Introduction

The significance of studying the ideas propagated by Paulo Freire regarding education is timeless. Freirean thought is fundamentally political, envisioning education as an instrument of transformation to be wielded by an oppressed social class in pursuit of self-determination. In this sense, popular education, according to Freire, is a form of struggle aimed at overcoming the deep asymmetry inherent in social relationships.

Freire’s legacy encompasses not only theoretical concepts but also practical engagement. On one hand, he authored numerous works primarily dedicated to comprehending the paths that could lead to the construction of emancipatory education. It is in this vein that his works address issues directly influencing the realm of education: the oppression of the marginalized layers of society; the pathways to advocating education within and for autonomy; and the characteristics of a liberating, emancipatory, and, above all, reality-transforming political engagement. On the other hand, the thinker engaged in adult education, implementing a literacy method he himself created, which lifted thousands out of illiteracy and was considered revolutionary. Freire served as the Secretary of Education for the Municipality of São Paulo between 1989 and 1991.

For the purposes of this research, it is crucial to highlight that Freirean thought is guided by a Marxist political and social conception. Thus, the division of society into classes pits oppressors against the oppressed within a spectrum of domination that encompasses not only economic aspects but also discursive power, crucial in terms of social and political positioning.

In this perspective, Paulo Freire’s understanding of the importance of constructing an education that values popular knowledge emerges from his critique of the devaluation of the knowledge of the working class. This understanding should not be imposed upon the people, but rather developed in collaboration with them. It represents a concept of liberating education that goes beyond merely teaching language and arithmetic. Instead, it seeks to unveil historical and social relationships, fostering the development of individuals who are conscious of the reality surrounding them and capable of transforming it.

Freire criticized the prevailing traditional education of his time, which continues to have remnants in the present day. He referred to this education, which disregards social actors as subjects of their own learning, as “banking education”. This term alludes to the idea that the teacher’s role is to “deposit” pre-packaged knowledge into the student’s mind, leading to mechanical reproduction. Freire’s propositions were revolutionary for popular education, as they positioned women and men from marginalized communities as knowledge creators and their reality as a space for knowledge construction. Furthermore, he conceived education as a tool for the emancipation of individuals, a means to combat the verticalization of social relations that oppresses the marginalized.

The town of Angicos in Rio Grande do Norte became the focal point of Paulo Freire’s involvement in popular education. It was in that environment, in 1962, that Freire first applied his newly developed literacy method, successfully teaching three hundred people to read and write within a span of 40 hours. The then-President João Goulart was so impressed that he established the National Literacy Plan, led by Paulo Freire. The military coup of 1964 forced Freire into exile, and he would only return in 1980. During this period, his literacy method was disseminated in the various countries he visited, gaining prominence far beyond his initial context.

In 1989, Paulo Freire assumed the position of Municipal Secretary of Education in São Paulo and pioneered discussions on curriculum and educational technologies. He brought his conception of education as a political action and a tool for transformation to the municipal administration. The political view of education propagated and practiced by Paulo Freire stands in contrast to the general characteristics of educational policy in the state of São Paulo over the past decades.

The management of education in the São Paulo basic education system, as part of governmental policy, has been led by officials affiliated with the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB, in Portuguese) since 1995 up to the present day. Throughout this period, the social policies implemented by these administrators have displayed recurring features, including the centralization of administrative and financial management, the decentralization of pedagogical management, and the accountability of policy implementers for outcomes.

In this context, starting from 1996, a process of decentralization of basic education was carried out in the state of São Paulo, with actions that led to a progressive increase in the municipalization of this level of education. Currently, the municipal sphere is responsible for 3,848,780 enrollments in basic education, which represents approximately 52% of students attending public schools in São Paulo. On the other hand, the state network is responsible for 3,567,229 enrolled students.

