Exploring the link between Learning for Sustainability and attainment

Link between LfS and standardised attainment

None of the practitioners interviewed considered there to be a link between LfS and standardised measures of attainment. None of the participating secondary practitioners thought that LfS had any impact on SQA exam results. However, it should be noted that at the secondary level, LfS is largely delivered in the BGE years, before the priority shifts to exams in the senior phase. Secondary practitioner school G considered that there was not a clear link between the good exam results the school had achieved in geography and the LfS content which was delivered in the BGE years.

In contrast, most of the primary practitioners considered that LfS did have an impact on their learners’ attainment, although not in terms of standardised assessments. However, they noted that the positive impact of LfS was difficult to evidence or measure. Primary practitioner 1 school A recognised multiple positive outcomes of LfS, particularly for lower attainers. However, they said that this was not reflected in standardised assessments:

‘We didn't notice… when it came to do the SNSAs [Scottish National Standardised Assessments] you know the standardised assessments, to be honest with you it doesn't correlate with that… It's really difficult to measure that in the kind of traditional ways… So, really, it's about the way that attainment is measured, rather than it not having an impact on attainment or achievement.’ Primary practitioner 1 school A

Primary practitioner 2 school A noted that she had seen engagement in writing and outcomes for low attainers improve through the global storylines approach (see Case Study 1, above). She also observed an increase in learners’ overall engagement, sense of achievement, confidence, and pride in their work. However, she noted that in spite of this, their levels of spelling and grammar were still low. As such, she commented that traditional standardised approaches to assessment were limited with regard to how they measure attainment.

In school D, the participating practitioners were not sure whether they could link LfS and attainment:

‘There's no way of being able to say whether the Learning for Sustainability aspect has raised attainment in my classroom… I would like to say that it is, but I’m not sure what evidence I would give to prove that.’ Primary school practitioner 2 school D

‘It's hard to quantify the impact [of LfS]… and that's something that I'm looking at now… because a lot of it is more, you know, from observation and seeing a difference through conversations with the children. It's not necessarily something that we can capture in figures and statistics… How do you capture the impact?’ Primary school practitioner 1 school D

In school B, one of the participating practitioners argued that in order to recognise the impact of LfS on attainment, it would be necessary to re-evaluate what is meant by attainment:

‘I think… it [LfS] has the potential to make a real difference to attainment if we have the courage to retain a broad focus and maybe kind of re-examine what we mean by attainment.’ Primary practitioner 3 School B

However, several practitioners mentioned that LfS is not a ‘cure all,’ observing that though it has positive impacts, these may not be long-lasting. Indeed, one practitioner noted that LfS was unlikely to have an impact on the attainment gap:

‘I don’t think… it’s going to close the attainment gap… there is nothing negative about it either.’ Primary practitioner 2 School A

Both in primary and secondary schools, a conflict of priorities was observed between LfS and attainment. Practitioners from primary school B considered that there was a frustrating and, in their view, unnecessary conflict between LfS and attainment:

‘I've been quite frustrated about the sort of national conversation and focus on attainment and on the very narrow focus of funding that's come to schools to that end. I felt that Curriculum for Excellence is very strong, and it should enable us to have creativity and to use it, to give really rich, deep learning experiences to pupils.’ Primary practitioner 3 School B

Participating practitioners noted that the Scottish Attainment Challenge’s focus on literacy and numeracy dominated school improvement plans and led to a narrow focus on data (i.e. how many children have achieved a particular level). In their view, there was a tension between this focus on data and reporting, and the broader approach to the curriculum and the range of achievement outcomes associated with LfS. Related to this, one headteacher expressed frustration that though she had had ‘endless conversations’ about attainment in her Professional Review and Development (PRD), there were not similar opportunities to discuss or recognise her school’s successes in LfS as part of the annual review process. She noted with regret that she had never had a conversation about LfS in her PRD.

