This thesis was concerned with building an understanding of the evolving role of Studio Schools (a novel and flexible model of 14-19 education) in England. Relatively little has been written about the origins, rationale for and the intended role of the Studio Schools, and how this evolved in the fast-paced, everchanging landscape of education policy. In particular, this study focused on those Studio Schools that offer STEM specialisms (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), which are over seventy five percent of the Studio Schools open today. The goal was to understand whether and how the choice to develop STEM skills may have impacted the role, and indeed what is the role that these schools play, not only in their local communities but also the wider education landscape. The study employed a multiple case study approach in which qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with the architects of the Studio School model, key government officials, and diverse actors (school leaders, school sponsors, employer partners, staff and students) from four STEM-focused Studio Schools. Additionally, a document analysis was conducted with key government policies, reports, debates and acts (pertinent to the time when the schools were set up and launched) and documents obtained from the schools themselves. A conceptual framework of policy enactment (Ball, Braun, &Maguire, 2012) was utilised to analyse the data and to situate the findings in English educational policy. Altogether, the findings from this study are indicative of a disconnect between the way the Studio Schools have been advocated for and positioned in policy rhetoric and text, and their intended and actual role in the communities in which they are embedded. The viewpoints of the architects and supporters of Studio Schools offered detailed insight into the envisioned role of the Studio Schools as a point of comparison for their contemporary role. The envisioned roles of the Studio Schools were demonstrated to be 'confused', serving multiple roles without any particular emphasis on one. Studio Schools were originally intended to tackle student disengagement, while appealing as an aspirational pathway to successful careers, prepare students for the world of work and serve as champions of vocational education. Over time, however, the advocacy of these roles and the structure of the Studio Schools model itself were changed by the shifting priorities in key policy ideas to do with the personalisation of education, employability, changing emphasis of the vocational offer in lower secondary schools, curricular restrictions and collaborative partnerships between schools. Designed to be purposively fluid, Studio Schools were meant to reflect their local labour markets in their offer of specialisms and links to work. That this is not necessarily put into practice, however, is made clear by the particularly high proportion of Studio Schools offering STEM specialisms. When considering, from the perspective of school leadership at the four participating schools, the rationale for offering STEM-focused specialisms, the schools in this study were shown to be involved in a complex interplay of policy, practice and purpose. The senior leadership intended for their schools to be key contributors of STEM skills for the economy, to be challengers to the provision of secondary STEM provision and also wanted to challenge policy emphasis on the purpose and role of STEM (and wider) education by giving a voice to the various diverse pathways to a career in STEM. In addition, STEM specialisms were considered aspirational in nature, facilitating an easy mechanism for marketing the Studio Schools in their local communities. Despite being constrained by policy and cost, these leaders persisted in their offer of STEM specialisms that would best prepare students for diverse careers in STEM. Further insight into the actual role of the Studio Schools in their respective communities, and the impact of the offer of a STEM specialism upon that role, was provided by the diverse voices of all the key actors in the schools. The Studio Schools' roles, in practice, were not all enacted as envisioned, yet were as wide-ranging - disregarding their role as champions of vocational education while providing 'second chances' for students and staff alike, a 'community' feel, and trying to offer a clear pathway to a successful career in STEM. A key impact of the STEM offer appeared to be that it raised aspirations for both students and their local communities by preparing students for contemporary patterns of work and life that are increasingly influenced by science and technology. It also aided in shaping the role of reengagement with both STEM subjects and secondary education through the innovative delivery of the curriculum that was pursued at the schools. It was shown that the Studio Schools were on a journey of enactment of their own roles, with shifts being driven by the influences of internal Studio School policy to focus on STEM and the external landscape of English policymaking. The Studio Schools and their roles in education mirrored the wider debates surrounding competition, narrowing accountability measures, curricular focus, and a changing purpose of education as reflected in educational policies. They can therefore be regarded as a cautionary tale of not only the disconnect between policy and practice, but also of the unintended consequences of the shifting goalposts of fast policymaking and everchanging foci on the purpose of education. The findings are of interest not just to policymakers, but school leaders, staff, and all those interested in challenging the status quo of the purposes and delivery of secondary education.