Pupil Premium

[brilliotic]

I know that Pupil Premium money is not ring-fenced, and can be used for things that benefit all children as long as it can be shown that it also benefits the PP children. (Though higher rate PP may be different - if anyone could clarify, that would be helpful too.)

But is there a boundary here? Or can a school basically subsume PP money into the general budget, and e.g. pay for playground improvements with it, as that will obviously also benefit the PP children?

If I have concerns about how a school is using PP money, and suspect that it is mostly being subsumed into the general budget - the PP spending report lists lots of whole-school spending such as said playground improvement, classroom TA employment, getting in outside providers for whole-school 'enrichment' things e.g. theatre production, buying general maths and literacy resources for the classrooms, buying in a progress-tracking system for all students, free after-school sports clubs open to everyone, SATS booster groups open to all Y6 children, - and minimal spending on the actual PP children (their school trips get paid for)

• is there anything I can do about that?

For background, my YR child attracts higher-rate PP for the school, so £2300 /year starting from this April.

Ah, I misunderstood the situation. Sorry!

I think is still worth contacting the VSH, as they still have a duty to oversee the education of post LAC children, if you have concerns these are not being met by the school.

This sounds a nightmare for you. The school sounds utterly incompetent re PP. If the SENCO is clueless it doesn’t bode well. I guess there are two ways to approach this one is to gear up for a battle to educate the school as to what they should be spending the PP on and the other would be to walk away and choose another school. I don’t mean that to be flippant at all. I absolutely appreciate that uprooting your child would be a massive issue but in your shoes I would be really concerned as to whether this school could actually meet the needs of my child as they seem to know nothing and be completely blasé as to how they should be using PP for post LAC pupils which suggests they will be completely blasé about the needs of post LAC pupils.

If you do stick with this school I would try and get them to spend some of the PP money on attachment training for all staff. It sounds like they need it. Braveheart do a really good session.

Best of luck.

CoG here. No they're not spending it appropriately. Any whole school spend has to have a measurable impact on pupil premium children and not a nice to do. It is about closing the gap. Whold school spend in our case would be part of a T A salary who is undertaking a specific intervention that is focussed at pp children.
I'd have a look at how other schools are doing this. I'd also talk to your governing body. As well as looking at whole pp spend, we look at how it has an impact on the progress of individual children.

Thanks everybody, I think I am clearer now.

This 'leaflet' provides a good overview, I think, and is one of the few I found that seems to be entirely up-to-date:
www.oneadoption.co.uk/newsletter/09-18/pupil-premium-plus

That leaflet claims to be based on statutory guidance but it took me a long time trawling through the internet to find anything 'official' supporting the claims made in that leaflet. Most .gov pages go to great lengths to stress that PP is not ring-fenced, and can be used however schools see fit, and that increasing the quality of teaching in the school overall is the best way of ensuring PP children make good progress, so PP money must not be excluded from whole school improvement measures.
Also that OFSTED cannot require any specific documentation other than very basic stuff. But they do want to see that PP money is 'well spent'.

I believe the document to refer to, finally, is the
[[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/683561/The_designated_teacher_for_looked-after_and_previously_looked-after_children.pdf "The designated teacher for looked-after and previously looked-after children
Statutory guidance on their roles and responsibilities"]]

Particularly pages 21-23. This document states unambigously that PP+ is ringfenced for the 'cohort of previously looked after children'. And that it is the designated teacher's responsibility to seek cooperation and communication with the parents in order to help determine the best ways to spend the money.

I am posting this here as it took me ages to find something official that nails this down, so maybe it will help somebody else in the future :)

As to my other question, what can we do about this...
I am thinking we need to follow the school's complaint procedures. So, first, try to resolve the issue with the 'designated teacher'. Then if no success, involve the headteacher. Then the governor responsible for PP. After that, complaint - need to consider carefully who the complaint would be about, I'm thinking it might be (or end up with) the governing board, so the complaint would need to go higher up. Need to look this up to be sure!

As Madonna said, the VSH should still offer guidance on PP+ management. The document stating this is here on pg25

I'd make a fuss.

My DDs are adopted and so qualify for PP+.
Other children can 'piggy back' onto things funded for them, but it can't be a 'standard offer'.

Some of the things you list are outrageous!

Teen, and anyone else, would you mind saying what part in your opinion is particularly and most unambiguously outrageous?

We will be having a meeting (I hope) and I want to focus on going forward, but be prepared to shore up my criticism of past spending (I have mentioned something to that extent in an e-mail) with specific examples. But would want to focus on one or two of the most clear-cut points.

Thanks in advance!

And yes, we've started on the 'making a fuss' path. First struggle is to get a meeting (that is not a day before the end of school year).

