RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
1
Este conteúdo utiliza a Licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Open Access. This content is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY
Revista Brasileira de Educação do Campo
Brazilian Journal of Rural Education
ARTIGO/ARTICLE/ARTÍCULO
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
The curriculum of rural schools and its similarities to the
principles of Countryside Education
Célia Regina Nunes Cardoso Silva1, Sônia Fátima Schwendler2
1, 2 Universidade Federal do Paraná - UFPR. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação. Campus Rebouças. Rua
Rockefeller, 57, Centro, Curitiba - PR. Brasil.
Author for correspondence: regginae@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT. This article presents the result of a Master's in
Education research on the movement of building the curriculum of the
Rural Capoeira dos Dinos school, in the municipality of Piraquara/PR
from the protagonism of the school's teachers. It seeks to examine how
this school and the educators, in their pedagogical work, approach the
principles of Countryside Education and how these principles shape
the school curriculum. For this purpose, qualitative research was used,
which articulated the participation and listening of the rural
schoolteachers. The documentary analysis of three curricular
proposals and the oral history methodology were adopted as
instruments for data collection. Contributions from Arroyo (2007,
2010, 2015); Freire (2002); Schwendler (2010, 2017); Souza (2008,
2016); Sacristán (2000, 2011); Beirnstein (1996); Caldart (2010,
2012) were essential for the debate on the prescribed and
recontextualized curriculum and the Countryside Education. The data
indicate that the school’s curriculum proposal does not differ from the
prescribed curriculum of the municipal network. However, the
curriculum in action reveals attempts to prioritize content and
strategies that address the specificities of the rural community, in
teaching work, based on the process of curricular recontextualization.
The results show the possibilities of reinterpreting and reworking the
curriculum text, based on the paradigm of Countryside Education,
concluding that the participation of teachers and the rural community
is fundamental in the construction of the curriculum. The school in the
countryside is advocated as a space for reconstruction, dialogue, and
transformation, generating the construction of a curriculum that
reflects the needs of the communities.
Keywords: countryside education, rural education, curriculum,
recontextualization.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
2
O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com
os princípios da Educação do Campo
RESUMO. O presente artigo apresenta o resultado de uma pesquisa
de Mestrado em Educação sobre o movimento de construção do
currículo da Escola Rural Capoeira dos Dinos, no município de
Piraquara/PR a partir do protagonismo das educadoras da escola.
Busca examinar como esta escola e os educadores, em seu trabalho
pedagógico, se aproximam dos princípios da Educação do Campo e de
que modo estes princípios configuram no currículo escolar. Para tanto
utilizou-se de uma pesquisa de caráter qualitativo, que articulasse a
participação e a escuta das educadoras na escola, localizada no campo.
Adotou-se como instrumentos para coleta de dados a análise
documental de três propostas curriculares e a história oral.
Contribuições de Arroyo (2007; 2010; 2015); Freire (2002);
Schwendler (2010, 2017); Souza (2008, 2016); Sacristán (2000,
2011); Beirnstein (1996); Caldart (2010, 2012) foram essenciais para
o debate sobre o currículo prescrito e recontextualizado e a Educação
do Campo. Os dados indicam que a proposta curricular da escola não
difere do currículo prescrito da rede municipal. No entanto, o
currículo em ação revela tentativas de priorizar conteúdos e estratégias
que contemplem as especificidades da comunidade rural, no trabalho
docente, a partir do processo de recontextualização curricular. Os
resultados evidenciam as possibilidades de reinterpretação e
reelaboração do texto curricular, a partir do paradigma da Educação
do Campo, concluindo que a participação das educadoras e da
comunidade rural é fundamental na construção do currículo. Afirma-
se a escola no campo como espaço que reconstrução, de diálogo, de
transformação, provocando à construção de um currículo que traduza
as necessidades das comunidades.
Palavras-chave: educação do campo, educação rural, currículo,
recontextualização.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
3
El plan de estudios de la escuela en el campo y sus
enfoques de los principios de la Educación en el Campo
RESUMEN. Este artículo presenta el resultado de una investigación
del Máster en Educación sobre el movimiento de construcción del
currículo de la Escuela Rural Capoeira dos Dinos, en el municipio de
Piraquara/PR a partir del protagonismo de los educadores de la
escuela. Se trata de examinar cómo esta escuela y los educadores, en
su labor pedagógica, abordan los principios de la Educación Rural y
de qué manera se configuran estos principios en el currículo escolar.
Para ello se utilizó una investigación cualitativa que articuló la
participación y la escucha de los educadores de la escuela ubicada en
el campo. El análisis documental de tres propuestas curriculares y la
historia oral se adoptaron como instrumentos para la recopilación de
datos. Las contribuciones de Arroyo (2007, 2010, 2015); Freire
(2002); Schwendler (2010, 2017); Souza (2008, 2016); Sacristán
(2000, 2011); Beirnstein (1996); Caldart (2010, 2012) fueron
esenciales para el debate sobre el plan de estudios prescrito y
recontextualizado y la educación sobre el terreno. Los datos indican
que la propuesta curricular de la escuela no difiere del currículo
prescrito de la red municipal. Sin embargo, el currículo en acción
revela intentos de priorizar contenidos y estrategias que abordan las
especificidades de la comunidad rural, en la labor docente, a partir del
proceso de recontextualización curricular. Los resultados muestran las
posibilidades de reinterpretar y reelaborar el texto del plan de
estudios, basándose en el paradigma de la Educación del Campo,
concluyendo que la participación de los educadores y la comunidad
rural es fundamental en la construcción del plan de estudios. La
escuela en el campo se coloca como un espacio de reconstrucción,
diálogo y transformación, provocando la construcción de un currículo
que refleje las necesidades de las comunidades.
Palabras clave: educación del campo, educación rural, plan de
estudios, recontextualización.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
4
Introduction
The history of rural populations is bound up with the struggle and resistance of people
who collectively face challenges imposed by capitalist society. Brazilian rural populations
have long opposed the huge influence of international capital over agriculture and land.
