Adult education in a neoliberal policy paradigm

ABSTRACT

Ten years on from the formation of SOLAS (An tSeirbhís Oideachais Leanúnaig agus Scileanna) and the Education and Training Boards (ETBs) in Ireland, it is appropriate to reflect on where adult education lies in the new Further Education and Training (FET) sector. This paper uses Denis O'Sullivan's schematisation of policy paradigms (2005) as an analytical tool, to explore the components of the new sector. New concepts have been introduced, such as ‘FET’ and ‘active inclusion’, others such as ‘adult education’ have disappeared, and others such as ‘transversal skills’, ‘lifelong learning’ and the ‘needs of learners’ have been adapted, introducing a language of doublespeak. The discourse has changed; a theme of performativity is now prioritised while the wider benefits of learning are mentioned, but not actioned. There is a new authority with bureaucratic social configurations and the identities of teachers and students are being reduced to producers and consumers of learning outcomes. This paper shows how these changes have resulted in a new neoliberal policy paradigm for adult education, with strong regulatory powers. Understanding this is the first step in questioning its authority and discussing if this is what we, as a society, want for the education of adults.

KEYWORDS:

• Adult education
• FET
• performativity
• doublespeak
• neoliberal
• policy paradigm

Introduction

In the past 10 years, there have been momentous changes in the adult and further education and training sector in Ireland. We are using a new language of skills, performativity and Further Education and Training (FET) and in the discourse, it is challenging to find reference to adult education, with the priorities of ‘consciousness-raising, citizenship, cohesion, competitiveness, cultural development and community development’ (Department of Education and Science 2000, 28).

The major changes that took place were the formation of a further education and training authority, SOLAS (An tSeirbhís Oideachais Leanúnaig agus Scileanna) following the publication of the Further Education and Training Act (Department of Education and Skills 2013) and the formation of 16 ETBs to replace 33 Vocational Education Committees (VECs) and Foras Áiseanna Saothair (FÁS), following the Education and Training Boards Act (Department of Education 2013). This was followed by the publication of two FET strategies (SOLAS 2014; SOLAS 2020), the rollout of Strategic Performance Agreements between SOLAS and the 16 ETBs (SOLAS 2018) and the movement towards an outcomes-based model of funding (Hartley, Rutherford, and Owens 2022). There has been very little independent research published on what has changed for adult education with the establishment of FET as the umbrella term for all post-compulsory education and training outside third-level, with a few notable exceptions (Grummell and Murray 2015; Murray, Grummell, and Ryan 2014; O’Brien 2018; Shannon 2019).

Grummell and Murray pointed out that recent developments in adult and further education in Ireland ‘demonstrate a significant shift towards a neoliberal training and reskilling paradigm’ (2016, 112). This parallels the international trends of globalisation and neoliberalism, which sees a narrowing of the focus to a skills rather than an educative agenda (Field 2011; Wheelahan 2015). Adult education as a sector no longer exists, it has been replaced by FET, and this paper explores what happened to adult education, within the new FET sector, and how the focus has shifted from citizenship and community to skills and performativity. By expanding on O’Sullivan’s (2005) study of cultural politics in Irish education, which outlines the transition from a theocratic to a human capital policy paradigm, this paper will show how a further transition has taken place in adult education in Ireland to a neoliberal policy paradigm. Neoliberalism can be a vague and often contested concept. Thorsen and Lie define neoliberalism as political beliefs that ‘include the conviction that the only legitimate purpose of the state is to safeguard individual, especially commercial, liberty, as well as strong private property rights’ (2006, 14). It is an approach, culture or set of values based on the capitalist ethos, favouring laissez-faire economic policies and free trade, where the market is viewed as the best model for our values and ways of doing things in politics, policy and society.

When changes are made incrementally over time, it is difficult to notice their effects and ‘the terminology of a policy paradigm gives a reality and sense of permanence to its conceptual repertoire, it also confers on it a taken-for-granted sense of ordinariness and normality’ (O’Sullivan 1993, 255). This is particularly true of neoliberalism, which is presented as common sense so that its values become ‘taken for granted and not open to question’ (Harvey 2007, 5). O'Sullivan's policy paradigms framework functions as an analytical tool (1993; 2005), to examine how this change has taken place and how the ‘linguistic, normative and epistemic dimensions’ (1993, 252) that govern adult education in Ireland, reflect broader EU neoliberal influences. The use of policy paradigms as an analytical tool involves a non-empirical, critical analysis of FET policies based on the characteristics of a policy paradigm, which are, components, regulatory power and change. O'Sullivan's schematisation provides the tools to show how this transition took place, and this understanding provides the foundation to question and challenge the new policy paradigm.

The next section explains what policy paradigms are, followed by a critical analysis of the components in the current FET sector, the regulatory power involved and the changes that have taken place.

