Introduction

The National Education Council (NEC) was created by Law No. 4.024/1961 (^{Brazil, 1961}), as amended by Law No. 9.131/1995 (^{Brazil, 1995}), and is made up of the Basic Education Chamber (BEC) and the Higher Education Chamber (HEC), each made up of 12 board members. Among the duties of the education chambers that make up the NEC is to deliberate on curriculum guidelines proposed by the Ministry of Education and to monitor the implementation of the National Education Plan (NEP).

Law No. 9.131/1995 also establishes that the appointments of the board members will be made by the President of the Republic and must (at least half of the nominees) be made in consultation with the areas of activity of the respective collegiate bodies. Board members will have a four-year term of office, with reappointment permitted for the immediately following period, with half of the chambers being renewed every two years. Thus, the chambers should be diverse in terms of the board member’s area of educational activity and the regions of the country.

Among their duties, the NEC’s members played an important role in drawing up the policies that made up the political-educational culture of the 1990s. The plurality of the body’s formation is understood through their formative trajectories, their expression in the academic production of the members and understood as indications of their political and academic positions. This was an intense period for Brazilian education and has had its repercussions on educational policy to this day.

In this respect, we are reminded of the scholars who see the current educational reforms as a resumption of the educational project of the 1990s, of which the BEC/NEC members were a part. ^{Ciavatta and Ramos (2012}) compared the 1998 and 2012 versions of the National Curriculum Guidelines for Secondary Education (NCGSE) and found that the latter maintained an adaptive and uncritical view of the labor market and its functionality for the business sectors, a continuation of the 1998 NCGSE, even in a period when the seat of power was occupied by a group with a progressive leaning.

^{Motta and Frigotto (2017}) highlighted the speed with which the reform of secondary education was approved, followed by the National Common Curriculum Base (NCCB) for Secondary Education in 2018. For the authors, this reform eliminated secondary education as the last stage of basic education and deepened the changes foreshadowed in the 1990s. ^{Silva (2018}) understands that the discourse of the current High School Reform goes back to the educational conceptions of the mid-1990s, producing a managed education.

In view of the above, we ask: in what way did the educational trajectories of the BEC/NEC members contribute to the constitution of the political-educational culture of the 1990s? Does their academic output reflect their relevance in the field of education and their role in shaping the political-educational culture? Did these elements contribute to the continuity of the political-educational culture?

Thus, based on ^{Bloch’s (2001}) understanding that history as such cannot be the object of science, and that its object is humans in time, we aimed to analyze the training trajectories and academic production of the BEC/NEC members from 1996 to 2002 to understand their influence on the constitution of the political-educational culture and the consequences for its continuity.

Theory and method

As a theoretical-methodological foundation, we have adopted critical-documentary analysis (^{Bloch, 2001}). Writing about historical observation, Bloch (2001, p. 73) states that “[...] as a first characteristic, knowledge of all human facts in the past, and most of them in the present, must be knowledge through traces”. We are therefore looking for traces of the training and academic output of the BEC/NEC members (1996-2002) to show how their conceptions of education constituted the political-educational culture of that period and continued to influence Brazilian education.

We used ^{Ginzburg’s (1989}) indicative paradigm to capture the clues and indications left in the sources, highlighting the subjects’ conceptions. We also used the concepts of center and periphery and power relations (^{Ginzburg, 1991}) to understand the disputes in the constitution of a political culture, expressed through the tension between “tactics” and “strategy”⁵ (^{Certeau, 2011}).

To analyse the subjects’ perspectives when faced with situations that required decision-making and positioning in relation to educational policies, we used ^{Certeau’s (2011}) concept of “place of power”.⁶

^{Berstein (2009}, p. 31) defines political culture as: “[...] a group of representations carrying norms and values that constitute the identity of large political families and that go far beyond the reductionist notion of a political party”. In addition, we mobilized ^{Sirinelli’s (2003}) theorizing to understand the subjects as intellectuals and the motivations that lead them to come together in groups. We also adopted ^{Ory and Sirinelli’s (2007}, p. 21) conceptualization of “intellectual”, which they understand as: “[...] a man of the cultural, a creator or mediator placed in the situation of a man of the political, a producer or consumer of ideology”.

The study uses the board members’ Lattes CVs as sources and when we could not find the information, we turned to Google. For the analysis, we also considered productions after the time frame established in this study, because in these publications the board members reflect on Brazilian education in that period (1996-2002). This article is organized into two analytical sections: the first deals with the formative trajectories and the second analyses the academic production of the board members.

Formative trajectory

Of the 23 board members who served on the BEC/NEC (1996-2002), 11 had a doctorate, 2 had a master’s degree and 10 had a bachelor’s degree. The level of education of the board members was directly related to their academic relevance, the volume of scientific productions and also to the positions they occupied.

The masters and doctors came from teaching at universities, such as Carlos Roberto Jamil Cury (UFMG), Nelio Marco Vicenzo Bizzo (USP), Raquel Figueiredo Alessandri Teixeira (UFG) and Hermengarda Alves Lüdke (PUC-Rio; UFF), to name a few. Among the masters, Antenor Manoel Naspolini was a professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) and Kuno Paulo Rhoden was also a university Professor (UFPR), but his main role was as principal of state and confessional (private) schools.

The board members who had degrees came from private schools, in management positions (Arthur Fonseca Filho, Sylvia Figueiredo Gouvêa, Ulysses de Oliveira Panisset, Fábio Luiz Marinho Aidar), others participated in State Education Councils (Edla de Araújo Lira Soares) and there were also those who came from multilateral organizations, such as UNESCO (Ana Luiza Machado Pinheiro). Some of them were state education secretaries (Iara Silvia Lucas Wortmann) and Iara Glória Areias Prado was a natural member.

We understand that the level of education was not directly linked to the importance of the member in the body, such as Iara Glória Areias Prado, who has a degree in History and is a natural member of the BEC/NEC (as she is the Secretary for Primary Education). We highlight her importance as she represents the place of power in the Council. The BEC/NEC members had diverse backgrounds, even though the majority were graduates, an aspect that indicates a plurality arising from the very process of formation of the body.