Within the context of the São Paulo state education system, the centralization of administrative and financial management can be observed in various aspects, including the discretionary actions of school principals. The funds allocated directly to schools arrive with predetermined destinations, leaving little to no room for decision-making on the part of these administrators. This centralization also extends to administrative procedures: the directives from the São Paulo State Department of Education (SEESP, in Portuguese), even the more technical actions, follow standardized guidelines for all institutions, centrally defined. In these activities, there is a clear tendency towards a process of administrative decentralization, which primarily involves centralized decision-making and procedure definition, followed by decentralized execution (^{Ramos, 2015}, p. 559). Consequently, there remains limited autonomy and reflection within the realm of teaching practice.

Programs and pedagogical projects stemming from educational policy reach the grassroots level, particularly teachers, with predetermined guidelines for mere “participation”. The decision-making phase is established by the central bodies of the SEESP. This participation is often superficial and artificial, lacking effective involvement in the establishment of directives. An example of this practice is the São Paulo Faz Escola, , which translates to “São Paulo Makes School” in English, it maintained the same structure from 2007 to 2019.The curricula within this program were conceived and developed within the Coordinating Offices of the Department of Education, and consultations with teachers had little to no impact. A clear illustration of this is the absence of changes to the program over those 12 years, despite the numerous criticisms raised by various agents at the grassroots level (^{Silva, 2017}). Starting in 2019, under the government of João Dória, a new Currículo Paulista, which refers to the curriculum base of the state of São Paulo (^{São Paulo, 2019}), began to take shape within the São Paulo Faz Escola program, characterized by a structure closely resembling those described above.

Lastly, a significant aspect contributing to the characterization of the management style adopted within the state of São Paulo’s basic education system is the extensive use of external assessments, such as the State of São Paulo School Performance Assessment System (Saresp, in Portuguese), established in 1996 and ongoing to the present day. Saresp, as part of large-scale assessments and aligned with them in terms of result verification and accountability for grassroots agents, carries the notion of controlling education, schools, and teachers. It aims to relieve the state of responsibility for the outcomes of the public service provided.

In this context, the goal was to establish a dialogue between Freire’s ideals of education as a form of politics and the education policy in the state of São Paulo. The focus was on the classroom management profile, particularly teaching work, in accordance with the principles of these policies

For categorization, a content analysis guided by the principles of ^{Bardin (2016)} was employed. To establish the ideological characteristics that define the pedagogical management of basic education institutions within the São Paulo public school system, the Currículo Paulista (^{São Paulo, 2019}) was analyzed, with special attention to the curriculum presentation document and the Teacher’s Handbooks for the final years of elementary school

The study of documents and Freire’s theory regarding education management focused on three categories: competence or methodological rigor, engagement, and defense of autonomy. Throughout the analysis, the similarities and differences between the teaching management ideals conveyed by Freire’s conception and those of the SEESP were identified within each of these three categories.

Paulo Freire’s Concept of Education

Breaking away from a conservative approach to education that upholds hierarchy, where centralized power influences the development of teaching practices that dissolve into the learning experiences of individuals, is an ongoing challenge. Paulo Freire’s works are globally recognized for offering precise contributions against this classic and universal pedagogical perspective (^{Gadotti, 2000}). Much of this recognition stems from the fact that these contributions are grounded in premises that view pedagogy as a cross-cutting science, expanding the notions of school and pedagogical work organization.

Firstly, it is important to explore the field in which Freire presents his ideas before discussing the act of teaching as something that extends beyond the four walls enclosing the classroom. Along this path, the arguments put forth by Freirean theory reveal the significance of educational dimensions that surpass physical and curricular structures, delving much deeper. This approach takes into account the human condition, both individually and within social relationships, fostering a mutual development of individuals in different roles within the learning process.

