In-service teacher training in a city on the urban region of Vitória/ES: an aesthetic exercise¹

Abstract

The article deals with the experience of a training course for elementary school teachers of the municipal education system in the city of Serra in the state of Espírito Santo / Brazil. It aims to contribute with the conceptual and methodological formulation of educators’ training in schools, considering that formative processes are not reduced to its informational dimension. Following this direction of analysis, the training of professionals enabled the consolidation of a collective space for dialogues about work in school. The formative experience carried out also enabled the creation of ways to think of the changing reality, the existence-happening of life in schools, from a perspective, according to which, thinking is not to represent by a previously given world but rather creating oneself and other worlds. The dialogue of meetings took place from the experiences at the school in conversation circles. The formative process aimed to create educational practices grounded on living and its expansive dimension.

Keywords
inventive training; permanent education; school

Resumo

O artigo trata da experiência de um curso de formação de professores de Ensino Fundamental da rede municipal de educação da cidade de Serra no estado do Espirito Santo, Brasil. Visa contribuir com a formulação conceitual e metodológica no âmbito da formação de educadores no espaço escolar, considerando que os processos formativos não se reduzem à sua dimensão informacional, mas se constituem como uma pragmática cognitiva de invenção de si e de mundos que, igualmente, produz experiências que transpõem os limites das formas subjetivas instituídas, possibilitando a consolidação de um espaço coletivo de diálogos sobre o trabalho na escola. A experiência formativa realizada viabilizou, ainda, a criação de caminhos para pensar a realidade movente, o existir-acontecimento da vida nas escolas, a partir da perspectiva segundo a qual pensar não é representar um mundo já dado e, sim, inventar-se a si e inventar mundos. A dialogia dos encontros se efetivou a partir das experiências advindas do chão da escola por meio das rodas de conversa. O processo formativo visou a criação de práticas educacionais aliançadas com o viver na sua dimensão expansiva.

Palavras-chave
formação inventiva; educação permanente; escola

Introduction

Nowadays, the educator’s subjective production is subjected to powerful forces of serialization and homogenization; therefore, it is important to conceptualize learning as an invention, reciprocal and simultaneous, of oneself and of the world (Kastrup, 2008). The process of inventive learning starts in the field of sensations transmitted by the existential territory and, in its course, produces new cognitive forms, ways of knowing and thinking and, then, can establish other worlds and forms of subjectivity. Thus, a training work initially operates with a “level zero of subjectivity” (Schérer quoted by Kastrup, 2008, p. 125), which means working beyond the established subjectivities. Therefore, such statement implies that learning also produces forms of subjectivity which question the naturalized and unquestionable ways of knowing-teaching-leaning.

We understand the training process as a cognitive pragmatism of this nature, that is, the invention of oneself and the worlds that equally produce experiences that surmounts the limits of established subjective forms. Training implies problematizing what has been lived, a door to an inventive power, that allows the creation of different ways to know-teach-learn marked by experiences in which oneself and the world emerge with more consistence.

Following this philosophical line, the formative-aesthetic exercise that we developed has opened up to the exercise of creating other ways of knowing and practicing educational unities, through actions aiming to propose-provoke movements that go against whatever restricts the inventiveness of living, which has taken place through educators’ productions in conversation circles. Thus, the productions-experimentations done forced us to think teachers’ actions as aesthetic acts-gestures, that is, as configurations of experiences that force new was of thinking-acting and produce new political subjectivities, allowing us to apprehend the everyday life of schools as spaces-times of sharing sensibilities amidst the relationships established among ethics, politics, and aesthetic (Rancière, 2005).

Among the actions with educators, we highlight the problematization of narratives produced around the relations they established between curriculum policies and school everyday life, leading them to critically question the current official curriculum proposals, such as National Common Curriculum Base. We were based on the idea that considers the everyday life of schools as spaces-times of production and sharing of educational policies, and not only as a “place to apply-effectuate” official programs, when they are reduced to representation models of such policies. This is the perspective in which we developed the formative experience. School reality is not given but is forged amid all those that actively work in the school. Such philosophical-methodological attitude goes against the models that reduce thought to the representation of a previously established world.

