Student (SID) Number: 1236168

Anglia Ruskin University

Faculty of Health and Social Care and Education

Department: Education

MA (Education)

Module Code: MOD003704

Module Title: Key Issues and Themes in Education

Pupil Premium: Closing the attainment gap between disadvantaged

pupils and their more affluent peers – a literature review.

30 Credits

Submitted May 2014

SID: 1236168

Contents Page

Abbreviations 3

Introduction and aims 4

What is Pupil Premium? 6

OECD – PISA 2012 13

Finnish Lessons 18

What role can schools play in narrowing the achievement gap? 21

The Sutton Trust – EEF Teaching and Learning Toolkit 26

Conclusion 45

References 49

2

SID: 1236168

Abbreviations

DFES: Department for Education and Schools

EAL: English as an Additional Language

EEF: Education Endowment Foundation

FSM: Free School Meals

G&T: Gifted and Talented

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PISA: Programme for International Student Assessment

SEN: Special Educational Needs

TA: Teaching Assistant

3

SID: 1236168

Introduction and Aims

Pupil Premium was a term that I was unfamiliar with. It was whilst analysing the

exam results of my most recent cohort of students that it was suggested that I

reviewed the performance of my “Pupil Premium” students. I consider myself a

conscientious teacher that routinely monitors and intervenes with students that are

identified as either having special educational needs (SEN), English as and an

additional language (EAL), gifted and talented (G&T) or identified as

underperforming, however, I realised that not only did I not fully appreciate what

Pupil Premium was I did not know which students in my classes were identified as

eligible for Pupil Premium funding. My initial thought was that if these students did

not have specific learning needs, what can be done to support and raise the

attainment of this particular group of students?

It seems I was not alone in my ignorance; “a recent survey by the Sutton Trust found

that a quarter of teachers did not know what the money should be spent on at all, a

further 8% said they would just use the money to compensate for cuts elsewhere in

the budget. Others said they would spend the money on things such as reducing

class sizes to around 25 pupils, or hiring new teaching assistants. While these

programs are well intentioned, academic research shows they do not have very big

impact on student attainment” (Clifton 2013, p.21).

There is a wealth of information regarding pupil premium available with information

and advice on policy at national, local and school level. However, my ultimate focus

will be on what can be done at a classroom level to support Pupil Premium students

in secondary schools.

4

SID: 1236168

As such, the aims of this literature review are to:

Understand what Pupil Premium is and consider who is eligible.

Review how schools across the country are spending Pupil Premium funding

to close the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more

affluent peers.

Make international comparisons specifically of the performance of

disadvantaged pupils in relation to their peers and what successful countries

have done to close the attainment gap.

Investigate the most effective strategies to improve the attainment of students

eligible for Pupil Premium in a secondary school classroom.

5

SID: 1236168

What is Pupil Premium?

The Pupil Premium was introduced in 2011 by the Coalition Government. The DFES

(2014) explains that Pupil Premium is additional funding paid to both mainstream

and non-mainstream schools, such as special schools and pupil referral units, in

respect of their disadvantaged pupils. These include pupils:

Who have been registered for free school meals (FSM) at any point in the last

six years

Who have been looked after continuously by the local authority for more than

six months

Whose parents are currently serving in the armed forces. (The service

premium is designed to address the emotional and social well-being of these

pupils and will not be discussed directly in this literature review.)

Schools receive this funding in addition to their school budget to support their eligible

pupils and to narrow the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their

more affluent peers.

Accountability

According to the DFES (2014) schools are free to spend the Pupil Premium as they

see fit. However, they are accountable for how they use the additional funding to

support these pupils. The achievement of students who attract Pupil Premium is

published in performance tables and schools are also required to publish online

specific information about the Pupil Premium so that parents and others have access

to meaningful and appropriate information. Ofsted also now reports on the effective

use of Pupil Premiums in schools and according to the DFES (2014) schools in

6

SID: 1236168

which disadvantaged pupils do particularly poorly, will be “expected to work with a

system leader with expertise in closing attainment gaps, to improve ahead of re-

inspection”.

Ever6

The DFES (2013, p.5) states that evidence shows that “poverty is the single most

important factor in predicting a child’s future life chances.” The DFES (2013, p1-2)

further explains that “FSM is the only pupil level measure of deprivation available

and the link between FSM eligibility and underachievement is strong and data on

FSM is easily collected and updated annually... Children who have been eligible for

FSM at any point in the past generally have poorer academic results than those who

have never been eligible for FSM.” As there is also “under-reporting of FSM

amongst secondary school pupils, extending eligibility to those eligible for FSM in the

past six years means that a child previously registered in the last year of primary

education will remain eligible for the Premium up to year 11.” The decision to widen

the coverage of the Premium to include those eligible for FSM at any point in the last

six years (known as the Ever 6 FSM measure) was introduced in April 2012 and is

estimated to include an extra 555,000 pupils (Ofsted 2012, p.8).

How much is Pupil Premium?

Ofsted (2012, p.7 ) explain that total funding has increased from £625m in 2011-12

to £1.25bn in 2012-13. According to Ofsted (2012, p.7) up to £50m of the £1.25bn

was used to support a summer school programme to help the most disadvantaged

pupils make the transition from primary to secondary school. The DFES (2014) state

that funding rose to £1.875bn in 2013-14. The level of Pupil Premium per pupil has

risen from £488 in 2011-12, £623 in 2012-13 to £900 for each eligible secondary-

7

SID: 1236168

aged pupil and £953 for each primary-aged pupil in 2013-14. According to

information published by the DFES (2014) in the 2014 to 2015 financial year, Pupil

Premium funding will increase to £1,300 for each eligible primary-aged pupil and

£935 for each eligible secondary-aged pupil. Funding to support looked-after

children will increase to £1,900 for each eligible pupil. The DFES (2014) states that

eligibility for funding will be extended to all children who:

have been looked after for 1 day or more

were adopted from care on or after 30 December 2005

left care under a Special Guardianship Order on or after 30 December 2005 or

a Residence Order on or after 14 October 1991

Pupil premium figures are based on the number of FSM pupils on each school’s roll

on January school census day (DFES 2014).

According to the Pupil Premium 2011-12 school tables published by the DFES the

average amount of Pupil Premium Funding received by all schools nationally in

2011-12 was £30,940 and the median was £19,520. An average-sized secondary

school with the average proportion of pupils eligible for FSM would have received

around £77,000. However, for many schools the Pupil Premium represents only a

relatively small proportion of their overall budget. An illustration of individual school

funding based on responses from 142 school leaders responding to additional

questions at inspection is shown in Figure 1.

8

SID: 1236168

Figure 1: Variation of funding levels received by the schools surveyed

(no. of schools)

(Ofsted, 2012, p.8)

How are schools using the Pupil Premium funding to raise achievement for

disadvantaged pupils?

