Attainment Scotland Fund Evaluation: Interim Report, 2025

Findings

Implementation of the Attainment Scotland Fund

This chapter provides an overview of the evidence gathered on implementation since the SAC refresh in 2022, what is working well and what might be improved.

Planning and approaches to ASF

Local authorities

As noted in the Scottish Attainment Challenge Framework for Recovery and Accelerating Progress, local authorities are responsible for implementing their local plans and selecting appropriate approaches to make progress in raising attainment and for closing the poverty-related attainment gap in their local authority area.

At the local authority level, the evidence suggests that structures, workstreams and governance arrangements to support planning and to track, monitor and drive progress have continued to play an important role. This includes examples of established structures such as Attainment Boards, Equity Boards and other oversight groups.

The evidence gathered in relation to what has worked well in planning for ASF at the local authority level has consistently highlighted a number of factors. This includes:

• enhanced approaches to planning;
• strong use of data and evidence; and,
• the importance of collaboration and partnership working.

As noted in the introduction, the three organisers underpinning the Scottish Attainment Challenge - Learning and Teaching, Leadership and Families and Communities - have remained in place since the inception of the Scottish Attainment Challenge in 2016. Learning and Teaching was assessed by local authorities as most strongly underpinning their approaches.

There is continued evidence of evolution of local authority approaches to closing the poverty-related attainment gap. This includes:

• a continued shift of focus towards increased understanding of the challenges associated with poverty such as the cost of the school day;
• ongoing emphasis over time towards planned strategic approaches rather than short-term interventions.

Local authority perspectives suggest that approaches are viewed as:

• effectively embedded in the local setting;
• effective within the local context;
• evidence based;
• demonstrating evidence of impact.

A key point suggested by the evidence reflects the important role of the third sector partnerships in relation to local authority approaches. The evidence indicates that activity undertaken by the third sector partnerships funded as National Programmes^[10] was viewed as increasingly connected to and embedded within the wider work of the ASF.

Aspects of planning which could be improved, as highlighted in the December 2024 Implementation and Impact report, include:

• the need for a strengthened voice for children and young people, and for parents/carers; and,
• the potential for an enhanced role for the third sector in planning and implementing ASF.

A number of other factors which could be further strengthened highlighted by the evidence include:

• Further strengthening of strategic oversight;
• Continuing to address variation across local authorities regarding approaches to planning and reporting;
• Addressing concerns related to funding uncertainties in relation to ASF and sustainability of approaches.

Stretch Aims

As noted in the introductory section of this report, local authorities were required to set ambitious, achievable stretch aims for progress in overall attainment and towards closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Local stretch aims recognise the importance of locally set and locally relevant aims which support overall national aims. Initially, local authorities published stretch aims for the 2022/23 yeaonly. For the 2023/24 – 2025/26 period, local authorities were required to set multi-year stretch aims for the three year period.

• Collectively, the evidence indicates approaches to developing stretch aims for 2023/24 – 2025/26 improved in comparison to the first set of stretch aims for 2022/23. Local authorities have utilised data and evidence, and engaged with a range of stakeholders in the development of their local authority stretch aims, particularly with central local authority staff, Attainment Advisors and headteachers. There was however less evidence of the engagement of pupils, classroom teachers, parents/carers or of other partners in stretch aims development.
• Whilst local authorities broadly developed stretch aims using iterative and collaborative processes, this was not uniformly the case. The evaluation evidence has also indicated a number of concerns both in terms of the overall approach to stretch aims and in relation to specific measures which sit underneath the stretch aims.

Schools

The School Survey findings highlight the range of ways in which schools have developed their approaches to selecting local initiatives, with use of local and national guidance, approaches by teachers within schools, advice from local authority officials, and input from parents and communities, children and young people, all commonly highlighted.

The School Survey also highlights:

• ASF funding has been used in school approaches in a wide variety of ways, primarily in relation to learning and teaching (both literacy and numeracy).
• There has also been a clear focus on wellbeing and nurture and using ASF to address financial barriers/cost of the school day issues. Family support/wellbeing initiatives and/or approaches tailored to pupils with Additional Support Needs are also commonly used. Readiness to learn has been a key area of focus, particularly so in schools with higher number of pupils living in deprived areas.
• Universal approaches for all pupils in a school have also been widely adopted, with approximately two thirds of survey respondents indicating this.
• School approaches have also been used to address the specific needs of children and young people with care experience, with a key focus on wellbeing initiatives. Wider achievement/qualifications, attendance initiatives, outdoor learning, mentoring and engagement/support from Virtual School Headteacher role-holders are also highlighted in addressing the specific needs of care experienced children and young people.

Staff working in schools in more deprived areas were more likely to describe approaches based on family support/wellbeing, pupil attendance, cost of the school day/addressing financial barriers, pupil wellbeing and outdoor learning, than staff working in schools with relatively lower proportions of pupils from deprived areas.

As with local authorities, the use of data and evidence, and of collaboration, are key factors for schools in the development of approaches. The School Survey highlights:

• An improvement in the use of data and evidence since the start of the Scottish Attainment Challenge, particularly for headteachers and middle leaders.
• Collaboration was viewed as having improved as a result of ASF for three-fifths of survey respondents. Schools were most likely to highlight collaboration with other schools in their local authority, and/or families and communities, followed by public sector partnerships such as health and social work, and third sector organisations. Those in schools with the smallest proportion of pupils from deprived areas were least likely to indicate improvement in collaboration due to ASF.

Funding

As noted in the introductory section, the Attainment Scotland Fund currently includes Strategic Equity Funding (SEF), Pupil Equity Funding (PEF) and Care Experienced Children and Young People Funding (CECYP funding).

Strategic Equity Funding (SEF)

Strategic Equity Funding (SEF) provides an allocation of funding to each local authority to plan and undertake strategic activity in connection with the Scottish Attainment Challenge Mission. This replaces previous Challenge Authority funding under ASF prior to 2022, which allocated funding to nine local authorities on the basis of levels of deprivation.

