By *

The government of Espírito Santo treats schools like companies, in addition to adopting predetermined itineraries, with subjects placed in “sequence” without consideration for intellectual work in the form of teaching planning.

“In order for the curricular organization to be adopted – areas, inter-areas, components, projects, centers of interest, etc. – to respond to the different contexts and conditions of the systems, networks and schools across the country, it is essential that flexibility be taken as a mandatory principle.”
(BNCC, p. 479.)

Mr. Governor of Espírito Santo, Mr. Secretary of Education, Mr. Director and other potential readers, present and future:

It is essential that this document be read with the utmost attention. Everything I say applies to the Platform Letrus, an insult from the state network of Espírito Santo that can be perfectly replaced by Chat GPT, which is free.

The reasons why I do not accept the Pedagogical Routines – which, as we know, are predetermined lists or scripts, with subjects placed in “sequence” without consideration for intellectual work in the form of teaching planning – are presented in the 46-page treatise that I am attaching to this message, entitled “The farce of the Espírito Santo state education network”. Even so, I provide the following clarifications:

In the name of ethics, I must say that pedagogical routines and the PFA (Program for Strengthening Learning) are two sides of the same coin: they are an instrument whose objective is to meet abusive goals related to Paebes (Program for Evaluating Basic Education in Espírito Santo). It is as if the school were a private company. It turns out that abusive goals constitute moral harassment. Since such harassment is evident, no one can deny that pedagogical routines, the PFA and the “structured” materials also constitute harassment, in addition to, of course, constituting interference and imposture in the teaching work.

These abusive charges and the impostures inherent to them put my mental health at risk and, therefore, violate National Law 14681 and National Law 14817. (As we know, national laws do not have to be complied with only by the Union: the Federal District, the states and the municipalities have to comply with each of them as well.)

The pedagogical routines and many other nonsense of SEDU are also an affront to items I and II of Article 2 of the State Public Teaching Statute: “Art. 2º The following are manifestations of value in the exercise of teaching: I – Professionalization, understood as dedication to teaching. II – The existence of environmental work conditions that stimulate the exercise of the profession”.

A list of predetermined contents and descriptors creates conditions that make the work unfeasible, which becomes the promotion of training for Paebes, and takes away the reason for the concept of dedication to teaching. It also takes away the reason for its increasing improvement, contemplated by Article 3 of the aforementioned Statute:

“Art. 3º The following principles and guidelines on the Teaching Profession are hereby adopted: I – The progress of education depends largely on the training, human and professional qualities of the staff and their increasing improvement; II – The exercise of the teaching duties requires personal and collective responsibility for the education and well-being of students and the community. III – The exercise of the teaching duties must provide the student with the formation of a citizen capable of critically understanding social reality and making him aware of his rights and responsibilities, seeking the development of ethical values, learning to participate and his qualification for work; IV – The implementation of the ideals and purposes of education recommends that the professional enjoy a fair economic situation and public respect”.

The implementation of biweekly schedules conflicts with the purpose of training and improvement; it also clashes with the qualification for work as much as it clashes with the notion of public respect that the teacher deserves. A teacher is not a worker on a 20th century assembly line. If he has the duty to strive for constant professional and cultural improvement, he cannot accept pedagogical routines, which are incompatible with the ethos, with the image of a teacher. It is supposed to be a model of how an intellectual thinks and acts.

As if all this were not enough, the pedagogical routines, the “structured” materials – whose subjects are predetermined without the teacher’s consent – ​​and the “training” violate section IV of Article 67 of the State Teaching Statute, as they make it clear that the teacher is a pawn, not a scholar. Now, this section is very clear: it states that one of the teacher’s obligations is to strive for constant professional and cultural improvement. This is, therefore, a series of violations of this section.

