Addressing Deprivation Briefing Update September 9th 2013 South West and Mid Wales Consortium Briefing Objectives Following the briefing colleagues will: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Develop their understanding of the national and regional context for reducing the impact of poverty on learner outcomes; Understand the current position regarding attainment of FSM learners and the gaps between non FSM learners across ERW; Be updated on the current and planned outputs of the region’s addressing deprivation group; Have an opportunity to discuss the performance of four schools in the region in relation to FSM and non FSM learners; Have an opportunity to reflect on how potential performance issues are identified, planned for and evaluated at their school. This will include an over view of the Sutton Toolkit and the use of evidence based approaches to school improvement. ERW • Outputs and outcomes for the use of the region’s PDG allocation for 2013-14 (PDG £8.75M*) have been submitted to Welsh Government and these form the basis of the region’s tacking deprivation group work. • The region’s submission to Welsh Government outlines the need to “Continue to reduce the gap in attainment of FSM and non FSM learners whilst overall performance across ERW continues to exceed the Welsh average.” • The region formed a tacking deprivation group in March of 2013; more details on the group’s outputs follows later in the presentation. • The region hosted a ‘Tacking Deprivation’ conference in July 2013 which saw input from Welsh Government, Estyn, regional and national practitioners. National Context • Freedom from Poverty is core aim 7 of the Welsh Government and responsibilities for public bodies are set out in Tackling Child Poverty: Guidance and regulation for Welsh authorities. • Building Resilient Communities: Taking forward the Tackling Poverty Action Plan sets out the targets and actions that are being taken to tackle and mitigate for the impact of poverty on people of all ages in Wales. • The Child Poverty Strategy for Wales (Feb 2011) uses the percentage of pupils who achieve the Level 2 Inclusive threshold to measure progress against the objectives of the strategy. • The School Effectiveness Grant and Pupil Deprivation Grant 2013-5 document outlines the case for improving the educational outcomes for learners who are eligible for free school meals (FSM pupils). • Tackling Poverty is at the heart of Welsh Government Policy and Strategy. Learner Outcomes Across Wales The Pupil Deprivation Grant guidance document notes that: • Overall the progress of e-FSM learners does not compare well with their peers; • While the gap in attainment between e-FSM learners and their peers in primary schools has narrowed slightly, it has widened in secondary schools since 2008; and • This growth in the gap in attainment highlights the need to take targeted action. Some important trends underpin the national measures: • In primary schools, English / Welsh is weaker than mathematics and within English/Welsh, writing is weaker than reading and oracy, especially for boys. In secondary schools, mathematics is weaker than English/Welsh: Learner Outcomes Continued Achievement and Entitlement to Free School Meals in Wales 2012 notes that: • • The performance of pupils eligible for free school meals is lower than their counterparts at all key stages and in all performance measures; The gap in performance has narrowed over the last six years at KS2 and 3. However, at KS4 the gap at L2 Inclusive had widened every year to 2010 before narrowing in the past two years; and that The gap in performance gets wider as pupils get older. • Attainment gaps across Wales in 2011-12 were • KS2 L4 CSI = 20% KS3 L5 CSI= 30% KS4 L2 Inclusive = 33% Regional Attainment Gaps KS2 L4 CSI KS2 L4 CSI Attainment Gap 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Carmarthenshire 24.2 17.4 15.9 Ceredigion 18.8 10.2 14.8 Neath PT 24.9 22.2 18.1 Pembrokeshire 26.5 18.5 17.3 Powys 21.8 22.4 21.2 Swansea 21.9 20.9 17.9 ERW 23.5 19.8 17.7 Wales 22.4 20.6 20 Regional Attainment Gaps KS4 L2 Inclusive KS4 L2 Inclusive Attainment Gap 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Carmarthenshire 30.6 33.7 27 Ceredigion 28.9 31.1 34 Neath PT 36.9 28.3 32 Pembrokeshire 32.2 35.9 33 Powys 28.1 28.5 36 Swansea 36.5 37.2 32 ERW 33.8 33.6 31.7 Wales 33.9 33.7 33.2 FSM Learner Outcomes across ERW in 2012 • • • The next set of slides looks at the performance of FSM learners at L2 Inclusive (the indicator used by Welsh Government in The Child Poverty Strategy for Wales (Feb 2011) The first set of slides looks at the actual attainment of FSM learners across ERW schools by FSM group for 2012; and The second set looks at the attainment gaps in schools of FSM learners across ERW and then by FSM groups across ERW for 2012. What will we see? • Significant differences in actual attainment of FSM learners across schools in the same FSM group – FSM group 2 for instance sees 13% of FSM learners in one school achieving L2 Inclusive compared to 63% in another. Both schools were in quartile 1 in benchmarking. • Significant gaps in the performance of FSM and non FSM learners in the same school; an instance in one school saw 2 of each 10 FSM learners attaining L2 Inclusive compared to 7 in 10 of non FSM learners. • FSM Groups 2 and 3 appear to have the widest variation in actual attainment for FSM learners and the widest gaps between FSM /non FSM. Attainment of FSM Learners in ERW at L2 Inclusive in 2012 Non FSM Learners FSM Learners L2 Inclusive Attainment for learners in FSM group 1 in ERW L2 Inclusive Attainment for learners in FSM group 2 in ERW L2 Inclusive Attainment for learners in FSM group 3 in ERW L2 Inclusive Attainment for learners in FSM group 4 in ERW L2 Inclusive Attainment for learners in FSM group 5 in ERW Attainment Gaps at L2 Inclusive across ERW Attainment gap in 2012 for FSM Group 1 Attainment gap in 2012 for FSM Group 2 Attainment gap in 