Public education policies, especially those pertaining to rural schools, are a major battlefield
for this conflict. This is the backdrop to this article, which is the result of a Master's in
Education research project. In light of the principles of Countryside Education, we researched
curriculum-building processes among school educators from the Municipal Rural School
Capoeira dos Dinos, located in the municipality of Piraquara.
Piraquara is a small city in the state of Paraná, Brazil, founded amid the slopes of a
mountainous region near the sea called Serra do Mar, which is an Environmental Protection
Area (APA) in Brazil. The community of the school is made up of small family farmers,
predominantly ranchers, and residents indigenous to the locality. Capoeira dos Dinos was
founded in 1922 and municipalized in 1992. In 2005, three nearby rural schools were shut
down and since then, the residents of Colônia Santa Maria do Novo Tirol, Laranjeiras, and
Roça Nova also began attending Capoeira dos Dinos. As a result, students and educators from
these communities were subject to nucleation, causing long commutes between their homes
and the school. The school currently serves approximately 90 students, spanning early
childhood education to elementary levels, and employs a staff of nine educators, of whom
three reside in the rural community.
This research was carried out through document analysis (Sá-Silva, Almeida &
Guindani, 2009) and oral history (Thompson, 1998 and Portelli, 1997). We interviewed five
educators who worked at the school and collaborated in the curriculum-building processes
between 1992 and 2008. As a source of document analysis, we used the three curriculum
proposals of the public education system of Piraquara.
Drawing on Countryside Education as a theoretical framework, this study aims to
analyze data and address curriculum-building issues through the lens of the relationship
between education and rural public policy. By synthesizing the literature on Countryside
Education and curriculum, we explore possibilities for reinterpreting and redeveloping the
curriculum at Capoeira dos Dinos. At its core, this study focuses on the movement to build a
curriculum for rural schools based on the epistemological foundations of Countryside
Education, which defends an education for rural people, by rural people. Specifically, the
research investigates how the school and its educators approach the principles of Countryside
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
5
Education in their pedagogical practices, and how these principles manifest in the school's
curriculum.
The findings reveal the protagonism of educators as the main agents of curriculum
reinterpretation and reconstruction, empowering them as active participants in the curriculum-
building process within educational networks and formative processes. This emphasizes the
importance of people's participation, particularly in rural areas, to transcend the urban-centric
model that has been adopted in certain educational institutions. Moreover, the cohesive
relationship between the school, its professionals, and the community aids in cultivating a
deeper understanding of the knowledge construction process, as well as the work, values,
culture, knowledge, and identity among rural populations.
This research discusses the works of Paulo Freire (2002), Miguel Arroyo (2007, 2010,
2015), Gimeno Sacristán (2000, 2011), Maria Antônia de Souza (2008, 2016), Sônia
Schwendler (2010, 2017), Basil Bernstein (1996), Roseli Caldart (2010, 2012), among others.
Arroyo (2015) contends that reimagining the curriculum entails breaking down the barriers
that constrain it. This is a descriptive process that fosters dialogue between the curriculum and
Countryside Education, rather than being a merely prescriptive endeavor. Arroyo's insights
highlight the need to investigate the potentialities of a curriculum that takes into account the
experiences of rural communities and engages in a dialogue with the reality of rural life and
its specificities.
Critical curriculum studies is a field concerned with freedom and the cultural and social
struggles within education. It asks why some content is or is not included in the curriculum.
Within Countryside Education, the curriculum must include the memory of rural people, their
history of struggles, and the knowledge they have produced, in line with the principle of self-
knowledge and the right to understand historical production (Arroyo, 2012). Thus, the
organization of schools in rural areas is linked to a specific concept of education and school
that is informed by the Countryside. This perspective sees the curriculum not as a self-
contained entity, but as something that should engage with and be shaped by rural realities
and experiences.
Countryside Education as a formative process
Education is a fundamental human practice that aims to promote the formation and
humanization of individuals throughout their lifetime. It is recognized as a universal right that
fosters the development of individuals as historical, social, cultural, and political subjects.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
6
Education provides people with an awareness of their rights and empowers them to perceive
and transform their material reality.
According to Freire (2002), education is a political act that enables the liberation and
humanization of people. Through education, individuals can become conscious of their own
power to transform their reality. Being conscious about reality is fundamental in the
educational process, as it allows “people to know the historical context of the dilemmas that
directly impact them and, armed with a conceptual repertoire, formulate political responses
from their own questioning,” according to Costa (2016, p. 94).
The school plays a crucial role as a site of knowledge socialization in shaping
consciousness and uncovering processes of dehumanization and negation of individuals.
Schwendler (2010) underscores the educational dimension of social movements in light of the
tension between humanization and dehumanization experienced by oppressed groups. It was
only after the emergence of social movements, such as the Landless Workers' Movement, that
education began to be discussed with rural people instead of being imposed on them, as was
historically the case in the context of Rural Education. Thus, Countryside Education has
emerged as a movement that amalgamates politics, rural principles, and educational practices.
Every educational process requires collective actions that are fundamental for
understanding humanization and overcoming the processes of dehumanization caused by
social contradictions. Collectives have consistently fortified their resilience in every historical
moment and space while striving to restore their humanity. The Countryside Education
Movement, which is born out of collective actions by collective subjects, exposes the
diversity of knowledge and transformative practices in rural areas. It is through this lens that
collective subjects devise fresh approaches to comprehending the world, generating
knowledge, and innovating alternative pedagogies by absorbing and imparting new
paradigms.
The practices, principles, and policies themselves are being remodeled based on past
and current experiences. As Schwendler (2010, p. 273) explains, history is pushed “with the
collective force of the people, of those who have fought and are in the memory of the
struggles and of those who believe in change”. This means that the collective subjects are
changing their ways of seeing the world, perceiving themselves as people that act and
resignify their way of life, culture, work, and access to education and land. The collective
process is inherently pedagogical and operates through dialogue as a collaborative and
organized endeavor. Countryside Education, therefore, is a collective construct, embodying an
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
7
educational enterprise based on the principles, experiences, and struggles of rural social
movements. The joint efforts of rural workers within this movement reaffirm their right to an
education that is conceived within their land, inclusive of all members and linked to their
culture, and aligned with their social and human needs.
