Attainment Scotland Fund evaluation: case study research 2025

Executive summary

Background and research aims

The impact of economic inequality on educational achievement is well established and has been a focus of the Scottish Government’s education policy for some time. The Scottish Attainment Challenge, which has the aim of closing the poverty-related attainment gap between children and young people from the least and most disadvantaged communities, was launched in 2015.

The Attainment Scotland Fund (ASF) supports the Scottish Attainment Challenge and is made up of various funding streams: Pupil Equity Funding (PEF) made available to schools directly, based on the estimated number of children and young people in P1-S3 registered for free school meals (FSM) under the national eligibility criteria, and benefitting 97% of schools in Scotland; Strategic Equity Funding (SEF) distributed annually to every local authority based on Children in Low Income Families Data; investment to support Care Experienced Children and Young People (CECYP); and investment in national programmes supporting the fund’s aims.

This 2025 case study research was commissioned as one part of the overarching evaluation programme, to provide up-to-date insight into the experiences and perspectives of Scottish schools on the impact of activities supported by the ASF. The research aimed to provide insight to the Scottish Government and stakeholders in Education Scotland, local authorities, and schools to help them maximise the impact of ASF, and to explore what factors are helping to improve attainment and close the poverty-related attainment gap. This qualitative research element was designed to complement quantitative data gathered in the 2025 School Survey^[1] by providing more detailed insight, exploring the impact of specific local contexts, and obtaining the views of wider stakeholder groups including partner organisations, parents/carers and children and young people.

Research method and sample

Qualitative case study research was undertaken in 14 schools across Scotland. Schools were recruited via an opt-in question for headteachers in the School Survey and the case study sample was designed to ensure a broad spread in terms of location, school type, size, urban/rural classification and SIMD profile. Fieldwork was conducted between 20 May and 24 June 2025 and involved visits by Progressive researchers to each school. A combination of one-to-one interviews and small group discussions was conducted. The content of each case study was tailored to the school’s circumstances, to include input from headteachers, senior leaders, teaching and support staff, other relevant partner organisations/ professionals, parents/carers, and pupils. This process was school-led, with headteachers selecting the most relevant respondents based on the approaches they had implemented to close the poverty-related attainment gap. A total of 128 respondents took part in the research across the 14 case study schools.

Research findings

Local context

There were some differences in experiences and approaches based on the local context (e.g. SIMD profile and urban/rural classification), but much of the feedback was consistent across case study schools in terms of the impacts of poverty on pupils, the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 and rising ASN levels.

For schools in the most deprived areas, a whole-school approach was likely to be adopted, with a particular focus on nurture and wellbeing. Those working in more affluent areas tended to use a more targeted approach so that support reached the most deprived pupils, and therefore faced different challenges around avoiding stigma. Schools in more rural areas reported some slightly different issues such as access to transport, employment poverty, and challenges delivering family link/outreach work across large geographical areas. Larger urban schools tended to be in the more deprived areas, and reported some of the more extreme impacts of poverty on pupils, as well as higher levels of need for English as an Additional Language support due to having larger immigrant populations.

However, much of the feedback was consistent across the case studies and similar issues were identified across schools, in all types of area – particularly the long-term effects of COVID-19 (especially mental health issues such as anxiety, and consequent impacts on school engagement and attendance) and increasing levels of Additional Support Needs (ASN). Respondents reported that meeting these growing needs is becoming more difficult over time and emphasised that this can have an impact on their ability to improve attainment or close the poverty-related attainment gap.

Understanding

There was good understanding across all case study schools of the challenges and barriers faced by pupils affected by poverty. Most respondents had a clear understanding of the Scottish Attainment Challenge mission, but the focus was on Pupil Equity Funding; there was limited knowledge of the other ASF funding streams.

There was generally a good understanding of the Scottish Attainment Challenge mission among case study respondents, and a clear idea of what it is trying to achieve, particularly among headteachers. While less senior staff tended to have a lower level of awareness of the mission or strategy specifically, all respondents clearly understood the overarching aims of reducing the poverty-related attainment gap and supporting pupils affected by poverty.