Education training is the basis of a body responsible for regulating educational legislation, but the plurality of the board members’ backgrounds is a positive point in the body’s constitution. In this way, the opinions and resolutions issued are diverse in terms of issues related to basic education, but also to its modalities (youth and adult education and technical and professional education), requiring board members to substantiate their decisions on different issues.

The predominance of training in undergraduate areas in BEC/NEC training, as shown in Figure 1, which is expected of this chamber, is pertinent, above all, because of the changes that occurred in the Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education - LDBEN/1996 on teacher training, a law that would be subject to standardization by the board members who should standardize a more flexible model in terms of specificities and focus, and more rigid in terms of the requirement for the level of training and continuing training.

Another relevant aspect for analyzing and understanding the training trajectory of BEC/NEC members is to consider the advisors who contributed to forming and constituting the theoretical framework through which the board members understand education. We believe that there is no deterministic ascendancy of the advisors’ thinking in relation to their advisees, but rather a process of appropriation intrinsic to the subjects’ subjectivity.

Dermeval Saviani was the advisor of two BEC/NEC members from that period: Guiomar Namo de Mello and Carlos Roberto Jamil Cury. Both professors were part of the first group of PhDs in Education at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP). This group, which began in 1978, strengthened the interpretation and thinking of Brazilian education from a Marxist perspective. For ^{Saviani (2005}), the studies conducted by the group went beyond the denunciation phase to develop solutions, opposing the traditional alternatives of that period.

Carlos Roberto Jamil ^{Cury (1979}) wrote the doctoral thesis “Educação e contradição: elementos metodológicos para uma teoria crítica do fenômeno educativo (Education and contradiction: methodological elements for a critical theory of the educational phenomenon)”, while Guiomar Namo de ^{Mello (1982}a) presented “Ensino de primeiro grau da competência técnica ao compromisso político (Primary education: from technical competence to political commitment)”, under the guidance of Professor Saviani. In addition to the Marxist interpretative keys, the authors began to mobilize Antonio Gramsci’s theory to understand education in Brazil, a pioneering aspect of that doctoral class at PUC-SP. Mello also appropriated ^{Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1975}) theory of reproduction, combining it with Marxist thought, especially to understand the question of ideology. ^{Cury (1979}), on the other hand, looked to ^{Snyders (1977}) and ^{Baudelot and Establet (1971}), as well as Marx and Gramsci, to understand the proposition of a critical theory of the educational phenomenon, mainly to create categories, using the concepts of these theorists, that would help him understand that education was not just about domination, discussing domination in relation to contradiction.

^{Saviani (2011}) stated that his reading of Marx was systematically deepened by conversations he had with Professor Casemiro dos Reis Filho. He was advised to appropriate the author’s thinking because of his interests. His reading of Gramsci arose from the demand of the students in the first doctoral class at PUC-SP.

The start of the doctorate in Education at PUC-SP, of which Cury and Mello were part, was not only responsible for underpinning their conceptions and therefore influencing their professional work. In addition, it formed the basis of Brazilian educational thinking from the late 1970s onwards, so Gramsci and Marx are still widely used theoretical references in educational discussions, especially in studies that have an educational policy as their object.⁷

^{Vidal (2011}, p. 20) points out that, in addition to the prominence of the Postgraduate Program in Education at PUC-SP at the end of the 1970s, this course was even more important due to the relevance of the intellectuals in Saviani’s group, as well as himself, in important spaces in the field of education:

In 1977, the National Association for Research and Postgraduate Studies in Education (ANPEd) was founded. In 1978, the Center for Education and Society Studies (Cedes) was founded, whose foundation was formalized in the minutes of the meeting held on March 5, 1979, the year in which the National Education Association (Ande) was created [...] Dermeval Saviani was a founding member of all three entities, forged in the process of combating the educational policy of the military regime and willing to link the theoretical discussion present in universities to the pedagogical work of schools.

In this regard, Professor Saviani’s work was also responsible for nucleating other research groups from those he supervised, such as Carlos Roberto Jamil Cury at UFMG and later at PUC-SP; Luiz Antônio Cunha at Unicamp, UFF and UFRJ; Gaudêncio Frigotto at UFF and Uerj, to name a few. When discussing his definition of education in the 1980s, ^{Saviani (1980}, p. 126) conceptualized it as “[...] a mediating activity within global social practice [...]”, with society as his starting point, but he stressed:

I have not had time to put this definition into writing yet. However, my insistence on various occasions has already borne fruit. Carlos Roberto Jamil Cury took it upon himself to develop the concept of mediation as one of the key categories for understanding the educational phenomenon (Cury, 1985). Something similar happened with Guiomar N. Mello, who built a vision of the school based on the concept of mediation (Mello, 1982) (^{Saviani, 1980}, p. 129).

We understand that the relevance of Cury and Mello indicates Saviani’s investment in leaving these students the task of continuing their reflections and studies, with the theoretical framework they used as the basis for their interpretations of the political and educational situation of that period. Saviani’s understanding and that of the group of doctors he trained were based on the contradiction between education and society, with the school’s central concern being social problems and helping to solve them through education.

In his thesis, ^{Cury (1979}) developed the basis for the concept of mediation based on the relationship between education and hegemony. ^{Mello (1982}b) looked at the daily life of primary schools, relating mediation to teachers’ practices, both in terms of technical competence and political commitment (to social issues). Both professors were based on ^{Marx’s (1973}) dialectical conception of science, in the method of political economy, whereby the study must start from reality and the contradiction established by capitalism, which divides society into classes with opposing interests.

Mello had already studied the technical competence of teachers during his master’s degree, under the guidance of Bernadete Angelina Gatti. Her dissertation aimed to defend the validity of classroom observation as a methodology for evaluating teaching and research based on the concept of teacher competence.

When we analyze Mello’s training, we notice that his interest in the technical competence of teachers and ways of evaluating it dates back to his master’s degree, the analytical perspective of which was to establish a theory of teaching and learning that could constitute a logically valid source and, from this, draw the variables to be investigated (^{Mello, 1974}). Thus, the teaching-learning theory to be adopted had to be normative, as well as descriptive, so that the evaluation of teaching and teachers could include the dimensions of efficiency and effectiveness.

