Introduction

Analyzing and discussing the family-school relationship within a society markedly unequal in terms of access to basic rights such as school education and unique configurations can provide us with elements for understanding important transformation processes regarding families, given that “the Brazilian family, as an active part of the change processes, has undergone rapid and profound transformations in its traditional attributions”¹ (^{Goldani , 2005}), but also, in schools and school education, as it is understood

education and/or teaching systems as social phenomena constructed and reconstructed by a collective and, as developments of this property, capable of expressing the structuring or restructuring of social morphologies (^{Setton, 2013}, p. 7).

Moreover, it is important to analyze the relationship between schools and families of Special Education students, as this specific context demands particular attention that is not common to all families. In this regard, it is essential to reflect on the challenges faced by these students’ families in securing a legitimate position within school institutions today. How does the relationship between families and schools manifest in terms of school learning? How is the balance of power configured between families and schools? What strategies do families of Special Education students employ concerning their schooling? Most importantly, what role does the school play for these families? Which families are we referring to? And what about the school? What position does the school adopt regarding these families? What type of relationship does the school seek to establish? What is this space?

What is the scientific production about this topic in the field of Special Education? This is what we aim to analyze with the data collected and organized in this article.

The family-school relationship and the body of knowledge: some perspectives

In this section, we discuss the transformations that have occurred, both regarding families and schools, and the interrelation between these two institutions in the context of schooling processes, scrutinizing this relationship with respect to the families of Special Education students.

The definition of family does not include a natural and unaltered perspective; therefore, some considerations are necessary. To define family, ^{Fonseca (2005}) focuses on an anthropological analysis based on concrete life and relationships among social classes. The author observes the family configuration through its way of life, understood as “a historical phenomenon, the result of certain economic and political circumstances, and which demonstrates the creativity of individuals acting in society” (Fonseca, 2005, p. 58).

^{Bruschine (1989}), based on anthropological, sociological, demographic and psychological approaches, points out that

The family is a group of people linked by blood ties, kinship or dependence, who establish relationships of solidarity and tension, conflict and affection among themselves. It is not a ‘harmonious and serene’ group, focused on satisfying economic needs, but rather a unit composed of individuals of different sexes, ages and positions, who experience a constant power game that crystallizes in the distribution of rights and duties” (^{Bruschine, 1989}, p. 13).

Recently, there has been an increasing dissemination of discourse about the ‘destructuring’ of the family as it was in the relatively recent past. ^{Goldani (2005}) emphasizes that the changes undergone by the very mode of social organization cause the forms of family arrangement and role representations to also change, contributing to their diversification, showing that the family constitution occurs from the intersection and interaction between the different life trajectories of their members in certain social contexts.

To this extent, ^{Salztrager (2018}, p. 183) points out that

We observe that the various truths at stake in the concept of modern family are constructions of the most diverse discourses present in our society, not referring to natural tendencies or linked to any kind of essence.

Thus, defining a family becomes a complex exercise, as the definition does not depend solely on identifying the people who live under the same roof, or who the father and mother are, or whether the family is made up of separated, divorced or married parents. In fact, what can be analyzed as a family goes far beyond the definition of a domestic unit, as used by IBGE². What is understood as a family and its configuration can differ, reflecting the concrete lived experiences of specific groups. Therefore, it is essential to reconsider the notion that families with configurations differing from the so-called traditional and hegemonic model are ‘unstructured,’ as this model is neither the sole nor the most appropriate one.

Family transformations influence social relations at the same time that they are themselves influenced by social changes, in a constant movement of confluence that will certainly impact the school institution.

^{Romanelli, Nogueira and Zago (2013}, p. 35), points out that:

[...] schools are configured as formal social spaces, with a defined hierarchy, in which the exercise of power and authority are clearly delineated, involving not only the action of teachers, but of agents who act, directly or indirectly, in knowledge transmission. Furthermore, in educational establishments there are forms of sociability between students, formally equalized by this attribute and simultaneously distinct from each other.

