Social Justice In Portuguese Schools – Influences And Political Perspectives

Author(s):

Marta Sampaio(presenting / submitting)Carlinda Leite

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

23 SES 06 D, Inclusive Education and Parental School Choice

Paper Session continues from 23 SES 05 D

Time:

2015-09-09

15:30-17:00

Room:

VIII. Előadó [C]

Chair:

Annette Rasmussen

Contribution

In Portugal, policy measures associated to the promotion of school success and educational improvement were implemented and justified on issues related to equal opportunities and social justice principles. Two of these measures concern schools evaluation and TEIP program (in English ETPI - Educational Territories of Priority Intervention), an educational program for institutions who face school failure and dropout situations.

The first educational policy in Portugal, related to issues of equity and equality, focused primarily on the most disadvantaged social groups, logically "giving more to those who have less" (Lemos, 2013). These educational policies become known as "compensatory education" or "priority education", as took place, for example, with the ZEP - "Zones d'education Prioritaire" (France), the "Head Start" and "Follow-Through" projects (USA) and the "Education Action Zones" (England). Under the influence of these policies, in 1996, the TEIP program was created. This program was presented as a public policy focused on solving problems related to social inequality, dropout and school failure (Leite, Fernandes & Silva, 2013). It was a political measure that recognized the importance of local intervention, representing principles of decentralization, participation and autonomy through accountability practices related to the reconfiguration of State regulatory function (Afonso & Costa, 2011).

In this same line of thought, and taking into account European guidelines in terms of evaluation policies (Wood et al, 2011; OECD, 2012), the accountability demands of each institution to improve their performance has been increasing in addition to the need to promote school success. In this regard, the schools’ evaluation is officially presented with the objective of contributing to educational improvement (Clímaco, 2005). Thus, since 2006, all Portuguese public schools are subject to the school external evaluation process (SEE) justified in order to 'promote the progress of learning and student outcomes'. In conjunction with this goal of overall school and student learning improvement, there is an external accountability process (Afonso, 2009) that cannot be ignored. To accomplish its goals, the SEE process follows a framework structured around three areas: (1) results, (2) educational service provision and (3) leadership and management.

Assuming that is a political responsibility to promote an educational improvement (Bolivar, 2003), we consider it important to analyse whether the SEE process and TEIP program follow-driven by democratic and egalitarian principles, i.e., if these political measures aim to contribute to the achievement of social and curricular justice, essential in building a democratic school (Apple & Beane, 1995).

Consequently, it is essential to understand how the objectives of these two policy measures are being implemented, in particular regarding the conditions that contribute to adherence of the needs and characteristics of the different social groups that coexist in every society. In this manner, we are concerned in understanding how schools develop processes for educational improvement based on curricular and social justice (Connell, 1995; Crahay, 2000; Dubet, 2008; Rawls, 2003; Santomé, 2013).

In this context, this study has general objective to understand the impact/effect of policy measures implementation to the promotion of school success and educational improvement, particularly in what concerns schools’ external evaluation and TEIP program. Therefore, we intend to answer the following questions: What actions are taken by schools to achieve social justice principles, taking into account these two policy measures? What influences do the SEE process and TEIP program have in the different dimensions of daily school life, and in what way do they contribute to the promotion of participatory and inclusive education?

Method

The study presented here was developed through a set of phases following both quantitative and qualitative guidelines (Vilelas, 2009) implemented in two distinct phases. In the first phase, we did 5 semi directive interviews (Hopf, 2004) and developed different scripts for each. One of the interviews was made to the National Education Council President. In Portugal, it is the responsibility of this institution to provide opinions and recommendations on all educational issues. Thus, it was vital to know the opinion of this institution on how public regulation and educational improvement policies influence the daily life of schools and at what levels more effects are perceived. For similar reasons, the second interview was conducted with the person responsible for the TEIP program at national level. We also carried out three exploratory interviews at a TEIP school with the headmaster, the TEIP program coordinator and the self-assessment team coordinator. With these interviews, we aimed at understanding how, locally, the SEE process and TEIP program undertaken are interpreted. Through these interviews, we collected descriptive data that allowed for the interpretation of these educational agents regarding the different aspects of reality in which they operate (Bogdan & Biklen, 1994; Seidman, 2013). Over a second phase, and in the quantitative dimension of this study, we carried out an online survey for schools at a national level. Recognizing that the survey allows for the collection of reasonably valid data in a simple way, through a more or less wide range of issues that are considered relevant (Bryman, 2012), its application aimed to get an overview of the implications and effects of SEE process, regarding school success and educational improvement in TEIP schools. At the same time, this survey allows for the validation and comparison of the information gathered through the interviews. The questionnaire was self-administered, mostly with closed-ended questions but with open-ended fields in all the blocks and fully answered online. It was mailed to schools’ headmasters, considered as key informants, through an invitation. So far, from the 137 TEIP schools that exist at national level, we obtained answers to 45 surveys (33%). The closed-ended interviews were subject to analysis and reflection through a process of content analysis (Krippendorff, 2012), using the NVivo software (v. 10). Regarding the surveys’ closed-response items, data was processed using the SPSS software for quantitative analysis.