In September 2012 Ofsted published a report (Ref: 120197) based on the views of

262 school leaders gathered through inspections and telephone interview

questionnaires conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectors. The aim of the survey was to

identify how schools were using their Pupil Premium money to raise achievement

and improve outcomes for their disadvantaged pupils. According to the report

“school leaders often expressed concern that the funding was not truly ‘additional’

but replaced other funding streams that had been withdrawn.” In addition “schools

stated that Pupil Premium funding did not cover the costs of the initiatives that they

undertook to support disadvantaged or vulnerable pupils... The survey found the

range of uses that a school made of its Pupil Premium funding often depended on

the total amount it received (Ofsted 2012, p.9). Uses of Pupil Premium is illustrated

9

SID: 1236168

in Figure 2. “The most common use of the Pupil Premium reported by school

leaders was to fund existing or new staff, who were often involved in a range of one-

to-one or small-group tuition provision” (Ofsted 2012, p.10).

Figure 2: ‘What is the Pupil Premium funding being used for in your

school?’ (Based on multiple answers provided by 119 school leaders

responding to the telephone survey and 142 school leaders responding to

additional questions at inspection.)

Exam entries

Motivational

Buildings

School assessment & tracking

Staff CPD

Support for specific groups

Uniform and equipment

Out of school hours care

Non-academic intervention

Small group tuition

Additional curriculum

Subsidising trips

1:1 tuition

Staff

2

8

10

10

12

32

40

44

56

81

83

84

100

204

(Ofsted, 2012 p.10)

According to Ofsted (2012, p.10-11) “around three quarters of school leaders said

that they had used the Pupil Premium to fund staffing in one or more areas”, as

shown in Figure 3. “Often, they said that the funding had allowed them to maintain

or enhance current levels of staffing rather than to create entirely new roles.”

10

SID: 1236168

Figure 3: ‘What is the Pupil Premium funding being used for in your

school?’ (types of staffing) Based on multiple answers provided by 119

school leaders responding to the telephone survey and 142 school leaders

responding to additional questions at inspection.

Additional leaders

Physical, speech & language specialists

Attendance workers

Inclusion managers

Counsellors

Parent support workers

Behaviour support workers

Mentors

Teachers

Teaching assistants

9

10

12

16

20

23

23

37

72

113

(Ofsted, 2012, p.11)

In the autumn term 2012, Ofsted followed up the findings of their initial survey by

visiting a range of primary and secondary schools to see how effectively the schools

were spending the funding to maximise achievement. According to this Ofsted

report inspectors found that “however much funding the schools had, there were

common characteristics to the most successful spending – spending that had led to

standards rising and opportunities broadening for the most disadvantaged pupils”.

An overview of their findings is published in report no.130016; The Pupil Premium:

How schools are spending the funding to successfully maximise achievement.

11

SID: 1236168

For schools to maximise the impact they can make on the attainment and progress

their students, it is advisable for schools, local authorities and governments to look

beyond their door step and not only contemplate the national comparisons provided

by Ofsted but also to appreciate what governments and schools are doing

internationally, and seek inspiration where success is apparent.

12

SID: 1236168

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – PISA

2012

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a triennial

international survey which aims to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing

the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. PISA’s most recent survey in 2012

focussed on mathematics, with reading, science, problem-solving and financial

literacy but also examines how well students can extrapolate from what they have

learned and can apply that knowledge in unfamiliar settings. 65 countries

participated, representing over 80% of the world economy as illustrated in Figure 4.

The survey assessed the extent to which around 510,000 15-year old students

across the world had acquired knowledge and skills that are essential for full

participation in modern societies. According to PISA (2012, p.3) “results reveal what

is possible in education by showing what students in the highest performing and

most rapidly improving education systems can do”. PISA allows governments and

educators to identify effective policies that they can adapt to their local contexts.

13

SID: 1236168

Figure 4: Map of PISA 2012 countries and economies (PISA 2012, p.8)

PISA - Key Findings

The results from PISA 2012 (p.1) show that “the United Kingdom performs around

the average in mathematics and reading and above average in Science, compared

with the 34 OECD countries that participated in the 2012 PISA assessment of 15-

year olds... When compared with PISA 2006 and PISA 2009, there has been no

change in performance of any of the subjects tested... The United Kingdom is listed

26th in mathematics performance. Its performance is similar to Czech Republic,

Denmark, France, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, New Zealand,

Norway and Portugal. The United Kingdom has higher GDP and spends more on

education than the average in OECD Countries, as well as higher levels of tertiary

education and a lower share of the most socio-economically deprived groups.

However, these comparative advantages do not have a clear relationship with

educational outcomes. As in many other countries, socio-economically

14

SID: 1236168

disadvantaged students in the United Kingdom are less likely to succeed at school

than their more advantaged peers. However, some countries are more successful

than the United Kingdom in reducing the influence of socio-economic status on

student performance.” The question is what are these countries doing to close the

attainment gap and can these strategies be applied to education systems in the

United Kingdom?

PISA 2012 (p.4) found that “across OECD countries, 15% of the variation in student

performance in mathematics is attributed to differences in students’ socio-economic

status”. They continue to explain that a more socio-economically advantaged

student scores higher in mathematics – the equivalent of nearly one year of

schooling – than a less-advantaged student. A similar pattern was found in the

United Kingdom. Clifton (2013, p.20) also reports that “children from poorer homes

currently score about half as well as their wealthier peers at GCSE. As a result they

find it harder to go onto further education, get into a good university and

subsequently get a decent job”. PISA 2012 (p.13) suggests that this pattern may be

“because advantaged families are better able to reinforce and enhance the effects of

schools, because students from advantaged families attend higher quality schools,

or because schools are simply better equipped to nurture and develop young people

from advantaged backgrounds.” Despite this, it is interesting to note that “Australia,

Canada, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong-China, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein and

Macao-China achieve both high levels of performance and an above-average level

of equity in education outcomes in PISA 2012.” Further investigation of policy in

these countries could provide valuable insight on how to further close the attainment

gap between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers.

15

SID: 1236168

“Across OECD countries, some 26% of disadvantaged students – the equivalent of

7% of the entire student population – are “resilient”, meaning that they beat the

socio-economic odds against them and exceed expectations, when compared with

students of a similar socio-economic background in other countries” (PISA 2012,

p.4). The United Kingdom’s figures are in line with these averages however, it is

worth highlighting that students in some countries are more successful in beating the

odds against them. “For example, in Hong Kong-China, Korea, Macao-China,

Shanghai-China, Singapore and Viet Nam, more than half of disadvantaged

students, or 13% of the overall student population, are resilient” (PISA 2012, p.4).