According to Tedesco (2012), the knowledge, philosophical, and scientific practices, when reduced to a representation model, make cuts in moving processes, paralyzing them, considering only a configuration of forms. Life Science established a hierarchy which divided knowledge into trustworthy on one hand and, on the other, all that is on the field of fruition and daily contemplations. Thus, there is a separation between scientific production and artistic and daily production, which delimitates frontiers that segment types of knowledge and define powers. Questioning those limits teaches us to work in education through different ways, to think and speak about other ways of education that do not start from standard models or that are limited to them.

Specially, in our discussion on curricula and their relations with everyday school, it was interesting to notice the questions and displacements of educators’ narratives involving in training processes. Form an initial perspective of curriculum reduced to the written text and governmental documents, they started to consider their everyday teacher practices as expressions of curriculum policies, as actions that problematize the forms and the hierarchical segments which, repeatedly, are produced and reinforced in schools.

As a 1st grade teacher in Elementary Education, I’ve always heard : “children on the 1^st grade do not write”, “young children have nothing to say”, “if the children from the 1^st grade arrived on the 2^nd recognizing letters and forming syllables it would be great”, etc. These phrases, which refer to a “voiceless” childhood or one in which children are a “blank slate”, provoked me into thinking the need of experiences in school spaces-times that allow an authorial writing. In this sense, the processes of teaching-learning produced with those children in the attempts to scape the imagetic frames previously determined to them, that they are “not writers”

(Rosany³, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

Authors such as Benjamin (1996), Bergson (2006), and Deleuze (2006) makes us think and problematize the hierarchical segmentations established in education, as we understand that the fields of art, science, and philosophy are constantly interchanging and crossing each other. In a movement contrary to this hierarchization of subjects and age ranges, there is a transversal line (Tedesco, 2012) that, by breaking with the known organization forms, propose other ways of working, which deal with components of intercession, with heterogeneous elements, without submitting them to homogenization, as we could perceive in the narrative presented by the teacher above.

Thus, in the training processes we aimed to reach the aesthetic-processual dimension of experience, as a possibility to co-engineer new ways of living, thinking, and working, in our case, in education. So, to better follow the subjectivation processes underway in education activities, we intended to approach forces that showed the aesthetic character that feeds what is always underdevelopment, demanding the deconstruction of old ways of living-teaching-learning that do not consider the dimension of aesthetic creation of situations experienced. The strangeness of the common ways to work in education questions such current forms, unbalancing them, and demanding other compositions, more consistent to the resolutions demanded by the everyday life in schools.

In this sense, we emphasized the training process of Education workers in the city of Serra/ES, a training that did not ignore its ethic-aesthetic relation and its power to interfere in daily events. An inventive exercise to know their own worlds, so as not to become part of a redundant and massified, nor ratify their effects on life, resulting in the halt of thoughts on finished forms guided by mindless repetition.

We believe that teacher training is done through experience. Such exercise is a language act and, as such, has a dimension of performance production and transformation of realities. Due to this pragmatic character, the exercise followed towards the activation of an emerging space of inventive ways to work, movements that empower them to detour the simple junctions of information which hinders the sensible flows of experience, reducing its multiple possible dimensions to search for resolutions, as we can see in the narrative bellow:

Every year, since I entered Elementary Education, in 2014, it is during the start-of-the-year meeting that we define which group of teachers will be responsible to produce the murals in the school lobby, according to the celebrations selected, such as: carnival, Easter, Junina parties, etc. Like me, there were two new teachers in the school in 2014, and we ended up “alone” so we got together, as the other groups were quickly formed by those who already knew each other, besides choosing the celebrations that were considered “easier” to become murals, using, in fact, materials from the previous years, as masks and serpentine. The group that choose Easter thought about using lambs ( to remind the Lamb of God) made by the students. And we had the Black Awareness Day. So that we wouldn’t have a mural done only by the teachers, with no student participation, we planned to do researches and activities on the history and culture of Brazilian people, trying to make children recognize and value themselves, regardless of skin color, among other aspects. The works ended up following a path of valuing identities and not exclusively about “Black Awareness”

(Evelize⁴, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

Training experience as exercise: (in)pertinent questions in the educational scope

In our discussion during the training process, we were not interested that such process would give way to a preestablished knowledge but that it promoted an openness to creation. It is about going beyond an I, what is still in an emerging state that, because of its “uncreated” nature, is still on silence (Fonseca, 2007).