Whilst SEF has been broadly welcomed by local authorities, negative impacts have been reported by a number of local authorities which previously received an allocation of Challenge Authority funding in relation to year-on-year reductions (or ‘tapering’) in their local authority with the transition from Challenge Authority to Strategic Equity Funding.

Evaluation evidence indicates that the extent to which ASF is viewed as an additional resource varies considerably, with a contrast between views gathered in SAC Leads Survey 2023 - where all respondents viewed ASF as used as additional resource to a great or to some extent – and the views of national stakeholder interviewees undertaken in summer 2024 - where some perceived instances when ASF was being used to ‘plug a gap’ given local cuts to budgets.

Pupil Equity Funding (PEF)

Overall, the evidence indicates a broadly positive view of the implementation of PEF from across stakeholder perspectives, with PEF largely being implemented effectively. The evidence from SAC Leads Surveys 2023 and 2024 suggests that spend is aligned with locally identified needs and based on the evidence and is therefore viewed as effectively invested.

The importance of decision-making taking place at the school level, and strongly reflecting the school context were also highlighted by national stakeholder interviewees in 2024, alongside the perception of improving headteacher confidence in relation to PEF spending over time. This was similarly reflected by school leaders in the School Survey, with findings suggesting:

• School leaders felt confident about selecting approaches to closing the poverty-related attainment gap that would be most effective in their school. There was some variation in responses, with those from schools in small towns/rural areas and those with fewest pupils living in deprived areas least likely to say they were very confident.
• Confidence in selecting approaches most effective for their own context has increased over the course of the SAC, with the great majority (85%) of respondents indicating this. Increased confidence was reported particularly amongst school leaders from schools with highest proportion of pupils living in deprived areas.
• School leaders felt they have autonomy to develop their PEF plan taking into account local needs, with the great majority indicating this.

In terms of resources, the great majority of school leaders responding to the School Survey viewed PEF as having provided schools with additional resources needed to address the poverty-related attainment gap (90% agreed with this statement, with 61% agreeing strongly). Additionally, the four-year funding allocation has helped headteachers plan PEF implementation, with 84% of School Survey respondents agreeing with this statement, 50% strongly.

Schools utilising PEF to address financial barriers such as cost of the school day was viewed very positively in SAC Leads Survey and national stakeholder interview evidence gathered in 2025. There was also evidence of the increased importance of focus on health and wellbeing, not least due to the ongoing impact of COVID-19.

Alongside evaluation evidence related to PEF, other evidence sources provide insights into how PEF has been utilised across schools in different contexts. The PEF report 2025 draws on visits to a sample of 129 schools in receipt of PEF drawn from all local authorities in Scotland and reflecting diverse contexts. It identifies a range of positive themes, as well as some challenges, alongside examples of good practice of how schools have utilised PEF to meet their own needs and context to support pupils affected by poverty in support of the Scottish Attainment Challenge Mission.

Care Experienced Children and Young People (CECYP) Funding

Evaluation evidence to date indicates broadly positive perceptions related to the implementation of CECYP funding. Local authority perspectives gathered through surveys of SAC Leads 2023 and 2024 highlight:

• Funding supports strategic decision-making to improve attainment or outcomes for care experienced children and young people and is supporting broader collaborative working within local authorities.
• Funding is utilised by local authorities in a range of ways, including the funding of specific posts to support care experienced children and young people and the provision of bespoke support in relation to education.
• The role of Virtual School Headteachers, frequently funded by the Care Experienced Children and Young People Fund, supporting joint working and increasing capacity in a number of local authorities is viewed as particularly helpful. Different models for the role are in place across local authorities, with a network of Virtual School Headteachers supported through CELCIS.^[11]

Evidence gathered also suggests that Care Experienced Children and Young People Funding is on occasion being used at the local authority level in conjunction with other ASF funding streams, as well as with wider Scottish Government funding streams such as Whole Family Wellbeing Fund (WFWF).

However, the need for further improvements to partnership working and longer-term planning in some areas has also been highlighted. Other challenges such as staffing availability and consistency, issues of data access and alignment, and of alignment of professional learning have been raised, as have challenges related to measuring the impact of Care Experienced Children and Young People Funding and the setting of appropriate stretch aims in relation to care experienced children and young people.

Governance and Support

Education Scotland support

Each local authority has an assigned Attainment Advisor for the Scottish Attainment Challenge. Education Scotland Attainment Advisors have provided a valued support and challenge function to their designated local authority/ies. Strong relationships, access to schools, providing support across local authorities in relation to equity, supporting collaboration and sharing of good practice have consistently emerged as strong features of the Attainment Advisor role.

Wider support to local authorities and schools by Education Scotland, including supporting networking opportunities and provision of resources such as the Equity Toolkit, has also been important. Whilst the provision of resources to support local authorities to plan and implement ASF has been highly valued, there is also a recognised need to work towards a more streamlined approach. Additionally, there is an ongoing appetite for local authorities to meet face-to-face and to share examples of good practice.

Scottish Government support

As described in the introduction, the Scottish Government provides a range of support in relation to the Attainment Scotland Fund. This includes the Scottish Attainment Challenge Framework for Recovery and Accelerating Progress published in March 2022 which sets out the framework underpinning the Scottish Attainment Challenge and the Attainment Scotland Fund. The Framework is supported by national operational guidance published annually on each of the three funding strands which together make up the Attainment Scotland Fund. Evidence on support provided by Scottish Government indicates:

• The Scottish Attainment Challenge Logic Model, published in March 2022, is seen by a number of local authorities as a helpful tool supporting planning at the local authority level.
• Whilst Scottish Government policy guidance issued in relation to the ASF is perceived to have improved over the course of the Challenge, for example in relation to clarification of roles and responsibilities, there have been concerns raised relating to the timing of guidance, both in terms of its alignment with the financial year rather than the academic year and that earlier publication of guidance would be better for planning processes.

