Pupil Premium Archive

Pupil Premium at Trinity Academy:

At Trinity Academy the quality of teaching on a day to day basis is the most important factor upon which we should focus. High quality interventions, though they may have a significant impact, are unable to compensate for weak teaching. Therefore, some of the resources that are provided through the pupil premium grant are used to improve the overall quality of teaching which will benefit all students.

All students’ progress is tracked and monitored carefully throughout their time in the academy. Data is provided for teaching staff to allow identification of those students within classes who are in receipt of pupil premium grants. Teachers planning is expected to take into account the needs of the students in each class. Teachers take responsibility for the students in their classes. Heads of Department, in turn, also have accountability for the progress and performance of individual students, but more so with the performance of groups of students. Directors, at a senior level, then have responsibility and accountability for the overall performance of students in receipt of the pupil premium within each key stage.

Drawing on a wide range of research and training, the academy adopts a range of strategies to ensure that disadvantaged students make progress. This is based on the evidence that such interventions will have a positive impact on student progress and attainment. The EEF Toolkit is used to inform such decisions.

The issues we face in working with disadvantaged students at Trinity Academy include:

  1. Attendance – there is a 6.2% Pupil Premium gap at the time of writing and this is an area for significant improvement and new strategies have been introduced
  2. Literacy weaknesses – either weak reading overall or poor comprehension skills. Data suggests that PP students are less likely to complete a book and quiz successfully (completing an online quiz to demonstrate their understanding and comprehension) using Accelerated Reader
  3. Weaker teaching – disadvantaged students are less tolerant of weaker teaching; strong teaching has a significantly greater impact for students with pupil premium funding and this remains a key focus
  4. Discipline – poor student conduct by some students in some classes does not enable progress at the rate we desire – a clear outcome of the poor discipline of some students has been an increase in their isolations and lost learning opportunities
  5. High achieving students with pupil premium funding are, as a group, not performing as well as they could

Trinity Academy will take a strategic and systematic approach to ensuring maximum impact of the pupil premium funding and, consequently, a reduction of gaps between the performance of disadvantaged students and all other students nationally. In time we will see the gap closing between our disadvantaged students and non-disadvantaged students nationally.

Finally, it is known that, within the Thorne and Moorends communities, many parents who would be eligible for the pupil premium are not currently in receipt of this additional funding. For some families there is a stigma attached to claiming benefits of any kind and they will not register to enable us to claim the additional funding.

On this basis, our pupil premium strategy is as follows:

Pupil Premium Expenditure – Evaluation for 2017/8

Number of students and pupil premium grant (PPG) received

Total number of pupils on roll


Total number of pupils eligible for PPG


Amount of PPG received per pupil


Total amount of PPG received


Total Year 7 Catch-Up Premium received



Objectives in spending PPG:
  • Achieving no gap between disadvantaged and other students in Progress 8 and in English and mathematics progress measures.
  • Providing specialist support that prevents disadvantaged students from falling behind their peers.
  • Raising the attainment of the school as a whole across GCSE courses, ensuring that improvements to the attainment of disadvantaged students impact success across the school.

This is being achieved through the following spending:




Cost (met with PP funds)  How will the impact be measured Who oversees this part of Academy life? Monitoring and Evaluation

Revision of feedback policy so that disadvantaged students in the school can benefit from high quality feedback.




High quality feedback is rated by the Sutton Trust’s EEF toolkit as providing one of the highest levels of impact of any school improvement initiative.

EEF toolkit: high impact

£1,500 (extra teacher time)


The quality of feedback given to the most vulnerable Pupil Premium students will be of the highest quality and this will be revealed in school workbook reviews.


Mrs Mandy Smyth (AVP T&L)

Work scrutiny shows that challenge is good and that students are producing a range of extended writing. However, feedback is sometimes evaluative rather than descriptive and more teachers need to hold students to account for acting on feedback.

See Appendix 1 for data.


·         Effective feedback will become part of our staff training, 

·         Future work scrutiny across a wider range of students to be conducted. 

Quality Teaching









All staff have their pupil premium students marked on their seating plans. This enables them to specifically target questions and feedback towards them enabling differentiation, scaffolding and intervention where required.

EEF toolkit: range of measures

£3,000 (extra time for review team)

Departmental reviews, lesson observations and coaching will all specifically take account of how the teaching is enabling the learning of pupil premium students.


