Policy making in education is based on a partnership model in many countries in Europe. Horizontal partnerships involve collaboration between peers, while vertical partnerships involve entities at different hierarchical or organisational levels . Both dimensions are important for building comprehensive and effective partnerships in curriculum development, however there is a need for a design for democratic decision making, that values intersectionality and all voices. Plural publics in curriculum making represent the diversity and complexity of contemporary societies. They are shaped by multiple factors, including demographics, interests, race/ethnicity, migrant background, class, gender, values, media consumption, and political ideologies. This paper presents data from n= 29 interviews with those involved in review of senior cycle education in Ireland. The research used a multiple level vertical case study design. Through a critical realist analysis of these data we provide insights into the characteristics and determinants of this partnership form of policy development and shed some light on the overt and covert influences on curricular reform in Ireland in order to better understand the processes at work. The advantage of partnership or stakeholder engagement stated by participants is ‘buy in’ for any changes made but the difficulty with a list of recognised stakeholders, established with the Education Act is that it does not tend to lend itself to alternative voices being heard, but does lend a stabilising influence. The voices not represented were teachers, parents and students. For many the idea of ‘being educated’ was highly valued and repeatedly expressed throughout the interviews. Just what this entails was more difficult to define. Participants from each level denounced rote learning and saw a more holistic, rounded education as preferable at upper secondary level. This holistic view incorporated references to active, applied learning, life skills, environmental awareness, active citizenship while also allowing for a degree of specialism and the provision of pathways that were not solely academic in nature with a presumed transition to third level. As a nation it appears we define our system in terms of difference, ‘not the UK’. Irish educational policy is shaped or formed by a postcolonial shadow and was policy borrowing from the UK in the decades post-independence. The analysis of the language used by the participants in this research suggests that the post-colonial desire to assert difference from the previous oppressor is still quite evident in the discourse on education.

Hardiman, N. (2006). Politics and social partnership: Flexible network governance. Economic and Social Review, 37(3), 343–374. Ó Riain, S. (2006). Social partnership as a mode of governance: Introduction to the special issue. Economic and Social Review, 37(3), 311–318. Ó Riain, S. (2013). The rise and fall of Ireland’s celtic tiger: Liberalism, boom and bust. In The Rise and Fall of Ireland’s Celtic Tiger: Liberalism, Boom and Bust. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511842535 Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2009). Introduction Knowing, Comparatively. In F. Vavrus & L. Bartlett (Eds.), Critical Approaches to Comparative Education (pp. 1–18). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230101760_1 Government of Ireland. (1998). Education Act (Issue 51). Limond, D. (2010). “[An] historic culture...rapidly, universally, and thoroughly restored”? British influence on Irish education since 1922. Comparative Education, 46(4), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2010.519479