The pedagogical routines in question are an administrative, pedagogical and epistemological aberration. In fact: Evanildo Bechara, Diógenes Magalhães and Joaquim Mattoso Câmara Jr. would never follow the pedagogical routines, because they know that the language of Camões, Florbela Espanca and Machado de Assis cannot be taught based on descriptors or prescriptions that treat it as if it were a set of banal, prosaic and frivolous skills.

Furthermore, the fact that the pedagogical routines violate items II, III and IX of Article 3 of the LDB (Law of Guidelines and Bases of Education) is so blatant that I do not know how it is possible that SEDU dares to implement those Routines, which, by the way, in an undeniable lack of transparency, were imposed without consulting the teachers or the school community. Items II and III of the aforementioned Article establish the right to freedom of learning and teaching and the pluralism of ideas and pedagogical concepts, while item IX establishes the guarantee of quality standards. All of this is consistent with the provisions of Article 206 of the Constitution, so my refusal is supported by it. What I will follow is my course plan, my program content. In short: I will ensure that my academic freedom is respected.

Furthermore, the political-partisan aims of PAEBES are immoral, which are the same aims as the pedagogical routines. As we know, these are far from improving the state curriculum, which is also immoral. Now, morality, like legality, is one of the principles of public administration, but SEDU violates these principles when it determines what the teacher must teach and how. Yes, it is also determining how the teacher must teach, because the teaching procedures are already embedded in the content taught in such a way that it is impossible to separate what is taught from the way it is taught. When SEDU determines what is taught, it determines the teaching method of the teacher, who is treated as if he were a McDonald's employee.

Let us see: “the method can be understood within a theoretical conception or a technical understanding. The author understands Methodology as the conception according to which reality is approached. This is a theoretical conception of the method. However, he states that there is a technical understanding of the method that also permeates the content, since “they are technical ways of acting that are within the content that is taught” (p. 138). Example: the way of extracting a square root (Mathematics) or the way of proceeding in a syntactic analysis (Portuguese). Both of them permeate the contents covered in the different curricular disciplines” [GRUMBACH and SANTOS, 2012, p. 33].

In effect: “All knowledge is permeated by a methodology and it is possible to discover in the exposed content itself the method with which it was constructed” [LUCKESI, 1995, p. 138 apud GRUMBACH and SANTOS, 2012, p. 34].

The state curriculum is not a straitjacket: it must allow for flexibility (flexibility, not the nihilism of pedagogical routines), as per the epigraph taken from the BNCC. However, criticism of the curriculum allows for the development of good course plans. What the routines do is not criticize: they override the work of the serious and educated teacher without any relationship of contiguity between each of the biweekly topics. (I will address this lack of contiguity in more detail in a later section.)

The LDB requires preparation for the world of work. The curriculum, the Paebes and the routines do not provide a basis for students who want to take public exams, in other words: they take away from them the basis they need for the exams. It is known that public positions, governed by the statutory regime, and public jobs, governed by the CLT regime, are part of the world of work. We now fall into paragraph 2 of Article 1 and Article 2 of the LDB, which mention the world of work and qualifications for work. I can say, from experience and with certainty, that the pedagogical routines do not provide students with a good basis for entrance exams, other public exams, or for life.

It is known that competitive examinations are gateways to public service. And part of the BNCC's purpose is to guarantee quality education. (The BNCC, of ​​course, is not the only source, that is: it is not the teacher's only reference. That is why it must be read in conjunction with other documents, just as each law must be read in conjunction with other laws, which end up contradicting each other). Apparently, Darwin and other schools designed for the upper middle class of Espírito Santo do not adopt pedagogical routines or descriptors. And to this day I have not heard of a SEDU bureaucrat who has allowed his children to finish high school or preschool in a public school.

The question is: why does the curriculum team consider itself more capable than I am in developing the program content? What moral and scientific reasons does SEDU have to override my academic freedom and autonomy? An article of mine about the BNCC has already been published in Press Observatory. Furthermore, I do not recognize SEDU's technical-scientific competence to establish predetermined routines or itineraries.