The difference between his doctoral study and his master’s was the inclusion of the discussion of classes, mediation, reproduction theory and the political dimension, from a Marxist perspective of the teacher’s work, a direct influence of his supervisor and the group he was part of during his doctorate. Thus, the doctorate, her circulation in political spaces (holding elected positions and in public administration), and also her post-doctorate at the Institute of Education at the University of London led Mello to move away from the conceptions of her doctoral advisor, bringing her closer to educational thought and her studies in the master’s degree, influenced by the new readings and spaces in which she began to circulate.

Mello’s relations with her master’s advisor remained closer than those she had with Saviani, which indicates that Mello was more aligned with Gatti’s conceptions of education than with Saviani’s. In an interview with the Carlos Chagas Foundation, Mello cited Saviani as an important researcher and partner. In an interview in 2011, Gatti cited Mello as an important researcher and partner at the Carlos Chagas Foundation:

Then there was also the critical sense of my colleagues, researchers at the Carlos Chagas Foundation, with our dialogues, which only increased the care taken with the research proposals - the experienced ones, whom I have already mentioned, and the younger ones, like Carmen Barroso, Nara Bernardes, “Guiomar Mello” (^{Garcia, 2011}, p. 39, emphasis added).

In addition, Gatti published a book chapter under Mello’s coordination in 2013, and the two would come together in the discussions on the Common National Curriculum - CNC, in Todos Pela Educação (All for Education) (TPE) and also in the recent debates on teacher training.

Unlike Mello, Cury remained aligned with his doctoral advisor, both in terms of the theoretical references he adopted and his political and educational positions. We highlight the political alignment of the two professors based on their position when they were awarded the Anísio Teixeira Prize on October 26, 2016, when Michel Temer was in power:

In accepting [the award nomination], we cannot forget that we are in positions opposed to the current government and this embarrasses us in the face of a ceremony that could mean support for measures that could restrict our commitment to quality education. This circumstance also embarrasses us because participation in this ceremony would put us at odds with the example of the award’s patron in his uncompromising defense of democracy [...] (^{Cury & Saviani, 2016}).

Thus, we understand that they were aligned not only in their conception of education, but also in their project for the country and their understanding of democracy, which puts them in harmony in terms of how they analyze educational policies, especially since they have maintained their theoretical references since their doctorates.

Other board members had important advisors in the Brazilian education and research scene. Lucia Merces Avelar, João Antônio Cabral de Monlevade’s advisor, is a researcher in the field of social policy with a focus on gender discussions and electoral dynamics. However, we believe that there is no considerable influence of the advisor on the advisee, since the absence of reference and dialog with Avelar in Monlevade’s production are indications of this movement.

Advisors such as Myriam Krasilchik (Nelio Marco Vicenzo Bizzo’s advisor), José Aderaldo Castello (Neroaldo Pontes de Azevedo’s advisor) and Bruna Franchetto (Francisca Novantino Pinto de Ângelo’s advisor) focus their research and projects on specific fields that somehow involve education: Biology, Literature, and Indigenous Languages, respectively.

In this way, even if the influence over their advisees continued to a certain extent, as in the case of Bizzo in relation to Professor Myriam Krasilchik, maintaining dialogue (reference) and publishing about her (^{Bizzo & Kelly, 1991}), the production of both the board members and those who trained them has little to do with educational policy, which does not demerit them, even if they had to appropriate this field of education to produce opinions that were not always related to their areas of training. About his advisor, Bizzo wrote: “Myriam Krasilchik is a teacher and model to forward-looking educators. She often lectures and would rather be a resource provider, trying to inject new ideas and to widen students’ perspectives, than a controller” (^{Bizzo & Kelly, 1991}).

The publication of Professor Krasilchik in an international journal highlights her academic importance and the admiration of her students and advisees. We would also like to point out that other board members were trained abroad, such as Regina Alcântra Assis, advised by Leslie Rowell Williams (United States) and Hermengarda Alves Lüdke, advised by Viviane Isambert-Jamati (France). Lüdke, whose studies focus on teacher training and assessment, has been in dialogue with Isambert-Jamati’s production and conceptions since the beginning of her academic career, especially in her advisor’s studies on the science of education and the conceptual rigor of the terms used to define it.

In addition to the intellectual trajectory of the subjects linked to their academic training and their relationship with other intellectuals, we highlight the network of sociability as a potential formative factor. Father Kuno Paulo Rhoden was nominated by the National Forum of State Education Councils (FNCEE) to sit on the NEC and represented both the interests of private schools and religious education. Rhoden had links with the Catholic Education Association of Brazil (AEC), the ^{National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB}), and the Union of Private Education Companies (Sinepe). Rhoden’s circulation in these spaces indicates his religious background (Catholic) and his proximity to private education. However, the fact that he was chosen by these institutions to be a member of the NEC is also due to his unquestionable intellectual background (he has a degree in Classical Literature, teaches History, Portuguese, and Theology, and is fluent in four languages).

Another representative of religious institutions on the NEC was Ulysses de Oliveira Panisset, who was rector of the Izabela Hendrix Methodist Institute, had links with the General Council of Methodist Educational Institutions (Cogeime), the Methodist World Council and was nominated by the FNCEE to sit on the NEC. As well as his educational background being based on religious precepts (Evangelical), Panisset also served on municipal and state education councils (in Minas Gerais), which shows his recognition as an educational intellectual.

We, therefore, understand that these intellectuals with a background in religious education and representatives of this type of institution on the NEC indicate the influence of confessional and private education on the standardization of Brazilian education. This movement is explicitly evidenced by institutions such as the ^{National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB, 1990}, p. 1): “Constitutionally recognized community, confessional and philanthropic schools [...] are entitled to public resources [...]. Elementary schools must be financed by the public authorities if they are made free of charge”. ^{Josgrilberg (2012}) considers Cogeime to be a catalyst for Methodist (and Evangelical) influence in Brazil, equating it with the CNBB in its defense of confessional values.

