Archivo

Mel Ainscow
Alan Dyson
Sue Goldrick
Mel West

Promoting equity in education. Translated by Patricia Alejandro Arias. Received date 28/02/2013. Acceptance date 25/05/2013. Contact address: Mel Ainscow. Centre for Equity in Education, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13, 9 PL. United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: This article addresses the challenge of how to develop inclusive and equitable education systems based on research evidence. The authors conclude that a multidimensional strategy is required. More specifically, they argue that school improvement processes need to be included in local efforts to achieve more equitable school systems, and to unite the work of schools with area strategies that address inequalities more broadly and, ultimately, with national policies aimed at creating more just societies.

PALABRAS CLAVE: Educación inclusiva; Equidad; Mejora escolar; Sistemas educativos.

ABSTRACT: This paper draws on research evidence to address the challenge of how to develop education systems that are inclusive and fair. The authors conclude that this requires a multi-dimensional strategy. More specifically, they argue that school improvement processes need to be nested within locally led efforts to make school systems more equitable, and to link the work of schools with area strategies for tackling wider inequities and, ultimately, with national policies aimed at creating fairer societies.

KEY WORDS: Inclusive Education; Equity; School Improvement; Educational Systems.

1. Introducción

Los sistemas de educación en todo el mundo se encuentran con el reto de alcanzar la equidad. En los países económicamente más pobres, este reto hace referencia a los 70 millones de niños sin escolarizar. Mientras tanto, en los países más ricos muchos jóvenes dejan la escuela sin ningún título significativo, otros son enviados a distintos tipos de centros especiales alejados de experiencias educativas ordinarias, y algunos simplemente eligen dejar unas clases que parecen totalmente irrelevantes para sus vidas.

This article draws on evidence from a research program to identify the changes needed to address this crucial political challenge. It also asks: how can schools ensure that every child receives fair treatment, especially those from more disadvantaged backgrounds? England is a useful context to consider when reflecting on this issue, as a 2007 OECD study indicates that the impact of socioeconomic circumstances on young people’s performance is more pronounced than in any of the other 52 countries studied.

2. Making Sense of Equity

Our research is guided by the principle of equity, as well as the notions of inclusion and social justice implicit within it. Having worked with schools for many years, we have become aware of the complexities involved. One way of thinking about the processes we work with is to see them as interconnected within an “ecology of equity” (Ainscow et al. 2012). By this, we mean that whether students’ experiences and outcomes are equitable does not depend solely on their teachers’ educational practices, or even on their schools, but is conditioned by a wide range of interactive processes that reach the school from the outside. These processes include the demographics of the areas served by educational centers, the histories and cultures of the populations that enroll (or do not enroll) children, and the economic realities faced by these populations. They also encompass the underlying socioeconomic processes that make some areas poor and others prosperous, and that concentrate migratory groups in certain locations.

They are also influenced by broader policies relating to the teaching profession, by decision-making at the district level and by the development of national policies, as well as by the effects that schools have on each other regarding issues such as exclusion and parental school choice.

Furthermore, they reflect new models of school governance, the ways in which local school hierarchies are established and maintained, and the extent to which a school’s actions are enabled or limited by its position within those hierarchies. It is important to recognize the complexity of the interactions between the different elements of this ecology, and their implications for achieving more equitable school systems. When working on improvement projects in schools, we find it useful to think about three interrelated areas where issues of equity arise. These are:

• In schools. These are the issues that arise from the school and pedagogical practices. They include: the way students are taught and how they are engaged in learning; the ways in which teaching groups are organized and the different types of opportunities that result from that organization; the type of social relationships and personal support that are characteristic of the school; the school’s response to diversity in terms of performance, gender, ethnic identity, and social background; and the kind of relationship the school establishes with families and local communities.
• Between schools.These are issues that arise from the characteristics of the local school system. They include: the ways in which different types of school appear locally; the ways in which these schools acquire different statuses so that hierarchies are created in terms of performance and preference; the ways in which schools compete and collaborate; processes of integration and segregation that concentrate students with similar backgrounds in different schools; the distribution of educational opportunities in schools, and the extent to which students in each school can access similar opportunities. 
• Beyond SchoolsThis wider-ranging context includes: the broader political context in which schools operate; family processes and resources that shape the ways in which children learn and develop; the interests and understanding of the professionals who work in schools, and the demographics, economy, culture, and histories of the areas that schools serve. Beyond this, it includes the underlying social and economic processes at national and – in many respects – global levels, out of which local conditions arise.