Since PEF is given to schools directly to spend based on local need, there was a high level of awareness of this funding stream and how it has been used – and some respondents were working in directly PEF-funded roles. Awareness of Strategic Equity Funding (SEF) and Care Experienced Children and Young People (CECYP) Funding was limited and there was some confusion among respondents about these funding streams that were not received by schools directly.

Staff at all case study schools identified a range of challenges and barriers faced by children and young people affected by poverty, including: pupils coming to school hungry, tired, and stressed and therefore not ready to learn; practical issues related to financial barriers/cost of the school day (lack of equipment, not having appropriate clothing etc.); family issues were reported including poor mental health, domestic violence, drug and alcohol issues, leading to disruption and trauma for children and young people; experience of social, emotional and behavioural problems; poor parental engagement with school, including lack of support with education at home; poor attendance and lack of engagement with school; and lack of access to experiences that those from more affluent families may have.

As a result of all the challenges faced, some respondents also noted a lack of aspiration and low expectations among children and young people in their school, which they perceived could lead to intergenerational issues and a ‘cycle of poverty’ which is very hard to break.

How approaches were developed

Approaches were mainly developed by headteachers based on local knowledge and staff consultation. Schools’ ability to tailor their use of PEF based on local needs and contexts was valued.

Several headteachers noted that one of the key benefits of PEF was that they had control over how it was spent, tailoring approaches to the needs of their school. This gave them the freedom and ability to target resources to ensure they reflect the local context and meet the specific needs of their pupils. Headteachers often used data to inform approaches, e.g. looking at attendance/attainment data for certain pupils/cohorts to determine where the poverty-related attainment gap was the biggest, or where the school had the most need for improvement, and therefore how interventions should be targeted. Approaches were most often developed by headteachers in discussion with other school staff, with consultation taking place via formal meetings/presentations and surveys etc. but also on an ad hoc basis.

Some collaboration was also reported in developing approaches, e.g. support from local authority staff, Attainment Advisors and other Education Scotland staff/teams, discussion with other schools in the area and input from local communities (via both pupil and parent/ carer feedback). Children and young people provided input to developing ideas about use of PEF funding in most schools, and respondents gave examples of pupils helping to develop specific ideas for how to use PEF funding.

How ASF funding has been used

The main use of ASF funding was for staffing – but a range of other approaches and activities were commonly used to meet the needs of pupils affected by poverty.

The main focus of ASF spending, for all case study schools, was staffing. PEF funding was used to employ specific roles, either partially or fully, including specific posts to deliver certain support/initiatives, to staff specific spaces/sessions, and to provide a wide range of roles such as pupil equity officers, family support workers, and roles focusing on home-school links/engagement and attendance etc. Schools often used funding to provide the salary uplift for promoted posts rather than employing additional staff, which had benefits for the sustainability of approaches via upskilling of existing staff, and meant that a relatively small additional uplift was required rather than spending a larger proportion of the funding on recruiting additional staff.

The other main uses of ASF funding were:

• A focus on health and wellbeing, and readiness to learn: a range of supports were said to be needed to build the foundations for learning before schools could consider improving attainment. This included a strong focus on nurture, e.g. the introduction of nurture spaces to address dysregulated behaviour and encourage attendance; employment of nurture teachers/support staff; a range of mental health, emotional literacy and wellbeing resources/ programmes; and other approaches including ‘soft starts’ to the day
• Addressing financial barriers to education: all case study schools provided support for the cost of the school day, including help to buy uniform/ equipment/resources, breakfast clubs/food and snacks, and help with payment for trips/activities/transport
• Parental engagement: while much support for families being provided by schools was not ASF-funded, some wider support provided to parents/carers was delivered via PEF-funded home-link officers and family learning staff
• Learning and teaching approaches: PEF enabled specific interventions to be delivered by learning assistants and other staff (including one-to-one or small group interventions with pupils who needed literacy or numeracy support), purchase of various literacy/numeracy programmes and resources, and provision of out of hours study support
• Professional learning: staff had received training to deliver some of the specific interventions mentioned above, as well as wider training on nurture principles, learning and teaching techniques and approaches to supporting pupils affected by poverty etc.
• Wider opportunities: ASF funding was used to provide pupils with access to school trips, residentials, educational experiences, theatre trips etc., and various team building/outdoor activities such as Columba 1400, Duke of Edinburgh, John Muir Award etc. Some secondaries also expanded the curriculum to offer new qualifications and vocational learning.