PISA 2012 (p.5) found that in general students in the UK and across the OECD

countries lacked intrinsic motivation. They explain that “intrinsic motivation refers to

the drive to perform an activity because of the pleasure and interest in the activity

itself.” PISA 2012 (p.5) also found that across most countries and economies, socio-

economically disadvantaged students were less engaged with school, had less drive

and motivation to learn, and held negative self-beliefs about their ability to learn. It

would therefore make sense to encourage the use of any strategies that promote

engagement and motivation in the classroom. PISA 2012 (p.22) suggests that

“education systems can also promote motivation to learn by ensuring that all

students are surrounded by excellence.” Such methods would benefit all students

and not just those that are disadvantaged. However, understanding that deprived

students are more likely to fail due to lack of drive may allow the teacher to focus her

attention accordingly.

16

SID: 1236168

PISA 2012 (p.4) found that “punctuality and attendance at school have strong

associations with performance across all countries.” In particular they found that

“disadvantaged students tended to be more likely to report that they had arrived late

or skipped classes” (PISA 2012, p.5). Whilst in many schools there is an attendance

officer that monitors and intervenes where necessary with issues relating to

punctuality and attendance, in my own experience it is essential that the individual

teachers closely monitors, reports and intervenes at a classroom level before these

poor habits have a major impact.

17

SID: 1236168

Finnish Lessons

Despite the many barriers that schools face in raising attainment it is encouraging to

read that “some high-performing countries in PISA 2012, like Estonia and Finland,

show small variations in student scores, proving that high performance is possible for

all students” (PISA 2012, p.9). Sahlberg (2012, p.20) explains that “Finland is

special because it has been able to create an educational system where students

learn well and where equitable education has translated into little variation in student

performance between schools in different parts of the country.” He further surmises

that “the equitable Finnish education system is a result of systematic attention to

social justice and early intervention to help those with special needs, and close

interplay between education and other sectors – particularly health and social

sectors – in Finnish society... Complimentary school lunches, comprehensive welfare

services, and early support to those in need have been made available to all children

in all Finnish schools – free of charge”.

Accoring to Sahlberg (2012, p.22) Finland introduced a new comprehensive school

system termed Peruskoulu in 1972 and abolished ability grouping in all school

subjects. Career guidance and counselling became a compulsory part of the

comprehensive school curriculum in all schools. Sahlberg (2012, p.22) continues to

explain that “career guidance was intended to minimize the possibility that students

would make inappropriate choices regarding their futures” Peruskoulu also “required

that teachers employ alternative instructional methods, design learning environments

that enable differentiated learning for different pupils, and perceive teaching as a

high profession” (Sahlberg, 2012, p.23). Education reform in 1979 also placed

emphasis on professional development and research-based teacher education. “It

18

SID: 1236168

was assumed very early in Finland’s reform process that instruction is the key

element that makes a difference in what students learn at school, not standards,

assessments or alternative instruction programs.” The belief is that “the success of a

high-stakes testing policy is determined by whether it positively affects student

learning, not whether it increases student scores on a particular test” (Sahlberg,

2012, p.23). Unfortunately, I believe that there is pressure on many teachers in UK

schools to focus on exam preparation rather that fully prepare students for life.

Indeed this feeling is reiterated considerably in the press. The Telegraph published

an article in 2008 stating that “children are missing out on a well-rounded education

as schools ‘teach to the test’ to inflate their position on national league tables,

according to Ofsted”.

“Finland adopted a strategy of early intervention and prevention to help those

individuals who have special educational needs of some kind. This means that

possible learning and development deficits are diagnosed and addressed during

early childhood development and care, before children enter school” (Sahlberg,

2012, p.24). Finland also dramatically reduced the number of students repeating a

school year as not only was it deemed an inefficient way of promoting learning, it

was deemed demoralising, provided the child with a stigma and promoted social

inequality.

Sahlberg (2012, p.40) explains that “scores of news articles on Finnish education

have concluded that trust, teacher professionalism, and taking care of those with

special needs are the factors that distinguish Finnish schools from most others”.

However, as Stuart Kauffman states (as cited in Sahlberg 2012, p.40) “separate

elements of a complex system rarely function adequately in isolation from their

19

SID: 1236168

original system in a new environment” -a noteworthy point when drawing conclusions

in a literature review such as this!

20

SID: 1236168

What role can schools play in narrowing the achievement gap?

Clifton and Cook (2012, p4) explains that “a child’s educational development is

influenced by a complex range of factors, including their individual characteristics,

the wider family environment, the neighbourhood where they live and the schools

they attend. This has led to a longstanding and fierce debate about the role that

schools specifically can play in narrowing the achievement gap. On one side,

commentators argue that the factors influencing low attainment lie outside the control

of individual schools, and that it is not possible for them to overcome the wider

problems of poverty and disadvantage. They highlight issues such as

homelessness, poor health, violence and a lack of education materials that cannot

be rectified by schools alone (see for example Cody 2012). On the other side,

commentators point to excellent schools that have succeeded in raising achievement

among disadvantaged students and argue that improving the quality of schools

should be sufficient to narrow the gap. They reference schools like Mossbourne

Community Academy in Hackney to make the case that poverty should not be ‘an

excuse’ for low achievement (see for example Wilshaw 2012a, Dobbie and Fryer

2011).”

The link between deprivation and academic achievement is consistently reported in

the literature. Clifton and Cook (2012, p.7) have clearly illustrated in Figure 5 that

those pupils living in the most deprived postcodes score on average 320 points at

GCSE, or the equivalent of about eight Cs, and the results gradually improve as you

move towards the least deprived postcodes.

21

SID: 1236168

Figure 5: Capped GCSE points by postcode deprivation

(Clifton and Cook, 2012, p7)

Clifton and Cook (2012, p13) further explain that “a key feature of the world’s best

education systems is that they have only a few students performing at a low level

and stretch those at the top”. As Clifton and Cook (2012, p16) have illustrated in

Figure 6 “the UK therefore faces a two-horned challenge both to stretch those at the

top and to raise the performance of those falling behind”. Clifton (2013, p.21) boldly

states that “we need to pay much more attention to supporting those at the bottom.

Sadly these pupils are often not the focus of government performance targets, which

encourage schools to focus more heavily on those pupils likely to get a grade C at

GCSE in traditional subjects”. In my own experience, the majority of intervention

from schools has been placed on C/D borderline students. However, unless the

requirement to publish results in league tables is removed, this is unlikely to change.

