ACTION
FOR SOCIALLY EXCLUDED - AT RISK OF
SOCIAL EXCLUSION - GROUPS
Mireille Pouget (University of
Stirling, UK), Harinder Lawley (London Metropolitan
University, UK)
The Action on Participation group (AoPG) ’ s
remit was simple enough: to give examples of
European Universities’ involvement in activities
which could be defined as widening access and
participation in higher education for adults
who are under-represented for reasons of social,
economic or cultural exclusion. However, in their
search for examples of good practice the authors
were presented with a paucity of examples involving
higher education institutions (HEIs). Several
reasons might be found for this, requiring first
of all in this introduction a brief overview
of the principles at stake, followed by the case
studies and a final paragraph outlying discussions
points as well as recommendations for future
action on participation.
Throughout the life of the project the authors
struggled to establish a common understanding,
across the European countries represented, of
widening access issues, or rather educational
inequality, (Osborne 2003), issues currently
at the forefront of Britain’s educational
discourse and policies. The AoPG sought to define
the characteristics of those socially -excluded
or at risk of social exclusion groups, although
these groups - “people on low income, people
with disabilities, minority ethnic groups and
migrants […] lone parents, unemployed people,
workers with low levels of education and training
[…] ex-offenders” (EC 2001 p13) -
are already identified in the Memorandum of Lifelong
Learning and its subsequent Communication (EC
2000, 2001) as the targets for equal opportunity
strategies.
However straightforward these definitions might
be, it appeared that recognising the extent of
social exclusion, its nature and origins, and
prioritising actions on the most ‘devalued’ groups
in societies was much more problematic, especially
regarding HEIs’ involvement, in countries
re-building their democratic and social capital
(see Kulich 1995 for an analysis of adult education
in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe).
Thus the AoPG found some East-West-divide in
the recognition of social exclusion and the groups
affected by it. Structural and cultural differences
between western European countries and countries
from Central and Eastern Europe appeared to affect
national approaches to lifelong learning and
adult participation in higher education in particular.
Discussions unveiled the fact that for some
countries adult education and widening participation
was seen as a mechanism to support and encourage
the updating of professional and technical skills
for post initial qualification (France, Portugal),
while for others it was a means to re-skill existing
(but often redundant) workforces (Bulgaria).
This is borne out by the Thematic European Network
in University Continuing Education (THENUCE)
reports (Kopecý 2003, Betcheva and Velev
2003, Sava, Iucu and Halmagean 2003, Németh
2003) describing how in Central European countries
in particular adult education is tightly linked,
if not identified with, training, vocational
education and continuing professional development
(CPD), in a newly adopted free market economy
fostering increased privatisation of vocational
and professional training. Németh (2003)
clearly exposes how the need for economic development
and the need to tackle unemployment have given
rise to a massive increase in vocational and
professional training provisions. He opposes
the new context of Continuing Education to the
traditional and humanistic values of adult education,
but points out that for Hungarian academic staff, “the
word ‘adult’ has a negative connotation
meaning second-class or linked to disability
or inequality” (Németh 2003 p 214).
It is this in this conceptual area of values
and perceptions that resided the authors’ dilemma
as to the very nature of work on which the AoPG
was to report. Western European countries, to
a greater or lesser extent, have had an extensive
discourse on inequality, social inclusion and
widening participation. In the UK widening participation
has recently become more closely coupled to a
social justice and economic prosperity paradigm.
Equity in opportunities to study post 16 has
been seen as a means to alter the social composition
of those who enter as well as increase the numbers
participating in university level education.
Social cohesion and inclusion have been a growing
preoccupation of post war UK governments and
particularly so since the racially motivated
civil disorder disturbances of the late seventies.
Targeting particular communities and specific
(mainly) public sector vocationally oriented
programmes the government of the day hoped to
demonstrate its commitment to improved race relations
while simultaneously enhancing the professional
employability of minority ethnic communities.
Formalising this alternative route in 1987 opened
the doors to a myriad of new types of provision
and supported the case for recognising qualifications
gained elsewhere or through work experience.
It may be that economic development, in countries
of Central and Eastern Europe, will be followed
on a larger scale by what Németh identifies
in Hungary as the demands of the already well-educated “for
the acquisition of the knowledge, skills and
culture associated with active citizenship, democracy,
human rights and tolerance and the culture of
peace.” (Németh 2003 p 209).