Mrs Mandy Smyth (AVP T&L) 

Seating plans in place and there is evidence of them being used well. E.g., In the Science Department there is evidence of directed questioning to pupil premium (PP) students who were also seated at the front. 

In Y9, between Progress Capture 1 and 2 for 2017-18:

·         P8 for PP students increased from -.8 to -.65.

·         In Y8 average attainment for PP students increased from 4.19 to 4.43 

·         In Year 7, the gap decreased from -1.78 to -1.56.

All of this occurred while our internal assessments were becoming much more rigorous.

Ron Skelton, Principal of Broadway Academy, an Outstanding School with very positive PP progress visited us twice and said that Pupil Premium students “are now very much enjoying school: lessons are more interesting and they feel more supported” Where previously his experience in lessons was that we had, “two schools: the haves and the have nots” he now saw that everyone was being provided for and challenged.”

Conclusion: Progress is being made but improving teaching and learning, including closing the gap, will continue to be a key goal for us.

Homework Club




A high emphasis is placed on students completing homework. This can sometimes be difficult for pupil premium students. Therefore, a homework club has been provided where both pupil premium and other students can access support for their independent learning

EEF toolkit: medium impact

£1,300 (teacher time)

It is expected that the number of pupil premium students who receive detentions for not completing homework will rapidly decline.





Mr David Bedford (VP Academic)

For much of the year, this was on Tuesday and Thursday after school until 16:00.  Almost all students involved reduced the average weekly number of homework detentions received. On average, this was a reduction of .24 detentions per week (or 1 every 4 weeks).

Conclusion: After a temporary suspension in this due to staff absence, HW Club has now returned. It should be continued and developed further, e.g., by contacting parents, and working 1 to 1 with students (perhaps with the help of Sixth Formers).


HW Club at break times for SEN students still exists:

·         Autumn term: 25 Homework detentions on average.

·         Spring term: 11 Homework detentions on average.

Conclusion: This should be continued.

School-based behaviour interventions for disadvantaged students whose behaviour is a barrier to learning. Interventions at other specialist centres for those whose need is most acute.



A disproportionate number of our disadvantaged students make less progress than they might because of issues pertaining to behaviour in lessons and around the school. In order to improve the progress of students whose behaviour is a barrier to learning, we operate provision in school that gives these students access to experienced behaviour mentors and to restorative practice. These interventions are designed to improve behaviour in the long term. Where the need is most acute, the PPG funds medium or long-term placements at high quality alternative provision.

EEF toolkit: moderate impact

£126,500 (the cost of school-based behaviour interventions and alternative provision for our disadvantaged students).




We expect those disadvantaged students in years 7-11 who access our internal behaviour provision to achieve the same ‘progress to target’ as other disadvantaged students in their year group.

All alternative provision is carefully quality assured by the school.



Mrs Kim Piercey (VP Pastoral); Mrs Caroline Chamberlain (Senior Tutor, Student Welfare, including alternative provision)

In 2017-18, this happened in several ways: Emmanuel House and other forms of Alternative Provision (including Goole College), work with Learning Mentors and Student Welfare Officers (SWOs), Attendance initiatives and Growth Plans:


50% of all pupils on Alternative Provision are in the Pupil Premium Group (PPG). Only 1 in the Goole College cohort is.

Indicators for 2017-18:

·         In the Autumn Term, there were 58 Fixed Term Exclusions for PPG students under the care of Student Welfare Officers; in the Spring Term there were only 40.

·         In the Autumn Term, there were 26 Isolations for PPG students under the care of SWOs; in the Spring Term there were only 19.

·         In March, there were 25 Behaviour detentions for KS 4 PPG students under the care of two of our SWOs and there were only 10 in April.

There has also been a dramatic increase in commendations for PPG students under SWO care: Spring ½ term 1: 60 overall; Spring ½ term 2: 97 overall; Summer ½ term 1: 145 overall. These are not due to SWOs awarding more, but to students earning more in lessons.

In Year 11, the PP gap decreased by .12 between the first and second Progress Captures. 

(from -1.32 to -1.2)

Conclusion: SWOs have an impact on many students. To take better advantage of them across a wider range of students, they have now become Assistant Heads of Year. We are already seeing an impact from this.  Within three days of this move, there was a 2% average improvement in attendance and within two weeks there was a 60% decrease in students in seclusion for missed detentions

For 2018-19, we will be introducing a nurture group and a ‘Green Route’, which includes vocational opportunities for our older students as an improved means of Alternative Provision.

