Schools in England have now endured 18 years of central government educational reform, starting with the National Curriculum and its assessment in 1988. Test results in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science are published in national league tables and Ofsted inspect schools to make judgements on their effectiveness in terms of achievement and standards, quality of provision, leadership and management and to direct specific areas where improvement is required. The government have set national targets which seem beyond reach for many types of schools (85% of pupils to achieve level 4 at key stage 2 in English and mathematics by 2004, revised to 2006, but still not achieved). The pressure on schools to perform is immense, but the only measures of success in this climate of accountability are the results of tested sub-domains within three core subjects. What impact has this had upon the curriculum? In an attempt to perform, schools have increased the teaching time allocated to the core subjects (Boyle & Bragg, 2005; Boyle & Bragg, 2006) because only English, mathematics (all three key stages) and science (key stage 2 and 3 only) are tested. Schools have adopted numerous government initiatives and improvement strategies in order to boost their results. It is widely acknowledged that there are schools in disadvantaged areas whose pupils will struggle to achieve the levels set for each key stage. The government accordingly provided a whole range of initiatives designed to help such schools, but contextual and environmental changes leading to improved test performance do not happen overnight when social and cultural infrastructures within whole communities need to be reformed. Despite all the government intervention, the targets still haven't been met. The authors sought to investigate the effectiveness of the various improvement strategies and initiatives on test outcome at key stage 3. Data from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's (QCA) Monitoring Curriculum and Assessment project, collected and analysed by the authors since 1996, form the basis of the research and provide the evidence for this paper. A representative sample of 375 (11%) secondary schools is analysed using multiple regression modelling statistics to establish the significant variables that explain or predict test outcome. The authors follow up their findings through a series of case study investigations in a sub-sample of schools. As one might expect, the variables associated with disadvantage (percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals, percentage with special educational needs and percentage with English as an additional language) were highly significant, as were those describing the selective nature of a school (religious status, gender, selective on ability). The startling result, however, was the lack of significance of the improvement strategies and government initiatives. Yet more intriguing was the discovery that the costly government produced Optional tests appear to have a detrimental affect on test outcome. If this is truly the case, then what a waste of money!Boyle B & Bragg J (2006), A curriculum without foundation, British Educational Research Journal, Vol 32, no.4, pp.569-582 Bracey, G (2004). The trouble with research, part 2. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(8), pp635-636. Brehony K.J (2005) Primary schooling under New Labour: The irresolvable contradiction of excellence and enjoyment, Oxford Review of Education, Vol 31 (1), pp.29-46. De Waal A (2006) Do targets work? Times Educational Supplement, page 19, August Dyson, A, Farrell, P, Polat, F, Hutcheson, G & Gallannaugh, F (2004) Inclusion and Pupil Achievement (DfES, University of Newcastle). Dyson, L (2004). The effect of neighbourhood poverty and low-income on the school context: Teachers' expectations for achievement and rating of achievement motivation of elementary school children. Paper presentation to the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Winnipeg, Canada. Gorard, S. & Smith, E. (2004) What is 'underachievement' at school?' School Leadership and management, Vol.24, No.2, pp.205-225 Gray J (2001) Success against the odds: Five years on. London: Routledge. Gray, J (2004) Frames of reference and traditions of interpretation some issues in the identification of 'under-achieving' schools, British Journal of Educational Studies, 52,(3), pp.293-309 Hall K, Collins J, Benjamin S, Nind M & Sheehy K (2004), SATurated models of pupildom: assessment and inclusion/exclusion, British Educational Research Journal, Vol 30, No 6, pp801-817. Harris, A & Ransom, S (2005) The contradictions of education policy. Disadvantage and achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 571-587. Karsten S, Visscher A & De Jong T (2001) Another side to the coin: the unintended effects of the publication of school performance data in England and France. Comparative education 37 (2),pp.231-242. Leithwood, K Jantzi, D & McElherson-Hopkins, C (2006). The development and Testing of a School Improvement Model, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol 17 (4), pp441-464. Lupton, R (2004b) Schools in Disadvantaged Areas: Recognising Context and Raising Quality, CASE paper 76, January 2004, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion Smith, E. (2003) Understanding underachievement: an investigation into the differential attainment of secondary school pupils, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol.24, No.5. Waterman, C (2006) Sins of Admission. Institute for Research in Integrated Strategies. Whitty, G (2001) Education, social class and social exclusion. 'Education and Social Justice' (1), pp2-9. Wiggins A & Tymms P (2002) Dysfunctional effects of league tables: a comparison between English and Scottish primary schools. Public Money and Management, January-March,pp.43-48Currently being reviewed by 'Assessment for Learning' journal