Within this context, it is worthwhile to explore the paradigms of education in rural
schools. Two opposing concepts of education and people stem from divergent pedagogical,
political, and theoretical practices. Notably, two fundamental distinctions underlie these
paradigms: space and protagonists.
As outlined by Souza (2016), Rural Education is defined as actions aimed at rural
people, while Countryside Education is established and developed by rural people as a
collective movement. From a counter-hegemonic standpoint, social movements for land
ownership, education, and quality of life constitute Countryside Education. Conversely, Rural
Education pertains to land as a business and the political subjugation of rural inhabitants, as
Fernandes (2004) contends, leading to their education being founded on principles that seek to
integrate them into capitalism. The paradigm of Rural Education is rooted in productivism,
emphasizing the field's role as a site of goods production.
Countryside Education is a collective process driven by social groups; it sees the
countryside as a contradictory space, a territory in dispute, and a place of material and
symbolic production of life of the different people who live by working in the countryside.
The paradigm of Countryside Education proposes new interrelationships in society that
incorporate social and union movements into its demands (Silva & Borges, 2011). The term
“Countryside Education”, initially “Basic Countryside Education”, emerged from the
discussions for the 1st Conference on Basic Countryside Education, held in July 1998, and
was later referenced in a National Seminar, held in Brasília in 2002, as highlighted by Caldart
(2012). Sousa (2008) asserts that at that moment, the paradigm of Rural Education was
questioned, and Countryside Education began as a new paradigm that sought to guide public
policies and pedagogical practices related to rural workers. Thus, Countryside Education
questions the interests of the dominant class expressed in the paradigm of Rural Education, as
well as the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production.
Affirmative actions for Countryside Education occurred primarily through the adoption
of curricular policies. Notably, the underpinnings of Countryside Education are rooted in
scientific research and practical applications that “promote a pedagogy that respects the
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
8
culture and the identity of rural people; times; cycles of nature; mysticism of the land;
appreciation of work; popular festivals, etc.” (Kolling, Nery & Molina, 1999, p. 93-94).
Decree No. 7.352 from November 4, 2010, outlines the policy for Countryside
Education and the National Program for Education in Agrarian Reform (Programa Nacional
de Educação na Reforma Agrária - PRONERA). According to Schwendler (2017), the
PRONERA decree acknowledges the universal right to education and the responsibility of
state and local governments to ensure its implementation. Social movements leverage this
decree to advocate for and negotiate the development or enlargement of progressive initiatives
in Countryside Education.
Public policies for Countryside Education are subject to an ongoing conflict regarding
the allocation of public resources and the trajectory of the education program, which
thoroughly impacts the pedagogical objectives and curricula of schools operating in this
context. Thus, “as Countryside Education becomes institutionalized, it is disputed, invaded by
a conception of Rural Education, based on the new demands of capital” (Schwendler, 2017, p.
69). Molina (2010) underscores the tension between various stakeholders, particularly the
actions implemented by state and municipal education secretariats, which the author describes
as “flatness, the rupture, the separation of the land from Countryside Education” (Molina,
2010, p. 138). For Molina, this practice excludes rural people from planning, pedagogical
action, and the land itself.
... they want to do Countryside Education without the country... Without considering, as an
inseparable dimension of this concept, the social praxis of countryside people; the materiality
of their living conditions; the demands to which the students and their families are
submitted/subjected in the process of ensuring their social reproduction, both as individuals
and as a group (Molina, 2010, p. 138).
Additionally, a host of challenges confront the implementation of Countryside
Education for rural communities. These challenges include: i) insufficient training for
educators; ii) inadequate school transportation; iii) school closures; iv) insufficient resources
and infrastructure; v) the expansion of agribusiness, which has displaced populations from
rural areas; vi) insufficient funding for Countryside Education and related programs; vii)
curricula and pedagogical projects that neglect the specific needs of rural populations; and,
finally, viii) the criminalization of public schools located in Landless Workers' Movement
(Movimento Sem Terra - MST) camps and settlements, where the organization promotes and
participates in pedagogical practices. Moreover, the current political climate harbors efforts to
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
9
dismantle and erode public policies developed through years of dialogue and debate. On this,
Caldart reminds us that we cannot expect the governments to:
(first) accept an education policy that takes a (practical) position for a popular agricultural
project of development of the countryside and of the country that helps to train workers to
fight against capital and to build another production system, another logic of social life
(which is exactly the original goal of Countryside Education). And (second) to accept social
movements as protagonists of Countryside Education, to accept poor rural workers as people
who can build (form and content) public policies, even if specific to their own education
(Caldart, 2010, pp. 119-120).
In recent times, PRONERA (1998) has undergone a substantial transformation. The
ordinances that had previously established the participation of societal entities in
governmental organizations were nullified by the Decree No. 9.759/2019, resulting in the
dismantling of the National Pedagogical Commission of PRONERA. This commission
facilitated collaboration between rural movements, labor unions, the National Institute of
Colonization and Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária -
Incra), and higher education institutions in developing educational initiatives for settlements
and quilombos. Additionally, Decree No. 10.252/2020 dissolved the General Coordination of
Countryside Education and Citizenship, which served as a management body for PRONERA.
As a result, the government has assumed a more dominant role in controlling and regulating
educational policies, which favor large landholders and agribusiness, and often infringe on the
rights of rural communities.
The curriculum of education from/in the countryside
The curriculum is a social and cultural manifestation that is developed by those who are
connected to educational institutions, including students, families, educators, employees,
pedagogical staff, and management. According to (Sacristan, 2000), the curriculum is a
cultural construct that structures educational practices. It is a dialectical construct that not
only contextualizes educational practice but also is contextualized by it. Therefore, the
curriculum is a dynamic, rather than static, entity and serves a vital social and cultural
purpose.
The curriculum is a theoretical framework that brings together philosophical,
epistemological, psychological, scientific, pedagogical, and social values and positions,
whether explicitly or implicitly (Sacristan, 2017). The ideation of the curriculum is a result of
reciprocal interaction among three major groups: i) cultural selection, where cultural content
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
10
is organized into an educational project; ii) the project is translated into rules that are enacted
in practice, revealing the nature of the actual possibilities in which the curriculum materializes
in schools; and iii) all curricula are conditioned by a complex reality that embodies the
concepts, assumptions, and values that justify and explain the selected content.