Reduction in class sizes to ensure that those students most challenged by the secondary school curriculum are able to work in small groups with high staff to student ratios.

Small class sizes for the least able have a significant cost attached to them but we have found that the level of feedback we are able to provide and the potential for more personalised learning are well worth the cost. In 2017-18 those disadvantaged students who are most challenged by learning will work in groups of 14-18 and will have support from teaching assistants, giving a typical student: adult ratio of 1:5.

EEF toolkit: moderate impact

£154,600 (the cost across the curriculum of extra colleagues to allow for smaller groups) Central Pupil Premium Monitoring will be used to compare the rates of progress of those disadvantaged students in smaller groups with those who are not, we expect to see accelerated progress for those in smaller groups. Mr David Bedford (VP Academic)

English, Maths and Science started with 9 sets instead of 8.  An extra class was added for Year 8 at Christmas in Humanities.

In Year 8, the impact for pupil premium students of adding the additional set has been modest. Only in 50% of the classes was an improvement shown. Mitigating factors are staffing changes and teacher absences as well as the increased challenge in our rehearsal examinations.  Thus, the key factor seemed to be the quality of teacher, and not the size of the group.

In Year 7 there is more evidence of the benefits of smaller groups for PPG students. In most subjects PPG students have made progress between Progress Capture 1 and 2, with an Attainment 8 increase of 2.20.  This improvement is matched by the non-PPG students (Attainment 8 increase of 2.26).  The gap has remained stable, suggesting that all students benefit and not just PPG students.

See Appendix 2 and 4 for data.

Conclusion:  The limited data suggests that, in Year 7, smaller class sizes help all students. In Year 8, the quality of the teacher seems to be much more important than the size of the class.  If this is borne out in coming years, we should reconsider the number of classes in Year 8.

Specialist IAG for Year 11 students to ensure they have realistic but demanding aspirations and that they progress to further study or employment at 16.

Ensuring that Year 11 students have a viable offer of further study or work for the following year is important because it helps students to see the value of studying and the importance of English Language and Mathematics at grade 4 or above. We will ensure all disadvantaged students have access to impartial careers guidance and that they have priority in accessing our own member of staff designated with providing IAG to Year 11 students.

EEF toolkit: not measured

£16,800 (all disadvantaged students to have a careers interview and a share of the funding for our own member of staff in charge of IAG – this is justified on the grounds that disadvantaged students receive priority access to both services)

All Pupil Premium students to have realistic college/ sixth form offers for September 2018. Vulnerable Pupil Premium students to have been given thorough, aspirational guidance for the college and jobs market.

This success of this to be determined through learners’ views and through monitoring of college placements.

Mrs Sue Beddoes (Asst Head of Careers; our Head of Careers, Nic Anderson, is on maternity leave at the moment)

Where requested by the student or their HoY, or where they were in danger of being NEET, all Y11 PPG students have had Careers interviews with Jo Kelly, our Careers Advisor from the DWP.

Our current Y11 has no students identified as potential NEETs.

Conclusion: Continue our excellent Careers Provision.

Mental Health counselling Trinity Academy has specialist support from a programme called ‘Emotional Logic’. Developed by a GP, this programme is aimed at enabling young people to deal with loss, depression, anxiety and other significant mental health issues. Many of the case load are pupil premium students.


(specialist counselling and support worker)

Full case notes are kept on each child who accesses the provision including base line and impact measures. Mrs Caroline Chamberlain (Senior Tutor, Student Welfare)

Students and parents have welcomed the intervention and staff have noted a change in attitude for the vast majority of those on the program.

37.5% of students who have had Emotional Logic through Mrs Bunce were in the PPG. Of these students each had a reduction in overall behaviour consequences from the period before the intervention to the period during and after the intervention.Some students had no detentions or days in seclusion in the period covered. See Appendix 3.

Conclusion: Our AHoYs are now trained in this technique and can offer it. We should continue to use E Logic.

Give every disadvantaged student in Years 7-10 a standardised reading test so that appropriate differentiation can be offered by teachers of disadvantaged students.

Literacy is one of the key barriers for disadvantaged students at Trinity Academy. We will use the results of the reading test to ensure proper differentiation is put in place for students with low literacy levels, we will also organise events and interventions after school that target those students with low literacy.

EEF toolkit: not measured.

