Attainment Scotland Fund evaluation: case study research 2025

Research findings – context, approaches and funding

Context and background understanding

Local context

As noted in the method section, a range of schools was included in the case study research in order to obtain insights covering a variety of circumstances in terms of levels of deprivation, urban/rural areas, school type and size etc. While the type of school did have some impact on experiences, there were also commonalities across the case studies.

The proportion of pupils living in areas of multiple deprivation affected how schools approached the use of ASF funding. For schools in the most deprived areas, a whole-school approach was likely to be adopted, since a high proportion of pupils fell into the deprived groups. These schools also tended to have a particular focus on nurture, health and wellbeing and readiness to learn, which they said had to be addressed due to the challenges the most deprived pupils face, before being able to focus on attainment. Conversely, those in more affluent areas tended to use a more targeted approach so that support reached the most deprived pupils – they therefore faced different challenges around how to do this while avoiding stigma or being seen to single pupils out.

There were also some differences noted based on rurality. For example, schools in more rural areas highlighted some slightly different issues such as accessibility/ transport issues (e.g. low levels of car ownership and reliance on public transport) and employment poverty (since changes in local employment such as closure of large employers in the area affect the whole community). A couple of the schools classed as urban had large catchment areas, including pupils living in rural areas, so some of their pupils faced similar issues as those attending schools in areas classed as rural. Those with wider catchment areas also noted that this was a specific challenge, for example in supporting attendance or delivering family link/ outreach work across large geographical areas.

The urban case studies tended to be more likely to be in the most deprived areas and reported some of the more extreme examples of the impacts of poverty on pupils (including the impact of absolute financial hardship, and issues that can be associated with this such as substance use, mental health issues and domestic violence etc.). Some schools in larger urban areas also noted that they had higher levels of English as an Additional Language (EAL) support needs, as immigrant populations were more likely to be located in these areas.

However, much of the feedback was consistent across case studies and similar issues were identified across schools, in all types of area – particularly the long-term effects of COVID-19 and increasing levels of Additional Support Needs (ASN). The ongoing impact of COVID-19 was commonly mentioned, due to the challenges faced by children and young people who had experienced the pandemic at a crucial stage of their development. Longer-term impacts on mental health issues such as anxiety and resulting issues for school attendance were highlighted. All types of school also reported increasing levels of ASN: they said that meeting these growing additional support 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.

“We have real intersectionalities, both in terms of the impact of poverty but also the impact of additional support needs. The two often go hand in hand… so we do tend to find that developmentally our young people do have quite a lot of significant challenges.” (Secondary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Understanding of the Scottish Attainment Challenge mission

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. Many had been working in schools for several years (in some instances, decades) and had a good background understanding of the need to close the poverty-related attainment gap, although their length of involvement in education did mean that people tended not to be able to identify how they had first heard of the Scottish Attainment Challenge. Some case study schools were in local authorities which previously received Challenge Authority funding^[5] and staff referred to receiving ‘SAC money’ in the past.

Senior staff, particularly headteachers, were generally familiar with the Scottish Attainment Challenge, and noted that it was discussed at various headteacher/ depute meetings and working groups, at Continuous Professional Development (CPD)/training sessions and local authority events etc. One school also mentioned they had received presentations from Education Scotland about the Scottish Attainment Challenge. However, it is worth noting that most respondents associated the Scottish Attainment Challenge with PEF funding (see the later discussion on funding streams) and while they had a good understanding of what PEF funding was for, some of the wider policy/strategy terminology was less familiar, even for some headteachers.

“There’s a lot of different acronyms… You know, Scottish Attainment Funding, SAC, SEF, PEF… Sometimes when you’re working in a school it’s very hard to keep abreast of all the titles…. ASF… I’ve not really heard of that before. It’s more SAC which is Scottish Attainment Challenge and SEF which is something equity funding, Strategic Equity Funding, and then you’ve got PEF which is Pupil Equity.” (Secondary headteacher, Remote small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

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.

“It [the SAC mission] was just about that equity to try and have that balance and trying to put that support in place, but that you are trying to raise attainment, close the poverty gap and make it equitable for all across the board and trying to prioritise what is going to make the biggest impact for our young people.” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

That said, some respondents did highlight that while focusing on the attainment gap was understood as an important goal, attainment is not the only measure of success for their pupils:

“It’s not just about attainment, it’s about poverty of care, poverty of experience for our young people as well, which is where a lot of our PEF funding strategically goes towards.” (Secondary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“It’s about closing the attainment gap and looking at the gap between more affluent areas and more deprived areas, and looking at how do we boost that learning, and also the gap that’s started before children are even in school, like with vocabulary and things like that… For a lot of children, they’re not going to be in a place to learn until they’ve had those developmental gaps filled in… Without that wellbeing, the attainment’s really hard.” (Secondary teacher, Other urban, <25% SIMD 1&2)

Understanding of the challenges and barriers for pupils affected by poverty

Staff at all case study schools identified a range of challenges and barriers faced by pupils affected by poverty. Those working in the most deprived areas saw this to a greater extent, but even in the least deprived areas there were examples of pupils facing issues due to poverty – the nature of the problems was not necessarily seen to be different; it was the scale of the issue that was a greater challenge in the most deprived areas.

The challenges and barriers identified fell into the following categories:

• Pupils coming to school hungry, tired, and stressed – so they are not ready to learn
• Practical issues related to financial barriers/the cost of the school day – a lack of equipment, not having appropriate clothing etc. Poor housing was also mentioned as leading to practical problems such as not having a suitable space to do homework
• 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: dysregulated behaviour, lack of self-esteem, lack of confidence and poor resilience were all commonly mentioned
• Poor parental engagement with school, including lack of support with education at home, e.g. not reading to children or encouraging them to do homework etc.
• Poor attendance and lack of engagement with school: as well as pupils not attending at all, several schools mentioned pupils who may come to school but not go to classes
• Lack of access to experiences that those from more affluent families may have (e.g. days out, educational experiences, access to tutors)
• Children and young people with carer experience (e.g. having to care for parents or siblings at home).

Respondents highlighted that there are numerous issues faced by children and young people living in poverty and that this leads to complex issues for their learning and experience at school.

“It’s to do with the literacy deficit, it’s to do with additional support needs, but it’s also to do with things like child protection cases, trauma in families, illness in this community is significant so you will have a lot of young people who’ve experienced a lot of loss quite early in their lives, and that impacts how well people can learn.” (Secondary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“[We see] a lot of dysregulation. Children who perhaps have experienced traumatic events throughout their life, but also at the weekend, you know… We see a lot of children who do not have any resilience in any shape or form. Really struggle with relationships, whether it’s with adults or with other children, which can quite often lead to aggressive and violent behaviour… We also have the fact that they’re not fed in the morning… They don’t have the right clothing, jackets and shoes that are sturdy for the winter… Lots of children who are unclean, you know, and have… as I say, quite sad lives.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

For many, lack of parental engagement was perceived as the key challenge underpinning other problems such as lack of attendance and engagement, since having a strong link between home and school is vital in ensuring pupils value and engage with education:

“We really struggle to get families in here even for conversations… That, for our children, can be a huge barrier for them because they are not seeing that link between school and home.” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

It was also clear that, particularly in the most deprived areas, schools were providing wider support for families at points of crisis and noted that their approaches to supporting pupils began with wider family support and engagement (see also the later section on how ASF funding has been used).