Policy paradigms

Denis O'Sullivan explains educational policy paradigms as ‘structuring forces within a culture which shape how the process of education is understood, communicated and prioritised’ (2005, 13). In his seminal work, Cultural Politics and Irish Education Since the 1950s Policy Paradigms and Power, he explains their power:

they regulate what is to be defined as a meaningful problem; how it is to be thematized and described; what is to be considered worthy as data; who is to be recognized as a legitimate participant, and with what status, and how the policy process is to be enacted, realized, and evaluated (O’Sullivan 2005, 10).

Throughout the history of education in Ireland, we have moved through several policy paradigms. Before 1922, in what can be called the colonial policy paradigm, education was dominated by the agenda of the British government with the purpose of ‘the Anglicisation of the Irish people and the suppression of Catholic ideals in education’ (Council of Education, 1954 cited in Clancy 2004, 123). From the foundation of the integralist state in 1922 until the publication of the Investment in Education (IIE) Report in 1965, what O'Sullivan calls the theocentric or personal development paradigm, ‘stressed the function of schooling as character and religious formation achieved by means of a broad curriculum’ (1993, 255). From the late 1950s, O'Sullivan identifies a transition to the mercantile or human capital policy paradigm from ‘an institution that had God at its centre to one which “trade/exchange” is at its core’ (2005, 104). Policy paradigms have three characteristics: ‘components, regulatory power, and change’ (O’Sullivan 1993, 252). The remainder of this paper will be structured around these three characteristics.

Components

The components of the educational policy paradigm for adult education have changed significantly over the past 10 years with the formation of the current FET sector. The components of a policy paradigm include concepts and language, discourse and identities and subjectivities and the following sections will look at each of these components. New concepts, such as ‘FET’ and ‘active inclusion’, are introduced, others, such as ‘adult education’, are taken out of use; certain concepts, such as ‘skills’ are promoted and others such as ‘transversal skills’, lifelong learning’ and ‘the needs of learners’ are reinterpreted to suit the new policy paradigm. This has resulted in a language of doublespeak in FET, where concepts mean different things depending on the context or speaker. Within the discourse of an educational policy paradigm, only certain themes become performatives or are actioned. The current focus is on performativity and while the wider benefits of learning are acknowledged, they are not actioned, measured or valued. The change to a neoliberal policy paradigm in adult education has affected the subjectivities and identities of learners and teaching staff, channelling them into roles as consumers and producers of knowledge. The social configuration or associative form of the new policy paradigm is bureaucratic and hierarchical and the authorities are labour market activators.

Concepts and language

Concepts, such as ‘skills’, ‘FET’ and ‘adult education’, are ‘bounded categories of thought. They represent filters through which the world is progressively known and internalized … [and they] are invested with considerable power’ (O’Sullivan 1993, 252). Concepts and terminology determine what can be thought and spoken of, the ‘valid elements of the discourse’ (O’Sullivan 1993, 246). Language, one of the components of a policy paradigm, can only be understood in a context (O’Sullivan 2005). As will be seen in this section, words can mean different things depending on whether they are used in an adult education or training context, introducing a doublespeak, which is a combination of ‘Newspeak’ and ‘doublethink’ from George Orwell's novel, 1984 (Lutz 1989, 4). The type of doublespeak in this context is particular, in that some concepts can mean two different things at the same time, depending on who is speaking and in what context.

Change in concepts – FET and adult education

The main change in concepts is the synecdochical replacement of the concept of adult education with the concept of FET as the umbrella term for education and training between second and third-level education. However, the definition of FET is largely linked to a training model of provision:

FET provides education and training and related supports to assist individuals to gain qualifications at Levels 1-6 on the NFQ [National Framework of Qualifications] or equivalent, to attain and refresh economically-valuable skills to access and sustain all types of employment, tackling skills shortages and boosting the future growth and competitiveness of the Irish economy (SOLAS 2014, 51).

The use of the unified term FET implies a homogeneity that does not exist. Until 2013 training was provided by FÁS, with a focus on training for employment, and adult education was mainly provided by the VECs, with a focus on citizenship, social justice and personal development, as well as preparation for employment, with a ‘participative and learner-centred ethos’ (Grummell and Murray 2015, 437). Training is generally competency-based vocational education that prepares people for employment, similar to what Freire described as the ‘banking concept of education’ (Freire 1972, 72). In contrast, education ‘involves the acquisition of a body of knowledge and understanding which … must involve principles … and must transform the life of the person being educated’; there is an element of questioning in education that is not necessarily present in a training environment (Winch and Gingell 1999, 71–72). While the introduction of new concepts, such as FET, shape how we see the world, the reverse also applies; where a concept is no longer used, it affects our meaning and belief about how the world works. The concept of adult education, which involves theoretical knowledge, critical thinking and personal development, has fallen out of favour. It is mentioned frequently in the first strategy and its value is acknowledged as a vital component of life-long learning (SOLAS 2014) but there is no mention of it in the second FET strategy (SOLAS 2020).