£12,700 Students are given the reading test on an annual basis, so the progress made by FSM/CLA students can be clearly identified. Those with reading ages significantly below their chronological age are identified for specific interventions during the year. Mel Every, Literacy Coordinator or Miss Cheryl Tindale, SENCO

Y 7-10 reading tests were completed by April 2018. The information has been distributed to all staff and the “Seating Plan Spreadsheet” now includes a space for reading ages. Staff have been asked to update seating plans.

Training for staff on literacy strategies and differentiation to come.

We have introduced Lexia for 60 students with low reading ages in Years 7 and 8. We have introduced paired Sixth Form Reading for a further cohort of 30 students.

We will conduct further rounds of the NGRT during the academic year.

Reading test scores are also used for exam access.

Conclusion: Too early to tell but students have engaged well with Lexia.

Provision of Mathematics and Science revision guides and English set texts to disadvantaged students

Difficulties in keeping accurate notes if attendance is poor, or lack of a quiet and fully equipped area to work at home, mean that revision guides can be a useful resource for disadvantaged

Year 11 students who require support. Provision of revision guides is relatively inexpensive but much appreciated by students

EEF toolkit: not measured

£2,000 Central Pupil Premium Monitoring will be used to ensure all students have revision guides. HoDs of English, Maths and Science

English is issuing revision guides free of charge to PPG students.

We have provided access to ‘My GCSE Science’ for all Y11 students. Between the First and Second Y11 Science Rehearsal Exams, when booklets were issued, the PPG gap decreased from -.23 to -.04.

Conclusion: Continue to offer these materials free of charge to nedy students.

Appendix 1 – A small sample Work Scrutiny based on 18 books taken from three Higher Ability Y7 PPG students

  Red Amber Green
Pitch/Pace 6% 33% 61%
Pride/Parity 6% 22% 72%
Quality of marking 50% 33% 17%

Appendix 2 – Impact of Additional Sets

Year 7 Number of Disadvantaged Students Total Number of students % Disadvantaged

English and Humanities

Set 7 10 25 40%
Set 8 13 19 68%
Set 9 10 16 63%
Set 7 13 26 50%
Set 8 11 22 50%
Set 9 11 19 58%


Set 7 10 25 40%
Set 8 13 19 68%
Set 9 10 16 63%
    Year Group average 44%
Year 8      
English and Humanities
Set 7 8 25 32%
Set 8 6 15 40%
Set 9 6 15 40%
Set 7 7 23 30%
Set 8 10 19 53%
Set 9 6 11 55%
Set 7 9 22 41%
Set 8 6 20 30%
Set 9 8 16 50%
    Year Group average 36%

Evaluation of Impact of Extra Sets

Group PC1 Rehearsal Diff Comments
08R/HI03 2.63 3.5 0.87  
08R/HI04 1.75 1.75 0  
08R/HI05 1.6 1.6 0  
08R/GG03 3 2.38 -0.62 Change of teacher
08R/GG04 3 2.13 -0.87  
08R/GG05 2.2 1.6 -0.6 Change of teacher
08R/PT03 2.43 4.75 2.32  
08R/PT04 2 0.5 -1.5 Supply/cover teachers used due to periods of absence
08R/PT05 2.2 2.4 0.2  
08R/IT03 2.38 3.63 1.25  
08R/IT04 2 3.5 1.5  
08R/IT05 1.4 3.4 2  
Average 2.22 2.60 0.38  

See also Appendix 4.

Appendix 3: Emotional Logic – Analysis of Impact on PPG students

Anonymised name Before Starting E Logic (averages per week) After Starting E Logic (averages per week)
Detentions Isolations Exclusions Detentions Isolations Exclusions
1 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.23 0.00 0.00
2 0.33 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 1.08 0.24 0.68 0.60 0.40 0.10
4 1.76 0.20 0.32 0.80 0.00 0.20
5 1.12 0.23 0.23 0.78 0.11 0.11

Appendix 4: Progress in the bottom 2 sets of Year 7

Subject PC1 PC2 Diff
07N/EN08 2.4 2.7 0.3
07N/EN09 2.4 2.7 0.3
07N/MA08 2.8 2.8 0
07N/MA09 1.9 1.3 -0.6
07R/SC04 2.6 2.8 0.2
07R/SC05 1.1 1.5 0.4
07R/GG04 2.8 2.5 -0.3
07R/GG05 2.1 1.7 -0.4
07R/HI04 2.4 3.1 0.7
07R/HI05 1.1 1.9 0.8
07R/IT04 2.9 3.7 0.8
07R/IT05 2.4 2.9 0.5
Average 2.24 2.47 0.23

The date of the next review of the impact of our pupil premium strategy is September, 2018, after the summer exam results are available.