I am not an assembly line worker, nor am I an employee of a fast-food restaurant franchise: I am a teacher, and I am equipped with empirical-pragmatic knowledge and theoretical-academic knowledge: I know how to discern what is good for quality linguistic and literary education and what is not. If there were a complacent audience, I would be able to shout, in a public square, that the routines and training imposed by the SEDU employees and the employees of the employees are inept, who on each day of training provide evidence against themselves: they denounce the ugly portrait of their poor linguistic training. (Since SEDU is a fruit that falls from the tree that is UFES, we immediately have proof of the moral failure of undergraduate courses, as evident as the epistemological failure of departments marked by provincialism and local and regional bossiness. I say this because there are many doctors who, in the name of benefits, say heresies about language teaching and about teaching in general. This is the result of the massification of education.)

Parents who read the state curriculum and routines will not understand anything: they do not make sense. If they read my course plan and my lesson plans, they will be able to get an idea of ​​what I propose. I am much more transparent than SEDU. By the way: if the RPs already exist, what is the reason for the course plan? Why does SEDU require the preparation of such a plan? Would this be a case of cognitive dissonance?

Epistemological errors

I will not discuss the fallacy of “active” methodologies: I have already debunked that nonsense in published article Site the earth is round. I will try to address aspects that I may not have analyzed.

Normative grammar has been removed from the curriculum. It is known that language teaching cannot be reduced to teaching grammar. However, it has to be taught, and pedagogical routines make this work difficult not only due to the lack of contiguity, but also due to the lack of understanding of how to use grammatical nomenclature, which requires effort and concentration, attributes that schools no longer demand because they are afraid of their voters, parents. This is, of course, immoral, because it is immoral not to require students to study as much as it is immoral not to require families to conduct themselves morally. In this context of demoralization, schools lose prestige and respect to such an extent that families feel free to do whatever they want in the face of the cowardice and neglect of the public administration.

Knowing grammar is not the same as knowing the language. Let us see what linguist Diógenes Magalhães (1999, p. 13) says: “It is known that the Portuguese language began to be officially used in Portugal during the time of Dom Dinis. It was that king who ordered that documents signed in Portugal should be written in Portuguese. (Until then, documents were written in Latin – although it was a Latin that was almost unrecognizable, it was so broken). Now, Dom Dinis lived from 1261 to 1325, and the first Portuguese grammar only appeared in 1536 (written by Fernão de Oliveira). If we do the math, we will easily see that the Portuguese language existed in real and official form for more than two hundred years – without there being a book called grammar to discipline it. [...] ”

In the time of Dom Dinis, professionals in the field of words had to deal with a barbaric language. They did not have access to a lexicon that was cemented thanks to Camões and other great writers; they could not use dictionaries or grammars, nor did they have access to encyclopedias. Any language of culture must be taught with the help of grammar, and this can only be done with due contiguity. We cannot penalize good students or good minds with a medieval education.

Students must never have opened a grammar book, and a dictionary is an instrument they are unfamiliar with. The very concept of grammar is ignored by them. If SEDU and its bureaucrats understood what they were doing, they would be keeping professional librarians in state schools, where libraries are closed most of the time; in the same way, they would be choosing teaching materials of proven quality. One of them is the book. Learn and practice grammar, by Mauro Ferreira. (Perhaps this disregard for good grammar teaching explains the excess of teachers on temporary assignment in the Espírito Santo state network.)

One of the mistakes made by “structured” materials and pedagogical routines is the concept of standard norm. They are being guided by the pseudoscientific and pasteurized bias of an anti-scientific sociolinguistics. What students need to know are three principles: (i) there is uniqueness within plurality, and that is why people from different parts of Brazil and Portugal can understand each other and can read Portuguese-speaking authors from different countries; (ii) one dialect tends to be the model for others, as demonstrated by the Paris dialect, which cemented the standard standard of the French language in contrast to other dialects, which follow the most prestigious dialect; (iii) speech and writing are completely different forms of expressing thought, with no possibility of hybridity, a fact that WhatsApp will never change.

