Qurexa Logo
Qurexa

Trust. Care. Deliver.

Back to Blog & Insights
Education

£108 million over five years, in three instalments. Researchers say that was the problem

Qurexa Editorial Team23 September 20266 min read 0 0
£108 million over five years, in three instalments. Researchers say that was the problem

What happened

Researchers have looked back at one of the most ambitious attempts to lift results in England's most disadvantaged areas, and concluded that the way it was funded undermined it. The programme was called opportunity areas. It ran from 2017 to 2022 under the previous government, cost £108 million, and targeted 12 regions identified as "social mobility cold spots". These were places where children from poorer homes had unusually poor chances of doing well. A policy brief published on 22 September 2026 by researchers at the University of Bath, the University of Bristol and Durham University sets out what happened. The findings are mixed, and mostly disappointing. Ten of the twelve areas saw the proportion of young people studying A levels fall after the programme began, in line with national trends. Improvements in school exclusions and attendance did happen, but the researchers describe them as "short lived". Their explanation focuses less on what the money was spent on and more on how it arrived. The £108 million came in three instalments spread over five years. The researchers argue this staggered structure limited what local partners could build. "Short-term funding, top-down targets and narrow measures of success can limit the ability of local partners to respond to particular area needs," said Ceri Brown, Professor of Childhood, Inclusion and Education Policy at the University of Bath. Their central recommendation is that funding of this kind should be allocated over ten-year periods.

Why this matters

Everyone involved in education already knows this pattern. A programme is announced. Funding arrives. Schools and councils hire people, set up partnerships, build relationships with families. Three or four years later the money ends, the staff move on, and the next programme is announced under a different name. This research puts evidence behind that frustration rather than leaving it as a complaint. The specific point about time is the important one. Some problems can be improved quickly. Others cannot. Support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, usually shortened to SEND, involves building trust between schools, health services, councils and families. Getting parents genuinely involved in a school where relations have broken down takes years, not terms. The researchers single out both as things that typically need longer than three years. So a five-year programme delivered in three chunks is, in effect, asking local partners to solve slow problems on a fast timetable, then measuring them before the work could reasonably have worked. It also matters for what comes next. Governments of every stripe continue to fund place-based education programmes. If the design flaw is the funding cycle rather than the idea, that is a fixable thing rather than a reason to stop trying.

What the evidence actually says

This is a policy brief from three universities, and it deserves both credit and caution. On the credit side: it is an independent academic evaluation rather than a government self-assessment, it draws on three institutions, and it looks at a completed programme with several years of hindsight rather than reporting early enthusiasm. On caution, several things are worth naming. Separating the effect of a programme from everything else that happened is genuinely difficult. The period covered includes the pandemic, which disrupted attendance, exclusions and post-16 choices everywhere. That ten of twelve areas followed national trends in A level study may say as much about those national trends as about the programme. The brief also does not claim the programme achieved nothing. It reports improvements in exclusions and attendance, then finds that those improvements did not last. That is a different and more precise criticism than saying it failed. The ten-year recommendation is a judgement rather than a measured finding. No one has run a ten-year version alongside a five-year version to compare. It is a reasonable inference from what the researchers observed, but it is an inference. There is also a practical objection the brief cannot resolve. Parliaments last five years. Committing money for ten requires a level of cross-party agreement that education policy has rarely enjoyed.

Practical advice

If you are a parent, governor or school staff member, here is what is worth taking from this. - When a new initiative arrives at your school, ask how long the funding lasts. It is a fair question and the answer shapes what is realistic. - Be wary of judging a programme in its first year. This research suggests early gains often fade, which cuts both ways: early disappointment may also be misleading. - If you are a governor, ask what happens when funding ends. Which posts stop? Which relationships end? Planning for that is more useful than hoping for renewal. - Parents can ask schools directly what extra support exists and how long it is funded for. Schools are generally willing to say. - If your child receives support through a time-limited programme, ask what the plan is afterwards. Knowing early gives you time to arrange something else. - For SEND in particular, keep your own records of assessments, meetings and agreements. Staff and programmes change; your file does not.

What to know

Researchers at the universities of Bath, Bristol and Durham have evaluated the £108 million opportunity areas programme, which ran from 2017 to 2022 across 12 disadvantaged regions in England. Ten of the twelve areas saw A level study rates fall after the programme started, matching national trends. Gains in attendance and exclusions were real but short lived. The researchers argue that funding delivered in three instalments over five years, alongside top-down targets, limited what local partners could achieve. They recommend ten-year funding cycles, particularly for slow-moving issues such as SEND provision and parental engagement. This is an independent academic evaluation, though the period studied includes the pandemic, which makes untangling causes difficult. The ten-year recommendation is a reasoned judgement rather than a tested result. Sources: Schools Week, "10-year funding needed for devolved education, argues report", 22 September 2026, https://schoolsweek.co.uk/10-year-funding-needed-for-devolved-education-argues-report/; University of Bath, "Devolving Power in Education and Youth Policy Brief", 2026, https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/devolving-power-in-education-and-youth-policy-brief/ This article is for general information and does not replace advice from a doctor, pharmacist, teacher or other qualified professional.

#schools#education policy#funding#social mobility#research#devolution

Related articles