2012 for FSM Group 3 Attainment gap in 2012 for FSM Group 4 Attainment gap in 2012 for FSM Group 5 Summary of L2 Inclusive attainment and gap ERW 2012 Attainment Highest Lowest Gap Highest Lowest FSM Group 1 70.4 20 FSM Group 1 47 12 FSM Group 2 63.2 13.3 FSM Group 2 63 6 FSM Group 3 57.6 12.5 FSM Group 3 44 2 FSM Group 4 41.7 11.9 FSM Group 4 28 7 FSM Group 5 31.3 11.8 FSM Group 5 35 -1 ‘The gap’ Activity – School performance issues • The resource sheet details the L2 Inclusive performance of four schools. • For each school, discuss with a partner or a small group what the key issues arising from each graph are and what questions you might wish to explore with these schools. • The context data on the sheet shows the KS3 L5 CSI for the 2012 cohort when they were in Year 9. Consider • What does the gap between FSM and non FSM attainment mean ? • What is more important, the gap between FSM and non FSM learners in your school or the actual performance of FSM learners? • What does a school need to know in order to evaluate and contextualise its impact on the FSM group of learners? Regional Priorities The region’s submitted plans to Welsh Government focus upon: • Promoting the use of evidence based approaches to tacking school improvement e.g. The Sutton Toolkit which was showcased at the regional conference; • Promoting the use of wellbeing tools such as PASS and the SUPASurvey which could identify issues impacting on groups of learners; • Identifying schools who have, on the basis of learner outcomes, effectively impacted on learner outcomes of students in receipt of FSM; • Supporting schools and system leaders through providing a toolkit of effective practice and evaluation tools; and crucially • Continuing to reduce the gap in attainment of FSM and non FSM learners whilst overall performance across ERW continues to exceed the Welsh average. Support for Schools and System Leaders • • In line with ERW’s submission to Welsh Government, the region’s addressing deprivation group is focussing on three work streams; schools, systems leaders and region / hubs. The main output for the schools’ work stream is the development of a toolkit which will include – Guidance on the national context; – Guidance on the impact of poverty on learner outcomes and performance; – Information regarding the region’s current performance at school, LA, Hub and overall; – The identification and profiling of schools in ERW in each FSM group whose data proves that FSM learner outcomes have improved; – A tool to support the projection of potential performance issues with FSM learners and allows schools to objectively measure the progress of this group of learners; – A benchmarking tool to allow schools to contextualise the performance of FSM learners in their schools; – An introduction to the Sutton Toolkit and how it can be used to design targeted interventions; – A repository of the latest research and literature in the field of tackling deprivation. Sutton Toolkit A requirement outlined in the PDG guidance document is the need to develop evidence based approaches to targeted learner support and the region’s toolkit will outline the way in which the Sutton Toolkit could be used. In essence, schools could project potential performance issues, identify contributory factors and then refer to the toolkit for the interventions which have proven to be the most effective and / or provide best value for money. How the Sutton Trust approach could be used for your targeted interventions QUESTIONS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS TO SUPPORT EVALUATION/ MONITORING OF THE PDG BASED ON THE SUTTON TRUST TOOLKIT / EDUCATION ENDOWMENT FOUNDATION DIY EVALUATION GUIDE. GENERAL QUESTIONS. 1A. WHAT DID THE SCHOOL WANT TO ACHIEVE WITH THE PDG FUNDING? B. HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THE SCHOOLS PRIORITIES? 2. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THERE? 3. HOW WILL YOU KNOW IT WORKED? DETAILED QUESTIONS PREPARATION WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THE PDG? WHAT IS THE INTERVENTION THAT THE SCHOOL IS PUTTING IN PLACE? HOW WILL IT SPECIFICALLY IMPACT ON PUPILS WHO ARE ON FSM? HOW WILL IT CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN FSM AND NON- FSM WHILST SCHOOL CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN IMPROVEMENT FOR BOTH GROUPS? WHO WILL YOU MEASURE ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE MADE THROUGH USING THE PDG? Sutton Trust Approach HOW WILL YOU KNOW THE INTERVENTION YOU PUT IN PLACE THROUGH THE PDG HAS ADDED VALUE TO THE PUPILS ON FSM? HOW WILL YOU MEASURE THE REDUCTION IN ATTAINMENT/ACHIEVEMENT GAP BETWEEN FSM AND NON FSM WHILST MAINTAINING AN IMPROVING TREND FOR BOTH GROUPS? IMPLEMENTATION WHAT IS THE BASELINE MEASURE THE IMPACT OF YOU INTERVENTION WILL BE MEASURED AGAINST? HOW WILL YOU DELIVER THE INTERVENTION? HOW WILL YOU RECORD THE PLANNED DELIVERY OF YOUR INTERVENTION? HOW WILL YOU RECORD WHAT IS HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE DELIVERY OF THE INTERVENTION? WHEN AND HOW WILL THE IMPACT OF THE INTERVENTION BE MEASURED? ANALYSIS AND REPORTING HOW WILL THE RESULTS RECORD THE IMPACT OF THE INTERVENTION? HOW WILL IT SHOW VALUE ADDED FOR PUPILS ON FSM? WHO WILL HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPACT OF PDG FUNDED INTERVENTIONS ? HOW WILL THE RESULTS BE SHARED? To close The Independent newspaper ran two articles at the start of September regarding learner outcomes. These are on your tables. • • The first noted that 25% of learners were now receiving private tuition; and The second noted that the highest levels of under attainment were in boys in receipt of FSM. To consider • • Which learners are most likely to be accessing private tuition? Which least likely? Knowing what we know about the gap in performance between boys and girls, to what extent could the under attainment of FSM pupils be attributed to boys rather than all FSM learners? Might this be the case in your school?