News Release

Education Action Zones performance is inconsistent with innovation

Inhibited by short-term targets

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Economic & Social Research Council

Education Action Zones, introduced by the Government in 1997 as a way of driving up standards through innovation, had a "limited overall and inconsistent" effect on results in national tests.

And while the zones did demonstrate some innovation and positive shifts in parents' perceptions of education, these were not matched by consistent improvements in pupil performance or lasting changes in classroom practice.

These are among the conclusions of the first major study into the zones, by researchers from the University of London Institute of Education. The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

Education action zones typically included two or three secondary schools and its feeder primary schools. They each received up to £1 million extra funding from government and business to enable them develop new ways to improve education in areas of social disadvantage. 73 statutory education action zones were established. Additionally, 96 smaller zones have been established as part of the Government's Excellence in Cities programme, into which the large zones are due to be subsumed later this year.

"There was a complex relationship between spin and substance in which pressures of time played a key role in shaping the policy," says Professor Sally Power, Head of the School of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies, co-author of the report.

"As a result, neither the hopes nor the fears of the policy have been realised.. Initiatives can take time to embed – but many of those working in the zones felt the pressure of having to meet narrow, short-term exam, exclusion and truancy targets made it that much harder to be innovative in ways that could challenge educational disadvantage."

The researchers used regression modelling to assess how exam results might have changed without the zones, and they concluded that schools in the areas they studied may even have "done rather worse than non-zone schools."

They found that curriculum innovation was often peripheral to students' experience. And while schools had many new computers, their introduction had not changed the way pupils were taught. However, many primary schools did use their extra funds to offer extra creative arts provision as a counterweight to the daily literacy and numeracy lessons.

The private sector was expected to play a significant role in investing and running zones. But the researchers found that businesses "were not able to invest the resources, energy and know-how to transform education" in these areas. However, aside from isolated examples of product placement, nor was there any evidence of the far-reaching commercialisation feared by some teaching unions. And there was no evidence either that the private sector had undermined local accountability.

Education action zones were supposed to be run by partnership forums, which might be led by schools, business or parents rather than local education authorities. But the researchers found the more familiar power structures existed. "We found no indication of new forms of civic engagement," adds Prof Power. "The forums were not representative of the local community. Indeed, meetings were generally dominated by officers like many local council education committees tend to be. There was little time for open discussion or the introduction of new issues."

The researchers also argue that the imperative of establishing zones quickly led to the acceptance of under-developed proposals. "There is a sense that the need to construct an image of a can-do government over-rode a more cautious approach to implementation," concludes Prof Power. "All this may help to explain why the impact of the policy within zones was so limited and patchy. And that pressure for short-term gains may have hidden some longer term benefits that may have been developed as a result of the new partnerships formed within the zones."

###

For further information:

Contact Professor Sally Power on 44-207-612-6385 or via email at s.power@ioe.ac.uk
Or Iain Stewart, Lesley Lilley or Anna Hinds at ESRC Press Office, 44-179-341-3032 / 413119 / 413122

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The study Paving a Third Way? A policy trajectory analysis of education action zones was conducted by Prof. Sally Power (Institute of Education); Prof. Geoff Whitty (Institute of Education); Marny Dickson (Institute of Education); Prof Sharon Gewirtz (Kings College, London) and Prof. David Halpin, Institute of Education.
2. Prof Power and her team focused their study on six zones, three in large urban areas, two in small towns and the other in a semi-rural area.
3. The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. The ESRC is the UK's largest funding agency for research and postgraduate training relating to social and economic issues. It provides independent, high-quality, relevant research to business, the public sector and Government. The ESRC invests more than £76 million every year in social science and at any time is supporting some 2,000 researchers in academic institutions and research policy institutes. It also funds postgraduate training within the social sciences to nurture the researchers of tomorrow. More at http://www.esrc.ac.uk
4. REGARD is the ESRC's database of research. It provides a key source of information on ESRC social science research awards and all associated publications and products. The website can be found at http://www.regard.ac.uk.


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.