“We’re very open around that, our parents are really aware that we support. We’ve got food vouchers as well that we can access… we can give that instant help when families are in crisis as well. Because I find within our school community, we are the first point of call for a family in crisis, and then we’re the ones that need to then seek the right supports for them.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

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 can lead to intergenerational issues – many noted that the ‘cycle of poverty’ is very hard to break.

“I think one of the things we probably struggle with at times is… pupil expectation for what the future holds, and we do see… not hopelessness, but almost, kind of, like, ‘what does it matter?’… I suppose what we’ve got is generational and increasingly, you know, another generation of families who don’t work.” (Primary headteacher, Other urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“In terms of aspiration, there's a lot of pupils… whose parents have maybe never went onto further education, or never reached a positive destination. So, it's trying to instil that positive mentality and mindset as early as possible.” (Secondary teacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Evidence suggests that understanding of these challenges has increased in recent years, but not necessarily (or only) as a direct result of the Scottish Attainment Challenge. Respondents commonly mentioned an increase in issues faced by families post-COVID, due to the cost of living crisis and the state of the economy generally – so school staff are seeing more pupils affected by poverty, including more affected by extreme poverty, and awareness is therefore increasing.

Funding streams

Pupil Equity Funding (PEF) is 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. This funding stream was the main focus for all of the case study schools. 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. PEF was viewed as a separate resource, and activity using this funding was reported on to local authorities, so respondents were very clear that ASF funding did not just get added to the general school budget – although several commented that, with budget cuts affecting schools, PEF was sometimes allocated to things they would do with a larger central budget if it was available (see also the later section on sustainability).

While awareness of PEF was highest among senior staff and those in a PEF-funded role, other groups were also familiar with it and had a broad understanding of what it was. For example, parents included in the research, and some pupils, were familiar with the term and had at least some awareness of what it was used for (see also the section on parental involvement in developing approaches).

Strategic Equity Funding (SEF) is distributed annually to every local authority based on Children in Low Income Families Data. Awareness of this funding stream within the case study schools was relatively low – while some respondents were aware of it generally, none had very detailed knowledge of how it was used. Some mentioned various local authority funding that they thought could be part of SEF, but they tended to be fairly vague about which local authority activities were funded specifically by this ASF funding stream. For those who were based in the previous Challenge Authorities, there was also some confusion between previous ‘SAC money’ and SEF; some referred to ‘SEF’ as if it was the same as the ‘attainment challenge’.

“I wouldn’t say I had as clear a vision [for SEF as for PEF] but I think that’s probably just because I know so much more obviously about my own school and my own setting. I do understand that there is this strategic money that goes to the local authority. I’ve got to be honest, I don’t have a strong knowledge of exactly how that is spent or how they use it across the piece. No, I don’t.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Exceptions included:

• One respondent had previously worked in a SEF-funded secondment at their local authority
• Staff in one school thought that SEF funding had been used to develop some of the resources available to them (a local authority literacy framework that schools can adapt)
• Learning assistants at one school had received training through SEF, to deliver the ‘Number Blocks’ numeracy programme – this was organised centrally by the local authority for staff working at several schools: “Which is great, because actually, we then have that skill within… and it then disseminates down to everybody.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)
• Family learning staff were aware of some other roles in their team which were funded by SEF (although the role at this particular school was PEF-funded)
• One school mentioned an authority-wide publicity campaign aiming to increase attendance and thought this may have been funded via SEF.

Care Experienced Children and Young People (CECYP) Funding is provided to local authorities based on the number of looked after children in their area and enables them to target initiatives, activities, and resources that will improve the educational outcomes of this group of children and young people. As with SEF, awareness of CECYP funding was low. Staff at several schools reported that they did not have high numbers of CECYP, or that they were more likely to have pupils in informal kinship care arrangements. Some mentioned that pupils with care experience are supported in other ways, including by pupil support staff and/or via other local authority funding – although again it may be that they were unaware of which funding streams were used for specific activities.

“I would have to pass, I’m not sure, it’s not something that comes across my radar in here is a budget, we’re going to have to manage this. We do have a care experienced champions board… I suppose we are funded by way of a couple of members of staff coming and working with our care experienced young people… I’m not paying their wages, it’s not a part of our funding or staffing quota but we do have somebody that comes in a couple of times a week… So, we do get support for that, so there probably is [funding] but I don’t know how much.” (Secondary headteacher, Remote small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

Three of the secondary case study schools mentioned MCR pathways^[6], a mentoring programme for children and young people who have experienced care or those who have experienced disadvantage, in relation to supporting pupils with care experience (see the later section on wider collaboration) – but there was some confusion about how this is funded and whether it is via the ASF CECYP funding stream.

A few headteachers were aware that Virtual Headteachers were available for support and one school mentioned their pupils engaging with a virtual school, although this headteacher thought this might be funded via SEF rather than CECYP funding.

“Our Virtual School, which is providing for our most disengaged. So, ones that we can't even provide for in mainstream, or school, or co-located level. Young people with really significant situations, care experienced learners for the most part, maybe young people in children’s houses, quite often would be accessing [the Virtual School] and that’s a really excellent support.” (Secondary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

How approaches were developed

Responding to local contexts and needs

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. Since most other school funding is ring-fenced, headteachers appreciated the flexibility offered by PEF, and the chance to be creative with how funding is used to meet the needs of the school community.

“My background is very much in the creative side of things and I’ve really thoroughly enjoyed planning through all of this and actually seeing it being a success as well… What it’s allowed me do as well in terms of thinking out of the box and problem-solving… I would say the Scottish Government Attainment Fund money has been the only time where you’ve actually had the ability to be creative with thinking about what you’re doing.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

“Most of my other funding streams, the decisions are already made… PEF is the only one that I have any real flexibility over… it's the only time that I can contextually look at my school and go, ‘this school needs X’… [We] need that autonomy over context-driven decisions around money. Because unless you're in the school… you can't possibly know what our budget needs to be, or what it needs to be spent on.” (Secondary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Several of the staff teams in the case study schools had a lot of local knowledge having lived in the area for a long time, so felt they were well able to judge what the local community needed.

“I think what the PEF funding is, it enables you to really use it in a bespoke way for your community, knowing who they are.” (Secondary teacher, Accessible small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

Approaches were also developed with the specific needs of pupils in mind, based on the demographic profile of the school and area. For example, PEF funding was used in one school to provide English as an Additional Language support because of the number of languages spoken in the school; in another school, the specific needs of minority ethnic pupils led to the development of an anti-racism club^[7].

“I’m just going to speak bluntly, if you are an immigrant, if you are black, coming into Scotland, you are likely ending up in an area pretty much similar to this… There are about 25 different languages spoken in this school. We don’t have any additional EAL capacity. We have one woman who’s funded by PEF who comes one day a week, so that’s another person that is funded by PEF.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Approaches were most often developed by headteachers in discussion with other school staff, based on their local knowledge. This included consultation/surveys with staff, presentations about the funding and what might be planned in terms of using it etc. Where specific pupils were identified as needing targeted support, teachers and other staff often fed into discussions about who to support and what interventions would be most effective. Staff consultation took place via formal meetings/presentations and surveys etc. but was also commonly reported to happen on an ad hoc basis, e.g. staff mentioned going to headteachers with ideas on an ongoing basis.