As O'Sullivan points out, ‘words only make sense within the system of values we share within social communities’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 49) and training has a different system of values, different aims and a different purpose to adult education. Depending on the context, FET can mean very different things; it can mean adult education or training, or it can mean both. We now have a shared vocabulary with different meanings, a ‘doublespeak’. The SOLAS definition of FET is largely based on a training model of provision, yet the ambiguity allows for the possibility of FET being interpreted as adult education. The change of title for the sector has been used as an opportunity to change the focus of adult education, to what Grummell and Murray call a ‘neoliberal training and reskilling paradigm’ (2016, 112).

Promotion of concepts – skills and active inclusion

With the publication of the first FET strategy, skills became ‘the policy panacea for the social and economic challenges’ Ireland faced (Shannon 2019, 108). Skills were lauded as:

a resource for economic growth … drivers of employment and growth … drivers of productivity increase … [and] ‘smartening’ of the economy … a driver of social inclusion and social mobility … an insulator from unemployment (SOLAS 2019, 4–5).

This parallels international trends, narrowing of the focus to a skills, rather than an educative agenda (Field 2011; Murray 2014; Wheelahan 2015). As Biesta points out, in a short timeframe the discourse has shifted from the humanistic ideal of the 1972 Faure Report of ‘learning to be’, to ‘learning to be productive and employable’ (2006, 170).

Influenced by European policy (European Commission, 2008) SOLAS introduced the concept of ‘active inclusion’ as one of its five priorities; defining it as ‘enabling every citizen, notably the most disadvantaged, to fully participate in society and this includes having a job’ (SOLAS 2014, 91). Shannon identified this as a hybridisation of social justice and economic discourses to form a new neoliberal interpretation of inclusion, which: ‘reveals a strategic use of evidence and “evidence based” discourses to serve its policy narrative for “employability” which fails to address complexities of how social and educational inequality is experienced’ (2019, 110). This is another example of doublespeak, the concepts of social inclusion and active inclusion are often used interchangeably in the discourse, as if they mean the same thing, allowing SOLAS to reframe social inclusion as being about inclusion in the workplace. In the second FET strategy, there is a welcome shift in focus to ‘fostering inclusion’, however, the metric for this is ‘No. receiving certification for Level 1-3 skills’ (SOLAS 2020, 25), which is not an appropriate indicator of social inclusion and does not count adults at higher levels on the NFQ or in uncertified adult education.

Reinterpretation of existing concepts – transversal skills, lifelong learning and needs of learners

Similarly, ‘transversal skills’, as opposed to specific skills, were traditionally understood as general and transferable skills in the areas of communication, problem-solving, teamwork, creativity and critical thinking. The strategic performance agreements between ETBs and SOLAS introduced a new interpretation of the concept of ‘transversal skills’, as a target for ‘certification at NFQ levels 1- 3 (SOLAS 2022, 12). This reinterpretation is an inappropriate metric of transversal skills, and has turned the metric into the concept (SOLAS 2023a). It is indicative of the neoliberal focus on performative metrics and means that soft skills developed in unaccredited adult education programmes or programmes at higher levels on the NFQ are not counted and won't be prioritised.

In a similar reduction, lifelong learning is now reinterpreted, based on an EU definition, to the education of adults aged between 25 and 64 (SOLAS 2016). This is a significant change from the ‘continuum of learning from the cradle to the grave’ in the White Paper on Adult Education (Department of Education and Science 2000, 69). In the targets for the strategic performance agreements between the ETBs and SOLAS, adults under 25 and over 65 are not counted (SOLAS 2023a).

The ‘needs of learners’ is another concept that has been reinterpreted in the new FET neoliberal policy paradigm. Learner-centredness is a key value in the adult and community education discourse; the service prides itself on starting where the learner is at, and tailoring provision to meet their personal goals (Inglis, Bailey, and Murray 1993) and promoting experiential learning (Grummell and Murray 2015). Both FET strategies talk about meeting the needs of learners: ‘FET will meet the needs of all learners’ and SOLAS has ‘the needs of the FET learner at the heart of everything we do’ (SOLAS 2020, 6). However, the SOLAS interpretation of the needs of learners is based on the labour market interpretation of the ‘un-met needs’ of learners (2013, 10), that is individuals’ skills deficits to meet the skills gaps in the economy or the ‘existing and emerging employer skill-needs for unemployed persons’ (SOLAS 2014, 25). This is ‘labour market identified needs of learners’ in contrast to ‘learner identified needs of learners’. This doublespeak allows, SOLAS to talk about the unmet need or skills deficit that they identified amongst learners, while adult education providers continue to interpret learner needs as what the individual learner wants to learn. Control over the meaning and understanding of concepts allows the policy paradigm to ‘exercise control over the policy process at a deep and hidden level of structure’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 42). These concepts are elements of the discourse, which will be explored in the next section.