Alignment between ASF funding and other policies at local authority level

There is evidence indicating that ASF is aligning with a number of other relevant polices operating at the local authority level, such as corporate objectives, children’s services, child poverty, children and young people’s planning partnerships, corporate parenting and The Promise.^[12] Alignment of planning with other funding streams such as Whole Family Wellbeing Fund (WFWF)^[13] to avoid duplication of services was also highlighted.

National stakeholder interviewees have highlighted the role of the Virtual School Headteacher in place in many local authorities (often supported by the Care Experienced Children and Young People Fund) as supporting policy alignment in relation to care experienced children and young people with links to both GIRFEC^[14] and to WFWF. The importance of implementing the UNCRC was viewed as a key development which would further strengthen the focus on children’s rights to education.

Evidence of Impact

Introduction

The approach to evaluating the impact of the Fund has been informed by the ASF Impact Feasibility Study undertaken in 2023. This suggested taking a mixed method approach to the impact evaluation, combining quantitative measures with national and local level research evidence.^[15]

Additionally, the feasibility study recommended undertaking primary research at the national (macro) and local (micro) level with a wide range of stakeholders, with the primary research supported by analysis of core NIF measures and wider evidence.^[16] The ASF Evaluation Advisory Panel, which provided their views and expertise for the feasibility study, stressed the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative evidence to understand the change that is being achieved and what is contributing towards it.

In line with the impact evaluation plan developed as a result of the feasibility study, this chapter summarises evidence gathered to date on the impact of the Fund by combining measures of the poverty-related attainment gap with research evidence from schools, local authorities, and national stakeholders.

The National Improvement Framework and Improvement Plan (NIF) sets out a number of attainment and health and wellbeing measures in order to assess the extent to which the Attainment Scotland Fund has contributed to a closing of the attainment gap between children and young people living in the most and least deprived areas.

The NIF measures are a ‘basket’ of key measures and sub-measures. Currently 13 measures are included in the NIF reporting. These are set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1: National Improvement Framework Core Attainment and Health & Wellbeing Measures

			Dates
Attainment	Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels – Literacy and Numeracy	P1, P4 and P7 S3	2016/17 – 2023/24
	School leaver attainment in National Qualifications – SCQF Level 4, 5 and 6 or better	School leavers	2015/16 – 2023/24
	Initial Positive Destinations	School Leavers	2015/16 – 2023/24
	Annual Participation Measure	16–19-year-olds	2016 – 2023/24
Health & Wellbeing	Attendance rates	Primary, Secondary	2014/15 – 2023/24
	Total difficulties score	Primary (age 4-12)	2015-18 to 2018-23
	Total Difficulties score	Secondary (age 13 &15)	2021/22
	27–30-month Review	Percentage of children with no developmental concerns across all domains by SIMD	2015/16 – 2023/24

The evaluation has explored the impact of the ASF through primary research activities with a range of stakeholders, including schools, local authorities and national stakeholders, between 2023 and 2025. This includes the Local Authority SAC Leads survey and national stakeholder interviews in 2024 and the School Survey in 2025.

The evaluation has also utilised wider evidence on the impact of poverty on educational outcomes from a range of national data collections, longitudinal studies, and international studies, some of which is used in this section. An interactive resource, Evidence and Insights on the Poverty-Related Attainment Gap, which brought together the NIF measures and wider evidence on the poverty-related attainment gap, was published in May 2025.

This chapter of the report firstly presents a high level overview of impact from both the NIF measures and evidence from the primary research, followed by a more granular assessment of progress in relation to attainment, wider achievement, health and wellbeing etc. Further supporting evidence in relation to impact is then discussed related to factors supporting progress and barriers, culture and ethos, and the sustainability of approaches and impact.

High Level Overview of Impact

From the quantitative evidence, the analysis presented in the NIF measures 2025 report notes that, of the twelve measures^[17] with available, comparable data, the poverty-related attainment gap has narrowed in 7 measures and widened in 5 between 2016/17 and 2023/24. At the national level, this shows some continued indications of progress.

Of the measures which have narrowed, Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (ACEL) data shows consistent, positive improvement in attainment in primary and secondary (S3) levels, while participation and positive destination data continue to show strong progress. The measures that widened in this period relate to National Qualifications in the Senior Phase and attendance data.

The ACEL data is supported by the perception data gathered for the evaluation:

• Local authorities indicated the ASF as positively impacting on both the poverty-related attainment gap and on overall outcomes, with all three funding streams contributing to progress. Progress was perceived predominantly via learning and teaching.
• Whilst national stakeholders viewed progress has been made, variability in progress across schools, local authority areas, and different indicators was identified as a key issue. Additionally, there was recognition of the complex challenges involved in closing the poverty-related attainment gap - particularly due to factors beyond the control of schools and education services.
• All School Survey respondents were asked about the extent to which they have seen improvements for children and young people affected by poverty in attainment and wellbeing as a result of the ASF. This was most commonly reported for improvements in health and wellbeing (75% said this had improved to a great/moderate extent, with 37% saying a great extent). Two thirds (65%) reported great/moderate improvement for literacy, and 61% for numeracy, although the proportions saying these had improved to a great extent were lower (25% and 22% respectively). Very few respondents reported that any of these aspects had improved not at all or not very much.

There was however some variation in results, including:

• By role, with headteachers and senior/middle leaders more likely to report improvements whilst classroom teachers and support/other staff more likely to say they did not know;
• By sector, with primary school respondents more likely than secondary school respondents to report great/moderate improvements in literacy (67% versus 58%) and numeracy (64% versus 55%). However, once respondent role is taken into account there is less impact of school sector on results.
• By proportion of pupils in school in higher SIMD: respondents from schools in the second least deprived areas^[18] were most likely to report improvement.
• Whilst around one fifth of respondents did not know whether the gap had closed for each element, less than one in ten said that the gap had not closed at all. Headteachers and senior/middle leaders were more likely than others to say the gap had closed a little/a lot, whilst classroom teachers and support/other staff were more likely than senior staff to say they did not know if the gap had closed at all. Amongst headteachers, those saying the gap had closed was 85% for literacy, 84% for numeracy, and 85% for health and wellbeing.

