View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Achievement vs. Engagement: Providing Support in Socially Disadvantaged Schools

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Achievement vs. Engagement: Providing Support in Socially Disadvantaged Schools
Language: English
Authors: Jana Obrovská (ORCID 0000-0001-8705-341X), Martin Majcík (ORCID 0000-0002-7036-3806), Jaroslava Simonová (ORCID 0000-0001-6698-4012)
Source: British Educational Research Journal. 2025 51(2):1039-1072.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 34
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Low Income Students, Disadvantaged Schools, Disadvantaged Youth, Advantaged, Learner Engagement, Academic Achievement, Equal Education, Elementary School Students, Elementary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Secondary School Students, Attendance, Student Motivation, Discipline Problems, Experiential Learning, Educational Finance, Educational Practices, Program Development, Program Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: Czech Republic
DOI: 10.1002/berj.4105
ISSN: 0141-1926
1469-3518
Abstract: Educational inequalities persist between students of low socioeconomic status and their more affluent peers. At the same time, there is evidence of positive relations between student engagement and achievement. This multiple case study investigates a national project aimed at increasing student engagement and achievement through post-COVID-19 support focused on disadvantaged schools in the Czech Republic. School staff perceived poor attendance, low student motivation and discipline problems as the most challenging issues to be addressed through project support measures. Attendance problems are tackled mainly through experiential activities; motivation and discipline problems are usually addressed by personnel positions. We argue that the selected measures aimed predominantly to support student emotional and behavioural engagement; strategies to enhance cognitive engagement and student achievement were sidelined. Paradoxically, student engagement may become a goal in itself rather than being inscribed into learning outcomes. Implications for programme support and school improvement research are suggested.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1466324
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFuag_dUCrEm9oiBO9vzXUxAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEFFcHupcHD3lgyEeAIBEICBm2IFObE5CN8RpAmhq8ot4KoHi1oOsbccUecSA1ThvasydJeY4ssn5M4EaFDI4ICWZZ1nSyRnGc_IQmnhByD3wRJwnLW9yBNGh89YRQfWXAl7x40LGxAIXbk2CYX4E-N7hka5vubEr-AJFbdu_EjyJZWWDkZEwOh195T6mUV-O4hoYwclltAz3FF6s5tV99-lUrFhdy3wGyfydfZT
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184273890;bed01apr.25;2025Apr08.06:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184273890-1">Achievement vs. engagement: Providing support in socially disadvantaged schools </title> <p>Educational inequalities persist between students of low socioeconomic status and their more affluent peers. At the same time, there is evidence of positive relations between student engagement and achievement. This multiple case study investigates a national project aimed at increasing student engagement and achievement through post‐Covid‐19 support focused on disadvantaged schools in the Czech Republic. School staff perceived poor attendance, low student motivation and discipline problems as the most challenging issues to be addressed through project support measures. Attendance problems are tackled mainly through experiential activities; motivation and discipline problems are usually addressed by personnel positions. We argue that the selected measures aimed predominantly to support student emotional and behavioural engagement; strategies to enhance cognitive engagement and student achievement were sidelined. Paradoxically, student engagement may become a goal in itself rather than being inscribed into learning outcomes. Implications for programme support and school improvement research are suggested.</p> <p>Keywords: achievement; engagement; post‐Covid‐19 support; socially disadvantaged schools</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-2">Key insights</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184273890-3">What is the main issue that the paper addresses?</hd> <p>The study examines school actors' perceptions of issues, their solutions, and the implementation of measures aimed at educating socially disadvantaged students in schools that have received state‐funded project support.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-4">What are the main insides that the paper provides?</hd> <p>The study emphasises that project support is utilised unevenly by schools, with the majority of measures focusing on supporting student engagement; achievement is marginalised.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-5">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Socially disadvantaged students do not perform as well academically as their more advantaged peers. Schools are often blamed for the reproduction of existing inequalities among students who are equipped with different kinds and volumes of capital from their families (Bourdieu & Passeron, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]; Coleman, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref2">35</reflink>]; Lareau, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref3">71</reflink>]). International research evidence has identified persistent relationships between student socioeconomic and ethnic background and performance (Agasisti et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]; Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref5">45</reflink>]; Sirin, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref6">107</reflink>]). The socioeconomic status (SES) achievement gap is an urgent problem; it has increased globally in the last 50 years (Chmielewski, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref7">32</reflink>]) and educational inequalities between low and high SES students remain wide (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref8">84</reflink>]). The uneven distribution of students of diverse social origins worsens this gap (Burger, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]; Owens, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref10">85</reflink>]; Reardon et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref11">91</reflink>]). Educational research stresses that learning achievement is considered an important outcome of student engagement (Lei et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref12">73</reflink>]) and student engagement is a significant predictor of academic achievement (Martins et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref13">79</reflink>]). Thus, disengaged student behaviours characterised by learning activity avoidance, a lack of effort during class and/or attendance problems are associated with low achievement. Moreover, there is evidence of a positive association between student SES and engagement; socially disadvantaged students tend to be less engaged in formal schooling (Archambault et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]; Coles et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref15">36</reflink>]; Klem & Connell, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref16">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Disadvantaged students are now at a heightened risk of poorer educational outcomes after the Covid‐19 pandemic, which widened educational inequalities (Betthäuser et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]; Gee et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref18">58</reflink>]). Low SES students are expected to be more adversely affected by crises such as the pandemic‐related school closures, owing to the difficulties they may face in their home environments. Lower parental involvement (Chen, Cárdenas, et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref19">30</reflink>]) and digital divides (Vigevano & Mattei, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref20">116</reflink>]) based on unequal access to and use of digital tools may relatedly lead to a lowering of educational standards at schools with concentrations of disadvantaged students during distance learning (Beckmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref21">15</reflink>]). Although it could be expected that the most vulnerable children would receive more support from schools during a crisis, research indicates that middle‐class students were recipients of more resources (e.g. online lessons on a regular basis) during lockdowns than their lower‐SES peers (Goudeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref22">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although there is agreement that class and race/ethnic differences among students lead to educational inequalities that persist throughout their lives and pose risks for their future, such as complicated educational trajectories or reduced employment opportunities (Alexander et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]; Duncan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]), there is less agreement on effective solutions and adequate responses. Growing evidence suggests additional resources, distributed through whole school programmes, can be beneficial (Borman et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref25">18</reflink>]; Kyriakides et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref26">70</reflink>]). However, these researchers also warn of considerable variation among the intervention effects expounded by the programmes as well as among the specific strategies and the contexts where the programmes are implemented.</p> <p>Evidence from Eastern European countries has been rather scarce. In this multiple case study, we investigate the implementation of a state‐funded project aimed at increasing student engagement and achievement within a post‐Covid‐19 support framework focused on schools with a higher proportion of socially disadvantaged students in the Czech Republic. To understand the contributions of project support measures in terms of student engagement and achievement, it is necessary to explore the ways diverse actors in these schools define the main problems and solutions in the education and how these are reflected in the selected project support measures.</p> <p>We aimed to address the main research question, followed by several sub‐questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What do actors perceive as the contributions of selected project support measures related to socially disadvantaged student engagement and achievement?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the main problems in the education of socially disadvantaged students as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the best solutions to socially disadvantaged students' educational problems as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</item> <p></p> <item> What measures are typically selected from the state‐funded programme?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184273890-6">ACHIEVEMENT OF LOW SES AND ETHNIC MINORITY STUDENTS</hd> <p>Socioeconomic status is one of the strongest predictors of educational achievement (Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref27">45</reflink>]; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref28">84</reflink>]; Sirin, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref29">107</reflink>]). Much of the SES achievement gap can be attributed to the family environment (Potter & Roksa, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref30">90</reflink>]), more precisely to wide class divides in parental investments of resources in raising their children (Schneider et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref31">102</reflink>]). This is also evidenced by summer learning losses: the social class achievement gap usually significantly widens during school breaks (Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]). Parental involvement, patterned by distinctive parenting styles transmitting class (dis)advantages to children, manifested in, for example, (un)supporting children when doing homework or organising their leisure time (Lareau, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref33">71</reflink>]) and low parental educational aspirations can significantly predict children's academic achievement (Fan & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref34">49</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref35">67</reflink>]; Yamamoto & Holloway, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref36">127</reflink>]). Covid‐19 lockdowns strengthened the role of the family environment in education. Chen, Chen, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]) proved that parental involvement and student engagement mediated the relationship between SES and academic achievement. Lower‐SES parents felt less competent in supporting their children in learning activities, resulting in reduced parental involvement and in limited continuity of their children's learning. Growing evidence indicates significant academic deficits owing to Covid‐19 school closures, especially among children from low SES backgrounds (Betthäuser et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Developmental factors are also associated with living in persistent poverty, such as perinatal complications, reduced home‐based cognitive stimulation and exposure to stressors, all of which contribute to lower achievement for poor children (McLoyd, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref39">80</reflink>]). Relatedly, residence in a socially deprived and/or segregated neighbourhood where children often face high‐risk behaviours, such as drug abuse, criminal activity and aggression is another strong predictor of student achievement (Owens, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref40">85</reflink>]; Reardon et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref41">91</reflink>]).</p> <p>Coming from a minority group can also strongly predict educational achievement (Cabral‐Gouveia et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]). Previous research has documented that some ethnic groups have significantly below average levels of attainment (Kao & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref43">66</reflink>]; Portes & MacLeod, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref44">89</reflink>]). In the Czech context, the Roma minority represents one of the most vulnerable populations in the reproduction of educational inequalities based on intersections of class and ethnicity. The percentage of Roma children aged 6–15 years attending schools in which all or most schoolmates are also Roma is up to 49%, and young adults with a Roma background aged 20–24 years who have completed at least upper‐secondary education is 22% compared with 87% in the majority population (FRA—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref45">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although most schools in disadvantaged contexts have levels of performance below the national averages (Cabral‐Gouveia et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]; Reardon et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref47">91</reflink>]), emerging evidence concerns the successful interventions schools can adopt. Comprehensive and whole school programmes have proven particularly promising in improving learning outcomes (Borman et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]; Kyriakides et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref49">70</reflink>]), attendance and grade advancement (Madden et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref50">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>While it is critical to identify the risk factors disadvantaged students might face in education, there is growing debate about the factors supporting their resilience (Schoon, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref51">103</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding the school level factors, resources and the quality of the learning environment can have an impact on the capacity of disadvantaged students to perform academically. Research on improving schools and socially disadvantaged but academically successful students has stressed high‐quality teaching and learning (Demie & Mclean, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>]; Muijs et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref53">82</reflink>]). The common denominator is often a focus on academic achievement; high expectations are consistently mentioned as being crucial. Furthermore, high‐quality instructional practices, such as reading, writing and other subject‐focused strategies, are often the main target of support programmes (Madden et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref54">77</reflink>]). Relatedly, studies have covered careful tracking of student progress, including feedback and progress monitoring (Dietrichson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref55">42</reflink>]), support for self‐management strategies, such as self‐monitoring or self‐evaluation (Moses et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref56">81</reflink>]), self‐regulating strategy intervention (Andrzejewski et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref57">7</reflink>]) and enhanced metacognitive knowledge components of different learning strategy instruction (Donker et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref58">43</reflink>]). The usage of data at both the school and the classroom levels is decisive in improving achievement for low SES and minority students (Chapman & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]; Demie & Mclean, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref60">41</reflink>]; Reynolds et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref61">94</reflink>]). The significance of personalised support, especially tutoring (Dietrichson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref62">42</reflink>]) and mentoring programmes as well as individualised academic plans, have also been stressed (Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref63">124</reflink>]).</p> <p>Disadvantaged schools that have improved have demonstrated collaboration among school staff and parents (Chapman & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>]; Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref65">124</reflink>]). Therefore, it is important to develop school–community partnerships, including parental involvement programmes (Cabral‐Gouveia et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref66">26</reflink>]; Gálvez & Tarrés, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref67">57</reflink>]) and positions such as school community workers.