As international research has consistently demonstrated, socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic or racial minority background are among the strongest predictors of educational achievement (Agasisti et al., 2021). The uneven distribution of students from diverse social backgrounds across schools exacerbates this achievement gap (Owens, 2018). Moreover, disadvantaged students face a heightened risk of poorer educational outcomes following COVID-19–related school closures, which resulted in academic losses—particularly among low-SES students—and contributed to the widening of educational inequalities (Betthäuser et al., 2023). These disparities reflect broader concerns of social justice in education, as unequal access to resources and opportunities continues to disadvantage certain student groups. 

Educational research stresses that there is a significant positive relationship between learning achievement and student engagement (Martins et al., 2022). Moreover, there is evidence of a positive association between student SES and engagement; disengagement and underachievement are particularly typical for students living in low-income and minority families (Wylie & Hodgen, 2012). Student engagement is usually conceptualised as a multidimensional construct comprising behavioural, emotional, and cognitive dimensions (Fredricks et al., 2004). Behavioural engagement reflects students’ motivation to participate in classroom and extracurricular activities, on-task behaviour, regular attendance, and the absence of disciplinary problems (Martins et al., 2022). Emotional engagement encompasses students’ positive and negative classroom-related emotions, such as interest or anxiety, as well as their sense of belonging and connectedness to school, which are closely linked to relationships with teachers and peers (Fredricks et al., 2004). Cognitive engagement refers to students’ investment in learning through the use of metacognitive and self-regulation strategies, including planning, monitoring, and evaluating their learning processes (Fredricks et al., 2004).

Although there is agreement that SES and race/ethnic differences among students lead to educational inequalities that persist throughout their lives, there is less agreement on effective solutions. Growing evidence suggests that additional resources for schools can be beneficial (Kyriakides et al., 2019). Comprehensive and whole school programmes have proven particularly promising in improving student learning outcomes, attendance and grade advancement (Kyriakides et al., 2019). However, there is considerable variation among the intervention effects expounded by the programmes. Research on school improvement in disadvantaged contexts highlights the central role of high-quality teaching, and high academic expectations (Muijs et al., 2004). Effective instructional practices, systematic monitoring of student progress, feedback, are consistently identified as key mechanisms of support (Dietrichson et al., 2017). Additionally, personalised support—such as tutoring, mentoring, and individualised academic plans—alongside strong collaboration among school staff, parents, and the wider community, has been shown to contribute significantly to improvement in disadvantaged schools (Cabral-Gouveia et al., 2023).

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. We aimed to address following research questions:

• What do actors perceive as the contributions of selected project support measures related to socially disadvantaged student engagement and achievement?

• What are the main barriers in the education of socially disadvantaged students as perceived by actors involved in the state-funded programme?

• What are the best solutions to socially disadvantaged students’ educational barriers as perceived by actors involved in the state-funded programme?

• What strategies do teachers use in their teaching to foster the engagement and achievement of socially disadvantaged students?

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 was to address the pandemic's impact, prepare the population for future crises and bolster resilience. The programme was launched in 2022 to financially and methodologically support 256 socially disadvantaged schools across the Czech Republic. Based on the initial needs analysis, each school selected individual combinations of support measures from a catalogue composed of three main 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). The support system was designed to promote a high degree of autonomy for individual schools. 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 methodically. Our research design was a multiple case study, which enabled us to capture in-depth single cases and to look for patterns shared across all cases. The cases were rather instrumental as our primary goal was to look beyond particular cases (Stake, 2006). Schools were purposefully selected in line with two main selection criteria: (1) proportions of socially disadvantaged students; and (2) 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%). All the schools were located in socially deprived localities. Mini cases within the cases (cf. Stake, 2006) 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. To explore the project implementation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with diverse actors in selected schools: 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; students and parents. In total, we analysed 173 interviews and 20 school documents.

Our findings indicate that within the project support, measures were primarily selected to target barriers in the education of socially disadvantaged students related to student behavioural and emotional engagement; cognitive engagement was rather sidelined. To address attendance problems, school staff emphasised that students and parents should perceive the school as a safe environment based on trust. Similarly, experiential events for students and parents, typical measures selected by schools from the project, were framed by school staff 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. 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 challenging behaviour 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. A similar pattern emerged when we examined teachers’ instructional strategies in the classroom. Teachers primarily focused their support on students’ positive experiences and emotions, which relate to affective engagement. They sought to enhance behavioural engagement through physical activities and educational technologies. However, support for cognitive engagement during teaching was limited. When classroom time is mainly devoted to increasing student motivation, solving challenging behaviour, or distributing materials, instructional complexity may be reduced. The data also indicate a tendency to lower teachers’ expectations regarding student outcomes by reducing curriculum content or normalising low aspirations for higher education. We can conclude that school staff prioritised student engagement while downplaying their achievement. Consequently, support programmes may fail to achieve the intended reduction of educational inequalities and may even further perpetuate social injustices.

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. 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. Cabral- Gouveia, C., Menezes, I., & Neves, T. (2023). Educational strategies to reduce the achievement gap: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1155741. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Owens, A. (2018). Income segregation between school districts and inequality in students' achievement. Sociology of Education, 91(1), 1–27. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press. 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.