With this analysis guidelines, the objectives of the training process were: (i) to provoke opening movements in training fields and the teaching practices to other non-established forces of creating subjectivity/knowledge; (ii) empower education workers to intervene on the issue of producing subjectivity and knowledge, exercising thought and assuming its condition as producers of education policies; (iii) to affirm training as an ethic-aesthetic activity of though creating other ways to be an educator and to be a student, producing critical thought; (iv) contribute to extend the action power of education workers; (v) disseminate and start written practices in the everyday life of school, considering the assertion of the experiences which compose this territory.

Such objectives are materialized in a course divided in three modules: the questions of everyday life in school, the work processes in school, and inventive learning. The methodology used was alternance, that is, part of the credits was done in person and the other part in “dispersed activities” collectively built during the presential classes. The students/teachers should, from the themes discussed in the group, create interventions and analysis of their everyday lives in schools. Such experimentations were presented and debated in the groups during presential classes.

The training process with educators from Serra allowed an experimentation which prioritized group work, establishing a collective space for thought in school. We started from understanding that the training of a professional in education is not over with the academic diploma but is a permanent process and is put into action during work. In this sense, we worked with theories that prioritize the problematization of the world and its singular and unpredictable events to think the concrete living being that acts in a certain space-time-historic place. We do not prioritize a representational thought that would place educators as simply reproducing what is already defined by prescriptive official policies. The intention was to instigate in-training educators to displace themselves from the common places they work, so as to think different processes of inventive learning, that will only have an effect through the problematization of established realities.

Thus, we worked with problematization in which we create pathways to think the changing reality and life in the context of educators’ training, an exercise that takes place in the inversion of the common sense of thought, creating other spaces-times in schools. Therefore, new senses could be produced in the reflection and multiplicity of voices in the presential meetings, in which each participant would offer a singular perspective to empower the collective.

When asked to develop an activity to celebrate Women’s day in Youth and Adult Education, a History teacher presented to each class the proposal to honor three women in the school community. Among the chosen ones, there was an elderly student, a janitor, and a teacher that was well-known for the works she developed in school. A simple moment, in organizational terms, but that kindled pride from all school community. We think that this punctual action transformed the meaning of Women’s Day from what it was normally celebrated in the school, by valuing not the women in the media, like Mother Teresa or Michele Obama, but people of the community, nominated by students and educators, breaking with the lazy social construction of cutting photos and admiring distant idols. Though with innumerous setbacks, school space is a creative vortex

(Leidiane⁵, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

Such experimentation in educators’ training opens new ways of knowing and practicing contemporary aspects, inventing them. It allows the preservation of our ability to imagine without a referent, as the images that scape the ready representations we find in the world are established as creations. Images that are not, in fact, copies of reality, but forces that move ways of thinking in school as an inventive activity.

The situations experienced are established as opportunities for educators to experiment with a training process in its genetic power, challenging the thought to overcome cliché representations, to think and learn inventively and, thus, allowing students to work with their thoughts. Hence, a pedagogy of imagination can be invented at each moment, a pedagogy that can move thoughts through other images aiming to create new educators and protagonist students who transform their activities, in an unstoppable process of trying to expand their action power.

Therefore, we believe that training, in its experimental dimension, can be taken as reference to an educational policy capable of transforming obstacles into creations of oneself and worlds; and so, a policy of inventive learning.