In this way, religious institutions maintained their influence on the constitution of Brazil’s political-educational culture through intellectuals with solid educational backgrounds and who were as respectable in the educational field as they were in the confessional field. One example is Opinion 1/1997, reported by Ulysses de Oliveira Panisset, which dealt with the Preliminary Guidelines of the Basic Education Chamber on LDBEN/1996, an assignment of the NEC. The purpose of this opinion was to clarify questions from education systems and institutions, which we consider to be extremely important given the enactment of the education law (which still governs us today). We would also highlight Opinion 17/2001, reported by Kuno Paulo Rhoden and Sylvia Figueiredo Gouvêa, which discussed the National Guidelines for Special Education in Basic Education, and guaranteed that this population would be catered for by education systems, whether public or private, which should be based on the principles of inclusive education. These processes show the influence of intellectuals, based on their educational trajectories and social networks, not only in their traditional areas of activity, but also in the constitution of Brazilian political-educational culture as a whole.

The subjects’ educational backgrounds allow us to understand the political-educational culture to which they belong or approach. We believe that the role of board members as intellectuals must be captured in their relationship with other intellectuals (and also with institutions), highlighting the intellectual composition of specific groups that come together, in this case, based on their theoretical and epistemological conceptions of education. In addition, the formative trajectories of the board members and their (dis)continuities help us to understand their positions concerning the educational projects in dispute at the time, such as the different proposals for the NEP: one from society and the other from the federal government in 1997, especially since it was one of the NEC’s responsibilities to regulate the NEP.

Analysis of academic production

By analyzing the intellectual production of the BEC/NEC members, we were able to capture evidence of their academic relevance, as well as the circulation of their conceptions in the scientific community, in specific periods and by year of publication, highlighting the way in which their conceptions influenced the disputes over different educational projects.

Of the 23 board members who served on the BEC/NEC between 1996 and 2002, 16 of them had some kind of academic production, including articles, books, and book chapters, which we have considered in the analysis of this study, even if other types and sources were generated by the subjects as a result of their characteristic as intellectuals.

^{Sirinelli (2003}) understands that groups of intellectuals come together because of a common ideological or cultural sensibility and affinities that may be responsible for their desire to work together. However, the gathering of these intellectuals at BEC/NEC was heterogeneous. They were appointed by different institutions, with different interests and different ways of thinking about education.

We understand that the education intellectuals who made up the BEC/NEC did not form a genuine sociability, like the institutions that appointed them. In fact, the gathering of these intellectuals in the body only contemplated one characteristic of sociability, according to ^{Sirinelli (2003}), that of the “organizational network”, which refers to an everyday sociability that is characterized by the regularity of a rational mode and the internalization of norms of behaviour of a given group.

The heterogeneity in the conception of education and areas of activity can be seen in the academic productions of the board members due to the diversity of educational subjects that make up their objects and also the theoretical framework mobilized. By analyzing the academic output chronologically, we can see signs that the board members have come closer together, even those with different conceptions of education, but who are subjected to thinking about the field of education from a common political and social perspective.

Considering the limitations of this study, we chose to analyze the production of the most prominent board members, including those who represented the perspective of the place of power and those who opposed it, understanding the educational projects in dispute at the time.

Carlos Roberto Jamil Cury is the board member with the most academic output until 2002, according to Figure 2, the year in which Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s government ended. Cury’s production is more broadly concerned with educational policy, ranging from general aspects, such as the right to education and the social demands of education, to more specific ones, such as the quality of secondary education and supervised internships in undergraduate courses.

Cury published his first article in 1989, the same year as the publication of his thesis in book format. He maintained a continuous frequency of publications, only ceasing to publish articles in 1994 and 2003. However, he kept his ideas circulating in the form of book chapters in 2003 (he published three book chapters that year). The hiatus in terms of publication only occurred in 1994, when he did post-doctoral work at USP (1994-1994) and then at the University of Paris (1994-1995).

In this way, we understand that Professor Cury’s conception of science is linked to the understanding that academic publishing is a pillar of scientific endeavor, especially when debating the conceptions of education in dispute and influencing educational policies. In this respect, he points out:

Today, postgraduate courses have a vast amount of resources available for diagnosing the Brazilian reality. What’s more, there is a plurality of points of view, which makes the academic debate richer and more interesting. Now, thanks to these studies, accompanied by mobilizations with the public authorities, we have been able to make progress in our education [...] Many studies and research on funding and linkage were decisive in ensuring that projects to untie funding did not go ahead (^{Veiga, 2011}, p. 43).

From this perspective, Professor Hermengarda Alves ^{Lüdke (with 61 publications up to 2002}) also had a vast output and a similar conception of science. She was part of the group of board members who extended their work beyond politics in influencing educational policies, as an academically relevant intellectual whose studies and ideas circulated in the scientific community. She began her work in 1967 with a book chapter on secondary education and the socio-economic structure.

Like Cury, Lüdke was nominated by the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science (SBPC), an institution that coincides its creation with the institutionalization of science in Brazil with the creation “[...] by the federal government of organizations such as the ^{National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, 1951}), and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes, 1951)” (^{Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência [SBPC], 2020}, online). One of SBPC’s mission items is to promote the dissemination of scientific knowledge through actions to disseminate science. In this way, the nomination of Cury and Lüdke by the institution indicates the alignment of the conception of education and science.

We understand that Cury and Lüdke are part of a network that constitutes a “particular microcosm” that influences elements such as social demands, affections, and tradition (^{Sirinelli, 2003}). In this sense, the board members’ understanding of science and the way they understand its relationship with society (social demands) are factors that have an impact on their grouping in a common sociability network.

The professors were part of the group of intellectuals who positioned themselves tactically in relation to the educational project that was constituted as a strategy, making up the political culture in the process of re-democratization, above all by resisting the Law of Guidelines and Bases project led by those who were, at that time, in a position of power. Lüdke contributed to the debate and tensioned the position of power through her research into educational assessment and teacher training. Cury, on the other hand, carried out his academic tensions in publications that broadly dealt with educational policy and the right to education.

In addition to being the two most academically relevant board members in the BEC/NEC, not only because of the volume of their productions, but also because of their educational trajectories and the density of their research, they were part of the network of sociability that positioned itself tactically in relation to the strategy of the place of power, with their publications often having a critical content to the educational project, a fact that did not prevent them from being part of the group responsible for standardizing the educational legislation of that period.

On the other hand, the third board member with the highest number of publications, Guiomar Namo de Mello (31 publications up to 2002), was part of the group that strengthened the educational project from the place of power, starting with her appointment, which was not the result of a nomination, but a choice made by the government in the quota allocated to it. However, her publications did not always strengthen the current project, especially her thesis (^{Mello, 1982}b) and the works that followed it.