Under a humanistic backdrop, ^{Freire (2002)} equates access to education with liberation from the ideal of rote memorization and the dissemination of information within rigid structures. In this concept of transcendence, education is portrayed as a practice that extends beyond the accumulation of knowledge, aiming to shape individuals to generate and transform knowledge (^{Freire, 2002}). While the faint lines forming this process may appear on the verge of intersecting, the philosopher’s intentionality in broadening professionals’ perspectives to break free from traditional ideals and perceive education as a political realm can be deduced.

This is because there is a consensus that the contemporary pedagogical field is still heavily influenced by practices that prioritize memorization of information over genuine reflection and contextual connection for students. In a similar vein, ^{Freire (2002)} reiterates that the act of teaching and the dimensions that surround it extend beyond the mere transfer of knowledge. Reducing the essence of learning to such a limited scope disregards the pedagogical, political, ethical, epistemological, and ontological reasons that demand recognition.

For ^{Freire (2002)}, departing from a conservative stance and embracing a more democratic one that prioritizes the critical development of the individual depends on how educators and, even more significantly, educational programs comprehend, analyze, and guide the course of action within schools. Thus, a need arises to integrate the roles of teachers and principals as central agents in this process.

Regarding the school routine, the Freirean perspective asserts that it should be conceived and sustained with a focus on supporting, stimulating, and promoting actions that already engage or aim to engage in liberating education (^{Freire, 1981}). However, programs should not exercise ideological control over professionals working daily in educational institutions, nor guarantee a unanimity of values. From Freire’s standpoint, what is essential is rigorous training for those involved, especially grassroots educators, which establishes a shared commitment to overcoming authoritarianism that limits the capacity to learn and develop knowledge. This commitment aims to foster an awareness of education as a potentially transformative force in society (^{Freire, 1981}).

In Freire’s conception (1981), within a socially inclusive education, the management of Education Departments is responsible for connecting educators with grassroots initiatives. This linkage ensures that the perception of democratic and liberating education is translated into teaching practice. The viability of an educational program, such as the Curriculum of the State of São Paulo (^{São Paulo, 2019}), for instance, is contingent upon its ability to learn from these educators who, as agents at the grassroots level, have much to offer (^{Freire, 1981}). Thus, an interdependent relationship is expressed between grassroots educators and central administrators in defining pedagogical work directives which, in practice, are often hastily conceived and then interrupted or distorted due to communication breakdowns.

Furthermore, maintaining transparent and continuous communication with educators is inherently essential. Such dialogue should facilitate the integration of pedagogical work and serve as an opportunity to encourage the sharing of observations, critiques, and opinions about their understandings (^{Freire, 1981}). Additionally, expanding boundaries through communication and consequently intensifying cooperative efforts is a pivotal measure for overcoming autocratic management methods. On this matter, ^{Freire (1981, p. 22)} emphasizes:

Therefore, the more bureaucratic a central team is, not only from an administrative perspective but especially mentally, the narrower and more supervisory it will be. Conversely, the more open and receptive it is to creativity, anti-dogmatic, and the more evaluative, in the sense described here, it will be.

The extracted passage highlights important aspects that contribute to the discussion proposed in the paper. Firstly, it should be mentioned that the evaluative sense referred to by the author differs from inspection, as it prioritizes its dialogic nature, where all individuals are subjects of analysis while also expressing opinions (^{Freire, 1981}). This highlights a structure that, despite having a hierarchy, is inclined towards substantive practices, such as evaluation, and places them in a horizontal disposition where managers not only evaluate but are also evaluated.

Having said that, it is essential to emphasize the accountability attributed to the intentional work posture of a team. ^{Freire’s perspective (1981)} aims to elucidate the subordinate condition of managerial work to its methodology, which is manifested in accordance with the adopted paradigms, their interests, and viewpoints on various aspects of daily school life. In this context, a work methodology that is not open to ideas, lacks inclusivity and active participation of different social actors involved, can become excessively technical and overlook opportunities to address challenges.