Despite it being a small school, there are multiple families with PP+ children at the school, and we are working together on this - down to 'good cop-bad cop' strategies, and one family carefully planting ideas that we then let SLT claim as their own towards the next family ... ;)

Utterly Outrageous:
playground improvement,
getting in outside providers for whole-school 'enrichment' things e.g. theatre production,
buying in a progress-tracking system for all students,
free after-school sports clubs open to everyone,
buying general maths and literacy resources for the classrooms,

Vaguely arguable but still outside expectations
classroom TA employment, only even vaguely reasonable if TA is tasked to mainly help PP kids
SATS booster groups open to all Y6 children only even vaguely reasonable if pitched at the needs of the PP kids and others can just 'follow along'

Things that PP money could reasonably be spent on
Ideally:

• Small group interventions for PP kids, preferably with a teacher not a TA, to close the gap for maths or literacy

Other things:

• subsidising educational trips
• subsidising other activities to raise confidence such as drama or sports or music clubs
• school uniform
• SATs booster books
• Additional ELSA/Pastoral support

PP money is not meant to be part of the 'wider school offer'. So it should be for things that the PP kids specifically benefit from, preferably to help close the attainment gap. Playground equipment or theatre company visits is no more beneficial for PP kids than for anyone else so money should not be spent on things like that.

At primary, my adopted children got Maths & English intervention & ELSA support, plus priority for drama club places (which could have been free but we can afford so paid).
At secondary my children got Social skills intervention, made good use of pastoral support, and also significant English intervention.

re Piggybacking. So say DD needs spelling intervention. It is likely to be more successful if she doesn't feel too singled out and has peers around, so putting her in a group of 4 using 'her' money if no other PP kids need it too, is reasonable.

There should be a governor responsible for this.

OP. Have PMed you.

Agree with everything teen says. At my daughters school there were a few families eligible for PP plus so we got together and met with Headteacher to suggest useful things. Much was the same as teen the only other things we had were whole staff training on attachment (choose the trainer wisely the first one we had was crap, second I hear was much better), plus mental health support (nominated member of staff with specific mental health training who ran mindfulness type sessions with the PP kids and a few others who also needed it)

Thanks. We have a plan.

Though how just formulating an e-mail for getting an appointment to discuss things (it has to be 'just right' in tone and wording, or we'll be either fobbed off or get a defensive communication shut-down) can be so draining, I don't know.

Yes, attachment is important, (I think I subsumed it into ELSA/Pastoral).

And looking back I don't think the measurement tracking and English/maths resources is as outrageous as I initially said.

re letter:

Would something like this be any good:

'Dear Head,

We have been chatting in the playground a bit as to the trials and tribulations of bringing up adopted children, and we got onto the subject of the PP+ money and how our children could be best supported in school.

As I am sure you are aware the best practice is that adoptive parents are involved in discussing how this is spent with schools as it is specially 'ring fenced' for our children, unlike other PP money.
So we thought it would be helpful if we could have a meeting with you to discuss our suggestions (some of which we expect you will have in hand already) so any you think are good ideas can be built into planning for next year.

We realise that the end of term can be a busy time, but I am sure you will agree that it is always best if the school and the adoptive parents can work together to support our children who have had such a tricky start to life.

Most of us are available in the day time, so if your secretary could contact me suggesting a couple of alternate times to meet I am sure we could arrange something.

Kind regards'

Thanks Teen! As it happens, I just sent out two e-mails: One to our 'designated teacher' - we have a meeting arranged already (couple of weeks away is earliest they could do). Very toned down from earlier, angrier versions, but still not as friendly as yours! (Thanks for reminding me that friendiness usually yealds better results in the end.)
Just re-stating that we want the PP to be on the agenda that day, and will come prepared.

(Earlier versions included sentences like "One might get the impression that the school is happy to accept the moneys, but not willing to do anything for the children it is meant for" and "I am sure the school does not intend to short-change these children, who have had the toughest starts imaginable, which are likely to affect them for their whole lives - out of the money that is meant to support them, in acknowledgement of this fact" ...)

Another to the office, to arrange meeting with head and governor responsible for PP. As advised by 'designated teacher'. This one very short, 'X has advised us to request a meeting to discuss PP+, please can we have a date and time'.

This 'designated teacher' is a fairly new thing btw, since 2018 (they only covered LAC before, now they are responsible for F-LAC as well). They are supposed to receive training and advice from the Virtual School, but the Virtual School is only newly responsible for F-LAC as well, and has little expertise and advice available for now.

So our problem is that the designated teacher is, on paper, responsible for communicating with us, and determining good ways to spend the money, but has in the past never had anything to do with the money (and doesn't seem to want to). The head has been doing all the PP stuff. Evidently without ever consulting the parents.

Bets of luck.

If you have been trying the 'nice' approach over time then maybe it is time to talk tough!

Make sure you know what your 'escalation routes' are (Governors, head of Virtual schools, LA, Ofsted ?) and what you are asking for.

PP+ isn't there to subsidise budget shortfalls. It is there to support the children who need it due to their past and to close attainment gaps.