22

SID: 1236168

Figure 6: Distribution of GCSE Results by free school meals eligibility

(percentage of pupils) (Clifton and Cook (2012, p16)

Clifton and Cook (2012, p18) explains that “class gaps in education begin very early

in life. This is because children from wealthier families are exposed to more

stimulating environments and a larger vocabulary in their early years, which enables

them to develop their cognitive abilities at a faster rate... we estimate that around half

of the achievement gap we witness at age 16 was already present when these pupils

started secondary school”. This finding has two main implications as summarised by

Clifton and Cook (2012, p19); “First, it will be hard for secondary schools to do all

the work in narrowing the attainment gap – primary schools and early years services

will also have their part to play. Second, it will not be sufficient for secondary

schools to simply ensure that all pupils make equal levels of progress. Rather, they

will have to actively target those pupils who are already falling behind when they

start out in year 7. Targeting pupils who fall behind in late primary school and early

23

SID: 1236168

secondary school will be particularly important, as research shows the attainment

gap widens very quickly between the ages of 7 and 14 (Goodman et al 2010)”.

Clifton (2013, p.20) further explains that a big divide exists even before pupils start

primary school. As a result the UK has seen investment in early years services such

as Sure Start which help children develop and start school on a more equal footing.

Clifton (2013, p.20) states that “evidence from Boston in the US shows that high

quality pre-school programmes, with well trained staff, can help to achieve this

outcome”. The Sutton Trust-EEF (2013) also report an effect of around six months

progress suggesting that quality early years and pre-school intervention is beneficial.

They also state that in particular “disadvantaged children benefit from good quality

programmes, especially where these include a mixture of children from different

social backgrounds, and a strong educational component”.

Michael Wilshaw (2012), the chief inspector of schools argued that “[pupils from

disadvantaged areas] are the very young people most likely to attend a weak school

and receive a substandard education”. It makes sense then for Governments to

concentrate its efforts to improve the overall performance of all schools. However,

as Clifton and Cook (2012, p.21) point out “while policies focused on school

improvement can help to raise overall achievement, they will not be sufficient to

close the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils. This is because although

disadvantaged children get better results in outstanding schools, so do all the other

pupils”. It is clear that poorer pupils perform worse than wealthier pupils whichever

school they are in. As such Clifton and Cook (2012, p24) explain that “policies

designed to reduce educational inequality must therefore focus on tackling the

24

SID: 1236168

variation in results that occurs within each school”. So what can governments and

schools do to tackle this ‘within school variation’?

25

SID: 1236168

The Sutton Trust – Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) Teaching and

Learning Toolkit

Whilst governments can plough funding into disadvantaged schools and schools can

target spending at particular groups of pupils “PISA results show that beyond a

certain level of expenditure per student, excellence in education requires more than

money: how resources are allocated is just as important as the amount of resources

available” (PISA 2012, p.24). In order to help schools spend their budgets effectively

The Sutton Trust-EEF teaching and Learning Toolkit has been developed to provide

guidance for teachers and schools on how best to use their resources to tackle the

variation that exists within schools and improve the attainment of its disadvantaged

pupils.

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013, p.3) explain that “at school level, it is clear that

different ways of spending school budgets can have very different impacts on pupil

attainment, and choosing what to prioritise is not easy. Even once a decision to

implement a particular strategy has been taken there are a wide variety of factors

which determine its impact. [The Sutton Trust-EEF] believes that educational

research can help schools get the maximum ‘educational bang for their buck’, both in

terms of making an initial choice between strategies, and in implementing a strategy

as effectively as possible.” As a consequence The Sutton Trust-EEF has

researched and developed a Teaching and Learning Toolkit. According to The

Sutton Trust- EEF (2013, p.3) “it is an accessible summary of educational research

which provides guidance for teachers and schools on how to use their resources to

improve the attainment of disadvantaged pupils”. It is this resource that schools are

recommended to engage in prior to allocating their Pupil Premium funding but as

26

SID: 1236168

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013, p.5) explains “the evidence it contains is a

supplement to rather than a substitute for professional judgement”. A summary of

the most effective approaches to improving pupils’ attainment is illustrated in Figure

7.

Figure 7 A Summary of the Teaching and Learning Toolkit (Higgins et al (2013)

27

SID: 1236168

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013, p.3-4) provide the following information to help

interpretation of the table in Figure 7 (further detailed information is provided in their

publication):

“Average impact is estimated in terms of additional months progress you

might expect pupils to make as a result of an approach being used in school,

taking average pupil progress over a year is as a benchmark.

Cost estimations are based on the approximate cost of implementing an

approach in a class of twenty five pupils. Where the approach does not

require an additional resource, estimates are based on the cost of training or

professional development which may be required. Approaches marked with £

££ or less could be funded from the 2012-13 pupil premium allocation of £623

per eligible pupil.

Evidence estimates are based on: the availability of evidence (i.e. the number

of systematic reviews or meta-analyses and the quantity of primary studies

which they synthesise); the methodological quality of the primary evidence;

the magnitude of the impact (in terms of effect size); and the reliability or

consistency of this impact across the studies reviewed.”

Whilst there is extensive literature available to inform whole school policy I shall

focus my discussion on strategies that have the most significant and direct impact on

teaching and learning in a secondary classroom.

28

SID: 1236168

Teaching Assistants

Ofsted (2012, p11) reported that “the single most commonly given use of Pupil

Premium funding was to employ teaching assistants. In just over two fifths of

schools the Pupil Premium funding was being used to fund new or existing teaching

assistants and/or higher-level teaching assistants... Teaching assistant support was

commonly being used to maintain or increase support in lessons or to deliver support

through small-group interventions, particularly in literacy and numeracy.” However,

recent research from The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) has suggested that as TAs

salaries are in the region of £17,000, TAs can have low or very low impact for high

cost. The average impact of teaching assistants is rated as 0 months progress by

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013). They state that “overall, research shows that

students in a class with a teaching assistant present do not on average outperform

those in one where only a teacher is present”. They continue to explain that

“comparisons with qualified teachers suggest that TAs are consistently less effective

in terms of raising attainment (achieving about half the gains). It is suggested that

where overall negative impacts have been recorded TAs have effectively been

substitutes rather than supplementary to teaching from teachers.”

Conversely, a visiting OECD team confirmed that “the Finnish approaches to

equitable schooling rely on multiple and reinforcing forms of intervention with support

that teachers get from others, including special education teachers and classroom

assistants” (Sahlberg 2012, p.27). Clearly the discussion on the effectiveness and

use of teaching assistants is extensive and contradictory.

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) states that “there is some evidence of greater impact

when TAs are given a well-defined pedagogical role or responsibility for delivering

specific interventions, particularly when training and support are provided... There is

29

SID: 1236168

also evidence that pupils’ perceptions and attitudes may be more positively affected,

and also of positive effects in terms of teacher morale and reduced stress of working

with a TA.” From my own experience, working successfully with a TA can have

dramatic impact when trying to co-ordinate more complex activities. However, rather

than simply expecting assistance with managing tasks I fully agree with the advice

from The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) to identify specific activities where TAs can

support learning as opposed to just ensuring that pupils finish their work. It is also

inherent “that teachers do not reduce their support or input to the pupils supported by

TAs”.

