Attainment Scotland Fund (ASF) Evaluation Summative report, 2026

Implementation of the Fund

Inputs

EQ1: Governance: What worked well and what could be improved in the national and local governance and support with implementation of the refreshed SAC?

EQ2: Funding: What funding was allocated through the ASF to schools and LA's, to what extent was it used within funds requirements and/or supplemented with other funding sources? What were stakeholders views on the implementation of the new funding structure introduced with the SAC refresh?

Activities

EQ3: Implementation: How did local authorities implement the Strategic Equity Fund alongside PEF and CECYP?

EQ4: Approaches: How do the approaches for equity support pupils (and parents) from the most socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds?

EQ5: Monitoring and evaluation: How are schools and local authorities monitoring, refining and evaluating their approaches to address the poverty-related attainment gap?

This chapter summarises the evidence gathered on process and implementation of the ASF. It highlights what worked well and what could be improved overall, as well as focusing on implementation of the Strategic Equity Fund, Pupil Equity Fund and Care Experienced Children and Young People Fund since the refresh of the Scottish Attainment Challenge in 2022. There is less emphasis on process evaluation in this summative report because this has been extensively covered in previous reporting.

Governance

What worked well and what could be improved in the national and local governance and support with implementation of the refreshed SAC?

Scottish Government input

Scottish Government sets the direction through the Scottish Attainment Challenge Framework for Recovery and Accelerating Progress which is supported by annual national operational guidance on each of the three funding streams. The evidence indicates that the guidance has been broadly welcomed, with some indications of improvements over time. Policy and guidance documents were viewed by national stakeholders as having an important role in framing and articulating the ideological concept of equity. National stakeholders were positive about the value of the reporting requirements and their importance in terms of improvement, transparency, and use of public money. National stakeholders perceived relationships with policy officials and analysts to be supportive and productive, with a good understanding between Government and national partner organisations.

A persistent issue highlighted by local authorities in all SAC Leads Surveys (2023, 2024 and 2025) is that the guidance is provided too late to allow local authorities to embed it effectively in their planning processes.

The SAC Logic Model introduced in 2022/23 has been broadly welcomed as supporting understanding of the SAC mission. Findings from the 2022/23 SAC Leads Survey showed that the SAC mission was important in facilitating a local authority wide focus to address the poverty-related attainment gap. Feedback from all the SAC Leads Surveys indicates that the Logic Model has supported local authorities with their planning at the local authority level.

National stakeholders interviewed in December 2025 – January 2026 demonstrated a strong awareness of the SAC Mission, familiarity with the Logic Model and detailed knowledge of the SAC programme from its inception in 2015. The 2022 SAC refresh was viewed as a positive combination of policy ambition, programme management and development of the evaluation.

Attainment Advisors

The value of Education Scotland Attainment Advisors to designated local authorities and schools in relation to equity, supporting collaboration, providing a challenge function and sharing good practice has been consistently highlighted throughout the evaluation period. The Attainment Advisor roles have been viewed as centrally important to the governance and support arrangements for SAC and implementation of the ASF. Recent evidence continues to highlight Attainment Advisors as providing valuable support, with concerns raised in some local authorities in the SAC Leads Survey 2025 around reduced Attainment Advisor resource.

Evidence gathered in the 2025/26 National Stakeholder interviews indicated that whilst Attainment Advisors are seen as providing valuable support, there is a perceived degree of variability in how support has been utilised across Scotland. Several stakeholders noted that Attainment Advisors are utilised by local authorities to support central teams rather than schools directly. As a national resource, Attainment Advisors are often viewed as stretched thinly.

Wider Education Scotland support

Education Scotland has provided networking opportunities and resources such as the Equity Toolkit. The resources and networking have been highly valued by stakeholders. Evidence gathered most recently through the 2025 SAC Leads Survey highlighted the SAC Local Authority Leads Network as a key opportunity for knowledge exchange and ensuring mutual understanding. There have been some calls for a more streamlined approach to the provision of resources.

Funding

What funding was allocated through the ASF to schools and local authorities to what extent was it used within funds requirements and/or supplemented with other funding sources?

What were stakeholders views on the implementation of the new funding structure introduced with the SAC refresh?

The SAC refresh in 2022 saw funding allocated to every local authority through SEF, for the purposes of planning and undertaking strategic activity related to the SAC mission. The Interim Report showed how this was welcomed by stakeholders. However, concerns have been raised related to year-on-year reductions (‘tapering’) of the payments to the nine local authorities who were previously in receipt of Challenge Authority funding.