Seen in this way, it is evident that each school has considerable capacity to address issues within the walls of its own organisation, and that such actions are likely to have a profound impact on students’ experiences, and perhaps influence inequalities that appear elsewhere. However, it is equally true that these strategies do not lead schools to the direct resolution of issues between schools and beyond schools.

No school strategy can, for example, make a poor area more prosperous, or increase the resources available to students’ families, any more than it could contribute to creating a stable student population, or address the global processes underlying migration patterns. But perhaps there are issues relating to access, or the allocation of students to schools, that could be addressed if schools worked together on a common programme. With these arguments laid out, we now explore different possibilities for joining up strategies within schools, between schools, and beyond schools, that can facilitate the development of more equitable improvement approaches.

2.1. Factors within the school

Our research had shown how the use of evidence to analyse teaching within the school can help to promote the development of inclusive practices (Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2006; Miles and Ainscow, 2011). In particular, the act of interrupting existing discourses creates valuable space for rethinking. Techniques that are especially effective in this respect involve the use of reciprocal observation of lessons, sometimes by means of video recordings, as well as evidence, gathered from students, about the mechanisms of teaching and learning within the school. Under certain conditions, these approaches provide “interruptions” that make it possible to see the familiar as strange, so that self-questioning, creativity and action are stimulated. Sometimes, the reframing of perceived problems through these approaches makes it easier for teachers to see solutions for the elimination of barriers to participation and learning that had been overlooked. 

However, such approaches to the development of practice based on questioning are far from straightforward. Disruption to thinking, resulting from an analysis of evidence by a group of teachers, may not necessarily lead to consideration of new ways of working. Indeed, we had documented instances of how deeply held beliefs within a school prevent the experimentation needed to promote the development of more inclusive practices. 

This points to the importance of forms of leadership that promote the challenging of conjectures about a particular student among professional colleagues. We know that some schools are characterized by having ‘inclusive cultures’ (Dyson, Howes and Roberts, 2004). Within such schools, there is a consensus among adults about the values of respect for difference, as well as a commitment to offering all students access to learning opportunities. This consensus may not be total and does not necessarily eliminate all tensions or contradictions in practice. On the other hand, there are possibilities for a high level of staff collaboration and joint problem-solving, and similar values and commitments can be extended to all students, parents, and other interested community members of the school. 

Between 2006 and 2011, we had the opportunity to explore these ideas in more detail through our involvement in a group of English secondary schools (see Ainscow et al., 2012 for a detailed explanation of this project). The initiative was located in an area characterized by socioeconomic deprivation, and social and ethnic segregation. The district’s secondary school system comprised a hierarchy of sixteen schools, some selective based on achievement or religious faith, alongside others that were non-selective and described as comprehensive schools.

The network started with an existing collaboration between four schools, with ten more schools joining at different stages over a five-year period. While the headteachers of the participating schools had developed very good working relationships that had resulted in some collaborative activities, they felt that the impact had been limited. Consequently, they decided that there was a need to develop ways of working that challenged staff practices, conjectures, and beliefs, and would stimulate further, more sustained progress. With this in mind, they approached us to support and facilitate the use of research to strengthen their network. The schools agreed to fund our involvement. 

Following several conversations with the headteachers, it was agreed that equity was one of the most important issues facing each participating school. It soon became apparent, however, that this meant something different in each context, and not least in relation to the groups of students who seemed to be left out of existing systems. As a result, it was agreed that the network’s work should take note of these differences, adopting a broad group of research questions to focus their activities, within which each school would determine its own particular approach. These questions were as follows: 

• Which of our students are most vulnerable to school failure, marginalization, or exclusion? 
• What changes in policy and practice are needed to bring these students back in? 
• How can these changes be introduced effectively and evaluated in relation to student outcomes? 

When making the strategic decision to focus attention on groups of students who were thought to be outside existing systems, we were concerned that this might lead to restricting and focusing efforts on “fixing” students considered incapable in some way. However, the collection of evidence about these groups usually led to a new vision focused on the contextual factors that were acting as barriers to their participation and learning. In this way, most of the projects carried out gradually became efforts to improve the conventional school with the potential to benefit a large part of the student body.

As with our previous projects, research groups were formed in each school, consisting of five or six members representing different perspectives within their school communities. These groups took part in introductory workshops where we discussed with them an initial analysis of the area that we had done, based on a consideration of various documents, statistics, and interviews with a selection of interested members, including school principals, local administration staff, community group representatives, and politicians.

Following this process of contextual analysis, the teams in each school engaged in a planning process for the research they intended to carry out. In doing so, we helped them develop a clearer approach and plan the procedures they would follow. Subsequently, each team in each school decided to collect evidence about those students who were identified as “losing out” in one way or another, with the aim of developing a more accurate understanding of their experiences in school. The groups also shared their findings with colleagues from other collaborating schools. Thus, the intention was to deepen the understanding of practices, beliefs, conjectures, and organizational processes, both individually and collectively among the schools in the network.

Having been carried out over a period of five years of intense governmental activity to improve educational outcomes – or at least to raise performance levels in annual reports – during which multiple political initiatives and interventions were developed to overcome standards, it is not easy to discern the concrete effects of the project nor to attribute them more to the work of the project teams than to the pressures imposed on schools in general during this period. Nevertheless, the evidence collected showed that even members of the school’s teaching staff were able to identify changes themselves and track them, linking them to the project. It can also be stated that these schools fully contributed to the overall improvement of exam results recorded by the specific local administration during this period. In fact, the percentage of students who obtained five or more grades between A* (honors) and C (very good) in the GCSE 1, the state exam to obtain the secondary school diploma taken by almost all 16-year-olds, rose from 54.6% in 2005 to 76.5% in 2010, an increase of 22% (during the same period the national average was from 56.3% to 75.3%, which is 19%). Looking at a more inclusive measure of student performance, during the same period the percentage of students who obtained five or more grades between A* and G2 increased to almost double the national average, from 90% to 96.1% (compared to 89% to 92.7% at the state level).

Our consideration of what this particular network has achieved points to a number of factors that seem to be particularly important for the development of more equitable schools. Fundamentally, the factors that concern us are located in classrooms, where, above all else, equity refers to attitudes. In other words, the attitudes of teachers – and classmates – can both promote and inhibit a fair, welcoming, and inclusive working environment. In a school committed to the principle of social justice, all students should expect to be welcomed into their classes – not only explicitly, that is, embracing cultural, social, and intellectual differences – but also implicitly, so that no one feels marginalized due to reactions (or lack thereof) to their behaviors and actions. By all students being welcomed, they can expect positive interactions as a normal part of their classroom experiences. As a result, they will feel included, valued, and recognized. 

Then there is the issue of practice. If teachers favor a certain style, this will tend to suit those students who are comfortable with that style more. Indeed, strong orthodoxies in teaching disadvantage students who are less confident or less engaged with that approach. Equity therefore requires practitioners, professionals who understand the importance of teaching the same thing in different ways to different students, and of teaching different things in different ways to the same students. 

The schools in the network could point to examples of good practice in all these areas before joining the project. But the question they wanted to resolve through their participation was how to ensure that all students could feel welcomed within these ways of working. In most schools, there was also evidence of changes in classrooms, so that specific groups who felt excluded were now more actively engaged in learning, and this had been achieved through deliberate attention to the attitudes shown, the language used, and the interactions programmed in classes, all of which were reflected in the range of teaching approaches used. 

Of course, these are the aspects of equity that are least difficult to implement. This premise is not intended to deny their value, but rather we accept that although adjustments in classroom practices can have a significant impact on the experiences of specific students, they do not have the capacity to alter those factors that led those same students to be “missing out” in the first place. Often such factors are more inflexible, and therefore more difficult for a single school to influence.

1. Translator’s note: The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is the equivalent of the ESO certificate in Spain.
2. Translator’s note: GCSE results are graded on a scale of 8 grades: A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, with A* being the highest honor (a score of 90% of the total score for the subject), and G being the lowest score (20% of the total). Students who do not reach the minimum grade (G) will not be graded, which will be indicated by the letter U, and therefore will not obtain the certificate.

2.2. Factors between schools

The approach outlined so far is based on the idea that professionals in a school gather various types of information and commit to the data obtained to stimulate actions towards creating more equitable mechanisms. Our research has provided us with a compelling argument for the potential of this approach (Ainscow et al., 2012). It has also shed light on the difficulties of putting such an approach into practice in current political contexts. This leads us to analyze the limitations of strategies within schools, and consequently, to the conclusion that these must be complemented by activities between schools. 

Recently, we have conducted a series of studies that have generated considerable evidence that school-to-school collaboration can strengthen improvement processes by increasing the variety of knowledge and experiences available. (see: Ainscow, 2010; Ainscow and Howes, 2007; Ainscow, Muijs and West, 2006; Ainscow, Nicolaidou and West, 2003; Ainscow and West, 2006; Ainscow, West and Nicolaidou, 2005; Muijs, West and Ainscow, 2010; Muijs, Ainscow, Chapman and West, 2011). Furthermore, these studies indicate that collaboration between schools has enormous potential to promote system-level improvements, especially in challenging urban contexts. More specifically, they show that this collaboration between educational centers can be an effective means of immediate problem-solving, such as staff cutbacks; it can have a positive impact during periods of crisis, such as the closure of a school; and that, in the long term, schools working together contribute to increasing expectations and achievements in schools that have a history of underperformance. There is also evidence that collaboration can help reduce the polarization of schools based on their position in the “league tables,” to the specific benefit of those students who appear marginalized at the edges of the system and whose performance and attitudes are a cause for growing concern. 

In most cases, these studies have been conducted in situations where schools have received short-term financial incentives linked to the demonstration of collaborative planning and development activities. However, they convinced us that this approach can be a powerful catalyst for change, even if it is not an easy option, particularly within political contexts where competition and choice continue to be the main political drivers. The most compelling evidence of the power of collaboration between schools working together comes from our recent participation in the “Manchester Grand Challenge,” a three-year project involving over 1,100 schools in ten local authorities, with a government investment of £50 million (approximately €60 million) (see Ainscow, 2012, for a detailed explanation of this initiative). The decision to invest a budget of such magnitude reflected a concern about educational standards in the city and its surroundings, particularly for children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The approach adopted was influenced by a previous initiative carried out in London (Brighouse, 2007).

Reflecting much of the thinking developed in this work, the overall approach of the Manchester Grand Challenge emerged from a detailed analysis of the social context, using both statistical data and local information provided by stakeholders. The analysis focused attention on areas of interest and, in turn, allowed for the identification of a range of human resources that could be mobilized to support improvement efforts. Recognizing the potential of these resources, it was decided that networking and collaboration should be the key strategies for strengthening the overall improvement capacity of the system. More specifically, this referred to a series of interconnected activities to ensure that “knowledge circulates everywhere” (Ainscow, 2012).

Thus, for example, in an attempt to involve all schools in networking and collaboration processes, School Families were created, using a data system that groups schools into “families” of 12 to 20 centers based on students’ prior attainment and the socioeconomic background of their households. The strength of this approach is that it connects schools serving similar populations, while at the same time fostering collaboration between schools that are not in direct competition with each other because they do not serve the same neighborhoods. School Families, led by school principals, proved successful in strengthening collaborative processes within a metropolitan area, although the impact was varied.

With regard to schools working in highly disadvantaged contexts, the evidence obtained from the Challenge suggests that school-to-school collaborations are the most decisive means of promoting improvements. Most notably, the “Keys to Success” program led to impressive progress in the attainment of around 200 schools facing very difficult circumstances. There is also evidence that the progress made by these schools helped to drive progress across the entire system. A common feature of almost all interventions was that progress was achieved through carefully selected pairings (or sometimes trios) of schools that transcended “social boundaries” of various kinds, including those that separate schools belonging to different local authorities. In this way, experience and knowledge that was previously confined to specific contexts became more widely accessible.

Another effective strategy for facilitating the movement of experiences was provided by the creation of various types of “hub schools.” Thus, for example, some of the centers provided support to other schools regarding how to support students learning English as an additional language. Similarly, so-called “teaching schools” that offer professional development programs focused on providing improvements in classroom practice. Other “hub schools” offered support related to specific areas of specialization and to respond to potentially vulnerable groups, such as those categorized as having special educational needs. In this latter context, a significant strategy consisted of special education schools acquiring new roles by supporting the development and improvement of practices in mainstream schools.

Significantly, we find that such collaborative arrangements can have a positive impact on the learning of students across all participating schools. The importance of this finding is that the effort made to strengthen schools with a more or less low performance can, at the same time, foster wider improvements across the system. It also offers a compelling argument for why relatively strong schools should support other schools. In other words, the evidence shows us that “by helping others, you help yourself”.

While increasing collaboration of this kind is vital as a strategy for developing more effective ways of working, the experience of Greater Manchester showed that it is not enough. The essential additional ingredient is a commitment to data that can bring an element of common challenge to such collaborative processes. We found that data were particularly important when matching schools, as the degree of effectiveness of collaboration is much higher when matched schools are carefully chosen and know what they are trying to achieve. Data are also important for schools to move beyond cordial relationships that have no impact on outcomes. Consequently, schools need to base their relationships on evidence of each other’s strengths and weaknesses, so that they can challenge each other to improve.

To facilitate this kind of contextual analysis, strategies and frameworks were designed to help schools support each other in carrying out their evaluations. In the primary sector, this involved colleagues from other schools acting as critical friends in internally led evaluation processes; while in secondary schools, subject departments took part in “deep dives”, where qualified specialists from another school made visits to observe and analyse practices, and facilitate improvement activities focused on some aspect. The power of these approaches lies in the way they provide opportunities for teachers to have strategic conversations with colleagues from another school.

The powerful impact of the collaborative strategies developed during the “Greater Manchester Challenge” points to ways in which the processes used within individual schools can be deepened and thus strengthened. This requires an emphasis on mutual critique, within schools and between schools, based on a commitment to shared data, and, in turn, requires a strong collective commitment from secondary school professionals and a desire to share responsibility for driving system reform. The study of new patterns of school leadership that emerged in response to structural changes that occurred in the English education system, offers some promise in this regard (Chapman et al. 2008).

2.3. Factors beyond the school

An OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) report, “No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education” (2007), argues that educational equity has two dimensions. First, it is a matter of social justice, which involves ensuring that social and personal circumstances—for example, gender, socioeconomic status, or ethnic background—should not be an obstacle to achieving educational potential. Second, it is about inclusion, which is about ensuring a minimum basic standard of education for all. The report states that the two dimensions are closely intertwined, as “addressing school failure helps to overcome the effects of social disadvantage that is often a cause of school failure” (p. 11).

The report continues to argue that fair and inclusive education is desirable due to the imperative set by human rights for individuals to be able to develop their capacities and participate fully in society. It also reminds us of the long-term social and financial costs of school failure, as those without the skills to participate socially and economically generate greater costs in health, supplementary benefits, childcare, and security. Furthermore, increasing migration poses new challenges for social cohesion in more and more countries.

 Despite the efforts made in response to these arguments, a worrying gap continues to exist in many parts of the world between the achievements of students from wealthy families and those from poor families (Kerr and West, 2010; UNESCO, 2010; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2000). The extent of this gap varies significantly between countries. For example, Moushed, Chijioke, and Barber (2010) argue:

“In a world-order system like the Finnish one, socioeconomic status is much less predictive of a student’s achievement. Under the same conditions, a low-income student in the United States has far less chance of succeeding in school than a low-income student in Finland. Given the enormous economic impact of educational achievement, this is one of the best indicators of equal opportunity in a society…” (p. 8-9).

On a more optimistic note, the most recent international comparisons regarding literacy indicate that the best-performing school systems manage to provide high-quality education to all their students. For example:

“Canada, Finland, Japan, Korea and the partner economies Hong Kong-China and Shanghai-China outperform the OECD average, and students tend to perform well regardless of their own circumstances or the school they attend. Not only do they have a large number of students with very high levels of reading proficiency, but there are also relatively few students with low levels of proficiency” (OECD, 2010, p. 15).

This means that countries can develop education systems that are both equitable and excellent. The question is: what steps need to be taken to advance policy and practice?

Within the international research community, there is evidence of a division of opinion on how to respond to this question. On the one hand, there are those who argue that what is required is a school-focused approach, which allows for better implementation of the base knowledge created over many years of research on school improvement and effectiveness (Hopkins et al., 2005; Sammons, 2007).

Dichos investigadores señalan ejemplos donde este acercamiento ha tenido un impacto en el logro de las escuelas que dan servicio a comunidades desfavorecidas (por ej. Chenoweth, 2007; Stringfield, 1995). Por otra parte, están aquellos que argumentan que dichos acercamientos centrados en la escuela no pueden resolver desigualdades fundamentales en una sociedad que impide a los jóvenes liberarse de las restricciones impuestas por las circunstancias de su hogar (Dyson y Raffo, 2007). Dichos argumentos advierten del peligro de separar el intento de mejora escolar del impacto que pueden tener factores sociales y políticos más amplios. Los investigadores que refieren este peligro abogan por reformas más holísticas que conecten escuelas, comunidades e instituciones políticas y económicas externas (Anyon, 1997; Crowther et al., 2003; Levin, 2005; Lipman, 2004). Estos autores concluyen que es insuficiente centrarse únicamente en la mejora individual de las escuelas, sino que dichos esfuerzos deben formar parte de un plan global mayor para una amplia reforma del sistema que debe incluir a todas las partes interesadas a niveles nacional, regional, institucional y comunitario. 

Una posibilidad obvia es la combinación de ambas perspectivas por medio de estrategias que traten de unir los intentos por cambiar las condiciones internas de las escuelas con esfuerzos por mejorar las áreas locales. Este enfoque es una de las características de la tan aclamada Zona de los Niños de Harlem (Whitehurst y Croft, 2010), un sistema de educación basado en el vecindario y servicios sociales para los niños de familias de ingresos bajos en ese barrio de Nueva York. El programa combina componentes educativos como Programas para la primera infancia con clases para padres y escuelas públicas experimentales (también conocidas como “escuelas chárter”) con componentes de salud (incluyendo programas de nutrición); y con servicios al vecindario (asesoramiento individual para las familias; centros comunitarios; y un centro que enseña habilidades relacionadas con empleos a adolescentes y adultos). Dobbie y Fryer (2009) describen la Zona de los Niños como “posiblemente el experimento social más ambicioso de nuestro tiempo para aliviar la pobreza” (p. 1). Habiendo llevado a cabo un análisis en profundidad de los datos estadísticos con relación al impacto de la iniciativa, concluyen: 

“… las escuelas de alta calidad o las escuelas de alta calidad, unidas a inversiones en la comunidad, posibilitan la consecución de los logros. Las inversiones comunitarias solas no pueden explicar los resultados.”(p. 25)

Nuestras recomendaciones se basan en este enfoque combinado, aunque somos conscientes de que las presiones generadas por las políticas nacionales pueden llevar a dilemas estratégicos a la hora de ponerlo en práctica, especialmente cuando las escuelas se sienten obligadas a demostrar rápidas mejoras en los test y en las calificaciones de los exámenes. 

Our analyses of the ways in which external factors limit the possibilities for developing equitable schools offer clear examples of the complexity of the process, and therefore justify the argument that an analysis of the broader context in which schools operate is needed (Ainscow et al, 2012). The authors’ considerable experience in conducting analyses of this type in various school districts has shown that transforming educational services offered according to neighborhoods and local services depends on identifying local priorities and ways to develop convincing responses to them. This requires embarking on forms of contextual analysis whose questions delve beneath the surface of achievement indicators, in order to understand how local dynamics shape concrete outcomes, and to identify the key underlying factors at play and determine which can be altered and by whom. 

This implies a change in the conception of local transformation, moving from a superficial response, which will be no more than a mere patch related to manipulating official figures, to a deeper response that, by addressing problematic issues in their context, aims to achieve sustainable, long-term improvements. Thus, the purpose is to produce a rich and feasible understanding of local issues. To achieve this, the analysis can be delimited in three different ways, none of which are mutually exclusive: 

• Based on unit of action– for example, a contextual analysis could focus on issues within an administratively defined area, such as a regional or local authority, where structures already exist that can be used to carry out actions. 
• According to geographical and social boundaries– the analysis could focus on issues in an area clearly delimited by physical borders, such as, for example, main roads, or imaginary borders, such as a residential neighborhood with which residents fully identify – or a combination of both. 
• According to issues– the analysis could focus on the study of a specific issue, such as school absenteeism or belonging to adolescent gangs. In these cases, while maintaining a local focus, the analysis could extend beyond a specific neighborhood or administrative area. We have seen that sometimes a contextual analysis can highlight issues that shape local circumstances but which local actors are not in a position to change – for example, the global recession leading to the decline of local industry. However, analyses should be able to identify how local processes and dynamics are being shaped by these factors; what can be done locally, and which unit(s) of action can be used to develop an appropriate response. 

To understand the complex dynamics at play in an area, and to explore the resulting data, it is necessary to allow people who live and work in that place to talk about their interpretation of local issues. We have seen that a flexible research framework can help provide the necessary freedom for this, while also ensuring that the data generated can be usefully compared, and used to create shared interpretations and strategies (Ainscow et al., 2012).

3. Rethinking Relationships

When reflecting on how to more generally use the strategies we have outlined in this article, it is essential to recognize that they do not offer a list of techniques that can simply be taken and transferred to other contexts. Rather, they offer a general approach to improvement driven by a set of values and processes of using contextual analysis to create strategies that suit specific circumstances. What is also distinctive about this approach is that it is primarily directed from within schools to make more effective use of existing expertise and creativity. 

We argue that reducing the existing gap in outcomes between children from more and less advantaged backgrounds will only happen when what happens to children outside and inside schools changes. This means changing the way families and communities work, and enriching what they offer to children. In this regard, we have seen hopeful experiences of the progress that can be achieved by merging, through a coherent strategy, the work of schools with the efforts of other local agents – employers, community groups, universities, and public services – (Ainscow, 2012; Cummings, Dyson and Todd, 2011). This does not necessarily mean that schools work harder, but it implies collaborations beyond the school, which allow collaborators to multiply the impact of their individual efforts. 

The repercussions of this approach affect all parties involved in the education system, especially teachers, particularly those in positions of authority, who must be aware of having a greater responsibility towards all children and young people, not just those attending their school. They must also develop internal organizational patterns that enable them to have the flexibility to cooperate with other schools and with other interested agents beyond the school gates (Chapman et al., 2008). Likewise, those who administer area school systems must adjust their priorities and ways of working in line with the improvement efforts directed from within schools. 

There is a key role for governments in all of this. English experience over the last twenty years has shown that attempts at centralized ordering and control stifle as much as they stimulate local development. (Ainscow and West, 2006; Gray, 2012; Whitty, 2010). Consequently, central government needs to act as a promoter, fostering development, disseminating good practices, and ensuring that local leaders are accountable for results. All these practices depend on a continuous flow of knowledge exchange and therefore demand a cultural change. A new approach to national policy is essential for this purpose: an approach that responds to local factors and, in turn, provides an understanding that unites all aspects of equity to bring coherence and foster collaboration among the various reform efforts (Ainscow, 2005).

4. Conclusion

The arguments we have developed in this article aim to question prevailing school improvements to return to their historical purpose: ensuring a solid, quality education for every child. We have suggested that to achieve this, it is necessary to complement improvements within schools with efforts that link schools to each other and to their broader communities. For this to happen, we propose five organizational conditions that need to be realized: 

• Condition 1:Schools must collaborate in a way that creates a system-wide approach. If, as we have argued, equity issues can arise between schools, this demands an approach to promoting equity that crosses school boundaries. In other words, all schools in a given area must assume some level of responsibility for all the children who live there. Therefore, the criteria that favor institutional benefit, so characteristic of current school systems, need to be replaced by an approach that recognizes the reciprocity of schools. 

• Condition 2:Local leadership focused on equity is needed to coordinate collaborative action. Although it is still debated whether local authorities remain the ideal vehicle for local coordination and policy design, it is clear that some form of local leadership is necessary, and that such leadership must prioritize equity issues in the area over the benefit of any particular institution. In this regard, we have observed a number of contexts in which the most authoritative staff within a group of schools have worked together to provide such leadership. 

• Condition 3:Development within schools must be linked to broader community efforts to address the inequalities suffered by children. Local coordination is not simply about managing schools to have some kind of productive relationship with each other, but also about linking the work of educational centers with that of other agents, organizations, and community groups involved in the social and economic well-being of the area. If they work separately, schools cannot help to resolve the deficiencies, and the corresponding disadvantages, that some of their students experience. However, in principle, there is no reason why they cannot go beyond their doors and develop a more holistic approach to problems in collaboration with other stakeholders. 

• Condition 4:National policy needs to be formulated in a way that facilitates and supports local action. None of the improvements we are suggesting will be possible without a national policy framework that encourages schools to orient themselves towards broader equity issues. In our own country, the perverse consequences of successive government educational policies are all too evident – the excessive emphasis placed on numerical measures of performance; the conflation of crude indicators of school quality with actual student performance; the fostering of the conception of schools as self-interested institutions, competing against each other rather than working for the interests of all children; the weakening of local leaders by local authorities and the repeated attempts to resolve deeply entrenched social and educational problems through improvements, reforms, and the history of British educational policy over the last two decades does not end here. The flourishing forms of school collaboration that have been described owe much to the political emphasis on schools working together, as well as to a discreet but crucial break from the “isolated school” model to provide a good education. 

• Condition 5: Movements towards supporting equity in education must be matched by efforts to develop a more just society. It goes without saying that even the most powerful approaches to promoting equality, based on areas, are likely to have little more than palliative effects in a context where dominant socioeconomic forces generate inequality and lead to marginalization. Therefore, in a certain and important sense, in the absence of more fundamental social reforms, efforts to develop greater equality and integration of services are inevitably destined to fail. Even so, however powerful the forces that produce inequality and marginalization, they are not entirely invincible. Policy in our country, and elsewhere, can and indeed does have a very significant impact on levels of poverty, social segregation and integration, as well as on the gap between rich and poor. Even without radical political change, there is evidence that different governments have made decisions that have aggravated or alleviated the impact of both underlying socioeconomic processes and global influences. 

Our conclusion, therefore, is that just as there is a complex ecology of equity within and outside educational institutions, there should also be multidimensional strategies to address equity issues. Specifically, school improvement processes need to be integrated into locally driven efforts to make education systems more equitable and to link the work of schools with area-based strategies to address greater inequalities and, ultimately, with national policies aimed at creating a more just society.