Ofsted (2013, p.14) explain how a primary school located in an area of high socio-

economic deprivation were effective in using TAs to help raise standards. “There

was a clear target for each support strategy led by teaching assistants and they were

fully aware of the difference they needed to make to pupil outcomes. Teaching

assistants had a great deal of responsibility for planning how to reach these targets

and were held to account for the impact of their work with pupils. The teaching

assistants had risen to the challenge of this responsibility and as a result the

strategies to support pupils were inventive, fluid and well matched to pupils’ needs.”

The Sutton Trust-EEF (2013) also encourages schools to provide “support and

training for teachers and TAs so that they understand how to work together

effectively”. I am personally guilty of not always making effective use of the TAs

available to me, either through poor planning or lack of time for me to fully explain

my expectations of their role in my classroom. Ofsted (2013, p.14) suggest

extending or revising the TAs’ hours to enable them to work more closely with

30

SID: 1236168

teachers to plan and review pupils’ learning. From a practical point of view, even this

can be difficult as in a secondary school such as my own, we can have five lessons

a day each with a different TA and support is not always consistent. Ofsted (2013,

p.15) did however report that a headteacher of a primary school set in an area of

high economic deprivation did successfully use a small amount of their Pupil

Premium funding to extend the assistants’ hours. “This allowed them to review the

day’s learning with teachers, help to identify gaps in pupils’ knowledge and

understanding and to be well informed about the learning planned for the next day.”

Reducing Class Size

Ofsted (2012, p.11) reported that “more than a quarter of the schools had used some

or all of the Pupil Premium to fund new or existing teachers... In secondary schools

in particular they were often being used to help reduce class sizes and/or to deliver

out of hours learning such as revision sessions and holiday schools”.

Although it is logical that reducing class sizes should improve the quality of teaching

and learning, with the teacher being able to provide greater quality feedback, give

more one-to-one attention and manage difficult behaviours more easily, The Sutton

Trust – EEF (2013) explains that “overall the evidence does not show particularly

large or clear effects, until class size is reduced to under 20 or even below 15”. The

reduction in class size needs to be large enough to permit the teacher to change

their teaching approach and in turn allow pupils to change their learning behaviours.

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) suggests the idea that “deploying staff (including

teaching assistants) so that teachers can work more intensively with smaller groups

may be worth exploring”.

31

SID: 1236168

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) also explains that “there is some evidence that

reducing class sizes are more likely to be effective when supported with professional

development to learn and develop teaching skills and approaches... Additionally

teachers may potentially further develop their teaching skills and approaches in a

smaller class”.

Repeating a Year

Repeating a year is an option for pupils who do not reach a given standard of

learning at the end of a school year. According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013)

“repeating a year is relatively common in the USA where the No Child Left Behind

Act (2002) recommended that students be required to demonstrate a set standard of

achievement before progressing to the next grade level. Students can also be

required to repeat a year in some countries in Europe including Spain, France and

Germany. In Finland, pupils can repeat a year in exceptional circumstances, but this

decision is made collectively by teachers, parents and the student rather than on the

basis of end of year testing.” According to Sahlberg (2012, p.26-27) “being sent

back to the same grade with younger students was often demoralizing and rarely

made way for the expected academic improvements among students. After all,

repeating an entire grade was an inefficient way of promoting learning because it did

not focus on those parts of the curriculum in which a student needed targeted help...

The educational stigma normally had a dramatic negative impact on students and

lowered teachers’ expectations regarding these students’ abilities to learn”.

According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) “negative effects [of repeating a year]

have been found consistently over the last fifty years in studies from Europe and

North America, where much of the research has been conducted... The negative

32

SID: 1236168

effects are disproportionately greater for disadvantaged pupils, for pupils from ethnic

minorities and for children born in the summer months.” As such, the practice of

repeating a year in the UK is now rare but the extensiveness of the research made it

noteworthy for discussion.

Ability Grouping

Sahlberg (2012, p.24) explains that in Finland “after abolishing streaming in the mid

– 1980s and making learning expectations the same for all students, the

achievement gap between low and high achievers began to decrease”. Indeed The

Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) reports that “on average, ability grouping does not appear

to be an effective strategy for raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils, who

are more likely to be assigned to lower attaining groups”. They go on to explain that

“ability grouping appears to benefit higher attaining pupils and be detrimental to the

learning of mid-range and lower attaining learners”.

According to research on ability grouping completed by Ireson et al (1999) “effect

sizes differ from one curriculum subject to another and pupils attaining higher levels

on entry to secondary school make greater progress in schools adopting setting in

mathematics, but not in English or science.” This is in contrast to my own view as a

secondary Science teacher that whilst I acknowledge the drawbacks of ability

grouping summarised by the teach-nology website as feelings of segregation,

devising fair methods of division and the difficulties in maintaining teacher

expectations, these are outweighed by the benefits of matching the pace of the

lesson to its students, boosting the confidence of those students no longer in the

shadow of more intelligent peers and allowing the teacher to provide greater

33

SID: 1236168

individual attention, notwithstanding resolving the issue of the level of differentiation

required to deliver a vast and varied curriculum to a heterogeneous classroom.

Intervention

Ofsted (2013, p.3) report that schools that were spending Pupil Premium

successfully to maximise achievement “thoroughly analysed which pupils were

underachieving, particularly in English and Maths... [Schools] allocated their best

teachers to teach intervention groups to improve mathematics and English, or

employed new teachers who had a good track record in raising attainment in those

subjects... [These schools also] used achievement data frequently to check whether

interventions or techniques were working and made adjustments accordingly, rather

than just using the data retrospectively to see if something had worked.” This

systematic approach of monitoring and providing targeted and specific intervention is

something that can be implemented by all teachers at a classroom level alongside

departmental and school level intervention schemes.

This is an approach used by world-class education systems. “In Finland, early

detection mechanisms, such as periodic individualised assessments of students by

several groups of teachers, allow educators to identify struggling students and offer

them the necessary support early on, before they become stuck and cannot continue

their education at the same pace as their peers (PISA 2012, p.14).” Clifton (2013,

p.21) further explains that “in Finland, nearly half of pupils receive some form of

catch-up tuition during their school career”. The extent to which so many pupils

receive this sort of intervention across their school career no doubt also helps to

remove any stigma attached to receiving catch-up tuition. Indeed it is essential in my

34

SID: 1236168

mind to target all low performing students not just those with low socioeconomic

status.

