Education represents both a right and a need, and occupies a central role in determining individual levels of quality of life (Carnoy, 2005). At the same time, social and educational inequality stands as one of the central aspects that defines the constitution of current European educational systems. Although in recent decades there has been considerable progress in the configuration of policies and programs to fight against socio-educational inequalities, the evidence reveals there is still ample room for improvement. Consequently, inequalities continue to be at the centre of educational action, appealing both to the architecture of the opportunity system (structural factors) and to the frameworks of action, meaning and interpretation of social actors (agency factors) (Ball, et al., 2002). This also highlights that social inequalities have a social, relational and contextual nature (Reay, 2018).

On the one hand, the economic, cultural and social capital of young people and their families plays a central role in determining the chances of both success and failure (Seghers, Boone and Van Avermaet, 2019). In addition, they have a prominent role in shaping educational and employment expectations and aspirations, defining an unequal school experience or mediating decision-making within the framework of educational transitions, among other aspects (Tarabini, Jacovkis and Montes, 2021).

On the other hand, the segmentation of educational systems into different itineraries or tracks is one of the main factors that explain the processes of reproduction of social inequalities through the construction of unequal educational trajectories (Seghers, Boone and Van Avermaet, 2019). More specifically, the division between academic and vocational education helps us to understand specific configurations of class, ethnic or gender inequalities (Nylund, Rosvall and Ledman, 2017), since these itineraries correlate with central aspects as the social and/or educational-pedagogical composition (Tarabini, Jacovkis and Montes, 2021).

So, how can educational policy intervene in this scenario? The purposes of educational policy are varied, including here tasks related to the financing, organization and management of the educational system, but, without a doubt, one of them is to promote equal educational opportunities (Martínez, 2007). In addition, the evidence shows that actions to improve equity are a feasible reality; highly complex, but still possible. Programs to expand access opportunities, such as measures to increase educational participation for vulnerable groups, are good examples.

Currently, in a context of guaranteed educational access, the challenges are different. Reducing school segregation, guaranteeing equal opportunities for transition (academic or professional), reducing early school dropout rates among vulnerable youth, guarantee the offer of enriched extracurricular activities for groups without resources or ensuring opportunities to develop a successful educational trajectory are some of the new ‘master lines’ that articulate the educational agenda. However, the 'how' to comply with these guidelines does not always seem to be clear.

From this approach, the present contribution seeks to carry out an exhaustive conceptualization of educational inequalities based on the context, that is, to analyse the efforts aimed at understanding the dominant theoretical perspectives that determine the nature of the initiatives implemented. In addition, highlights the need for more research to empirically assess the nature of the promising innovative and/or pioneering practices in progress. With this aim, this presentation takes the Spanish setting as an illustrative case to identify both the understandings of educational inequalities and the strategic responses and practices to tackle them. This analytical framework allows for a more accurate conceptualization of the main theoretical and practical dimensions that should articulate the educational political agenda.

This contribution is part of the H2020 PIONEERED project "Pioneering policies and practices tackling educational inequality in Europe", developed by research teams from thirteen universities and research centres from nine different countries. The methodology selected has been agreed by the different project teams to be applied and replicated in different national contexts to guarantee the comparability of the results. However, in the contribution presented here we have focused on delving into the particularities of the in-depth analyses carried out in the Spanish national context. This research focuses on qualitative data obtained from six in-depth interviews, two focus groups and two workshops. The sample included Stakeholders, Policymakers and Practitioners of a different nature. Specifically, the participants were selected for their important role in the educational field and diverse profiles were included such as representatives of teachers, trade unions, schools and families, academics, advisers and counsellors of different administrations, members of third sector organisations and think tanks professionals whose activity is related to education (especially the fight against educational inequality). We tried to include in the sample stakeholders with experience in different stages of the educational system, with different vulnerable groups/types of inequality and related with both formal and non-formal education. The interviews and focus groups were carried out to inquire about stakeholders' understanding of educational inequality (mechanisms of production, main vulnerable groups, principal effects, etc.) and practices and measures to tackle inequalities in the Spanish context. It was also used to delve into successes and failures of such measures, possible future interventions not yet developed, challenges not yet overcome, main dilemmas and contradictions and, finally, the expectation about the socio-educational scenario in a mid-range future (increase or reduction of inequalities, changes in the main mechanisms, etc.). The two workshops focused on the dilemmas surrounding the fight against educational inequality (one focused on inequality within formal education and the second on non-formal education). The main points of dissent previously identified in the analysis of the interviews and focus groups were presented. In compliance with the ethical protocols, the research team formally required their consent. In addition, their privacy and confidentiality were assured. In this sense, the nature, objectives and funding of the research were disclosed.

Drawing on stakeholders’, policymakers and practitioners’ knowledge and experiences, we can conclude that there are no single and simple solutions to tackle the educational inequalities, but an articulation of multiple perspectives and approaches is needed. However, we can point out several 'common elements' that every applied perspective must contemplate when it comes to fighting inequalities effectively. Based on our empirical analysis, we came to the conclusion that successful pioneering practices must be articulated around the following three premises: The first premise must be to operate under the principles of social justice and maximisation of opportunities for the most vulnerable. Those general inequalities reduction practices without a specific focus on vulnerable groups tend to be ineffective and inefficient. Likewise, generating an increase in equity implies, by definition, developing non-egalitarian practices that are premised on a reality-correcting function. The second premise must be to work as a preventive rather than a reactive approach. Although the evidence collected reveals a large number of compensatory practices with interesting effects, it is true that their impact is limited and, in the long term, these interventions tend to be surpassed. Likewise, those initiatives or programs that focus on prevention are capable of establishing much more stable scenarios of action and prone to transformation. Finally, the third and last premise must be to account for both formal and non-formal settings to overcome the duality in versus out of school. The practices that have produced the greatest increase in equity are those that have abandoned the institutionalised focus of acting merely in the school dimension. Breaking with the limits of 'formal education' and thinking of a continuous formative action is a key element to develop bridges between the different spheres of life and allow social agents to act as guarantors of a lifelong learning and equity approach.

Ball, S., Davies, J., David, M., Reay, D. (2002). ‘Classification’ and ‘Judgement’: Social class and the ‘cognitive structures’ of choice of Higher Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 23(1): 51-72. Doi: 10.1080/01425690120102854 Carnoy, M. (2005). La búsqueda de la igualdad a través de las políticas educativas: alcances y límites. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 3(2), 1-14. Martínez García, J. S. (2007). Clase social, género y desigualdad de oportunidades educativas. Revista de educación. 342: 287-306. ISSN 0034-8082. Nylund, M., Rosvall, P., Ledman, K. (2017). The vocational-academic divide in neoliberal upper-secondary curricula: the Swedish case. Journal of Education Policy. 32(6): 788-808. Doi: 10.1080/02680939.2017.1318455 Reay, D. (2018). Working class educational failure: theoretical perspectives, discursive concerns, and methodological approaches. In A. Tarabini, N. Ingram (eds.), Educational Choices, Transitions and Aspirations in Europe Systemic, Institutional and Subjective Challenges (pp. 15-31). London: Routledge. Seghers, M. Boone, S., Van Avermaet, P. (2019). Social class and educational decision-making in a choice-driven education system: a mixed-methods study. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 40(5): 696-714. Doi: 10.1080/01425692.2019.1581051 Tarabini, A., Jacovkis, J., & Montes, A. (2021). Classed Choices: Young people’s rationalities for choosing post-16 educational tracks. Lab’s Q, 33, 113-138.