Pupil premium strategy statement

This statement details our school’s use of pupil premium (and recovery premium for the 2021 to 2022 academic year) funding to help improve the attainment of our disadvantaged pupils. 

It outlines our pupil premium strategy, how we intend to spend the funding in this academic year and the effect that last year’s spending of pupil premium had within our school. 

School overview



School name

Elizabeth Woodville School

Number of pupils in school 

994 (Y7 - 11)

Proportion (%) of pupil premium eligible pupils


Academic year/years that our current pupil premium strategy plan covers (3 year plans are recommended)




Date this statement was published

November 2021

Date on which it will be reviewed

October 2022

Statement authorised by

Sharan Matharu

Pupil premium lead

Helen Gilligan

Governor / Trustee lead

Gillian Lucas

Funding overview



Pupil premium funding allocation this academic year


Recovery premium funding allocation this academic year

£21, 605

Pupil premium funding carried forward from previous years (enter £0 if not applicable)


Total budget for this academic year

If your school is an academy in a trust that pools this funding, state the amount available to your school this academic year


Part A: Pupil premium strategy plan

Statement of intent

Our intention is that all pupils, irrespective of their background, make increasingly good progress year on year and achieve high attainment across the curriculum. To achieve this goal we aim to ensure that PPM students participate in the wider curriculum to the same extent as their peer, whilst increasingly addressing and removing any barriers faced by PPM students (e.g. literacy, poor attendance, lack of confidence, behavioural issues).

When creating our PPM Strategy we recognise the importance of considering the context of the school and the subsequent challenges made. We will use research conducted by the EEF and recognised literature (such as ‘Addressing Educational Disadvantage’ by Marc Rowland) to support decisions made around the usefulness and implementation of different strategies.

To achieve our objectives, the school is adopting the tiered approach recommended by the EEF, which places the greatest focus on promoting high quality teaching, supported by academic interventions and wider non-teaching strategies; however, we recognise that many elements of our strategy will overlap categories and the balance between them will change year on year as the schools’ and students’ priorities change.

High-quality teaching is at the heart of our approach, with a focus on areas in which disadvantaged pupils require the most support. This is proven to have the greatest impact on closing the disadvantage attainment gap and at the same time will benefit the non-disadvantaged pupils in our school.

There is both internal data and academic literature that highlights the need for high quality pastoral support and attendance intervention to meet the needs of our PPM students; as such funding is directed to ensuring that high quality pastoral care is available to all students.

Our approach will be responsive to common challenges and individual needs, rooted in robust diagnostic assessment, not assumptions about the impact of disadvantage.

The key principles of our strategy:

  • Promote an ethos of ‘Excellence, Wellbeing and Success’ for all students regardless of disadvantage or need.
  • An individualised approach to address barriers and specific interventions are based on need.
  • The most effective method of addressing disadvantage is through a strong focus on high quality teaching, rather than bolt-on strategies.
  • Use of a robust monitoring system to focus on outcomes and effectively inform and evaluate interventions based on need.
  • Decisions and interventions are based on research and data.
  • Developing literacy of students, especially where literacy is below the chronological age, so that students can access the wider curriculum.
  • That providing high quality pastoral support is essential to meet the wider needs of all students
  • Clear, responsive leadership, setting high aspirations are set and responsibility for raising attainment to all staff.

Our ultimate objectives are:

  • To narrow the attainment gap between PPM and non-PPM students.
  • For all PPM students to make or exceed nationally expected progress rates (P8 =0)
  • For all PPM students to have attendance of at 95%
  • To provide opportunities to ensure that all disadvantaged students engage in the wider curriculum. 

This details the key challenges to achievement that we have identified among our disadvantaged pupils.

Challenge number

Detail of challenge 


The progress of pupil premium pupils as a group is lower than that of the non-pupil premium cohort.


The attendance of pupil premium pupils as a group is lower than that of the non-pupil premium cohort. 


Cohesive whole school leadership and approach in surrounding narrowing the gaps


Consistently high quality first teaching in all classrooms


Stronger relationships between school and parents of pupils premium pupils to be formed to enhance parental support.


The behaviour points awarded to pupil premium pupils is proportionally higher than that to the non-pupil premium cohort.


Reading and comprehension age of pupil premium pupils on average is lower than the non-pupil premium cohort


Ensure pupil premium students engage with wider-curricular opportunities and experience cultural capital.


Awareness of staff of pupil premium students and their individual needs to enable targeted support

Intended outcomes 

This explains the outcomes we are aiming for by the end of our current strategy plan, and how we will measure whether they have been achieved.

Intended outcome

Success criteria

No discernible gap between Pupil Premium and non-Pupil Premium students in all year groups.

The gap between PPM and non-PPm will be the same or better than National results. Progress data for Years 10 and 11 show a narrower/narrowing gap.

The difference between pupil premium KS3 students attainment compared to targets is comparable to non-pupil premium students.

