“It is for schools to decide how the Pupil Premium, allocated to schools per FSM* student, is spent… for the individual pupils within their responsibility.” Government statement (my emphasis)
“The challenge to establish a clear link between educational expenditure and pupils’ learning is harder than one would imagine. It may seem obvious that more money offers the possibilities for a better or higher quality educational experience, but the evidence suggests that it is not simply a question of spending more to get better results.”* Gaynes statement (my emphasis)
Gaynes School received £69,190 of Pupil Premium (PP) funding in 2020-21. PP funding demands acceptance of the government’s criteria of accountability. The government’s criteria are clear, unequivocal and entirely reasonable (Addendum one). Gaynes fails to be clear or precise in this important duty.
Gaynes response to disadvantaged children is providing,
“Additional Educational Resources for Looked After Children – allocated £1,800
Strategy: For 2019-20, each looked after child has a Personalised Educational Plan drawn up by our specialist worker in conjunction with the local authority to ensure that each student receives resources and support which would be appropriate for them as an individual.”
£1,800 is about £29 per disadvantaged child (2.6% of PP funding). The other £67,390 is invisible. (Addendum two) Gaynes says money doesn’t guarantee ‘better results’. Nonetheless PP funding should be analysed for effectiveness. PP funding is targeted and schools, “are best placed to assess what additional provision should be made for…individual pupils…” (my emphasis). With freedom comes responsibility.
Accountability isn’t a threat, it’s a diagnostic tool identifying successes and failures. PP funding is for the most vulnerable children in the country and the government is entitled to know that its ambitions are being fulfilled. Why doesn’t Gaynes meet its obligations?
Addendum one: Government guidance for publicising the Pupil Premium on school websites says it should include –
1) a summary of the main barriers to educational achievement faced by eligible pupils of the school
2) how the pupil premium allocation is to be spent to address those barriers and the reasons for that approach
3) how the school is to measure the impact and effect of its expenditure of the pupil premium allocation. What academies, free schools and colleges should publish online – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Addendum two: Statement of accounts for Pupil Premium
The Regional Schools Commission tell me that there is a full statement from Gaynes School. It’s in a side bar and is labelled ‘draft’. As a consequence I ignored it thinking that it wasn’t substantive. The link that I was provided with is this, Pupil-Premium-Reports-and-Strategy.pdf (gaynesschool.net)
Quite why the statement of accounts for Pupil Premium is separated into two sections with one labelled ‘draft’ is beyond me but nonetheless that’s as it is.
* Pupil Premium | Gaynes School All quotes are from this document.
** See Young carers (youngminds.org.uk)
Gaynes school PP statement Pupil Premium | Gaynes School
Loxford school PP statement Pupil Premium | Loxford
3 thoughts on “Gaynes School, the Pupil Premium and Accountability”
Don’t forget Abbs cross are part of that consortium as are Warren in LBBD and another in Southend . The CEO does not believe in accountability and doesn’t when challenged have any hard substantive strategies for either disadvantaged pupils or consistently underperforming groups
Thank you for your comment
I did a comparison with Redbridge some time ago about Havering’s general performance. You might find it interesting.