Expected Outcomes

The data collected allows one to understand that the policy measures implemented to promote school success and educational improvement - schools evaluation and TEIP program - have an impact and moderately positive effects on everyday school life. Although constituted as two separate policy measures, they are interconnected in different aspects. TEIP schools are influenced by SEE but also by the monitoring process inherent to the TEIP program. This program stimulates the monitoring of educational goals necessary for responding to accountability demands. The attention to social and cultural diversity of students and the use of strategies that seek ensuring the success and educational improvement of all were recognized, although in some of these schools this situation is not an institutionalized practice yet. One of the great advantages towards the TEIP program is related to the availability of resources (human and material) assisting self-assessment and monitoring processes. Justice associated with Equity is present in the reflection of the interviewees; especially concerning curricular development and its adaptation to students’ needs, i.e., the principle of curricular justice is present in the discourses collected. Regarding the SEE process and its impact on TEIP schools, it is recognized that it generates effects on the performance of school leaders and on strengthening self-assessment processes. Nevertheless, this process has less impact on students’ educational achievement in terms of their behaviour and on the school-family relationship. These schools value the existence of an external element, a "critical friend" (Leite, 2002), to support and facilitate the construction and implementation of improvement plans resulting from the SEE and TEIP program. In summary, it can be concluded that these measures, although reduced in accountability demands, generate some effects related to social justice principles.

References

AFONSO, Almerindo (2009). Políticas avaliativas e accountability em educação - subsídios para um debate ibero-americano. Sísifo. Revista de Ciências da Educação, 09, pp. 57-70. AFONSO, Natércio & COSTA, Estela (2011). A avaliação externa das escolas: um instrumento de regulação baseado no conhecimento. In João Barroso & Natércio Afonso (Orgs.), Políticas Educativas. Mobilização de conhecimentos e modos de regulação (pp. 155-189). Gaia: Fundação Manuel Leão. APPLE, Michael & BEANE, James (1995). Democratic schools. University of Michigan: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. BOGDAN, Robert & BIKLEN, Sari (1994). Investigação Qualitativa em Educação. Porto: Porto Editora. BOLÍVAR, António (2003). Como melhorar as escolas. Estratégias e dinâmicas de melhoria das práticas educativas. Porto: Edições ASA. BRYMAN, Alan (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press Inc., New York. CLÍMACO, Maria (2005). Avaliação de Sistemas em Educação. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta. CONNELL, Robert (1995). Estabelecendo a diferença: escolas, famílias, e divisão social. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas. CRAHAY, Marcel (2000). L’École peut-elle être juste et efficace? De l’égalité des chances et l’égalité des acquis. Revue Française de Pédagogie, Bruxelles, 135, pp. 223-225. DUBET, François (2008). O que é uma escola justa? A escola das oportunidades. São Paulo: Cortez. Hopf, Christel (2004). Qualitative Interviews: An Overview. In Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardoff & Ines Steinke (Eds.) A companion to qualitative research (pp. 203-208). London: Sage Publications. KRIPPENDORFF, Klaus (2004). Content Analysis. An Introduction to its Methodology. London: SAGE Publications. LEITE, Carlinda (2002). O Currículo e o Multiculturalismo no Sistema Educativo Português. Coimbra: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian. LEITE, Carlinda; FERNANDES, Preciosa; SILVA, Sofia Marques (2013). O lugar da educação para a cidadania no sistema educativo português: perspetivas de docentes de uma escola TEIP. Educação, 36(1), pp. 35-43. LEMOS, Valter (2013). Políticas Públicas de Educação: Equidade e Sucesso Escolar. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 73, pp. 151–169. OCDE (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. OECD Publishing. RAWLS, John (2003). Justiça como equidade: uma reformulação. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. SANTOMÉ, Jurjo (2013). Currículo escolar e justiça social: o Cavalo de Troia da Educação. Porto Alegre: Penso. SEIDMAN, Inving (2013). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education & The Social Sciences. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York VILELAS, José (2009). Investigação: o Processo de Construção do Conhecimento. Lisboa: Edições Silabo. WOOD, Elizabeth et al (2011). Equity Matters. University Exeter.

Author Information

Marta Sampaio (presenting / submitting)

Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences - Oporto University, Portugal

Carlinda Leite