We are faced with a lack of metalinguistic knowledge (as opposed to the fallacy of “epilinguistic” knowledge, mentioned by Marcos Bagno and other ignorant and alienated individuals who have never taught in basic education). Literacy and learning foreign languages ​​require metalinguistic knowledge: in order to be literate and achieve some degree of bilingualism, the student must read fiction and poetry, but he or she must also have an understanding of phonemes, spelling, word classes, and the fact that the language is used when the subject of conversation is the language itself.

This is known as metalanguage. Literate people who do not have this repertoire are not literate, because without it (the repertoire) there is no good linguistic proficiency, which is covered in the third class of my syllabus. All of this is consistent with the fact that metalinguistic knowledge is part of encyclopedic knowledge, which, in turn, is also world knowledge to be incorporated into prior knowledge.

But I was talking about the lack of contiguity. Well then: in one fortnight of the 1st Year pedagogical routines (the 3rd fortnight), the dissertative-argumentative genre is addressed (with total disregard for the difference between textual typology and textual genre); in the immediately following fortnight (the 4th), the topic to be addressed is language models and linguistic variations, topics permeated by a very poorly written preamble of the concepts of language and the concept of semiosis and the notions of punctuation, morphosyntax and style; in the 5th fortnight, the subject is Portuguese medieval poetry, presented without any mention of the difference between literary text (literature) and non-literary text (writing).

If there were a crime against science, or against teaching, those responsible for teaching routines would have very serious problems with the law. First, the difference between literature and writing is taught, and only then are text typologies and genres that employ such typologies discussed in writing (in writing, not in literature). And I cannot talk about morphosyntax without first exploring the concepts of grammar, morphemes and syntax. As for the concepts of language and semiosis, the situation could not be more disastrous: the types of sign (index, icon, symbol and linguistic sign) are not even mentioned.

However, the worst thing is the fact that they anticipated, in a very superficial way, the types of linguistic variation. It is a separate tragedy regarding the levels of register (or diaphasic variations), which do not depend only on the situation, but also on the speaker's repertoire, on the difference between literature and writing, and on the differences between textual genres, which highlights intersections with diastratic variation and idiolect. Diaphasic variation is not only situational: it is stylistic. And all of this should be covered in later classes.

In pedagogical routines, this sequence is not respected: it is peremptorily disregarded. It is as if SEDU wanted me to drive from Serra to Vila Velha without going through Vitória or Cariacica. The authors of the pedagogical routines and the “structured” materials gave the content an arbitrary “sequence”. The results can only be disastrous. The eternal victim is the student, who tends to be exploited by the bourgeoisie, the nation-state and its state apparatuses. The school, of course, is one of them. I would not be the least bit surprised if I discovered that it was all done by artificial intelligence.

It is more than obvious that everything I am denouncing in this document disrespects section IX of Article 3 of the LDB, which establishes the standard of quality of education, and which is in accordance with the qualification for work and, therefore, for public examinations. Since pedagogical routines reduce this standard, they reduce the chances of students in the public service, which can only be entered through public examinations (commissioned positions are the minority). Everyone knows that the examinations require metalinguistic knowledge that is in my syllabus.

It is striking that they do not establish a Literature subject, whose content is clumsily shoved into the Portuguese Language subject. This is as bad as cramming items into the same drawer that should be ironed, folded and stored in different drawers. I had a lot of work to develop a course plan that included literature. There is also no Writing subject. The teacher ends up including topics from three subjects in the same syllabus, so he ends up applying more than one program.