Use of data in developing approaches

A key focus for most headteachers was basing decisions on data: when asked about the development of approaches they mentioned looking at what the data suggested for their school – e.g. they had looked at attendance data, 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. Some other data sources were mentioned including child protection disclosures and police reports. Respondents also noted that approaches could change and develop over time – if things were not judged to be working well, they would be altered (see the later section on the use of data and evidence).

Collaboration in developing approaches

Some respondents reported input from local authority staff, Attainment Advisors, and use of Education Scotland resources, such as discussions with Attainment Advisors as part of PEF planning (Advisors sometimes reviewed PEF plans during their development, providing ‘support and challenge’), or using Education Scotland materials such as those developed by Strategic Pedagogy Leads. One school mentioned using the Equity Toolkit^[8] around support for cost of the school day, and another mentioned specific support from Education Scotland to develop a more structured approach to allocating PEF and measuring outcomes. Some schools also mentioned other sources of information/resources to help develop approaches, e.g. the Education Endowment Foundation.^[9]

Discussion with other schools in the area, visiting each other and discussing ideas at headteacher cluster meetings etc. was also mentioned as part of the development of approaches. Some respondents mentioned networks set up at the local authority level which enabled sharing of good practice when developing approaches:

“I think having networks as well… The equity network within the council has definitely helped, because you’re then able to have that rich and challenging conversation with other people around how they do it as well, and the sharing of good practice and stuff as well.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

A specific approach highlighted by the remote rural school in the case study sample related to working together with the other schools in their area to try and identify any benefits in pooling resources and some of the funding, e.g. for shared staff training.

However, most headteachers said that while other resources and contacts were helpful, the key contributions to developing approaches were from staff within their own schools.

Changes in approaches over time

There were some examples of schools changing their approaches over time, sometimes due to a change in personnel, such as a new headteacher moving to the school and reviewing approaches, and/or in response to evidence from evaluation of interventions (see the later section on the use of data/monitoring progress). For example:

• One secondary case study school, with a relatively high proportion of pupils living in deprived areas, noted that their model has changed over time from a very targeted focus on literacy and numeracy interventions for specific pupils to a broader, more holistic and universal approach, as they found that this had a bigger impact and all pupils benefited: “I would say in the journey of this over these years, we have become very skilled and a really holistic approach to a lot of things… Very focused, small, targeted [approaches], we still have that, but we also have a much more universal offering now where everybody rises when the water rises. And that’s actually better for the school as well, as a whole.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)
• A primary case study school, also in a deprived area, had reviewed approaches when the current headteacher came into post and adjusted their use of funding to focus specifically on nurture provision and wellbeing. Staff at this school also noted that their improved use of data to evaluate approaches had been used to adjust interventions over time
• Reflecting comments made about data limitations (see the later section on the use of data and evidence), some respondents noted that approaches were updated over time as the data that had initially been used to target interventions (for example, free school meal entitlement) did not always identify the pupils with the greatest need, and a more tailored approach was required
• Another primary school noted that their approaches had changed by necessity because of the amount of funding they received, which was now at a lower level than when they had received Challenge Authority funding (see the later section on sustainability). This meant they could no longer employ the same number of additional staff and they had needed to prioritise how their funding was targeted.

Collaboration with pupils, families and communities in developing approaches

Feedback was quite mixed in relation to collaboration with families and communities in developing approaches. It was fairly common for respondents to note that parental engagement was an issue, particularly in the most deprived areas. This was often thought to reflect negative experiences that parents/carers had of their own school days, a general lack of trust in professionals/authorities, and mental health and other challenges making it hard for them to engage with school.

“We wonder whether it is a bit of a barrier from the adults, based on their school experiences and… they don’t really want to come into schools because they have not had that particularly positive experience.” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Where this was raised as an issue, parents/carers did not tend to be particularly involved in developing approaches, although schools did generally try to canvas opinion through surveys and at parents’ evenings etc.

However, others reported that they had quite engaged parents/carers, e.g. some worked closely with very active parent councils. Several schools gave examples of consultation with parents/carers feeding into development of approaches to support pupils affected by poverty, e.g. discussions with family groups/parent councils, parent surveys, parental workshops to explain specific approaches being implemented (e.g. reading programmes being introduced) etc. Information was often included in school newsletters and updates to explain what PEF is being used for and asking for any feedback from families – although some schools did note that parents/carers were often happy to leave these decisions to the school.

“I engage with our parent council about utilisation of PEF funding, and what we’re doing, and ask them for any ideas, and suggestions, and whatnot. More often than not, they tend to say, not just with that, but with things like curriculum, ‘that’s your job’.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 25-49% SIMD 1&2)

Parents who took part in the case study research also noted that they felt engaged in the process and schools did consult with a wide range of community stakeholders to help inform approaches:

“If people have got an idea, whether it’s a child… or a parent or somebody in the community, a partner, stakeholder, whoever, comes with an idea… it will be thought about.” (Secondary parent, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Where individualised support was provided (e.g. through specific interventions for pupils with the highest levels of need), parents/carers tended to be consulted more closely and schools tried to involve them in decisions about the approaches being put in place. This was more about parental involvement in each child’s education rather than the development of approaches as part of the ASF, however.

Children and young people provided at least some input to developing approaches in most schools, and respondents gave examples of pupils helping to develop specific ideas for how to use PEF funding. This included pupils providing ideas via pupil councils/student parliaments which led to specific resources being provided, such as a primary school providing a ‘support box’ with specific equipment (fidget toys and ear defenders), and a secondary school installing CCTV in response to student feedback.

Pupils at another secondary school were involved in a ‘cost of the school day’ group looking at ways to address financial barriers to education, which led to the school stocking specific locations throughout the building with resources available for pupils. One example was also provided of participatory budgeting^[10], where P7 pupils led a project to decide how to spend some of the money.

“Those things like stationery packs and wellbeing packs and toiletry packs and all those kinds of things, they came from working groups with the young people themselves. Looking at what would be needed, what would you need in the school… That work was all done with the pupils’ voice.” (Secondary parent, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

How ASF funding has been used

Staffing

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. This included specific posts to deliver certain support/initiatives, such as learning assistants, pupil support workers to staff specific spaces/sessions, dedicated nurture staff to support those with the greatest levels of need, specific roles such as English as an Additional Language support, pupil equity officers, family support workers, and roles focusing on home-school links/engagement and attendance etc.

Several schools employed staff to focus on teaching and learning or with a specific remit for raising attainment. Others, particularly larger schools, employed staff to lead the school’s work on PEF (e.g. at depute head level), to ensure senior staff had responsibility for taking forward work focusing on equity across the whole school and closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

Some funding was also used for staffing in specific areas such as counselling and family learning staff, although these were not directly employed by the school; funding was used for them to spend a set amount of time within the school each week as part of their employment in other services.

It is worth noting that some of the additional staff were undertaking a wide range of roles/activities – for example, learning assistants who were supporting individual pupils but also running after school or breakfast clubs, helping within individual classes as well as running reading groups, providing nurture support, delivering outdoor skills sessions, etc.