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-7">STUDENT ENGAGEMENT</hd> <p>Generally, student engagement has been defined as a 'student's active participation in academic and curricular or school‐related activities, and commitment to educational goals and learning' (Christenson et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref68">34</reflink>], p. 816). The concept of engagement is broadly used in relation to individual involvement in the school environment with different components across academic, social–emotional and behavioural domains (Reschly & Christenson, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref69">93</reflink>]); generally, engagement is associated with student participation, involvement and identification with school (Finn, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref70">50</reflink>]; Skinner & Belmont, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref71">109</reflink>]; Voelkl, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref72">117</reflink>]). Contextual factors such as school practices, parental support and relationships with teachers that influence the level of involvement with the school are defined as facilitators of engagement (Appleton et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref73">8</reflink>]). Overall, student engagement is conceptualised as being influenced by contextual factors, such as teachers, school practices and peers, rather than a student attribute (Sinclair et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref74">105</reflink>]). There is evidence of a relationship between student engagement and achievement (Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref75">125</reflink>]; Wang & Holcombe, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref76">119</reflink>]). Klem and Connell ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref77">69</reflink>]) referred to a connection between engagement and student performance across various levels of SES (dis)advantage; disengagement and underachievement are particularly typical for students living in low‐income families (Bempechat & Shernoff, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref78">16</reflink>]; Wylie & Hodgen, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref79">126</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this study, student engagement is conceptualised based on three dimensions identified by Fredricks et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref80">54</reflink>]). Behavioural engagement is associated with student motivation to participate in class and extracurricular activities, on‐task behaviour, the absence of discipline problems and school attendance (Martins et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref81">79</reflink>]). Emotional engagement refers to students' positive and negative emotions related to the classroom, such as interest or anxiety (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref82">54</reflink>]) and a sense of belonging and connectedness to school (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref83">120</reflink>]). These aspects are associated with the quality of relationships with teachers and friendships with peers (Hosan et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref84">63</reflink>]). Cognitive engagement addresses student investment in learning, including the use of metacognitive and self‐regulation strategies such as planning, monitoring and evaluating individual learning (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref85">54</reflink>]; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref86">129</reflink>]). Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref87">120</reflink>]) pointed out that these three dimensions are not separate; they are understood as interwoven and dynamic. In the classroom, engaged students demonstrate action, initiation, effort, attention or interest, and enjoyment. In contrast, student disaffection is associated with passivity, withdrawal, distraction, boredom, disinterest and/or anxiety (Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref88">108</reflink>]). The three‐dimensional conceptualisation of student engagement, as related to our results (i.e. selected project support measures), is presented in Table 3.</p> <p>1 TABLE Proportion of socially disadvantaged students, early school leavers, Roma students and foreign students.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Oak BS</th><th align="left">Maple BS</th><th align="left">Linden BS</th><th align="left">Willow BS</th><th align="left">Hornbeam BS</th><th align="left">National average</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Proportion of socially disadvantaged students</td><td align="left">85%</td><td align="left">70%</td><td align="left">30%</td><td align="left">35%</td><td align="left">44%</td><td align="left">NA</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Early school leavers</td><td align="left">20%</td><td align="left">23%</td><td align="left">12%</td><td align="left">33%</td><td align="left">14%</td><td align="left">4%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Proportion of Roma students</td><td align="left">75%</td><td align="left">69%</td><td align="left">12%</td><td align="left">17%</td><td align="left">47%</td><td align="left">3%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Proportion of foreign students</td><td align="left">8%</td><td align="left">11%</td><td align="left">6%</td><td align="left">6%</td><td align="left">4%</td><td align="left">5%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Composition of foreign students</td><td align="left">Ukraine (17), Slovakia (5)</td><td align="left">Ukraine (25), Slovakia (17), Mongolia (11), UK (2), Kazakhstan (1)</td><td align="left">Ukraine (17), Slovakia (1), Vietnam (1)</td><td align="left">Slovakia (10), Ukraine (1), Belarus (1)</td><td align="left">Ukraine (8), Russia (1)</td><td align="left">NA</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 BS, Basic school.</p> <p>Contributions to student engagement can be divided into internal and external factors. Since this study focuses on supporting contextual factors through the project, we are directly targeting external factors in this review.</p> <p>External factors contributing to student engagement are often associated with students' sense of relatedness to teachers, classmates and parents (Martins et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref89">79</reflink>]). In general, considerable evidence suggests that the quality of teacher–student interactions, including instructional and emotional support, contributes to school engagement (Rimm‐Kaufman et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref90">96</reflink>]). A significant correlation exists between all dimensions of school engagement and the quality of teacher instructional practices, which may be linked, for instance, to student autonomy support and structure (Archambault et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref91">10</reflink>]) or to the provision of meaningful classwork (Pino‐James et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref92">87</reflink>]). Moreover, school engagement can be influenced by positive or negative affective teacher–student relationships, characterised by levels of closeness or conflict, and emotional support (Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref93">65</reflink>]; Martin & Rimm‐Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref94">78</reflink>]; Roorda et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref95">97</reflink>]; Teuscher & Makarova, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref96">113</reflink>]). The social context of the classroom is also shaped by peers. Lynch et al. ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref97">76</reflink>]) noted that a positive peer culture contributes to student engagement, while Buhs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref98">23</reflink>]) demonstrated a connection between peer exclusion and disengagement. A perceived lack of support from peers and a negative climate are critical factors that increase the risk of disengagement for students from low SES families (Coles et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref99">36</reflink>], Sanders et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref100">100</reflink>]). Overall, students experiencing a loss of relatedness to social partners and lacking a sense of connectedness to school (cf. Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref101">120</reflink>]) show decreased behavioural and affective engagement (Furrer & Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref102">55</reflink>]). One last important external factor is parental involvement, because parental support positively contributes to student engagement (Bryce et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref103">21</reflink>]; Daly et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref104">39</reflink>]; Estell & Perdue, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref105">48</reflink>]; Finn & Rock, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref106">51</reflink>]). Additionally, research indicates a relationship between parental involvement, parental involvement programmes and student achievement (Jeynes, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref107">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding external factors, complex interventions can address each dimension of student engagement. In general, student engagement improves through interventions that support teachers' instructional behaviours. Examples include strengthening the meaningfulness of activities, empowering students during class (Pino‐James, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref108">86</reflink>]), fostering collaborative groups (Sinha et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref109">106</reflink>]) and offering constructive feedback (Yeager et al., [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref110">128</reflink>]). Additionally, comprehensive projects, such as Check and Connect, focus on supporting all dimensions of engagement through various activities involving teachers, peers or parents. These activities include picking up students for school, helping students establish a routine for transitioning between classes to arrive on time, assisting students in setting goals, teaching students to self‐monitor and reflect on their progress, encouraging participation in extracurricular activities, discussing the connection between schoolwork and long‐term goals, and fostering lifelong learning by nurturing student interests (Christenson & Pohl, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref111">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interventions focused on specific dimensions of student engagement can be distinguished. First, behavioural engagement is defined in this study through indicators such as attendance, motivation to participate in class and extracurricular activities, on‐task behaviour and absence of discipline problems. Student attendance, a key indicator of behavioural engagement, improves through regular family communication (Epstein & Sheldon, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref112">47</reflink>]). Additionally, Riddle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref113">95</reflink>]) and Anderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref114">6</reflink>]) suggested employing community engagement teams or professionals to collaborate with families, enhancing attendance and overall behavioural engagement. In the Czech education system, as in continental Europe, support for socially disadvantaged students and their families is provided by social pedagogues, professionals educated in social pedagogy (Lorenzova, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref115">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Student motivation to participate and on‐task behaviour benefit from teacher professional development programmes focused on motivational principles such as meaningfulness, autonomy, competence and belongingness (Turner et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref116">115</reflink>]). Participation in extracurricular activities can be increased by providing financial support to remove barriers for low‐SES students (King, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref117">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Reducing discipline problems and off‐task behaviour relates to teacher managerial strategies and can be enhanced through consultation with administrators, behavioural specialists, or school psychologists, as well as through targeted training programmes (Reschly, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref118">92</reflink>]). Also, social pedagogues provide individual support and facilitate group activities aimed at preventing school failure and exclusion. They may also undertake specific tasks such as removing disruptive students from classrooms (Anderberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref119">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, emotional engagement is closely tied to the quality of teacher–student relationships. Positive relationships between teachers and students have protective and beneficial effects, particularly for students facing learning or behavioural challenges (Baker, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref120">14</reflink>]). Interventions to strengthen these relationships can follow a three‐phase model: establish (intentional efforts to build connections), maintain (fostering relationships through ongoing positive interactions) and restore (repairing relationships after conflict) (Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref121">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, cognitive engagement correlates with instructional strategies tailored to student interests (Walkington, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref122">118</reflink>]). It can also be enhanced through classroom prompts, including metacognitive (e.g. monitoring and planning strategies), cognitive (e.g. organisation and elaboration techniques), and personal‐utility (e.g. highlighting relevance) approaches (Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref123">101</reflink>]). To foster investment in learning, interventions should focus on two key elements: helping students identify their interests and long‐term goals and designing learning activities that are meaningful and aligned with their values (Pohl, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref124">88</reflink>]). Finally, training teachers in self‐regulated learning strategies (Stoeger & Ziegler, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref125">112</reflink>]) or using specific supplemental courses for students (Cantrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref126">27</reflink>]) has been shown to positively impact student cognitive engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-8">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p>The goal of this multiple case study was to ascertain how schools involved in a project focused on supporting equal educational opportunities defined the problems and solutions in the education of socially disadvantaged students, what support measures they selected from the project list and in what ways the support of both engagement and achievement were conducted in the choice and realisation of support measures.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-9">Context</hd> <p>We posed the research questions in relation to a national programme aimed at reducing educational inequalities within schools with a higher proportion of socially disadvantaged students in the Czech Republic (Table 1). The Czech educational system has a long tradition of using specific national programmes funded by the European Union. Programmes dealing with social inclusion and supporting students with social disadvantages are based on a critique of inequalities in the educational system. Programmes focused on inclusion and supporting students with special educational needs including social disadvantages include for instance Promoting Equal Opportunities (2022–2026), Inclusive Education and Support of Schools Step by Step (2017–2022) and Support of Inclusive Education in Pedagogical Practice (2017–2022).</p> <p>2 TABLE Overview of interviewed actors and collected data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Oak BS</th><th align="left">Maple BS</th><th align="left">Linden BS</th><th align="left">Willow BS</th><th align="left">Horn‐beam BS</th><th align="left">In total</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">School leader(s) and deputy director(s)</td><td align="left">1 + 1*</td><td align="left">1 + 2</td><td align="left">1 + 1*</td><td align="left">1 + 1*</td><td align="left">1 + 1</td><td align="left">55 interviews</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adaptation coordinator</td><td align="left">1*</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Career consultant</td><td align="left">1*</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1*</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inclusion coordinator</td><td align="left">1*</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Special pedagogue(s)</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social pedagogue(s)</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School psychologist(s)</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Preventionist(s)</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Educational consultant</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1*</td><td align="left">1*</td><td align="left">1*</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Class teachers</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Subject teachers</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Tandem teacher</td><td align="left">1*</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching assistant(s)</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">External consultant</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Documents analysed per school</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">20 documents</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note</emph>: If there is an overlap in positions held by one person, the interview conducted with this person is counted just once. Overlaps are indicated by an asterisk.</item> <item>3 BS, Basic school.