The devaluation of literature is clear in the table above, but it is implicit in the hypocrisy of paying lip service to it. This same lack of respect is also implicit not only in questions based on journalistic texts, written by professionals who are poor at handling language, according to a determinism of the profession of journalists (whose communication channel is used to wrap fish), but also in questions based on short comic strips. The objective of such questions is one: to reinforce the student's preparation for the consumption of artifacts from the cultural industry, which fosters mass culture and alienation.

There is more: I regret the brutality of the frankness, but the “trainers” of the “training” courses, whose language habits are very regular, give public certificates of ignorance. And it is very clear that the pedagogical routines are aligned with the “training”, which takes away the time that I could fill with tasks related to my classes or my doctoral project kept in the drawer (contemplated, even if implicitly, by Article 67 of the State Teaching Statute). It seems that the condition sine qua non to dictate continuing education and pedagogical routines is the lack of academic knowledge or the lack of epistemological rigor.

Let's see: They talk so much about recomposing learning, but only what has already been composed and decomposed (that is: separated into several parts) can be recomposed. Now, what SEDU imposes by force of symbolic, psychological and institutional violence is precisely fragmentary teaching.

As far as the argument goes, I am very surprised (although I should not be surprised) that José Luiz Fiorin's name does not appear in the references. This is only astonishing as the fact that they do not distinguish between typology and gender. In fact: two hundred bipedal beings with eyes, ears, a torso, cognition and the ability to use verbal language are individuals or particular existences, but they belong to the human gender; analogously, two hundred excellent essays written in the Enem essay test belong to the Enem essay discursive test genre, which is different from the dissertation genre of the UERJ entrance exam, which, in turn, is different from the dissertation genre of the Fuvest entrance exam.

If the reader has followed my reasoning and has some prior knowledge of Linguistics, he will understand that these different genres use the same typology, and will remember that genres are unlimited and socially recognized by their compositional structure. Each genre has its own specificities, so that it is not always possible to identify, in a single sentence, or in a single topic sentence (or topic paragraph), the thesis of the introductory paragraph.

One does not “find” or “dig up” a thesis as if it were a coin lost in a sofa, at least not when it is very complex or interpreted within very broad limits, which are obviously circumscribed within the text itself and the author’s intentions. (These are not absolute due to the unconscious and ideologies.)

Let us now read the first three paragraphs of an article entitled “New barbarity: 'student inadmissibility'”, by Marilena Chauí (2018, p. 365), originally published on December 12, 1999 in the newspaper Folha de S. Paul:

“The day after the publication of new data from the IBGE census, according to which around 90% of Brazilian children are in school, the press published the news that private schools intend to require a guarantor at the time of enrollment and want to expel “defaulting” students even before the end of the school year. Then, on December 4, the Sheet reported the case of students prevented from taking exams due to late payment of tuition fees.

As surprising as the news was the way in which it was discussed: lawyers argued whether the demands of the school industry owners were legal or not; unemployed parents declared that they would be forced to transfer their children to public schools, expressing in this attitude the feeling of descent, inferiority and almost punishment caused by unemployment; the MEC declared that the attitude of the owners was “acceptable”, although perhaps not constitutional or legal; students of supplementary courses, excluded from the tests, explained that their salaries are divided between paying for school and helping their families, making late payments inevitable; the press recommended that they seek out Procon and the Consumer Rights Defense Commission. And so it went.

Three aspects of the problem did not appear in the news or in the discussions they sparked: (i) No one seems to have seen a contradiction between the IBGE data and the exclusion of “defaulting” students. (ii) No one seems to have been interested in the parents’ complaints about feeling forced to transfer their children to public schools. (iii) No one seems to have been impressed by the treatment given to education when it is subject to market rules and should be protected by consumer protection agencies.”

As we can see, reading a text is not just a skill like digging. Marilena Chaui needed three paragraphs to introduce the text: the excerpt above is just the introduction. The genre is an article; therefore, it is not an essay for college entrance exams, but in both genres the predominant typology tends to be argumentation, so that both are dissertative-argumentative. In any case, even I, who conduct assessments that are completely structured around objective questions, recognize that a multiple-choice question may not be enough to identify the thesis of the excerpt above, which can and should be read in elementary and high school.

