Attainment Scotland Fund evaluation: implementation and impact report 2024

Section 5: Unintended consequences

This section considers evidence gathered to date in relation to the following evaluation question:

• Did the changes to the funding structure with the refreshed SAC have any unintended consequences?

Perspectives of both positive and negative unintended consequences were gathered across evidence sources.

Positive unintended consequences

Positive consequences, such as increased use of data and evidence, increased collaboration, increased understanding and a focused approach to closing the poverty-related attainment gap relate to SAC Logic Model outcomes. However, perspectives do provide further nuanced understanding, as the examples outlined in the box below illustrate.

• Supported senior leaders and officers to look more closely at different cohorts of learners.
• Greater engagement at school level with data and evidence.
• Improved understanding of impact of poverty across services with ‘shared goal’ of tackling the poverty-related attainment gap.
• Improved partnerships to support local communities.
• Empowerment of headteachers.
• Increased creativity in approaches.
• Sharing of good practice at local level.
• CECYP Funding raising awareness of barriers experienced by care experienced children and young people and supported work aligned to The Promise.
• Supported schools to take on staff with wider range of skills.
• Staff in ASF roles achieving promoted posts.
• Opportunity through reduction in funding for project lead to oversee all aspects of ASF in local authority.
• Flexibility of developing interventions as result of SEF.
• Increased accountability across system through ‘shift to practitioners needing to change practice to support needs of learners rather than relying on other interventions to support learners’.

Source: SAC Leads Survey 2024

Negative unintended consequences

In terms of unintended negative consequences, the key aspect highlighted by respondents to the SAC Leads Survey related to sustainability. Funding through ASF was viewed as having become a critical part of the model operating in schools with PEF and other additional interventions funded through SEF, creating considerable concerns regarding the longevity of funding. The sustainability of CECYP was raised as a concern as if it did not continue, it was perceived this would disadvantage a group of vulnerable learners, as it would not be possible to absorb all costs into core funding. A related point concerned the negative consequence of transition strategies which local authorities are developing which may lead to a ‘diluted’ impact.

Ongoing concerns regarding the impact of COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis were also highlighted across the evidence considered. Without sustainability of ASF funding, there were concerns that reduced funding would result in cuts to provision of vital services at a time of increased demand. As one respondent described: ‘schools have become reliant on this resource, with it providing mitigation against the current economic climate, however the removal of this will be extremely detrimental’.

Reduction in funding was also viewed as having the potential to impact on teacher numbers, with fewer teachers delivering interventions via ASF. Pressure on budgets and funding cuts were viewed as impacting on staffing, and the use of ASF funds to support core funding was also raised as an unintended consequence by one respondent.

A number of unintended negative consequences were suggested as associated with the timescales and temporary status of funding related to ASF and PEF allocation and procurement:

• Does not take into account the length of time necessary for some aspects which ‘take longer to implement and see impact’;
• Due to the non-permanent nature of funding, staff can only be recruited for 23 months, creating recruitment challenges and churn and the need to train and retrain new staff;
• Challenges with the PEF procurement framework and increased workload in schools in terms of PEF procurement and reporting;
• Withdrawal of other services not receiving funding through ASF was also raised as an unintended negative consequence;
• The allocation of PEF over the four year period, meaning that if school role changed considerably or family’s circumstances changed with a corresponding change in the number of pupils in receipt of Free School Meals, this would not be reflected in PEF allocation.