</item> </ulist> <p>After the Covid‐19 pandemic, the Czech government launched a special funding scheme called the National Recovery Plan (NRP), supported by the European Union's Recovery and Resilience Facility. The goal of the NRP is to address the pandemic's impact, prepare the population for future crises and bolster resilience. The new project funded by NRP has the potential to decelerate the negative consequences of the Covid‐19 pandemic, which worsened the chances of students with lower SES to succeed educationally (Betthäuser et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref127">17</reflink>]; Gee et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref128">58</reflink>]). A partial goal of the project is to pilot a proposal for reforming the school financing system in the Czech Republic. The programme was launched in 2022 to financially and methodologically support 256 socially disadvantaged schools across the Czech Republic. The following variables were used to calculate an index measuring the level of social disadvantage of schools. This index determined the selection of schools eligible for support in this national project: numbers of early school leavers; repeated grades; students with special education needs; socially disadvantaged students; and students with Roma, Slovak, Ukrainian and Vietnamese backgrounds. With the exception of the number of socially disadvantaged students, which was based on a survey among school leaders, all other data were sourced from administrative reports from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. The calculation also included the index of social disadvantage of the municipality where the school is located, provided by the Agency for Social Inclusion.</p> <p>Based on the initial needs analysis, each of 256 schools selected individual combinations of support measures from a catalogue composed of three main measurement categories: personnel support (e.g. social pedagogue, special pedagogue, school psychologist), direct student support (e.g. breakfast clubs, tutoring, experiential learning programmes) and support for further education and professional development of educational staff (e.g. mentoring, coaching, supervision). For a complete overview of support measures, see Appendix A. The support system was designed to promote a high degree of autonomy for individual schools. Schools were instructed that the selected measure must respond to the initial needs analysis and, at the same time, should avoid duplicating tools funded by other sources. At the same time, an external consultant assigned to the given school helped with the selection process to ensure that the measures chosen aligned with the school's needs and supported project implementation both administratively and in terms of compliance.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-10">Research design and case selection strategy</hd> <p>Our research design is a multiple case study, which enabled us to capture in‐depth single cases and to look for patterns shared across all cases. In this study, the state‐funded project can be considered a 'quintain', that is, a phenomenon to be studied via multiple case studies (cf. Stake, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref129">111</reflink>]). The cases were rather instrumental as our primary goal was to look beyond particular cases. In the multiple case study design, contexts, whether socioeconomic, cultural or physical, are important for capturing the case in‐depth.</p> <p>The cases in our multiple case study research project included basic schools (BS) involved in the state‐funded project. For this particular research project, schools were purposefully selected in line with two main selection criteria: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref130">1</reflink>) proportions of socially disadvantaged students (Table 1); and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref131">2</reflink>) willingness to cooperate in data collection over a period of 3 years. The proportions of socially disadvantaged students were based on qualified estimates by school leaders. Two schools had a high proportion of the target student group (70% and more); three schools had a medium proportion of socially disadvantaged students (between 30 and 50%). Data provided by the Agency for Social Inclusion indicated that all the schools were located in socially deprived localities (based on an index calculated by the numbers of people in debt collection proceedings, the material need assistance benefits and social benefits provided, the individuals registered with the employment office for more than 6 months and early school leavers). This selection criteria is in line with the research evidence on social segregation (e.g. Burger, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref132">25</reflink>]; Owens, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref133">85</reflink>]), confirming the achievement gap between students attending schools with higher proportions of socially disadvantaged students and those concentrating more advantaged students, and suggesting that school segregation is often connected with residential segregation.</p> <p>Second, as we planned to conduct two waves of data collection per year over a 3 year period, experts in the education of socially disadvantaged students in several regions were contacted and their experiences with different schools were taken into account when selecting schools willing to participate and provide us an opportunity to learn via long term data collection.</p> <p>Mini‐cases within the cases (cf. Stake, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref134">111</reflink>]) were students with low SES who were in danger of school failure. At each school, students from grades 2, 5 and 8 were selected based on consultations with school leaders, members of school counselling offices and class teachers. Students from these grades were intentionally selected to cover both levels of primary education in the Czech education system, as well as critical transition periods when students might be more vulnerable. The transitions are between the first and second level of compulsory education (grade 6), and between the end of primary education and the transition to secondary education (grade 9).</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-11">Participants and data collection</hd> <p>Several types of actors were involved in the research: school leaders; deputy directors; members of school counselling offices (e.g. special pedagogues, school psychologists, social pedagogues, preventionists); teaching assistants; class teachers of selected students; and other subject teachers (Table 2). Table 1 presents the composition of the student body at each BS, the ethnic composition of students, and the proportion of early school leavers compared with the national average; Table 2 presents the different types of actors interviewed within each case study and an overview of the collected data. Some personnel positions listed in Table 2 were (co)funded by the project; others were not. We also conducted interviews with personnel not supported by the project to understand the nature of their collaboration with the supported positions.</p> <p>3 TABLE Selected project support measures related to individual student engagement dimensions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Engagement dimension</th><th align="left">Indicators</th><th align="left">Selected project support measures</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Behavioural engagement</td><td align="left">Motivation to participate in class (on‐task behaviour) and extracurricular activities</td><td align="left">Provision of free school supplies; financing experiential and leisure activities</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Discipline problems</td><td align="left">Support of staff from school counselling office via intervention during class (e.g. social pedagogue, special pedagogue, psychologist)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Attendance</td><td align="left">Experiential and leisure activities; group activities for parents; social pedagogue (fieldwork)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Emotional engagement</td><td align="left">Positive and negative emotions related to classroom</td><td align="left">Experiential and leisure activities (clubs, trips); school psychologist (crisis support)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sense of connectedness to school and quality of relationships with teachers and peers</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cognitive engagement</td><td align="left">Investment in learning</td><td align="left">Tutoring; teaching assistant for disadvantaged students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Use of metacognitive and self‐regulation strategies</td><td align="left">Any selected measure</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To explore the project implementation, we conducted <emph>semi‐structured interviews</emph> with diverse actors in selected schools. The interviews were focused on perceived problems in the education of socially disadvantaged students, successful practices, who selected the project support measures and how, and so forth; the interviews enabled us to capture attitudes, subjective norms and intentions which are significant precursors to teacher behaviours (Ajzen, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref135">3</reflink>]). Moreover, we collected <emph>school documentation</emph>, such as school education programmes, initial school needs analysis, 'calculators' for the selected support measures, and project evaluation reports. The school educational programme allowed us to view the school as a whole, including its focus and educational priorities; the other three documents are the primary sources concerning the project implementation. Thanks to the longitudinal presence of researchers in the schools and the complexity of the collected data, we became deeply familiar with the cases. However, owing to the extensiveness of the data set, this study is based solely on a selected data segment: semi‐structured interviews conducted between November 2022 and February 2023 (Figure 1) with the diverse actors and on the analysis of documents. In total, 55 interviews were conducted, and 20 documents were gathered (Table 2).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BED/01apr25/berj4105-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="berj4105-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Timeline of data collection." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184273890-13">Data analysis</hd> <p>In line with the general analytical principles in case study research design (Stake, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref136">110</reflink>]), we followed several strategies. The most basic analytical procedure is looking for patterns; coding is a way to do this (cf. Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref137">60</reflink>]). Coding is a process of reducing data into meaningful segments by giving them names or labels (Bryman, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref138">22</reflink>]). Multiple case study researchers usually combine the codes into broader categories while stressing the relationship among categories across cases. In line with recommendations for instrumental case studies (Stake, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref139">111</reflink>]), our researchers sidelined the complexity of individual cases to concentrate on identified categorical correspondences; 'categorical aggregation' is a more suitable analytical strategy than 'direct interpretation' (Stake, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref140">110</reflink>]). Finally, the researchers combined inductive and deductive analytical strategies. After identifying patterned regularities in a more inductive way, the researchers narrowed their findings via the conceptual framework on engagement and achievement.</p> <p>Generally, the inductive approach in qualitative data analysis involves researchers approaching the data openly, without hypotheses or strong prior assumptions, to understand their meanings and organise them through coding. Rather than starting with a pre‐structured coding system, case study methodology is based on identifying themes and patterns from the data organically. This emergent approach leads to findings that are grounded in the data.</p> <p>All our data were coded by inductively generated codes derived from recurring data patterns and important themes from the perspective of the research question as identified by researchers. More specifically, the data analysis process proceeded in six phases. First, all researchers inductively coded different types of data selected from the complete data set (e.g. interviews with school leaders, interviews with school psychologists, interviews with teachers). Second, researchers discussed the codes each of them created, looked for overlaps and created a shared coding tree composed of 122 codes, with clear definitions underpinned by illustrative data excerpts. All codes were categorised into 19 categories reflecting the research questions. For a complete overview of the codes and categories and their relationship to the research questions, see Appendix B. Third, four different types of data sources from the complete data set were selected and coded by all the researchers using the shared coding tree to achieve mutual synchronisation. Fourth, all the data were then evenly distributed among all coders and coded thoroughly using the complete coding tree. Fifth, codes involved in the categories most relevant to the research questions posed for this study were further distributed among all the researchers for a more focused analysis. The complete coding tree, composed of 122 codes, reflects all the themes that emerged in the data in relation to the project's original broad research focus. Out of 19 categories, 11 were analysed in greater detail in an effort to answer the more specific research question focused on the contributions of selected project support measures in terms of student engagement and achievement. These categories are marked with an asterisk in Appendix B. Sixth, the findings elaborated by individual researchers responsible for single case studies were generated as case reports (cf. Stake, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref141">111</reflink>]) and later synthesised across all cases by the two first authors of this study.</p> <p>The document analysis was conducted continuously with the aim of selectively searching for relevant information—such as which measures were selected at individual schools, what needs the school cited to justify this selection and what proportion of funds the schools allocated to different areas of support.</p> <p>Routinised as well as more spontaneously repeated discussions among research team members, the fact that each case study was conducted by at least two researchers who discussed interpretations of empirical patterns emerging from the fieldwork, and the triangulation of different data sources and the perspectives of diverse actors (Flick, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref142">52</reflink>]) enhanced the trustworthiness of the findings. To facilitate the coding procedures, the researchers utilised data analysis software (Atlas.ti, MAXQDA).</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-14">Ethics</hd> <p>Two research ethics committees from two universities approved this study. All participants, including the parents of students attending the basic schools, signed an informed consent form that explicitly affirmed the voluntary and uncompensated nature of participation in the research while assuring anonymity and the strict confidentiality of all information provided. All the names of participants and institutions are pseudonymised.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-15">FINDINGS</hd> <p>The findings section is structured to answer the research questions. The main problems and their solutions in the education of socially disadvantaged students as perceived by the diverse actors involved in the state‐funded project are identified, followed by the main support measures selected from the project in response to the dominantly perceived problems across all schools and among diverse participants. The perceived contributions of the selected measures with respect to supporting student engagement and achievement are presented throughout the sections, depicting the most robust data patterns shared among all individual cases.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-16">TACKLING ATTENDANCE PROBLEMS VIA EXPERIENTIAL ACTIVITIES AND DEEPENING RELATIONS</hd> <p>The first area school staff considered challenging was frequent absences, which affected student participation in the classroom and in extracurricular activities. Absenteeism thus had a negative impact on the educational process itself. The situation caused by frequent absences was significantly worsened by the closure of schools during the pandemic, as class teacher Dominika pointed out.</p> <p>It seems to me that children are more 'lazy', and Covid is also to blame for that. And now in that class, I have six or seven children who have more than two hundred hours of absences [...] in half a year. That's 25% participation just in the Czech language. So, it seems to me that, on the one hand, Covid, on the other hand, they are really sick, that is probably the [reduced] immunity due to Covid. (Dominika, teacher, Oak BS)</p> <p>From the school staff's perspective, regular school attendance is a prerequisite for student participation in educational activities. However, when a student has a long‐term absence from class, the curriculum is missed, making it difficult for the students to catch up afterwards. The problem with attendance was exacerbated by pandemic measures which also had an effect on student immunity, further affecting their attendance. Long‐term absences also have a negative impact in terms of socialisation, as students adopt cultural norms, values or attitudes, and form peer relationships in the school environment.</p> <p>The family environment and parents' attitudes towards education were perceived by school staff as a main and to great extent determining source of the students' approach to school.</p> <p>Individual measures within the project were selected based on the schools' experiences in addressing the problem of absences. However, the prerequisite for the implementation of specific support interventions was that the school is a safe environment for students and a sense of connectedness to school, which they are happy to visit.</p> <p>Really, my vision is that they like to go to school and that they feel good here. I'm aware of what kind of children I have, but that doesn't excuse me, nor is it the other way around. But we really have to spend time together here on education, so that it is pleasant, an atmosphere of trust. So I'm striving for this here as well. (Tomáš, principal, Oak BS)</p> <p>An environment based on trust, where students feel accepted, was perceived as an important part of the educational process. From the management's point of view, this can be a strategy to support student attendance. Focusing on the involvement of students through fostering their sense of connectedness to school is obviously perceived as an important prerequisite for the educational process itself.