Rethinking Education: Belonging, Identity, and the Need for Systemic Change

As an Irish early years and education practitioner with over 25 years of experience across early childhood, primary and secondary education, social care, and wellbeing services, I have worked alongside children, families, and educators across diverse contexts. My professional practice has consistently centred on inclusion, equity, and the belief that education should function as a relational space of belonging rather than a mechanism of sorting or exclusion.

Across this time, I have become increasingly aware of a persistent tension between children’s lived experiences of learning and the structural conditions through which education systems define success. This tension reflects broader international patterns in policy, accountability, and curriculum design (Biesta, 2010; OECD, 2021).

The construction of success and its impact on identity

Contemporary education systems continue to be shaped by narrow constructions of success, often aligned with measurable attainment, behavioural compliance, and standardised progression. Despite increasing policy attention to inclusion and wellbeing, accountability frameworks frequently reinforce performance-based definitions of achievement (Ball, 2003).

This has significant implications for how children come to understand themselves as learners. Educational research highlights that self-efficacy and identity formation are shaped through repeated experiences of success, failure, and recognition within institutional contexts (Bandura, 1997). When children are consistently positioned through deficit-based or narrow performance frameworks, this can influence their developing sense of capability.

This is particularly evident for children who are neurodivergent, have additional support needs, or engage with learning in non-linear or embodied ways. While inclusion is embedded in policy frameworks such as the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015), the translation into practice remains uneven and often constrained by structural rigidity.

From a relational pedagogical perspective, early educational messaging is never neutral. It contributes to how children understand belonging, identity, and possibility within learning environments (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 2013).

Accountability structures and the positioning of educators

It is also essential to consider the position of educators within contemporary accountability cultures. Frameworks such as Ofsted’s Education Inspection Framework (Ofsted, 2019), alongside broader international policy trends, have contributed to an increased emphasis on measurable outcomes and performance indicators.

Ball (2003) describes this as performativity, where professional identity becomes shaped by external metrics and accountability demands. In such contexts, educators may experience tension between relational, child-centred pedagogies and system-defined expectations of success.

This tension does not reflect a deficit in professional practice. Rather, it highlights structural misalignment between educational values and the conditions in which educators work (Biesta, 2010). Many practitioners continue to advocate for inclusive, relational approaches despite increasing systemic constraints.

Engagement, belonging, and educational disconnection

Across multiple education systems, there is growing concern regarding learner disengagement, attendance challenges, and withdrawal from formal education pathways. International evidence suggests that engagement is strongly associated with relational connection, relevance, and a sense of belonging within educational environments (OECD, 2021; UNESCO, 2020).

From a pedagogical perspective, disengagement is rarely sudden. It is often the outcome of accumulated experiences in which learners do not feel recognised or meaningfully included. In this sense, disengagement may be interpreted as a systemic signal rather than an individual deficit.

Froebelian theory emphasises the importance of relationships, play, and holistic development in early learning, positioning the child as an active participant in meaning-making rather than a passive recipient of knowledge (Bruce, 2015; Lilley, 1967). This perspective offers a valuable counterpoint to narrow performance-driven models of education.

Inclusion beyond policy rhetoric

Inclusion is now firmly embedded within national and international education policy frameworks. However, the relationship between policy and lived practice remains inconsistent.

True inclusion extends beyond access or placement. It requires participation, recognition, and meaningful engagement in learning environments that respond to diverse identities and developmental pathways (Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2006).

From my experience, inclusion must move beyond deficit-based interpretations of difference. It requires recognition of neurodiversity and variation in learning as part of human diversity rather than deviation from a norm.

Families often play a central role in advocating for appropriate support. The complexity of navigating systems of assessment and provision can create significant emotional and structural pressure, highlighting gaps between policy intent and lived experience.

Rethinking the purpose of education

A central question arising from this reflection is the purpose of education itself. If education is primarily structured around measurable performance, there is a risk that broader dimensions of human development are marginalised, including agency, creativity, wellbeing, and relational capacity.

Constructivist and Froebelian traditions both emphasise learning as active, relational, and experiential. Children are understood as meaning-makers who learn through engagement with their environment, relationships, and lived experience (Froebel, 1887; Bruce, 2015).

When education becomes disconnected from these principles, disengagement may reflect not learner failure, but a mismatch between system design and the realities of human development (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 2013).

Towards a more relational and responsive system

The challenge facing contemporary education is not only technical reform but a deeper reconsideration of foundational assumptions about learning, success, and capability.

A more responsive system would require:

• recognition of relational pedagogy as central to learning
• reduced reliance on narrow performance metrics as primary indicators of success
• stronger alignment between curriculum design and lived experience
• meaningful implementation of inclusive education beyond compliance frameworks
• increased trust in professional judgement and pedagogical expertise

Such change requires both structural reform and cultural transformation, particularly in how accountability systems define and measure educational quality.

Concluding reflection

Ultimately, the concern is not with individual educators, children, or families, but with the systems that shape educational experience. When systems prioritise standardisation over relationality, they risk narrowing the possibilities of learning. When success is defined too narrowly, they risk excluding forms of capability that do not align with dominant expectations.

There is an opportunity to reimagine education in ways that are more inclusive, relational, and responsive to the complexity of children’s lives. This involves engaging critically with policy frameworks, valuing lived experience, and recognising learning as a dynamic and deeply human process.

The central question remains: how might education systems be designed not only to measure children, but to recognise them in their full humanity?