To comprehend the issues encompassing the São Paulo Faz Escola program through the analysis of the Currículo Paulista (São Paulo, 2019), it will require the evaluation of the prevailing perspectives found in Freire’s works that pertain to the management of pedagogical work. Firstly, to delve into this realm of concepts, it is essential to consider that the school’s daily routine must be approached from a collective and participatory perspective so that challenges are not solely concentrated between standardization and supervision. On the other hand, pursuing a collaborative path while inadvertently assigning the educator as the sole entity responsible for identifying, deliberating, and resolving obstacles within the classroom contradicts the dialectical movement that needs to remain consistent (^{Freire, 1981}).

Aspects of Categorization

Before delving into the main discussion prompted by the study, a decision was made to elucidate the aspects of the content analysis conducted on the Currículo Paulista (^{São Paulo, 2019}) that are associated with the Freirean conception of education. Drawing upon ^{Bardin’s theory (2016)}, the steps of content analysis were delimited as follows: preliminary reading of the material, followed by the process of categorization, culminating in the identification of outcomes.

To enhance the categorization phase, the qualitative data analysis software NVivo was employed. As highlighted by ^{Nodari, Soares and Wiedenhoft (2014)}, NVivo serves as a tool capable of providing analytical directions to the researcher while simultaneously enhancing the methodological rigor of the study.

When employing the Teacher’s Notebooks as the research object within the software, a list of the 30 most frequent words was extracted. It is worth mentioning that the decision was made to exclude prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, and pronouns from the list, as these elements might serve only as auxiliary morphological functions in the texts and not reflect the main idea of a sentence that could contribute to exploring the material. The generated list of words is presented in Table 1 below.

As a way of visualizing the list in a hierarchical manner, a word cloud was created to represent the frequency of appearance based on the size of the terms. In other words, the more times a word appeared in the document, the larger it is represented in the generated image (Figure 1).

Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Figure 1 Word Cloud 

The next methodological step involved a meticulous analysis of each word within the material, aiming to examine the context in which they were used for the purpose of categorization. Upon delving into the analysis of the most frequent words, it was observed that they were directly related to the Freirean theory. This is because the passages they comprised referred to principles outlined by ^{Freire (1981}; ²⁰⁰²⁾ for teaching work. Similar to the extracted passage, there is a clear alignment of the content with the idea of advocating for autonomy:

It is desirable – in Early Childhood Education and the Initial Years of Elementary Education – to invest in practices that contribute to students progressively developing competencies and skills related to authorship and protagonism, including in regard to choices that may converge toward the construction of their Life Project

(^{São Paulo, 2019}, p. 39).

In this sense, the most frequent words supported the delineation of 3 categories that are directly aligned with principles of Freirean theory, namely: a) competence or methodological rigor; b) engagement; c) defense of autonomy. In Table 2, a synthesis of this segmentation was presented, which connects the analysis category with some of the terms from the list of frequent words, and also includes excerpts that corroborate the identified connection.

Given the foregoing, it is evident that the prevailing ideas in the text, identified through a thorough analysis of the most frequent words, point to a direct association with Freire’s theory, especially regarding teacher-oriented and integral education, seen as a fundamental part of a nation’s education. Nevertheless, on its own, the analysis in NVivo does not facilitate a reflection on the underlying nuances within the discourse of SEESP. Therefore, it becomes necessary to proceed with a deeper analysis of the categories, using the literature of ^{Freire (2002)} as a foundation.

Freire and the Guidelines for Education Management in the State of São Paulo

Navigating the context of teaching action guided by autonomy, competence, and effectiveness is a constant exercise, as the pursuit of breaking free from a reactionary understanding of education and entering the trend of pedagogical, social, and democratic quality brings with it the need for mastery of some essential dimensions. It is from this perspective that this article chose to work with the categories of competence, or methodological rigor, engagement, and defense of autonomy. The analysis conducted aimed to promote a dialogue between Freire’s conception and the guidelines of the SEESP regarding these three dimensions within the scope of education management.