</p> <p>The measures offered by the project that were chosen by the schools can be divided according to whether they focus on directly supporting vulnerable students or on their families. In supporting socially disadvantaged students, experiential and leisure activities, such as clubs, experiential events during classes and trips, played an important role. The aim of these activities is to offer interesting extracurricular activities after classes and opportunities to gain new experiences outside the school environment. Silvie, a teacher, pointed out that for many students this could also be a unique experience.</p> <p>When we were at that fairy tale programme with the children, the children behaved completely differently outside of the school. The group became very close. The cooperation, the talking, it's not really something that they have to do, right? But it's something they enjoy. Those kids are completely different. (Silvie, teacher, Willow BS)</p> <p>Activities outside school can be an opportunity for students to get to know teachers and classmates in an environment that is not as closely related to teaching, which can lead to a deepening of mutual relationships. Although the diverse nature of experiential and leisure activities can be attractive to students, it suggests a potential disconnect from the curriculum, limiting the activities' contribution to student learning.</p> <p>However, extracurricular events can place demands on students and their families as they require certain financial participation.</p> <p>Of course, the student doesn't feel good when he knows that all or maybe 15 children are going on a trip or we're going to a theatre and he doesn't go every time because the family doesn't have the money. And the other children also perceive that, and they can be talking about him, mocking him and so on. (Dominika, teacher, Oak BS)</p> <p>Financial demands represent a barrier to participation for certain students, potentially leading to stigmatisation. Therefore, schools focused on removing barriers; as part of the measures often selected from the project, emphasis was placed on financing experiential programmes.</p> <p>Relatedly, the schools aimed for intensive contact with parents of the students who had attendance problems, as Alice, a principal, added.</p> <p>I think that the fact that parents are not afraid of the invitation to that school is important, that they really know that they can come here, we will talk, we will tell each other what is wrong. And we actually have regular meetings with those families every Thursday. (Alice, principal, Willow BS)</p> <p>Setting up regular communication based on a partnership approach appears effective in the school staff perspective. The regularity allows school staff to maintain contact and reflect on a student's problems at school. Group activities focused on the participation of parents were also experienced as deepening cooperation.</p> <p>I was at the witches' party, for example, and it was very nice that we roasted sausages there. And then, we are there again, not as teachers and parents, but actually a group of people who have a nice common interest in having a nice afternoon together, even with the children. So, we also got to know the parents in a different way. (Ludmila, preventionist, Hornbeam BS)</p> <p>Financing various activities for parents was one of the frequently chosen measures from the project catalogue. If the family did not cooperate with the school, fieldwork was undertaken, usually with the family visited by a social pedagogue.</p> <p>Now we have started a very good collaboration with our social pedagogue, who has also largely already started the fieldwork, visiting the families directly. (Lenka, vice‐principal, Hornbeam BS)</p> <p>A direct visit to the family at their place of residence enables contact with the family to be established in the home environment. This gives the school worker better insight into the needs of the family, and it focuses on supporting the student. Schools often used the project to finance the position of a social pedagogue, whose contribution to communication with parents was perceived as pivotal.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-17">TACKLING LOW MOTIVATION TO PARTICIPATE IN CLASS VIA SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND PERSONNEL SUPPORT</hd> <p>The second area that school staff considered problematic in the education of socially disadvantaged students was low motivation to participate in class, which led to a lack of on‐task behaviour.</p> <p>It definitely reduces the teaching, because they don't try, because they don't have the inner motivation. It kind of shocks me here that they don't care if they. If they get a good grade or fail. Like in grade 3, I can somehow motivate them, but in grade 5, they just don't care about anything. (Denisa, teacher, Oak BS)</p> <p>According to the teacher, the absence of on‐task behaviour is related to lack of participation in class, which subsequently manifests in academic failure. This has a negative impact on teaching practices, as the absence of student motivation to participate in class places a specific demand on the teacher, who must motivate students towards on‐task behaviour. Lydie, a teacher, added that the lack of participation in class was also reflected in a lack of preparation and supplies.</p> <p>Certainly, the most common problem we encounter is the absence of supplies, right? Those children don't have pencils, erasers, or rulers. (Lydia, teacher, Hornbeam BS)</p> <p>The absence of supplies has a negative impact because students cannot participate in activities during the lesson. The teacher must also pay individual attention to those students, so the teaching is disrupted.</p> <p>The provision of free school supplies for students was one of the measures supported by the project that teachers appreciated. Buying supplies that students could borrow allowed teachers to pay more attention directly to teaching. Teacher Lucie stressed the importance of the provision of supplies for students.</p> <p>I really have most of the Roma children there, [...] instead of constantly writing to parents, for example, 'He didn't bring [this]', 'He doesn't have a pencil', 'He doesn't have anything to work on', etcetera. So, we have the tools shared here. We have cups where we have pencils and boxes where we have rubbers and sharpeners. (Lucie, teacher, Hornbeam BS)</p> <p>Problems with the disciplinary behaviour of students are often added to the lack of motivation, which manifests itself in the approach to teaching, as preventionist Alena pointed out.</p> <p>I mostly encounter disciplinary problems, non‐cooperation with families. That's a big problem. And the fact that children actually come from families and don't have internalised norms, they don't know the rules. [...] We get into conflicts, into clashes. We have rules. We demand some kind of regime. (Alena, preventionist, Maple BS)</p> <p>The school environment places demands on students regarding their behaviour. Compliance with the given rules appears to be key from the point of view of teachers. Discipline problems disrupt teaching and lead to conflicts with teachers, as well as between students. As with attendance, the cause of disciplinary problems was perceived by school staff to be the family environments in which students did not have the opportunity to adopt an approach to the rules. While this kind of deficit thinking about family prevailed, there was an obvious marginalisation of teachers' perceived own influence on the disruptive behaviour of students, especially of their classroom management.</p> <p>If there was a disciplinary problem during class, teachers used the support of staff from the school's counselling office. They dealt with challenging behaviour outside the classroom, for example, through the intervention of a social pedagogue.</p> <p>When the children disturb the class and it actually destroys the work of the teacher and the other children cannot learn because of it, then I go to get the child. They get the assigned work and work on it with me. (Darja, social pedagogue, Maple BS)</p> <p>While removing a disruptive student with a social pedagogue can benefit the classroom and the teacher, it may stigmatise the student and even lead to exclusion. Another example was advice from the school psychologist that enabled the teachers to respond to challenging situations in the classroom and interfere, for example, in the area of crisis intervention:</p> <p>I managed to build such a nice relationship with them that they trust me when something is bothering them. So they come, whether it's something in class or at home. Sometimes I didn't know how to react to that, but since then we have had a psychologist here. So I go to her, and she gives me advice. (Denisa, teacher, Oak BS)</p> <p>The presence of counselling positions is important for teachers in specific moments that go beyond the scope of standard teaching. Support can give the teacher confidence or the space to work with the whole class. For these reasons, schools also appreciated the counselling positions.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-18">TARGETING LEARNING OUTCOMES BY PROVIDING TUTORING AND LEARNING INDIVIDUALISATION</hd> <p>According to school staff, the third problematic area lay in students' unpreparedness for the curriculum content in their respective grade levels. The perceived reason for this lack of readiness was again the family environment failing to provide students with adequate development.</p> <p>The development of the child is somehow missing there. And that's something we then encounter in practice because when we want to work with the child, all those textbooks are built on the assumption that the children have already gone through it, that they know it, that they recognise it in fairy tales, that they recognise stories, that parents sit with them, tell stories, play. And that's not happening. (Dagmar, teacher, Oak BS)</p> <p>The needs of the students do not match the level of the curriculum; this can lead to a lowering of the demands placed on these students so that the curriculum in their grade level becomes manageable for them. Lowering the demands can then lead to a reduction in the curriculum.</p> <p>For me, success is when I really manage to teach them the basics, that foundation, the core curriculum, which I manage more or less, and when I simply manage to teach them that learning is just normal, that working in school is normal. (Blanka, special educator, Oak BS)</p> <p>The lowering of demands can be seen in the context of efforts to teach students basic literacy skills. It is important for teachers that students adopt a positive attitude towards learning and the school environment. In this regard, support for engagement comes to the forefront, but at the expense of academic outcomes. To some extent, this trend can be understood as a paradox, typically arising from teachers' rather concerned beliefs about the characteristics of students and their family backgrounds.</p> <p>Because I have kind of accepted the children as they are, here, it doesn't make sense to demand from them something beyond their capabilities. So, I expect minimal outcomes from them and give them a lot of practical instruction. (Eva, teacher, Maple BS)</p> <p>In the statements of school staff, there was a clear tendency to lower expectations for students, for example, by reducing the curriculum, which is the state‐mandated amount of knowledge and competencies that students should gradually acquire during compulsory education. The teachers' orientation towards meeting 'minimal' learning outcomes was apparent. When school staff discussed educational goals for their students, they often acknowledged the fact that their graduates only exceptionally aspired to admission to high schools, and the legitimate ambition for many of them was to complete basic education.</p> <p>Despite the tendency to lower the academic expectations placed on students, there was an effort to support their performance through selected measures. Some schools favoured tutoring and a teaching assistant. Tutoring was a measure enabling support for two distinct groups of students. The first group are students who are unable to achieve expected outcomes, for example, owing to frequent absences.</p> <p>That's the one I would need to attend tutoring, just to manage something, because that's a student who is repeating the year. He already repeated the first year, and he would really need that tutoring. (Leona, teacher, Hornbeam BS)</p> <p>Tutoring thus represents a measure that enables students, beyond the scope of regular instruction, to acquire the required knowledge that will allow them to progress further. The second group are students aspiring to apply for upper‐secondary education but, within the framework of regular instruction, their teachers do not have the capacity to dedicate time to more challenging content owing to the lowering of instructional rigour.</p> <p>We have a girl in grade 9 who got into the conservatory, so it definitely makes sense. However, it's in that class where, when you have a few of them there, there isn't much space to focus on the more gifted ones. So then it's addressed through some tutoring here. (Dita, teacher, Oak BS)</p> <p>Tutoring represents an opportunity to offer students stimulating content in an individualised way and thus support their investment in learning. Owing to the lower number of students participating in tutoring, the tutor can focus on the needs of each student. However, support through tutoring is only available to those students whose parents collaborate with the school and are interested in tutoring. Although tutoring became an important measure often funded by the project, usually only a certain group of students with higher engagement or students with more engaged parents benefited from it. However, it was not uncommon for school staff to complain that the weakest students, who needed tutoring the most, did not attend it.</p> <p>In addition to tutoring, schools also chose personnel measures aimed at supporting academic success through individualisation, such as assigning a teaching assistant to teachers for socially disadvantaged students. During lessons, the assistant focuses attention on students who need support, which helps the teacher to focus on other students. This leads to greater individualisation within the lessons, allowing for the educational needs of some students to be addressed. However, according to statements from school staff, the assistants helped teachers manage challenging student behaviour, so the supportive potential of this measure cannot be exclusively associated with academic outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-19">DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>Our findings indicate that within the project support, measures were primarily selected to target problems in the education of socially disadvantaged students related to student behavioural and emotional engagement; cognitive engagement was rather sidelined.</p> <p>Various school actors perceived deepening relationships and enhancing a sense of connectedness to school as a unifying element for implementing the measures typically selected from the project to deal with the most pressing issues. To address attendance problems, school staff emphasised that students and parents should perceive the school as a safe environment based on trust. This emphasis may have been exacerbated by school closures during the Covid‐19 pandemic, as there was a decline in student engagement during this period (Burger et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref143">24</reflink>]; Chen, Cárdenas, et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref144">30</reflink>]; Thorsteinsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref145">114</reflink>]). Experiential events and activities for students and parents, typical measures selected by schools from the project, were framed by school staff primarily in terms of their contribution to students' and parents' sense of connectedness to school, and in terms of potentially increasing school attendance and participation in extracurricular activities. Concerning student–teacher relationships, several authors (Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref146">65</reflink>]; Martin & Rimm‐Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref147">78</reflink>]; Roorda et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref148">97</reflink>]; Teuscher & Makarova, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref149">113</reflink>]) emphasised that fostering positive relationships can enhance student engagement. Additionally, parental involvement has been shown to indirectly influence student behavioural engagement (Bryce et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref150">21</reflink>]). Intensive communication with families (Epstein & Sheldon, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref151">47</reflink>]) and fieldwork conducted by social pedagogues were also highlighted by school staff. Previous research demonstrated that schools can benefit from social pedagogues thanks to their variable roles and functions, such as managing conflicts and providing group activities (Anderberg, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref152">5</reflink>]; Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref153">6</reflink>]). Therefore, financing experiential events and activities for parents and students (King, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref154">68</reflink>]) as well as fieldwork aiming to strengthen parental involvement can be effective tools for promoting student behavioural and emotional engagement.</p> <p>When addressing issues related to low motivation among students to participate in class, schools often chose support for purchasing supplies that students were unable to bring to class. Low student participation in class and off‐task behaviour often manifested itself in disciplinary problems in the classroom, which teachers typically addressed via collaboration with counselling staff or teaching assistants whose positions were often (co)financed from the project budgets. These personnel positions were widely utilised to support student behavioural engagement using individual interventions with students; this was proved to be effective in previous research (Reschly, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref155">92</reflink>]).