This is a third paper, from ongoing research, examining the relationship between the enhancement of teaching quality and pupil learning in primary schools within a context of development planning and school improvement. The first paper (Broadhead et al ., 1998) argued for a dimensional approach to school development planning. This exemplified whole-school issues, teacher-development issues and pupil-learning issues as inter-related action domains. Similar conceptualizations are proposed by Southworth (1996) and Davies and Ellison (1998). Our study found that schools' priorities were focused on whole-school issues with little evidence in their plans of an intention to focus on pupil learning through class-based activity. A second paper (Broadhead et al ., 1999) drew attention to two initiatives subsequently impacting on development planning. This first initiative was the emergence of Education Development Planning (EDP) with an emphasis on the attainment of national targets related to numeracy and literacy. These targets are passed to Local Education Authorities (LEAs) from the DfES (Department for Education and Skills) and subsequently passed by LEAs, in individual negotiations with schools, as targets for increased levels in end of key stage test scores in literacy and numeracy, for children in their final year of primary school. The second initiative related to OFSTED’s (Office for Standards in Education - school inspectors) increasing inclusion of pupil-learning targets as Key Issues in the post-inspection report to schools. Framing Key Issues in this way was seen as having some potential for moving development planning towards this more challenging action-domain. This paper draws on our most recent study of approaches to school development planning. It uses documentary analysis and telephone interview data to illuminate current practices and to illustrate the levels and types of engagement schools are currently engaging with in planning for improvements in teaching and learning, leading on from the related initiatives outlined above. While schools can ill-afford to ignore government imperatives and while the focus on teaching and learning remains substantively driven towards reaching literacy and numeracy targets, there is nevertheless evidence to suggest that an engagement with teaching and learning is evident in development planning. It seems timely to consider how this engagement might be fostered and what this might mean for the evolution of development planning in primary schools.