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) suggests that behaviour interventions can also

produce “large improvements in academic performance along with a decrease in

problematic behaviours... Effect sizes are larger for targeted interventions matched

to specific students with particular needs or behaviour issues”.

Small Group Tuition and One-to-One Tuition

Evidence reviewed by The Sutton Trust-EEF (2013) suggests that one-to one tuition

and small group tuition is extremely effective and can enable learners to catch up

with their peers. They give an effect size of +4 months progress for small group

tuition and +5 months progress for one-to-one tuition. The Sutton Trust – EEF

(2013) explain that “short, regular sessions (about 30 minutes, 3-5 times a week)

over a set period of time (6-12 weeks) appear to result in optimum impact”. Small

group tuition (for groups of 2-5 students) usually provides intensive support for “lower

attaining learners or for those who are falling behind, though it can also be used as a

more general strategy to ensure effective progress, or to teach challenging topics or

skills”. They also make clear that programmes which used “a qualified teacher is

likely to achieve greater progress than support staff or volunteers, and training and

professional development are likely to be beneficial for both teachers and support

staff.”

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) explain that “as a rule of thumb, the smaller the

group the better...[but] given the closeness in impact between various forms of small

35

SID: 1236168

group tuition and its much lower cost, it may be useful for schools to trial small group

tuition as an alternative option to one-to-one tuition.” They also explain the variability

in their findings is firstly due to “the quality of the teaching in small groups may be as

or more important than the group size, and there is evidence of the benefits

professional development on pupil outcomes. Second, it is important to evaluate the

effectiveness of different arrangements as the specific subject matter being taught

and composition of the groups may influence the outcomes”.

Peer Tutoring

Peer tutoring encompasses a range of approaches that essentially involves an older

pupil being paired with a pupil that is falling behind in a lower year. The Sutton Trust

– EEF (2013) reports that “the evidence of impact is relatively high – typically

equating to about a GCSE grade.... [and that] there is some evidence that children

from disadvantaged backgrounds and low attaining pupils make the biggest gains”.

According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) it is suggested that the greatest gains

are when the age gap is about 2 years and the highest attaining older pupils are

paired with the highest attaining younger pupils and so on. This allows for teachers

to focus their attention on the lowest attaining pairs. As the costs for peer tutoring

are relatively low and the impact reportedly so high, it does make sense that this is a

strategy worth pursuing. However, the logistical challenges of co-ordinating such a

strategy do appear difficult to me, it is also perhaps the reason that this is one of the

only strategies referred to in the literature that I have had almost no experience with

in my ten year teaching career.

36

SID: 1236168

Collaborative Learning

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) state that “collaborative or cooperative learning can

be defined as learning tasks or activities where students work together in a group

small enough for everyone to participate on a collective task that has been clearly

assigned. This can be either a joint task where group members do different aspects

of the task but contribute to a common overall outcome, or a shared task where

group members work together throughout the activity. Some collaborative learning

approaches also get mixed ability teams or groups to work in competition with each

other, in order to drive more effective collaboration”.

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) report a moderate impact on pupils’ progress of

about +5 months, based on extensive evidence. The cost of implementing these

teaching structures is relatively low so it is a strategy for schools and their teachers

to consider. The range of collaborative or co-operative learning approaches and

structures are explained clearly in literature such as Kagen’s Co-operative Learning

(2001). However, as a co-operative learning stalwart myself I completely agree with

the advice from The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) that “managing effective

collaborative group work is challenging so professional development or collaborative

professional enquiry is likely to be helpful to support the effective use of these

approaches”.

Individualised Instruction

Sahlberg (2012, p.27) explains that part of the success of Finland closing the

attainment gap is attributed to the fact that “personalised learning and differentiation

became basic principles in organizing schooling for students across society. The

37

SID: 1236168

assumption that all students can achieve common educational goals if learning is

organized according to each student’s characteristics and needs became another

foundation”. Indeed Ofsted (2013, p.3) concur stating that successful schools

“understood the importance of ensuring that all day-to-day teaching meets the needs

of each learner, rather than relying on interventions to compensate for teaching that

is less than good”.

However, The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) report that individualised instruction has

low impact and individualising learning for whole classes is not beneficial for pupils’

learning. Their explanation suggests that “the role of the teacher becomes too

managerial in terms of organising and monitoring learning tasks and activities,

without leaving time for interacting with learners or providing formative feedback to

refocus effort”. I suspect the answer lies in the middle of these two arguments and

relies on the teacher knowing her students and carefully planning activities that

encompass a range of learning styles for the class as a whole and ensure an

appropriate level of differentiation that allows all pupils to progress without hindrance

to other essential components of the lesson such as assessment for learning and

providing effective feedback.

Meta-cognition and Self Regulation

According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) “meta-cognitive and self-regulation

strategies (sometimes known as ‘learning to learn’ strategies) are teaching

approaches which make learners think about learning more explicitly. This is usually

by teaching pupils specific strategies to set goals, monitor and evaluate their own

learning. Self-regulation refers to managing one’s own motivation towards learning

38

SID: 1236168

as well as the more cognitive aspects of thinking and reasoning. Overall these

strategies involve being aware of one’s strengths and weaknesses as a learner, such

as by developing self-assessment skills, and being able to set and monitor goals.

They also include having a repertoire of strategies to choose from or switch to during

learning activities.”

According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) “meta-cognitive and self-regulation

approaches are reported to have consistently high levels of impact with meta-

analyses reporting between seven and nine months additional progress on average”.

However, The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) states that “it is usually more effective in

small groups so learners can support each other and make their thinking explicit

through discussion”.

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) provides practical advice for teachers to consider

when implementing learning to learn strategies. Smith, A., Lovatt, M., and Turner J.,

(2009) provide further guidance in their book Learning to Learn in Practice: The L2

Approach.

Feedback

According to Wiggins (2012) “Feedback is information about how we are doing in our

efforts to reach a goal… Helpful feedback is goal-referenced; tangible and

transparent; actionable; user-friendly (specific and personalized); timely; ongoing;

and consistent.” Essentially, feedback whether it written or verbal, aims to bridge the

gap between prior or current achievement and the success criteria. Following

analysis of more than 900 educational meta-analyses, researcher John Hattie (2012)

found that effective feedback is among the most powerful influences on how people

39

SID: 1236168

learn. The Sutton Trust –EEF also reported very high effects of feedback on

learning. They indicate that progress could have an impact of half a GCSE grade

per student per subject. However, Clifton and Cook (2012, p.7) explains that “ideas

in the toolkit, such as providing feedback to pupils, will be important for improving

overall classroom practice but will not be sufficient to narrow the achievement gap.”

This point is contradicted by Ofsted (2013, p.3) who reported that schools that

“systematically focused on giving pupils clear, useful feedback about their work, and

ways that they could improve it” were more successful in closing the attainment gap.