The professor was an important representative of the educational project being implemented (the educational reforms of the federal government, such as the LDBEN/1996 and educational guidelines, which were tense due to those who opposed them and had a different conception of Brazilian education), mainly because she was one of those responsible for thinking about the theoretical and epistemological foundations of this education in Brazilian social democracy (^{Mello, 1990}), being responsible for thinking about the educational project of the PSDB (the party in power). With the professor’s circulation through elected positions, she also took part in the discussions of the Constituent Assembly (1987), and her productions changed the perspective and conception of education from that period onwards, reaching their peak (in terms of a change in conception) between 1991 and 1992, based on her post-doctoral studies, thus reflecting in her academic production of that period.

Iara Glória Areias Prado, even with three productions in the government period, was also an important board member in pushing forward the educational project of the place of power. The Professor was the government’s Secretary for Primary Education and was a member of BEC/NEC during Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s two terms in office. Thus, the importance of board members is not only related to their academic position and level of productivity in terms of publications. In the case of the professor, her relevance was more in the political field (she was affiliated with the PMDB) than in the academic field. The professor’s productions discuss the educational reforms promoted by the place of power at that time (and also literacy and reader training).

In Figure 3 we analyze the academic output of the board members between 2003 and 2020, which has undergone some changes among those who publish the most. It is therefore pertinent to take into account the period in which these intellectuals began their academic life, more precisely the year in which they completed their doctorate.

To create Figure 3, we considered the academic output of the board members, published from 2003 to Oct. 22, 2020. Professor Cury is still the board member with the highest number of publications (143), increasing considerably compared to Figure 2 and establishing himself as one of the country’s most renowned researchers, with a CNPq Senior PQ scholarship.

In this respect, Lüdke, who has a CNPq level 1A research productivity grant, moved up to third place in terms of number of publications between 2003 and 2020. We understand that the professor, who began her academic life as a researcher in 1969 (the year she completed her doctorate), is still active in the scientific field with 51 years of activity.

Nelio Marco Vicenzo Bizzo now ranks second in terms of academic output. He is also a CNPq Research Productivity scholarship holder at level 1A, and began his career as a researcher in 1991 (the year he completed his doctorate). When we compare the years of completion of the doctorates of the board members who were in the top positions in Figure 2, we have Carlos Roberto Jamil Cury with 41 years as a researcher, Guiomar Namo de Mello with 38 years as a researcher and Hermengarda Alves Lüdke with 51 years as a researcher.

In this way, Bizzo became a relevant researcher in the academic field after the end of the FHC government, which does not diminish the importance of his work at BEC/NEC, as he demonstrated that he was an intellectual who was already charting his successful career, especially in studies on science teaching. The professor’s publications are characterized by having more than one author (Bizzo and other authors). Rare are the publications in which the professor is the sole author, an aspect that sets him apart from the other board members, whose characteristic is to publish alone.

We would also highlight Francisco Aparecido Cordão and João Antônio Cabral de Monlevade, whose publications were boosted after the end of the FHC government (from 2003). Cordão had one publication until 2002 and, from 2003 to 2020, 40 publications, as shown in Figure 2. His studies essentially dealt with vocational education. In addition, when he published on other subjects, such as the National Curriculum Guidelines, or on the NEC, it was mostly in Senac’s Technical Bulletin (a periodical focused on vocational education), where he concentrated most of his publications.

João Antônio Cabral de Monlevade also saw a considerable increase in his publications from 2003 onwards, from four (until 2002) to 20 (from 2003 to 2020). Monlevade became a researcher in 2000 (the year he completed his doctorate), ensuring greater density in his publications from this period onwards, especially in the focus of his studies on valuing education workers, an aspect that is in line with his militancy in this cause and his links to the National Confederation of Education Workers.

In contrast to Professors Monlevade and Cordão, Guiomar Namo de Mello’s output decreased during this period, which we see as an indication of her move away from the theories and conceptions to which she was linked in her doctorate, aspects that also distanced her from the center of academic production in education (ANPEd and SBPC, for example), as she moved closer to (and was part of) the center of educational policy-making. The decline in her academic output was also accompanied by her moving closer to educational NGOs (such as TPE, the Vitor Civita Foundation and the Lemann Foundation) which sought to put pressure on her position of power from 2003 onwards.

An analysis of the academic output of the board members leads to an understanding of their positions in relation to the disputes over the implementation of different educational projects and how their intellectual output helped to strengthen the political-educational culture of which they were a part. If, on the one hand, we had the federal government and its supporters in the BEC/NEC concerned with aligning the Brazilian educational concept with the recommendations of multilateral organizations (represented by Mello, Cordão and Prado), on the other hand, there was a group of intellectuals who opposed them (in the BEC, represented by Cury, Monlevade and Lüdke).

In Figure 4 we analyze the chronology of the number of publications by board members, and we also relate the peaks of greatest production to the political moment and the movements in the elaboration of educational policies.

We will analyze Figure 4 by dividing the years into four periods: a) 1967 to 1985, as these productions took place during the period of the authoritarian military regime and therefore have their own characteristics of the context in which they are inserted; b) 1986 to 1994, a period of democratic transition and changes related to the establishment of democracy; c) 1995 to 2002, a period of important educational reforms; d) 2003 to 2020 in order to understand the (dis)continuities of educational objects and concerns.

The academic output of the subjects was modest until the 1980s, when it began to increase, although not uniformly. We believe that this is due to two main factors: a) most of the board members had not yet become researchers (they had not yet obtained a doctorate); b) Brazil was going through a period of dictatorship (1964-1985) when university professors were persecuted, exiled and the regime interfered in educational institutions.

Until 1985, five board members had published: Lüdke; Mello; Assis; Monlevade; and Naspolini. In Brazil and Latin American countries, authoritarianism was not confined to the most recent period (1964 to 1985), but it has a long history, not only because it went through non-democratic regimes, but also because, as ^{Motta and Abreu (2013}, p. 7) point out, it was “[...] the scene of every authoritarian theoretical tradition [...]”, with intellectuals who thought about and projected a society that was incompatible with liberal democracy. In this way, we can say that the intellectuals who made up the BEC/NEC were not part of this movement; on the contrary, they were on the side of tactics, of tension against this theoretical perspective, especially when thinking about education from the point of view of democracy.