It all started when we decided to buy a foosball table. We let it be used during recess and breaktimes. With time we noticed that only the boys played, and the girls just watched. Then, we decided to talk to the girls to find out why they were not playing and the answers were the same: boys have told her that soccer was a boys’ thing, that they knew nothing about foosball, that they should jump rope. We talked with the boys, trying to show them that foosball or soccer was not something only for boys, I gave several examples of women who play soccer, showing them that they should include girls in the game, not as a favor, but respecting their rights. After a lot of talk, we decided that foosball would be one day for each group. It worked like this for 4 weeks. During this time, we noticed that the girls in fact did not know how to play and the boys were teaching them. Today we no longer have boys’ and girls’ days. All students, indiscriminately, can play foosball democratically and respectfully. Then, we noticed that, breaking with the cliché that “soccer is not for women”, we could collectively make everyone participate

(Manoel⁶, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

The training processes of education workers led us to problematize how the concept of training has been designed. The process was developed aiming to think life-work training in the field of education, so as to interfere in the ways formative processes take place in this field. As shown, we opted for a guideline in which educators’ training, aiming to problematize this workers’ activities, was placed into action through conversation circles in which participants were incentivized to confront their experiences in the educational field and analyze the effects of those practices for a technical- social education of quality. Therefore, we used the support activity as a strategy for training processes. Such activity, which we will “training-support” was taken as a mediator in a collective flow of analysis of the work processes and reorganization of teaching establishments.

In an organization of pedagogical work based on verticalized and segmented management, and hegemonic experiences in educational spaces- times, the proposal of collective work demands effort and can give a sensation of hard struggle almost heroic and personalized. In this attitude, the responsibilities can be individualized and the efforts, sometimes, produce exclusion towards other educators that, in the beginning, can seem to represent self-indulgence, disempowerment, and resistance to change. Finger-pointing, complaints, and depreciation of the events in schools often dominate the tone in the conversation circles producing, in some cases, individualized practices.

Normally the bad results of education fall on the shoulders of the teacher. However, if we look the whole, we can see that there are various factors involving the experiences and educational practices: the system, the quality of the professionals’ training, the school environment, the community where the school is, the students’ families, the work groups in various areas in the school context, the administration, and management of education. More specifically regarding the Municipal Center of Childhood Education where I work all seems very common, traditional, regarding school’s management and administration, with a group of teachers going into retirement, closed to some interferences, who have acquired a knowledge with practice and are not motivated to learn new things, or even, to what is ordinary. However, amid all this lack of movement, we can see a different figure, with musical, artistic talent who works autonomously and creatively, easily grabbing students’ attention. Nevertheless, despite all the creative methodology developed, this person is closed to dialogue regarding her work, saying she is not at ease to share her practices and materials with colleagues. Despite been a target for recognition, she does not create a movement to mobilize the collective and is restricted to her own performance

(Neila⁷, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

It is important to shed a light on the difficulties related to the changing processes that are not exactly personal but are experienced individually. The disbelief, discredit, and self- indulgence are not subjects’ flaws, but results of ways of life and the educational work they want to change. Following this direction, we highlight the importance of listening and the conversion circles in the training process to also circulate those difficulties, a challenging work stage to everyone working in the educational field.

We were also interested to problematize training practices which are reduced to informational processes and point out the importance of the debate, the problematization, dialogue, and the tensions that move forward the pedagogical work, always questioning the way the learning-teaching process takes place from its effects and not its prescribed idealizations. We are not trying to find culprits or responsible one, not make invisible or ignore narratives that reinforce their own clichés which, supposedly, they wish to combat, as in the following narrative:

Everything in our lives started within a family context. The couple, when dating, plans a union aiming marriage, the perfect family. Thus, we understand “family” as a domestic community that, around conjugal love, develops and grows. Unfortunately, nowadays a lot has been said about “new types of family”. Big law projects are written to contrapose the nature of family. Homosexual couples claim the term “family” for their unions. Legislators from different countries join this fight and take the lead to defend those causes. Society starts to ambush itself into a harder path in which references are lost and, thus, easing certain acceptances, but, after all, where is that idea that the couple projects of a perfect family? There comes the break of clichés. Types of different families that are often said to be acceptable but, in fact, society has different perspectives on them, leading them to be seen as different and discriminating them

(Márcia Regina⁸, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

In fact, during the training we tried to create movements of tension and conversation, aiming to confront diverse educational processes. These are moments to strengthen the collective, raising its levels of analysis and action.