Wider collaboration

There was evidence that the ASF has contributed to wider collaboration with a range of partner organisations, who also facilitated additional collaboration through their contacts in the local community.

Several of the approaches introduced using ASF funding involved partner organisations from outside of the case study schools – e.g. collaboration with other public sector services such as family learning, educational psychology and local authority youth services teams, third sector organisations such as counselling/ therapy services, and work with a range of organisations providing other activities (e.g. outdoor/sports activities, after school clubs, mentoring programmes etc.). This included delivering targeted support/interventions for pupils, and in some instances demonstrated additionality (PEF funding enabled schools to access additional support from an existing service) and provided pupils with support located directly within schools delivered by partner organisations.

Most case study schools were also working with a range of other partner organisations in their local communities (e.g. local charities and businesses) and much of this was not ASF-funded. Some respondents therefore found it difficult to attribute improvements in collaboration to ASF specifically – although the funding did allow them to undertake some of the collaborative work they mentioned. There was also evidence of partner organisations enabling greater collaboration by establishing partnerships with other local charities/groups, sporting activities, educational charities etc. which schools did not have the time or capacity to do themselves.

Use of data and evidence

Case study schools used a wide range of data and evidence to monitor progress. The ASF has contributed to improvements in the use of data and evidence, although some data limitations were also noted in relation to measuring impact.

A wide range of data was used within case study schools to monitor progress in relation to ASF-funded activities. This included standardised assessments/ attainment data, attendance data, various wellbeing measures, review and tracking of progress for individual pupils, qualitative observations, data on the uptake of ASF-funded activities, evaluation of specific interventions, and pupil feedback. Much of this monitoring was a continuous process rather than a one-off activity.

The ASF contributed to improvements in the use of data; for example via staff resource to focus on progress monitoring (some schools had specific staff dedicated to data monitoring) and some PEF-funded resources included assessment tools. Some respondents also noted that evaluation of specific activities had led to improvements, i.e. data has been used to inform changes in how PEF funding is used over time.

Some data limitations were also noted, e.g. where interventions were targeted at a very small number of pupils, any improvement would not have a big impact on the figures at the year group or school level. Small changes could also have a disproportionate impact on overall data, particularly in the smallest schools, and there could be cohort effects where different classes/year groups had a very different level of need, making it difficult to provide a clear picture of progress over time. For this reason, some case study schools tended to track individual progress against baseline measures, rather than comparing themselves to national averages. Some also noted that SIMD could be ‘a blunt tool’ for targeting interventions or monitoring progress. Others highlighted that not all outcomes of ASF-funded activities were measurable, or likely to show up in attainment data, and many reported ‘softer’ outcomes such as building confidence and engagement with school.

Impacts of the ASF

Despite the complexities in identifying specific impacts of the ASF in the context of wider work ongoing in schools, respondents were clear that the ASF has had a range of impacts and stressed that the funding was vital in supporting pupils.

It is worth noting that there are some complexities in identifying impacts of the ASF as opposed to other, wider work ongoing in schools. Many respondents highlighted a range of other activities and funding that was being used, alongside PEF funding, and some found it difficult to say exactly which impacts could be attributed directly or solely to the ASF.

For example, most noted that additional fundraising by parent councils helped to ‘top up’ ASF-funded activities, that other grants/sources of funding had been sought out, and/or that some initiatives were only part-funded (e.g. many roles were part-PEF funded; PEF provided funding for staffing of some breakfast clubs, but the food itself was provided by a local business, etc.).

While the research aimed to explore specific ASF impacts, the complex nature of some funding arrangements does present a challenge in attributing impact in the wider context of all that schools are delivering. That said, respondents in all schools identified a range of impacts of the ASF and stressed that the funding had become crucial for them in supporting children and young people affected by poverty.

Impacts of the ASF on health and wellbeing and readiness to learn

Reflecting the focus on readiness to learn, this was a key impact for most respondents. Removing financial barriers, improving wellbeing and increasing engagement were key reported impacts of ASF-funded activities.

Reflecting the key focus of most schools on readiness to learn, a lot of the reported impacts of the ASF related to improvements in health and wellbeing and resilience, increased engagement in school and improved attendance – all crucial precursors to raising attainment.