Approximately three quarters of school staff reported that the poverty-related attainment gap has closed, at least a little, for all three aspects as a result of interventions/approaches supported by ASF (75% viewed the poverty-related attainment gap for literacy had closed, at least a little; 74% viewed the poverty-related attainment gap for numeracy had closed, at least a little; 75% viewed the poverty-related attainment gap for health and wellbeing had closed, at least a little with 22% indicating the gap had closed a lot).^[19]

Attainment

This section provides a more granular assessment of progress alongside insights into the factors that support improvement. Firstly, literacy and numeracy are considered for Primary (P1, P4 and P7 combined) and Secondary (S3) in turn, followed by Senior Phase attainment in National Qualifications.

One of the key National Improvement Framework measures of the poverty-related attainment gap is the Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (ACEL). At four stages during schooling (P1, P4, P7 and S3), teacher judgements are used to assess individual pupil performance in literacy and numeracy relevant to their stage. From 2016/17, ACEL data provides key insights into patterns of attainment over time.^[20]

Literacy

Both perceptual findings from the School Survey and Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (ACEL) data show that there has been a positive impact on literacy in schools and a closing of the poverty-related attainment gap in relation to literacy. This is both at the primary and secondary levels.

At Primary Level, the proportion of primary school pupils (P1, P4 and P7 combined) achieving expected levels in literacy (74%) in 2023/24 was the highest on record. There has been an upward trend in attainment for both the most and least deprived pupils in primary schools. At Secondary Level (S3), the proportion of the most deprived pupils achieving the expected level for literacy is the highest since records began in 2016-17.

In the School Survey, two-thirds (65%) of respondents reported that the activities supported by the fund had resulted in a ‘great’ or ‘moderate’ improvement in attainment in literacy. Respondents based in primary schools were more likely than those in secondaries to report great/moderate improvements in literacy (67% v 58%). Those based in the second least deprived areas^[21] tended to be most likely to report improvements in literacy: 75%, compared to 61% among the least deprived, 66% among the second most deprived^[22], and 64% among the most deprived.

The ACEL data shows that the poverty-related attainment gap in literacy has narrowed. This is also highlighted as a reported trend in the School Survey findings. At primary level, the gap between the proportion of primary pupils from the most and least deprived areas who achieved their expected level in literacy narrowed compared with 2022/23 and is now lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic. The attainment gap in literacy between pupils from the most and least deprived areas narrowed from 20.5 percentage points in 2022/23 to 20.2 percentage points in 2023/24. At secondary level, S3 pupils’ attainment gap in literacy has narrowed from 13.7 percentage points in 2022-23 to 12.7 percentage points in 2023-24. This is the lowest gap on record.

School Survey findings show that school staff broadly agree that the attainment gap in literacy is closing. 75% of respondents agreed that the poverty-related attainment gap in literacy has ‘closed a lot’ (15%) or ‘closed a little’ (60%). Less than one in ten (8%) felt that the gap ‘has not closed at all’.

Headteachers and senior/middle leaders were more likely than others to say the gap had closed a little/a lot, while classroom teachers and support/other staff were more likely than senior staff to say they did not know. Almost nine out of 10 (85%) of headteachers felt that the gap had closed in literacy.

Linked to perceptions of the attainment gap in literacy closing, literacy was also viewed as a focus in closing the poverty-related attainment gap in their school by the majority of School Survey respondents. Nine out of ten (89%) respondents indicated that their school’s approach to closing the poverty-related attainment gap has included learning and teaching approaches related to literacy. Respondents from primary schools were more likely than those from secondaries to mention learning and teaching approaches focused on literacy (91% v 83%). Over half of respondents (56%) indicated that they had been involved in professional learning related to literacy. Respondents from primary schools were more likely than those from secondaries to mention learning and teaching approaches focused on literacy (91% vs. 83%).

Numeracy

In comparison to the analysis presented above on literacy, there is a less consistent picture of progress in relation to numeracy from considering the perceptual findings from the School Survey and ACEL data together. Whilst the perceptual findings from the School Survey suggest that there has been a positive impact on numeracy in schools and a closing of the poverty-related attainment gap in relation to numeracy at both primary and secondary levels, the ACEL data does not provide such consistent evidence of progress overall. The ACEL data indicates more progress at the secondary level for ACEL than at the primary level in terms of closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

In the School Survey, the majority of respondents (62%) reported that the activities supported by the fund had resulted in a ‘great’ or ‘moderate’ improvement in attainment in numeracy, slightly lower than 65% who reported this for literacy. Those based in the second least deprived areas^[23] tended to be most likely to report improvements: 71% said this for numeracy (compared to 57% among the least deprived). Respondents based in primary schools were more likely than those in secondaries to report great/moderate improvements in numeracy (64% v 55%).

The ACEL data show that the poverty-related gap in numeracy at primary has varied over the years, from 17.6 percentage points in 2016/17 to 21.4 percentage points in 2020/21, reducing again in recent years. Whilst the gap widened in 2023/24, it is at its second lowest level since the pandemic. At secondary level (S3), the proportion of most deprived pupils achieving the expected level for numeracy is the highest since consistent records began in 2016-17, whilst the poverty-related attainment gap between school pupils in the most deprived and least deprived areas has narrowed to its lowest ever level at secondary.

The trend reported by the majority of School Survey respondents was positive in relation to the poverty-related attainment gap for numeracy. Nearly three quarters (74%) of respondents agreed that the poverty-related attainment gap in numeracy has ‘closed a lot’ (12%) or ‘closed a little’ (62%). Less than one in ten (9%) felt that the gap ‘has not closed at all’.

Headteachers and senior/middle leaders were more likely than others to say the gap had closed a little/a lot, while classroom teachers and support/other staff were more likely than senior staff to say they did not know. 84% of headteachers felt that the gap had closed in numeracy.