According to ^{Freire (2002)}, the democratic educator is also responsible for carrying out a teaching practice guided by rigor, because the methodological rigor sought here is far from a rigidity of teaching focused on the repetition of information to be mechanically memorized.

It is a fact that the educator drives and gives materiality to a learning process. However, the path taken by contemporary education systems under governmental control is one that standardizes the supplies that promote learning and limits the teachers’ work in terms of implementing actions that bring education closer to a practice of freedom (^{Gadotti, 2000}). The idea of rigor discussed by ^{Freire (2002)} directly echoes this issue. This rigor refers to the commitment to creating an environment conducive to experiencing learning. The teacher’s work is of paramount importance in building this environment.

With attention to these issues, the research focused on the analysis of the Currículo Paulista for the final years of elementary education. The presentation of the current state curriculum is laden with directive guidance that leaves little room for the essence of teaching work based on integrated action/reflection in dialogue with the student. Freirean praxis seems compromised right from the first pages of the document in question:

Thus, the Curriculum clearly indicates what students should ‘know’ (in terms of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values) and, above all, what they should ‘know how to do’, considering the mobilization of these knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values to address complex demands of everyday life, full exercise of citizenship, and the world of work

(^{São Paulo, 2019}, p. 35).

This passage indicates that it concerns an inflexible curriculum, with limited room for everyday experiences, for valuing students’ reality in knowledge construction, and for the exchange of learning between educators and students, concepts highly valued by Paulo Freire within the realm of rigor and competence. Beyond the Curriculum presentation, the collection of documents comprising it includes Student and Teacher Notebooks for each subject. It is important to grasp how this directive approach may compromise teaching work.

From this standpoint, as per ^{Freire (2002)}, addressing rigor also encompasses considering an aesthetic dimension surrounding pedagogical practices. The educator’s work should be propelled by a desire for change, seriousness, and respect for their labor. This notion is often misconstrued by the generalized perception that educators should solely be motivated by the prospect of contributing to education as a whole and ensuring the delivery of prescribed content from the curriculum. According to Freire’s theory, the rigor of an educator’s work and their commitment to liberating education enable them to witness significant changes in each student. This process intertwines theory and practice, crafting a praxis in which educators are persistently motivated to accompany these changes and their own process of transformation (^{Freire, 2002}).

It is challenging to satisfy this aspect of rigor, as highlighted by Freire, within the confines of a Curriculum composed of what can be termed a closed set of content and predetermined themes, where educators are expected to merely reproduce the prescribed content, and school administrators oversee adherence to the vertical plan. Consequently, the rigor embraced by the educational system (SEESP) diverges from the concept of praxis and leans more towards standardizing actions and implementing didactic materials. Within this framework, educators and school administrators assume diminished roles, as though the Curriculum, once implemented, could independently foster knowledge (re)production.

Freire’s studies also emphasize the issue of ethics in the pursuit of rigor. In this regard, ^{Freire (2002)} draws attention to the depth and multivalent nature of ethics since the ethics of educators are perpetually susceptible to the influence of market ethics. This clash undermines the notion of fostering a respectful, democratic, and emancipatory approach to education. Although the philosopher views the suppression of this issue as a utopian concept within the pedagogy of autonomy, establishing a universal ethical commitment among education professionals is pivotal. Within the context of SEESP, there is only room for ethical action in the manner delineated by Freire, in the struggle to transform the São Paulo Education System and resist this standardized model of education. This is because this management model lacks room for critical thinking, a collaborative process in which both learners and educators jointly construct knowledge.

Similarly, according to Freire, critical thinking is what equips educators to be prepared for the unpredictable, subjective, and externally conditioned aspects of the school environment, which are not fixed (^{Freire, 2002}). Therefore, pursuing rigor doesn’t entail stifling work practices or compromising educators’ liberty to evolve. Instead, this rigor is directed toward the educator’s commitment to upholding the teaching path advocated by the philosopher.

