Skip to content ↓

Fullhurst Community College

Pupil Premium review of spending 2015-16

In 2015-16, Fullhurst Community College had 448 students eligible for Pupil Premium.  £935 was received per student, resulting in £418,880 total Pupil Premium received.  The Pupil Premium funding for 2015-16 was spent through five main strategic avenues, all aimed at raising the achievement of students eligible for the Pupil Premium:

  1. Further accelerate progress of disadvantaged learners in KS3 (£15,896.43)
  2. Raise achievement of disadvantaged students across all subjects (£335,008.92)
  3. Increase the basics match for disadvantaged students, and reduce the Designated Disadvantaged (DD) /Non Designated Disadvantaged (NDD) gap (£24,347.25)
  4. To raise the achievement of disadvantaged students who are more able (£19,907.93)
  5. Ensure greater collaborative work between the SEND faculty and the achievement of disadvantaged students (£23,820.93)

Further accelerate progress of disadvantaged learners in KS3 

Parents’ evenings: Parents were given the opportunity to meet all of their child’s subject teachers in a traditional sense, with disadvantaged pupils who were not making appointments of their own accord encouraged to do so by extra communication sent home.  In addition, other events were put on throughout the year to increase parental engagement, such as the KS3 drop in sessions and an evening to explain the 'Fullhurst Steps' assessment system.

KS3 enrichment trips budget: Funds were budgeted for teachers to ensure that contributions for trips were subsidised for all pupils.  Trips were run to increase the cultural capital of KS3 students, but also to complement their curriculum studies (e.g. a theatre trip before an assessment piece of writing in English).  Also, the cost of such trips included minibus/travel costs.

Educational planners: All KS3 pupils were supplied with educational planners, as it was evaluated that a barrier to learning was that some disadvantaged pupils in particular were somewhat unorganised, especially with regards to homework completion.

Rewards: Attendance, behaviour and attendance at revision classes rewards were all partially funded by Pupil Premium funding.  In addition, the whole-school Vivo system was weighted slightly in favour of disadvantaged pupils, so as to encourage them more so.

Reading incentives for pupils: All KS3 pupils engaged in a poetry/rap workshop with 'Dreadlock Alien' and then were able to pick a book of their choice to have.  The books were wrapped and given as Christmas presents to the students, as a gesture but also to encourage reading in the holidays and at home.

Transition summer school: 34 disadvantaged students, who were joining Fullhurst in September for year 7, engaged in a two-week Summer School in August. The Summer School was entitled 'Epic Summer' and students engaged in numeracy and literacy sessions daily as well as cross-curricular challenges.


  • As seen from KS3 assessment week 3, in year 7, in 10 out of 13 subjects the proportion of disadvantaged students who were at least on target was higher than the proportion of non-disadvantaged students. In English, there was a 3.2% positive gap, and in Maths there was a 4.3% positive gap. In 12 out of 13 subjects, the average attainment of the disadvantaged students in year 7 was higher than the average of the aspirational student targets.
  • As seen from KS3 assessment week 3, in year 8, in 8 out of 14 subjects the proportion of disadvantaged students who were at least on target was higher than the proportion of non-disadvantaged students.  In English, there was a 4.6% positive gap, and in Maths there was a 4.4% positive gap.  In 13 out of 14 subjects, the average attainment of the disadvantaged students in year 8 was higher than the average of the aspirational student targets.
  • 93.2% of the 191 disadvantaged students in KS3 engaged in at least one trip which was subsidised by pupil premium funding, which in turn impacted positively on the achievement figures highlighted above.  This was tracked through the participation tracker, as recommended previously by the Pupil Premium Review.
  • Over the course of the summer school, on average the students were assessed to be 2.15 sublevels of progress higher in Maths at the end of the fortnight relative to the start.  The students also attained comparatively as well in the English assessments and detailed analysis of the students’ social tendencies allowed them to have a smooth start to year 7.  All of the students were assessed in KS3 assessment week 3 at the end of year 7 and found to at least be on target in English and Maths.
  • As seen from the assessment week data, both the year 7 and year 8 disadvantaged cohorts on average had 'Attitude to Learning' scores which tended towards 'good' across the curriculum; 2.28 in year 7 and 2.38 in year 8 (this also showed an improvement as the year progressed).
  • There was equity between the amount of rewards given to disadvantaged students and other students across the academic year, for example as seen in the Vivos.  The majority of Vivos were given to disadvantaged students (57%), and as their Vivos had a slightly higher weighting, they were relatively more incentivised than other students.  This in turn contributed to the outcomes shown previously. 

Raise the achievement of disadvantaged students across all subjects 

Academic Mentor: The Academic Mentor worked primarily with Key Stage 4 disadvantaged students to provide advice and guidance with regards to what the students needed to do to improve their general academic performance.  This included meeting the students on a one-to-one basis, supporting in some lessons, being the link person between pupil / teachers / parents and providing guidance to the students on revision and homework.  The Academic Mentor also was in charge of the Graduate Lounge.