Linked to school staff perceptions of progress in numeracy, the majority (81%) reported their school’s approach to closing the poverty-related attainment gap has included learning and teaching approaches related to numeracy and half indicated that they had been involved in professional learning related to numeracy. Respondents based in primary schools and schools with a higher proportion of pupils living in deprived areas were more likely to mention professional learning in relation to learning and teaching approaches. 65% of those who had seen improved numeracy to a great extent reported taking part in numeracy-related professional learning, compared to less than half of those reporting little or no improvement doing these kinds of professional learning.

National Qualifications

The following section summarises school leaver attainment based on the National Qualifications measure (e.g. National 5, Higher, Advanced Higher and Skills for Work). Alongside the Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels, they make up the NIF attainment measures of the poverty-related attainment gap and are the measures related to the Senior Phase.

School leaver attainment data at both SCQF Levels 4 and 5 show a widening of the gap between pupils from least and most deprived areas. Attainment decreased in general, but more so for pupils from the most deprived areas leading to the widening of the gap.

The gap in the proportion of pupils who left school with 1 or more qualifications at SCQF Level 6 or better, narrowed very slightly between 2015/16 and 2023/24, from 38.5 percentage points to 38.4 percentage points.

Wider achievement

The Scottish Attainment Challenge Refresh in April 2022 included a recognition of children and young people's broader achievements and attainment through the policy's mission ‘to use education to improve outcomes for children and young people impacted by poverty, with a focus on tackling the poverty-related attainment gap’.

The basket of stretch aims were updated to include the All SCQF measure. The All SCQF measure being school leaver attainment in any qualification or learning programme on the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF), as reported on Insight (the professional benchmarking tool used by local authorities and schools). This includes the SQA National Qualifications, other SQA qualifications, and qualifications from other providers, universities, colleges, and work-based learning.

The poverty-related attainment gap is narrower under the All SCQF Measure than it is under the National Qualifications measure – for example, at SCQF Level 5 or above, the gap was 16.6pp under the All SCQF Measure compared to 20.2pp under the National Qualifications measure.

Under the All SCQF measure, the attainment gap has narrowed at Levels 5 and 6, between 2015/16 and 2023/24, whereas it widened at SCQF Level 4 from 5.4pp in 2015/16 to 6.4pp in 2023/24. In this period, the number of award providers and types of awards has expanded. However, the important aspect of this trend is that pupils are achieving these awards.

The ASF’s contribution to wider achievement opportunities has also been indicated through the SAC Leads Survey 2024 and the School Survey in 2025. Findings included:

• Three quarters of secondary school respondents agreed that the fund has provided opportunities for children and young people to develop important skills for learning, life and work. 24 out of 26 respondents to the SAC Leads Survey 2024 agreed with this statement to a ‘great extent’ or ‘some extent’.
• Three quarters of all respondents to the School Survey agreed that the ASF has provided opportunities to learn outside the classroom (74%). 25 out of 26 SAC Leads Survey respondents agreed with this statement.
• Two thirds (66%) of respondents to the School Survey agreed that the ASF provided opportunities for wider experience/achievements such as voluntary work, sport, the arts and other activities; 24 out of 26 SAC Leads survey respondents agreed to ‘great’ or ‘some’ extent that the ASF has contributed to opportunities for learners to benefit/experience wider achievements.

The most common extra-curricular activites that staff reported the ASF had supported were residential trips/holiday activities (49%), outdoor learning (32%), after school clubs (21%) and sporting events (18%). The main impacts described included allowing all children to take part (37%), provided life skills (31%), improvements to mental health and wellbeing (16%) and positively impacting on attendance (15%) and transitions (15%).

Health and Wellbeing

The evidence in this section is structured around insights from the School Survey and then summarises trends from the the NIF measures of the poverty-related gap in health and wellbeing. Health and wellbeing has also emerged as an important aspect in the thematic evaluation, particularly the Families and Communities and Readiness to Learn areas, which are considered in the next chapter of this report.

A clear focus on wellbeing and nurture emerged from the School Survey: pupil wellbeing initiatives were mentioned by 85%, and nurture based interventions/approaches by 71%. At least half mentioned family support/wellbeing initiatives (54%). Respondents in secondary schools were more likely to mention family support/wellbeing initiatives (65% v 51%). There was a clear pattern in results based on levels of deprivation: respondents from schools in the most deprived areas were more likely than those in the least deprived areas to cite that their school had an approach that included family support/wellbeing (81% v 35%) and pupil wellbeing (99% v 77%).

All respondents were asked about the extent to which they have seen improvements for children and young people affected by poverty in attainment and wellbeing as a result of the ASF. This was most commonly reported for improvements in health and wellbeing (75% said this had improved to a great/moderate extent, with 37% saying a great extent).

• Those based in the second least deprived areas^[24] tended to be most likely to report improvements: 86% said this for health and wellbeing (compared to 70% among the least deprived, 78% among the second most deprived^[25], and 75% among the most deprived).
• Respondents reporting improvements in health and wellbeing to a great extent were particularly likely to say their school’s approach included pupil wellbeing initiatives (91%) and nurture based approaches (79%); and to have undertaken professional learning in relation to these aspects (72% pupil wellbeing; 68% nurture based approaches).
• Those who reported a focus on readiness to learn as part of their school’s approach were also more likely than others to report improvements, particularly for health and wellbeing, for example 48% of those reporting a focus on readiness to learn to a great extent reported improved health and wellbeing to a great extent.
• Three quarters of respondents reported that the poverty-related attainment gap has closed at least a little for health and wellbeing, with 22% saying the gap had closed a lot.
• Respondents reporting the gap had closed a lot for health and wellbeing were particularly likely to report professional learning in relation to wellbeing initiatives (73%, compared to 55% of those saying the gap had not closed at all) and family support/wellbeing initiatives (53% v 31%).
• Most respondents to the School Survey had taken part in at least some health and wellbeing-related professional learning in relation to the poverty-related attainment gap. Only 5% said they had not done any professional learning in this area. More than half had taken part in professional learning with a focus on nurture (57%) and pupil wellbeing initiatives (56%).

