Attainment Scotland Fund evaluation: case study research 2025

Research findings – sustainability

Sustainable elements of ASF-funded approaches

The following key themes emerged across the case studies in relation to which aspects of ASF-funded work were felt to be sustainable beyond the current phase of the programme:

• One-off purchases of equipment, resources etc. are now in place and will continue to be used: examples included physical equipment (setting up nurture spaces, classroom equipment, to run specific qualifications such as barista training, equipment used by breakfast clubs etc.) and learning and teaching resources
• The embedding of approaches (e.g. where specific literacy/numeracy programmes or pedagogical approaches like visible learning etc. have been introduced), and associated upskilling of staff, will have a lasting impact; training has also been cascaded to other staff so there are wider knowledge improvements across schools. This included instances where specific processes/systems have been established e.g. for referring pupils for support, which are now in place and will be continued regardless of ASF funding. In one school, this also included peer support programmes which were being continued by pupils training younger years, so the whole project would be sustainable
• Cultural changes within schools: e.g. where a whole-school nurture approach had been implemented, and/or a focus on inclusion and equity, this is now how schools are operating and will continue to do so as it is ‘woven through everything they do’ – often supported by whole-staff training, so schools have this internal knowledge
• Reported improvements in the use of data/improved staff skills in data monitoring were also felt to be sustainable: “I think in terms of teachers’ understanding of data and their professional judgements around how tight that needs to be would continue.” (Primary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)
• Wider impacts on staff leadership/capacity: while not the main aim of the ASF, respondents noted the impacts for staff, e.g. leadership skills developed by those working in a PEF-funded promoted post. Headteachers felt that this investment in staff will result in benefits for their schools as these teachers go on to lead various projects in future.

Some schools had specifically considered sustainability when developing approaches, thinking about what could be delivered via existing staff or which physical resources would be most useful to invest in for the longer term. As noted earlier, this was why several schools focused on using PEF for salary uplifts for promoted posts rather than recruiting additional staff (see the section on how ASF funding has been used).

“I think that’s why we haven’t looked at equity as being solely the preserve of PEF funding. It has to become more of a mainstream effort, so with or without the money, you’ll still be working to ensure equity for all learners.” (Secondary headteacher, Accessible small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

“Most of the interventions we've put in place are ones that I can plan, and monitor, can be run by [pupil support workers], and have little additional cost. So that is sustainable. Because if it's me that’s planning an intervention, setting up the intervention, and then supporting our [pupil support workers], they will be able to continue it as well as time goes on.” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Concerns about sustainability

Although the aspects above were identified as being sustainable beyond the current phase of the ASF, respondents at all of the case study schools had concerns about sustainability and highlighted a number of issues in this area.

Since so much of the funding has been used for staffing, without the ASF there would simply not be the ‘boots on the ground’ to deliver some initiatives that schools now say are crucial. 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.

“Generally, we tend to utilise that [PEF] in people. People is our power, so PEF funds [learning assistants].” (Primary teacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

“The teaching and learning [Principal Teacher] this year will be able to upskill our staff which is great, but some of the targeted interventions that are coming through… our trained counsellor or our breakfast club or our family learning worker or music therapy or the additional staffing to provide the nurture. You know, if we didn’t have the PEF funding I wouldn’t be able to do those things, and that, ultimately, would mean that I wasn’t able to target the interventions. So, sustainability, you know, if PEF funding is to stop these things are likely to stop as well.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

For those who had employed additional staff, the gap that would be left was said to be considerable – and there would be a knock-on impact on other teaching capacity. For example, if there is no longer funding for a role which is now seen as being important, the staffing hours will need to come from somewhere else which will put pressure on other staffing/budgets. Similarly, where additional staff were supporting pupils outside the classroom, if that resource was not available teachers would have to pick up that support.

“Then if you take everything else away your teachers are going to be stressed. Your teachers are not going to be able to focus on learning and teaching… They are going to be back with no support.” (Primary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

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.

“Well, it’s not sustainable without the money. That’s the bottom line… Because you are then going back to a very old-fashioned model of relying on good will… That good will existed in a period of time that no longer is reality. Pre-COVID. The pressures are evident in secondary schools now on staff, on teachers, through all of these social issues that are everybody’s, they’re society’s issues, but we’re just a wee microcosm, we just have what everybody else has. I think it would never last, it’s not sustainable because you couldn’t keep doing it.” (Secondary headteacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Respondents working in smaller schools also noted that, while staff can be trained and upskilled, there can be an issue when the staff is so small to start with – any change in staffing means that this institutional knowledge is lost.