Discourse (themes and performatives)

Stephen J. Ball explains discourse as ‘about what can be said, and thought, but also about who can speak, when, where and with what authority’ (1990, 17–18 cited in O’Sullivan 2005, 24). Discourses are ‘manifestations of society's ‘regime of truth’, (Foucault, 1980; 131 cited in O’Sullivan 2005, 52), that is the discourse determines what is considered true or false, valid or not, meaningful or not and of value or not. As illustrated in the last section, in the current discourse, the concepts of ‘FET’ and ‘skills’ are considered true or valid and ‘adult education’ is not; ‘active inclusion’ is valued, ‘social inclusion’ is not; and ‘transversal skills’ and ‘lifelong learning’ are meaningful as specific, narrow metrics.

Within a discourse, O'Sullivan differentiates between themes and performatives. Themes are ‘the meanings and interpretations that shape the form of the issues that come to be in competition for even a place in the policy debate’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 57). In contrast, ‘performatives are the transition from meaning to prescription for educational change’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 56). As will become evident in this section, performativity and the wider benefits of learning are themes, they are recognised and understood in the discourse, but only performativity becomes a performative, that is, only performativity is actioned into policy and prescribes educational changes.

Performativity

Performativity is a theme that is not discussed as such, in the FET discourse but it is something that has had a significant impact. Ball explains performativity as:

a new mode of state regulation which makes it possible to govern in an ‘advanced liberal’ way. It requires individual practitioners to organize themselves as a response to targets, indicators and evaluations (2003, 215).

Performativity is central to the neoliberal influence on education and is linked to new managerialism (Lynch, Grummell, and Devine 2012) and new public management which applies ‘quasi market or private sector micro-techniques to the management of public sector organisations [replacing] the “public service ethic”’ (Olssen and Peters 2005, 324). There is a strong focus by SOLAS on making decisions that are: ‘based on a strong evidence base and are data driven’ (SOLAS 2020, 59). As a result of these influences, a new outcomes-based model of funding was proposed, where success would be measured by a higher proportion of learners who ‘complete qualifications, transition successfully into employment or where appropriate, move into higher level qualifications’ (SOLAS 2014, 43). This was progressed through strategic performance agreements between SOLAS and the ETBs to meet specific targets around certification and progression to employment and further education (SOLAS 2018). In addition, SOLAS publicly compares and ranks the performance of ETBs against each other (SOLAS 2023a) and is introducing a new model of funding based on meeting these targets (Hartley, Rutherford, and Owens 2022). Within the ‘new policy panopticon’ (Ball 1999, 203) focus is on competition and targets, without questioning if the targets are appropriate. Education, it seems, is no longer about social justice or addressing the inequalities in society; ‘Results are prioritised over processes, numbers over experiences, procedures over ideas, productivity over creativity’ (Ball and Olmedo 2013, 91). As Biesta (2015) points out, often those holding education to account start with what is easily measured, this becomes the accepted norm and what is measured becomes what is valued. The next section will look at another theme, the wider benefits of learning, which are difficult to measure and are not being measured or valued in the new policy paradigm.

Wider benefits of learning

In contrast to performativity, the ‘wider benefits of learning’ is a theme but not a performative, it is not actioned. While, the second FET strategy says that the ‘core values of FET are lifelong learning, social justice, active citizenship and economic prosperity’ (SOLAS 2020, 36), this is not reflected in the performative measurement of targets. SOLAS expressed commitments in the first FET strategy to ‘measure outcomes that relate to personal development as well as employment outcomes’ (SOLAS 2014, 84) and the need for ‘using measures appropriate to the FET provision in question’ (SOLAS 2014, 88), which for adult and community education involve ‘enhancing learning, fostering empowerment and contributing to civic society’ (Department of Education and Skills 2012, 3). Again, in the second FET Strategy, SOLAS highlights that ‘FET can have a transformative impact on the lives of our learners, therefore we must ensure that such a spectrum of benefits is integrated into the way that its value is measured’ (SOLAS 2020, 26). Yet SOLAS is continuing to use the narrow outputs in the strategic performance agreements as the basis for the new outcomes-based model of funding (Hartley, Rutherford, and Owens 2022; SOLAS 2023a).

On the one hand, SOLAS acknowledges that the existing metrics are not appropriate and need to be more effective, while on the other hand, they call the current metrics a ‘data revolution’, which provides:

robust indicators in terms of FET success in generating outcomes of employment, progression, active inclusion, lifelong learning, meeting critical skills needs, and new models of delivery (SOLAS 2020, 57).