Local authorities which had not previously received SAC strategic funding viewed the introduction of SEF as a more equitable distribution of funding with strategic involvement of all local authorities improving the educational outcomes of children and young people affected by poverty. SEF provided a central resource in addition to PEF at the school level which, alongside Education Scotland’s Equity Toolkit and the National Improvement Hub, supported forward planning with a broadening range of interventions. In 2022/23, SAC Leads in local authorities which had previously not received a strategic element of ASF funding highlighted the creation of new posts and services with a focus on children.

Funding for SEF and PEF allocated across multiple years has been highlighted as providing certainty for planning purposes. However, ASF funding linked to financial years rather than academic years has been raised consistently as a problem. Respondents to the SAC Leads Survey 2025 also flagged concerns related to the delays local authorities had experienced in receiving funding confirmations from Scottish Government.

Evidence gathered from the SAC Leads Surveys has consistently indicated that local authorities view ASF as an additional resource to a great or to some extent. However, qualitative evidence from national stakeholders suggested greater variation in the extent to which ASF funding is treated as additional. For example, instances were reported of ASF being used to plug gaps to address local cuts to budgets. Whilst fixed levels of funding across multiple years for PEF has been welcomed, there have been concerns raised given annual rising employee costs within fixed annual budgets. Challenges around increases in pupil eligibility for Free School Meals in some schools without any corresponding increase in allocation of PEF on a yearly basis was also raised. A suggestion raised in the SAC Leads Survey 2025 related to siloed funding streams which ‘can lead to confusion and duplication at school level.’ In relation to CECYP funding, a number of respondents indicated that funding allocations for this group of learners were insufficient. It was further noted that the funding methodology currently in place for allocation of CECYP funding leads to annual changes in local authority allocations, with instances where initiatives funded through CECYP funding had been reduced or stopped due to insufficient funds.

Local authorities have consistently indicated the use of core or other (i.e. non-ASF) funding to support the SAC Mission. For example, SAC Leads Survey 2022 findings indicated that core funding was used to complement or supplement ASF, for extending the reach of initiatives or staffing in line with the strategic approach. The SAC Leads Survey 2025 findings confirm previous evidence that the majority of local authorities utilise core and/or other funding to support the SAC mission.

Implementation

How did local authorities implement the Strategic Equity Fund alongside PEF and CECYP?

The Scottish Attainment Challenge Framework for Recovery and Accelerating Progress published in 2022 set out the responsibilities for local authorities to implement local plans and select appropriate approaches to raise attainment and close the poverty-related attainment gap in their area.

Implementation was different depending on whether a local authority had previously received Challenge Authority Funding. Local authorities previously in receipt of Challenge Authority funding had established oversight groups and mechanisms, whereas those local authorities which had not received any strategic funding prior to 2022 were required to develop them when SEF was introduced. As reported in the 2022 SAC Leads Survey report, there were themes of continuity of the existing direction for the former Challenge Authorities (e.g. ‘six years into the SAC journey’) with governance arrangements and central teams already in place, whereas local authorities which received SEF allocations since 2022/23 had to establish planning groups and new posts to support the new policy at the local authority level.

The SEF model was viewed as recognising the impact of poverty across every local authority in Scotland, providing opportunities for local authorities to respond to locally identified needs and to extend their reach, as well as increasing opportunities to support children and young people most in need, which was of great importance in the aftermath of COVID-19. Structures such as attainment or equity boards and other oversight groups were seen as important to support planning and track, monitor and drive progress.

The SAC Logic Model was viewed by those local authorities formerly in receipt of Challenge Authority funding as supporting improved longer-term planning and linking national to local authority levels. Local authorities welcomed the four year SEF timescale.

Across all years of the evaluation, the following positive themes have consistently been identified at the local authority level:

• Enhanced approaches to planning: with the introduction of SEF, there was evidence of building on PEF, CECYP and the former Schools Programme approaches, as well as the opportunity to increase the scale, speed and depth of approaches through SEF
• Strong use of data and evidence: with data informed approaches leading to improved decision-making and ensuring effective targeting of resources
• Collaboration and partnership working

Development of Stretch Aims

The 2022 SAC refresh introduced a requirement for local authorities to set ambitious, achievable stretch aims for progress in attainment and closing the poverty-related attainment gap at the local level. Local authorities initially set stretch aims for 2022/23, then subsequently developed aims for the three-year period 2023/24 – 2025/26. Reporting on stretch aims has been undertaken by local authorities and combined to provide a national picture of progress. For 2022/23, this was reported on as part of the Scottish Attainment Challenge - Local stretch Aims: 2023/24 to 2025/26 - gov.scot.

Initial feedback on the first set of stretch aims from the SAC Leads Survey 2022/23 pointed to concerns with the process of setting stretch aims, not least due to it being a new approach with tight timescales and some limitations in the availability of relevant data. The need for further guidance and improved clarity was highlighted. Utilisation of data and evidence and engagement with a range of stakeholders were identified as key requirements to develop effective stretch aims. However, the timescales for developing stretch aims were seen to limit the opportunity for consultation with stakeholders aside from central local authority staff, Attainment Advisors and headteachers.