“You could do staff training one year and then the next year…. Next year I’ve got two teachers going on maternity leave. We’ve got two new teachers, that’s a third of my teaching staff that’s going to be off. So, you’ve got to constantly revisit.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

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.

“There'd be a huge financial gap without [PEF] within schools. We wouldn't be able to afford resources… We wouldn't be able to afford the breakfast club, so we've 100 pupils a day that come to our breakfast club for food, so that would be 100 pupils a day who aren't being fed, who aren't ready to learn, straight away.” (Secondary senior leader, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Respondents were very clear that they felt PEF was now covering basic or necessary things rather than ‘added extras’, noting that budget cuts meant they were using PEF to ‘plug gaps’ rather than enhancing provision (see also the earlier section on understanding of ASF funding streams).

“I think the challenge, which you’ll be hearing everywhere I suspect, is that we’ve been given that funding, things have been cut everywhere else, so I think the reality is PEF is plugging gaps all over the place.” (Secondary teacher, Accessible small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

The issue of increasing need was also commonly raised – both in terms of ASN provision and the impacts of poverty and the ongoing cost of living crisis. Respondents generally felt that they now have to do more with less, and that changing circumstances (including the impact of the pandemic) meant that the ASF was becoming more crucial over time. It was argued that mainstream schools are expected to support pupils who previously would have received specialist provision, and given the growing levels of ASN it was not sustainable to expect this to be possible without additional funding.

“The past ten years we have had COVID, we have had a cost of living crisis. We have had a lot of big things that have happened as a society and you see the impact of that because it is lived experiences, it is ongoing poverty. PEF is absolutely vital for us to be able to do what we do. There is still that wider societal issue of poverty has not been fixed since we have had PEF, PEF is just helping us to get by.” (Primary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“The ever-increasing level of need that young people with additional support needs… it’s only going one way. It’s going up, but the funding is staying the same… There needs to be additional resource, funding.” (Secondary headteacher, Remote small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

“It does worry me, that the problems that were there when SAC and PEF came out, they're only trifle now, you know, they're a much bigger beast… If that money was to go, or if it was to be disseminated amongst the local authority, I think we'd be really up the creek.” (Secondary teacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

It is worth noting the strength of opinion expressed, and the emotional response some had, when asked to consider how support could be continued after the current funding phase of the ASF. PEF was described as being ‘essential’ and ‘crucial’, and respondents at all schools were very concerned about how they would meet pupils’ needs without it.

“We can’t think about that [not having PEF]. Do you want me to cry?… We’re using some of this money to feed young people.” (Secondary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“It's became core, to so many schools... I don't wanna be catastrophic here, but it would seem like if the funding was completely pulled, I honestly don't know how schools could cope. There'd be a huge financial gap.” (Secondary senior leader, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

“If we took all this [PEF] away it would literally be, like, ripping off the world’s biggest band aid and, oh my goodness... I honestly couldn’t imagine how we would manage to function on a day-to-day basis, I really couldn’t.” (Primary teacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“I think what PEF or SAC offers is… an additional layer of wellbeing provision, in our case, that school would otherwise not be able to have. We all know that schools are overworked, under staffed, under funded… It offers an additional layer of support for families. Especially in more disadvantaged communities, that [support] otherwise wouldn't exist… the pressure would fall on to schools and I think things would be missed.” (Primary partner organisation, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Plans for sustainability

Actions schools were taking to maximise sustainability are noted above, i.e. focusing on investing in resources that can last and continue to be used, and upskilling staff. Respondents noted that they were trying to balance what is sustainable versus what has the most impact – which was said to be staffing resource.

“Certainly most things we’ve put in we hope are sustainable. And even with staffing… the loss of staff wouldn’t be great but we’ve tried to build capacity within the wider staff so that if PEF was ever to go and we were back down to what we’re entitled to, we do make sure through training and all those kind of things that there is capacity built amongst the staff.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

However, given that schools are reportedly already having to prioritise spending and juggle funding from various sources (e.g. other grant funding, parent council fundraising, partnerships with charities/local businesses etc.), they tended to suggest that there was a limit to how much they could do to ensure sustainability of most of their ASF approaches.

