Ideological challenges to the social inclusion agenda in the Republic of Ireland

Abstract

This paper is set against a background of Ireland’s endorsement of a ‘unique’ social partnership model wherein educational policy measures are being shaped by emergent change factors in a so‐called new era of lifelong learning. Despite a number of policy responses focusing on the need for greater social inclusion, the paper highlights how the Irish education system continues to mirror and produce notions of ‘advantage’ and ‘disadvantage’. It is argued that while educational strategies appear extensive in addressing this social stratification, serious questions remain concerning their far‐reaching impact. In particular, the paper points to a critical concern for how notions of ‘disadvantage’ and ‘social exclusion’ are ideationally conceived and used within an Irish policy context. It is contended that the inadequate treatise of this concern impedes real progress towards meeting the needs of disadvantaged groups in society. A case for reassessing the ideological treatment of social exclusion is therefore made in the interest of promoting effective educational measures for social (and cultural) inclusion.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the HEA in sponsoring a recent research project on non‐traditional adult learners wherein this paper is situated (O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh 2006).

Notes

1. This means that at level one, tens of thousands of people may not be able to: fill in application forms; read letters from service companies or banks; understand conditions attached to such items as loan applications; and read medical prescriptions. Below level three, they may not be able fully to understand and access: financial support services; fundamental human rights; and further educational opportunities. Those individuals below level three, according to the OECD, will have ‘difficulties in coping with social and economic life in a modern democratic society’ (Denny et al., 1999, pp. 215–226).

2. The impact of the aforementioned global change factors on national educational policy is thoroughly detailed in O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh (2006) — specifically in relation to voluntary, further education and higher education sectors.

3. An overall target was set for reducing the numbers of those who are ‘consistently poor’ from 9 to 15% of the population to less than 5–10%.

4. Absolute rates refer to the percentage of individuals in some base category who are mobile (or immobile). Relative mobility rates express the relative chances of access to different class destinations for individuals of differing class origins. Technically, relative mobility rates are known as odd ratios and they measure the statistical independence of categories of origins and destinations (The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology (4th edn), p. 323).

5. Nineteen billion out of 51.6 billion of the National Development Plan (NDP) budget has been allocated for this purpose. The government’s New Deal: A Plan for Educational Opportunity also provides an extra 180 million to counteract educational disadvantage.

6. To illustrate, Popkewitz & Lindblad (2000, p. 6) demonstrate that both terms can at once be separate (e.g. policies that produce inclusion theoretically eliminate the exclusion of targeted groups of social actors) and treated as one concept (e.g. exclusion is considered continually against the background of something simultaneously included).

7. This general consensus is all the more likely given the provision within the NAPS (1997) that all government policy proposals (including draft legislation) must now be ‘poverty proofed’, i.e. any impact on poverty and on underlying inequalities in society are addressed in advance with the relevant social partners.

8. Popkewitz & Lindblad (2000) highlight conceptual difficulties with the governance link with social inclusion and exclusion, including: the unreflective incorporation of inclusion/exclusion categories produced in political arenas; the prevalence of political systems of reference through accepting ‘normalized’ practices of reform; the neglect of dilemmas of value and normativity that appear when relating governance to inclusion/exclusion; and the misunderstanding of inclusion/exclusion as fixed concepts, decontextualized from historical specificity.

9. For a more comprehensive treatment of effective (and sustainable) models of educational intervention, see O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh (2006). In this wider study a critical review of effective learning partnerships at work at voluntary, statutory and voluntary/statutory (or ‘blended’) levels is presented. In addition, three important themes are highlighted as being central to effective learning partnerships for social inclusion. They include: recognizing barriers to educational participation; bringing in Bourdieu’s notion of social capital (also O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh, 2005); and acknowledging important aspects of the adult learning experience.

10. In addition to the points made above, note too the following notable reforms: the government’s ratification of Article 26 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights wherein education is seen as a fundamental human right; The National Children’s Strategy (November 2000); the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill (July 2003); as well as numerous policy statements and interventions indicating the willing intent of the government to tackle the problem of social exclusion.

11. ‘Institutional habitus’ is a Bourdieuian phrase that speaks of the durable dispositions, values and attitudes that an institution (over time) has embedded in its own practices. From a wider cultural perspective, O’Brien & Ó Fathaigh (2005) illustrate how Bourdieu’s theory of social capital is central to the effectiveness of learning partnerships for social inclusion.