Propostas Curriculares da Rede Municipal de Educação de Niterói: disputas de sentido entre educação e ensino

Abstract

The present work aims to analyze the disputes between the meaning of education and the meaning of teaching in the curriculum proposals of the Municipal Education Network in Niterói, in the period 2009-2019. For this, it was sought to establish the difference between the language of learning and of education based on the thought of Gert Biesta (2013). Others questions of this study refer to how the senses of education circulate in the curriculum proposals of the Municipal Network of Education of Niterói, as well as how these official network documents are reinterpreted, recontextualized, and hybridized, from the approach of the Political Cycles. For this, the interpretation of the document analysis had as theoretical and methodological reference the Policy Cycle of Stephen Ball and his collaborators who argue that curriculum policies are texts, discourses, and practices produced in three different contexts. In dialogue with reference authors who face the debates concerning the field of curriculum, such as Lopes (2006, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019), Macedo (2009, 2014), Lopes and Macedo (2011), Biesta (2013, 2020), Dias (2004, 2009), Borges (2015), Mainardes (2006, 2018), I question the curricular centrality of knowledge and in teaching. The arguments are based on the search for a signification in which the senses of education and the senses of teaching can be more articulated and can express their relational condition, and not only that the former remains subsumed to the latter. Finally, as a final consideration, is pointed out how current and necessary is the confrontation with state-centric positions in the field of curriculum policies. In this sense, is highlighted the contribution of this work to the debate between the different subjects directly involved or not, both in schools and in the scope of municipal administrations of the Municipal Education Network of Niterói, and the channels to circulate their reinterpretations of the formulations of curriculum proposals.