The prescribed curriculum, as an official document, frequently fails to engage in
dialogue with the genuine needs of the populace, and tends to lack diversity, as well as input
from those who are engaged with and attending school. It refers to a collection of normative
determinations generated from established guidelines, parameters, or shared consensus at the
municipal, state, or federal levels. The imposition of the curriculum on schools follows a
reproduction-based logic.
Sacristán (2000) examines the prescribed curriculum as a preconceived plan that
outlines the content and structure of education. Operating within a larger education system,
the curriculum functions as a blueprint for educational materials, didactic organization, and
methodology. Through curriculum-building, knowledge and individuals are envisioned and
legitimized, which results in the reproduction of these visions (Arroyo, 2007). According to
the author, the social stereotypes about individuals in school, including “social, racial or
gender hierarchies, in the countryside and in the city or in the streets and hills”, dictate and
influence the planning of the curriculum (Arroyo, 2007, p. 23). These preconceptions shape
how individuals are conceptualized and inform the development of the curriculum.
The selection of specific content and the organization of its sequence within the
curriculum, as well as the division of individuals by year or grade and the allocation of times
and spaces, reveal an exclusionary logic. Thus, reconceptualizing the curriculum as an action
that commences with students necessitates a process that encompasses various stakeholders,
which involves recontextualizing the practice and translating a formative curriculum.
Sacristán (1985) posits that when educators materialize the curriculum, they interpret and
implement it according to their own perceptions, worldviews, experiences, choices, and
pedagogical methods. In the process of curriculum-building, the way individuals conceive of
the people involved in education (i.e., students and educators) and the (re)interpretation of the
curriculum represent fundamental dimensions. Sacristán (2008) underscores the effects of the
prescribed curriculum in pedagogical practice, identifying six crucial steps to this process: i)
utilizing the prescribed curriculum as a foundation for material preparation; ii) interpretation
of the prescribed curriculum by educators; iii) transfer of the interpreted curriculum to the
teaching plan; iv) implementation of the curriculum in the classroom; v) changes to the
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
11
curriculum due to cognitive, affective, social, moral, and opaque conditions present in the
classroom; and vi) the limitation of teaching practice by the curriculum.
In light of the notion of the prescribed curriculum, the Countryside Education
curriculum serves as a platform for exchanging ideas and knowledge by acknowledging the
history and identity of the rural population. The development of this curriculum is part of a
historical movement rooted in the struggles and establishment of Countryside Education.
Nonetheless, the curriculum's proposed knowledge should be carefully considered. It aims to
liberate and foster a dialogue with social, collective, and humanizing experiences that seek “to
recover the stolen humanity, absent in the official curricula and teaching materials, but that
dispute the territory of the curricula in rural schools.” (Arroyo, 2012, p. 506).
The Countryside Education curriculum places significant emphasis on the political and
pedagogical participation of people in their education. This initiative takes into account their
history, ways of thinking, and efforts to transform their realities, as these representations are
integral to their lives. According to Arroyo (2012), all the educational and formative practices
that occur at work and in emancipatory collective actions should be incorporated into the
curriculum. Such reflections confirm that education is an intentional and political process that
is continually under construction. Likewise, teacher training and school curricula are also
historical, political, and intentional constructions. In the case of Countryside Education, these
constructions are assumed by “social movements and by intellectuals who analyze and
theorize this new consciousness.” (Arroyo, 2012, p. 58).
In this context, educational initiatives must translate the aspirations of rural
communities within the parameters of possibilities, constraints, and challenges encountered in
day-to-day school life. Consequently, schools ought to scrutinize and question their
curriculum, engaging community members in constructive dialogue, and encouraging fresh
perspectives on pedagogical proposals that foster the empowerment of educators, learners,
and rural laborers. The overarching aim of this process is the humane production and sharing
of knowledge, preparing students to combat all forms of discrimination, injustice, and
inequality. A pedagogical enterprise that honors community knowledge and history recovers
the peasant way of life and its epistemology through dialogue with universal knowledge.
According to the Operational Guidelines for Basic Education in rural schools (Resolution
CNE/CEB No. 01/2002), Art. 2, sole paragraph
The identity of the rural school is defined by its connection to the issues inherent to its
reality, anchored in the students' own temporality and knowledge, in the collective memory
that signals the future, in the science and technology network available in society, and in the
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
12
social movements in defense of projects that associate the solutions demanded by these
issues with the social quality of collective life in the country.
Based on this and on the legal framework,
i
the curriculum serves a pedagogical and
humanistic purpose by addressing the universal right to education through the unique
characteristics and needs of rural populations. Similarly, a Countryside Education-focused
curriculum proposal must diverge from the structure, content, and organization of urban
schools' curricula. Developing such a curriculum necessitates incorporating knowledge of
popular culture through a dialogue between rural and urban education, considering their
sociocultural differences. The Countryside Education curriculum proposal, as stated in Article
2 of Decree No. 7.352 from November 4, 2010, conceives:
I - respect for the diversity of the field in its social, cultural, environmental, political,
economic, gender, generational, and racial and ethnic aspects;
II - incentive to the formulation of specific political-pedagogical projects for rural schools,
stimulating the development of school units as public spaces of investigation and articulation
of experiences and studies directed to social development, economically fair and
environmentally sustainable, in articulation with the world of work;
III - development of policies for the formation of education professionals to attend the
specificity of rural schools, considering the concrete conditions of production and social
reproduction of life in the field;
IV - valuing the identity of rural schools by means of pedagogical projects with curricular
content and methodologies that are appropriate to the real needs of rural students, as well as
flexibility in school organization, including the adaptation of the school calendar to the
phases of the agricultural cycle and weather conditions; and
V - social control of the quality of school education, through the effective participation of the
community and social movements in the countryside.