By claiming that the data is both inappropriate and revolutionary, SOLAS is presenting a strategy that seeks to keep everyone happy, another form of doublespeak.

Identities and subjectivities

Identities and subjectivities are important components in understanding how individuals engage with paradigms and how ‘a paradigm's texts can be expected to be dominant in how people will respond and act’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 71). In this section, the focus is on the influence a policy paradigm can have on two groups of people, teaching staff and learners.

Teaching staff

Grummell and Murray (2015) outline that the effects of performativity and professionalisation on further education staff in Ireland are similar to those in the UK. They identify, in particular, the struggle for teachers to fit their learning experiences into the subject-centred structure of learning outcomes, as these outcomes are often separate from the learning process. The focus is on ‘outcomes that the learner can produce rather than on what they have learned or how this applied to their life’ (Grummell and Murray 2015, 441). Teaching staff are constantly battling to meet the learner-identified needs of learners while at the same time providing evidence for the QQI learning outcomes: ticking boxes and educating by stealth. Similarly, O’Brien and Brancaleone identify a ‘paradigmatic shift towards outcome-based learning at European and Irish policy levels’ in third-level education, beginning in 1999 with the Bologna Declaration which lacks ‘significant epistemological and pedagogical insights’ (2011, 5).

Grummell and Murray go on to say that ‘This has significant implications for the kind of teaching and learning that occurs, as it emphasises individual achievement, products and performance’ (2015, 441). Interestingly, Lynch, Grummell, and Devine (2012) point out that despite the neoliberal reforms in education, there has been little change in how teachers educate at second-level, which they credit to the strength of their trade unions. Within FET, the impact of performativity on teaching staff is profound; it affects their subjectivity, their sense of self and their relationship with others, resulting in what Lyotard calls ‘the terrors of performativity’ (1984 cited in Ball 2003, 216). In what Ball (2003, 217) calls the ‘struggle over the teacher's soul’, he explains that a person's identity and sense of being are affected, not just their work environment. He quotes one teacher as saying ‘so much about teaching is about relationships and there's something pathological about managing relationships’ (Ball 2003, 223). Teaching staff are not just ‘implementers of knowledge’ imparting ‘pre-packaged curriculum materials’ to meet learning outcomes, they are ‘intellectuals performing a dignified public service’ educating students ‘in the discourse of critique, possibility, and democracy’ (Giroux 1986, 98, 85). Education is an organic process that cannot be neatly pre-packaged into products for consumption with fixed results.

Learners

In recent educational reforms internationally, students have been reframed as individualised consumers. Biesta (2012) identifies how a shift in the discourses from ‘education’ to ‘learning’ individualises the student; learning is something that you can do on your own and ‘the individual is held responsible for her or his own “choices”’ (Lynch, Grummell, and Devine 2012, 14). Responsibility is transferred to the individual, rather than the state, to seek individual solutions to societal problems. There is an assumption that learners are ‘willing, resourced and capable of making market-led choices’ (Lynch, Grummell, and Devine 2012, 14). This undermines the transformative power of education, a key element in adult education. How can the student know in advance what they need when often, one of the main reasons for adults returning to education ‘is precisely to find out what it is that one actually needs’ (Biesta 2004, 59)? Education has become commodified and learners have become customers, and education is viewed as ‘an expensive investment that must deliver “returns” to capital’, rather than a human right or a public good (Lynch, Grummell, and Devine 2012, 179).

This is reinforced by a shift from an education to a training model, away from forms of collective learning where adults learn with and from each other's differences (Biesta 2006) in a ‘communal, politicised and participative processes of learning’ (Grummell and Murray 2015, 441). This focus on individuals, in contrast to the community-based ethos of adult education, undermines social cohesion. While citizens might think they have freedom of choice, they may not have a sense of belonging or purpose in a community.

Associative forms and authorities

Associative forms are ‘social configurations of the agents who constitute a paradigm's intersubjective community’ and of the six that O'Sullivan outlines, the current configuration is best identified as a bureaucratic association (1999, 313). It has ‘fixed areas of jurisdiction, with clear boundaries’, it is hierarchical with a ‘system of national and regional headquarters and local offices as well as a pyramid structure of authority with stratified powers of decision-making and supervision’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 63) and the responsibilities of SOLAS and the ETBs are outlined in the FET strategies and the strategic performance agreements.

As Ball points out, a key element of educational reforms is the struggle over

the control of the field of judgement and its values … Who is it that determines what is to count as a valuable, effective or satisfactory performance and what measures or indicators are considered valid? (Ball 2003, 216).