Pupil Premium funding 2016-17

Summary of pupil premium grant

2016-17 student profile:

Year Group Total number of students in year group Number of students in receipt of pupil premium Percentage of pupil premium students
Y7 229 86 38%
Y8 219 87 40%
Y9 221 72 33%
Y10 221 82 37%
Y11 211 65 31%
Y12 98 22 12%
Y13 80
Total 1101 (exc. Y12/Y13) 414 38%

Total pupil premium budget for 2016-17: £359,508

Barriers to progress and allocation of funding:

Barrier to progress Allocation Evaluation of Impact
Attendance: Ensuring the highest possible attendance for all students but with focus on reducing the gap between student groups; use of support staff to intervene with students whose attendance is poor to identify barriers; using Mike Liddle to visit and/or collect students on the second day of absence; paying for intervention of DMBC with home visits for students whose attendance is poor; Educational Welfare Officer and attendance officers targeting the attendance of disadvantaged students; £30,000

In week 35, PPG (Pupil Premium Group) attendance was 91% and non PPG was 95.4%. This gap of 4.4% was the highest PPG attendance and the lowest gap since week 17.

Conclusion: The AIR attendance rewards programme and targeted work of the EWO should be continued and supported further where possible.

 Weaker teaching: use of additional coaching capacity of Steve Mulgrew to work with weaker teachers and Heads of Department to develop their leadership of teaching and learning; Mandy Smyth (assistant Vice Principal Teaching and Learning) providing coaching support to improve the quality of teaching; Chris Young working with Heads of Department to improve the quality of schemes of work and deployment of staff  £60,000

There were some encouragements, particularly in key departments or where teaching or interventions were more targeted for pupil premium students.• The Progress 8 gap for PPG students on the 2017 GCSEs was -0.40. However, with the removal of two students, who failed to take any exams due to ill health, the gap decreased to -0.27, an improvement on 2016 (-0.35).

• The gap was narrower for low ability PPG students than for middle ability PPG students, indicating where we have work to do

• In Mathematics, 13% of Pupil Premium Group students achieved a grade 7 or above – the same as the whole cohort. 58% of pupils in the Pupil Premium Group were graded 4 and above, compared to 64% for the cohort.

• In English, 5% of both pupil premium group (PPG) students and non-PPG students got Grade 9s. 63% of PPG boys attained grades 9-4; this compares very favourably to the 26% of PPG boys who achieved A*-C on the IGCSE in 2016. The 2017 figure was also encouragingly close to the 68% of non-PPG boys who achieved grades of 9-4 in 2017. For grades 9-7, PPG girls outperformed non-PPG girls in 2017

• 83.3% of pupils attending Emmanuel House were in the Pupil Premium Group. All had been educated in alternative provision for several years. 75% of Yr8 pupils whom attended Emmanuel House made two or more levels of progress in English between Spring and Summer Terms. In addition, 50% made three levels of progress over the same time period in Maths.

Feedback on teaching at Emmanuel House:

‘The teachers at Emmanuel House are better than those at my normal school. They listen to me and help me with my work. I want to come to Trinity Academy.’ (student)

Conclusion: Targeted teaching and interventions for Pupil Premium students should be a key part of our CPD and practice.

Reducing exclusions: use of Emmanuel House provision with students at risk of permanent exclusion or who are failing to engage with the provision within the academy  £100,000

Bespoke curriculum for Yr8 pupils at Emmanuel House with a focus on core skills and character, using the Narnia Virtues. Results: 79% reduction in first Calls; 88.7% reduction in isolations; 77.6% reduction in exclusions.

Feedback on teaching at Emmanuel House:

‘I have learnt so much at Emmanuel House. Most of all I have learnt how to control my temper’. (student)

Conclusion: Emmanuel House is effective, but must remain a short term measure, with the goal of reintegrating students into mainstream provision.

