Whilst it was possible to identify a clear focus for those initiatives clustered around raising ‘standards’, it was more difficult to establish a similar attitude and approach towards the promotion of social inclusion. School seemed to have internalized the discourse relating to ‘standards’ much more clearly. Despite widespread disagreements about the efficacy of national testing the presentation of test and league table data is clear. There is no such clarity about the concept of social inclusion (Lunt and Norwich 1999). This may simply reflect the fact that social inclusion is a more slippery concept, more difficult to conceptualize and, consequently, to operationalize. It may also reflect the priority of social justice issues relative to standards objectives, with the letter accorded more status and a higher priority than the former. As a consequence, social inclusion was often conceived of in very narrow terms – reducing truancy rates, or the numbers of pupils excluded from school. This was understandable given the pressure on Zones to demonstrate impact by achieving progress against measurable targets. In this sense social inclusion objectives were no less driven by performance targets than those based on academic attainment (see Figure 7.1). In both cases, educational aspirations were presented as, or indeed reduced to, the meeting of externally generated performance targets. However, within some school the inclusion agenda was viewed more widely. Whilst resources were often focused on high-profile issues, for example small groups of students at high risk of permanent exclusion, there was evidence that many teachers viewed any initiative as inclusive if it engaged all students, and especially those often marginalized within the school system. These differences in operational practices generated tensions within schools as teachers sought to reconcile the desire to be inclusive with the target of raising examination performance. Progress on these issues, and the improvement in teachers, attitudes towards the EAZ, followed the Zone’s re-organization so that its policy agenda was driven by those working in school, rather than the Zone’s Action Forum. Broadly, influence on the policy process had been inverted at a local level – flowing from schools upwards, rather than from the Forum downwards.