5. Bibliography

• Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109-124. 
• Ainscow, M. (2010). Achieving excellence and equity: reflections on the development of practices in one local district over 10 years. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21 (1), 75-91. 
• Ainscow, M. (2012). Moving knowledge around: strategies for fostering equity within educational systems. Journal of Educational Change, 13 (3), 289-310.
• Ainscow, M.; Booth, T. y Dyson, A. (2006) Inclusion and the standards agenda: negotiating policy pressures in England, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10 (4-5), 295-308. 
• Ainscow, M.; Booth, T. and Dyson, A. with Farrell P.; Frankham, J.; Gallannaugh, F.; Howes, A. and Smith, R. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge. 
• Ainscow, M.; Dyson, A., Goldrick, S. and West, M. (2012) Developing equitable education systems. London: Routledge. 
• Ainscow, M. and Howes, A. (2007). Working together to improve urban secondary schools: a study of practice in one city. School Leadership and Management 27, 285–300.
• Ainscow, M.; Muijs, D. and West, M. (2006). Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools in challenging circumstances. Improving Schools 9 (3), 192-202.
• Ainscow, M.; Nicolaidou, M. and West, M. (2003). Supporting schools in difficulties: The role of school-to-school cooperation. NFER Topic 30, 1-4.
• Ainscow, M. and West, M. (eds) (2006). Improving urban schools: leadership and collaboration. Open University Press. 
• Ainscow, M.; West, M. and Nicolaidou, M. (2005). Putting our heads together: a study of headteacher collaboration as a strategy for school improvement. In Clarke, C. (Ed.). Improving schools in difficult circumstances. London: Continuum. 
• Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers College. 
• Brighouse, T. (2007). The London Challenge – a personal view. In T. Brighouse and L. Fullick (eds.). Education in a global city. London: Institute of Education Bedford Way Papers.
• Chapman, C.; Ainscow, M.; Bragg, J.; Gallannaugh, F.; Mongon, D.; Muijs, D. and West, M. (2008). New models of leadership: Reflections on ECM policy, leadership and practice. Nottingham: NCSL.
• Chenoweth, K, (2007). It’s being done: Academic success in unexpected schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 
• Crowther, D.; Cummings, C.; Dyson, A. and Millward, A. (2003). Schools and Area Regeneration. Bristol, The Policy Press. 
• Cummings, C.; Dyson, A. and Todd, L. (2011). Beyond the school gate: can full service and extended schools overcome disadvantage? London: Routledge.
• Dobbie, W. and Fryer, R.G. (2009). Are high-quality schools enough to close the achievement gap? Evidence from a bold social experiment in Harlem. Cambridge: Harvard University. 
• Dyson, A., Howes, A. and Roberts, B. (2004). What do we really know about inclusive schools? A systematic review of the research evidence, in: D. Mitchell (Ed.). Special educational needs and inclusive education: major themes in education. London, Routledge Falmer. 
• Dyson, A. and Raffo, C. (2007). Education and disadvantage: the role of community-orientated schools. Oxford Review of Education 33 (3), 297-314.
• Gray, J. (2010). Probing the limits of systemic reform: the English case. En A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan y D. Hopkins (eds.), Second international handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Springer. 
• Hopkins, D.; Reynolds, D. y Gray, J. (2005). School improvement lessons from research. London: DfES. 
• Kerr, K. y West, M. (Eds.) (2010). Insight 2: Social inequality: can schools narrow the gap?Macclesfield: British Education Research Association.
• Levin, B. (2005).Thinking about improvements in schools in challenging circumstances.Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April.
• Lipman, P. (2004).High stakes education: inequality, globalisation and urban school reform. New York: Routledge.
• Miles, S. and Ainscow, M. (2011). Responding to diversity in schools. London: Routledge. 
• Mourshed, M.; Chijioke, C. and Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. McKinsey & Company. 
• Muijs, D.; Ainscow, M.; Chapman, C. and West, M. (2011). Collaboration and networking in education. London: Springer. Muijs, D.; West, M. and Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21 (1), 5-26. 
• OECD (2007). No more failures: ten steps to equity in education. Paris: OECD.
• OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background – Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes (Volume II). Paris: OECD. 
• Sammons, P. (2007). School effectiveness and equity: making connections. Reading: CfBT. 
• Stringfield, S. (1995). Attempting to improve students’ learning through innovative programs – the case for schools evolving into high reliability organizations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6 (1), 67-96.
• UNESCO (2010). EFA global monitoring report: Reaching the marginalized. Paris: UNESCO/Oxford University Press. 
• West, M. and Ainscow, M. (2010) Improving schools in Hong Kong: a description of the improvement model and some reflections on its impact on schools, teachers and school principals. In S. Huber (Ed.), School leadership – International Perspectives. London: Springer. 
• Whitehurst, G. J. and Croft. M. (2010). The Harlem Children’s Zone, promise neighborhoods, and the broader, bolder approach to education. Washington: The Brookings Institution. 
• Whitty, G. (2010). Marketization and postmarketization in education. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds.). Second international handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Springer. 
• Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2000). The spirit level. London: Allen Lane.