Attendance gap between Pupil Premium and non-Pupil Premium students to reduce. Pupil Premium attendance to be in line with the national average.

Pupil premium student attendance to be in line with national average (93%, 2019)

Increased focus and awareness of Pupils Premium students by all staff within school.

Regular dialogues taking place with students and parents resulting in increased parental engagement to support with improved progress, improved attendance and reduced behavioural points.

Regular contact made to home by form tutors.

Clear lines of communication within school regarding PP students.

Pupil Premium a regular item in departmental meetings.

High engagement of PP parents at school events such as parent evenings; attendance to parents evenings to be in line with their peers by 2024.

Pupil premium students to participate in a wider range of enrichment activities offered at EWS.

Tracking of extra-curricular activities used to prioritise and direct pupil premium students to engage.

Pupil premium students will have socio- economic barriers removed to support the development of skills essential for the curriculum on offer.

PP students have excellent careers programme including access to HE institutions/experiences. 

Quality first teaching in all classrooms, taking into account effective classroom practice.

The QA process identifies that all students experience lessons that enable at least good progress to be made.

Gap between the average reading age of pupil premium students and non-pupil premium cohort to be reduced in years 7 and 8.

The data from the accelerated reader program will show an narrower/narrowing gap between pupil premium and non-PPM students.


Activity in this academic year

This details how we intend to spend our pupil premium (and recovery premium funding) this academic year to address the challenges listed above.

Teaching (for example, CPD, recruitment and retention)

Budgeted cost: £ 40,000


Evidence that supports this approach

Challenge number(s) addressed

Teaching and learning focus on evidence-based strategies to support quality first teaching. 

“Supporting the Attainment of Disadvantaged Pupils” (DFE, 2015) suggests high quality teaching as a key aspect of successful schools.

Wider educational literature e.g. Lemov (2010) & Sherrington (2019) suggests that selected methodologies are most effective at improving student outcomes. This is further supported by the EEF toolkit (2021) which claims significant improvement in learning e.g.

Interleaving and questioning (EEF + 7 months ) 

Assessment for learning/feedback (EEF +6 months)


CPD and T&L briefings on: feedback, questioning, retrieval practice; Metacognition & self-regulation strategies

Feedback (EEF +6 months)

Metacognition (EEF +7 months)


Implementation of Accelerated Reader and whole school literacy weekly focus in tutor time

Reading Comprehension strategies (EEF +6 months)

Oral language interventions (EEF +6 months)


Senior Leader to oversee PPM strategy

Successful schools “have clear, responsive leadership.” DFE ‘Supporting the Attainment of Disadvantaged pupils: articulating success and good practice’

EEF Implementation Guide states that ‘school leaders play a central role in improving education practices through high-quality implementation’ by ‘defining both a vision for, and standards of, desirable implementation’.


QA lead by teaching and learning group, ALT and LLs to provide developmental feedback, identify training needs and to share best practice

DFE teacher standards state that systems of appraisal and monitoring of teaching are necessary and can help to determine starting points for professional development.

Collected teacher efficacy is highlighted by Hattie (2016) as the most effective influence on student achievement (+1.57) and therefore supports the strategy of sharing good practice .


Purchase and use of standardised diagnostic assessments

Standardised tests can provide reliable insights into the specific strengths and weaknesses of each pupil to help ensure they receive the correct additional support through interventions or teacher instruction



Targeted academic support (for example, tutoring, one-to-one support structured interventions) 

Budgeted cost: £ 79,440


Evidence that supports this approach

Challenge number(s) addressed

Use of Accelerated Reader [Years 7 & 8] to identify and raise reading comprehension

Reading Comprehension strategies (EEF +6 months)

Oral language interventions (EEF +6 months)


Academic Mentor to support with homework and mentoring of PPM students

Homework (EEF +5 months)

Mentoring (EEF +2months)


Engaging with the National Tutoring Programme to provide a blend of tutoring and school-led tutoring for pupils most affected by the pandemic. A significant proportion of the students receiving this will be PPM.

A significant amount will be focused on Science.

Small group tuition (EEF +4 months)

DFE, ‘School Led Tutoring Guidance’ (+4 months impact) 


Targeted in school KS3 Maths and English intervention in school

Small group tuition (EEF +4 months)

DFE, ‘School Led Tutoring Guidance’ (+4 months impact) 


Provision of specific revision material for examined year groups.




Wider strategies (for example, related to attendance, behaviour, wellbeing)

Budgeted cost: £ 44,460


Evidence that supports this approach

Challenge number(s) addressed

Increased parental engagement through regular contact by form tutors

Parental Engagement (EEF +4 months)


Provide high quality pastoral care by pastoral support workers and Ethos team

Mentoring (EEF +2 months)

Behaviour interventions (EEF +4 months)

Effect sizes reported by Hattie (2016) show that behavioral intervention programmes have an effect size of 0.62 and specific interventions linked to needs has an effect size of 0.77.