We can, of course, say that the text is in favor of one thesis while at the same time being against another: it is true that Marilena Chaui is against the privatization of education and in favor of free, quality public education. We can also say that she is against it becoming a commodity or private service.

I saw, clearly seen, that the curriculum team confuses teaching with research. However, those who understand the risks are not fooled: In the 4th section of chapter 2 of School & Democracy (44th ed., 2021, p. 37-8), Dermeval Saviani is very enlightening: “[...] traditional teaching proposed to transmit knowledge obtained by science, therefore, already compiled, systematized and incorporated into the cultural heritage of humanity. This is why this type of teaching, traditional teaching, focuses on the teacher, the adult, who dominates logically structured and organized knowledge, while the new methods focus on the student (the children), on the procedures and on the psychological aspect, that is, they focus on the motivations and interests of the child in developing the procedures that lead him to the possession of knowledge capable of answering his doubts and questions. In short, here, in the new methods, priority is given to the processes of obtaining knowledge, while there, in the traditional methods, priority is given to the methods of transmitting knowledge already obtained. [...] See that with this way of interpreting education, the New School ended up dissolving the difference between research and teaching, without realizing that, in doing so, at the same time that teaching was impoverished, research was also made unfeasible. Teaching is not a research process. Wanting to transform it into a research process is to artificialize it. Hence my prefix pseudo to the scientist of new methods. I will try to explain this a little bit more. Why was teaching impoverished and at the same time research was made unfeasible?

You see, if research is an incursion into the unknown, and therefore cannot be tied to rigidly logical and preconceived schemes, it is also true that: first, the unknown can only be defined by confrontation with the known, that is, if one does not master what is already known, it is not possible to detect what is not yet known, in order to incorporate it, through research, into the domain of what is already known. This seems to me to be one of the great weaknesses of the new methods. Without mastery of what is known, it is not possible to incur into the unknown. And this also lies the great strength of traditional teaching: the incursion into the unknown was always done through what is known, and this is very simple; any researcher apprentice has gone through this or is going through it, and any researcher knows very well that no one becomes a researcher, a scientist, if he does not master the knowledge already existing in the area in which he proposes to be a researcher, to be a scientist.”

Every time a “training” is carried out, it becomes clear that the epistemological errors above are the foundation of SEDU’s guidelines. Such errors are also one of the foundations of pedagogical routines and “structured” materials.

Another very obvious error is the harmful notion that students need to practice the ability to “infer” the meaning of a word. That such nonsense can be in the minds of children is neither surprising nor shocking — but that adults with college degrees feed this nonsense is both surprising and shocking: it is appalling. The words impostor and imposture are cognates: they have the same root, but students have to consult a dictionary or glossary to know what the latter means.

We now come to the concept of procedural content, to use the pedantic “scientific” terminology used by educators: knowing how to consult a dictionary is a procedure that I have mastered since I was a child, a phase of life in which, thanks to a traditional, transmissive, content-based education, I learned to put words in alphabetical order, which is followed by dictionaries. We also come to the concept of active, passive, and unknown vocabulary. And the problem does not end there: semantic ambiguity, structural ambiguity, polysemy, homonyms, hyponyms, hypernyms, synonymy (which is always imperfect), antonyms, and ideologies directly influence the interpretation of what we hear and read.

Different types of knowledge also have an influence. Note that in the first section of this letter, I used the terms teleology and cognitive dissonance. The noun is used in both Law and Biology, while the term cognitive dissonance is used in Social Psychology. The word psychometry has very different (perhaps even opposite) meanings in Psychology and in esotericism (or occultism). The expression regressive action is another example: only those with specialized knowledge from a reliable source know what it means.

