Políticas de currículo em Niterói, Rio de Janeiro: o contexto da prática

Abstract

This research analyzes the curriculum policy of Niterói s Public Education System during the government (2005-2008) of Partido dos Trabalhadores (Labour Party). Curriculum is addressed here as a cultural artifact that suffers hybridation processes. Based on Stephen Ball s study of policy cycles, the curriculum policies were discussed as texts, discourses and practices produced by three different contexts combined, surrounded by power relationships and disputes on curriculum symbolic control and meaning. Based on Ernesto Laclau s contributions, I understand that individuals gather to defend some curriculum conception wishing that it becomes hegemonic in the process of curriculum policy production. In this sense, the curriculum production is viewed as a struggle for hegemony marked by tension between particular and universal. The purpose of this research is to analyze the practice context interpretations of the curriculum policy texts defended by the local government. The practice context, here, is the 3rd and 4th cycles of a Middle School called Escola Niterói (fictional name), accessed by interviews with teachers from the eight academic subjects. Through the analysis of the four curriculum documents produced by the Fundação Municipal de Educação (municipal educational foundation) the context of text production is accessed, as well as the meanings of policy context of influence. On dealing with the meanings in the curriculum documents, I conclude that there are different interpretations made by different groups that are on struggle for hegemony on curriculum. Those interpretations are connected to the groups demands. It s possible to identify two disputing curriculum projects and to notice two groups linked to them: one defending the FME s proposal and the other that is against it. Most of the pedagogues and some of the teachers of Escola Niterói, as well as the FME s staff are in the group favorable to FME s proposal. The majority of teachers interviewed in this research are in the opposite group, because they believe that is not viable to make the proposal adequate the context of practice. The teachers insatisfaction begins to bind them together, creating an identity that is stimulated by the opposition to the hegemonic proposal and by the desire of developing a new one at the same time.