</p> <p>If a significant amount of time in the classroom is dedicated to maintaining discipline, motivating students to participate in class or distributing missing supplies (cf. Lupton & Hempel‐Jorgensen, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref156">75</reflink>]), it can lead to a reduction in the complexity of instructional content and a streamlining of the curriculum. In the testimonies of school staff, there was an apparent tendency to lower expectations for students by reducing curriculum content or normalising the low aspirations of school graduates for higher education. This is in line with previous research documenting that teacher expectations differ in relation to student SES (Auwarter & Aruguete, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref157">12</reflink>]; Dusek & Joseph, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref158">46</reflink>]), which is inscribed in student achievement. High‐expectation teachers are focused on the process of learning; they provide more information about learning activities, make the connection between new and prior knowledge, use open‐ended questions and provide more feedback and scaffolding (Brophy & Good, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref159">20</reflink>]; Rubie‐Davies, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref160">99</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref161">121</reflink>]). Conversely, low‐expectation teachers tend to underestimate their students because of the perceived lack of competencies (Archambault et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref162">9</reflink>]). Agirdag et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref163">2</reflink>]) pointed out that teacher expectations also relate to teachability culture. If this culture prioritises care about students and their well‐being rather than their achievement, it can result in reducing the curriculum and opportunities to learn (cf. Darmanin, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref164">40</reflink>]). It is questionable whether this approach exacerbates the achievement gap.</p> <p>The lowering of teacher expectations has been significantly reinforced by the impacts of the Covid‐19 pandemic, which further exacerbated educational inequalities (cf. Beckmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref165">15</reflink>]; Betthäuser et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref166">17</reflink>]; Gee et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref167">58</reflink>]). However, the maintenance of high educational standards and a shared and strong commitment to the belief that all students can achieve are typical among schools whose students are successful despite their disadvantages (cf. Demie & Mclean, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref168">41</reflink>]; Muijs et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref169">82</reflink>]; West et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref170">123</reflink>]). Relatedly, previous research has highlighted a common focus on instructional practices and the need to monitor the progress of each student as crucial strategies for schools in socially disadvantaged contexts with improving achievement outcomes (Cabral‐Gouveia et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref171">26</reflink>]; Chapman & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref172">29</reflink>]; Demie & Mclean, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref173">41</reflink>]; Muijs et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref174">82</reflink>]). Nevertheless, these were rather marginalised in the schools we researched, both in the narratives of school staff and in the project support. Our results indicate a rather limited use of strategies leading to the direct support of achievement and limited support for cognitive engagement in terms of supporting student investment in learning, including the use of metacognitive and self‐regulation strategies (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref175">54</reflink>]; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref176">129</reflink>]). Instead, teachers and school staff tend to support mainly behavioural engagement—related to school attendance, motivation to participate in class and extracurricular activities, parental involvement and school discipline, and affective engagement—related to sense of connectedness to school, personal relationships, positive and negative emotions, and assisting with personal concerns (Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref177">37</reflink>]; King, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref178">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nonetheless, the literature on engagement demonstrated that teacher practices and procedures during classroom instruction are important for supporting engagement (Archambault et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref179">10</reflink>]; Pino‐James et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref180">87</reflink>]). Instructional quality is also related to the importance of academically engaged time. The amount of time when students are actively engaged in learning is a strong predictor of student achievement (Gettinger & Walter, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref181">59</reflink>]). The development of student cognitive engagement in terms of enhancing their investments in learning (Pohl, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref182">88</reflink>]) and increasing metacognitive strategies (Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref183">101</reflink>]), for example, by developing student self‐regulation strategies (Azevedo et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref184">13</reflink>]; Rosário et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref185">98</reflink>]; Stoeger & Ziegler, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref186">112</reflink>]), can more directly support the outcomes of disadvantaged students.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-20">Contributions, implications and policy recommendations</hd> <p>Our research findings indicate that it is necessary to support the engagement of socially disadvantaged students holistically, not only in its affective and behavioural dimensions—more emphasis needs to be put on strategies related to cognitive engagement (Greene et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref187">62</reflink>]; Nystrand & Gamoran, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref188">83</reflink>]). More importantly, the support of engagement needs to be more systematically linked with the support of achievement. Thus, individual interventions should be assigned to dimensions of engagement that could help a more comprehensive approach to student support (Christenson & Pohl, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref189">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>To make this feasible, the project support should be extended to strategies more explicitly focused on teachers' instructional behaviours; the development of students' meta‐cognitive strategies, such as self‐monitoring, self‐evaluation (cf. Moses et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref190">81</reflink>]; Rosário et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref191">98</reflink>]) and self‐regulation (Andrzejewski et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref192">7</reflink>]; Pohl, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref193">88</reflink>]); and the usage of data in improving each student's progress. Besides attention to the affective domain and inter‐school collaboration, the processes of teaching and learning as well as utilising data to inform them are essential components of effective school improvement programmes (Reynolds et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref194">94</reflink>]). At the same time, supporting the cognitive activation of socially disadvantaged students needs to be adjusted to their actual needs, as students from more privileged backgrounds tend to benefit more from this type of support as they were socialised to deal with cognitive stimulation at home (cf. Atlay et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref195">11</reflink>]). This issue is further linked to the widening class divides during the Covid‐19 pandemic school closures, when self‐regulation and autonomy became crucial for distance learning but were unevenly distributed among students based on their SES (Goudeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref196">61</reflink>]). Andrzejewski et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref197">7</reflink>]) argued that self‐regulated learning strategies can be developed in schools by low SES learners, become internalised habitus and result in improving achievement.</p> <p>Based on previous research findings (Cabral‐Gouveia et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref198">26</reflink>]; West et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref199">123</reflink>]), we agree that although there are common ingredients promoting the improvement of disadvantaged schools, these must be mixed in different proportions and in a different order to address individual school contexts. We contribute to this knowledge base by emphasising that these strategies need to be more balanced in terms of achievement vs. engagement support. Some components of support contribute to both student engagement and achievement (e.g. enhancing parental involvement, see Coles et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref200">36</reflink>]; Chapman & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref201">29</reflink>]; Furrer & Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref202">55</reflink>]; Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref203">124</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref204">125</reflink>]; student–teacher relationships, see Demie & Mclean, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref205">41</reflink>]; Kang et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref206">65</reflink>]; Muijs et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref207">82</reflink>]; Teuscher & Makarova, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref208">113</reflink>]); others need to be more diversified with regard to their more exclusive support of only one of these domains (e.g. quality of instruction and tutoring are more related to achievement; Dietrichson et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref209">42</reflink>]; Lauer et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref210">72</reflink>]; peer‐to‐peer relationships are more exclusively related to student engagement; Pino‐James et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref211">87</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although teaching quality and support of cognitive activation seem crucial, the policies cannot rely solely on teacher‐initiated innovation to transform student achievement through pedagogy while suppressing structural constraints on equity (Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref212">122</reflink>]). System‐level implementations of sustainable and long‐term programmes to distribute state funding are needed because equalisation in spending resources can result in narrowing achievement gaps across groups with diverse family backgrounds (Card & Payne, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref213">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>More generally, programme support needs to consider both endogenous and exogenous factors within schools, including economic resources, the quality of teaching and coordination measures among social actors to ensure the conditions for educability among socially deprived families (Silva‐Laya et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref214">104</reflink>]). This requires intersectoral and interdisciplinary approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-21">Future research, limitations and conclusion</hd> <p>Although comprehensive and whole‐school programmes (Kyriakides et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref215">70</reflink>]; Madden et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref216">77</reflink>]) aim to integrate support across various areas of school life, future research should specifically focus on verifying the effective balance of different domains of support and particular strategies to ensure support is effective in terms of both engagement and achievement. Our research findings suggest that greater attention should be given to strategies for cognitively engaging socially disadvantaged students in the classroom, as they may struggle with low autonomy and self‐regulation skills that are not cultivated at home. Future research should examine more closely the role of teaching quality in educational inequality (Atlay et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref217">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>The systematic review by Gaias et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref218">56</reflink>]) demonstrated that in current educational intervention research, the explicit examination of the effects of ethnic/racial minorities disparity reduction is not widespread. More research on the systematic assessment of the impact of interventions on educational disparities for low SES students is needed.</p> <p>Owing to the extensive nature of the data corpus, we were able to analyse only a portion of the collected data to answer the research questions of this paper, within the larger project where data collection is still ongoing. Relatedly, since this study was written during the implementation of project support, it does not include certain indicators (e.g. student grades) that will be evaluated only after the programme is concluded. Despite the rich data corpus gathered in this research, we lack data from classroom observations, which we were unable to collect owing to our inability to obtain informed consent from all the parents in several classrooms.</p> <p>The effort to increase student engagement is undoubtedly crucial for supporting achievement; however, if this support is not accompanied by measures directly aimed at supporting achievement, there is a risk that support for engagement will become an end in itself and thus not translate into low SES students' educational outcomes. Although support programmes can provide low SES students with access to school, they may not ensure the educational quality needed for effective learning (Silva‐Laya et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref219">104</reflink>]). The ultimate goal of the support programmes should be both equity and excellence (Atlay et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref220">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-22">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This work was supported by the NPO 'Systemic Risk Institute' no. LX22NPO5101, funded by the European Union—Next Generation EU (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, NPO: EXCELES).</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-23">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors report no potential conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-24">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data supporting this study's findings are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-25">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This research was approved by the Masaryk University (EKV‐2022‐091) and Charles University (UKPedF/544468/2022) Ethical Committees.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-26">A APPENDIX Catalogue of support measures for working with students from low socioeconomic sta...</hd> <p>A. Personnel support.</p> <p>A.1 Teaching assistant for socially disadvantaged students.</p> <p>A.2 Special pedagogue.</p> <p>A.3 Social pedagogue.</p> <p>A.4 Career consultant.</p> <p>A.5 School psychologist.</p> <p>A.6 Inclusion coordinator.</p> <p>A.7 Adaptation coordinator.</p> <p>A.8 Worker for children's and youth leisure activities—school club, afternoon club, open club, low‐threshold club, and so forth.</p> <p>A.9 Coordinator of mentoring programme for students.</p> <p>A.10 Tandem teacher.</p> <p>A.11 Funding for existing personnel support for low socioeconomic status (SES) students in school.</p> <p>B. Direct student support.</p> <p>B.1 Educational intervention—tutoring.</p> <p>B.2 Educational intervention during school holidays—tutoring.</p> <p>B.3 Educational intervention focused on supporting early student adaptation.</p> <p>B.4 Psychosocial intervention, mental health support for children and students, preventive work.</p> <p>B.5 Case management.</p> <p>B.6 Educational programme/event for students focused on increasing their academic motivation.</p> <p>B.7 Experiential educational programme for students.</p> <p>B.8 Breakfast clubs for students.</p> <p>B.9 School event focused on strengthening collaboration with parents of socially disadvantaged students.</p> <p>B.10 Covering additional costs associated with the education of low SES students.</p> <p>B.11 Educational intervention focused on developing professional language in secondary schools.</p> <p>B.12 Prevention of early school leaving in secondary education.</p> <p>C. Support for further education and professional development of educational staff.</p> <p>C.1 Professional development focused on inclusive education and innovative methods and approaches in education.</p> <p>C.2 Mentoring support for educational staff.</p> <p>C.3 Coaching support for educational leaders.</p> <p>C.4 Internships, peer collegial support.</p> <p>C.5 Supervision for educational staff.</p> <p>C.6 Facilitation of joint meetings.</p> <p>C.7 Mediation of conflict situations.</p> <hd id="AN0184273890-27">B APPENDIX Overview of categories and codes</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Categories</th><th align="left">Codes</th><th align="left">Definitions</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Perceived problems manifesting in students.</p><p>What types of problems do educational and counselling staff encounter in relation to students?