“We all see the importance of what it does for our kids on a daily basis. And the impact it is having. And I think the fear, every year is, is it going to be there, and what do we do when it's not… We’re always trying to find new ways each year, to try and bring in other sources of funding, even with the winter clothing. This year, we actually got a local business to put funding towards the winter jackets… But that’s not even going to be enough. So if the funding goes, what do we do. So, every year, we’re trying to bring in new things, but it wouldn’t be sustainable.” (Secondary teacher, Other urban, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)

Funding allocations

Reflecting earlier findings about awareness of the different ASF funding streams, respondents focused on PEF funding when discussing the way that funding is allocated, since awareness of the other funding streams was low.

The move to a four-year funding allocation period for PEF was generally welcomed, as it gave stability and enabled longer-term planning. However, some downsides of this were also mentioned. For example, if there are changes in the demographic profile of pupils or the size of the school roll over that time, the funding does not change to reflect that.

“It helps you to plan longer term… It allows you to progress a lot of the interventions and to develop them as well, when you know what you’re getting. It is quite difficult if you’re waiting each year to find out what you’re getting, because you can’t carry on certain things or everybody is in limbo and it causes some unrest actually as well.” (Primary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

“[Four-year allocation] does make it more predictable, apart from when your free meal entitlement grows and grows and grows, and then you’re trying to spread that thinner… It hasn’t kept pace with need.” (Secondary headteacher, Accessible small town, <25% SIMD 1&2)

Some staffing issues related to funding and contractual arrangements were raised:

• PEF-funded roles are temporary contracts or secondments because the funding is not permanent, which can lead to ‘reinventing the wheel’ when recruiting new staff; these posts can also be difficult to fill – particularly in more rural areas, where respondents said they have problems recruiting staff to the area
• Some respondents noted that when funding is used to employ staff, it can ‘get swallowed up’ by things like pay increases, increases to National Insurance, etc.
• Having funding based on the financial year rather than the school year can also make recruitment and planning difficult
• Any uncertainty about contracts and how long they will last can lead to losing staff, as people choose to take a permanent role instead – this was described as being frustrating by headteachers who emphasised the importance of having skilled staff in the right roles: “[Staff member] went and got a substantive post because that’s what happens when you PEF fund someone because it’s not a tenable contract.” (Secondary headteacher, Large urban, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

Some respondents also raised queries about the way funding is allocated. Limitations of using SIMD as a ‘blunt tool’ were mentioned (see the earlier section on use of data and evidence), as well as using free school meals as a measure of need. For example, one school said their SIMD profile changed as a result of new housing built in the catchment area but the extent of need among pupils had not really changed. This school also felt the allocation process might be too simplistic, e.g. it does not account for people experiencing in-work poverty.

“There has to be an equitable way and I understand there’s got to be a formula for this, but I think it needs to look a bit wider in terms of the data it’s asking for. It’s quite narrow. And I think it's missing the trick ’cause a lot of schools who I know get the same kind of funding as we do, and I think, well actually we’re in a more… high level of deprivation. So it just…so I think there just needs to be a wider net put out to look at different data to make sure.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 75%+ SIMD 1&2)

In one instance where a school had previously received Challenge Authority funding, no longer receiving this funding had resulted in a substantial reduction in resources available. This had been very difficult for the school as they had previously been able to fund additional roles which were not sustainable with the new funding allocation (“our slice of the pie has been reduced, but our level of need has not been reduced.” (Primary headteacher, Accessible small town, 50-74% SIMD 1&2)).

Respondents highlighted the importance of having certainty about the ASF funding, and several suggested the ASF should be made permanent, as needs among pupils are not declining, but are in fact increasing – some kind of continued support was therefore seen as being crucial.

“Should it just be temporary funding, or is it at the point where we should be acknowledging that this is not something that’s going away, because the gaps are getting bigger?” (Secondary teacher, Other urban, <25% SIMD 1&2)

Finally, and as noted earlier, one of the key benefits of PEF funding was that it allowed schools to make local decisions about approaches to meet local need, and respondents highlighted the importance of local control over spending, as well as the actual amount received. The smallest rural school also noted they appreciated receiving PEF directly, as they can often feel like they ‘get forgotten about’ when local authority funding is allocated across schools in the area.

“Being such a small school, when the allocation is made, as a local authority, it has to be shared across all the schools, whereas when this was done specifically to the schools directly… people wouldn’t have believed the needs necessarily within such a small school… We were able to benefit probably in the way that we needed. So, we might only have ever been three or two classes now, but the needs within those classes was diverse.” (Primary headteacher, Remote rural, <25% SIMD 1&2)