Attainment Scotland Fund Evaluation: School Survey Report, 2025

Research method and sample

Research method

An online self-completion survey was administered among headteachers and other school-based staff. The survey invitation was sent by email directly to all schools in Scotland using Scottish Government contact details.

The invitation asked the headteacher to complete the survey and send the link to an average of three other staff in the school. Instructions were included in the email invitation about the proposed sampling approach, which was based on the total number of staff in the school, with a view to reaching a range of staff including PEF leads, senior and middle leaders, classroom teachers, pupil support assistants etc. Respondents did not have to be working in a specifically ASF-related role.

Fieldwork was conducted between 12 March and 23 May 2025. A copy of the survey questionnaire is included in Appendix 1.

A number of activities were undertaken to encourage participation in the survey. This included promotion of the survey via relevant local authority staff, email reminders issued at agreed points throughout the fieldwork, and telephone reminders targeting schools in the local authorities with the lowest response rates. Further details of methods used to maximise response rates are included in the technical appendix (Appendix 2).

Survey response

In total, 974 responses were received from 598 schools – an overall school response rate of 25% (based on the number of schools returning at least one completion, regardless of the number of staff or which staff within each school completed the survey). The average number of returns was 1.63 per school; 72% of schools provided a single response and 28% provided multiple responses.

As participants were able to save their responses and return to the survey later, a small number of partial completions were received. Responses were included in the final sample for analysis if they completed Q39 (i.e. they completed up to and including all the questions on the impacts of the ASF). This means that base sizes vary slightly for the very final questions (the final section on sustainability of approaches, Q40~Q43). See Appendix 1 for details of the questionnaire.

Sample profile

Achieved sample profile details are provided in Table 1, based on school-level data appended from the sample database provided by the Scottish Government, and Table 2, based on respondent-level data provided in the survey.

As outlined in Table 1, the schools in the achieved survey sample are broadly representative of the profile of all schools across Scotland, with a very similar profile in terms of school type, size, urban/rural classification and SIMD^[7] profile. The smallest schools (with <100 pupils) were slightly under-represented in the achieved sample (22% compared to 29% of schools across Scotland). The profile of respondents is slightly different: for example, secondary schools tend to be larger and therefore more respondents completed the survey per school among secondaries.

Analysis and reporting

Sample for analysis

Reporting is based on the total sample of respondents, not the total number of schools represented – since the target audience was all school-based staff, and headteachers were asked to share the survey with other people within the school.

Data has not been weighted. There is no available profile data for the target audience (all school-based staff) and in any case the profile of schools represented in the achieved sample is broadly in line with the profile of all schools (although the smallest schools were slightly under-represented), so weighting was not judged to be necessary.

Sub-group analysis^[9]

Analysis has been conducted comparing various sub-groups, including based on:

• School type: primary, secondary^[10]
• Role: headteachers, senior/middle leaders, classroom teachers and support staff/other roles^[11]
• Proportion of pupils in SIMD quintiles 1 and 2, i.e. living in the most deprived areas: <25%, 25-49%, 50‑74% and 75%+^[12]
• For ease of reading, these sub-groups are generally referred to in the analysis as ‘least deprived’ (<25%) and ‘most deprived’ (75%+). Where more detailed analysis is included, definitions are described in full or defined in footnotes
• Urban/rural classification: large urban, other urban and small towns/rural areas
• Results were also analysed by school size, but since pupil rolls were very closely linked to school type, analysis focuses on school type rather than size.

There were some patterns within the sample profile that have a bearing on sub‑group analysis. For example, there was a link between urban/rural classification and levels of deprivation, with the large urban sub-group being more likely than the small town/rural sub-group to have a high proportion of pupils in SIMD quintiles 1 and 2. There were also patterns in relation to respondent role and school type: e.g. respondents based in primary schools were more likely than those in secondary schools to be headteachers, while the sub-group from secondary schools were more likely than those in primaries to include other roles. Sub-group analysis should be interpreted bearing these patterns in mind and caveats are included throughout the report where relevant.

Reporting notes

For ease of reading the results, percentage labels have not been included in some of the charts where small percentages are charted. In instances where percentages quoted in the text do not match the sum of two figures in the charts, this is due to rounding.

The survey included several open questions, allowing people to respond in their own words. These comments have been coded into themes, and a breakdown shows the percentage of respondents making comments falling into each theme. These percentages are based on the number of people providing a comment at each question, and individual respondents can be coded into more than one theme. Depending on the number of codes for each question, not all individual codes are shown.

Limitations

There are limitations associated with any survey method. For example, as the survey was conducted online, the sample necessarily excludes people who do not have internet access. However, given the professional audience and the availability of computers within schools, this is not likely to be a particular issue for this survey.

The response rate was lower than the target set: based on response rates to similar surveys pre-COVID-19, it was hoped that a 40% school-level response rate would be achieved. However, the 25% response rate was identical to the response rate for the 2021 headteacher survey. It is worth noting that responses to school surveys have been declining in recent years and this is judged to be a relatively good response rate to a survey of this nature.