Foundations for an equitable education

In the educational field, a situation arises that is difficult to accept in other fields, such as medicine: the widespread application of pedagogical proposals that have not always undergone rigorous empirical validation processes. Unlike medical practice, where any intervention must be experimentally verified before being applied, in education, theories and methodologies have been disseminated – both in the popular and academic spheres – without a solid empirical basis or sufficient verification in real contexts.This dynamic has led to the development of a certain “laboratory pedagogical engineering”, often detached from the reality of classrooms and the complexity of educational processes. These are approaches that, frequently, ignore determining factors such as teacher training, the autonomy of schools, or the sociocultural context of students, and which in some cases have become normative models with limited results or even evident failures.In response, reference pedagogues such as Joan Benejam and Pilar Benejam, along with pedagogical renewal movements, have championed the central value of practice. From this perspective, pedagogical knowledge is not born from abstraction, but from experience: it is built, validated, transformed, and, if necessary, discarded within the educational process itself.We speak, therefore, of situated knowledge that progressively develops in direct interaction with the students and that acquires meaning in the specific context of the classroom – and also outside it –, of the center and its social and family environment. It is knowledge that respects vital rhythms and understands education as a dynamic, complex and rooted reality.Far from neutrality, this way of understanding education implies a clear positioning in favor of equity and equal opportunities. It allows for better identification and attention to diverse educational needs, and assumes difference as a starting point for educational action. Consequently, it guides intervention to compensate for inequalities and deficiencies of personal, family, and sociocultural origin.This approach also requires a deep revision of how we view students and the nature of learning. It starts from the idea that no child is inherently problematic nor does any student stop wanting to learn without reason. This conception has roots in pedagogical and philosophical tradition: Jean-Jacques Rousseau already defended the natural goodness of human beings, while Maria Montessori and John Dewey understand learning as an active and meaningful process, closely linked to experience.From a psychological perspective, Lev Vygotsky emphasizes the determining role of the social environment and interactions in cognitive development, while Carl Rogers highlights the importance of safe, empathetic, and facilitating contexts for personal growth. Similarly, Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, from the self-determination theory, point out that the motivation to learn is inherent but depends on the satisfaction of basic needs such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In this vein, Ross W. Greene clearly synthesizes it: children behave appropriately when they have the skills and conditions to do so.All of this implies a change in perspective: disruptive behavior or lack of motivation are not the problem in themselves, but indicators of underlying difficulties. Faced with a student who does not learn or who presents difficulties, the challenge is not to judge them, but to understand what is behind it and adjust the educational response. This view is not permissive, but demanding, because it forces the teacher to constantly review their practice and to assume that educating consists, above all, in creating the conditions that make learning possible.Making this approach viable implies strengthening teacher training, reducing ratios, increasing support resources, and making the curriculum more flexible. Likewise, it is necessary to promote a new school culture –especially in Secondary Education– that incorporates a holistic, systemic, and inclusive vision of educational processes.In this scenario, the teaching role becomes especially complex. Domain of a discipline is no longer enough: it is necessary to integrate pedagogical, psychological, and social competences; to address diversity; to incorporate technology with criteria, and to generate inclusive and safe environments. The relational dimension also becomes key, with the ability to listen, mediate, and work as a team.In this context, socio-emotional competencies – or non-cognitive skills – are consolidated as central elements of the educational process. Dimensions such as empathy, communication, emotional regulation, or conflict resolution cannot be considered accessories, but rather constitute key factors for coexistence and for educational success, especially in contexts of great diversity.Despite this, there has not always been a sustained commitment to training teachers in these competencies, and this process requires time and resources. Despite the limitations, many teachers carry out their work with a high degree of commitment, often beyond what their working conditions allow.This individual commitment, however, needs collective support. The educational system must take care of teachers: offering relevant and contextualized training –preferably at the center and in teams–, guaranteeing specialized resources and recognizing their work with dignity and social prestige.Finally, this responsibility extends to society as a whole and, especially, to families. It is not enough to claim the importance of education; we must also trust teachers, value their work, and respect them. Educating is not just a professional function, but a shared responsibility that largely shapes our collective future.