“Inference,” therefore, is a false skill. Even when we infer unspoken information from what has been said, we must be careful: presupposition and inference are two very different types of implicit information: the first is a certainty, a truth that we can guarantee, while the second is always a possibility. The truth is that it is essential to teach a language that takes into account the importance of the dictionary, homonymy, and the other phenomena mentioned.

From all that is stated here, Mr. Governor and Mr. Secretary, it is clear that structured materials are not vehicles for structuring content: what they provide is a lack of structure, and for that very reason they are unstructured. Therefore, the curriculum management is practicing a series of interferences. I will not allow good intelligence, even if they are a very small minority, to become instruments of inept external evaluations: students are not guinea pigs. If SEDU wants results in those exams, it should expect students to study and take the tests. Saying that you do not trust my work is as disrespectful as a slap in the face.

If any “structured” material, in this or that fortnight, coincides with what I had planned, that will have been a mere coincidence. I do not abide by pedagogical routines: I cannot betray my professional conscience. By maintaining my stance, I avoid implementing pedagogical routines in my classroom – which I am in charge of –, I maintain my psychological well-being, as contemplated by National Law 14681 and National Law 14817, I ensure an attempt to maintain a quality standard provided for in item IX of the LDB, I respect item IV of Article 67 of the State Teaching Statute and I increase students’ chances in the world of work, which includes the civil service.

Greetings.

*Marcio Alessandro de Oliveira He has a master's degree in Literary Studies from UERJ and is a teacher in the Espírito Santo state network..

References

BRAZIL. Federal Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. In: Planalto website. Available at: < https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm >. Accessed on: November 13, 2024.

______. Common Base National Curriculum, In: gov.br. Available at: < https://www.gov.br/mec/pt-br/escola-em-tempo-integral/BNCC_EI_EF_110518_versaofinal.pdf >. Accessed on: March 5, 2025.

______. 14681 Law, of September 18, 2023. Institutes the Policy of Well-being, Health and Quality of Life at Work and Appreciation of Education Professionals. In: Planalto Website. Available at: . Accessed on: November 03, 2023.

______. 14817 Law, of January 16, 2024. Establishes guidelines for the appreciation of professionals in public basic school education. In: Planalto website. Available at: . Accessed on: November 03, 2023.

CARNEIRO, Moaci Alves. Easy LDB: critical-comprehensive reading, article by article. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2018.

CHAUÍ, Marilena. In defense of public, free and democratic education (organized by Homero Santiago). 1st ed. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, 2018, p. 365-8.

HOLY SPIRIT. Complementary Law 46, of January 31, 1994 (Statute of Civil Servants of the State of Espírito Santo). In: Server Portal. Available at: < https://www3.al.es.gov.br/arquivo/documents/legislacao/html/lec461994.html >. Accessed on: November 13, 2024.

______. Complementary Law 115, of January 13, 1998 (State Public Teaching Statute). In: Legislative Assembly Website. Available at: . Accessed on: November 3, 1151998.

______. Complementary Law 5580, of January 13, 1998 (Career and Salary Plan for the Public Teaching Profession of the State of Espírito Santo). In: Website of the Legislative Assembly. Available at: < https://www3.al.es.gov.br/arquivo/documents/legislacao/html/lei55801998.html >. Accessed on: November 13, 2024.

FIORIN, Jose Luis. Argumentation. 2nd ed. 1st reprint. São Paulo: Contexto, 2023.

MAGALHÃES, Diogenes. Writing based on Linguistics (not Grammar). 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

SANTOS, Ana Lucia Cardoso; GRUMBACH, Gilda Maria. Didactics for Bachelor's Degree: Support for Teaching Practice (v. 1 and v. 2). 2nd ed. and 3rd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Cecierj Foundation, 2012.

SAVIANI, Dermeval. School & Democracy. 44th ed. Campinas, SP: Associated Authors, 2021.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE