Attainment Scotland Fund Evaluation: School Survey Report, 2025

Conclusions

Overview

This school-based staff survey provides up-to-date insight into the experiences and perspectives of Scottish schools on the impact of activities supported by the Attainment Scotland Fund. A broad range of perspectives are included, from school-based staff in different roles, and from a broadly representative sample of schools in terms of school type, size, urban/rural classification and SIMD profile.

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

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

There was clear evidence from school-based staff that progress has been made, with two thirds of respondents noting a great/moderate improvement in attainment in literacy, and three fifths in numeracy, for children and young people affected by poverty. Around three quarters said that the poverty-related attainment gap has closed for literacy and for numeracy as a result of interventions/approaches supported by the ASF. Those who reported any improvement in attainment were most likely to highlight improvements among children with ASN, those in later school stages (especially S4-S6) and CECYP.

Survey respondents highlighted a range of areas where understanding and confidence has increased over the course of the Scottish Attainment Challenge, indicating positive progress over time towards reaching the goals of the mission. This includes greater understanding of the challenges/barriers faced by children affected by poverty, increased confidence in selecting approaches based on local needs and improvements in the use of data and evidence – more than eight in ten reported improvements in each of these areas.

Data suggests a link between the approaches implemented and the results seen: for example, the vast majority of those who reported improved literacy and/or numeracy reported a relevant focus on learning and teaching approaches and these staff were also likely to report having undertaken relevant professional learning; ASN approaches also appear to be linked to improved literacy and numeracy. Those reporting improvements in health and wellbeing were also particularly likely to say their school’s approach included pupil wellbeing initiatives and nurture-based approaches.

Open-ended questions explored key factors contributing to progress, and the key elements highlighted were that the ASF supported increased/specialist staffing/resources, the ability to target interventions/approaches, and focusing on pupil wellbeing/needs/readiness to learn. Issues that were identified as preventing improvements in attainment/wellbeing, or reasons why there has not been greater progress in improving attainment/closing the poverty-related attainment gap tended to focus on staffing issues, factors related to the amount/allocation of funding, wider societal challenges and an increase in pupils with special needs/issues to be addressed.

Readiness to learn and pupil wellbeing

Improving children and young people’s readiness to learn through focusing on engagement, attendance, confidence and wellbeing is a crucial element of the Scottish Attainment Challenge mission. This is reflected in survey findings which indicate this was a key focus for most respondents – more than four fifths said that a focus on readiness to learn has featured in their school’s approach to improving the educational outcomes of children and young people affected by poverty to a great/moderate extent (and two thirds said this was to a great extent).

When asked about how the ASF has been used in their school, headteachers and those in lead roles in closing the poverty-related attainment gap highlighted a wide range of initiatives as well as learning and teaching approaches – this included a strong focus on wellbeing initiatives and nurture based interventions/approaches, and two thirds mentioned using ASF funding to address financial barriers/cost of the school day issues.

The impacts of these approaches, and the focus on readiness to learn as a way to address the poverty-related attainment gap, were evident: those who had reported a focus on readiness to learn reported that they had seen improvements in this area to a great/moderate extent. Around three quarters of all respondents also noted that health and wellbeing has improved among children and young people affected by poverty, and three quarters said the gap has closed between the most and least deprived in health and wellbeing.

Evidence also suggests that this focus on readiness to learn has had a wider impact on attainment: respondents whose schools had focused on readiness to learn as part of their approach were more likely than others to report improvements, particularly for health and wellbeing but also for literacy and numeracy attainment, among pupils affected by poverty.

ASF contribution to wider opportunities and broader achievements

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

There was evidence of a focus on wider achievements throughout the survey findings; for example, just under half of headteachers and those with a lead role said that wider achievement focus/initiatives/offers were a part of their ASF approaches, and around a quarter of all respondents said they had taken part in professional learning in this area.

Findings also suggest the ASF did provide opportunities for children and young people to develop important skills for learning, life and work, and opportunities to learn outside the classroom (three quarters of respondents agreed in relation to both of these aspects), and opportunities for wider experience/achievements such as voluntary work, sport, the arts and other activities (although agreement was slightly lower for this statement, at around two thirds).

It is also worth noting that two thirds of respondents said children and young people were engaged in decision-making about how to close the poverty-related attainment gap, and that this resulted in pupils having a sense of ownership/ involvement and ensured that approaches were able to reflect what is wanted/ needed.

Culture and ethos of equity

As well as providing positive feedback about the learning and teaching approaches embedded at the classroom level, respondents were generally very positive about the culture and ethos of their schools more widely in relation to equity in education. For example, over nine in ten agreed that leadership encourages a positive culture and ethos to support the learning needs of all pupils, including pupils affected by poverty; that staff are aware of poverty-related barriers and challenges to learning; and that addressing the needs of children affected by poverty is an important factor in their school. More than three quarters also reported that an overall approach to achieving equity in education and reducing the poverty-related attainment gap has been embedded within their school community to a great/moderate extent.

