In a context of decentralisation of education that is underway in Portugal, implying a joint work of multiple stances and actors, this paper addresses the following research question: What do different actors – municipality’ education politicians and staff, on the one hand, and public school teachers and principals, on the other hand – say about school achievement and how do they relate it to equity?”  

This paper results from a financed research project “Building Local Networking in Education? Decision-Makers Discourses on School Achievement and Dropout in Portugal” (FCT) that analyses the involvement of local authorities in networks regarding school improvement, in a framework of extended forms of citizenship and social justice (Arnot 2009, Bernstein 1996, Young 2000) and  looks also to other actors’ perspectives, namely, public school teachers, principals and parent associations.

In what can be seen as a materialisation of democratic endeavours following the April 1974 revolution, government decentralisation is a tendency in Portugal, especially since the 1990’s, in fields like urban planning, health, energy, social welfare and education, among others. One of the pillars of decentralisation is the idea that municipalities (the most important local government structure in Portugal) are significantly closer to the people than central government and, therefore, they are seen as a locus of citizen participation and democratisation (Pinhal, 2011).

This happens in a European context concerned with democratisation and social justice (in spite of the current crises), which takes the rates of school dropout and completion as a factor to judge equity (Lamb, 2011). Moreover, an in-depth understanding of the factors related to dropout, connected to a broad appreciation of local conditions, are suggested to be crucial to inform policies on education (Markussen & Sandberg, 2011).

As in other European countries, earlier, education endeavour is in a restructuring route in Portugal, and is not exclusively the assignment of a centralised government, on one hand, and schools and parents, on the other, but tends to be the responsibility of multiple actors. In the conclusions of his research report about recent changes in the governing of education in 10 countries (Portugal included) and their repercussions for social inclusion/exclusion, Lindblad (2005) highlights the problematic of equity, noticing that the policies of centralisation/decentralisation should also focus in understanding local involvement and partnerships that promote participation of the civil society. It was observed, as well, that the perspectives of system actors and school actors about the problematic of equity did not seem different.

This sets us directly in an international context that stresses the role of networks and collaboration to innovation and policy changes in education (Chapman & Hadfield, 2010). But networks are not exempt of drawbacks, one of them the “potential clash between partners’ “cultures”, listed by Lima (2010), when reviewing the potential drawbacks of networks in education. In this context, it is crucial to understand the perspectives of the main actors involved in order to realize the ways they do (or do not) cooperate.

Araújo, H. C., Sousa, Florbela, Costa, Isabel, Loureiro, Armando, & Portela, José (2013). Building local networking in education? Decision-makers’ discourses on school achievement and dropout in Portugal. In B. Boufoy-Bastick (Ed.), Cultures of education policy: Comparative international issues of policy-outcome relationships. Strasbourg: Analytics (forthcoming). Arnot, M. (2009). Educating the gendered citizen. London: Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity – theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Costa, I. et al (2012). A Educação partilhada: a perspetiva de técnicos/as autárquicos da área da educação. VII Congresso Português de Sociologia. Porto: FPCE, 20-23 Junho. Chapman, C., & Hadfield, M. (2010). Supporting the middle tier to engage with school-based networks: Change strategies for influencing and cohering. Journal of Educational Change, 11 (3), pp. 221–240. Lamb S. (2011). School dropout and inequality. In Lamb et al (Eds.), School dropout and completion: international comparative studies in theory and policy (pp. 369-390). London: Springer. Lima, J. (2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal of Educational Change, 11 (1), pp. 1–21. Lindblad, S. (2005). Knowledge, Governance and Social Inclusion/Exclusion: A report from a European Union research project. UK: National College for School Leadership. Retrieved on January, 14, 2012, from http://ebookbrowse.com/what-does-the-existing-knowledge-base-tell-us-about-the-impact-of-networking-and-collaboration-pdf-d13938870 Markussen, F., & Sandberg, N. (2011). Policies to reduce school dropout and increase completion. In Lamb et al (Eds.), School dropout and completion: international comparative studies in theory and policy (pp. 391-406). London: Springer. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Londres: Sage. Pinhal, J. (2011). A construção do sistema educativo em Portugal: uma história recente. Cadernos de pesquisa. Paraná, Brasil. cad_pesq11.indd. ISSN 2175 2613. Retrieved November, 25, 2012, from www.utp.br/Cadernos_de_Pesquisa/pdfs/cad.../2 _a_construcao_cp12.pdf. Young, I. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.