The introduction of multi-year stretch aims for 2023/24 – 2025/26 was viewed as an improvement. However, in spite of the requirement to broaden the engagement of stakeholders, the pattern of engaging local authority staff, Attainment Advisors and teachers much more than classroom teachers, parents/carers or other partners, or pupils remained.

Stretch aims have been highlighted as an area of concern by stakeholders. The most recent SAC Leads Survey (2025) identified the following issues:

• how can they be framed to measure what is important, for example measuring attainment over time for a particular cohort
• framing in terms of comparing SIMD quintiles 1 and 5 is not useful in every local authority context
• confusion around the level of ambition set by local authorities; are they targets, or highly ambitious (and therefore unlikely to be achievable in practice)
• uncertainty around the intended recipients of stretch aims

It was also noted that not all SEF funded projects will be directly linked to core stretch aims and may require setting of separate ‘plus’ stretch aims. Cost of the school day projects/initiatives was raised as one such example.

Alignment with other policies

ASF is increasingly aligned and embedded within local authority planning, linking to a range of local and national policies and strategies. The Interim Report outlined the increasing evidence of ASF alignment with other relevant policies such as children’s services, child poverty, children and young people’s planning partnerships, corporate parenting, The Promise as well as funding streams such as the Whole Family Wellbeing Fund (WFWF). This was also reinforced in the National Stakeholder Interviews in December 2025 – January 2026.

Subsequent evidence from the SAC Leads Survey 2025 highlights specific incidences of improving alignment in more detail. One authority has embedded a ‘whole-systems’ approach, another has ASF funded posts linking in with Tackling Child Poverty and The Promise, another uses ASF to part-fund a Promise Improvement role. One respondent specifically described SEF as linking with WFWF and CECYP linking with The Promise:

“…Attainment Scotland Fund (ASF) is closely aligned with a range of local and national policies and strategic priorities for children, young people and families. For example, ASF initiatives are embedded within the local authority’s Children’s Services Plan, supporting integrated approaches to wellbeing and attainment.”

National stakeholders noted that there are strong policy frameworks in Scotland, but also that lack of investment can hinder their implementation.

Approaches

How do the approaches for equity support pupils (and parents) from the most socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds?

Approaches have been shaped by the three SAC underpinning organisers: Learning and Teaching, Leadership, and Families and Communities. Of these, local authorities have reported that Learning and Teaching has most strongly and consistently underpinned approaches, although Families and Communities is also a strong focus.

A number of changes in approach have been identified throughout the years of the evaluation, most notably due to the impact of cost of living for families and the ongoing impact of COVID-19. Most recently, almost half of SAC Leads Survey respondents had introduced changes to the strategic use of SEF for 2025/26, with mixed views reported of whether local authority approaches to closing the poverty-related attainment gap had changed since 2023/24 (14% to a great extent, 64% to some extent, 17% to a limited extent, 3% no change). Local authorities have increasingly provided more targeted support to schools with highest deprivation, using approaches such as:

• Targeting through SEF clusters
• Providing additional senior leaders posts for schools with high levels of deprivation
• Enhanced targeting based on data and evidence
• Targeting literacy and numeracy support to specific schools

Local context determines how local authorities and schools developed their approaches. The case study research highlights that schools in the most deprived areas were likely to adopt whole-school approaches. These schools tended to have a particular focus on nurture, health and wellbeing and readiness to learn. Conversely, schools in more affluent areas tended to use more discretely targeted approaches. There were also differences based on whether schools were in urban or rural contexts, as this could determine the issues which approaches sought to address.

Pupil Equity Funding

Local authorities have reported provision of routine and bespoke support to schools to effectively and fully invest their PEF.

Structures and processes to support linkages between central local authority teams and schools have been developed, including linkage to other relevant local authority services such as finance and human resources. Standardised reporting linked to school improvement planning, monitoring tools and templates have also been frequently highlighted. The 2022/23 SAC Leads Survey noted the importance of achieving a balance between school autonomy and local authority involvement.

Local authority perceptions of how schools have invested PEF have also remained broadly consistent, characterised by robust use data and evidence to support spending decisions and effective targeting and investments of PEF based on local needs.

There has however, been a degree of variability noted in the effectiveness of how schools invest their PEF, with some schools needing support to do this effectively. More recently, the 2025 SAC Leads Survey responses viewed the implementation of PEF as broadly positive; 72% (30% to a great extent and 42% to some extent) reported that their local authority used SEF to support headteachers to make best use of their PEF resource. Just over one third had introduced changes to how their local authority supports schools to utilise their PEF for the 2025/26 academic year.