Support with financial barriers/the cost of the school day was reported to have positive impacts, as pupils now had access to uniform, food, stationery and other resources they needed to be equipped to learn. Positive impacts were also reported for the emotional and mental health support programmes that had been introduced using PEF funding, either for individuals or at a whole-school level. Parents and pupils who took part in the case study research provided positive feedback about having resources and support available to help children and young people engage with school.

Impacts of the ASF on attainment

There was evidence of impacts on attainment, particularly for those pupils receiving targeted support/interventions.

Overall, there was positive feedback about the impacts of the ASF on literacy and numeracy attainment for children and young people affected by poverty, particularly for those pupils receiving targeted support/interventions. This was evidenced by improvements in exam results/NSA data over time, specific examples of pupils receiving targeted support showing progress in literacy or numeracy, and evaluation data from specific interventions demonstrating an impact on attainment.

Out-of-hours study support provided for secondary pupils was reported to be particularly beneficial, as respondents noted that pupils in the most deprived areas would not be able to access tutoring or other support/resources that pupils in more affluent areas may have. Pupils who had attended study support sessions or residential study weekends also reported the positive benefits of having additional one-to-one support from teachers, and a structured approach to studying which they would not otherwise have had.

Respondents often emphasised that there have been positive outcomes and transformational changes for individuals which will not show up in school-level attainment data, and staff commonly emphasised that very small changes in attainment could represent a good outcome or huge progress for an individual pupil. Examples were also given of pupils going on to achieve positive destinations even if the attainment data is not showing improvements.

Impacts of the ASF on the poverty-related attainment gap

Some progress in closing the gap was reported, although most respondents highlighted that the ASF is unlikely to resolve the poverty-related attainment gap on its own.

When asked about whether the poverty-related attainment gap is closing as a result of the ASF, feedback was mixed. The most common response tended to be that some progress had been made, but that the issue was a complex, long-standing one and was unlikely to be resolved purely as a result of the ASF.

Case study schools in the most deprived areas noted that since nearly all of their pupils were in the most deprived quintiles, there was no meaningful ‘gap’ to track, so they were focusing on whole-school approaches and tracking progress against a baseline, rather than closing the gap between groups of pupils specifically. Conversely, where initiatives had been implemented across the whole school, some respondents noted that all pupils had seen improvements – i.e. the approaches were successful in raising attainment, but for all pupils, not just those living in the most deprived areas, so the gap had remained despite improvements overall.

Some respondents gave examples of the gap having closed – this was often the case for specific cohorts or pupils who had received targeted support or interventions. However, others did not feel able to say the gap had closed, for various reasons. Some felt it is simply not possible to close the gap completely: they said that the impacts of poverty are so entrenched, and so hard to combat, that there is a limit to what schools can achieve in this area. Some noted that pupils are only in school for a certain amount of time and it is not possible to counter the effects of the external factors affecting children and young people outside of education.

Impacts of the ASF on wider achievements/opportunities

All case study schools noted impacts on wider achievements/opportunities – including access to specific activities and experiences. A range of ‘softer’ outcomes were also noted such as confidence building and development of leadership skills.

The ASF provided pupils with access to a range of experiences e.g. trips, residentials and educational visits which were said to be otherwise totally out of reach for pupils affected by poverty. As well as being able to participate in trips and events, respondents stressed the importance of the wider experience for children and young people. Equity and inclusion was highlighted as a key benefit, as approaches ensured that all pupils felt they could take part with their peers without having to worry about how it would be paid for.

Some of the trips mentioned specifically focused on confidence building activities, and ‘softer’ outcomes such as increased confidence and self-esteem were mentioned as impacts of these ASF-funded activities. Pupils who fed back on these activities also reported increased confidence as a result of taking part, and staff said that this had a wider positive impact on academic achievement.

Secondary case study schools that had introduced specific programmes and new qualifications also said that the ASF had enabled them to offer a wider curricular experience for pupils, and these courses provided other opportunities beyond school. Staff at secondary schools were also likely to mention an impact in terms of the development of ‘soft skills’ (leadership, teamwork, communication etc.) and how important these were for positive post-school destinations.

