Historically, educational thought, in general, and the educational processes, in particular, have been enriched by the inquiries that the international and national scientific literature has developed about educational interventions aimed at promoting school success and social inclusion. It is therefore considered important to ground and disseminate the role of the main theories and scientific contributions of educational research, interpreting and disseminating inclusive socio-educational practices, allocated in schools and communities, developed in less favorable contexts, but that achieve, among other things, school success.

The social inclusion of children and young people and the reduction of school dropout are central aspects of European education policy, being understood as ways to prevent unemployment, poverty, and social exclusion (Eurydice, 2014). The processes that lead to school failure and dropout are complex and involve multidimensional factors (Dale, 2010). In Portugal, as in other European countries, in recent decades, several policies, programs, and practices have been developed to tackle the problem of school dropout (RESL.eu, 2014; Araújo et al., 2013). Despite the success observed, at least in what concerns the current first three cycles of basic education, it is still necessary to analyze some dimensions of the measures developed to promote this change (Dale, 2010; Frandji et al, 2009).

Developed in the context of a doctoral project in Educational Sciences, granted by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/143386/2019), and framed in the EDUPLACES project (PTDC/MHC-CED/3775/2014), this paper focuses on the study of socio-educational practices that aim to combat school failure and dropout developed in the context of two national programs aimed at social inclusion and academic success, the Educational Territories of Priority Intervention Program, developed in the School and the Choices Program, allocated in the Community. The concept of inclusive social and educational practices is defined and understood as practices that are implemented under national government programs, to promote school success and social inclusion (Antunes, 2019). These practices aim to mitigate reproductive situations of social exclusion that invalidate democratic values, values defended by several authors, as Dewey (2007:97) argued "the participation of all its members, under equal circumstances", equal opportunities for access to knowledge, the "powerful knowledge" (Young & Muller, 2010), equality of success and social justice.

One of the research questions that this project aims to answer is: "From the point of view of institutional leaders, teachers, and technicians what processes and factors contribute to the construction of inclusive socio-education practices?".

From a qualitative approach is developed a multi-cases study (Amado, 2014; Seale, 2004; Yin, 2010), was conducted in a municipality, located in the northeastern region of Portugal.

The first results achieved, based on a triangulation of sources (documental data analysis, interviews with institutional leaders, and focus groups with teachers and technicians), allowed us to identify and characterize two inclusive socio-educational practices described as Study Support and Student Grouping type.

The main objective of this proposal is to present the perspectives of different educational agents on the processes and factors that contribute to the construction of inclusive socio-educational practices addressing the description of the specificities of each of the practices under study (organization, strategies, processes, resources, and target audience) as well as their conceptual formulation and structuring mode. 

The study we present here has a qualitative approach, justifying this option to encompass the plurality of rationalities and meanings based on the knowledge and contexts under analysis (Seale, 2004). In qualitative research, it is recognized that this subjectivity is an important source of information, content, and knowledge, highlighting key aspects in the understanding of phenomena situated in a given context. From this perspective we try to capture "the phenomena as they are perceived and manifested by language and, at the same time, we recognize that this meaning is contextual, that is, it is constructed and established to other signifiers" (Amado, 2014: 41). In order to answer our research question "From the point of view of institutional leaders, teachers, and technicians what processes and factors contribute to the construction of inclusive socio-education practices?" the methodology selected to develop this project is a multi-case study involving a set of information collection and analysis techniques that fall within a qualitative orientation (Merrian, 1998; Yin, 2010) so that the phenomenological approach holds a central place in the construction of the scientific object. This multi-cases study (Yin, 2010) was carried out in one municipality, located in the northeast region of Portugal. Institutional leaders, teachers, and technicians participated in this research selected according to two inclusion criteria: i) being directly involved in the practice under study and ii) being available to join the focus group and/or interviews. The interviews were directed to the 2 institutional leaders of the programs under study, the Educational Territories of Priority Intervention program and the Choices program. The focus groups of teachers and technicians were composed of 10 participants (5 elements in the Study Support practice and 5 elements in the Student Grouping practice), with different functions (Mathematics teacher, Portuguese teacher, Psychologist, Social Work), with varying working experiences in the practices, between one and eight years. After building an analytical category tree from the theoretical-analytical framework, all elements collected were transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using NVivo, after defining the categorization procedures. Content analysis (Bardin, 1995) was the technique used in the treatment and analysis of the information. Based on the perspectives derived from the interviews, the focus groups, and a documental analysis (activity and evaluation reports, statistical data, among others), two socio-educational practices were identified and characterized, one of the Study Support and the other of Student Grouping type.