The role of Attainment Advisors has been seen to support greater consistency in effective investment of PEF by schools, as evidenced for example through the development and publication of the Pupil Equity Funding: Looking inwards, outwards, forwards resource in 2022.

The Pupil Equity Funding Report 2025 shows schools have selected local initiatives in a range of ways. The Schools Survey 2025 shows that this has included national and local guidance developed by teachers within schools and using advice from local authority officials and input from parents, communities, children and young people. As with local authorities, schools have used data and evidence and collaboration in the development of their approaches.

The importance of decision-making taking place at the school level, reflecting local contexts, has been highlighted in evidence gathered related to the positive impact of PEF. School leaders in the School Survey 2025 were very confident in selecting approaches to closing the poverty-related attainment gap that would be most effective in their school, whilst those from schools in small towns/rural areas and with lowest numbers of pupils living in deprived areas saying they were confident. This increased confidence for selecting the most effective local approaches has increased over the course of SAC. School leaders with the highest proportions of pupils living in deprived areas were particularly likely to report increased confidence over the course of SAC. The importance of local decision-making and local contexts was reinforced in the case study research.

Care Experienced Children and Young People Fund

CECYP funding has been consistently viewed as supporting strategic decision-making to improve attainment or outcomes for care experienced children and young people. This was most recently endorsed by 96% of the respondents in the 2025 SAC Leads survey. This has included, for example, joint planning and partnerships. Sharing the responsibility for CECYP funding between heads of social work and education has been highlighted as an important factor, as has the importance of alignment of CECYP funding with related strategic priorities for care experienced children and young people such as The Promise.

Over time, there have been calls for further improvements in collaboration across services to plan and implement CECYP funding, work to minimise any potential duplication and ensuring training for all stakeholders in terms of available support for care experienced children and young people and their families. In the most recent evidence gathered in the 2025 SAC Leads Survey, one third of respondents had introduced changes to the strategic use of CECYP funding for 2025/26.

Just under half of the 2025 SAC Leads Survey respondents have utilised CECYP funding to make provision for a senior member of education staff in a local authority who works at a strategic level to offer an additional layer of support to care experienced children and young people, known as a Virtual School Headteacher (VSHT).

All of the authorities responding to the 2025 SAC Leads Survey with VSHT roles in place view it as effective and impactful to either a great or to some extent in improving educational outcomes of care experienced children and young people. The development of VSHTs and the virtual school approach has been evidenced and viewed as an intervention supporting joint working and capacity building between services supporting care experienced children and young people.

The VSHT Network was established in 2019 by CELCIS (one of the SAC national programmes) to support and connect those working in the role share good practice, and drive progress towards better educational experiences for all care experienced children and young people. The CELCIS Virtual School Head Teachers in Scotland: Practice Case Studies illustrate the role of VSHTs throughout Scotland through a range of diverse case studies, including case studies of individual care experienced learners and how they were supported by the VSHT team in their local authority. In 2025, CELCIS published a role profile for Virtual School Headteachers in Scotland.

Monitoring and evaluation

How are schools and local authorities monitoring, refining and evaluating their approaches to address the poverty-related attainment gap?

Monitoring and evaluation was considered in depth in earlier aspects of the evaluation; the 2022/23 SAC Leads Survey developed our understanding of the monitoring and evaluation approaches and activities undertaken at local authority level both in relation to closing the poverty-related attainment gap and in supporting schools to undertake such activities. Responses pointed to:

• Effective scrutiny through forums or other mechanisms, with more evidence of such structures in place for local authorities previously in receipt of Challenge Authority funding than for local authorities not allocated Challenge Authority funding
• Use of data and evidence including tracking interventions by central post-holders with responsibility for monitoring and evaluation
• Range of approaches to support schools to monitor and evaluate their approaches to closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Generic approaches included school improvement support and challenge visits, data support/discussions, professional dialogue between SAC Leads, Attainment Advisors and headteachers. Specific approaches included tools to support schools, bespoke local authority dashboards, and monitoring/tracking toolkits

Over time, some concerns about the burden of reporting and the potential duplication of reporting have been expressed. Reporting arrangements for PEF have been minimised as far as possible, with Standards and Quality reporting at the school level being an established and appropriate route, as well as through School Improvement Plans. This approach has broadly been viewed as minimising bureaucracy, as well as utilising existing planning and reporting and therefore minimising duplication. In addition, a number of local authorities have created bespoke PEF reporting mechanisms for schools across their local authority.

Local authorities submit reports annually to the Scottish Government on how they have spent their CECYP funding. There have been some calls for a further focus on evaluation approaches and evidencing the impact of the CECYP (for example in the SAC Leads Survey 2022/23).