Factors for success and challenges/barriers to closing the poverty-related attainment gap

Reflecting the focus on staffing as the main use of ASF funding, having staff available to deliver support and interventions was noted as the key factor for success. The main challenge to greater progress was the wider societal/economic context, i.e. the long-standing impacts of poverty.

Key factors identified as contributing to progress included: having funding available for staffing resource (both for delivering specific interventions, and for wider work on family and pupil engagement/support); the focus on wellbeing/nurture, readiness to learn and being able to address financial barriers/cost of the school day issues; being able to fund dedicated study support; and a range of factors regarding leadership and staff commitment. Headteachers having control over PEF spending was also noted as being very important to meeting local needs, based on knowledge of their school community: a specific reported benefit of PEF was the flexibility to provide support based on the local context.

A number of challenges/barriers to progress were also noted, including the long-standing impacts of poverty and wider societal/contextual factors. Schools feel they are ‘swimming against the tide’ and the ASF can only help them deal with the symptoms rather than the causes of poverty. Issues with parental engagement (often seen to be a result of parents/carers’ own school experiences and a consequent lack of trust in the education system), and schools having to meet many basic needs and act as a wider support for the community were also mentioned in this context. The after-effects of COVID-19 and associated mental health needs, and rising ASN requirements, were also mentioned across all case study schools as a barrier to further progress in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

Embeddedness of approaches

Understanding of the challenges experienced by pupils affected by poverty, and approaches to supporting them, were embedded across the majority of case study schools.

Respondents at all of the case study schools felt they had a good understanding of the issues faced by pupils affected by poverty. Respondents at several schools, particularly those in the most deprived areas, were very used to seeing these types of challenges and said it was the norm for them. Those working in less deprived areas also generally had a good understanding, in some instances due to initiatives such as cost of the school day training, nurture training, and other information sharing such as presentations by headteachers etc. Some respondents also noted that ASF-funded training and PEF-funded roles had led to improvements in understanding in this area within their schools.

There was evidence of approaches being embedded throughout the majority of the case study schools, and agreement about this from a wide range of staff working in different roles who took part in the research: feedback from support staff as well as senior leaders suggested that most schools were definitely applying a whole-school approach to supporting pupils affected by poverty. Respondents at a minority of the case study schools noted that some staff had needed persuading about the benefit of certain initiatives, but said that evidence of successful PEF-funded initiatives has led to increased staff buy-in and engagement with these issues over time.

Specific examples were given of learning and teaching approaches being embedded, particularly where the ASF had funded roles with a remit to focus on specific aspects such as literacy attainment. This was most often the case where PEF-funded staff had shared training/approaches with other staff or supported delivery themselves. Other aspects of support were said to be embedded, as well as learning and teaching approaches. This included a focus on addressing financial barriers, while reducing stigma/ensuring dignity, and whole-school approaches focusing on nurture.

Culture and ethos

Inclusivity, nurture and support for health and wellbeing were commonly identified as being key to schools’ culture and ethos in relation to supporting children and young people affected by poverty.

When asked about the culture and ethos of their schools in supporting pupils affected by poverty, respondents most often mentioned a focus on inclusivity, nurture and support for health and wellbeing. Whole-school approaches to nurture were commonly highlighted as a feature of case study schools, as was being aware of the challenges facing pupils from the most deprived areas.

Ensuring there is no stigma in seeking support (including not making it obvious when support is provided, and ensuring nobody feels judged if they ask for help) was commonly mentioned: for much PEF-funded support, pupils were not aware they were being targeted on the basis of deprivation/need.

Various aspects of school leadership, commitment to supporting pupils affected by poverty and staff teams working collaboratively to do this were also noted as part of schools’ culture and ethos, along with celebrating all kinds of achievements and promoting aspiration for all pupils.

Sustainability

Some elements were said to be sustainable, but since most ASF funding was used for staffing, and addressing financial barriers to education requires resources, there were concerns about the sustainability of ASF-funded approaches.

Where the ASF had been used to purchase equipment/resources, set up specific facilities and enabled upskilling and training of staff, respondents reported that approaches were sustainable beyond the current phase of the programme. It was also noted that cultural changes/whole-school approaches, increased focus on data and evidence, and impacts on staff leadership capacity would continue regardless of the funding in place.