*</p><p>RQ: What are the main problems in the education of socially disadvantaged students as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">1. Absenteeism</td><td align="left">Problems related to absenteeism—in both classroom instruction and extracurricular activities organised by the school</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Behaviour</td><td align="left">Problems related to inappropriate behaviour during instruction, breaks, and extracurricular activities organised by the school</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Lack of motivation</td><td align="left">Problems related to low motivation for education (lack of interest in both classroom instruction and experiential programmes within the curriculum)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Extracurricular activities</td><td align="left">Problems related to participation in extracurricular activities</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Special educational needs</td><td align="left">Problems related to special educational needs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Outcomes</td><td align="left">Problems related to student achievement</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Instruction</td><td align="left">Problems related to instruction, including tutoring</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Drop‐out</td><td align="left">Problems related to early school leaving, including both early leaving from primary education and failure to transition to secondary education</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Family background</td><td align="left">Problems related to unsupportive family background</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Perceived problems manifesting in parents.</p><p>What types of problems do educational and counselling staff encounter in relation to parents?*</p><p>RQ: What are the main problems in the education of socially disadvantaged students as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">10. Family characteristics</td><td align="left">Problems related to family characteristics, such as issues with housing or high unemployment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11. Limited involvement</td><td align="left">Problems related to lack of parental involvement in school activities</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12. Attitudes</td><td align="left">Problems related to parental attitudes, such as low aspirations, unwillingness to allow children to attend tutoring and lack of interest in (completing) education</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13. Parental competencies</td><td align="left">Problems related to inadequate parental competencies, such as the inability to explain academic content and insufficient capacity to prepare students for lessons</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Perceived problems manifesting in educational staff.</p><p>What types of problems do educational staff encounter in relation to their work responsibilities?</p></td><td align="left">14. Activities outside of instruction</td><td align="left">Problems related to the time demands of activities outside of instruction, such as supervisory duties and participation in professional development</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15. Long working hours</td><td align="left">Problems related to excessively long working hours</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16. Insufficient competencies</td><td align="left">Problems related to insufficient staff competencies, such as in teaching techniques, methods and forms of instruction</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17. Attitudes</td><td align="left">Problems related to the attitudes of educational staff, specifically their willingness to engage and take action</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Perceived problems manifesting in school counselling services.</p><p>What types of problems do members of the school counselling staff encounter?</p></td><td align="left">18. Insufficient capacity</td><td align="left">Problems related to the insufficient number and full‐time equivalents of staff in the school counselling services</td></tr><tr><td align="left">19. Lack of position stability</td><td align="left">Problems related to the fact that many positions are tied to projects or specific students and do not have longer‐term contracts</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Perceived problems manifesting in school leadership.</p><p>What types of problems do school leaders encounter?</p></td><td align="left">20. Administrative tasks</td><td align="left">Problems related to administrative tasks, such as completing forms, reports and applications</td></tr><tr><td align="left">21. Problems with staffing</td><td align="left">Problems related to the relatively frequent departures of teachers from the school and the subsequent search for new staff, including issues with a lack of qualifications</td></tr><tr><td align="left">22. Excessive numbers of students with support measures</td><td align="left">Problems related to the fact that there are more than five students in the class with support measures recognised at the second to fifth levels</td></tr><tr><td align="left">23. Filling specialised positions</td><td align="left">Problems related to the shortage of staff to fill specialised positions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">24. Willingness to collaborate</td><td align="left">Problems related to the low willingness of leadership to collaborate with project representatives</td></tr><tr><td align="left">25. Extracurricular activities</td><td align="left">Problems related to organising extracurricular activities</td></tr><tr><td align="left">26. Self stigmatisation</td><td align="left">Problems related to defining the school as one focused on socially disadvantaged students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">27. Social pedagogue is not an educational staff member</td><td align="left">Problems related to the fact that a social educator is not considered an educational staff member, which is associated with lower salary and reduced vacation benefits</td></tr><tr><td align="left">28. Overload</td><td align="left">Problems related to the extensive scope of responsibilities and the overload, particularly of leadership positions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">29. Establishing authority policy</td><td align="left">Interventions that impact the school</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Perceived problems related to collaboration with external partners.</td><td align="left">30. Doctors</td><td align="left">Problems related to medical care, particularly regarding the requirement for fees for medical certificates for a child's illness</td></tr><tr><td align="left">31. Child protection services</td><td align="left">Problems related to the capacities and responses of child protection services staff</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Perceived problems related to the context.</p><p>What types of problems do school leadership, teachers and counselling staff face in relation to contextual factors?*</p><p>RQ: What are the main problems in the education of socially disadvantaged students as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">32. Project</td><td align="left">Problems related to project setup, such as lack of time for project preparation, overlapping projects, overlapping roles and so forth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">33. Financing</td><td align="left">Problems specifically related to funding, such as low pay rates for selected positions, cash flow issues and so forth</td></tr><tr><td align="left">34. Covid‐19</td><td align="left">Problems related to the impacts of Covid‐19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">35. Understanding of inclusion</td><td align="left">Problems related to the specific design of inclusive measures</td></tr><tr><td align="left">36. Segregated school</td><td align="left">Problems related to the fact that the school is segregated and the attitudes of the majority</td></tr><tr><td align="left">37. Socially excluded locality</td><td align="left">Problems related to the fact that the school and its students are located in a socially excluded locality</td></tr><tr><td align="left">38. Trends</td><td align="left">Trends in the composition of the student body</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. Perceived solutions to student problems within teacher competency.</p><p>What helps educational staff to solve problems encountered in their work that are predominantly within their competence?*</p><p>RQ: What are the best solutions to socially disadvantaged students' educational problems as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">39. Specific aids</td><td align="left">Educational aids that facilitate learning for socially disadvantaged students, for example forgetfulness sheets</td></tr><tr><td align="left">40. Detailed instruction</td><td align="left">Detailed description of the required activities</td></tr><tr><td align="left">41. Checking notebooks</td><td align="left">Notebook review—formal and content‐based</td></tr><tr><td align="left">42. Repeating grade</td><td align="left">Repeating a grade, primarily used as an opportunity to master the material</td></tr><tr><td align="left">43. Peer learning</td><td align="left">Peer learning</td></tr><tr><td align="left">44. Attention to motivated students</td><td align="left">Focus on students who show an interest in learning</td></tr><tr><td align="left">45. Tier 1 support measures</td><td align="left">Implementation of first‐level support measures, which are entirely within the teacher's authority</td></tr><tr><td align="left">46. Systematic leading</td><td align="left">Procedures that the teacher applies systematically and over a long period and that students have consequently adopted</td></tr><tr><td align="left">47. Kindly assessment</td><td align="left">Less stringent assessment of educational outcomes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">48. Relationship with the teacher</td><td align="left">Personal relationship between the teacher and student based on empathy and trust</td></tr><tr><td align="left">49. Zone of proximal development</td><td align="left">Teaching methods that build on the student's current knowledge and do not merely present the curriculum mechanically</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. Perceived solutions to student problems outside the teacher's competence.</p><p>What helps educational staff address issues they encounter in their work that are not primarily within their competence but rather fall under the responsibility of school leadership or the education system?*</p><p>RQ: What are the best solutions to socially disadvantaged students' educational problems as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">50. Activities outside of school</td><td align="left">Activities that take place outside the school environment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">51. Diagnostics</td><td align="left">Early diagnosis of student needs by staff in specialised positions, such as school psychologist</td></tr><tr><td align="left">52. Division of lessons</td><td align="left">Increased number of split classes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">53. Tutoring</td><td align="left">Attendance at tutoring</td></tr><tr><td align="left">54. Aids and services for free</td><td align="left">Indirect financial support, that is provision of materials and services free of charge</td></tr><tr><td align="left">55. Individualisation</td><td align="left">Providing individual care</td></tr><tr><td align="left">56. Entrance exam preparation course</td><td align="left">Provision of a course preparing for entrance exams</td></tr><tr><td align="left">57. Returnees as foreigners</td><td align="left">Students who have returned from a long‐term stay in the UK and have difficulties with the language and Czech realities should be entitled to the same support as foreign students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">58. Leisure activities</td><td align="left">Organisation of extracurricular activities (clubs) and allowing attendance at after‐school programmes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">59. Leaving of problematic students</td><td align="left">Transfer of problematic students to another school</td></tr><tr><td align="left">60. Opening a second group for foreign students</td><td align="left">Possibility of opening an additional group for foreign students if the required number is not met</td></tr><tr><td align="left">61. Support measures of the second to fifth levels</td><td align="left">Support measures for the second to fifth levels</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">62. Systematic care</td><td align="left">Providing regular, systematic individual support, including special educational support</td></tr><tr><td align="left">63. Loaning of tools and equipment</td><td align="left">Loaning materials and equipment that the students lack during lessons</td></tr><tr><td align="left">64. Special classes</td><td align="left">Placement of the student in a special class</td></tr><tr><td align="left">65. More time on the curriculum</td><td align="left">Providing more time for mastering selected parts of the curriculum</td></tr><tr><td align="left">66. Picking up students from their place of residence</td><td align="left">Picking up students from their place of residence</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Perceived solutions to problems related to parents.</p><p>What helps teaching and counselling staff address issues related to involving parents in their work?*</p><p>RQ: What are the best solutions to socially disadvantaged students' educational problems as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">67. Supervision</td><td align="left">Monitoring whether parents fulfil their responsibilities regarding school attendance</td></tr><tr><td align="left">68. Communication</td><td align="left">Personal or telephone communication</td></tr><tr><td align="left">69. Awareness‐raising and education</td><td align="left">Events focused on raising awareness and educating parents</td></tr><tr><td align="left">70. Fieldwork</td><td align="left">Fieldwork focused on parents</td></tr><tr><td align="left">71. Relationships</td><td align="left">Building relationships with parents</td></tr><tr><td align="left">72. Securing housing</td><td align="left">Securing housing for families</td></tr><tr><td align="left">73. Parental involvement</td><td align="left">Involving parents in school activities</td></tr><tr><td align="left">74. Change in family functioning</td><td align="left">Change in family functioning</td></tr><tr><td align="left">75. Parents' educational aspirations for their children</td><td align="left">Aspirations related to further education or employment</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Perceived solutions to the challenges faced by teachers and counselling staff.</p><p>What helps teachers and counselling staff address the challenges they encounter in their work?*</p><p>RQ: What are the best solutions to socially disadvantaged students' educational problems as perceived by actors involved in the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">76. Authority</td><td align="left">Gaining authority and respect from parents</td></tr><tr><td align="left">77. Professional development</td><td align="left">Further education and overall professional development of educational staff</td></tr><tr><td align="left">78. Support positions</td><td align="left">Support from additional staff in support roles</td></tr><tr><td align="left">79. Cooperation</td><td align="left">Cooperation with colleagues</td></tr><tr><td align="left">80. Experiences sharing</td><td align="left">Sharing experiences specific to a particular role</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. Perceived solutions to the challenges faced by school leadership.</p><p>What helps school leadership address the challenges they encounter in their work?</p></td><td align="left">81. Vision</td><td align="left">A vision of the desired future state and also the steps necessary to achieve it</td></tr><tr><td align="left">82. Competence</td><td align="left">The knowledge and skills of school leadership and other staff that enable effective implementation of support</td></tr><tr><td align="left">83. International cooperation</td><td align="left">Involvement in international collaboration</td></tr><tr><td align="left">84. Sharing</td><td align="left">Communication about problems the school faces and potential solutions, both among staff and with staff from other schools</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13. Perceived solutions to problems schools face related to involving external partners.</p><p>Which external partners could assist schools in addressing the issues that school staff encounter in their work, and how might they help?</p></td><td align="left">85. Doctors</td><td align="left">Assistance from doctors in the form of sharing information</td></tr><tr><td align="left">86. Local action plan</td><td align="left">Involvement of the local action group/local action plan</td></tr><tr><td align="left">87. Media</td><td align="left">The media coverage of the issue and the subsequent interest of other stakeholders</td></tr><tr><td align="left">88. Non‐governmental organisations</td><td align="left">Cooperation with nongovernmental organisations</td></tr><tr><td align="left">89. Child protection services</td><td align="left">Cooperation with child protection services</td></tr><tr><td align="left">90. Pedagogical–psychological counselling centres</td><td align="left">Cooperation with pedagogical–psychological counselling centres</td></tr><tr><td align="left">91. Employment office</td><td align="left">Cooperation with employment office</td></tr><tr><td align="left">92. Agency</td><td align="left">Cooperation with Agency for social inclusion</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14. Context of perceived problem solutions, i.e. the circumstances that influence how problems are perceived and addressed.</p><p>Which contextual factors influence the perception of potential solutions to problems encountered by school staff in their work?</p></td><td align="left">93. We do everything</td><td align="left">The leadership or teachers believe that no new measures can help them because they are already doing everything within their power</td></tr><tr><td align="left">94. Planned meetings</td><td align="left">Scheduling all meetings in advance as part of the preparation for measures, so the school knows what to expect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">95. Help outside of the system</td><td align="left">Support that teachers or school leaders attempt to provide outside the established system</td></tr><tr><td align="left">96. Closure of the school</td><td align="left">Closure of the school</td></tr><tr><td align="left">97. Simplification of inclusion</td><td align="left">Simplification of rules for providing support to students with special educational needs</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15. Perceived impacts.</p><p>What impacts of the project have pedagogical and counselling staff observed?*</p><p>RQ: What are the contributions of selected project support measures as perceived by actors regarding socially disadvantaged student achievement and engagement?