One-to-one mentoring for all Year 11 PPM students and a number of students in Y7-10

Mentoring (EEF +2 months)

Behaviour interventions (EEF +4 months)

Effect sizes reported by Hattie (2016) show that behavioral intervention programmes have an effect size of 0.62 and specific interventions linked to needs has an effect size of 0.77.


Regular tutor meetings to identify student needs, concerns and signpost interventions

Mentoring (EEF +2 months)

Behaviour interventions (EEF +4 months)

Effect sizes reported by Hattie (2016) show that behavioral intervention programmes have an effect size of 0.62 and specific interventions linked to needs has an effect size of 0.77.


Attendance officer and Family support worker to closely together to monitor the attendance of PPM students, build relationships with families and implement support strategies where needed

DFE (2016) found that the higher the overall absence rate across KS4 the lower the likely level of attainment at the end of KS4. “Overall absence had a statistically negative link to attainment.” 


PPM hardship fund accessible through requests to prevent PPM students from being unable to access enrichment opportunities, have resources and equipment required for learning (e.g. uniform, food etc)

Arts Participation (EEF +3 months)

Physical Activity (EEF +1 month)



Total budgeted cost: £ 163,900

Part B: Review of outcomes in the previous academic year

Pupil premium strategy outcomes

This details the impact that our pupil premium activity had on pupils in the 2020 to 2021 academic year. 

Externally validated and internal data shows that as progress for all students has improved over the years from 2018 to 2021, the gap widened between PPM and non-PPM and has remained stable (approximately -0.85). Below details how we were able to implement our PPM activity in the 2020-21 year.

Quality of teaching for all:

Teaching and Learning strategies focussed on questioning, retrieval practice and meaningful feedback This was quickly adapted to ensure that teachers were still able to implement these practices both when teaching in person and virtually; training was conducted with staff so that they were empowered to do this. QA visits were limited during the year and only one deep dive took place (MFL) which showed outstanding T&L for all students. Data was used more rigorously in the first half of the year and this was shared with staff when they identified intervention strategies to support any PPM student with a P8 score less than 1; however, these strategies could not be implemented due to lockdown. Broadsheets were produced for each Head of Year so that they could identify students to mentor. 

There is still a gap between the achievement of PPM and non-PPM students which needs to be narrowed. More departments need to have QA visits to ensure high quality teaching for all; this needs to be followed up with student voice. 

Targeted support:

One to one mentoring took place for all year 11 students and Heads of Year in Years 7 to 10 chose 4 to 5 PPM students to mentor in there year group. When this was a regular occurrence, pupils found this beneficial (identified through student voice) and some mentoring continued during periods of lockdown. Mentoring also led to safeguarding concerns being identified. This is a strategy that will continue in 2021/22.

During lockdown, phone calls home were made to PPM students as part of our well-being checks for the vulnerable students and we aimed to get these students into school to work with the teachers onsite.

We started to implement Accelerated Reader to improve reading comprehension in Year 7, we tried to ensure this continued during lockdown but this proved challenging for the majority of students and the programme had to be picked up when we returned to school.

Admin support contacted parents of PPM students when they hadn’t made parents evenings appointments to encourage them to do so; the attendance was still lower for th PPM cohort (Year 10: 45% PPM parents; 73% whole cohort)

The National Tutoring Programme was used for English and Maths with a cohort of Year 11 students; however due to being conducted virtually this was not as successful for all students as we would have hoped.

Other approaches:

Attendance both to school in person and to live lessons during lockdown were monitored closely; both were lower for PPM students compared to the non-PPM cohort (PPM attendance: 86%, non-PPM attendance: 94%; average gaps between PPM and non-PPM students for each year group to live lessons during lockdown were as follows, Y7 14%, Y8 12%, Y9 9%, Y10 7%, Y11 18%). Support to overcome barriers were implemented (e.g. laptops provided, work printed off and delivered during lockdown). 20 PPM students were given a laptop during lockdown and this enabled them to access our live lessons. An increased number of students came into school and were supported on site with their learning; disadvantaged students were contacted and encouraged to attend. A small number of students attended for pastoral support.

Year 11 PPM students were targeted first for their careers interviews to ensure they had plans for their next steps following their exams.

NEET: 3 out of 23 PPM students in the academic year 2020-21

Externally provided programmes

Please include the names of any non-DfE programmes that you purchased in the previous academic year. This will help the Department for Education identify which ones are popular in England





Service pupil premium funding (optional)

For schools that receive this funding, you may wish to provide the following information: 



How did you spend your service pupil premium allocation last academic year?

PPM services funding was amalgamated with wider PPM funding due to low numbers.

What was the impact of that spending on service pupil premium eligible pupils?

Only 1 student in Y11.They gained a Progress 8 score of -0.3 which was their FFT expected P8 score.

Further information (optional)

Use this space to provide any further information about your pupil premium strategy. For example, about your strategy planning, or other activity that you are implementing to support disadvantaged pupils, that is not dependent on pupil premium or recovery premium funding.