17
the scrutiny of the responsible
teacher/teachers, according to the rotation
of the SP's coordination’s.
Earth, also a research participant,
describes in a very didactic way the SP
construction path at Cocais AFs.
The Study Plan elaborated here at
Cocais AFs starts with the
students’ mobilization, it's ... with
all the students of this session (3rd
year) together in the auditorium,
and there they specify a theme ...
yeah ... . This theme is
approached in a dialogical way,
they explain to us how it is to be
done, what the theme is about and
they propose that we ask some
questions that we are taking to our
home, community, city. At home,
we answer these questions and
bring them back to school to show
our point of view, our research, to
expose to the teachers and to our
colleagues. (Earth/interview).
The path of the SP constitution at
Cocais AFs, according to Earth, begins
with the students’ mobilization in the
auditorium. This is an interesting fact
because the prerogative for the SP to exist
is to portray the concrete reality of the
students experienced in their social and
professional environment. Earth’s speech
led us to consider that, to the students, the
SP is only a construction of the questions.
The fact that Earth emphatically
highlights the personal pronoun “they”,
they pass/they explain/they propose,
denotes a veiled control of teachers with
regard to the SP trajectory and
problematizing aspect. This element also
demonstrates that, to the teachers, the SP
problematizing character is due only to the
Common Placement, moment of
socialization of the questions answered by
the students, or the research, as it calls
Earth, and that usually generates debates
about these questions’ presentation.
However, in order to substantiate a
really problematic training action, it is
necessary to break with the "... vertical
schemas ...". (Freire, 1987, p. 68). This is
an embarrassing situation at Cocais AFs,
since it is the school that has a pedagogical
model that allows it to work on the
students’ protagonism and empowerment
based on their lives’ concrete situations,
which, however, makes it possible to
oppose the daily life of the effective
implementation of the program training
action.
Earth’s statements arouse the
reflection on the students as mere
followers of stages that are gradually being
drawn in the school time and in the family
session. This is a factor that can contribute
to the rupture in the SP cycle, the absence
of the community feedback of the SP
problematizations.
This SP cycle is fundamentally
characterized by: choice of generating
themes (Training Plan); student
mobilization; thematic sensitization (it can