In light of this discussion, Bernstein (1996) argues that the curriculum necessitates a
process of “recontextualization.” According to the author, pedagogical discourse draws on
scientific discourse and reworks it in accordance with political, cultural, and social values,
resulting in a new discourse that reflects the specific context of the school. In this way,
pedagogical discourse is a product of recontextualization, which involves the appropriation of
other discourses and their adaptation to the educational context. The emergence of
Countryside Education as a subject of academic inquiry is a manifestation of the demands and
interests of social movements. These movements help to identify, “under conditions of
advanced capitalism, many spaces of unequal relations between social groups - gender,
ethnicity, religion, region - each with its own particular context of reproduction, generate (in
the language of this essay) its own specific ‘voice message’.” (Bernstein, 1996, p. 73). Thus,
recontextualization produces new codes and changes existing educational practices without
being totalitarian by producing new and changing existing educational practices.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
13
School as a territory of reconstructions
The present study conducted research with educators from the Capoeira dos Dinos
Municipal Rural School to comprehend the curriculum implemented in a rural school setting.
The process revealed that certain elements of the curriculum not only accommodate but also
enrich the unique features and characteristics of the rural context.
The political-educational project posits the school as a central point of reference for the
surrounding community, with educators forming strong interpersonal connections with
community members to foster a sense of shared identity and belonging, which they preserve
and transmit. These meanings prevail in the memories of educators and their relationships
with one another, bringing the school to life, as shown in the transcripts below.
I was born and studied here in Capoeira, got married and had my daughter here. I don't think
about leaving here, I want to see my daughter grow up and maybe have her children here. It
is a good place to live. We know everyone here in the community. Before there were many
people who planted crops for subsistence. My grandparents and my mother did this too. We
collected fruit to make jams, but today there are few families who practice subsistence
agriculture (Educator B, November 14, 2019).
When we graduated 4th grade here, it was very difficult. We had to go to the state school, it
took about an hour to get there. Today the distance has shortened because there is public
transportation, or we go by car, so it doesn't take much time. Many colleagues and friends
didn't graduate, they only got through elementary school. The same happened when we
graduated 8th grade, but we saw that many didn't get the importance of it. But it was
important for the community to have someone in the family who had graduated. Teaching
allowed us to continue here, so the women who left, and studied teaching came back and
worked here in Capoeira, in Teófilo Antônio or in Zacarias (Educator A, November 19,
2019).
These narratives reveal, on one hand, the absence of a school education policy for the
rural population and, on the other, the meaning of the school and the peasant reality for the
educators who were born and grew up in this land. The challenge lies in building an education
that articulates and integrates school and community, which demands from educators a
critical and situated reading of this reality. By perceiving the school as a formative space, we
refer to a place that recognizes the community of the countryside, whose traits and needs
initiate their human formation. Therefore, curriculum-building is not only about systematizing
contents, but also guaranteeing that students are at the beginning and the end of the formative
process (Sá, Molina & Barbosa, 2011).
There are three different curriculum proposals for the municipal public school system of
Piraquara, and they all carry the socialization of historically produced knowledge. These
proposals date back to 1992, 2000, and 2008. Before 1992, the curriculum matrix presented in
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
14
the school was defined by the State Secretariat of Education, which determined that the
contents be worked on every two months.
The first curriculum proposal was introduced when the school was municipalized in
1992. The 1992 proposal embraced critical-social pedagogy and engaged the school, the
community, and school representatives, known as collaborators who expressed a commitment
to the public school's political-pedagogical project, in discussions. This proposal indicates a
democratic and participatory curriculum-building process that highlights the role of the
principal as the central figure responsible for the actions taken within the social institution,
striving for a model of school administration that is responsive to the school's needs.
Likewise, it proposes that the conscientious principal articulate the collective in order to
achieve the school's objectives. The proposed curriculum retains conventional subject areas
while adopting a critical perspective that promotes comprehension of the human experience
and society's conditions. The primary objective is to master scientific language and
understand social and cultural realities, with particular emphasis on selecting relevant content
for the benefit of the broader population. Despite this focus, continuing education initiatives
have yet to adequately support the “new” approach to instruction in the classroom.
The promulgation of Law 9.394/1996 marked the inception of the Municipal Curricular
Guidelines in 2000, which served as the theoretical and methodological foundation for
pedagogical activities in schools. The guidelines were developed in partnership with faculty
members from the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), who contributed with a critical and
theoretical approach to the curriculum. However, this initiative did not incorporate the
perspectives of educators from schools and maintained a fixed timeline in the curricular
organization and standardized contents for all municipal schools. In this case, each school
could adapt the curriculum according to their needs, as long as the theoretical unity
contemplated in the guidelines served as a reference for building a pedagogical proposal.
Nonetheless, two prominent issues persist with this approach: first, a dependence on the
principal for organizing pedagogical work and adapting the curriculum to suit the
community's unique circumstances; and second, a trend towards centralized decision-making.
These circumstances reveal shortcomings in educator organization and professional
development, as well as the need for greater engagement with the community in shaping the
school's decision-making processes.
The 2008 curriculum proposal was also developed through a process of collective
construction. The selection of educators who participated in this process was based on
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
15
registration, and study groups were formed according to their areas of expertise. These groups
were guided by teaching team coordinators from the Municipal Education Secretariat
(SMED), and were consulted by teachers from UFPR.
This proposal introduced the recognition of the area of Geography
ii
as a fundamental
component of the principles of Countryside Education. The discussion, initiated as educators
analyzed the contents based on the local reality, was made official by the Decree No.
7.352/2010. These principles, which include respect for diversity and the promotion of
pedagogical projects that value the identity of the school, aim to provide curricular content
and methodologies that address the real needs of students. Geography is a discipline that
enables students to comprehend society through an exploration of its conflicts and
contradictions, as well as spatial organization and categories, including landscape, place,
territory, spatial organization and representation, work, production and culture, and social
relations.
With respect to the students, the importance of providing a platform for them to express
their needs and interests was emphasized, promoting their engagement in finding solutions to
the school's administrative challenges and underscoring the significance of their participation,
given their historically marginalized position within such spaces.
The curriculum for the Capoeira dos Dinos Municipal Rural School, in all three
versions, was drawn up by the Piraquara Municipal Department of Education, in a
participatory movement, albeit by educators' representatives. These are unique proposals with
urban-centric standards that do not distinguish between schools located in the countryside.
However, there are school movements that put into practice the recontextualized curriculum.
Two educators from the school participated in the 2002 and 2008 proposals. On this
topic, the educators describe
We studied a lot before going to the meetings. The readings were for the theoretical
foundation. The contents were already defined, but we defined the evaluation criteria and the
methodological aspects, which helped in building the lesson plans (Educator A, November
19, 2020).
I think participating in curriculum-building was very important for me. Everyone should
participate in this endeavor, because when it comes time to plan the contents become clearer,
because behind each one there is a historical, social, political, and cultural relationship
(Educator C, March 20, 2020).
The active participation of educators in the official curriculum development is crucial.
Incorporating the people and community promotes democratic education because they
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
16
materialize the importance of knowledge, as well as their expertise, and experiences into a
curriculum proposal. According to Freire (1996), democratic management and school
autonomy are fundamental for renewing the curriculum, creating reflective, dialogic, and
democratic spaces.
The curriculum is the central and foundational element of the school's function (Arroyo,
2011), and a participatory approach requires recognition of the community's contexts,
subjects, and meanings. However, community participation was not present in the curriculum-
building proposals, and when consultation did occur, it was only to endorse already
established projects. This situation is illustrated in educator D’s transcript.
In the assembly at the beginning of the school year, we presented the proposal to the
community, and we also had a meeting with the School Council, but it was not to give an
opinion, only to pass on the information that there was a new proposal being built. Parents
only have access to the contents that will be worked on in the assembly even when each
teacher presents and shows the summary of the contents of the year (Educator D, November
7, 2019).
Throughout the implementation of the proposals, the school's educators engaged in
targeted training sessions focused on curriculum content. Nonetheless, during each training
session, the organization of lesson plans and teacher work plans (PTD) was prescribed, which
ultimately reinforced a sense of reproduction, as interpreted by the educators.
The new way of organizing teaching, through teaching work plans, began with the 2000
curriculum guideline. In this plan we should put all the items of the PTDS (objectives,
evaluation criteria, teaching resources and content) and this was a challenge to us, after all
we did not know how to organize lesson plans that way. So, we followed a model imposed
by SMED (Educator C, March 7, 2020).
The teaching work plan was something new until then, because before we kept class diaries,
just marking content and methodology. The most difficult thing for me was to put the
evaluation criteria, but since these plans were made by SMED, we only followed what was
described in them (Educator B, March 5, 2020).
The ensuing transcripts reveal a preoccupation with teacher and student engagement,
while also underscoring shortcomings in teacher education. Notably, a lack of familiarity with
Countryside Education policies, or their disregard by local authorities, may foster
misconceptions in this process.
I see that reorganizing the work is important to overcome the fragmented teaching we have.
Our students have this right (Educator B, March 5, 2020).
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
17
We don't have a job totally focused on the needs of the field. Sometimes we don't even know
enough about it, but we do want to make a difference (Educator C, March 20, 2020).
The transcript above reveals the educators' awareness of the pedagogical work and the
crucial role it plays in the processes of recontextualizing the curriculum at school. Despite the
fact that the organization of the pedagogical work still adheres to the structure of the
curriculum, which is imposed by local policies, the everyday routine of the school has the
potential to reshape this structure and provide cohesion and coherence to the curriculum, thus
overcoming the problem of fragmentation and decontextualization of its contents.
In this context, education and its agents challenge the standardized, conventional, and
urban-centric curriculum, questioning the place, continuing education, pedagogical materials,
and concepts that predominate in the curricula, policies, and pedagogical culture. Despite the
lack of differentiation in the curricular proposal of the school in comparison to other
institutions in the educational network, there is an observable movement among educators
who aim to address the specificities of the students and the community. This movement
demands new perspectives on the processes of teaching, learning, and evaluation, leading to
new understandings of the concepts of training, planning, and democratic processes.
Schools in the countryside play a crucial role in enhancing the resilience of rural
communities. As such, the integration of community and school through the systematization
of content facilitates the relationship between rural and academic knowledge. The
participation of the community is vital in ensuring the development of collective and
decision-making spaces concerning the activities to be carried out in the school and, most
importantly, in addressing the needs of the school and the community.
The following transcript reveals the school's attempts to broaden community
participation, starting with History and Geography
At first, we did a small census in the school. We divided up the teachers, students,
employees, and some parents. We went door to door with a questionnaire about what the
community thought about the school and what would be the main issues to be worked on.
Then, at school, we organized the material and held a large assembly to discuss the subject,
first with the students, who prepared posters with the main problems, which were: the lack of
road structure, signals in the landmarks such as the school, lack of a hospital unit, land
grabbing in Mananciais da Serra, and improvements in the school also. At the time there was
no residents' association in the community. We drew up a letter of claim and sent it to the
mayor, who after a few months came to the school to listen to the community (Educator D,
November 7, 2019).
The perspective of the educator is indicative of an approach that is grounded in the
community's reality, with the aim of enhancing the conditions of the space through
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
18
collaborative efforts between the school and the community. The contents emphasized by the
educator encompass topics under Geography, such as spatial organization (in rural areas and
farms) and environmental conservation, as well as issues related to the environmental quality
of Piraquara municipality, such as deforestation, forms of occupation, and flooding.
Additionally, under History, there is a focus on local history and its relationship to the broader
context, along with the exploration of family memories to understand how people lived in the
municipality in the past, work relations, culture, politics, and what it means to be a citizen.
The institution being examined displays a proactive approach to aligning course
material with the real-life experiences of its students. Despite the numerous challenges posed
by this approach, the school leverages the knowledge and experiences of the rural community
to construct pedagogical strategies that allow for creative interpretations and adaptations of
the prescribed curriculum. This highlights the importance of reinforcing the school's
commendable efforts through continued theoretical and practical development, as well as
fostering a collective culture that promotes educator autonomy.
In general, the content selection process in education tends to prioritize classical and
urban-centric patterns. Observations in the school under analysis indicate a combination of
practices that reproduce these patterns, as well as those that recontextualize the content to
better reflect the realities of the students.
