising attainment in those subjects
  • used achievement data frequently to check whether interventions or techniques were working and made adjustments accordingly, rather than just using the data retrospectively to see if something had worked
  • made sure that support staff, particularly teaching assistants, were highly trained and understood their role in helping pupils to achieve
  • systematically focused on giving pupils clear, useful feedback about their work, and ways that they could improve it
  • ensured that a designated senior leader had a clear overview of how the funding was being allocated and the difference it was making to the outcomes for pupils
  • ensured that class and subject teachers knew which pupils were eligible for the Pupil Premium so that they could take responsibility for accelerating their progress
  • had a clear policy on spending the Pupil Premium, agreed by governors and publicised on the school website
  • provided well-targeted support to improve attendance, behaviour or links with families where these were barriers to a pupil’s learning
  • had a clear and robust performance management system for all staff, and included discussions about pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium in performance management meetings
  • thoroughly involved governors in the decision making and evaluation process
  • were able, through careful monitoring and evaluation, to demonstrate the impact of each aspect of their spending on the outcomes for pupils

In contrast, inspectors found where schools were less successful in spending the funding, they tended to have at least some of the following characteristics. They:

  • had a lack of clarity about the intended impact of the spending
  • spent the funding indiscriminately on teaching assistants, with little impact
  • did not monitor the quality and impact of interventions well enough, even where other monitoring was effective
  • did not have a good performance management system for teaching assistants and other support staff
  • did not have a clear audit trail for where the funding had been spent
  • focused on pupils attaining the nationally expected level at the end of the key stage (Level 4, five A* to C grades at GCSE) but did not to go beyond these expectations, so some more able eligible pupils underachieved
  • planned their Pupil Premium spending in isolation to their other planning, for example, it was not part of the school development plan
  • compared their performance to local rather than national data, which suppressed expectations if they were in a low-performing local authority
  • compared the performance of their pupils who were eligible for free school meals with other eligible pupils nationally, rather than all pupils, again lowering expectations
  • did not focus their pastoral work on the desired outcomes for pupils and did not have any evidence to show themselves whether the work had or had not been effective
  • did not have governors involved in making decisions about the Pupil Premium, or challenging the way in which it was allocated

Notes to editors

  1. ‘Pupil premium: how schools are spending the funding successfully to maximise achievement’ is the follow up to a report published in September 2012. Today’s report is based on visits made by Her Majesty’s Inspectors to 68 primary and secondary schools to see how effectively they are spending their Pupil Premium funding. It is accompanied by a series of tools that schools can use to help them to analyse where there are gaps in achievement between pupils who are eligible for the Pupil Premium and those who are not, and to plan the action they need to take.

Media enquiries

Clive House
70 Petty France


Monday to Friday, 8:30am to 6pm 0300 013 0415

Out of hours duty press officer 07919 057 359

Published 11 February 2013