Either way, as the impact of feedback is high and at low cost, providing staff training

to ensure feedback to students is effective would indeed be prudent.

Mastery Learning

According to The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) mastery learning is “a learning strategy

offering high potential, which appears to be particularly effective for low attaining

students” and as such could be an effective strategy to close the attainment gap.

Much of the mastery learning strategies in use by schools today have been

developed from work done by Benjamin Bloom in 1960s. “Bloom believed that all

students could be helped to reach a high criterion of learning if both the instructional

methods and time were varied to better match students' individual learning needs. In

other words, to reduce variation in the achievement of diverse groups of students

and have all students learn well, Bloom argued that educators and teachers must

increase variation in instructional approaches and learning time. Bloom labelled the

strategy to accomplish this instructional variation and differentiation mastery

learning” (as cited in Guskey, T.R., 2007).

40

SID: 1236168

The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) further explains that in contrast to other approaches

in which pupils move through the curriculum at a pre-determined pace, “mastery

learning breaks subject matter and learning content into units with clearly specified

objectives which are pursued until they are achieved. Learners work through each

block of content in a series of sequential steps”.

However, The Sutton Trust – EEF (2013) highlights the fact that implementing

mastery learning effectively is not straightforward. They suggest combining mastery

learning with other strategies for example “providing structured support for pupils

who fall behind with a range of interventions, such as peer support and intensive

tuition, to help maintain more even progress within classes and incorporating group

and team approaches where pupils take responsibility for helping each other”.

Homework

There is fierce debate on the merits of homework.  The Sutton Report – EEF (2013)

state that “it is certainly the case that schools whose pupils do homework tend to be

successful schools. However it is less clear that the homework is the reason why

they are successful.” An article written by Irene Barker (2013) in the TES magazine

sums up the issues of homework well; "to some, it is an essential part of school life

that ensures exam success and the country’s economic standing in the world. To

others, it is a burden that affects the health of children, damages family life and

results in pupils from poor backgrounds falling behind".

Indeed internationally countries have taken very different approaches. According to

Barker (2013) President Francois Hollande declared an end to homework in primary

41

SID: 1236168

schools in France stating that independent learning should take place at the end of

the school day on school premises. Such a move, he said, would “even out social

inequalities”. Barker (2013) explains that Denmark has also piloted ‘homework-free’

schools, resulting in a reported fall in dropout rates and rise in overall grades. "At

the other end of the spectrum, South Korean schoolchildren do hours of extra study

at home and in private crammers, and achieve some of the highest maths, science

and reading scores in the developed world. The country also has the highest youth

suicide rate, although it is unclear if the two factors are related" (Barker 2013).

The research suggests "a positive but low correlation" between doing homework and

improved attainment (Hallam cited in Barker 2013) but she also reported that "the

relationship between the amount of homework done and attainment is not linear".

Simply put, there is a point where no further gains are made despite the extra hours

studying.

According to The Sutton Report – EEF (2013) “there is some evidence that when

homework is used as a short and focused intervention it can be effective in

improving students’ attainment (with some studies showing up to eight months

positive impact on attainment). Overall the general benefits are likely to be modest if

homework is more routinely set...The research strongly suggests that it is more

valuable at secondary school level and much less effective for children of primary

school age”.

Despite the fact that well designed homework together with effective feedback can

allow students to make further progress, one of the main concerns - as highlighted

42

SID: 1236168

by Hollande (as cited in Barker 2013) - is that homework ingrains social inequalities

between pupils: "clever, motivated children in higher sets or at better schools tend to

be given more homework, while less able, less motivated pupils are given less. The

result is a further widening of the attainment gap. More advantaged children are also

more likely to have a quiet place to study at home, with access to the internet, again

giving them the chance to pull ahead".  The key is how to address this issue in order

to best use homework to close the attainment gap.

To me, the obvious but clearly not the simplest solution to put into practice, is to

provide an extended school day to provide adequate study facilities for students to

complete their homework and own independent study. According to The Sutton

Report – EEF (2013) “increasing the length of the school day or the school year add

on average two months additional progress to pupils’ attainment over the course of a

year. Additionally, research based on international comparisons, looking at average

times for schooling in different countries is consistent with this conclusion. However,

it should also be noted that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit by, on

average, an additional half a month’s progress relative to their peers suggesting that

extending school time can be an effective means to improve learning for pupils who

are most at risk of failure”.

Most practicing teachers will have much to say on the subject of homework and it is

a matter that will no doubt be open to debate for many years to come. What strikes

me in particular is that the evidence according to The Sutton Report – EEF (2013)

suggests that routine homework has less impact than short focussed intervention

strategies. This is in direct contrast to many secondary schools’ homework policies

43

SID: 1236168

that typically encourage the routine weekly setting of homework tasks. Despite this

issue teachers can still strive to set meaningful and engaging homework tasks that

can encourage independent learning skills, and can provide appropriate feedback on

these tasks to allow students to make progress beyond the classroom.

44

SID: 1236168

Conclusions

Whilst results from PISA 2012 indicate that countries such as Finland have reduced

the impact of socio-economic status on the attainment of students, it is also apparent

that there is not an easy fix. “The fact that students in some countries consistently

believe that achievement is mainly a product of hard work, rather that inherited

intelligence, suggests that education and its social context can make a difference in

instilling the values that foster success in education” (PISA 2012, p.21). Whilst

moulding the attitude of a nation is not a simple task, schools, and its teachers can

still strive to close the attainment gap in their own context.

Clifton (2013, p.21) concludes that “tackling ‘within school variation’ will require

improving classroom teaching, developing pedagogies that raise low achievement,

training teachers to be effective in mixed ability classes, making good use of data to

track pupils and ensuring that school leaders implement interventions targeted to

those pupils who are falling behind”. Clifton (2013, p.21) further explains that the

most effective strategies appear to be “things such as small group tuition (where a

specialist teacher works intensively with a couple of pupils) or peer tutoring

programmes (where older pupils are paired with pupils falling behind in lower

years)”. These strategies are also reasonably expensive, which is why the

government has pledged to continue to increase pupil premium funding, to ensure

that schools can afford the most effective interventions.

Ofsted (2013, p.3) reported that schools that were more successful in closing the

attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers “drew on

research evidence (such as the Sutton Trust Toolkit) and evidence from their own

45

SID: 1236168

and others’ experience to allocate the funding to the activities that were most likely to

have an impact on improving achievement”. Common sense dictates that the same

principles apply at a classroom level. So, although teachers have little say in the

allocation of funding, I have attempted to provide a response to the initial question I

posed: According to the literature, what can a teacher do to maximise the progress

of all pupils and close the attainment gap?

Class teachers should:

Know which pupils are eligible for Pupil Premium funding so that they can

take responsibility for accelerating their progress.