When reflecting on the curricular organization, provoking the school educators in their
processes of approaching the conception and principles of Countryside Education, we
highlight the marks of rurality present in the city of Piraquara. Family farming, rural tourism,
environmental protection areas, cultural references, and demographic density help to discuss
rurality and are aspects to be incorporated into the rural school curriculum. Moreover, the
educators' perceptions of their students, the evaluation methodologies, school planning,
collective meetings, and the development of the school's political pedagogical project all
influence the teaching and learning processes. In the following transcription, Educator C
reinforces these distinctive factors and underscores the need to move beyond course materials
that solely reflect students' immediate reality or external contexts.
Not that we don't work based on the reality of the students and aspects of the community,
such as the indigenous community, but sometimes we don't have concrete information, so
the textbook, images, and other sources help us to work on certain contents. Most of the
time, we also only use the lesson plans developed in the continuing education courses,
because it is more practical. It is important to problematize the content and create
relationships so that students learn (Educator C, March 20, 2020).
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
19
The analysis prompts us to consider critical questions regarding pedagogical practice,
including the educators' appropriation of knowledge, and emphasizes the necessity of
continuous training that caters to the unique characteristics and needs of educators.
Collective work as a formative process represents a promising strategy in the
development of pedagogical practices at school, particularly in addressing the issue of
fragmented instruction and content detachment from reality. By prioritizing collective work,
the school can promote a more humanistic project that challenges traditional pedagogical
approaches and leverages the knowledge generated by all individuals involved. This
sentiment is echoed by Educator A, who highlights the school's adoption of the Mais
Educação (More Education) Program as a basis for reorganizing the integrated curriculum.
I remember that we had to choose the macro-fields, and these should be based on the
experiences and contexts of the community. We determined then, Agroecology: Sustainable
Vegetable Growing and Culture and Art: Ethnogames, which aimed to restore traditional
childhood games, known to the children and their families from the region. In these two
macro-fields, we could work with the knowledge of the people of the community, with each
one’s ways of living (Educator A, November 14, 2019).
The school's aim is to utilize knowledge that emerges from social practice, with
collective practice playing a pivotal role in knowledge generation and materialization. Group
discussions raise questions about the “relations between what is lived (day-to-day) and what
is unknown, beyond what one seeks to know (other places, other relations). This is the
greatest challenge of the school” (Souza, 2011, p. 27).
When the school’s community questioned the curriculum's organization, they engaged
in a process of reflective and logical thinking that goes beyond established patterns, leading to
a recontextualization of their practices by inferring their conceptions of education, students,
community, and society. However, to fully incorporate these conceptions into the curriculum,
it is essential to elucidate and align them with the principles of Countryside Education.
The challenge lies in encouraging educators to consider their students' context beyond
the shallow confines of the curricular matrices and to acknowledge their land and its history,
land rights, land use, and the struggle for social justice. Defining what to teach and how to
teach it guides the pedagogical work, which evaluates and limits contents, raising their
complexity as totalitarian or fragmented.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
20
Concluding remarks
Our focus on the curriculum-building movement from the perspectives of educators and
professionals revealed the school's struggle to balance the implementation of an urban-centric
education policy, as reflected in the curriculum, with efforts to address the needs and
aspirations of the rural community. This conflict challenges educators to rethink their role in
transforming the prescriptive curriculum into a curriculum that translates the needs and
desires of the rural community.
The proposal adopted in the municipal school system, which consisted of three versions,
was developed with universal parameters and bases. However, the educators' involvement in
its creation has been limited to representation, and the discussion of the “fundamental”
contents follows the local policy's ordering, disregarding the municipality's diversity and
particularities, such as its rural marks. Thus, By using the paradigm of Countryside Education
as a lens, it becomes apparent that the rural school in Piraquara displays traces of Rural
Education, which doesn't consistently address the needs and perspectives of the rural
community. Despite this, there are signs that suggest efforts to prioritize content and
strategies that recognize the rural context in the curriculum, through the process of
recontextualization of the curriculum.
Research results suggest the potential for educators to take on a leading role in
reinterpreting and adapting the curriculum proposal to the local context. The data show that
most educators tend to prioritize content uniformity in terms of content selection, since the
school's curriculum proposal is similar to others in the municipal education system. However,
the educators also acknowledge the importance of deviating from the uniform content
selection process and emphasize the need to include other knowledge and values that are not
reflected in the official text. They also stressed the significance of identifying and promoting
the identity of the rural school through collective debate that involves the community and
school in decision-making regarding pedagogical issues
Investigating the curriculum through educators' eyes reveals a close relationship
between educators and students that goes beyond prescribed text limits and rewriting new
interpretations of what and how to teach. This process of recontextualization of curriculum
organization involves displacing meanings, which leads to the implementation of new
discursive and pedagogical practices and creates a space for the treatment of systematized
contents in the school context.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
21
As per the Operational Guidelines for Basic Countryside Education, the curriculum of
rural schools encompasses historically systematized knowledge, as well as knowledge gained
from life experiences and the way of life of rural communities. Therefore, the concept of
Countryside Education urges and encourages us to re-examine pedagogical practices, and to
view both the school and the community as educational environments that facilitate the
comprehension of social and historical realities. Thus, it is imperative to work with subject
matter that fosters critical thinking and autonomy among students, thereby empowering
educators and students alike to become protagonists in their own histories.
The investigation of community participation with the school revealed indicators that
follow limited and conventional patterns when inviting community to participate in certain
school events. Only a single instance of collective action was observed during the episode of
the school's attempted closure in 2006. This finding raises crucial questions, such as the
factors that hinder greater community involvement, why the school and its community
continue with a practice that alienates the community, and what perspectives community
members hold about the school.
When examining the topic of community participation, we defend that curriculum-
building should involve the community as it reflects societal and educational conceptions. It is
essential for individuals to engage and take part in discussions about the curriculum and
pedagogical decisions, as it is their right. In delving into the curriculum and its associated
pedagogical practices, a fundamental link between the right to education, the right to a school,
and the right to citizenship are established. By involving the rural communities in this
process, it is possible to bring about a transformative impact on their reality.