Within a policy paradigm, authorities are ‘those within these social configurations who legitimate the meanings of its texts as real and proper and are available to be called upon in their defence or arbitration’ (O’Sullivan 1999, 313) and they have ‘considerable power to influence the direction of policy’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 63). O'Sullivan identified that ‘Economists replaced pedagogues as the personal development paradigm gave way to the human capital paradigm’ (1993, 259). More recently, labour market activators, have joined economists as the new authorities in adult education. SOLAS was formed using former FÁS staff (Merrionstreet.ie 2011), who promoted training, skills for the economy and labour market activation, rather than an educative model which prioritised personal development and social cohesion, for the new FET sector. Of the two objectives identified for the new FET sector, ‘namely meeting labour market needs and countering social exclusion’ (McGuinness et al. 2014, vii), the former has dominated the agenda. As illustrated in the Concepts section of this paper, ‘Words and proposition will change their meaning according to their use and the positions held by those who use them’ (Ball, 1990, 17–18, cited in O’Sullivan 2005, 24). The authorities in the sector held the balance of power in determining how concepts were interpreted and how targets were set, reinforcing a training rather than educative model of provision. Associative forms and authorities strengthen and reinforce the current neoliberal discourse through its dominion and regulatory power, as outlined in the next section.

Regulatory power

Regulatory power is the second element of a policy paradigm. O'Sullivan explains it as:

a function of how weakly or strongly framed are its boundaries, the nature and range of the phenomena controlled, and where within the policy making community and beyond the paradigm is dominant (1993, 261).

The regulatory power involves cultural penetration and intertextuality – framing, and political positioning. Policy paradigms do not exist in a vacuum and are influenced by and influence texts and structural forces in society, resulting in cultural penetration. The power of a policy paradigm depends on the strength of its framing and the strength of the current neoliberal policy paradigm is evident in that the concepts, discourse, subjectivities, authorities and associative forms, as outlined above, are being seen as normal or common sense. Political positioning relates to how changes in policy paradigms influence the policymaking process. This section explores each of these elements in relation to adult education.

Cultural penetration and intertextuality

Policy paradigms and their instantiations in texts do not exist in a vacuum, they are intertextual, influenced by what has gone before it and by the structural forces at play. They are also interpreted within a culture and an existing policy framework, enabling the cultural penetration or ‘institutionalisation within a society’, of the meaning of a policy paradigm (O’Sullivan 2005, 78).

Two documents were particularly influential in shaping how FET was formed: an ESRI report, Further Education and Training in Ireland: Past, Present and Future (McGuinness et al. 2014) and A Strategic Review of Further Education and Training and the Unemployed (Sweeney 2013). The intensification of the neoliberal educational policy paradigm was also strongly influenced by the financial crisis of 2008 when Ireland lost its economic sovereignty. The conditions of the financial bailout agreement agreed upon included reform of the public sector and tackling high unemployment (Fraser, Murphy, and Kelly 2013). The neoliberal educational policy paradigm is influenced by, and at the same time part of new managerialism, and new public management. Lynch, Grummell and Devine explain how ‘Ireland was a fertile ground in which to breed neo-liberal policies in the 1990s’ (2012, 8) and how:

market-led modes of control and regulation became the prototype [focusing on] outputs over inputs, measured in terms of performance indicators [and inculcating] market values and practices into the regulation and organisation of that sector (2012, 4).

This environment facilitated the blossoming of the neoliberal policy paradigm in adult education, it created a common language and culture for how the paradigm engaged with and penetrated ‘the policy-making process’, and how it interacted with the state, the church, and the European Union (O’Sullivan 2005, 82).

Policy paradigms are informed by economic and social factors and existing discourses but they also shape and penetrate economic decisions, culture and the discourse of education. The two FET Strategies can be seen as the instantiation of the neoliberal policy paradigm in adult education, using the components and regulatory power to set the discourse of adult education. To reuse O'Sullivan's explanation of the impact that the Investment in Education Report had on the Irish education system with the introducation of the human capital paradigm,

the terminology of [the FET Strategy (skills, inputs, outputs, beneficiaries)] routinized a reconceptualization of [adult education] … To speak about education in a manner that conferred authority and legitimacy it was almost obligatory to cite [the FET Strategy] by way of viewpoint, interpretation, or quantified characterization of [adult education]. This functioned to introduce the terminology of the [neoliberal] paradigm to educational discourse and analysis and to redraw and stabilize the categories according to which [the adult education] experience was comprehended (O’Sullivan 1993, 254–255).