The health and wellbeing NIF measures have less direct links with the School Survey findings, which is in part due to a focus on early years. However, there are important findings from the survey in terms of wellbeing and nurture that are useful to consider. It is clear that health and wellbeing are key areas of ASF funded activity in schools with positive perceptions of impact reported.

The NIF measures of the poverty-related gap in Health and Wellbeing include:

• Total Difficulties score for Primary and Secondary;
• 27-30 Month Review;
• Attendance and Absence Rates.

These are considered in turn below to provide a summary of the key trends.

Total Difficulties Score

For health and wellbeing data, the Total Difficulties Score for children aged 4-12 and ages 13 and 15 are considered.^{[26] [27]} In Scotland, children from the most deprived areas tend to have higher total difficulties scores compared to those from less deprived areas.^[28]

The proportion of children aged 4-12 with a borderline or abnormal total difficulties score is similar between 2018-2022 combined (17%) and 2019-2023 combined (19%). The gap between children with a borderline or abnormal total difficulties score in the most deprived and least deprived areas has increased since 2015-2018 combined (15 percentage points) and was at 19 percentage points in 2019-2023 combined. This is due to an increase in the percentage of children in the most deprived areas with a borderline or abnormal total difficulties score.

The total difficulties score of children aged 13 and 15 was reported on in the 2021/22 Health and Wellbeing (HWB) Census which recorded 43% of 13- and 15-year-olds with a borderline or abnormal total difficulties score. The gap between children from the most deprived and least deprived areas was 13 percentage points, with 50% of 13- and 15-year-olds from the most deprived areas reporting a borderline or abnormal total difficulties score compared with 37% of those from the least deprived areas.

27-30 month review

The 27- 30 month review is a health and development check offered to all children in Scotland at around 27 to 30 months of age.^[29]

Overall, the percentage of children with no developmental concerns in Scotland has increased from 72.4% in 2014/15 to 77.6% in 2023/24. The gap between children from the most deprived and least deprived areas who have no developmental concerns across all domains decreased from 16.3 percentage points in 2015/16 to 14.4 percentage points in 2023/24.

The gap between children from the most deprived and least deprived areas who have no developmental concerns across all domains has varied since 2015/16. The gap increased in the years to 2017/18, then decreased to 2020/21 before increasing again in 2021/22 and 2022/23 and decreasing in 2023/24. In 2023/24 the gap is smaller than in the pre-pandemic years.

Attendance and absence

Attendance data was collected every two years until 2022/23, but is currently an annual collection. The 2022/23 data shows that school attendance rates have fallen compared with 2020/21. This continues a trend for decreases in attendance rates since 2016/17. The gap in attendance between school pupils from the most and least deprived areas has widened since 2014/15.

The overall attendance rate for 2023/24 was 90.3%. For the period from 2014/15 to 2018/19 the attendance rate was relatively stable at around 93%. In 2020/21, during COVID-19, the attendance rate dropped to 92.0% and then dropped again in 2022/23 to 90.2%. Therefore, although the attendance rate for 2023/24 represents an increase on the previous year, it is still lower than the pre-COVID-19 period.

The gap in attendance rates was more prominent in secondary schools than primary schools. In primary schools the gap reduced from 5.7 percentage points in 2022/23 to 5.5 percentage points in 2023/24. In secondary schools the gap in attendance rates increased over time.

Positive Destinations

Two NIF measures provide data on destinations and participation after the age of 16: the Positive Destinations measure and the Annual Participation Measure (APM). Both indicate a positive trend in positive destinations and a narrowing of the poverty-related gap. This aligns with findings from the School Survey, where almost half (44%) of secondary school respondents reported that their school had used ASF funding for positive destinations initiatives. A third of staff in secondary schools (32%) said that they had participated in professional learning in relation to positive destinations initiatives.

The initial positive destinations measure provides information on the outcomes for young people approximately three months after the end of the academic year. ^[30]

The data show that:

• Overall, the percentage of school leavers in a positive initial destination increased between 2015-16 and 2022-23 but decreased very slightly in 2023-24.
• The gap in the proportion of school leavers in a positive destination has generally been narrowing each year since 2015/16 and in 2023/24 is 4.3 percentage points compared with 7.9 percentage points in 2015/16.
• While the percentage of school leavers in an initial positive destination has generally been increasing for those from both the most and least deprived areas, the increase has been greater for those from the most deprived areas.
• The gap between leavers from the most deprived and least deprived areas in a positive initial destination widened slightly between 2022/23 and 2023/24. Despite this, this is the second narrowest gap since consistent records began in 2009-10.

The Annual Participation Measure^[31] (APM) reports on the education and employment activity of 16–19-year-olds in Scotland.

The data show that:

• The proportion of 16–19-year-olds participating in education, training or employment was 92.7% in 2024. This represents an increase of 0.1 percentage points compared to 92.6% in 2023 and is the highest rate since the inception of the APM in 2017. Previous figures showed a slight increase year on year with the exception of 2019.
• The gap between the proportion of 16–19-year-olds in the most and least deprived areas participating in education, training and employment has steadily decreased from 12.9 percentage points in 2016 to 8.2 percentage points in 2024.
• The decrease is driven by an increase in the proportion of 16–19-year-olds from the most deprived areas participating in education, training, and employment from 83.3% in 2016 to 88.4% in 2024.
• Over the same period the percentage of 16–19-year-olds from the least deprived areas participating in education, training or employment has remained broadly similar, going from 96.2% in 2016 to 96.6% in 2024.

Care Experienced Children and Young People

The Care Experienced Children and Young People Fund is a targeted resource provided to local authorities to support care experienced children and young people from birth to the age of 26. The funding is provided to local authorities and aims to improve the educational outcomes and experiences for care experienced children and young people, supported by the strategic goals of the Promise and the Scottish Attainment Challenge.

This section summarises official statistics on Educational Outcomes for Looked After Children alongside insights on school approaches from the School Survey.

Findings from the Educational Outcomes publication show progress in the attainment and positive destinations of Looked After Children. The findings include:

• Attainment for school leavers who were looked after within the year has increased since 2015/16 at all levels, but dropped slightly in the last year. This includes an increase in looked after leavers achieving at least one qualification at SCQF level 5 or better, from 29.8% in 2015/16 to 42.3% in 2022/23 (down from 46.1% in 2021/22).

• The gap between the proportion of looked after leavers and all children achieving one or more qualification at SCQF level 5 or better has also reduced since 2015/16, though it has increased slightly in the last year. The gap has decreased from 55.3 percentage points in 2015/16 to 42.5 percentage points in 2022/23.

• Since 2015/16, the proportion of leavers looked after within the year who were in a positive destination after leaving school has increased. The proportion in a positive initial destination increased from 74.0% to 86.4%, while the proportion in a positive follow-up destination increased from 65.9% to 71.1%. However, in 2022/23, looked after leavers continue to be less likely to be in a positive initial or follow-up destination than all school leavers (95.9% and 92.8% respectively).

• In 2022/23, the gap between the proportion of leavers looked after within the year in a positive follow-up destination compared to all school leavers was 21.8 percentage points. This is down since 2015/16 (26.3 percentage points) and smaller compared to 2021/22 (23.8 percentage points).

• The proportion of looked after leavers who left school in S4 or earlier has reduced from 48.0% in 2015/16 to 34.4% in 2022/23. However, this includes an increase from 31.7% the previous year.

The impact of approaches to support care experienced children and young people was explored in the School Survey. Respondents who had mentioned the inclusion of specific approaches to improving outcomes for care experienced children and young people described the impacts they had seen. The majority of respondents (seven in ten) reported that there were specific interventions for children and young people with care experience in their school. This included:

• 29% of respondents highlighted specific pupil support staff put in place;
• One quarter (25%) highlighted tailored interventions based on knowledge of pupils;
• 22% highlighted wellbeing focused approaches;
• 21% provided details of other specific activities/support provided.

Around seven in ten respondents described the impacts of such support. These were most likely to be:

• Improved attendance/attainment for care experienced children and young people, highlighted by 32% of respondents;
• Behavioural/emotional impacts, highlighted by 16% of respondents;
• Increased engagement in school, highlighted by 15% of respondents.

The School Survey indicates that the majority of schools have specific interventions for children and young people with care experience, with respondents indicating that this is resulting in improved attendance, engagement and attainment for this group. These impacts are showing in national data, with educational outcomes for Looked After Children and Young People improving in the years of the Fund, with increased staying on rates, attainment, and positive destinations. The gap between children and young people who have had Looked After status in the previous year and all pupils has consistently narrowed in this period.

Factors supporting progress and barriers

There has been a consistent theme in the evaluation evidence, both prior to the SAC refresh in 2022 and since, that a number of factors support progress. This includes the importance of collaboration, effective use of data and evidence, high levels of understanding of and increased awareness of poverty, strategic planning and joined up approaches, and the targeted support and use of ASF.

More recent evidence gathered in the evaluation in 2024 suggests that addressing financial barriers to learning, such as cost of the school day approaches, and the introduction of specific ASF-supported roles to address attendance and health and wellbeing, are increasingly associated with progress.

This is similarly reflected by findings in the School Survey, where, for example, staffing/resources were highlighted by 60% of respondents to the School Survey as suporting progress. This included having more/specialist staff, including specifically PEF-funded roles (mentioned by 30%), and general staffing resources/pupil ratios (mentioned by 25%). Almost half of School Survey respondents (49%) highlighted approaches focusing on pupil wellbeing/needs/readiness to learn as having contributed to progress at the school level, as well as just over one third (35%) who noted the ability to target pupil support. Focusing on improved attendance/engagement and increased literacy/numeracy provision were also mentioned by approximately a quarter of respondents.

In addition to identifying factors supporting progress, a number of barriers to progress have also been identified across evidence sources to date. This includes:

• Reduction in funding allocation for former Challenge Authorities^[32];
• Concerns related to declining attendance of pupils;
• Wider challenges such as ongoing impact of COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis, potentially exacerbating the challenges experienced by families experiencing poverty.

The School Survey also identified a range of factors preventing (greater) improvement, with some notable similarity to the issues identified at the local authority level:

• Challenges related to staffing issues/lack of staff (36%) (e.g. staff absence, turnover, recruitment);
• Issues related to amount/allocation of funding (26%);
• Challenges related to wider societal challenges (26%) – including poverty and hidden poverty, COVID long term impact and troubled home life/family breakdown etc.

Culture and Ethos

The ASF continues to positively support a culture and ethos based on educational equity. This has been a consistent finding throughout the evaluation, most recently through the SAC Leads Survey 2024 which showed:

• All survey respondents viewed ASF as supporting the embedding of educational equity to a great extent or to some extent on leadership and on professional learning and the vast majority of respondents viewed ASF as supporting the embedding of educational equity to a great extent or to some extent on learning and teaching practices in the classroom.
• Additionally, all respondents were of the view that ASF supports embedding of educational equity across school and local authority contexts, either to a great or to some extent.
• Whilst the majority of respondents perceived ASF as supporting the embedding of educational equity across national, regional and community settings to a great or to some extent, this was not universal with a small number of respondents perceiving this was to a more limited extent or were unsure.

The national stakeholders who participated in stakeholder interviews in summer 2024 had similar views in relation to the impact of ASF on developing a culture and ethos based on educational equity. Funding was broadly viewed as ‘focusing minds’ on the poverty-related attainment gap.

These themes were further explored in the School Survey and, as with other evidence, show that school staff have a highly positive perception of the impact of ASF on the wider culture and ethos of schools, particularly in relation to embedding the culture within communities of schools with higher levels of deprivation. A highly positive picture can be seen here:

• leadership encourages a positive culture and ethos to support the learning needs of all pupils, including pupils affected by poverty (96% overall, 62% strongly);
• staff are aware of the poverty-related barriers and challenges to learning (95%, 50% strongly);
• addressing the needs of children affected by poverty is an important factor in their school (93%, 59% strongly);
• staff have access to professional learning to enable them to support the learning needs of pupils affected by poverty (84%, 34% strongly);
• the ASF has contributed to a positive culture and ethos in our school for responding to the learning needs of all pupils, including those affected by poverty (81%, 36% strongly); and,
• staff are confident they can effectively support pupils affected by poverty (81%, 30% strongly).