“Everybody knows that, you know, the greatest thing is labour, is people… That can make the biggest difference. ’Cause we need people to deliver the interventions that we need to deliver.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

“There have been boots on the ground, as in actual teachers to intervene and help young people attain.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Several of the case study schools noted that they used the funding to provide the salary uplift for promoted posts rather than employing additional staff, so that existing staff took on specific roles in relation to closing the poverty-related attainment gap (e.g. Principal Teacher roles in relation to literacy/numeracy, equity, inclusion, PEF generally; roles with a data focus, attainment or attendance leads etc.). This approach had benefits for the sustainability of approaches via upskilling of existing staff (see the sustainability section later in this report) and also meant that a relatively small additional uplift was required rather than spending a larger proportion of the funding on recruiting additional staff.

“For me, staffing makes the biggest difference. Bodies on the floor makes the biggest difference. That’s how we can meet children’s needs, day in, day out, whether that’s in the class working with children, doing group work with the children, or whether that’s working with individual children to support their needs.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Health and wellbeing and readiness to learn

For most of the case study schools, particularly but not exclusively in the most deprived areas, the key focus of ASF-funded activity was health and wellbeing, engagement in school and readiness to learn. Respondents highlighted that a key barrier for pupils affected by poverty is simply not being ready to learn, and a range of supports were needed to build the foundations for learning before schools could consider improving attainment. While a key aim of the ASF is closing the gap in relation to attainment, a key focus of case study schools’ use of PEF funding was therefore supporting wider pupil wellbeing and readiness to learn – as this was seen to have a positive impact on engagement with school and consequently attainment:

“If we can achieve the children feeling happier and settled, if they’ve got a full stomach and they’re not concentrating on their hunger, if they’re able to build up positive relationships with other pupils in the school… and just get that whole positive experience of school, then that will have an impact in the classroom when the learning is taking place, they’ll be more engaged with the learning, they’ll be more attentive, they’ll be more present in the classroom than maybe they would have been.” (Primary senior leader, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

There was a strong focus on nurture, e.g. the introduction of nurture spaces to address dysregulated behaviour and encourage attendance. Some schools had used the ASF for the physical creation of spaces and purchase of equipment, and some was spent on staffing these facilities. Some use of these spaces was for pupils who needed specific support all the time (e.g. those unable to attend the classroom for a full day), and others were used as a drop-in space as and when needed.

“There’s been a lot of things that we’ve changed based on the needs within our school community, and I suppose one of the major things that we’ve done is created our [nurture space], which has allowed us to really target… and give those children that are significantly impacted by trauma or by poverty or ACEs^[11], to give them a space that they feel safe… It allows us to do targeted work with them, with other agencies, and to give them the support they need, which in turn has allowed the school to settle, you know, so I would generally say the behaviour in our school is good… and it’s because we’ve been able to put the interventions in that we need to do, which then allows us to focus on teaching and learning.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

A wider focus on nurture more generally was also highlighted, and several schools used ASF funding to employ nurture teachers or nurture support staff specifically to support the social development of pupils. Respondents highlighted that attainment is not the main priority for the groups that need this support; rather the purpose is to build positive foundations, trusting relationships, confidence and self-esteem and meet these pupils’ wider needs, so that they are better able to engage with school. Once those foundations are built, educational attainment is the next step for these pupils.

“We’ve now very much got a nurture approach as a whole school because for us, that is the way that we will access not only a pupil’s readiness to learn in terms of hunger, but also in terms of self-esteem… it’s also about mental health. It’s about trauma informed practice, are we aware of the fact that an awful lot of our children are in fight and flight… They’re rabbits in the headlights, they’re so affected by what they’ve been through in life that they aren’t in a place to be able to learn until we can help them deal with that.” (Secondary headteacher, Accessible small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

A focus on mental and emotional health was also highlighted, with a range of emotional literacy and wellbeing resources/programmes mentioned, including Relax Kids^[12], Emotion Works^[13] and use of Boxall Profiles.^[14] One of the primary schools had also used PEF funding to provide counselling (additional to some local authority funded work the counsellor was already doing in the school with specific age groups) and music therapy.

Other approaches included:

• ‘Soft starts’ to the day (e.g. pupil support workers timetabled to check in with specific pupils as part of the PEF plan; several schools mentioned starting the school day gently to check everyone is ready before starting lessons)
• Regular check-ins every morning to discuss any issues with pupils if needed before they start the day: “Every morning, every teacher will sit and have time to check in with every child to make sure that they are ready to come in to learn, and if there are any issues that are playing on their mind that they have got time to talk about it.” (Primary teacher, Other urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)
• Development of adjusted/reduced attendance timetables for pupils to attend school for smaller amounts of time
• For one school with early years provision, developing specific approaches to improve the transition into Primary 1 (e.g. development of play-based learning approaches to help with confidence and social skills of children and ease the transition to school)
• One secondary school had involved pupils in peer-support training with Scottish Action for Mental Health (SAMH)^[15] and pupils had started running drop-in sessions to support younger pupils: “It was someone from SAMH that came in and taught us about methods of supporting people, active listening and stuff like that, so we're able to listen to other pupils in the school, about their struggles.” (Secondary pupil, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2).

Three of the secondary case study schools also mentioned outreach provision to provide engagement with education for those pupils who were least engaged in school and felt unable to attend at all. This included delivering literacy/numeracy support and other classes at a local library or in other community settings/local hubs, home visits and wellbeing walks.

Addressing financial barriers/cost of the school day

All of the case study schools mentioned approaches to address financial barriers to education, with respondents emphasising that efforts were made to ensure all pupils had access to the resources they need in order to engage with school. For example, the ASF was used to provide:

• Support for buying uniform (e.g. uniform banks, vouchers to buy school uniform) and providing other clothing and equipment (e.g. winter clothing packs, coats, rucksacks etc.)
• Breakfast clubs/food and snacks provision (breakfast clubs were also noted as playing a key role in ‘soft starts’ to the school day, providing pupils with wider support as well as food); most schools had snacks available throughout the day
• Providing ‘starter packs’ for all S1 pupils, including things like a PE bag, water bottle, pencils, pens, calculator, rubber: “So they all have an equal start in first year” (Secondary teacher, Other urban, 25-49% SIMD 1&2), or other equipment for those that need it, e.g. calculators and Chrome books
• Specific places available for pupils to collect resources, in various locations throughout the school (equipment, stationery, hygiene products, food etc.)
• Payment for school trips and other activities (see also the wider opportunities section)
• Access to transport so that pupils could attend specific activities.

Some of these resources were made universally available – particularly in schools in the most deprived areas where a high proportion of pupils were likely to need them. Other aspects were more targeted, e.g. available to pupils in the most deprived quintiles or eligible for free school meals. In these instances, schools made efforts to ensure this was handled discreetly to avoid stigma. For example, pupils receiving support will just appear as ‘paid’ on the list for teachers organising school trips, or requests for support could be made via school websites and resources were then provided via the school office. In some instances, pupils are unaware that their parents/carers have accessed support for them.

“We also spend a lot [of ASF funding] on reducing the cost of the school day, because for our families, that is something that is absolutely a top priority for us – so whether that's helping with uniform, this year we started free breakfast in the morning, we've also extended that to creating breakfast packs that families in our learning community can come in and take away… No questions asked, no stigma, no nothing. That's some of the things we're really proud of… We also have [resource locations] where pupils can come and just take what they need, whether it's food, hygiene items or stationery items, and they're regularly topped up with funds from PEF.” (Secondary senior leader, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

A couple of the case study schools noted that they have a policy of not charging for anything associated with school (school trips, days out) and never do any activities that involve asking for money such as non-uniform days or charity fundraising etc. – as even asking for £1 for ‘dress as you please’ days has an impact on attendance.