Findings suggested that in the practice of Study Support, from the perspectives of institutional leader and technicians, a logic of action is identified that seems to consider essential to articulate school success to a multifaceted dimension and also to a subjective aspect. The opinions of these actors converge in the sense that this practice seems to underlie the intentionality of progressive autonomy of the subjects associated with their full development (Azevedo et al., 2014). On the other hand, their voices emphasize that the handicaps/fragilities/difficulties of families in participating directly in the academic success of youths is seen as a relevant explanatory factor for the development (success or failure) of the school pathway (Bernstein, 1983; Bourdieu, 1982). Both actors point out as a factor for improvement of the practice the allocation of human resources with diversified training considering that this gap translates into greater demotivation/disinterest of the young participants in school life. From the perspective of the Institutional leader and the teachers of the practice of Student Grouping, this practice in the school’s context, consists in the organization of groups of students, with relative homogeneity of academic performance, in the expectation the pedagogical action is more effective (Antunes, 2019). These educational agents denote that the practice encourages teachers and technicians to work in a greater individualization of teaching and in situations of greater proximity with students, which allows them to adapt the pace and curriculum content to the needs of students thus improving school results, seeming to meet the opinions of Cheung and Rudowicz (2003), Hallam, Ireson, and Davies (2004), and Kulik (1992). As a work in progress, other problematizations will be carried out to understand more deeply how equal opportunities of access to knowledge are expressed in the context of the practices under study.

Amado, J. (2014). Manual de investigação qualitativa em Educação. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. Antunes, F. (2019). Remar contra as desigualdades: práticas, vozes e percursos. V. N. Famalicão: Húmus. Araújo, H. C., Rocha, C., Magalhães, A., & Macedo, E. (2013). Policy analysis on early school leaving – Portugal. RESL.EU. Belgium: Antwerp. Azevedo, J., Gonçalves, D., Gonçalves, J. L., Silva, C., Nogueira, I. C., Sousa, J., & Moreira, L. T. (2014). O que desencadeia o sucesso em alunos com baixo rendimento escolar, no Projeto Fénix. Porto: Cadernos Fénix. Bardin, L. (1995). Análise de Conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70. Bernstein, B. (1983). A Educação não pode compensar a sociedade. In S. Grácio & S. Stoer (Orgs.). Sociologia da Educação II - A Construção Social das Práticas Educativas, Lisboa: Livros Horizonte, 19-31. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Reprodução cultural e reprodução social. In S. Grácio, S. de Miranda & S. Stoer, (org.), Sociologia da Educação - I. Antologia: Funções da escola e reprodução social, Lisboa: Livros Horizonte, 327-367. Cheung, C., & Rudowicz E. (2003). Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong. The Journal of Educational Research, 96 (4,) 241–254. Dewey, J. (2007). Democracia e educação. Lisboa: Didáctica. Dale, R. (2010). Early school leaving. Lessons from research for policymakers. NESSE Report. Brussels: European Commission. Eurydice (2014). Tackling early leaving from education and training in Europe: Strategies, policies, and measures. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Frandji, D., Pincemin, J-M., Demeuse, M., Gregor, D., & Rocher, J-Y. (2009). "EuroPEP" comparaison des politiques d’Éducation prioritaire en Europe. Papper scientifique, Vol. 2, Eléments d’une analyse transversale: formes de ciblage, action, évaluation. Hallam, S., Ireson, J., & Davies, J. (2004). Grouping practices in the primary school: What influences change?. British Educational Research Journal. 30(1), 117–140. Kulik J. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Merrian, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. RESL.EU (2014). Policies on Early School Leaving in nine European countries: a comparative analysis. Belgium: University of Antwerp. Project RESL.EU. Seale, C. (2004). Researching society and culture (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Yin, R. (2010), Estudo de caso: planejamento e método. Porto Alegre: Bookman. Young, M., & Muller J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the Sociology of Knowledge, European Journal of Education, 45(1), 11-27.