The evaluation also aimed to explore the extent to which a culture and ethos based on equity was embedded in the education system. Findings do suggest impacts on the education system as a whole: around three fifths of respondents said that the ASF has recognised broader achievements, promoted high aspirations for all children and young people and embedded educational equity across the education system – although it is worth noting that respondents were more likely to say these aspects had been achieved to a ‘moderate’ rather than a ‘great’ extent, suggesting there is scope to further embed a culture based on equity across the whole education system.

Throughout the survey, those in more senior roles tended to report more detailed knowledge and more positive views, with headteachers and senior/middle leaders being more likely to report improvements etc. compared to classroom teachers and those in support/other roles. This is likely to reflect a lack of knowledge of some of the more detailed/strategic questions among support staff compared to headteachers but could indicate that there is also some progress still to be made in terms of truly embedding approaches to achieving equity throughout entire school communities.

Sustainability

A third of respondents who reported the poverty-related attainment gap had closed said that improvements were sustainable beyond the current phase of the programme, and half of all respondents said that a focus on closing the gap would be sustainable beyond the current phase of the ASF programme – although they were more likely to say this was sustainable to a moderate than a great extent. It is also worth noting that those who reported an overall approach to achieving equity had been embedded within their school community were more likely than others to say the focus on closing the gap was sustainable.

Various approaches are being implemented to address sustainability of approaches, most commonly building capacity among teaching staff, whole school approaches, development of spaces to meet local needs and upskilling of existing staff. However, a range of concerns were raised about sustainability and key challenges for the future. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these tended to focus on concerns about funding issues, including concerns about any reduction of PEF or funding cuts and the initiatives that would be affected without PEF. Concerns were also commonly expressed about staffing and resources, most often that there would be changes/an impact on staffing if ASF funding was no longer available.

Experiences of staff from different types of school

There were some trends in the survey data based on the type of school that staff were based in. It should be borne in mind that sub-group analysis revealed some differences in the sample profiles: for example, those working in large urban areas were more likely than those in small town/rural areas to be based in schools with a high proportion of pupils in the most deprived areas. Respondents in primary schools were also 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. While analysis should therefore be interpreted with these patterns in mind, some broad conclusions can nevertheless be drawn.

There were some differences in ASF-supported approaches used by school type. Staff in primary schools were more likely to mention learning and teaching approaches focused on literacy, and access to professional learning in relation to learning and teaching, outdoor learning and ASN approaches. Secondary-based staff were more likely to mention several of the wider initiatives as part of their ASF approach (e.g. pupil attendance, cost of the school day, family support/wellbeing, wider achievements etc.), and were more likely to mention collaboration with a range of partners, including public sector partners, third sector organisations, and universities/colleges. Secondary-based staff were generally more positive than those in primaries regarding the sustainability of improvements seen and the future focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap beyond the current phase of the ASF.

For the most part, differences based on urban/rural classification are likely to reflect the differences in SIMD profile (see below), since respondents in urban areas were more likely to be based in schools with higher levels of deprivation. However, some differences may be a result of the rurality of schools. For example, staff in small towns/rural areas were least likely to report discussion/collaboration with other schools in developing approaches, or collaboration with partners, and less likely to agree that the ASF has offered opportunities to learn beyond the classroom. It is not clear whether these findings reflect lower access to wider opportunities in these areas, and/or the lower levels of ASF funding likely to be available to these schools due to how the funding is allocated.

There was a general pattern throughout the survey analysis that staff in schools with the highest proportions of children living in the most deprived areas tended to report having greater understanding of challenges/barriers faced by children affected by poverty and greater confidence in selecting approaches to address this. They were more likely to rate the use of evidence to measure the impact of ASF approaches as being good overall, and to report an improvement in the use of data and evidence since the start of the Scottish Attainment Challenge.

Those from the most deprived areas were also more likely to mention a focus on readiness to learn, report improvements in readiness to learn, and that approaches to equity were embedded within the school community. However, there was less of a difference in terms of reported improvements in attainment, suggesting that when it comes to the perception of actual impact on improved literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing, a range of other factors may be influencing progress in the most deprived areas, demonstrating the scale and complexity of the challenge of closing the poverty-related attainment gap. That said, improvements in health and wellbeing were more likely to be reported than improvements in attainment in literacy or numeracy, and this was the case in the most deprived as well as the least deprived areas.

Although progress was noted, a continued focus on closing the gap is likely to be required, with particular emphasis on addressing the challenges noted by respondents and developing sustainability approaches beyond the current phase of the programme – crucial elements including availability of staffing and funding.