Furthermore, this process doesn’t occur in isolation and cannot be accomplished through unilateral effort alone. ^{Freire (2002)} clarifies that engagement is a vital element for reconciling all the interests involved in creating liberating education. Moreover, engagement in education is how the school expresses its understanding and support for diverse socio-cultural, economic, and learning conditions of students and the entire school community (^{Freire, 2002}).

The challenges posed by the characteristics of state management hinder the engagement of school directors and educators within the school environment. Engagement entails autonomous, conscious, and proactive work, contrasting with standardization and mechanistic practices detached from dynamic processes of dialogic construction.

For ^{Gadotti (2000)}, the concept of democratic and participatory management is prevalent in Freire’s works, primarily addressing a historical lack of commitment persistently present in Brazilian education. The suppression of pedagogical dimensions in favor of managerial actions exacerbates this issue and undermines efforts to establish democratic management. However, engagement in the learning process doesn’t commence in the classroom; it must be manifested in the surrounding environment to impact the educator’s work in defending the universal right to education (^{Freire, 2002}).

Regarding pedagogical work, ^{Freire (2002)} contends that educators need to be cognizant of their role and responsibilities, but also require improved conditions to fulfill their duties effectively, encompassing the physical space, hygiene, and aesthetic conditions that provide resources for their work. Despite seeming like minimal school prerequisites, societal fluctuations increasingly demand resources that alter conditions. The absence of programs and public policies to address these conditions became more evident and critical with the demands brought about by the Coronavirus pandemic, which necessitated a more urgent and complex need for technological resources due to the shift to remote learning.

In the same vein, it is necessary to highlight another intriguing facet in Freire’s discourse on engagement: engagement in the process of change. Given that profound transformations in education demand constant and wholehearted commitment, professionals in the field must offer lucidity and understanding of the need for their efforts to contribute to societal transformations (^{Freire, 1981}). Hence, the issue of individual engagement is multifaceted, involving educational management, school administration, and teaching work, all culminating in the support of change across different aspects.

Once again, it becomes evident how inhibiting the São Paulo curriculum is to autonomy and, consequently, to engagement. The “prescriptive” nature found in student and teacher notebooks even extends to activities related to socio-emotional “development,” within a curriculum component labeled “Life Project,” designed for high school. It is concerning to believe that engagement can be promoted among directors, teachers, and especially students, within a highly relational component, through standardized materials, limiting teaching practice to mechanical actions around artificially produced themes. As an example, Activity 3 in this curriculum component is presented in Table 3:

Observations suggest that the learning situations shed light on what is expected of teachers in the state education system, as defined by SEESP. Developing pre-established activities represents a mechanistic endeavor, reproducing concepts and paradigms defined by third parties, leaving the responsibility of reflecting on educational practice to others, while teachers are meant to engage in exercise and action. This highlights a disassociation between theory and practice, burying the necessary praxis for the teaching task. Building upon this point of discussion, one can retrace in Freire the link between competence and the construction and implementation of educational work, in contrast to the task executor envisioned by the São Paulo educational management. According to ^{Freire (2002, p. 47)}, “[...] a teacher who does not take their own training seriously, who does not study, who does not strive to meet the demands of their task, lacks the moral strength to coordinate the activities of their class.” This excerpt underscores the importance for education professionals to acquire technical competencies enabling the exercise of a practice-bound job, thereby becoming professionals conscious of the character, not only methodological and conceptual, but also the political nature of their actions.

Even though the educational context is often marked by unpredictability, it can be deduced that the critical ability to deal with unexpected situations also stems from professional competence. In this regard, as opposed to what is revealed by the SEESP document analysis, in Freire’s theory, placing the question of competence in terms of preparing teachers for the unexpected fosters democratic education, as efforts are directed towards overcoming challenges, embracing creativity, and assuming responsibility for one’s actions (^{Freire, 2002}).