Practitioners in school B reflected on how, in their experience, this prioritisation of the Scottish Attainment Challenge meant that children requiring additional support (e.g. with literacy or numeracy) sometimes miss out on LfS learning in class. In school B, small groups of children are typically taken out of the classroom for attainment interventions for literacy and numeracy, to help them achieve the target Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (ACEL):

‘I suppose this is the bit where I have the fear, is that when children are kind of being drilled, for want of a better word, in sort of performance tasks related to literacy, numeracy and… because the timetable doesn’t allow anything else, [they’re] maybe getting pulled out of subject areas where they could be, they could be accessing these things [LfS].’ Primary practitioner 3 school B

Practitioners reported integrating teaching reading, listening, and talking into their LfS project work, meaning it was not necessary to remove learners from class to develop their literacy skills. For these practitioners, removing low attaining children from LfS to focus on improving attainment was counterintuitive, because they believe that the way in which they delivered the LfS curriculum would help to raise attainment for these learners:

‘You could not for one second, when you see that engagement in learning… you could not look at that and say that that is not going to raise attainment.’ Primary practitioner 3 School B

In secondary schools as well, the LfS approach enabled some practitioners to use project-based LfS learning to include and engage lower attainers. In project work in the BGE, this included having a more practical role, rather than an academic role, as seen in this comment:

‘So, if we were working on a project and maybe that pupil isn't necessarily engaged with the project or isn't coming up with any ideas, it, to an extent, does not matter, because each pupil in the group has a role. So, we would maybe make sure that the role that that pupil has is more of an active or practical role, like resource manager or timekeeper or encourager.’ Secondary practitioner, school F

For another practitioner, LfS approaches such as project-based learning can support lower attainers and lead to improved outcomes for them:

‘The more secure learners made sure that the less secure learners were up to speed and understood the content in order for them to be able to deliver that content [in the assessed presentation]… It was clear… just watching them, how well they work together as a team. How they jollied each other along, how they made sure that everybody in the team understood the outcomes of the project, how everybody had a little bit to do in terms of the presentation. They worked incredibly well as a team.’ Secondary practitioner school J

However, secondary participants reported that LfS is largely perceived as content that is delivered separate to the core curriculum, requiring dedicated time (except for subjects like geography, where the content is LfS related). Therefore, in the senior phase, lesson time is prioritised to cover the curriculum requirements for each subject, to facilitate achieving good exam results, and to support pupils’ progression and the academic performance of the school overall. In the experience of participants, this leaves no time for LfS related activities in class. This is reflected in secondary practitioner school G’s comment:

‘Probably sadly, we're probably in the passing the exam business… At the end of the year, you sit an exam paper where you write a lot based on questions. And as much as we love to say its skills based, it's you either know it or you don't kind of thing… [it] really is still quite a bit of rote learning.’ Secondary practitioner school G

This practitioner considered it important for teachers to help learners to memorise content in the senior phase, to facilitate passing exams, rather than applying more learner-led pedagogies that are prevalent in LfS approaches (see also the Pedagogies and approaches section below). This illustrates a further conflict between LfS approaches and attainment. Secondary practitioner school J observed that it was unfortunate that the interdisciplinary, project-based LfS work that learners experienced in the BGE was not compatible with their school’s approach to the senior phase:

‘It's almost like we do these amazing projects where they're learning these skills, are going in depth, and then we're going back to these high stakes exams really, which aren't lending themselves to that kind of interdisciplinary teaching.’ Secondary practitioner, school J

This sense of limitation and missed opportunity for LfS was also reflected by secondary practitioner school G. He considered that LfS-related subjects like environmental science, which in his view had a lot of valuable and relevant sustainability content, were less popular with pupils due to the very long and literacy heavy exam. Hence, it is likely that lower-achieving pupils, who tend to avoid subjects with more challenging assessment structures, are also less likely to receive LfS provision through curriculum content. However, secondary practitioner school F noted that in their school there are opportunities for learners at all levels to experience LfS, through participation in the externally facilitated Powering Futures initiative. For this, pupils work in groups to solve a sustainability challenge posed by and presented to industry representatives, gaining a Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) level 6 qualification. This offers learners an opportunity to gain a qualification without having to sit an exam.

‘I would say half of them are pupils who are, really they're going to be going down a sustainability based career and engineering career anyway, so this is going to be really good for their UCAS [Universities and Colleges Admissions Service] because it goes towards their UCAS points. As an SCQF level 6, there's no exam, so that benefits them in that way. But also, the other half of the class are not as academic and they are basically, they are doing this qualification instead of doing an exam-based qualification, because they might not be able to achieve in the exam based option.’ Secondary practitioner school F

Because of the conflicting priorities perceived between LfS and attainment in the senior phase, several participants observed that delivering LfS as a discrete 'subject' and qualification would be preferable to the current cross-curricular approach. In their view, this would allow work that pupils undertake through LfS activities to be assessed and recognised.

Overall, this section shows that despite the potential of LfS to have a positive impact on lower attainers, this is difficult to measure. Often LfS is not prioritised due to limited time and a focus on achieving standardised measures of attainment.