</p></td><td align="left">98. Climate</td><td align="left">Perceived impacts on the climate</td></tr><tr><td align="left">99. Acceptance by parents</td><td align="left">Perceived impacts on parents</td></tr><tr><td align="left">100. School outcomes</td><td align="left">Perceived impacts on student outcomes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">101. Instruction</td><td align="left">Perceived impacts on instruction</td></tr><tr><td align="left">102. Engagement</td><td align="left">Perceived impacts on student engagement</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16. Expected impacts.</p><p>What impacts do pedagogical and counselling staff anticipate from the project?*</p><p>RQ: What are the contributions of selected project support measures as perceived by actors regarding socially disadvantaged student achievement and engagement?</p></td><td align="left">103. Students</td><td align="left">Expected impacts on students</td></tr><tr><td align="left">104. Teachers</td><td align="left">Expected impacts on teachers</td></tr><tr><td align="left">105. School</td><td align="left">Expected impacts on school</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>17. Measures selection.</p><p>How was the selection of measures carried out?*</p><p>RQ: What are the measures typically selected from the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">106. Who</td><td align="left">Details regarding the individuals and organisations involved in the selection of measures</td></tr><tr><td align="left">107. Who was involved</td><td align="left">Details regarding the selection of students who will be targeted for support</td></tr><tr><td align="left">108. What</td><td align="left">Details regarding the substantive focus of each measure</td></tr><tr><td align="left">109. When</td><td align="left">Timeline and other time‐related aspects of the measure selection process</td></tr><tr><td align="left">110. How</td><td align="left">The circumstances surrounding the selection process of measures</td></tr><tr><td align="left">111. Why</td><td align="left">Circumstances of the measure selection process</td></tr><tr><td align="left">112. Finance</td><td align="left">Circumstances of financing and reservations about the project's funding system—everything related to money</td></tr><tr><td align="left">113. Context</td><td align="left">Factors that are not directly part of the project but influence its implementation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">114. Reservations</td><td align="left">Reservations about the project setup</td></tr><tr><td align="left">115. Suggestions for the future</td><td align="left">Suggestions for adjusting the project setup</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>18. Measure realisation.</p><p>How did the implementation of measures proceed?*</p><p>RQ: What are the measures typically selected from the state‐funded programme?</p></td><td align="left">116. Administration</td><td align="left">Circumstances related to the administration of the project</td></tr><tr><td align="left">117. Personal</td><td align="left">Details regarding the planning and execution of the responsibilities of individual positions</td></tr><tr><td align="left">118. Direct support of students</td><td align="left">Details regarding the planning and implementation of direct support measures</td></tr><tr><td align="left">119. Professional development</td><td align="left">Details regarding the planning and implementation of school staff professional development</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>19. Context.</p><p>Which contextual factors characterise the informants and the environment.</p></td><td align="left">120. Qualifications</td><td align="left">Details regarding the qualifications of personnel involved in the project</td></tr><tr><td align="left">121. Pre‐school</td><td align="left">Details regarding the preschool, if it is part of the primary school</td></tr><tr><td align="left">122. Personal characteristics of informants and characteristics of the environment.</td><td align="left">Characteristics describing informants and environment</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Categories marked with an asterisk were analytically expanded to address the research questions of this study.</p> <ref id="AN0184273890-28"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agasisti, T., Avvisati, F., Borgonovi, F., & Longobardi, S. (2021). What school factors are associated with the success of socio‐economically disadvantaged students? An empirical investigation using PISA data. Social Indicators Research, 157, 749 – 781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205‐021‐02668‐w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref131" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Agirdag, O., Houtte, M. V., & Avermaet, P. V. (2013). School segregation and self‐ fulfilling prophecies as determinants of academic achievement in Flanders. In S. De Groof & M. Elchardus (Eds.), Early school leaving & youth unemployment (pp. 49 – 74). Universiteit Gent.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref135" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749‐5978(91)90020‐T</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref23" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70, 87 – 107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref119" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Anderberg, M. (2020). In search of a social pedagogical profession in schools. Missions and roles under reconsideration. International journal of social Pedagogy, 9 (1), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2020.v9.x.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref114" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42 (2), 95 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref57" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Andrzejewski, C. E., Davis, H. A., Bruening, P. S., & Poirier, R. R. (2016). Can a self‐regulated strategy intervention close the achievement gap? Exploring a classroom‐based intervention in 9th grade earth science. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 85 – 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref73" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45 (5), 369 – 386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref162" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescents' cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 105 (5), 319 – 328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.629694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Archambault, I., Pascal, S., Tardif‐Grenier, K., Dupéré, V., Janosz, M., Parent, S., & Pagani, L. S. (2020). The contribution of teacher structure, involvement, and autonomy support on student engagement in low‐income elementary schools. Teachers and Teaching, 26 (5‐6), 428 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1863208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Atlay, C., Tieben, N., Hillmert, S., & Fauth, B. (2019). Instructional quality and achievement inequality: How effective is teaching in closing the social achievement gap? Learning and Instruction, 63, 101211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.05.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Auwarter, A., & Aruguete, M. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic status on teacher perceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 101 (4), 243 – 246. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.4.243‐246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Azevedo, R., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Fuentes, S., & Magalhães, P. (2023). A school‐based intervention on elementary students' school engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 73, 102148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44 (3), 211 – 229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beckmann, L., Kötter‐Mathes, S., Klein, E. D., Bremm, N., & van Ackeren, I. (2022). Schools' improvement capacity and responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic: Evidence from schools serving disadvantaged communities. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1008813. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1008813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on achievement motivation and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 315 – 342). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐07853‐8_19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Betthäuser, B. A., Bach‐Mortensen, A. M., & Engzell, P. (2023). A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 7 (3), 375 – 385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562‐022‐01506‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73 (2), 125 – 230. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516091">www.jstor.org/stable/3516091</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 (5), 365 – 374. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryce, C. I., Bradley, R. H., Abry, T., Swanson, J., & Thompson, M. S. (2019). Parents' and teachers' academic influences, behavioral engagement, and first‐ and fifth‐grade achievement. School Psychology, 34 (5), 492 – 502. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children's classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.98.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burger, J., Newman, K., & Stevens, D. (2024). Student engagement—Pre and post Covid‐19 pandemic. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 39 (1), 53 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1177/082957352412283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burger, K. (2019). The socio‐spatial dimension of educational inequality: A comparative European analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62, 171 – 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cabral‐Gouveia, C., Menezes, I., & Neves, T. (2023). Educational strategies to reduce the achievement gap: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1155741. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1155741</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Rintamaa, M., Carter, J. C., Pennington, J., & Buckman, D. M. (2013). The impact of supplemental instruction on low‐achieving adolescents' Reading engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 107 (1), 36 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.753859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Card, D., & Payne, A. A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83 (1), 49 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047‐2727(00)00177‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chapman, C., & Harris, A. (2004). Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts: Strategies for improvement. Educational Research, 46 (3), 219 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000277296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, S., Cárdenas, D., Zhou, H., & Reynolds, K. J. (2024). Positive school climate and strong school identification as protective factors of adolescent mental health and learning engagement: A longitudinal investigation before and during COVID‐19. Social Science & Medicine, 348, 116795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., Chen, Y., Yu, X., Wei, J., & Yang, X. (2024). The impact of family socioeconomic status on parental involvement and student engagement during COVID‐19 in promoting academic achievement: A longitudinal study in Chinese children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 246, 105992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2024.105992</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chmielewski, A. K. (2019). The global increase in the socioeconomic achievement gap, 1964 to (2015). American Sociological Review, 84 (3), 517 – 544. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312241984716</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christenson, S. L., & Pohl, A. J. (2020). The relevance of student engagement: The impact of and Lessons Learned Implementing Check & Connect. In A. L. Reschly, A. J. Pohl, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective interventions at school (pp. 3 – 30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐37285‐9_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95 – 120. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243">www.jstor.org/stable/2780243</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coles, L., Johnstone, M., Pattinson, C., Thorpe, K., Van Halen, O., Zheng, Z., & Staton, S. (2023). Identifying factors for poorer educational outcomes that may be exacerbated by COVID‐19: A systematic review focussing on at‐risk school children and adolescents. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 13 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, C. R., Thayer, A. J., Fiat, A., & Sullivan, M. (2020). Interventions to enhance affective engagement. In A. L. Reschly, A. J. Pohl, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective interventions at school (pp. 203 – 238). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐37285‐9_12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta‐analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66 (3), 227 – 268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daly, B. P., Shin, R. Q., Thakral, C., Selders, M., & Vera, E. (2009). School engagement among urban adolescents of color: Does perception of social support and neighborhood safety really matter? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38 (1), 63 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐008‐9294‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darmanin, M. (2003). When students are failed: "love" as an alternative education discourse? International Studies in Sociology of Education, 13 (2), 141 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620210300200108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demie, F., & Mclean, C. (2015). Tackling disadvantage: What works in narrowing the achievement gap in schools. Review of Education, 3 (2), 138 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dietrichson, J., Bøg, M., Filges, T., & Klint Jørgensen, A. M. (2017). Academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87, 243 – 282. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316687036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donker, A. S., De Boer, H., Kostons, D., Van Ewijk, C. D., & van der Werf, M. P. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta‐analysis. Educational Research Review, 11, 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, G. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, O. D., Featherman, D. L., & Duncan, B. (1972). Socioeconomic background and achievement. Seminar Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dusek, J. B., & Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of teacher expectancies: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (3), 327 – 346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.75.3.327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (5), 308 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596604</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Estell, D. B., & Perdue, N. H. (2013). Social support and behavioral and affective school engagement: The effects of peers, parents, and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 50 (4), 325 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21681</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A meta‐analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1 – 22. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23358867">www.jstor.org/stable/23358867</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finn, J. D. (1993). School Engagement & Students at Risk. National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (2), 221 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.82.2.221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flick, U. (2018). Doing triangulation and mixed methods. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> FRA—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2022). Roma in 10 European countries. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2811/930443</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59 – 109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 148 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.95.1.148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaias, L. M., Duong, M. T., Pullmann, M. D., Brewer, S. K., Smilansky, M., Halbert, M., & Jones, J. (2020). Race and ethnicity in educational intervention research: A systematic review and recommendations for sampling, reporting, and analysis. Educational Research Review, 31, 100356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gálvez, I. E., & Tarrés, M. B. (2017). Family‐school collaboration practices at successful schools in disadvantaged environments. Pedagogia Social, (29), 93 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, K. A., Asmundson, V., & Vang, T. (2023). Educational impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United States: Inequities by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Current Opinion in Psychology, 52, 101643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gettinger, M., & Walter, M. J. (2012). Classroom strategies to enhance academic engaged time. In A. Christenson, L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 653 – 673). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4614‐2018‐7_31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208574</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goudeau, S., Sanrey, C., Stanczak, A., Manstead, A., & Darnon, C. (2021). Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1273 – 1281. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562‐021‐01212‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students' cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29 (4), 462 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosan, N. E., Hoglund, W., & Suldo, S. (2017). Do Teacher–Child Relationship and Friendship Quality Matter for Children's School Engagement and Academic Skills? School Psychology Review, 46 (2), 201 – 218. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR‐2017‐0043.V46‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta‐analysis. Urban Education, 42 (1), 82 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, D., Stough, L. M., Yoon, M., & Liew, J. (2021). The structural association between teacher‐student relationships and school engagement: Types and informants. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29 (1), 417 – 442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. (2022). Fifty years of parental involvement and achievement research: A second‐order metaanalysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, K. (2020). Interventions to enhance behavioral engagement. In A. L. Reschly, A. J. Pohl, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective interventions at school (pp. 133 – 156). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐37285‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746‐1561.2004.tb08283.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriakides, L., Charalambous, E., Creemers, H. P. M., & Dimosthenous, A. (2019). Improving quality and equity in schools in socially disadvantaged areas. Educational Research, 61 (3), 274 – 301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1642121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods. In Class, race and family life. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin‐Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out‐of‐school‐time programs: A meta‐analysis of effects for at‐risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76 (2), 275 – 313. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002275</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta‐analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46 (3), 517 – 528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorenzova, J. (2018). School‐based social pedagogy and its implementation in the Czech school system. International Journal of Teaching & Education, 6 (1), 21 – 35. https://doi.org/10.20472/TE.2018.6.1.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lupton, R., & Hempel‐Jorgensen, A. (2012). The importance of teaching: Pedagogical constraints and possibilities in working‐class schools. Journal of Education Policy, 27 (5), 601 – 620. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.710016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynch, A. D., Lerner, R. M., & Leventhal, T. (2013). Adolescent academic achievement and school engagement: An examination of the role of school‐wide peer culture. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (1), 6 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐012‐9833‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner‐city elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123 – 148. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, D. P., & Rimm‐Kaufman, S. E. (2015). Do student self‐efficacy and teacher‐student interaction quality contribute to emotional and social engagement in fifth grade math? Journal of School Psychology, 53 (5), 359 – 373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martins, J., Cunha, J., Lopes, S., Moreira, T., & Rosário, P. (2022). School engagement in elementary school: A systematic review of 35 years of research. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (2), 793 – 849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐021‐09642‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53 (2), 185 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.53.2.185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moses, K. A., Van Stratton, J. E., & Anaple, A. (2023). Self‐management interventions for at‐risk and low‐income students: A systematic review. Behavior and Social Issues, 32 (1), 191 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822‐023‐00125‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas–a review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15 (2), 149 – 175. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.15.2.149.30433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25 (3), 261 – 290. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171413">www.jstor.org/stable/40171413</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881‐en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owens, A. (2018). Income segregation between school districts and inequality in students' achievement. Sociology of Education, 91 (1), 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040717741180</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pino‐James, N. (2017). Evaluation of a pedagogical model for student engagement in learning activities. Educational Action Research, 26 (3), 456 – 479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1354771</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pino‐James, N., Shernoff, D. J., Bressler, D. M., Larson, S. C., & Sinha, S. (2019). Instructional interventions that support student engagement: An international perspective. In J. A. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students (pp. 103 – 119). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐813413‐9.00008‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pohl, A. J. (2020). Strategies and interventions for promoting cognitive engagement. In A. L. Reschly, A. J. Pohl, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective interventions at school (pp. 253 – 280). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐37285‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Portes, A., & MacLeod, D. (1996). Educational progress of children of immigrants: The roles of class, ethnicity, and school context. Sociology of Education, 69, 255 – 275. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Potter, D., & Roksa, J. (2013). Accumulating advantages over time: Family experiences and social class inequality in academic achievement. Social Science Research, 42 (4), 1018 – 1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.02.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reardon, S. F., Kalogrides, D., & Shores, K. (2019). The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps. American Journal of Sociology, 124 (4), 1164 – 1221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reschly, A. L. (2020). Interventions to enhance academic engagement. In A. L. Reschly, A. J. Pohl, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective interventions at school (pp. 133 – 156). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐37285‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3 – 19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4614‐2018‐7_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, D., Harris, A., Clarke, P., Harris, B., & James, S. (2006). Challenging the challenged: Developing an improvement programme for schools facing exceptionally challenging circumstances. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (4), 425 – 439. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600743509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riddle, S., Howell, A., McGregor, G., & Mills, M. (2021). Student engagement in schools serving marginalised communities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28 (6), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1956605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rimm‐Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, R. A. A., Abry, T., Baroody, A. E., & Curby, T. W. (2015). To what extent do teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders' engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 170 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037252</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A meta‐analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81 (4), 493 – 529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Azevedo, R., Pereira, R., & Moreira, T. (2016). Promoting gypsy children school engagement: A story‐tool project to enhance self‐regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 47, 84 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubie‐Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high‐ and low‐expectation teachers. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (2), 289 – 306. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X101601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders, J., Munford, R., & Boden, J. (2018). Improving educational outcomes for at‐risk students. British Educational Research Journal, 44 (5), 763 – 780. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3462</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, K., Maier, J., & Nückles, M. (2012). Writing about the personal utility of learning contents in a learning journal improves learning motivation and comprehension. Education Research International, 2012, 1 – 10. doi: 10.1155/2012/319463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, D., Hastings, O. P., & LaBriola, J. (2018). Income inequality and class divides in parental investments. American Sociological Review, 83 (3), 475 – 507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418772034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schoon, I. (2006). Risk and resilience: Adaptations in changing times. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silva‐Laya, M., D'Angelo, N., García, E., Zúñiga, L., & Fernández, T. (2020). Urban poverty and education. A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 29, 100280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from check & connect longitudinal studies. The California School Psychologist, 8 (1), 29 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340894</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams‐Wiggns, K. R., & Hmelo‐Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in computer‐supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal for Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 10, 273 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412‐015‐9218‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta‐analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), 417 – 453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (4), 765 – 781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.85.4.571</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study design. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2008). Evaluation of a classroom based training to improve self‐regulation in time management tasks during homework activities with fourth graders. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 207 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409‐008‐9027‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teuscher, S., & Makarova, E. (2018). Students' school engagement and their truant behavior: Do relationships with classmates and teachers matter? Journal of Education and Learning, 7 (6), 124. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n6p124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorsteinsen, K., Parks‐Stamm, E. J., Olsen, M., Kvalø, M., & Martiny, S. E. (2021). The impact of COVID‐19‐induced changes at schools on elementary students' school engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 687611. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.687611</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar‐Cam, H. Z., Trucano, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2014). Enhancing students' engagement: Report of a 3‐year intervention with middle school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51 (6), 1195 – 1226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vigevano, L., & Mattei, P. (2023). The challenges of distance learning in Italy: New inequalities and implications for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2266718</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105 (3), 294 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1086/444158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalise instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (4), 932.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M.‐T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47 (3), 633 – 662. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M.‐T., Willett, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49 (4), 465 – 480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, S., Rubie‐Davies, C. M., & Meissel, K. (2019). Instructional practices and classroom interactions of high and low expectation teachers in China. Social Psychology of Education, 22 (4), 841 – 866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐019‐09507‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, S. C., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Woods, P., Hamilton, T., & Roberts, A. (2015). School leadership for equity: Lessons from the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19 (4), 333 – 346. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.930520</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, M., Ainscow, M., & Stanford, J. (2005). Sustaining improvement in schools in challenging circumstances: A study of successful practice. School Leadership & Management, 25 (1), 77 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243052000317055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. M., Greenleaf, A. T., Barnes, E. F., & Scott, T. R. (2019). High‐achieving, low‐income students' perspectives of how schools can promote the academic achievement of students living in poverty. Improving Schools, 22 (3), 224 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480218821501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, R. S. M., Ho, F. K. W., Wong, W. H. S., Tung, K. T. S., Chow, C. B., Rao, N., & Ip, P. (2018). Parental involvement in primary school education: Its relationship with children's academic performance and psychosocial competence through engaging children with school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 1544 – 1555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐017‐1011‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wylie, C., & Hodgen, E. (2012). Trajectories and patterns of student engagement: Evidence from a longitudinal study. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 585 – 599). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4614‐2018‐7_28</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamamoto, Y., & Holloway, S. D. (2010). Parental expectations and children's academic performance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 189 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐010‐9121‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager, D., Purdie‐Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P., Master, A., Hessert, W. T., Williams, M. E., Cohen, G. L., & Cohen, G. (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (2), 804 – 824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self‐regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 3 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jana Obrovská; Martin Majcík and Jaroslava Simonová</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref218"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1466324
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Achievement vs. Engagement: Providing Support in Socially Disadvantaged Schools
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jana+Obrovská%22">Jana Obrovská</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8705-341X">0000-0001-8705-341X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Martin+Majcík%22">Martin Majcík</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7036-3806">0000-0002-7036-3806</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jaroslava+Simonová%22">Jaroslava Simonová</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6698-4012">0000-0001-6698-4012</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Educational+Research+Journal%22"><i>British Educational Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 51(2):1039-1072.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 34
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income+Students%22">Low Income Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged+Schools%22">Disadvantaged Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged+Youth%22">Disadvantaged Youth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Advantaged%22">Advantaged</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attendance%22">Attendance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discipline+Problems%22">Discipline Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiential+Learning%22">Experiential Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Finance%22">Educational Finance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Development%22">Program Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Czech+Republic%22">Czech Republic</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/berj.4105
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-1926<br />1469-3518
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Educational inequalities persist between students of low socioeconomic status and their more affluent peers. At the same time, there is evidence of positive relations between student engagement and achievement. This multiple case study investigates a national project aimed at increasing student engagement and achievement through post-COVID-19 support focused on disadvantaged schools in the Czech Republic. School staff perceived poor attendance, low student motivation and discipline problems as the most challenging issues to be addressed through project support measures. Attendance problems are tackled mainly through experiential activities; motivation and discipline problems are usually addressed by personnel positions. We argue that the selected measures aimed predominantly to support student emotional and behavioural engagement; strategies to enhance cognitive engagement and student achievement were sidelined. Paradoxically, student engagement may become a goal in itself rather than being inscribed into learning outcomes. Implications for programme support and school improvement research are suggested.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1466324
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1466324
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/berj.4105
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 34
        StartPage: 1039
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Advantaged
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attendance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discipline Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiential Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Finance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Czech Republic
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Achievement vs. Engagement: Providing Support in Socially Disadvantaged Schools
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jana Obrovská
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Martin Majcík
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jaroslava Simonová
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-1926
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-3518
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Educational Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1