There were also some patterns of School Survey responses similar to those found elsewhere in survey responses. For example, headteachers and senior/middle leaders provided more positive feedback on the topic of culture and ethos than classroom teachers and support/other staff. Support/other staff were more likely to answer they were unsure or did not know. There were also some area-related differences, with schools with the highest proportions of pupils from more deprived areas, and schools based in urban areas, more likely to agree that staff are aware of challenges and that they are able to support children and young people affected by poverty.

School staff were also asked as to what extent an overall approach to achieving equity in education and reducing the poverty-related attainment gap has been embedded within the school community. Over three quarters (77%) said this has happened to a great or moderate extent and a further 19% to some extent. Support/other staff were least likely to report this to a great/moderate extent, but were more likely to say they did not know.

Whilst responses regarding reported embeddedness in the school community were consistent by school type, there were differences based on deprivation. Those with the lowest proportion of pupils from deprived areas were least likely to say approaches to equity had been embedded to a great extent (34%), compared with 49% of those with the highest proportion of pupils from deprived areas. This is consistent with findings above regarding staff in schools with higher proportion of pupils in deprivation reporting a greater understanding of challenges and barriers for children and young people affected by poverty.

In addition, there are positive views on the impact of ASF on the wider education system from respondents to the School Survey (i.e. the impact of ASF on the education system as a whole, not just their own school). This included:

• ASF has supported the recognition of broader achievements: 26% of staff agreed with this to a great extent, 37% to a moderate extent and 27% to some extent;
• ASF has supported the promotion of high aspirations for all children and young people: 24% of staff agreed with this to a great extent, 36% to a moderate extent, and 29% to some extent;
• ASF has supported the embedding educational equity across the education system: 21% agreed with this to a great extent, 37% to a moderate extent, and 30% to some extent.

Headteachers and senior/middle leaders responded more positively to the above aspects than classroom teachers and support/other staff (who were more likely to say they did not know).

Sustainability of approaches and impact

Supporting sustainability was identified as a factor in choosing approaches to closing the poverty-related attainment gap for schools and local authorities accoridng to the SAC Leads Survey 2024 and national stakeholder interviews. Sustainability was identified as being addressed, for example, through embedding approaches into core planning processes, developing local authority wide and whole school approaches, building staff capacity and planning transition strategies. Views on how much sustainability had been considered varied, with recognition from a number of SAC Leads respondents and national stakeholder interviewees that an increased focus on sustainability was required. The suggestion was made that further support from the Scottish Government with developing transition strategies would be welcomed.

Headteachers and senior leaders were asked in the School Survey about the ways, if any, their school was addressing sustainability of their approach beyond the current phase of the ASF. The findings show that:

• Building capacity among teaching staff (81%) and whole school approaches (77%) were most frequently part of approaches to support sustainability at the school level. This was followed by the development of spaces to meet local needs (69%) and focusing on upskilling of existing staff (64%). A majority also mentioned building partnerships to support families (59%) and building leadership capacity (55%).
• Collaboration was identified as an important aspect by almost half of respondents: collaborating with other schools by 47% and collaborating with other organisations (e.g. third sector organisations) by 43%.
• Transition planning was highlighted by 41%.

Headteachers and senior leaders were also asked about any concerns related to sustainability in the School Survey. These tended to focus on concerns about funding issues, with seven in ten raising concerns related to this (72%) – including concerns about any reduction of PEF or funding cuts (36%) and comments about the initiatives that would be affected without PEF (28%). Over half (55%) also commented in relation to concerns about staffing and resources.

Sustainability of focus and of improvements was also explored in the School Survey, both in terms of sustainability of focus and of improvements. Sustainability of improvements beyond the current phase of the programme as a result of ASF were linked to earlier questions about progress in closing the gap, with one third of those who reported positive impact of ASF on the poverty-related attainment gap indicating they thought this improvement would be sustainable beyond current phase of programme.

All respondents who had reported the poverty-related attainment gap had closed a little or a lot for literacy, numeracy and/or health and wellbeing were asked if they thought the improvement as a result of the ASF would be sustainable beyond the current phase of the programme:

• One third of respondents overall (33%) said yes (9% to a great extent, 24% to a moderate extent) and a further 42% to some extent.
• There were some differences regarding role, sector and urban vs rural in responses: headteachers were less optimistic in their judgements about sustainability compared to senior/middle leaders and classroom teachers; staff based in secondary schools were more likely than primary school staff to say that improvements were sustainable to a great/moderate extent; those in small towns/rural areas were less likely than those in large urban areas to say improvements were sustainable to a great/moderate extent.

Sustainability of focus beyond the current phase of the programme was asked of all respondents:

• Half of respondents thought the focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap was sustainable beyond the current phase to a great (23%) or moderate (27%) extent. A further 31% said it was sustainable to some extent.
• Responses were broadly consistent across all staff roles for this question (with the exception of support/other staff being more likely than others to say they did not know).
• Those in secondary schools were more likely than those in primary schools to say that the focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap is sustainable, and when looked at in relation to role, those in senior roles in secondary schools were more likely to say the focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap is sustainable. Those in small towns/rural areas and those with lower number pupils from the most deprived areas were less likely than others to say the focus was sustainable to a great/moderate extent.

There was a consensus across evidence sources that continued specific funding to support and sustain embedding equity across the education system and to address the complex and long-term nature of the challenge is of high importance. Alongside a recognition of the considerable pressure on local authorities’ core budgets, it was noted that addressing future funding uncertainty through early confirmation of ASF funding beyond the current parliamentary term would be welcomed.^[33]