In the UK the themes of collaboration and partnership, sometimes referred to by the shorthand term 'joined-up government', are at the heart of New Labour's vision of the modernized welfare state and are regarded as the solution to the problems of creating 'joined-up' policy. This solution to the problems of diversity of provision and providers is by no means confined to the UK. A focus on inter-agency partnerships lies behind a number of international educational initiatives such as inclusive schools and full service schools in the USA and Australia (see Dryfoos, 1996; Semmens, 2002) and inter-agency strategies in early childhood education in Europe (see Smyth, 2001). However, this paper argues that the key objective of 'joined up government' could be seen as a way of substituting governance for government in the face of the difficult challenge of getting different parts of the public services to work together. The notion of service users, including parents, as partners in education has been used for a range of ideological purposes. This paper argues, however, that deep-rooted cultural differences between professional groups, vested interests in maintaining boundaries and statutory restrictions may undermine efforts by local communities to engage in partnership work. Partnerships may be imposed on local groups and communities through policy imperatives and funding requirements directed at problems defined by policy makers. However, the people it is claimed that these policies have been devised to help are not involved in any of the decision making. In these circumstances, rather than create more opportunities for democratic engagement, partnerships may simply serve to incorporate communities and the professionals that work with them more deeply into arrangements that do not really serve their best interests. Alternatively, some partnerships may be genuinely co-operative forms of mutual engagement that arise from the 'bottom up' and involve more egalitarian and solidaristic relations between people and professionals working in communities. How partnerships are constructed in policy and the nature of people's engagement with them will, therefore, have an impact on their experience and the issues that are raised.Research suggests (Ball, 1998; Balloch and Taylor, 2001; Dyson and Robson, 1999; Hudson et al, 1999) that the benefits of partnership will be greatest where partners bring their own distinctive and autonomous strengths to the table. Partnerships therefore need time and resources in order to build a meta-strategy that is designed to allow all relevant interests to explore possible ways forward. They also need to be able to advance their own agendas whilst, at the same time, building up the capacity (trust, understanding, synergy) to engage in effective and sustained collaborative working (Pratt et al, 1998). The time, effort and resources that must be put into any collaborative partnership if it is to be effective mean that change can not be accomplished quickly. Change also requires resources, especially of staff time and the value and purpose of committing these scarce resources must be clear if the partnership is to achieve its aims. However, these conditions are rarely met especially as politicians seek to introduce new initiatives quickly and want to have immediate results.The paper demonstrates, through case studies of community-focused collaborations with parents and other adults engaged in life-long learning, that such partnerships are characterised by processes of inclusion and exclusion, dominance and subordination. It is argued that new ways of thinking about representation are required, with priority given to including those with the least power who are nevertheless the most expert in identifying the needs of their own families and communities, if partnerships are going to reduce social exclusion.