Thus, educational issues were approached in this period (until 1985) according to the context in which the researchers were inserted, in an attempt to overcome the models established until then, envisioning an ideal society or seeking more specific and short-term solutions for education. When addressing the case study method as a possibility for educational evaluation, ^{Lüdke (1983}, p. 17) pointed out:

In general, we are very concerned about the political consequences, in a broad sense, of the assessment exercise. We fear that they will represent one more element in maintaining a profoundly unjust educational situation, in which only a few manage to receive the share of education that should be everyone’s. This is a challenge constantly felt by those who critically reflect on the role of evaluation. This is a challenge constantly felt by those who critically reflect on the role of assessment and are concerned with developing it.

The author seeks to dispel the notion that assessment reinforced the social inequality of that period, understanding it as an important tool for remedying educational problems and providing a glimpse of quality education. Thus, the professor’s conceptions at that time were in line with those of those seeking to improve the quality of education by focusing on learning and the present moment.

A year after discussing the possibilities of educational evaluation, ^{Lüdke (1984}) published on an important aspect of educational research: methodological rigor and the use of qualitative methodologies. She also points to the great fertility of educational research with the incorporation of new methodological possibilities and solutions. In this period, in which authoritarianism was weakening and educational discussions were gaining momentum, the professor was concerned about both the rigour of research (which could not be reduced to ideological analyses) and the rigour of evaluation processes, which could not be demonized and reduced to an instrument for maintaining the situation at the time.

During this period, ^{Mello (1982}b) discussed the link that was made in the educational community between the curriculum, educational programs, teacher-student interaction, and assessment standards, as being responsible for the selective and exclusionary nature of education. She also questioned whether these aspects alone were responsible for excluding poor children, in an association between school failure and the lower social classes. The question the professor asked herself was: what procedures should be adopted, other than these, for a democratic school?

We realize that this discussion was in evidence during this period when the military regime was weakening. Both ^{Lüdke (1983}; ¹⁹⁸⁴) and ^{Mello (1982}b) opposed the idea of exorcising all the elements that make up school education, especially assessment and curriculum organization. In their view, these were not the factors that made education undemocratic. In this regard, ^{Mello (1982}a, p. 2) explained that she started from the premise that “[...] only social and economic equality guarantees equal conditions for access to educational benefits”.

In this sense, the authors’ productions reflect the context in which they were inserted, especially in projecting education in a scenario that had not happened since 1964: the democratic environment, even with different study focuses, Lüdke more focused on teacher training and evaluation and Mello on educational policy in a more comprehensive way. The authors’ production was congruent in not completely deconstructing the education of that period, understanding that not all aspects were negative, even if they understood that many changes were needed to make education effectively democratic.

The concerns and discussions surrounding Brazilian education were similar to what was also happening in Latin America, where some countries were coming out of authoritarian periods, such as Chile and Argentina. ^{Madeira and Mello (1985}, p. 7) begin their presentation of the book “Education in Latin America” with the following questions:

When we turn our eyes to Latin America and look at the statistics and the dynamics of the levels and quality of schooling of the population as a whole in these countries, do the prevailing theoretical thoughts on education and social reality remain consistent? [...] what limits do Latin American societies currently place on the access, permanence, and participation of the lower classes in regular public schools?

Another point that was already under discussion during this period was the insertion of Latin American countries into the globalized world - one of the reasons for the deprivation of this access was the dictatorial period that affected these countries. At the meeting of the Education Commission of the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO), which questioned the adequacy of peripheral countries to neoliberal theories (Human Capital Theory, for example), ^{Madeira and Mello (1985}) highlighted the surprise of the relative conceptual unity of the work presented and the similarity of the educational concerns of researchers from different countries.

These similarities in the Latin American educational field indicate the opening up of possibilities for multilateral organizations to propose solutions and participate in the drafting of educational policies in these countries in the 1990s, which did indeed happen, such as UNESCO and the World Bank (with which Mello had links), and the influence of ECLAC in the composition of the educational project in Latin America, including Brazil, which was one of the main focuses of criticism from those who opposed the educational project of the place of power, as stated in the NEP - Proposal of Brazilian Society (^{National Forum in Defense of Public Schools, 1997}, p. 14): “The worsening of the crisis has been reinforced by the set of public policies adopted by the Brazilian government, which, it is worth clarifying, obey the matrix defined by the World Bank, [...] IDB and ECLAC.”

According to Figure 4, after re-democratization (1985) and before the FHC administration (1995-2002), the year with the highest number of publications by board members was 1991 (11 publications). During this period, educational discussions relating Brazil’s challenges to those of other Latin American countries became a relevant object of research in the field (^{Mello & Silva, 1991}), or were used to locate Brazilian educational reforms in the context of Latin America (^{Mello, 1991}), especially in the challenge of competitive insertion into world markets.

During this period, in which democracy was still being established, and before the FHC government (1986 to 1994), the second year in which the board members produced the most was 1994 (10 publications). We would highlight the study by ^{Mello (1994}), published in partnership between the Ministry of Education (MEC) and UNESCO, which dealt with quality in education. The publication puts the promotion of improved quality of service with equity (the author no longer uses the term “equality”, as she did in the 1980s) as a challenge for education systems in Latin America, again linking the demands faced by Brazil as similar to those of Latin American countries. She emphasizes that the new educational problems, technological development, and the new way of exercising citizenship have led to substantial changes in the education system.

^{Mello (1994}, p. 12) criticized the studies of the 1970s and 1980s, which understood school problems as stemming from the social structure in which the school was established. She claimed that it would not be possible to solve them through the school itself, but only with a drastic social change, which she called pedagogical pessimism:

[...] pedagogical pessimism arrived in our country at a time when our fragile tradition of educational research was in disarray in the face of the astonishing scale of the educational inequalities produced by the quantitative expansion of primary education and the frightening rates of repetition and early school failure among children from working-class backgrounds. In this sinister scenario, efforts to put the importance of the internal organization of school institutions in producing or reducing failure and repetition back on the agenda of educational research were insufficient [...].

In this way, the professor sought to generate solutions to Brazil’s educational problems from within the school, understanding that this was possible and necessary, starting with getting to know the internal workings of the school. Among the solutions she put forward were curriculum restructuring; teacher training; internal and external assessment, aspects that were in line with the educational policies established from 1995 onwards and which had the professor as one of their representatives on the BEC/NEC. The year 1994 was marked by the election period and the contest between Lula and FHC for the presidency of the Republic. Mello, as a prominent educational figure in both the PSDB and what would become the FHC government, and responsible for substantiating the party’s educational program, already indicated in 1994 what would permeate the educational policies of the 1995-2002 period.

From 1994 to 1998, we noticed an increase in the number of publications by board members, with the peak for the period (1995 to 2002) coming in 1998 (28 publications). On the political scene, there was the institution of re-election and heated debates around it. In the educational field, the curricular reforms (basic education in 1997 and secondary education in 1998) generated intense discussions, especially between those who had a similar conception of education to the place of power and those who opposed the project that was being implemented (disputes that materialized in different proposals for the NEP in 1997, that of the Federal Executive and that of Brazilian Society).

Among the educational policies of that year (1998), we highlight the creation of the National High School Examination and Opinion No. 15/1998, the first an evaluation policy and the other a curriculum restructuring policy. As pointed out by ^{Mello (1994}), two key aspects of solving educational problems came from education and not from society.

Mello published on the new Guidelines for Secondary Education, Cury on the Curriculum Parameters for Primary Education (instituted a year earlier, 1997), on LDBEN/1996, problematizing the new educational reform based on it. The professor also spoke that year about the two NEP proposals that were vying to be established as a strategy, among other important publications. The board member published the most in 1998 (13 publications).

Within the period of the FHC governments (1995-2002), the year 2002 was also fertile in terms of the number of publications by board members (26 publications), again with Professor Cury leading the way numerically (12 publications). His publications dealt with the right to education as a theme that permeated his studies, but he also spoke specifically about the National Curriculum Parameters (PCNs), the LDB, policies for secondary education, as well as taking stock of educational policies for basic education in that period, highlighting the role of the NEC in this context and its relationship with the government, especially in thinking about public and quality education for all.

We also noticed an interest in the board members’ discussions on teacher training, especially with regard to the new proposals that were emerging at the time. ^{Lüdke and Moreira (2002}, p. 76), who had already left the NEC, criticized the measures that were being implemented on this issue:

In our opinion, the importance that has been attributed to it signals a devaluation, on the part of our educational authorities, of the pedagogical content that seems indispensable to enable teachers to take a more lucid and committed stance towards the problems and educational practices of their time and country.

^{Moraes (2002}), an advocate of the educational policies implemented in that period, made teacher training the object of her studies in 2002, relating it to Latin America, articulating education and the need for innovation and efficiency to enter the school context and teachers’ pedagogical practice.

Mello was a rapporteur for Opinion No. 9/2001, which established national curricular guidelines for the training of basic education teachers at the higher education level: full-degree courses. She also produced two publications in partnership with UNESCO and the Program for Educational Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean, indicating the spaces in which she would circulate after the end of the FHC government and the alignment of the concept of education in that period.

In the period from 2003 to 2020, after the end of the FHC government, we highlight the years 2005, 2009 and 2013 as relevant in terms of publication volume, with 31, 39 and 37 publications, respectively. In 2005, most of the publications were by Lüdke (12 publications) and Cury (13 publications), representing more than 80% of the publications that year. Mello, who had been in the spotlight in previous periods, began to weaken in relation to the other board members in terms of her academic life, above all as a result of the spaces she began to occupy and the types of publications (not published in scientific journals) in which she began to appear as an author. The disputes and tensions between the educational projects were evidenced in the academic productions, where we find the theoretical and epistemological support for the political positions of the board members (in this case) and also in the non-academic spaces, but which were capable of influencing the development of educational policies (such as conferences and meetings with educational NGOs that Mello began to associate with, for example).

In 2009, Cury and Lüdke accounted for 60% of the board members’ publications, with 11 and 12 publications respectively. In 2013, Lüdke did not have the same number of publications (with 2 publications that year), unlike Cury, who maintained the average he had been following, with 11 publications, and Professor Bizzo, who had 11 publications. The two board members accounted for 60% of the publications that year.

In 2005, two years into another government (Lula, PT), the publications considered the advances in educational policies, and acknowledged the progress that was being made, but drew attention to the aspects that needed effort and financial investment, through publications on the following subjects: the right to education and citizenship (^{Cury, 2005}a), democratic management (^{Cury, 2005}b), the history of education (^{Cury, 2005}c), educational policies (^{Lüdke, 2005}a) and teacher training (^{Lüdke, 2005}b).

The year 2009 was marked by discussions about secondary education, especially due to Ordinance 109/2009, which instituted the new Enem (National High School Exam), which was now organized by areas of knowledge and one of whose main objectives was to democratize opportunities for access to higher education. In the context of these changes, Cordão published on the prospects for the new exam, as well as its recurring subject: vocational education.

Teacher training was also the subject of research by Lüdke and Bizzo. In addition, educational policies in general were the subject of the board members’ studies that year (Lüdke, Monlevade, Cury, Bizzo). We highlight the concern about the NEP, which was to come into force in 2011, especially with regard to education funding (Cury). Despite the progress that educational policies had made during this period, we could see that educational funding was at risk due to the power relations that were being imposed.

The National Pact for Strengthening Secondary Education took place in 2013, accompanied by intense debates in the educational field, as well as instability in the country’s economic and political field (such as the demonstrations in June of that year). We are struck by the recurrence of discussions about the NEP, which was supposed to cover the period from 2011 to 2020, but which, in 2013, had not yet taken place. Researchers such as Cury, Cordão and Monlevade have studied this issue.

Similarly, educational research was one of the focuses of researchers in 2013, such as Mello, Bizzo and Lüdke, who discussed the different possible approaches in the field of educational research, as well as the recurring themes discussed by other researchers, such as teacher training (Lüdke, Bizzo, Cury), evaluation policies (Mello, Bizzo), the right to education (Cury) and educational policies in general (Cury, Monlevade).

The academic output of the board members followed their educational trajectories first and foremost. Those who earned the highest degrees and were linked to advisors with a tradition of academic publication had the highest number of publications with clear research projects, especially in relation to the focus of their studies. In addition, the subjects’ links to postgraduate programs and research institutions (such as ANPEd and the SBPC) are also indications that strengthen the researchers’ relevant productions.

Regarding the variations in the number of publications per year, we understand that they follow the movement of political and economic events and the way they influence education. Even professors with concrete research objects - such as Lüdke on teacher training, Cury on the right to education and educational policies, Bizzo on science teaching and learning and Cordão on professional education - had national debates on educational policies as influential in the pace of their research production, as well as theoretically supporting their political positions in the face of disputes, tensions and negotiations for the constitution of a political-educational culture, based on the development of guidelines and regulations, with BEC/NEC playing a fundamental role in this process.

It is worth noting that professors who did not produce significant academic output are also important in the process of establishing Brazil’s political and educational culture. Together with Prado, Mello and Cordão, Regina de Alcântara Assis was part of a group of intellectuals at the NEC whose educational conceptions were aligned with places of power. We find evidence of this movement in her production “É preciso pensar em educação escolarizada para crianças de 4 a 6 anos?” (Do we need to think about school education for children aged 4 to 6?) (1986), in which the board member mobilizes authors such as Saviani and Libâneo (as does Mello) to criticize their conceptions of education:

I propose pre-1st grade classes in which we start from where the children are, as Freinet (1969, 1978) suggests, but I do not agree with the criticism that this is a trend towards a Popular New School (Saviani, 82), or a libertarian progressive school (Libâneo, 1986), which reduces the children’s experience to their most immediate universe and to a school environment where there is no authority, norms of coexistence and hierarchies to be respected (^{Assis, 1986}, p. 69).

Another aspect that strengthens this understanding is the fact that Assis was part of the team that formulated the CNC⁸ as Secretary for the Articulation of Education Systems (in the Michel Temer government), a document that takes up the political-educational culture established in the 1990s and early 2000s, when Assis was at BEC/NEC, making her a key player in the epistemological constitution of the document.

In addition to Assis, we highlight Raquel Alessandri Teixeira as an important figure in this process. She is a founding member of Todos pela Educação (All for Education) (an NGO enthusiastic about the CNC and business reforms in education), was secretary of education in Goiás for two terms (2005-2006/2015-2018) and a federal deputy for the PSDB for two terms (2002-2006/2007-2011). So, even though we have not identified her academic output, these signs indicate that her role within the BEC/NEC was to reinforce the conceptions of the place of power, due to the fact that she belonged to the same party as then-president FHC and also because she was one of the founders of an NGO that has taken the lead in rescuing the political-educational culture created during the period in which Teixeira was part of the BEC/NEC. In this sense, we understand that the intellectual’s network of sociability indicates her educational concept, as does her academic output.

Finally, we would like to highlight a representative of multilateral organizations within BEC/NEC: Ana Luiza Machado Pinheiro. Pinheiro was regional director of UNESCO for 12 years (1997-2009). In 2004, as director of UNESCO’s Regional Education Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, she highlighted the efforts of multilateral organizations, especially the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), to make education a driving force for development in Latin American countries, with the challenge of ensuring more efficient use of resources and accountability in relation to investments, understanding that: “This is a basic requirement for our countries to participate actively and proactively in the globalized world” (^{Pinheiro, 2004}, p. 2).

In this way, even those board members with less academic output and less recognition in the scientific field played an important role in shaping the political-educational culture. We noticed that most of the BEC/NEC members with considerable academic production were academically and politically opposed to the educational project of the place of power. However, the representativeness of the political-educational culture that was intended to be implemented was guaranteed by intellectuals who did not have prominent academic-scientific representativeness, but who had relevance in influential educational institutions and sectors, such as those with a remarkable educational background and academic production.

Final considerations

The analysis of the role of intellectuals in the constitution of the political-educational culture of that period cannot be reduced to simple assimilation to an interest group and be analyzed as such, because they were shapers of a conception and, if not, their thoughts and trajectories were appropriated so that a political-educational project gained respectability.

The BEC/NEC members (1996-2002) were pressured by the discussions around globalization, which were in evidence in the 1990s, so they were part of a cross-section within the generation of intellectuals who were provoked into taking a position on globalization and its effects on education. Their similarity to other groups of intellectuals was in the events and questions they were asked to answer, but their positions and the solutions they gave to the problems could differ and sometimes be opposed. In the case of the board members, this divergence occurred within the body itself, with their educational background (and its unfolding in academic productions) having an influence on their positions concerning educational policy, as well as their network of sociability (circulation of intellectuals).

In this way, the political-educational culture that was formed during this period (1995-2002) had a direct influence on the educational trajectory of the NEC members, and its unfolding in academic production, which was constituted as a writing element capable of influencing the political-educational culture at present and its continuity. In addition, this production indicates the political characteristics of the country and the educational policies that were in evidence, the tensions, disputes, and negotiations for the constitution of different educational projects, as well as an instrument for the maturation of the political-educational culture, as well as its disseminating agent.

In addition, the constitution of the political-educational culture from 1995 onwards (which was taken up and deepened in the most recent high school reform) found support in the conceptions of some BEC/NEC members (1996-2002), strengthening the construction of an educational concept articulated with the bases defended by multilateral organizations. The board members who worked for these organizations not only appropriated their recommendations, but helped formulate them (such as Guiomar Namo de Mello, Neroaldo Azevedo and Ana Luiza Machado Pinheiro).

In this way, a reading of the circularity of the BEC/NEC members shows how the educational conception produced by the center had the participation of these subjects, to the extent that they held positions at the World Bank and UNESCO, for example. In other words, there is a network in which the subjects who participate in the formulation of educational policies in the institutions of the global center occupy strategic spaces in the periphery, responsible for their appropriation and standardization (BEC/NEC).

Generation, sociability networks and intellectual itineraries are delineated by political cultures that manifest themselves “[...] as an amalgam of multiple temporalities, which converge on disputes that are broader and encompass ideological politics in their substrate” (^{Alves, 2019}, p. 8). In this way, intellectuals are prominent figures in the constitution of political cultures, and their actions are linked to the influences of the cultural aspects that permeate a given time and place.