It must not be overlooked that educators need to adopt an authoritative stance to command respect for their work. On this point, ^{Freire (2002)} reiterates that it should be a consistently democratic authority, rooted in the certainty that its purpose is to create a space for students to navigate, and under no circumstances should it be used to curtail the sought-after freedom. At a certain point, the concept of authority aligns with the perspective of competence advocated by the philosopher, given that through the pursuit of competence, other important aspects that contribute to this authority manifest, such as confidence in executing actions, cognitive background, and the level of quality in task execution (^{Freire, 2002}).

The mastery of the educator’s work, therefore, stems from this testimony of ethical labor in support of autonomy. Concerning autonomy, ^{Freire (2002)} points to the power of the term in practice and ideological discourse, particularly due to the inversions that occur in neoliberal mentality. In this sense, given the possibilities for interpretation and application, autonomy can be political, social, economic, or cultural and may vary according to the dominant interests, objectives, and intentions within a social sphere. In terms of pedagogy, the autonomy advocated by ^{Freire (2002)} is geared towards attesting, by the subject as well, to the knowledge, freedom, and rights they possess through education.

The defense of autonomy doesn’t culminate in the effects the individual will generate in society after the training period, because it is equally essential throughout the process. Not respecting students’ histories, their curiosities, concerns, preferences, and life trajectories undermines educators in their duty to be respectfully present to teach and inspire a formative experience for learners based on ethical principles (^{Freire, 2002}). Thus, it’s vital in a learning process that educators realize their work involves respecting the autonomy of all and not stifling the freedom that education affords through authoritarian and disrespectful practices.

For ^{Freire (2002)}, there is no genetic, historical, philosophical, or sociological justification that favors moral superiority among individuals, regardless of race, gender, or hierarchical position. The pedagogical autonomy espoused by the philosopher originates from respect for individuals’ identities and must be consistently present in the daily school life, as defending autonomy is an essential element in implementing democratic perspectives across various aspects of pedagogical work organization.

Going even further, autonomy serves as the foundation for the development of work practices that consider the pluralities of educational institutions and the communities surrounding them, instead of standardizing actions based on a mechanistic view of tasks and action plans. On this matter, ^{Freire (2002)} emphasizes the centrality of autonomy, as its entire context, spanning teacher training, alignment of the administrative team, connection with the community, and teaching practices, must all operate in favor of students’ autonomy and their capacity to handle the unpredictabilities of any challenges that may arise in this context.

Final Considerations

Given the significance of Freire’s work for national education, the necessity to reflect on Freirean premises to transform the commodified education perspective, which has been propagated through reforms, plans, projects, and programs in São Paulo, became evident. Consequently, this study aimed to categorize the key ideas of the São Paulo Curriculum (^{São Paulo, 2019}) and analyze them through the lens of ^{Freire (1981}; ²⁰⁰²⁾ concerning teaching work.

The reflection on teachers’ work paved the way to emphasize aspects of SEESP’s discourse that align with a mechanistic educational policy, draped in pedagogical veneer while proposing reproductions of neoliberal concepts and paradigms. Thus, the research presented ^{Freire’s perspectives (1981}; ²⁰⁰²⁾ on education that would genuinely be democratic and rooted in recognizing individuals as critical beings.

To achieve this educational ideal, it was underscored that teachers hold a crucial role in delivering professional, competent, and socially attuned performance. More specifically, the categories of analysis — methodological competence or rigor, engagement, and advocacy of autonomy — contributed to defining the limits and possibilities of ethical and committed teaching work, aiming to grant broad access to education rights.

In conclusion, the presented analysis establishes a connection between teaching work and Freirean principles that foster a humanized learning process geared towards societal development as a whole. It envisions a scenario where marginalized communities can witness access to knowledge, their rights, and their freedom legitimized through education.