Paving a ‘third way’? A policy trajectory analysis of education action zonesстатья из журнала
Аннотация: Abstract Presented at its launch in 1998 as the quintessential 'third way' welfare policy, the English education action zones (EAZ) experiment was one of a number of area‐based initiatives in the UK designed to tackle social exclusion in disadvantaged localities. The policy was premised upon the idea that different bodies—public, private, voluntary, and community—should work together to deliver 'joined‐up solutions' to 'joined‐up problems'. This paper reports on the findings of an ESRC‐funded research projectFootnote1 designed to investigate the origins, operation, and impact of the policy by interrogating the claims of its advocates and the counter‐claims of its critics. Overall, the research concluded that neither the hopes nor fears surrounding the policy have been realized. The impact of the policy within zones has been limited and patchy. There have been instances of innovation and positive shifts in parents' perceptions, but these have not been matched by consistent improvements in pupil performance or embedded changes in classroom practice. Nor have zones brought about new and more democratic modes of educational governance. However, initiatives take time to embed, and those working in zones experienced difficulty reconciling the need for innovative strategies to tackle disadvantage with the pressure of short‐term targets. Moreover, while the impact of the policy in particular localities has been limited, it may have contributed to a reordering of the politics of education, and, in particular, an erosion of some of the 'old' binaries around which allegiances have traditionally been structured. This paper argues that, as might be expected from a 'third way' policy, the policy has blurred the conventional oppositions of 'left' and 'right', 'government' and 'governed', and 'public' and 'private' sectors. Paradoxically, it has also reinforced new binaries—e.g. between 'wreckers' and 'reformers' and 'standards' and 'structures'—and created new boundaries—between zone and non‐zone schools and policy 'insiders' and 'outsiders'. Keywords: Area‐based initiativeEducation action zonesPolicy trajectory analysisPublic–private partnershipsThird way Acknowledgements We are grateful to the ESRC for the funding which enabled us to undertake this research. We are also indebted to the many individuals that participated in the research. Other people who contributed to data collection include David Telford, Nikki Douglas, and Marie Lall. Ian Plewis assisted us in the statistical analysis of performance data. Notes * Corresponding author: School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK. Email: power53@cf.ac.uk Award number R000238046, funded from May 1999 until October 2002. First‐round zones were guaranteed £750,000 government funding per year for 3 years. Second‐round zones are only guaranteed government funding of £500,000 per year, with a further £250,000 available annually to match contributions from the private sector. EAZs were subsequently invited to apply for 2 year funding extensions—which all first‐round zones and all but one second‐round zone were eventually granted. A full breakdown of data collected (including response rates) is provided in the Appendix. A methodological dilemma confronted early in the project was whether to identify control zones. After extensive deliberation with experts in the area, we accepted their advice that it was not possible to identify controls at zone level, particularly in view of the subsequent introduction of other area‐based initiatives, such as Excellence in Cities, which covered most equivalent areas. The extent to which any changes we have identified are attributable to zone status has, however, been a continuing source of discussion, as it has in governmental consideration of the success of the zones. Throughout the project, we sought to address this issue through triangulating our own findings with evaluations undertaken by the DfES, CELSI Canterbury Christ Church, and local evaluators, including commissioned work we have undertaken ourselves, and through comparisons with broader national surveys of changes in schools. The DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) changed to DfES (Department for Education and Science) in 2001. Pre‐zone status refers to 1998 results for Round 1 zones (which started in Autumn 1998 or Spring 1999) and 1999 results for Round 2 zones (which started between Autumn 1999 and Summer 2000). Some schools were removed from some analyses because of missing or non‐existent data. The limits of aggregate data (and the small sample size, particularly for the secondary school data) and the short time span between pre‐zone status and 2001 (especially for the Round 2 zones) should also be noted. If pupil level data were available, full multi‐level modelling could be undertaken. These data are derived from structured interviews with 'panels' of parents in three zones at early and later stages of the zone's lifetime. Early data were collected in 1999 in zone 1 (Autumn 1998 zone start date) and 2000 in zones 2 and 3 (Spring 1999 zone start date). 'Later' data were collected 2 years later, in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Attrition rates over the 2 years reduced the sample size (zone 1, 75 to 70; zone 2, 50 to 41; zone 3, 50 to 31). All the responses of those interviewed only in the early stage have been filtered out of the analysis. The data in Tables 8 and 9 are derived from a postal questionnaire survey of all zone teachers in two zones. Early data (shown in Table 8) were collected in 1999 in zone 1 (Autumn 1998 zone start date) and 2000 in zone 5 (Spring 2000 zone start date). 'Later' data were collected 2 years later, in 2001 and 2002, respectively. The data from zone 1 only relates to primary schools, as the secondary school did not participate in the early stage and later responses were filtered out. Additional informationNotes on contributorsSally Power Footnote* * Corresponding author: School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK. Email: power53@cf.ac.uk
Год издания: 2004
Авторы: Sally Power, Geoff Whitty, Sharon Gewirtz, David Halpin, Marny Dickson
Издательство: Taylor & Francis
Источник: Research Papers in Education
Ключевые слова: Education Systems and Policy, Parental Involvement in Education, Youth Education and Societal Dynamics
Открытый доступ: closed
Том: 19
Выпуск: 4
Страницы: 453–475