This cultural penetration influences the strength of the framing of, and the reproduction or continuity of, policy paradigms. O'Sullivan says ‘The range and substance of the performatives from which policy is determined will have a longer genesis involving cultural shaping and filtering’ (2005, 87). The next section will look at the framing or strength of a policy paradigm

Framing

Within the framing of this regulatory power ‘The conceptualization and explanation of the world represent the boundaries of common sense and normality’ (O’Sullivan 1993, 261). Language is particularly important in determining the strength of the framing of a policy paradigm, it is ‘critical in establishing the boundaries of perspectives on reality’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 75), with the extreme being where ‘a language circumscribes reality to the extent that there is no representing a perspective on reality outside of the resources of that language’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 75). We saw how new concepts were popularised, others fell out of favour and others were reinterpreted reflecting the new policy paradigm. A new doublespeak has emerged where concepts such as ‘inclusion’, ‘transversal skills’ and ‘needs of learners’ can mean different things depending on the speaker or context. O'Sullivan uses Bourdieu's distinction between doxa, ‘the universe of what is undiscussed’ and orthodoxy, ‘the universe of discourse, the realm of available opinions and arguments’ to highlight that ‘Framing is at its strongest when a paradigm attains a doxic status … there is no awareness of another reality outside of the paradigm … the boundary is deemed to be between sense and nonsense’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 77–78). Currently, it is difficult to have a conversation about adult education in Ireland without talking about FET, skills and targets. This intensity of a new policy paradigm can lead to ‘“'self-absorption” to the point at which refutations are disregarded and verifications become the contact points of reality’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 93). Based on the analysis of policy changes to date, the neoliberal policy paradigm in adult education is close to achieving this doxic status.

Political positioning

Political positioning relates to ‘the manner in which paradigms engage with and penetrate the policy-making process’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 82). While the main policy-making institution is the state, other agencies and bodies, such as SOLAS, play a significant role, as do international factors such as globalisation and European Union policy. Policy-making does not occur in a vacuum but involves intersubjectivity; it is contextual and intertextual and is based on the performatives available and is influenced by various interest groups and a ‘strong corporatist political culture’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 88).

In their book Further Education & Training History, Politics, Practice, Murray Grummell and Ryan identify the philosophical tug-of-war about the purpose of FET and quote Paulo Freire to summarise it:

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of generations into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes ‘the practice of freedom’, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world (Freire 1972, 56 cited in 2014, 2).

In the current neoliberal policy paradigm, the political positioning focuses on conformity and integration into the logic of the present system, rather than the critical, socially just focus of adult education. The 2014 ESRI report points out:

how FET balances addressing the social and economic objectives set for it is shaped by the unique legacy and institutional aspects of the country's social and economic development (McGuinness et al. 2014, 10).

Given the economic circumstances at the time of the formation of SOLAS, international and EU influences and the staffing of the new authority, it is not surprising that the balance was tipped in favour of Ireland’s economic rather than social objectives, focusing as we have seen on skills for the economy; on ‘competitiveness’ rather than ‘consciousness-raising, citizenship, cohesion, … cultural development and community development’ (Department of Education and Science 2000, 28).

By focusing on ‘skills as a driver of social inclusion and social mobility’, SOLAS focuses on the theory of status attainment, which ‘endorses the notion of social mobility as a solution to the problem of inequality for marginalised peoples and groups’ (Lynch 1999, 30); without addressing the underlying structural inequalities in our society (Shannon 2019). The current training and reskilling paradigm does nothing to address the problem of the working poor as changes are ‘realisable only for a small minority of relatively advantaged people within a given disadvantaged group’ (Lynch 1999, xiv). As O'Sullivan points out ‘Policy paradigms can assume an ideological status that makes them difficult to effectively question or challenge and their hegemonic force can be such that they are considered to coincide with the limits of normality and common sense’ (O’Sullivan 1993, 248). The themes that have become performatives in the current discourses relate to performativity and the labour market-identified (rather than learner-identified) needs of learners and the wider benefits of learning, while acknowledged, are not actioned or measured. How a change in economic, cultural and international forces will affect adult education provision in Ireland going forward, remains to be seen.

Change to a neoliberal policy paradigm

Paradigms are constantly changing, they are in ‘constant flux’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 90). O'Sullivan draws on Archer to identify six modalities for change in policy paradigms: ‘expansion/contraction, intensification/simplification, systematization/diffusion, mutation, merging/factioning and rupture’ (2005, 90). Most of these features are evident in the changes that have taken place in adult education in the last 10 years to form a new neoliberal policy paradigm. In 2005, O'Sullivan said that neoliberalism or ‘New Right education policy never transferred to Ireland as a model for macro-educational policy’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 177), however, as demonstrated here, the recent changes in adult education now signify a change to a neoliberal policy paradigm. This change is an expansion and intensification of the human capital paradigm, ‘a “filling in” rather than a “filling-out”’ making for a ‘more dense policy paradigm’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 92).