Improving student conduct/behaviour: a team of Student Welfare Officers working within the pastoral team providing 1:1 and small group support for students; additional training and resourcing for Emotional Logic provision within the Academy; additional time has been given to Heads of Year and the Senior Tutors to be able to work with students (amounting to an additional 12 periods of teaching);  £90,000

The Student Welfare Team expanded the number of students under its care through leading eCAF’s and multi-agency work and providing support to families:

• reduced its cohort’s behaviour issues by 85%,
• reduced exclusions by over half,
• reduced incidents of ‘Rudeness to other students’ from 23 in January to 3 or fewer in April and May 2017,
• reduced ‘persistent disruption’ from 133 in March to less than 50 in the following month.

Conclusion: These are key workers in the school whose work must be developed further, but it would be helpful if they were able to take a more proactive approach.

Literacy improvement: use of Lexia to support weak reading; Accelerated Reader and coordinator role; appointment of senior leader to coordinate literacy and numeracy across the curriculum; appointment of literacy and numeracy coordinator;  £10,000 Key aspects of the literacy and numeracy programme included:• 1980 books read in the Accelerated Reader system in 2016-7.
• Dedicated reading time for Y7 – 10, now in the lecture theatre, 15 minutes a day.
• KS3 maths skills prior to topics in science
• KS5 mathematics and numeracy support for students’ needs in subjects other than Mathematics.
• STEM learning day focused on mathematics and literacy, ‘produce and present’Maths data from 2017 indicates that, while the PP gap overall for Y7 was -.47, it was,.09 in set 7 and .1 in set 8, though set 9 was -.5. Numeracy programmes were limited so it is hard to determine much from this mixed data.In English, the PP gap on rehearsal examinations was -.99 overall, but was significantly less for those sets most likely to benefit from our literacy programmes, including set 7 (-.21), set 8 (-.18) and set 9 (-.11). This suggests benefits from our literacy programmes.Teaching at Yr8 pupils at Emmanuel House resulted in rapid progress in Literacy and Numeracy.

Yr 8 Literacy Yr 8 Numeracy
100% increased by 1 Year in 12 weeks 75% increased by 1 year in 12 weeks
75% increased by 2 years 50% increased by 2 years
Hardship fund: small fund for students who need access to uniform assistance, trip subsidy or other such support  £5,000  
Primary transition: use of Emmanuel House to work with students who are coming to the academy in need of additional support; summer school to ensure smooth transition of predominantly disadvantaged students  £18,000

Overall data for Year 7 suggested that transition was successful. E.g., at the last check of Responsibility for Learning Grades in the academic year, Year 7 had the highest average grades in the Academy (where 1=Excellent and 4 = Inadequate):

• Year 7: 1.96
• Year 8: 2.18
• Year 9: 2.13
• Year 10: 2.12
• Year 11: 2.18

Conclusion: Difficult to draw from just this data, but it suggests that transition programmes are effective in supporting disadvantaged students.

Provision mapping: remaining funds available for more tailored support where needed for individual students;  £7,000 72 of our Year 11 students received a focused intervention plan, which included academic report, SLG mentors or staff mentors. Of those who were mentored, 84% improved their P8 score between the first rehearsal and the GCSE. 56% improved between the second rehearsal and the GCSE. Average improvement in P8 between the 2nd rehearsal and the GCSE was .09. 44% of these students were in the pupil premium group.Conclusion: This was one of the most cost effective interventions taken for pupil premium students.
Easter and May half term revision schools: targeted revision support in preparation for the summer examinations  £10,000

Although these were very well attended, with approximately 90% attendance for 3 of the 5 days, it is difficult to separate the impact of these sessions from other intervention measures.

Conclusion: The high attendance and student feedback suggests students these are worth continuing.

Improving leadership: appointment of Directors to support the work of the Academic team; appointment of Literacy and Numeracy coordinator and Director to drive standards in reading, writing and numeracy across the curriculum; appointment of Senior Tutor (Student Welfare) to track and direct the work of the Student Welfare Officers; appointment of Senior Tutor (Student Conduct) to work with a team of Heads of Year to reduce instances of poor conduct in lessons; use of staff from across ESF to work with middle leaders to strengthen the quality of teaching; £30,000

See above for the impact of specific programmes run by these leaders.

