Agenda item

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.  The extra funding is made available to schools to help them narrow the attainment gap that still exists between pupils from disadvantaged and more affluent backgrounds. This report gives a general overview of how the Pupil Premium Grant (PPG) is being used by Brent schools and whether it is successful in narrowing the gap.

The committee received a report from Sara Williams (Acting Director of Children and Families) on the Pupil Premium Grant (PPG), which had been introduced by the Coalition Government in April 2011. This grant had been established to enable schools to provide additional support for Looked After Children (LAC) and children from low income families and thereby tackle the attainment gap that existed between these children and their peers. The report provided an overview of the use of PPG in Brent’s schools, the progress achieved in narrowing the attainment gap and the support provided by the Council to schools on best usage of PPG.

Sara Williams explained that the PPG was put to good use in Brent and this was evident in the educational achievement of Pupil Premium (PP) pupils. The report highlighted that the expected progress from Key Stage (KS) 1 to KS2 was well above the national average for the PP pupils. Similarly the expected progress from KS2 – KS4 was also in line with the national average for all pupils. Whilst the attainment gap did become more pronounced for secondary-aged pupils in Brent, this gap remained narrower than the national average. Examples of the initiatives funded via the PPG were set out in the report for both Primary and Secondary schools and included the running of booster classes, the provision of targeted support, subsidising extra-curricular activities, and access to art therapy and counselling services. Sara Williams informed the committee that the Department for Education (DfE) had recently visited one of Brent’s schools to observe how they achieved their particularly good results for PP pupils. This school took a creative approach to identifying pupils requiring additional support, using a range of indicators, including post code. Despite the successes achieved in Brent, it was considered that further work was required to ensure consistent good use of PPG across all schools. In particular, progress was desired in ensuring schools were confident in addressing multiple risk factors, for example, PP pupils for whom English was an additional language, or who had Special Educational Needs (SEN). The Children and Families Department, via its Services to Schools service and Link Advisers, was committed to working with schools to ensure the effective use of PPG. In addition written guidance, training and feedback was provided to Link Advisers, Head Teachers and Governors.

In the subsequent discussion members queried the income per year from PPG for Brent’s schools. It was commented that post code could not be used as an accurate measure of pupil need when targeting support for pupils. A concern was also regarding the impact of the recent Welfare Reforms. Sara Williams advised that income from PPG per year could be circulated to the committee and confirmed that a school would use a wide ranging criteria to identify pupils who needed additional support; this could include post code and initial attendance but a school would not rely upon any one single indicator. Members were further advised that the number of pupils eligible for PPG had fallen across the borough. The changes to benefits had not had an immediate significant impact as the qualification for PPG required that a pupil had been eligible for free school meals at any point within the last six years. The movement of families out of the borough was closely monitored and it was considered that this was not a key factor in the fall in the number of pupils eligible for PPG.

The committee noted that it had in October 2012 received a report on the Council’s Child Poverty Strategy. Since that time, the poverty rate had increased to 34 percent, as set out in the report before the committee. The committee had subsequently agreed that all reports it received should include a section on the child poverty implications.  Sara Williams advised that it was no longer a requirement for local authorities to have a child poverty strategy and the council was currently undertaking work to ensure that the themes and actions identified in the existing strategy could be embedded in other strategies, such as the Employment Strategy.

The committee agreed that there appeared to have been delay, since the introduction of the Child Poverty Strategy, in overtly addressing child poverty in Brent and sought an immediate update on the work being undertaken in respect of this.

RESOLVED:

(i)    that the report be noted;

(ii)  that an update be submitted to the next meeting of the committee on the work undertaken with regard to the Child Poverty Strategy and associated work to tackle child poverty in Brent ; and

(iii)  that an update report be placed on the agenda for the first meeting of next year’s committee work plan. This update should refer to related concerns raised by the committee during and subsequent to its meeting in October 2012; refer to the child poverty implications set out in any reports to the committee; explicitly state which officers are responsible for carrying out the work; and detail any proposed actions resulting from the work.