In-house supply for additional intervention for disadvantaged students: We have found from experience that interventions for disadvantaged students is most effective when delivered by our own staff.  Therefore, occasionally supply is needed to cover lessons of those teachers who are doing the intervention teaching.

Cover supervisors: In the event of staff absence, experience has taught us that our disadvantaged students in particular benefit a lot from having their lesson covered by staff who they are familiar with.  Therefore, the four cover supervisors ensure that student progress is maximised.

Assessment and tracking – Data Manager and Data Administrator: These two members of staff ensure data analysis is timely and thorough, so as interventions can be effectively employed.  Furthermore, data used in classrooms by teaching staff and support staff is facilitated e.g. in the production and update of seating plans.

Behaviour Mentor, Inclusion Manager, Family Liaison Officer: All of these members of staff worked somewhat behind the scenes to ensure that the students had limited barriers to learning when they were in lessons.  The disadvantaged students all faced different barriers to learning over the course of the year, and these members of staff were able to help address them to facilitate at least good academic progress over time for the disadvantaged students.

Level 3 Teaching Assistants (4 FTE): All curriculum Teaching Assistants were given the opportunity to train to the Level 3 standard.  This meant that their effectiveness in raising the achievement of disadvantaged students across the curriculum was increased.  Curriculum Teaching Assistants were able to run small group interventions with disadvantaged students, as directed by faculty Standards and Progress Leaders.  When short term cover was required, the level 3 Teaching Assistants were able to occasionally teach the class if necessary, often in lessons on which they supported anyway, which meant that disadvantaged learners benefited from not having their learning disrupted by the absence of their teacher.

Self-study facilities: The Graduate Lounge was run on a Tuesday and Thursday afterschool for Key Stage 4 pupils, and was directly aimed at disadvantaged students.  Laptops and study resources were provided, as were refreshments.  Each week, the Academic Mentor, the Careers Officer and the students’ subject teachers were in attendance, to facilitate additional study.  In the spring and summer terms, a programme of Period 6 lessons were taught to students. These sessions either revised material previously taught in lessons, or covered additional material.  Period 6 sessions were also run in the core subjects for Key Stage 3 students, as were homework clubs at lunchtimes.

Teacher feedback kit: In line with published research, in particular by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), emphasis was put on ensuring effective feedback to disadvantaged students.  In terms of written feedback, all teachers were provided with a feedback kit to ensure a consistent approach to accelerate the progress of disadvantaged students.

CPD for staff: Leaders, teaching staff and support staff engaged in various CPD throughout the year, to learn best practice with regards closing the gap.  Such CPD, such as Senior Leaders training as Pupil Premium Reviewers, ensures that pedagogy and strategy is current and effective.

Attendance telephone package: The package allowed Heads of Year, the Education Welfare Officer (EWO) and other members of staff to contact home, to multiple students at once if necessary, with ease.  This helped with the attendance of the disadvantaged cohorts of students but also with college-home relationships and getting information home to parents about academic interventions that their children needed to attend etc.

Reprographics facilities for students: Disadvantaged students were given unlimited printing facility, as one barrier to learning highlighted at the start of the year was that many disadvantaged students did not have such a facility at home.  Therefore, this allowed greater engagement in homework and also improved outcomes for controlled assessment.

Hardship fund: At the discretion of Heads of Year in particular, families who were in need of financial support for things such as uniform, trips or curriculum enrichment were able to access the hardship fund when necessary.


  • The 2016 GCSE results showed that the progress gap between disadvantaged students and other students almost halved, to just one third of a grade (Progress 8 gap of 0.33  in 2016 relative to 0.51 in 2015).  This coincides with a Progress 8 score for our disadvantaged students being 0.35. This means that the disadvantaged students at Fullhurst achieve over a third of a grade higher per subject than students of a similar ability in other schools nationally.
  • The attainment of disadvantage students for 2016 outcomes increased by over seven grades; the disadvantaged Attainment 8 score result was 45.18 (2016) compared to 37.98 (2015).
  • 12 out of 15 subjects raised the attainment of disadvantaged students in 2016, relative to 2015 outcomes.
  • 12 out of 15 subjects closed the attainment gap between disadvantaged students and other students in 2016, relative to 2015 outcomes. 
  • The improvements in teaching, intervention and achievement across subjects also impacted positively on the attendance of disadvantaged students.  The attendance of our disadvantaged students improved by 0.8% on 2014/15.  The absence gap between disadvantaged students and other students continues to close and is now narrower than the FSM national gap (3.2%) at 2.4%.  This has closed from 3.6% in 2014/15.

Increase the basics match for disadvantaged students, and reduce the Designated Disadvantage (DD) / Non Designated Disadvantaged (NDD) gap 

Intervention tutor, English: The English intervention teacher worked with disadvantaged students in years 10 and 11 on their controlled assessment pieces and also on preparing for their written exam.  This intervention was on a small group basis, and was taught in English lesson time.  The English intervention teacher has a track record of significant value added, and therefore these disadvantaged students were able to benefit from the very best teaching.  These interventions were on a rolling basis, and lasted for a relatively short period of time with each student to maximise efficiency, impact and scope.  The interventions were coordinated by the Assistant Principal.

Graduate student conference: The graduate students were taken to the King Power Football Stadium for a conference just before Christmas.  This was used as an incentive for the disadvantaged students to display a good attitude to learning throughout the autumn term, and also improved relationships further between students and staff.

Revision packs: All disadvantaged students in year 11 were bought revision guides for English and Maths.  Some other identified KS4 students were provided with revision guides for other subjects.  Following a successful pilot in the previous year, KS3 disadvantaged students were given revision packs in advance of their half termly assessments and also end of year exams for English and Maths.


  • 51% of disadvantaged students in year 11 achieved A*-C in both English and Maths, in 2016 outcomes.  This is a 3% increase on the previous year.  This is also significantly above the national level for disadvantaged students, which in 2015 was just 39%.
  • The gap between the proportions of disadvantaged students who achieved the Basics measure relative to other students increased slightly to 18% (10% in 2015).  However, this is still considerably less than the national gap of 25% and also less than the expected gap based on the starting prior attainment of the pupils which was 26%.
  • As seen from KS3 assessment week 3, in year 7, in English, there was a 3.2% positive gap, and in Maths there was a 4.3% positive gap; in year 8 in English, there was a 4.6% positive gap, and in Maths there was a 4.4% positive gap.

Raise the achievement of disadvantaged students who are more able 

Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance (CEIAG) initiatives: Many activities took place over the course of the academic year to ensure the disadvantaged more able students suitably aimed high in their destinations post-16.  LIASE evenings, sixth form lunchtime information sessions, 1:1 guidance sessions, Oxbridge conferences, trips to local sixth forms and national trips to universities broaden the horizons of disadvantage students and therefore heighten their expectations of their own academic achievements.

Work experience: All year 10 disadvantaged students were able to spend a weeks work experience in an industry sector which was of interest to them.  The placements were sourced for the students after one-to-one interviews which they had with the Deputy Principal, and priority was given to the disadvantaged students over the non-disadvantaged.


  • Progress 8
2015 0.74 -0.07 -0.67
2016 0.16 0.43 -0.29
2017 (Year 11 AW2) 0.31 -0.18 +0.49
2017 prediction is for DD more able to make more progress than NDD, resulting in a positive P8 gap.The relative improvement in the P8 score of Designated Disadvantaged (DD) students was greater than that of Non-Disadvantaged (NDD) students in 2016, closing the progress gap. DD now positive Progress 8 overall.
  • 3A*/A, for more able
  DD NDD Gap
2015 0% 50% -50%
2016 72.7% 73.7% -1.0%
2017 (Year 11 AW2) 75.0% 62.5% +12.5%
2017 prediction is for gap to become positive, with DD attainment improving by 2.3%. DD attainment improved for 3A*/A by 72.7% in 2016, with the gap closing by 49% relative to NDD.
  • Proportion of all grades which are A*/A, for more able
  DD NDD Gap
2015 8.1% 27.9% -19.8%
2016 55.7% 49.5% +6.2%
2017 (Year 11 AW2) 48.3% 51.6% -3.3%
DD attainment improved in terms of the proportion of all grades which were A*/A by 21.6% in 2016, with the gap closing by 26% relative to NDD.
  • Of the 11 disadvantaged students in year 11 who were more able, 7 have been accepted to study A-Levels, 3 have been accepted to study an equivalent Level 3 diploma, and 1 is studying a full-time Level 2 course. 
  • In Key Stage 3, the average progress gap between disadvantaged more able students and other more able students is -9.33%, whereas in year 8 it is +0.36%.

Ensure greater collaborative work between the SEND faculty and the achievement of disadvantaged students 

Assistant SENCo: Pupil Premium funding was partly used to allow the school to employ an Assistant SENCo to add leadership capacity to the SEND faculty.  Thus the SEND Code of Practice was able to be effectively used to further accelerate the progress of SEND pupils who are disadvantaged also.

Intervention for SEND/DD students: Focus groups were developed in the different year groups, for example of underachieving pupils who have a SEND and are disadvantaged.  Their progress was monitored closely, and interventions put in swiftly to rapidly accelerate the progress of these pupils to close the gaps.


  • As seen from the results below, the outcomes from strategic avenue five are positive.
DD and SEND 2015 2016
Basics % 34.8 25.0
Attainment 8 32.04 34.80
Progress 8  -0.30 0.20

The headline measure with regards Progress 8 shows that students on average improved their performance by +0.50 in 2016, compared to 2015.  This is an average improvement of five grades per student in real terms.  The Basics measure fell by 9.8%, whilst overall attainment rose (as seen in the Attainment 8 measure). Considering the prior attainment of the cohorts, this is still an overall improvement in outcomes.  However, the Basics figure will be a priority with regards this strategic avenue in the Disadvantaged Development plan for 2016-17.

  • Analysis of attendance pattern is inclusive when comparing 2014-15 to 2015-16 because of the change in the cohorts of these students over this time period. 

Fullhurst Community College

Fullhurst Community College
Imperial Avenue

tel: 0116 282 4326
fax: 0116 282 5781