Conclusion: The right staff in the right roles is key for all our students and particularly for pupil premium students


 Pupil Premium funding 2015-16

Initial analysis of progress of pupil premium students

Across the school disadvantaged students performed less well than non-disadvantaged students. However, there were encouraging signs that whole school interventions are having an impact in some year groups:

  • Year 11
    • In the GCSE results, disadvantaged students had a progress score 0.66 below non-disadvantaged students. At first, between October and February this gap had increased by 0.25. However, between February and June this gap remained broadly the same (June – 0.66, February – 0.62). This shows that targeted interventions helped prepare students for their examinations. In English the gap closed.
    • Last year, all Year 11 students went onto higher education, employment or training with no disadvantaged students being NEET. This is the second year running that this has happened.
  • In Year 10 progress was seen over the course of the year by both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students. The gap was much smaller than the gap in Year 11 (0.34) and students’ progress is at -0.265, a big improvement on the -1.05 achieved by the Year 11 cohort.
  • In Year 9 the gap was, and remained, a significant one. This gap increased over the course of the year from 0.41 to 0.64. Non-disadvantaged students have improved more than disadvantaged students. Disadvantaged students in this cohort have received less additional support than disadvantaged students in other year groups.
  • In Year 8, the gap has closed (0.44 in January to 0.31 in June). This was despite a disproportionate number of complex needs amongst the disadvantaged group. The overall progress of this yeargroup (0.127) was higher in June than any other year group, partly because of the focus throughout the year on graduation.
  • In Year 7 the gap was smaller than other year groups but had increased over the course of the year. There was an attainment 8 gap of 5.8 in December, which increased to 6.7 in June.

Overall, therefore, where interventions were most intensive and focussed, as in Years 10 and 11, or where systems incentivised pupil progress, as with Year 8 graduation, we saw the most progress for our disadvantaged students.

For the academic year, 2015-16, the pupil premium grant Trinity Academy received was £351, 409. Details of how this was spent and the evaluation of these plans is reported below

Barriers to progress and allocation of funding:

Barrier to progress Allocation
Attendance: Ensuring the highest possible attendance for all students but with focus on reducing the gap between student groups; Educational Welfare Officer and attendance officers targeting the attendance of disadvantaged students through, for example, first day calls to all PP students;



Weaker teaching: appointment of additional cover supervisors to ensure high quality teaching when teaching staff are absent; coaching of teaching staff; investment in TEEP further CPD £70,000
Reducing exclusions: use of Emmanuel House provision with students at risk of permanent exclusion or who are failing to engage with the provision within the academy; £20,000
Improving student conduct/behaviour: a team of Interventions Coordinators working within the pastoral team providing 1:1 and small group support for students, especially at Emmanuel House; additional training and resourcing for Emotional Logic provision within the Academy £60,000
Literacy improvement: use of Lexia to support weak reading; Accelerated Reader and coordinator role; £6000
Hardship fund: small fund for students who need access to uniform assistance, trip subsidy or other such support £5000
Primary transition: use of Emmanuel House to work with students who are coming to the academy in need of additional support; summer school to ensure smooth transition of predominantly disadvantaged students; learning mentors spending time in primary schools to ensure that students transition well £60,000
Improving leadership: focusing on the academic and pastoral needs of PPG students with the appointment of KS3 and KS4 Academic Directors; KS3 and KS4 Pastoral Directors £10,000
Provision mapping: remaining funds available for more tailored support where needed for individual students; £10,000

Development fund: this fund was allowed for departments to bid for in support of student’s needs, in addition is was used for several whole cohort initiatives:

Maths interventions

PE interventions: rock climbing, archery

English interventions

Attendance prizes and incentives such as Prom attendance


Initial analysis of progress of pupil premium students

  • Disadvantaged students made poor progress in relation to other students in some areas.
  • In some impact measures the gaps between students in receipt of the pupil premium and those who are not closed with some success:
  • In the EBCC subjects this gap was reduced by 6% though this is against a background of fewer students being eligible for this measure.
  • 4LOP in English was substantially better in measures for non-PP and PP students. Both were raised and improved with the PP students improving more than the non-PP students. This results in the gap reducing by 8%.
  • 3LOP in Mathematics was a slight improvement in the gap by almost 1%.
  • All Year 11 students went onto higher education, employment or training with no PPG students being NEET
  • Though there was not a reduction in the gap in every instance, there was an improvement in many measures for PP students from 2015 to 2016, some of those were significant improvements:
    • A*-C in English was almost 5% better
    • A*-C in Maths was 2.5% better
    • 3LOP in English was 12.1% better
    • 4LOP in Maths was 1.6% better
    • 4LOP in English was 17.2% better

These are positive indicators of improvement.