Dimensions of the training process: a support function

Following this direction of analysis, the training process that we experienced with educators was established as a support, training-support, that is, offering assistance for workers to analyze their practices and produce others. Thus, we work with training as a way to produce support and assist analyses. With this objective, we considered four dimensions of this support role in the training process, based on the research by Barros, Cesar, Gomes & Daros (2014).

The first dimension is inventive. To do a training-support is to intervene in the processes of work, an intervention strategy on the way to educate and manage, updated by education workers. But, how is it done? How does it intervene in the work processes? Considering the singularities of different experiences, we can highlight a common guideline in this sense: the intervention in the work processes is done through a collective analysis, produced in different spaces and arrangements, such as conversation circles, work and study groups, councils, training courses, forums, etc. Such arrangements connect themselves to the recurrent experience of making a circle as a way to circulate knowledge and affection, to produce horizontal relations, which empower collective production and co-management.

In the case of educators’ training in Serra, the interventive dimension was done through dispositives such as conversation circles and the debate on experiences lived in school. Such dispositives make possible the exchange of experiences and the dialogue between educators. In many occasions they stated:

In school we have no opportunity to talk. It is all very fast. Now we can see the importance of hearing our colleagues. This break from the routine makes us think and, then, we can create other ways of working. We are analyzing our work so that we can make it different, in a less painful way, and more creatively.

(Rita⁹, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

The trainer-supporter is not a “redeemer” but also goes through an intervention process. To do so, s/he connects situations and events which are power catalysts, which intensify the analysis on the relations withing and between groups, and on work processes, empowering collective production. Therefore, the activity of the trainer-supporter is to create and bet on conditions that create discomfort on the institutions so that they can renew their establishment, their groups, and mainly their relations of knowledge- power.

The second dimension is co-management: the interventive dimension leads to co-management, as we aim to strengthen a co-management dimension based on interdependence relations that produce work. Such dimension is not an end or a target to be later reached, but the way itself, that is why the strategies are all those connected to a collective analysis of what is happening or can happen.

Thus, the activity of training-support is an inventive experience as it is constantly transforming itself on what is shaped through the work with others. The trainer-supporter always depends on the competition between directions, not necessarily harmonious, which demand taking certain directions and assuming certain risks in the intervention process.

The third is the formative dimension. Such support dimension is inseparable from intervention. It is based on the creation of collective spaces that foment the emergence, production, and sharing of collective and situated knowledge, mining hierarchies that distinguish those you know and those who do not, as well as the depreciation of some types of knowledge at the expense of others.

And so, we did. It was possible a training that had, in the disruptive power of sharing knowledge and actions, its degree of pertinence and an efficiency index. The training we promoted was based on a notion of learning that was not based on a mere reproduction and operation of transmitted contents and techniques, but on the idea that learning is operating under certain practices in different ways from those we are used, transforming ways of being, relating, and producing worlds.

Information are phagocytized, digested, transformed, producing other subjectivities, other ways to be in the world. We touch a point in which training disconnects itself from traditional schooling models and can affirm itself as a process, a formative dimension involved with the everyday life, strongly anchored to the unfolding of work, in which subjects build themselves and the world.

New challenges impose themselves on training-support as a work activity: which strategies to build? How to overcome the disbelieve in proposals that aim to transform work in education and expand institutional democracy? How to combat the felling of isolation in which we cannot see the other as an ally to sole questions that distress work in schools? As we have previously stated, work is always collectively done. You cannot work alone. In Education work, this understanding is radicalized, as it supposes exercising alterity, the inclusion of others and their particularities. In this sense, during the training processes, educators could notice the power of collective work in the transformation of disagreeable and unfavorable situations experienced in schools: “ It is not easy to do this, but it is increasingly clear that we do not change alone, isolated. This only change when we get together and do it together. This hero thing only happens in fairy tales” (Sandra¹⁰, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

The fourth dimension is the clinic one, understood as a detour experience, crossroads in the pathway of life, creating new existential territories, producing differentiation and unbalance. This position adopted indicates an exercise of listening, of creating the other [with the other], of thinking, aiming to open new possibilities and not closing to predefined categories, based in adaptative, utilitarian, or orthopedic notions. That is how we intervene. That is how we work. A clinic of action and not of framing. We opt to approach the clinic dimension of training-support from a specific bias, among innumerous possibilities, that is the work clinic in Education. Thus, we need to take care of the school, the space-time of producing an education in which work is developed. Ultimately, we have to care for work itself, to show that the different actors in schools can transform what they do.

Taking care of work, in this case caring for the practices in Education, is to create the conditions for the relations in the school to be based on the singularities of situations and the processes of subjectivation and of the subjects, through their demands. It is fighting against practices that format subjects or actions. It is to be open for inventiveness, to potentialize the management of the unpredictable ad the unpreventable, collectivize risks, stand failures, and share progress.

Final remarks

Throughout the article, we tried to describe a training process in which educators discuss with their peers the work activity and, above all, actions that avoid a process of disbelief in the possibility of changing what is established in schools. Workers perceived the importance of moments as this, of pauses to analyze the activity, whose production of sense led to an interest for collective meeting in the schools to discuss the work, share experiences, and create actions based on the humans’ creative power. To pause is to break with automatism, which tends to isolate work from dimensions that go beyond, or below, what is prescribed. The collective meeting to analyze school activity can allow a process of self-production and creation of the work world in the countersense of a bureaucratic order that constrains creation processes in schools.

The work done of training-support reaffirms a methodological bet that considers that subjects’ activities are guided towards the activities of others and to other activities. This pathway – the method – reaffirms that the subject’s activity is not only towards the object of the task. Clot (2006) posits that when a work activity is privy to a recipient, it loses meaning, meaning that the recipient also gives to the work. The work activity crosses the worker, it is not determined only by him/her, as work activity is set by a relation established by it.

Pedagogical activity is, then, the effect of a relational plan which are the responsibility of both educators and students. This co-responsibility prioritizes the relation, there is no privilege on either side. Modifying Clot’s (2006) statement, we could say that, by shedding light on the relations established in education work processes, we contact a production plan on educational work experience by a definition that goes beyond individuals. In this sense we can say that work is activity, production, relation between humans.

Consequently, we reaffirm that, during the training process, the work activity did not start from methodologies that privileged principles of representation of the previously given realities, as everyday work in schools is a complex net woven in the course of activity. Therefore, this direction of analysis to work worlds in the field of Education goes against a perspective according to which we know reality to make predictions that would allow actions, expressed on the paradigm that we first know reality to transform it. Such methodology, based on a representational thought, is not effective to reach work experience, which is only done following the activity’s course in live work situations. The moving dimension of human work demands methodologies of work analysis that can follow such movement.

So, by walking through the pathways built by workers, we question: how does work becomes a creation form? When working, how can the educator create other ways of existence? When working, how does the educator increase his/her action power? There is the need to create oneself and the work, to manage ways of acting in a constant game of analyzing these compositions.

It is an instance, a stubbornness to consider work as something necessarily alive, in this in-between of creation, affirming educational work from a radical constructivism. This way of doing education turns us into handcrafters, creating steps, rules, hierarchies, gambling on ordering past, present, and future. How do we follow experience in Education work? How to express this work experience, understanding that expressing it is knowledge itself? There are no ready answers to such questions, nor do we want them. These questions were raised and answers drawn during the work activities.

When an education worker is on an unforeseen situation, there is the need to create a solution, this creation corresponds to the style that becomes “on its turn, the transformation by a subject, in resources to act in their real activities” (Clot, 2006, p. 50). This invention is produced in the concrete experience, that is, in work situations and is put into action based on the educators’ cultural heritage.

Clot’s (2006) bet on the stylization operated by the worker, as an invention materialized in a concrete work experience, indicated this plan of creation characteristic of work experience. It ranges from a common collective dimension to a singularizing dimension of a style produced by educators. Such plan of educational work creation leads to a double effect, of objectivation ( work as specific activity) and subjectivation ( work as a style of worker-educator).

