By Dr Michael Gregson, teacher of English and Gaelic at Inverness Royal Academy
WE should congratulate John Swinney’s commitment to the Scottish Attainment Challenge. £750 million over five years, £120 million through the Pupil Equity Fund’. Targeted resources “to improve the life chances of all children and young people in Scotland”.
Following research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Scottish Government’s goal is to raise educational attainment amongst disadvantaged young people, ameliorating prospects despite inequalities in housing, employment, health, life expectancy, income, community safety, environment, and more.
What’s not to like? Funding is already supporting family link workers, literacy and numeracy work, digital technology, mental health support and other measures across the country. Schools in Glasgow are receiving £21 million.
Isn’t this unequivocally a good thing? Well, I hate to be a party pooper, but I think caution is needed, given the laudable boldness of Government intentions. Before the education stat-nerds create histograms, cross-referencing SCQF levels and SIMD quintiles to assess schools’ progress on their “journey to excellence”, we need to moderate our expectations.
If only the transformation of socioeconomic disparities were that simple. If only getting the children into school, and then supporting them through Literacy or Numeracy assessments – of the right tariff – were the magic bullet to banish deprivation, poor health, inadequate housing, poverty, unemployment! With the best will in the world, tackling these issues goes beyond schools.
Indeed, even the goals of the Scottish Attainment Challenge may be unachievable, because of the very interconnectedness of deprivations, of endemic cultural realities. Newcastle University’s Gillian Pepper & Daniel Nettle have done important work. Their 2017 The Behavioural Constellation of Deprivation tells us that embedded disadvantage results in complex clusters of habitual behaviour. These are transmitted across generations, and by peer and cultural influences; and there are developmental mechanisms. In this context, while understandable, behaviour can appear irrational, self-destructive – especially from a different socioeconomic perspective.
The most disadvantaged perceive themselves having less control over their lives, and have a tendency to discount future rewards. This may lead to less healthy lifestyles, or a failure to strive in education; neither engaging with the present, or aiming for potential future opportunities.
If the Scottish Attainment Challenge is to achieve its educational goals, it has to complement other measures across society. According to Pepper & Nettle, even embedded behaviour can change, if perceptions of life opportunities, and of self-efficacy, can be shifted. External interventions, which reduce risks and improve prospects beyond the control of the disadvantaged person can, over time, encourage them to reduce risks and improve prospects within their control. So lessening harm by encouraging a reduction in smoking; increasing community safety, by means of lower speed limits; or improving nutrition by offering a breakfast club at school: these and other actions may increase the success of targeted educational interventions. Being patient, holistic, impacting on the whole environment, may just work.
Mr. Swinney is right to seek to improve the “life chances” of disadvantaged children. This is worthwhile. The Education Endowment Foundation’s report shows that even small rises in attainment can lead to significant increases in lifetime productivity and outcomes, benefitting both the individuals concerned and the nation as a whole. Educating means guiding, nurturing and supporting; it means learning from good practice; it means examining data strategically; it means using the human and practical resources available.
There is no magic bullet. The Scottish Attainment Challenge, complemented by other measures, could achieve much. But – and this is what politicians don’t want to hear – don’t expect quick results.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here