“We have a policy within our cost of the school day is that we don’t charge families for any activity… Any trips or experiences for our children, then we would also use our Pupil Equity Funding to do that… Some of our children don’t have access to the same experiences as others, with cost being a huge barrier… So, that is something else that we use our Pupil Equity Funding to support.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

As noted earlier, one secondary school had established a ‘cost of the school day’ group involving pupils, allowing children and young people to raise awareness of the support available and help provide resources for those who need them. Pupils at this school recognised that there were costs associated with school and that support was available, and had also been involved in ensuring everyone was aware they could access this – e.g. they had helped run the breakfast club when it was set up, were involved in making sure resource hubs were stocked, and had helped administer the distribution of winter clothing packs.

“They've promoted it in assemblies and stuff as to where you can go – and it's confidential, so like nobody would know, because obviously there's a stigma against it… and there's like a fear of embarrassment as well.” (Secondary pupil, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

“I helped with the winter clothing packs, I think people submitted forms so they got exactly what they wanted, that was for uniforms so if they needed like any new jumpers or anything, and all the stuff was brand new, so.” (Secondary pupil, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Parental engagement and support for families

Parental engagement was also frequently mentioned, with support in place for families as well as pupils. Schools highlighted that engaging parents/carers was key to encouraging attendance and engagement among pupils, and was crucial in closing the poverty-related attainment gap because ‘getting them through the door’ was the first step in supporting pupils to attain.

Much of the parental support mentioned was not specifically ASF-funded, but gave a wider insight into the type of support provided to whole school communities – including things like sessions on how to help their children with homework and broader provision like employment support (CV writing, interview training etc.). Those in the most deprived areas also mentioned having to source support for families in crisis and this was seen as part of their role in the community – this included supporting parents/carers to access other services. Schools reported becoming a ‘one stop shop’ for families needing help with a range of issues.

“We offer all these services. Things like help for applying for free school meals and education maintenance allowance, help with debt, utilities, applying for funding from Scottish Government… applications, training… Our family support team… get them food from the food bank or help them if they are in debt. Housing also because we have a lot of families who are in unsuitable housing. [We] work with them and liaise with [the local authority] housing department. So, they can get in to partners and agencies that perhaps families couldn’t access themselves.” (Secondary senior leader, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Some parental engagement did involve ASF funding, mainly through PEF-funded roles, such as home-school link workers, family learning teams, outreach workers and attendance-related roles. This included work to encourage attendance, remind pupils of exam dates, update them on times/locations for things where parents/ carers were judged to be unlikely to be organising their children’s activities, advice for parents/carers on sleep and other routines, and specific information on learning and teaching approaches where relevant. For example, parents/carers were invited into school to learn about specific approaches being used and/or how to help their children at home when using particular tools/platforms. School staff also noted that often helping the parent/carer is what is needed in order to help the child.

“I like to think because we’ve got our Pupil Equity Funding, we can almost be like a one stop shop that we can have all our supports that we need for our children within our school, so that we can give them that instant help where they need it.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“Pupil and family support can go out to the home, work with the family and be that link between home and school and then go back to the teachers. The families see these people as not teachers, but link workers, family link workers, and that really works well.” (Secondary senior leader, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

“We can do loads in here for a pupil, and the second they set foot in that door when they go home, everything is reversed. So that’s why it's so important to have that link with parents, and work with them, and build the trust with them, because they're the kind of, route of how we’re going to progress.” (Secondary teacher, Other urban, 25-49% SIMD 1&2)

Feedback from parents also underlined the importance for some families of being able to access support from schools in this way:

“It's so great ’cause you can come to the school with any situation, whether it be a home matter, a school matter, or just a general child problem... No matter what it is you're going through, they do help… because they're very much like, what happens at home also affects school life, do you know what I mean, so they're always, like, checking in with us to make sure, like, is home life going OK.” (Primary parent, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Learning and teaching approaches

Specific learning and teaching interventions have been made possible by having the additional staffing resource mentioned earlier: for example, learning assistants running one-to-one or small group interventions with pupils who need literacy or numeracy support, employment of teaching staff focusing on specific literacy/ numeracy approaches etc. Some of this was targeted support aimed at pupils in the most deprived areas, and some involved using the same approaches/resources across the school.

“A few years ago I was asked to become more involved with a small group intervention approach. So looking at literacy, numeracy interventions for key pupils who… had the potential to achieve the level but just needed that extra bit of support. So some of the funding was used to get resources and assessments to identify where they are and what specific interventions would be needed moving forward… looking specifically at those in [SIMD] deciles 1 and 2. And tracking those pupils maybe more closely than others in that sense, for the benefit of reporting back for the Scottish Attainment Challenge.” (Primary senior leader, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Respondents generally noted that the ASF has not been used to implement substantial changes in teaching and learning approaches across the whole school, but has allowed specific support to be provided to certain groups, identifying those with gaps in their learning and supporting them specifically via focused interventions.

“I think it is a little bit of both because we have had obviously our [learning assistants] on different training. Then that has allowed us the flexibility to have the smaller group interventions which wouldn't necessarily be something that is worth whole class teaching… It is not big, huge teaching practices, but we have used PEF to… direct the support where we feel it is needed.” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Specific approaches mentioned included:

• Various literacy programmes/approaches including reciprocal reading (focuses on children being good, proactive readers rather than following strict reading schemes), book clubs, ‘word of the week’ (which was applied across the curriculum), the Reading Wise literacy tool, the Common Words literacy intervention, Toe by Toe for reading support
• Numeracy programmes including Sumdog, SEAL (Stage of Early Arithmetical Learning), Count on Us, Power of 2, Number Blocks, Big Maths numeracy programme, Scottish Heinemann Active Maths
• Wider pedagogical approaches such as metacognition strategies (teaching pupils how to study and learn):

“I read the Education Endowment Fund data, and I was looking for low cost, high impact stuff. And one of the things that was there was the whole approach to metacognition, which is learning how to learn… Children from many of our families, middle-class backgrounds, university educated parents, they know how to study, they know how to research… Whereas many of our youngsters who come from a more challenging, chaotic background, don't have that… So, it would pay dividends when you would get to the senior phase. And there's a range of different strategies that all departments use. And all youngsters are very comfortable with them.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 25-49% SIMD 1&2)

For several of these interventions, specific resources were also purchased using PEF funding, allowing these literacy and numeracy programmes to be taught.

“There has been a focus around learning and teaching approaches throughout the ten years that I have been here. For example, this year I had £5,000 to spend on Maths resources, so there is Maths help stations in every single classroom. The idea behind that is it is full of resources which help to promote learner independence.” (Primary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“Things like [numeracy programme] and different… small group interventions were introduced, by the SAC funding I think, originally. We were then able to get our [learning assistants] and people trained up on doing that for ourselves… And then, we’d buy different resources and things like that to support that: concrete materials for numeracy and specific, sort of, reading books for children who perhaps are showing signs of dyslexia.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

“We have targeted interventions for our S4 and S5 target group – these are young people who are living in poverty who are either sitting a selection of National 5s or Highers, and we have a teacher who works with them, buys them equipment, resources, text books – so past paper books, these are things that their parents and families could never afford.” (Secondary senior leader, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Three of the secondary case study schools also used PEF funding to provide out-of-hours study support for pupils. Some support was year-round (e.g. homework clubs after school) and some was more focused, e.g. Easter and Saturday sessions in the run-up to exams; one school also ran PEF-funded study weekends which included academic study and outdoor activities. Study support was available to all pupils in two schools (which had relatively high levels of deprivation) and was targeted at pupils in SIMD quintiles 1 and 2 in the less deprived school. Staff at these schools highlighted the importance of being able to provide additional learning and teaching support out of school hours, as their pupils would not be able to access private tutoring as other families might provide.

“We offer a really comprehensive wraparound service… They don’t have the social capital or the circumstances to ever access private tuition. Most middle class [pupils] will be tutored to death… So we will do supported study, we will do a small tutor facility of a person taking maybe three people through an Advanced Higher or something… Then we have an Easter school, two days in the first week of the Easter holidays and two days in the second week… Then we developed a Saturday school programme for the four Saturdays before the examinations.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Some schools noted that they had used a staged approach, putting support in place for wellbeing first, and were now starting to think about future interventions to tackle teaching and learning and improvements in attainment. For example, one primary headteacher had focused on the introduction of a nurture space and other wellbeing supports and was planning to employ a Principal Teacher for attainment for the next academic year.

“Their focus and their remit will be around teaching and learning with a focus of improving pedagogy, so high quality standards within our school community. And one of the reasons we’ve done that is because I’m very aware that within our school… that’s something that is quite difficult at times for me to get to, teaching and learning, because of everything else that needs to be prioritised. So, that will be funded through PEF as well.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Professional learning

Most schools mentioned that professional learning had taken place as a result of the ASF. Respondents highlighted the importance of upskilling staff, and said that the ASF had enabled this, both via training delivered with PEF funding, and through sharing/cascading knowledge within schools.

The examples given of professional learning tended to be where staff training was delivered to support the introduction of specific initiatives/approaches mentioned above. For example, training included:

• Awareness raising about the issue itself, i.e. about the poverty-related attainment gap, cost of the school day etc.
• Training for staff to deliver particular interventions, such as learning assistants being trained on the Number Blocks programme
• Whole-staff training on wider principles such as nurture principles, trauma-informed practice, Seasons for Growth training etc.
• A whole-school professional development programme for all members of staff, focusing on learning and teaching and bringing new theories/techniques into the classroom
• Visible learning training (teaching and learning approach regarding pupils having greater ownership of what they learn); teachers learning about how children learn (cognitive development etc).
• Training on a structured approach to creative writing.

In a small number of case study schools, respondents noted that staff training involved PEF-funded staff training others within the school. For example, in one primary, the PEF-funded raising attainment teacher had been involved in training other teachers and learning assistants on a range of topics including literacy teaching. In another primary, a counsellor funded by PEF delivered training to teaching and support staff in relation to attachment, to help staff support individual pupils.

“We got a company that came in, a speaker came in and did some work around… how those from disadvantaged areas can be supported in classrooms and what it might look like beyond your normal effective learning teacher… The training went down really well because we didn’t just have teaching staff there, we had all staff. So, our pupil support assistants and that was the first time they had been involved in training like that and they felt really valued.” (Secondary headteacher, Remote small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

“We use some of the money for staff training as well, so we’ve got [emotional wellbeing programme] training that our nurture teacher did. We’ve also used it for training materials for staff book groups, so we run a professional learning book group based around additional support needs, so that was something that we were able to fund through our Pupil Equity Funding as well… Because obviously, if we can upskill staff, then teaching and learning is better on the whole.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Wider opportunities

Respondents also mentioned wider opportunities being made available due to the ASF. For example, PEF funding was used to give pupils access to trips that they would have not otherwise been able to afford, including educational trips, residentials, trips to the theatre or the pantomime at Christmas, whole-school days out to the beach etc. Funding was also used for equipment so that pupils could participate fully, e.g. providing walking boots and waterproofs for a residential as well as actually funding the trip.

For several schools, these activities were only part-funded by PEF and other fundraising had to be done (e.g. PEF was used to buy event tickets, while parent council fundraising was used to provide transport). However, in some instances the entire activity was funded via the ASF, either for targeted pupils or for all participants.

“We think very carefully about the experiences that are curriculum experiences that we offer our children and then we think, what are the things that our families could struggle with, and it is mostly cultural. I think if you're thinking about, you know, budgeting, it’s those cultural things are the first that you can't do. So we look very carefully to make sure that the children have those experiences that they maybe don't have at home.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Where funding for these activities was more targeted (i.e. PEF funding was available to subsidise or pay the full cost for an activity for specific pupils), respondents often emphasised their efforts to administer this discreetly to avoid any stigma or embarrassment for families that needed extra help – e.g. pupils living in the most deprived areas were identified as being eligible for help and received different letters.

“When a trip goes out, or is advertised, I'll look at the names that are on the trip, and try and find out who's in that bottom decile, who would maybe not get the opportunity to go, and look if there's some funding there that we could help support them to be able to allow them to go on the trip.” (Secondary teacher, Other urban, 25-49% SIMD 1&2)

Specific activities and programmes were mentioned, including Columba 1400^[16] (a residential course on Skye for a week to develop leadership skills and build confidence), Metro Outdoors team building activities, Towards Better Futures courses (vocational/employability focused learning), the John Muir and Duke of Edinburgh awards, and various after school clubs. These clubs sometimes focused on a specific activity, but were also said to offer additional benefits, including building positive relationships and developing pupils’ engagement with school through these positive wider experiences.

“There is a marked difference between attainment for children with less well off backgrounds. There’s also, like, differences in experiences, lived experiences that the children have. So, we try to increase that… We organise trips for the children, and we try as best we can to reduce, or have no costs for parents, because the cost of the school day is a big focus for us… we try to improve the experiences and chances that the children have.” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“That’s very much targeting your pupils in poverty who maybe don’t get those opportunities outside school, and it’s part of the football experience that they’re having, but… there’s food being brought in… They play football, so that’s the main focus, but there’s a lot of building relationships and ensuring pupil wellbeing, like, it just gives them a really good experience.” (Primary senior leader, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Two of the secondary case study schools had PEF-funded Principal Teacher roles with specific remits for wider achievement, ensuring there was a school-wide focus on this – and both of these schools had introduced wider elements to their curriculum using ASF funding. One had used PEF for equipment to deliver qualifications in barista skills and beekeeping. The other had introduced a wider achievement programme for their S5 and S6 pupils:

"One of the decisions we made about actually looking at the range of qualifications which young people get, and thinking a little bit more… creatively, about what the young people can engage in… All our fifth and sixth years engage in a wider achievement programme… This year we are looking at delivering level five volunteering, level five wellbeing award, level five leadership through Mentors Against Violence Prevention. We’re looking at a level five coaching award, Duke of Edinburgh Silver Award…” (Secondary senior leader, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Other ASF spending

As well as the main categories of spending noted above, some other miscellaneous uses of the ASF were mentioned. These included things like:

• Installation of CCTV in response to pupil feedback about feeling safe at school: “It’s based on pupil voice and it’s based on their feeling of wellbeing… If children don’t feel safe, they’re not going to come to school. And if they don’t come to school they don’t learn and we lose them” (Secondary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)
• Communications, e.g. an app enabling communication between teaching staff and parents/carers
• Other equipment/classroom supports e.g. softer lighting, comfortable seating, wobble stools/yoga mats etc.