The findings of this study reveal several obstacles that need to be addressed to construct
a curriculum for rural schools based on the principles and guidelines of Countryside
Education. Among these challenges are: the need to acknowledge the practices developed
within the school context in order to promote an education that values local communities and
knowledge; the establishment of the rural school's identity by recognizing and identifying
rural communities within its documents; and the integration between the school and the
community as a means of enabling participation by all parties when building curricular
proposals and pedagogical projects.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
22
References
Arroyo, M. G. (2007). Políticas de formação de educadores do campo. Cad. Cedes, 27(72),
157-176. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-32622007000200004
Arroyo, M. G. (2012). Currículo, território em disputa. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
Arroyo, M. G. (2015). Os Movimentos Sociais e a construção de outros currículos. Educar em
Revista, 55, 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-4060.39832
Berstein, B. (1996). Classes, códigos e controle. A estruturação do discurso pedagógico.
Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
Caldart, R. S. (2010). A educação do campo em movimento. In Arroyo, M. G., Caldart, R.
S., & Molina, M. C. (Orgs.). Por uma educação do campo (pp. 87-133). Petrópolis, RJ:
Vozes.
Caldart, R. S. (2012). Educação do Campo. In Caldart, R. S., Pereira, I. B., Alentejano, P., &
Frigotto, G. (Orgs.). Dicionário da Educação do Campo (pp. 259-267). Rio de Janeiro, São
Paulo: EPSJV, Expressão Popular.
Costa, B. B. (2016). Paulo Freire: educador-pensador da libertação. Pro-Posições, 27(79),
93-110. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-7307201607906
Freire, P. (2002). Pedagogia da autonomia. São Paulo, SP: Cortez.
Fernandes, B. M. (2002). Diretrizes de uma caminhada. In Kolling, E. J., Cerioli, P. R., &
Caldart, R. S. (Orgs.). Por uma Educação do Campo (pp. 89-109). Brasília, GO: MDA/MEC.
Fernandes, B. M. (2004). O campo da Educação do Campo. In Molina, M. C., & Jesus, M. S.
(Orgs.). Por Uma Educação do Campo: Contribuições para a Construção de um Projeto de
Educação do campo (pp. 32-53). Brasília, GO: MDA.
Molina, M. C. (Org). (1999). Por uma educação básica do campo. Brasília, GO: Peres.
Molina, M. C. (2010). Reflexões sobre o significado do protagonismo dos Movimentos
Sociais na construção de Políticas Públicas de Educação do Campo. In Arroyo, M. G.,
Caldart, R. S., & Molina, M. C. (Orgs.). Por uma educação do campo (pp. s./p.). Brasília,
GO: MDA/MEC.
Portelli, A. (1997). Tentando aprender um pouquinho. Algumas reflexões sobre ética na
história oral. Projeto História, (15), 13-49.
Sá-Silva, J., Almeida, C. D., & Guindani, J. F. (2009). Pesquisa documental: pistas teóricas e
metodológicas. Rev. Bras. de História & Ciências Sociais, (1), 1-15.
Sacristan, J. G. (2000). O currículo: uma reflexão sobre a prática. Porto Alegre, RS: Artmed.
Sacristan, J. G. (2011). Saberes e incertezas sobre o currículo. Porto Alegre, RS: Penso.
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
23
Schwendler, S. F. (2010). Educação e movimentos sociais: uma reflexão a partir da pedagogia
do oprimido. In Miranda, S. G. (Orgs.). Educação do Campo em Movimento: Teoria e Prática
Cotidiana (pp. 269- 275). Curitiba: UFPR.
Schwendler, S. F. (2017). Políticas Públicas da Educação do Campo na Atualidade: avanços e
contradições. In Silva, J. O., & Sapelli, M. L. S. (Orgs.). Uma face da hidra capitalista:
Crítica às políticas para a classe trabalhadora. Curitiba: Editora Prismas.
Silva, A. F., & Borges, M. (2011). Por uma Educação do Campo: percursos históricos e
possibilidades. Entrelaçando: Revista Eletrônica de Cultura e Educação, (3), 45-60.
Souza, M. A. (2008). Educação do campo: propostas e práticas pedagógicas do
MST. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302008000400008
Souza, M. A. (2016). A Educação do Campo no Brasil. In Souza, E. C., & Chaves, V. L. J.
(Orgs.). Documentação, Memória e História da Educação no Brasil: diálogos sobre políticas
de educação e diversidade (pp. 133- 158). Tubarão: Copiart.
i
Legal frameworks include: CNE/CEB Resolution No. 1/2002 that establishes the Operational Guidelines for
Basic Countryside Education; Resolution No. 2/2005; Opinion No. 1/2006, regarding alternating school days;
CNE/CEB Resolution No. 4/2010 that defines the identity of the rural school and recognizes it as a specific
modality; Decree No. 7.353/2010 that provides for the national policies of Rural Education and PRONERA.
ii
Our findings show that the areas of knowledge in the curriculum that most relate to the rural community were
History, Geography, and Science. However, during the data collection with the educators, we noticed that
Science is the area with the least in-depth work and content systematization in the school.
Article Information
Received on December 02nd, 2020
Accepted on September 14th, 2021
Published on December, 30th, 2022
Author Contributions: The author Celia Regina Nunes was responsible for the conception, data collection and analysis,
discussion of results, and drafting/editing the manuscript. The author Sônia Fátima Schwendler was responsible for the
orientation, discussion of results, drafting/editing and revising the manuscript, and approval of the final version published.
Conflict of Interest: None reported.
Article Peer Review
Double review.
Funding
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). O currículo da escola no campo e suas aproximações com os princípios da Educação do Campo...
RBEC
Tocantinópolis/Brasil
v. 7
e11140
10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
2022
ISSN: 2525-4863
24
No funding.
How to cite this article
APA
Silva, C. R. N. C., & Schwendler, S. F. (2022). The curriculum of rural schools and its similarities to the principles of
Countryside Education. Rev. Bras. Educ. Camp., 7, e11140. http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
ABNT
SILVA, C. R. N. C.; SCHWENDLER, S. F. The curriculum of rural schools and its similarities to the principles of Countryside
Education. Rev. Bras. Educ. Camp., Tocantinópolis, v. 7, e11140, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.rbec.e11140