Ensure that families and students eligible for Pupil Premium funding know the

resources that are available to them to progress their own learning and

achievement. E.g. stationary, revision guides, transport, school uniform,

educational visits, external tuition e.g. music, dance or drama lessons and for

ICT hardware.

Closely monitor attendance and punctuality and together with the school

provide well-targeted support to improve attendance, behaviour or links with

families where these are barriers to pupil’s learning.

Be aware that students eligible for Pupil Premium are more likely to lack

motivation and be at risk of poor engagement and so understanding and

incorporating strategies to prevent and monitor this situation in classroom

planning is essential.

Ensure that all day-to-day teaching meets the needs of each learner.

Regularly assess students’ progress and intervene where necessary.

46

SID: 1236168

Small-group and one-one tuition can be beneficial when targeted students

need to catch up with their peers. This should be sold as a benefit and not be

seen as a punishment.

Adopt peer-tutoring strategies to enable weaker students to catch up with their

peers.

Metacognition / ‘Learning to Learn’ - Carefully plan, implement and evaluate

teaching approaches which encourage learners to plan, monitor and evaluate

their own learning independently and/or in small groups.

Incorporate co-operative learning structures into lessons to encourage

effective group work and ensure all students participate in lessons.

Provide effective feedback to allow all pupils to make progress towards their

goals.

Rather than setting regular daily homework, provide students with short

focused tasks or activities which relate directly to what is being taught, and

which are built upon in school. Ensure that the purpose of homework is made

clear to the students and suitable feedback is given. Where possible provide

students with the time and facilities to complete homework and independent

study in school.

Make effective use of teaching assistants and ensure they are highly trained.

Allocate time to regularly discuss pupil progress and specific ways for them to

assist learning in the classroom and help pupils to achieve.

Embrace new initiatives, participate in high quality CPD and INSET and where

appropriate apply these strategies to their own practice.

47

SID: 1236168

(Clifton 2012, p.35) sums up perfectly that “over the last few decades, education has

become increasingly important for finding a decent job and leading a good life.

Achieving high grades at school can open the doors to further education and a

professional career, while those with low grades find it increasingly hard to get on in

life. In this context, it is important that every child has an equal opportunity to

succeed at school, regardless of their family background”. It is important to

remember that we as teachers have the ability to change peoples’ lives. Every child

matters.

WORD COUNT Total: 9638 Excluding quotations: 5022

48

SID: 1236168

References

Barker, I., 2013, Is it time to scrap homework? TES Magazine 15th February, 2013

Bradshaw, J., 2012, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

Results from PISA 2012, United Kingdom Key Findings OECD

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-UK.pdf [date accessed

6/2/14]

Clifton, J., 2013, Maximising the pupil premium, Governing Matters January /

February 2013 www.nga.org.uk

Clifton, J. and Cook, W., 2012, Closing the attainment gap in England’s secondary

schools – A long division, IPPR 2012

PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with

what they know OECD

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf [date accessed

6/2/14]

Department for Education, 2013, Pupil Premium – Frequently asked questions [date

accessed 5/10/13]

Department for Education, 2014, Pupil premium: information for schools: funding for

2014 to 2015 (Updated:22 January 2014)

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/b00231348/pupil-

premium-information-for-schools-and-ap-settings/funding-for-2014-to-2015 [date

accessed 5/2/14])

49

SID: 1236168

Department for Education, 2014, Pupil premium: information for schools: Allocations

(Updated:22 January 2014)

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/b00231348/pupil-

premium-information-for-schools-and-ap-settings/allocations [date accessed 5/2/14]

Department for Education, 2014, Pupil premium: information for schools: Pupil

Premium Reviews (Updated:22 January 2014)

https://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/b00231348/pupil-

premium-information-for-schools-and-ap-settings/pupil-premium-reviews [date

accessed 5/2/14]

Department for Education, 2014, Raising the achievement of disadvantaged

children. (Updated 27 January 2014)

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/raising-the-achievement-of-disadvantaged-

children/supporting-pages/pupil-premium [date accessed 5/2/14]

Department for Education, 2012; Pupil Premium 2011–12 school tables,

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/

schoolsrevenuefunding/settlement2012pupilpremium/a0075963/pupil-premium-

2011-12 [date accessed 5/2/14]

Guskey, T. R., 2007, Closing Achievement Gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's

"Learning for Mastery" Journal of Advanced Academics, v19 n1 pp8-31

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ786608 [date accessed 14/3/14]

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of feedback. Review of Educational

Research, Volume 77, No. 1 pp.81-112.

50

SID: 1236168

Higgins, S., Katsipataki, M., Kokotsaki, D., Coleman, R., Major, L.E., & Coe, R.

(2013). The Sutton Trust-Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and

LearningToolkit. London: Education Endowment Foundation.

Ireson, J., Hallam, S., Mortimore, P., Hack, S., Clark H., and Plewis I., (1999) Ability

grouping in the secondary school: the effects on academic achievement and pupils’

self-esteem, Institute of Education, University of London, Paper presented at the

British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex

at Brighton, September 2-5 1999

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001359.htm [date accessed 28/2/14]

Kagen, S., and Kagen, M., 2001, Kagen Cooperative Learning, Kagan Publishing

Ofsted, September 2012, The Pupil Premium: How schools are using the Pupil

Premium funding to raise achievement for disadvantaged pupil. Reference no:

120197

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium [date accessed 5/2/14]

Ofsted, 2013, The pupil Premium: How schools are spending the funding to

successfully maximise achievement. Reference no. 130016

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium-how-schools-are-spending-

funding-successfully-maximise-achievement [date accessed 5/2/14]

Paton, G., 2008, Ofsted: Schools ‘teaching to the test’, 21st July 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2440091/Ofsted-Schools-teaching-to-the-

test.html [date accessed 23/4/14]

51

SID: 1236168

Sahlberg, P., 2012, A Model Lesson, Finland Shows Us What Equal Opportunity

Looks Like, American Educator, Spring 2012

Smith, A., Lovatt, M., and Turner J., 2009, Learning to Learn in Practice: The L2

Approach, Crown Publishing

Teachnology: Does Grouping Students By Ability Work?

http://www.teach-nology.com/currenttrends/equity_excellence/tracking/ [date

accessed 28/2/14]

Wiggins, G. (2012) Seven Keys to Effective Feedback Volume 70, Number 1

Feedback for Learning pp.10-16

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept12/vol70/num01/Seven-

Keys-to-Effective-Feedback.aspx [Date accessed 16/08/2013]

Wilshaw M (2012) ‘I’ll ensure our schools have no excuses for failure’, Guardian, 2

February 2012.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/schoolmust-improve-my-

mission[date accessed 13/3/12]

52