One of the main changes to adult education in the past 10 years was the systematisation that took place, introducing an overwhelming amount of administration for some staff (O’Brien 2018). SOLAS has been gradually intensifying its regulatory power of FET, with excessive data collection, the introduction of strategic performance agreements and the ranking of ETBs, and the rollout of the new outcomes-based model of funding (Hartley, Rutherford, and Owens 2022). The population of the Programme and Learner Support System (PLSS) requires all ETB learners to complete a ten-page Learner Details Form with over 60 pieces of data requested, regardless of whether they can read, write or speak English (SOLAS 2023b). The form scores 8.9 on the Flesh-Kincaid readability test, which is the equivalent of having the reading age of a 15–18-year-old (readabilityformulas.com). Given that the main target group for FET includes the 18% of Irish adults who have unmet literacy needs, the 25% who have unmet numeracy needs and the 47% who are without basic digital skills (Government of Ireland 2021), putting this barrier in place before adults can access the service may fulfil the performative agenda but not the adult education ethos of learner centeredness.

The change to a neoliberal policy paradigm also involves mutation, that is, ‘the reworking of an element of a paradigm to the extent that it facilitates the emergence of a new paradigm’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 94). The advantage of mutations is that ‘the growth is organic, the sense of dissonance, confrontation and contestation is greatly reduced’; the change is presented as logical or common sense and is difficult to argue with (O’Sullivan 2005, 94). The change from a human capital to a neoliberal educational policy paradigm is an expansion, intensification, systematisation and mutation rather than a factioning or rupture. It is more an out-growth and intensification rather than forming an oppositional paradigm or signalling a demise in its force. Similar to the shift in paradigms from the theocentric to the human capital paradigm: the neoliberal policy paradigm was an ‘outgrowth’ from the human capital paradigm ‘to which it was grafted and from which it drew sustenance’ (O’Sullivan 1992, 456), providing an ease of transition.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the volume and intensity of neoliberal influenced changes to adult education in the formation of the new FET sector, as outlined in this paper, show how there has been a change to a neoliberal policy paradigm for adult education. O'Sullivan's educational policy paradigm framework has been particularly useful as an analytical tool in the context of the new FET sector because it ‘supplies a conceptual literacy for thinking and speaking about meaning … [and] facilitates a more discriminating communication about its processes and components’ (2005, 99). FET replaced adult education as the umbrella term for all post-compulsory education and training, apart from third-level education, and the current value system of FET is based on a neoliberal training, rather than adult education, model. The lack of a shared value system from the education and training elements of the FET sector has resulted in the creation of doublespeak, where there are different interpretations of concepts such as ‘transversal skills’, ‘lifelong learning’ and the ‘needs of learners’ depending on who is speaking and in what context. The main focus has been on skills for the economy, which are very important, but the priorities of adult education, which arefocused on equality, inclusion, ‘strengthening individuals, families and communities, and promoting democracy and social cohesion’, have been neglected (Department of Education and Science 2000, 9). While the values of adult education – inclusion, equality, social justice, and the transformative power of education – are mentioned in the discourse, they are not counted or valued. The focus is on performativity and measuring outputs, without consideration of whether these are the appropriate metrics of what society needs from the sector. The strategic performance agreements focus on economic objectives and don't count or value the social objectives of FET.

As Grummell and Murray concluded, it is vital for democracy that the new FET sector maintains ‘the critical stance and ethos of adult education theory and practice – including a commitment to social justice and equality’ (2016, 113). Adult education plays a significant role here, by using ‘benign interpretative confrontation’ and through the ‘generative role of andragogy’ facilitating adults ‘to become critical and active agents in the reshaping of culture and society’ (O’Sullivan 2005, 255).

The purpose of this article has been to show how there has been an intensification of O'Sullivan's human capital policy paradigm to a neoliberal educational policy paradigm and to encourage discussion and further research about what we, as a society, want from adult education. Recognizing a new neoliberal policy paradigm in adult education is “to deny it such a commanding status” and provides a literacy to talk about it and to challenge its hegemony (O’Sullivan 2005, 90). Is the purpose of FET just to train people for jobs, or do we want to educate adults to become critical, creative thinkers in more equitable, caring, democratic communities In the current neoliberal policy paradigm, further research is needed in FET, to clarify the use of language and concepts used, and to question, rather than passively accept, the current regulatory power, the appropriateness of targets and the focus on conformity, rather than freedom. If we want to meet Ireland's social, as well as economic objectives, the priorities and values of adult education need to be central to the FET discourse and they need to count and be valued.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nuala Glanton

Nuala Glanton works as an Adult Education Officer with Cork Education and Training Board. She is also a PhD student at the School of Education, UCC, completing doctoral research on the values in Further Education and Training with a working title of FET for the Common Good – A critical exploration of the history, policy and lived experience in Further Education and Training in Ireland to identify its value and key values in a neoliberal policy paradigm.