However, respondents at all of the case study schools had concerns about sustainability and highlighted a number of issues in this area. The key concern about sustainability related to staffing, since the main use of the funding was to provide staffing resource to deliver initiatives and take on specific roles in relation to closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Respondents were very concerned that interventions currently in place would have to stop without funding, because of the focus on using staffing resource to provide targeted resource-intensive support. Headteachers also noted that without PEF funding to support promoted posts, the system would rely on good will, which was not felt to be fair or sustainable – particularly given what were described as ever-increasing needs within schools.

As well as staffing costs, respondents noted that a lot of the support that is currently being provided to address financial barriers to learning and cost of the school day issues require, by their nature, money. Without the ASF, respondents said a huge gap would be left in terms of being able to provide food, uniform, school equipment etc. to pupils who struggle with the cost of the school day.

Staff at all levels within the case study schools commonly said that PEF funding had become absolutely essential and there were high levels of concern about being able to meet pupils’ needs without it. Several respondents commented that the ASF should be made permanent: as needs among pupils are increasing, some kind of continued support was said to be crucial.

Conclusions

The importance of local context

Throughout the case study research, it was evident that schools were tailoring their approaches based on analysis of local needs, and that working in the context of particularly high levels of deprivation influenced the use of ASF funding. For example, those based in the most deprived areas were particularly likely to have adopted whole-school approaches focusing on nurture, health and wellbeing.

Readiness to learn and pupil wellbeing

Improving pupils’ readiness to learn through focusing on engagement, attendance, confidence and wellbeing is a crucial element of the Scottish Attainment Challenge mission, and evidence from the case studies confirms that this has been a key focus for schools.

Respondents noted that a key barrier for pupils affected by poverty is simply not being ready to learn, and improving health and wellbeing and engagement with school was therefore a crucial precursor to improving attainment. PEF had been used in a wide variety of ways to achieve this, including a strong focus on nurture provision, emotional and mental health resources/programmes, and wide-ranging practical support to address financial/cost of the school day barriers to learning. A range of approaches had also been introduced to increase engagement and attendance, including work with families through PEF-funded roles such as home-school link workers, family learning teams, outreach workers and attendance-related roles, which was described as being vital because evidence shows that lack of parental engagement can be a key barrier for pupils affected by poverty.

This focus on wellbeing has meant that the ASF was reported to have had a positive impact on health and wellbeing and readiness to learn. Pupils noted they had access to the resources they needed to be ready to learn and school staff had observed improvements particularly among those pupils receiving targeted nurture support. Numerous examples were given of pupils who were now attending school and engaging with learning as a direct result of receiving ASF-funded support. For schools prioritising health and wellbeing and nurture as the first step to improving attainment, improvements in readiness to learn were therefore the key outcomes of ASF funding.

ASF contribution to progress/closing the poverty-related attainment gap

Two of the key evaluation questions focused on the extent to which the ASF has contributed to a closing of the attainment gap between the most and least socio-economically disadvantaged children and young people, and the extent to which there has been progress towards achieving outcomes.

Overall, there was positive feedback about the impacts of the ASF on literacy and numeracy attainment, including examples of positive impacts on attainment across the school and for specific pupils benefiting from PEF-funded resources and/or targeted interventions.

Views across case study respondents were more mixed in relation to whether the poverty-related attainment gap had closed. Although respondents suggested that some progress has been made, they noted that the issue was a complex, long-standing one which was unlikely to be resolved purely as a result of the ASF. Schools in the most deprived areas also noted that the high proportion of pupils in the most deprived quintiles meant that there was no meaningful ‘gap’ to track, often reflected in a whole-school approach to raising attainment more generally.

It was also commonly highlighted, across all types of school, that not all outcomes of the ASF are necessarily measurable or quantifiable, and that progress for individual pupils may be transformational even if this is not reflected in attainment data or a measurable closing of the gap overall. Such outcomes included examples of children and young people engaging with/choosing to stay on at school and achieving qualifications specifically because of PEF-funded support.

