Havering’s Secondary Academies and their Disadvantaged Students

Research:

The key metric is the Gold Standard of GCSE Grade 5+ English and Mathematics. For England, non-disadvantaged students’ outcome is 50%. Havering out-performs England by a significant 5 percentage points.

The 2019 statistics are from the government website¹ (see Addendum). The benchmark is 50%.

PP = Pupil Premium this is additional funding for closing the attainment gap of disadvantaged students. A higher figure indicates a greater number of disadvantaged students in the school as it’s a per capita payment. Total PP funding for Havering’s secondary academies is £3,578,103

Coopers Coburn

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 57% PP £87,450

Sacred Heart of Mary

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 55% PP £137,889

Francis Bardsley

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 44% PP £216,440

St Edwards

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 37% PP £188,182

They tacitly blame their students by saying that “33% [of] St Edward’s students live in Barking and Dagenham (ranked fifth most deprived local authority in England).

See Pupil-Premium-Report-2020-2021-md.pdf (steds.org.uk)

Royal Liberty

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 36% PP £143,250

Harris Academy Rainham

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 35% PP £230,000 (approximately)

They arrogantly don’t give an accurate figure for their PP funding.

Abbs Cross

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 34% PP £153,340

Emerson Park

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 31% PP £218,005

Bower Park

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 29% PP £275,995

Brittons

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 29% PP £265,985

Gaynes²

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 29% PP £69,100

Hall Mead

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 28% PP £166,309

Drapers

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 23% PP £384,640

Campion

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 21% PP £67,675

Redden Court³

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 21%¹ PP £157,685

“A significant proportion of students at Redden Court School (c.25%) are disadvantaged. We never use this as an excuse; rather, it adds to our moral purpose. Our school motto is: ‘Committed to Success for All’; this is something we strongly believe in – we are, therefore, committed to the success of all our disadvantaged students.”

Pupil Premium Strategy 2020/21 – Google Docs

Marshalls Park

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 18% PP £232,245

Hornchurch High²

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 17% PP £367,218

Sanders Drapers

English and Mathematics Grade 5+ Disadvantaged 7% PP £216,785

Discussion

As both the 2020 and 2021 GCSE examinations are unnoticed on government, and usually, school websites, drawing conclusions is tricky. For example there’s a new management team at Sanders Draper Academy and schools aren’t static places. Nonetheless some broad brush statements can be made.

Correlation is poor between PP funding and outcomes. St Edwards is 10^th in Havering’s PP funding rankings but 4^th in outcomes for disadvantaged students. Meanwhile Marshalls Park is 5^th in PP funding and 15^th in outcomes.

Three average schools in Havering at co-equal 9^th

Bower Park’s 2018 OFSTED inspection rated the school as ‘Good’ in Bower Park’s case a third of disadvantaged students (49/147) are discounted as their outcomes are less than good.

Brittons 2019 examination results show that 30% of their cohort achieved the Gold Standard, which is virtually identical to those of disadvantaged students. So they are below the borough average for non-disadvantaged students but average for disadvantaged students.

Gaynes has a solid performance of 60% in English and Mathematics for the school⁵but that isn’t translated to disadvantaged students. Their statistics are affected by the small numbers in the cohort where a single student can be disproportionate.

Addendum: Covid-19 and GCSE results

Both the 2020 and 2021 GCSE examinations were teacher assessed. It’s immediately apparent that those results aren’t used in a customary way. The government website doesn’t use them and most schools publish a summary. Why? Are these GCSE results problematic? Are they fatally flawed and a pale imitation of the real thing? This places a constraint on understanding current, 2021, outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Notes

1 GOV.UK – Find and compare schools in England (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk)

2 These blogs were written some time ago and it was at that point I decided to review every secondary school in Havering. Gaynes School Gaynes School, the Pupil Premium and Accountability – Politics in Havering and Hornchurch High School Hornchurch High School, the Pupil Premium and Accountability – Politics in Havering

3 Ofsted: Redden Court School could be ‘outstanding’ | Romford Recorder

4 2771545 (ofsted.gov.uk) Bower Park is at Havering’s average along with Brittons and Gaynes at joint 9^th out of 18.

5 All schools and colleges in Havering – GOV.UK – Find and compare schools in England (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk) See also Achievement and Performance – Gaynes School

Gaynes School, the Pupil Premium and Accountability

“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.

Notes

* Pupil Premium | Gaynes School All quotes are from this document.

** See Young carers (youngminds.org.uk)

Sources

Gaynes school PP statement Pupil Premium | Gaynes School

Loxford school PP statement Pupil Premium | Loxford

Hornchurch High School, the Pupil Premium and Accountability

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.*

Hornchurch High received £367,218 Pupil Premium funding (PP), 2020-21, which it spent as it chose. The government does however stipulate accountability procedures. (see above)Hornchurch High’s accountability is a travesty.

Hornchurch High allocates 33% of PP funding to Child Protection. Let’s imagine they’ve identified Child Protection as the main method of overcoming “barriers to educational achievement,” and PP finance is “…spent to address those barriers…” Why wouldn’t they publicise the ”…impact and effect of its expenditure…”? When a third of the PP budget is allocated to a single activity, there should be a compelling reason to justify it. The explanation for the expenditure of the PP funding which remains is equally opaque.**

The attainment gap of disadvantaged children is a scandal which PP funding is intended to close. It’s impossible to know if Hornchurch High is fulfilling its obligations. Another Havering school, Drapers Academy (£384,640 PP), is a model of clarity. Why not use it as a template? Accountability isn’t rocket science.

Addendum: The Partnership Learning trust

They’re part of Partnership Learning academy trust which includes Sydney Russell school, Dagenham (£647,882 pa PP). The two schools have a million+ pounds PP funding of potential synergies. Two schools in the same academy trust and facing the similar issues ought to generate significant expertise.

Notes

* What academies, free schools and colleges should publish online – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

** £26,028 for additional English support and £6,000 for additional teaching hours are self explanatory.

Sources

For Hornchurch High school PP see Hornchurch High School » PUPIL PREMIUM

For Sydney Russell school’s PP see Welcome to Sydney Russell School. (follow links for PP)

For Drapers Academy PP statement see Pupil-Premium-Report-2017-2018-v20.pdf (drapersacademy.com)