“Additional support needs we know have increased hugely. But classrooms haven't changed to meet those additional support needs. So it’s looking to see now how can we use our PEF to meet those different needs. And if it is, like, a wobble stool…or a standing desk, then that’s what we need to do.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Wider collaboration

Several of the approaches introduced using ASF funding involved partner organisations from outside the school. This included 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, a University programme involving PhD students, peer support training via SAMH etc.).

Most schools were also working with a range of other partner organisations in their local communities, such as local charities and businesses (e.g. local shops providing food for breakfast clubs). However, much of this was not ASF-funded, respondents said they would have been engaging with these partners anyway, and some was used to supplement PEF-funded activities. For this reason, some respondents 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, and having staff focusing on specific PEF-related roles allowed them to develop partnerships they may not otherwise have done.

“We have got lots of people in and out. I wouldn't be able to tell you quite who funds them.” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Respondents also noted collaboration with other schools in their area, e.g. rural schools pooling resources to access training, various visits to share good practice, through cluster or local authority networks and in the development/sharing of ideas as noted earlier. Secondaries noted some collaboration and consultation with feeder primaries to ease the transition into S1. However, most felt that this sort of collaboration between schools and across local authorities would be happening anyway, with or without the ASF.

“I feel there has been plenty of opportunities to share both locally and nationally effective use of PEF and I’ve picked up ideas from different schools. So, I think that the support network of effective use of PEF and support in spending it on appropriate interventions, I think is good. So, that would be a positive, I would say.” (Secondary headteacher, Remote small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

Some also felt that having a focus on equity was helpful (for example support from local authority Attainment Advisors and via equity networks set up at the local authority level) although they were not necessarily aware that this was a direct result of the ASF.

“I definitely think there is more collaboration now. I think that within our authority, there’s more collaboration and there’s more discussion around it. I think that there is definite improvements, that people have more understanding of meeting the needs and looking at the child as a holistic, and I think as well, I think that there’s a lot more awareness of cost of the school day and how poverty impacts our learners.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Some of the wider partner organisations involved in ASF funded activities were included in the case study research, and more detailed information was therefore provided about the nature of these collaborations and what this has allowed schools to deliver. This included:

• Family learning: initially brought in using PEF funding to improve attendance through contact with local families, and now working directly in the school offering one-to-one support to pupils and parents/carers. This headteacher noted, “they offer universal courses to our school families, they do one-to-one support. [Name] is based within school on a Monday as well, so will support some of the pupils or be that person at the door that can speak to the parents when they come in as well.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2).
• Counselling: in an example of PEF being used for additionality, one school was working with a counsellor via local authority funding, but used PEF to fund this post an additional day a week so that more sessions could be offered to pupils – this was seen to be vital when waiting lists for mental health support are long. The counsellor also offers wider support e.g. providing support/advice/drop-in sessions for parents/carers, attending multiagency meetings etc. (“She’ll act as a go between if there’s any potential conflict between school and the parent as well, so very much part of our school community” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)) – the counsellor also reported feeling very much part of the school community, working closely with teachers to support pupils. She also highlighted that a benefit of PEF has been the flexibility to fund support responsive to local need, whereas other funding is very specific about what it can provide:

“I think that’s one of the real benefits, I think, of the PEF part of this work. The limitations that can come with the [local authority funded] piece are so evident when they're compared to the work that can be done with a little bit of PEF funding. The [other] pieces are time limited, age limited and… it’s narrow in its approach, whereas there is a freedom that comes when there’s… funding to allow you to be in a school for a full day every week. It's needs-led, we can be responsive. We can be doing bits with teachers, we can be doing bits with parents, we can be thinking long term about the impact we can potentially be having.” (Primary partner organisation, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

• Educational psychology: one of the secondary schools worked closely with a local authority educational psychologist to deliver a whole-school nurture approach: the psychologist delivered CPD for teachers around nurture, established a nurture space in partnership with the school, and was also involved as part of a multi-agency support hub (which included pupil support workers, the family opportunities team, a youth engagement officer and school counsellor)
• Charity foundation worker linked to a local sports club: works with disengaged pupils through mentoring and activities, often sports related, and delivers sessions with a focus on numeracy, literacy, wellbeing and coping strategies
• Campus Police Officer: funded jointly by the school via PEF and the police, this officer was based in the school and worked with pupils and families, providing education (e.g. assemblies on knife crime, hate crime etc.) and wellbeing groups and activities including BMXing (for resilience, fitness and confidence building). They also provided support to help the school tackle behaviour issues, violence and substance abuse, and divert young people away from offending and risk-taking behaviour
• MCR Pathways: this mentoring programme for children and young people who have experienced care or those who have experienced disadvantage was working with three of the secondary case study schools. MCR Pathways staff were involved in coordinating mentoring and delivering group work and various post-school employment support, e.g. ‘Talent tasters’ (work experience days for S3 pupils involved in the programme)
• Columba 1400: as noted earlier, one of the secondary case study schools engaged with this programme to deliver experiences for pupils, including a residential trip focusing on leadership/building confidence.

It is also worth noting that some of the ASF-funded partners helped to involve schools in even wider collaboration, since they have links to other local partner and other organisations and also have more time than teaching staff to develop such relationships. For example, one of the secondary schools noted that links had been established to local youth groups, disability support charities, local groups working specifically with young men and local sporting activities – all of whom delivered specific sessions with pupils that would not have happened without the PEF-funded partners providing wider links between the school and the local community. The family learning staff member mentioned above, who was working in a primary school, also offers wider support to parents/carers (e.g. courses and trips during the holidays) and has used their wider contacts to bring in other partner organisations such as local sports charities, museums etc. who have come into school to deliver sessions – so while much of this is not directly PEF funded, it was facilitated through this partnership with family learning.

Use of data and evidence

How progress is monitored

Respondents at all case study schools noted a range of ways in which they monitored progress in relation to ASF-funded activities and emphasised the importance of examining a wide range of information. Data was often used to target interventions (i.e. to determine which pupils needed specific types of support – see the earlier section on development of approaches), and was also used to monitor progress via:

• Regular monitoring of attainment data using standard measurements (National Standardised Assessments (NSAs), Broad General Education (BGE) levels and exam results), and regular meetings to discuss attainment data
• Pupil attendance data (frequency/level of detail of this varied – e.g. one secondary case study school was tracking attendance patterns weekly, including detailed data on the reasons for non-attendance, in case targeted support was needed for individuals)
• Pupil data in relation to exclusions and behaviour issues (e.g. behaviour referrals, review of duty logs where issues are reported etc.)
• Review of pupil progress (headteachers and/or other teaching staff reviewing progress for specific pupils, based on SIMD profile) – this will include Teacher Professional Judgement (TPJ) as well as attainment data, and was often mentioned as being a regular/continuous process rather than a one-off exercise
• Measures of pupil wellbeing, e.g. assessments at the start and end of the year, termly wellbeing check-in indicators, use of Boxall profiling^[17], the Glasgow wellbeing tracker^[18], Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)^[19] and SHANARRI indicators^[20]
• Qualitative observations (e.g. teacher views of pupils’ behaviour and enjoyment of/engagement with tasks, classroom observations etc.)
• Data on attendance/uptake of ASF-funded activities, e.g. breakfast club attendance, number of pupils supported by specific programmes such as counselling sessions, data on uptake/use of financial support (e.g. equipment provision, trips/activities funded etc.)
• Assessments/data to evaluate specific interventions (e.g. assessments in literacy, numeracy or wellbeing/confidence undertaken before, during and after interventions are delivered) to assess impact – some specific programmes also include assessment tools within the resources, e.g. Common Words, SEAL etc.
• For some of the more intensive support provided (e.g. dedicated nurture or learning support provision outside the classroom), pupils have individual plans and progress is tracked against specific targets on a more regular basis, and/or attendance and reasons for non-engagement are tracked more closely
• Self-evaluation of interventions by the staff delivering them, in discussion with headteachers
• Pupil feedback on interventions/activities to judge which have been most successful (including pupil discussions/focus groups)
• For secondaries, review of post-school outcomes for pupils (i.e. positive destinations data).

“We have quite a robust tracking system here. As class teachers we have an online tracking system for our key areas of literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing… We update those regularly… Then on the back of those updates we then meet with [headteacher]. We meet termly to have progress meetings… obviously looking at the attainment, but we are also looking at things like who are in our deciles 1 and 2 and what is the progress being made for them? Actually, if the progress is not what we would like it to be, these are the times that we have these discussions about, ‘OK, so we are going to direct this bit of support to them or we are going to allocate this [learning assistant] to them’… Because we are doing that continually throughout the year, nobody flies under the radar.” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Improvements in the use of data and evidence

Feedback was mixed in relation to whether the ASF had led to improvements in the use of data and evidence. Several respondents noted that there had been improvements in this area and data was more of a focus for schools, but they were not sure they could attribute this solely to the ASF.

“Educators in general are much more data aware, some, I would say, data driven… Definitely there’s a greater awareness and appreciation for a data focus.” (Primary senior leader, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

However, it is worth noting that the ASF had definitely contributed to staff resource to focus on this area. Some schools had specific staff dedicated to data monitoring or tracking progress, or PEF-funded roles where data monitoring was part of their remit. Indeed, one limitation noted by a very small school was that they did not have the time/personnel to focus on data monitoring specifically. Those who did have that resource said it had enabled them to focus on data in a more systematic way, ensuring progress was tracked consistently across the school, and including detailed analysis looking at the profile of pupils.

“[Principal Teacher] has created an assessment tracker for us, and that just allows for information to be shared amongst departments and with [the senior leadership team] to identify where these children are at in their learning… We use data quite effectively in this school, so this is a performance report that we have [showed example chart] – based on S4 National 5 Maths… So we want to know exactly how our quintile 1s, our free school meals pupils, our care experienced, our ASN pupils, are doing in comparison to everyone else as well. That's a lens that we definitely look at, and try and improve.” (Secondary senior leader, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

“Definitely it’s a lot more focused than I think it ever was. And certainly, my experience here has been that the teachers are much more data informed. They’re much more skilled in understanding what that data looks like. You know, the conversations that we have, we use a very specific proforma that they fill in for every tracking and monitoring meeting, and we’ve used that now for about four years.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

As noted above, ASF funding had been used to buy resources which included assessment tools, e.g. certain literacy/numeracy resources or programmes that included an assessment element (so that baseline measures could be taken before implementation and assessments repeated to evaluate impact) – so new assessment data was being collected as a result.

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:

“I think what we have gotten better at doing over time is looking at our interventions, looking at how we are spending the money and really evaluating the impact. Almost, like, ‘are we getting bang for our buck here?’... Over time we have now become, ‘right, this is how to make it bespoke for our school’. It is evaluating that impact on a yearly basis.” (Primary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Limitations/issues regarding the use of data and evidence

While all schools were using data to monitor progress, and said this was an important part of their approach to closing the poverty-related attainment gap, a number of limitations were also mentioned.

Some interventions were targeted at a very small number of pupils, so even if they showed a great improvement, this would not have a big impact on the figures at the year group or school level. Any small changes in the proportion of pupils in a class from SIMD 1 and 2, or showing any improvements in attainment, could also have a disproportionate impact on the overall percentages – particularly in the smallest schools, very small changes can have a big impact on the overall figures.

“Sometimes we’ve got year groups of three, that’s our smallest year group, up to our largest year group of nine, so it just depends, doesn’t it. One child I’ll track in a year group of three compared to one child I’ll track in a year group of nine.” (Primary headteacher, Remote rural, <25% SIMD 1&2)

There could also be cohort effects where different classes or year groups had a very different level of need, making it difficult to provide a clear picture of progress over time.

For these reasons, some schools were tracking data for individual pupils or cohorts, rather than comparing themselves to other schools or national averages etc. Respondents did note that this means they are measuring against a baseline rather than a control group, making it difficult to demonstrate impact and they cannot say what would have happened without the intervention.

Several respondents also noted that SIMD can be ‘a blunt tool’. Examples were given of pupils who really needed support but due to living just over a postcode boundary did not qualify as ‘deprived enough’, or were living in conditions that were hidden by the SIMD category. Conversely, not all pupils living in quintiles 1 and 2 are underperforming.

“You've got hidden poverty in some schools…For example, [school name], where you have multiple occupancy, but yet, the SIMD would suggest SIMD 9, 10. But actually, people are living in conditions that are more like SIMD 1, 2… I think, sometimes, there are possible pitfalls with using quite a blunt measure.” (Secondary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“You get your breakdown of your children that are in SIMD 1 and 2 and other factors, like, looked after children, free school meals. That sort of data helps us to target… Having said that though, what I would say is that just because a child is living in deciles... this child here [looking at attainment records], for example, lives in a decile one household, but has always been green [i.e. on target]. Poverty does not mean that a child is not going to achieve.” (Primary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Respondents were keen to emphasise that not all outcomes of ASF-funded activities were measurable, or likely to show up in attainment data. For example, a breakfast club might ‘get someone through the door’ but it is difficult to demonstrate concrete impacts on attainment, as some of the ‘softer’ outcomes of interventions are difficult to quantify. Staff noted that real changes could be made in terms of pupils’ lives overall (e.g. improvements to confidence, how they view themselves, the fact they have chosen to return for S5 etc.) which are unlikely to appear in school-level exam results.

“It’s the Einstein quote, isn’t it, not everything that counts can be measured, and not everything that can be measured counts.” (Secondary headteacher, Accessible small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

“There are lots of stories, you know, but it’s people and their lives that actually really matter. And the numbers only tell a bit of that story.” (Secondary senior leader, Other urban, <25% SIMD 1&2)

Others noted that some of the work they were doing was unlikely to have an impact immediately, and it would take much longer to see any results – for example, a counsellor working in one of the primary case study schools said:

“I think gathering data for this kind of work, you're sometimes like, it’s going to be… ten years down the road before there’s going to be anything that’s going to evidence how this is going to go.” (Primary partner organisation, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)