Factors for success and challenges/barriers to closing the poverty-related attainment gap

Key factors contributing to progress included: having funding for staffing resource to deliver specific interventions and provide wider support; the focus on wellbeing/ nurture, readiness to learn and being able to address financial barriers; being able to fund dedicated study support; and a range of factors regarding leadership and staff commitment. Headteachers having control over PEF spending was also noted as being very important to meeting local needs.

A number of challenges/barriers to progress were also noted, including the long-standing impacts of poverty and wider societal/contextual factors: schools feel they are ‘swimming against the tide’ and the ASF can only help them deal with the symptoms rather than the causes of poverty. Issues with parental engagement and schools having to meet many basic needs and act as a wider support for the community were also mentioned, as were the after-effects of COVID-19 and rising ASN requirements. Given this context, the general perception was that while the ASF may not have closed the gap as much as respondents would have liked, it has been vital in ‘holding the line’ against any further widening of the gap.

ASF contribution to wider opportunities and broader achievements

The evaluation aims also focused on the extent to which the Fund has contributed to an education system which encourages, reflects and values the breadth of achievements that contribute to improved outcomes for children and young people.

There was strong evidence across the case studies that the ASF has provided pupils with access to wider opportunities, including access to educational trips, residentials, cultural experiences, outdoor learning, programmes such as Columba 1400, the Duke of Edinburgh award, and other clubs and team building activities. Some secondary schools highlighted that the ASF had allowed them to expand the curriculum to include new qualifications such as barista training, beekeeping, volunteering, leadership/coaching etc.

Respondents also noted a range of impacts of these kinds of wider opportunities for pupils, in terms of being able to access experiences they would be unlikely to have otherwise and feeling included in trips/activities; and also impacts in relation to softer outcomes such as increased confidence and self-esteem, the development of ‘soft skills’ (leadership, teamwork, communication etc.), and achieving qualifications and positive destinations.

Embeddedness, culture and ethos

Respondents tended to describe their school’s culture and ethos as being supportive, nurturing, inclusive, aspirational for all, and ensuring there was no stigma associated with seeking support. Approaches to supporting pupils affected by poverty were generally felt to be embedded across the case study schools, with staff at all levels expressing a high level of understanding of the issues and challenges faced, and involved in a collaborative approach to support those who need it.

There was also evidence of learning and teaching approaches being embedded across the school, particularly where specific resources or programmes had been introduced, where the ASF had funded roles with a remit to focus on specific aspects such as literacy attainment, and/or where PEF-funded staff had shared training/approaches with other staff or supported delivery themselves throughout their school. However, since some ASF funding was used for targeted interventions, these specific learning and teaching approaches were often used with small groups of pupils rather than being implemented across the whole school.

Wider impacts

There was evidence of wider/secondary benefits of the ASF funding, beyond its intended focus of closing the poverty-related attainment gap, including the development of leadership skills for school staff working in PEF-funded promoted posts; benefits for all pupils (not only those receiving targeted support) due to increased capacity among other teaching staff when PEF-funded staff were supporting specific pupils; and increased capacity at the senior leadership level to focus on broader strategy and other school processes/improvements, which was said to benefit the whole school more widely.

Sustainability

Aspects of the ASF funding identified as being sustainable included: one-off purchases of equipment/resources and the setting up of facilities; upskilling and training of staff; cultural changes and whole-school approaches; an increased focus on data and evidence; and impacts on staff leadership capacity. However, the key concern about sustainability related to staffing: without the funding, respondents said that a lot of the initiatives and support would simply no longer be possible as there would be no staff to deliver them. It was also noted that financial support provided to pupils via cost of the school day initiatives would not be sustainable without funding.

Conclusion

The case study research findings indicate that the ASF has supported the introduction of a wide range of supports across Scottish schools, with a variety of positive impacts reported.

There was a consistently strong perception across all case study schools that the ASF has been crucial for them in supporting children and young people affected by poverty. However, respondents often found it quite difficult to attribute specific impacts to this funding in isolation from wider work being undertaken by schools and activities funded from a range of other sources, since a lot of initiatives were part-funded by PEF and ‘topped up’ with other funding.

Findings also suggest that support will continue to be required in the future, due to the challenges that remain in terms of addressing educational inequalities in the context of increasing needs – both in relation to rising levels of additional support needs, and the ongoing impacts of poverty on pupils, particularly those living in the most deprived areas.