In our society, schooling must be a space for change. This transformation should begin with the teachers understanding that their role is also a social political phenomenon, which is inside of their learning organization and structure (Hargreaves, 1998). When it succeeds –and the changes are assumed rather than imposed by education policies- the school transformation involves the whole community and favours an increase in the teachers´ passion for education (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). The teachers get involved in a transformation of both the school policies and the way school is regarded by the community.

 Successful students are the first step to obtain positive transformations for the whole community. Educators are really committed to democracy when finding equity in all the students as well as in the community (Apple & Beane, 2007). For this purpose, it is important to identify the barriers that prevent progress and find solutions (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006). One proposal to stimulate inclusion is the increase of family participation. It involves an egalitarian dialogue between all the members of the community (Flecha & Soler, 2013; INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009). The real participation could be performed through “Interactive Groups” (Elboj & Niemelä, 2010; Valls & Kyriakides, 2013). It is a way of group-work classroom organization, in which a community volunteer is responsible for promoting interactions within each group of students. Thus, an educational participation of the family is achieved.

Teacher training has an important role in the whole process, being that “if we want better classroom learning for students, we have to create superb professional learning and working conditions for those who teach them” (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 175). This training could take place within Professional Learning Communities, which implies enhancing collective responsibility, shared practice and collaboration to improve students´ learning. (Jaipal & Figg, 2011). The true changes in education are of a social nature, since they promote changes in social practices, social organization and in the shared language (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).

Collaboration between teachers does not always enable significant progress. Hargreaves (1994) sets up that all collective work between teachers is not a form of real collaboration, and suggests the moving mosaic to promote changes in schools. It is a way of collaboration with diffuse and flexible limits, and the group collaborates with dynamic and real response. Teachers create their own collaboration spaces, in order to facilitate their own autonomy and their own desire, generating a positive feeling (Hargreaves, 2004). Moving mosaic has a disadvantage that might cause uncertainty, although it could be resolve by a good leadership (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). By means of it, the group gets security and the capacity of gathering around a common objective. This role can be assumed either by one teacher or a whole group that guide their colleagues and help them overcome fears.

Learning improvement is not unique of a teacher or a school, the real social change lies within a better education, in learning with the nearest schools. This process, known as lateral learning (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009), allows schools to learn about their best practices. In our case, by developing action-research practices with teachers from three schools and University researches, we are able to share actions and reflections about innovation processes of inclusive and participative education. In addition, the teachers have autonomy to control their own practice and participatory democracy (Greenwood & Levin, 2007; Stringer, 2014).

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge. Apple, M., & Beane, J. (2007). Democratic schools: Lesson in powerful education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Elboj, C., & Niemelä, R. (2010). Sub-communities of Mutual Learners in the Classroom: The case of Interactive groups, Revista de Psicodidáctica, 15(2), 177-189. Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2013). Turning difficulties into possibilities: engaging Roma families and students in school through dialogic learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 451-465. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research. Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers' Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. New York: Teacher College Press. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: with implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 1(4), 315-336. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four Ages of Professionalism and Professional Learning. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 6(2), 151-182. Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organization, 24(3), 287-309. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way. The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin INCLUD-ED consortium (2009). Educational Success in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Directorate General for Research. Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2011). Collaborative action research approaches promoting professional development for elementary school teachers. Educational Action Research, 19(1), 59-72. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner. Melbourne: Deakin University. Stringer, E. (2004). Action Research in Education. Apple Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Stringer, E. (2014). Action Research (4ª ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Valls, R. & Kyriakides, L. (2013). The power of Interactive Groups: how diversity of adults volunteering in classroom groups can promote inclusion and success for children of vulnerable minority ethnic populations. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(1), 17-33.