This stylization is expressed in the narratives of some educators who participated on the training process in Serra. Those narratives (here we selected only two of them) are rich material that assert this ethic-political guideline shown in our work: the activity on the Educational field is not done only by prescriptions but mainly through an aesthetic-formative process:

I hanged an overhead projector in a beam at the school to project a work by Tarsila do Amaral. I projected an image on the floor and brought Group 3 over, so that that the students could see the scene. I spread wheat on the floor for them to create other images, and they like that. After, I brought Group 6 and put some paper on the floor where the scene was projected, and the students using markers, colored pencils, and crayons could do a version of the painting in a different and dynamic way. This is how I create other situations for learning processes, trying to stay away from clichés.

(Sonia¹¹, comunicação pessoal, 2015).

In a discussion about what a certain student says, which crosses the lines, when taking the necessary measure, the family was called many times, when they finally appeared, the mother justifies to the school the need to work, that is why she leaves home at five in the morning, prepares breakfast to her son, and, before leaving, she checks if his cellphone has the right alarm time, the mother explains that she is financially responsible for the family and she needs to work to pay the bills and have food on the table. This situation shows us that the school, the system, emphasizes that it is the families’ responsibility to follow the children’s schooling, as it is in the Statue for Children and Teenagers. During our conversations, it was possible to see that we work with an abstract concept of following schooling. From the analysis of this situation, an avalanche of others could be reconsidered.

(Paula¹², comunicação pessoal, 2015).

• 1
  English version: Viviane Ramos- [e-mail]
• 2
  Normalization, preparation, and Portuguese review: Douglas Mattos (Tikinet) – [e-mail]
• 3
  Literacy teacher.
• 4
  2^nd grade teacher.
• 5
  Pedagogue.
• 6
  Physical Education teacher.
• 7
  Pedagogue.
• 8
  Pedagogue.
• 9
  Teacher on a municipal school (Elementary Education).
• 10
  Teacher on a municipal school (Childhood Education).
• 11
  Art teacher in a municipal center (Childhood Education).
• 12
  Teacher in a municipal school (Elementary Education).

Referências

• Barros, M. E. B., Cesar, J., Gomes, R., & Daros, R. (2014). Verbos do apoio institucional em pesquisa: transversalizar, transdisciplinarizar e fortalecer redes de trabalho-vida na saúde. In R. Pinheiro, F. H. Silva, T. C. Lopes, & A. G. Silva Jr. (Orgs.), Práticas de apoio e a integralidade no SUS: por uma estratégia de rede multicêntrica de pesquisa (pp. 83-110). Rio de Janeiro: Cepesc.
• Benjamin, W. (1996). Magia e técnica, arte e política: ensaios sobre literatura e história da cultura (Obras Escolhidas, Vol. 1, 7a ed.). São Paulo: Brasiliense.
• Bergson, H. (2006). O pensamento e o movente São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
• Clot, Y. (2006). A função psicológica do trabalho Petrópolis: Vozes.
• Deleuze, G. (2006). A ilha deserta São Paulo: Iluminuras Ltda..
• Fonseca, T. M. G. (2007). Modos de pesquisar, modos de subjetivar. In T. M. G. Fonseca, S. Engelman, & C. M. Perrone, Rizomas da reforma psiquiátrica (pp. 19-28). Porto Alegre: Sulina.
• Kastrup , V. (2008). Cartografias literárias . In V. Kastrup , S. Tedesco, & E. Passos, Políticas da cognição (pp. 113-135). Porto Alegre: Sulina.
• Rancière, J. (2005). A partilha do sensível: estética e política São Paulo: Editora 34.
• Tedesco, S. H. (2012). Pensando a ética da clínica das drogas: linguagem, subjetivação e a experiência das drogas Tese de Concurso para Professor Titular, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Apr 2020
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  13 July 2017
• Reviewed
  14 June 2019
• Accepted
  17 June 2019