We have observed significant transformations in the organization and structure of families, as well as changes in schools, especially regarding policies aimed at democratizing access, methodologies, pedagogical practices, curricula, and the diversification of actions to support students’ socio-affective development. Schools have increasingly opened their spaces to community agents who, through their involvement, influence school dynamics and, consequently, impact family dynamics, often in a more persistent and systematic manner than in the past.

Regarding Special Education, we have observed, especially since the early 2000s, with the dissemination of an inclusive discourse in the educational field, significant advances in the schooling of this group, mainly through legislation that assigns to the school system and teachers the responsibility for an education that provides for the school inclusion of these students. These transformations cannot be separated from educational transformations in general, since the universalization of education for school-age people was part of a set of political determinations, significantly increasing the enrollment of a portion of students who until then remained outside the school walls.

While it is true that there is still a long way to go in terms of learning, we are witnessing a societal reorganization in which the school still holds a prominent position as an instrument of distinction, as pointed out by ^{Bourdieu (2014}).

Historically, Special Education has been marked by the distancing and even segregation of many people with disabilities and specific disorders from general schooling processes in mainstream classrooms. However, after much struggle and pressure from families, people with disabilities, social movements and social negotiations, we have observed a certain change. These people now have the right to attend school, which was previously denied to many.

Legally, they now have rights where they previously had charity or good intentions. However, has the relationship between the school and these families changed? Has their place in the school institution shifted from that of “favored” to that of citizens with rights and potential? For which families?

Studies such as those by ^{Patto (1990}; 2015) highlight the historical construction of the disqualification of families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, suggesting their perceived inadequacy in addressing issues related to their children’s learning. According to the author, research shows that these families do not have an adequate structure and sufficient organization to meet the demands of the school. The author also identified “contradictions, dissatisfactions and tensions that, almost never made explicit, let alone resolved, permanently resonate in the fabric of the school” (Patto, 2015, p. 200).

According to ^{Nogueira (2005}), research carried out between the 1950s and 1970s did not include the family as an object of study, as in that period there was a strong consensus on the deconstruction of this institution. Nogueira (2005, p. 566) On this subject, Singly (2000, p. 16) indicates that the “author refers to the French May 1968 movement, which rejected the family, perceiving it as something harmful as it repressed the true identity of both young people and adults shaping them into conformist individuals”. The author further highlights that while there was some recognition of the family’s role in an individual’s schooling, this acknowledgement was inferred based on their social class, thus representing a macroscopic interpretation.

It was from the 1980s onwards that studies covering internal analyses of these two institutions and their relations with macrosocial aspects expanded, with new approaches emerging in the field of sociology of education, both in terms of the objects of investigation and the investigative methods, to account for microscopic analyses of social reality, broadening “[...] interpretations based on a macrosociological vision, considering the transformations within the family and the school and the interrelations between both” (^{Romanelli; Nogueira; Zago, 2013}, p. 39).

The analysis of the family-school relationship began to be reviewed and “the family, which until then with a supporting role in these processes, started to be interpreted through the lens of its diversity, in the hope of uncovering the particularities of its conditioning factors and challenges” (^{Setton, 2013}, p. 9).

Thus, new objects are defined, including: the educational establishment, the classroom, the curriculum and the family, highlighting the concepts of school trajectories and strategies used by families thought of in the context of their children’s schooling.

^{Romanelli, Nogueira and Zago (2013}, p. 11) point out that, in the early 2000s, “[...] we could say that there was no tradition in Brazil of studies aimed at analyzing the relationships between families and their children’s schooling processes [...]” Today, after a few years and many social, economic, political and cultural transformations, we can say that they “[...] mutually fed the relationships between the two socializing institutions, impacting the schooling process”. In this aspect, research in the educational field gained new contours, new theoretical reflections, contributions and methodological procedures, aiming to analyze the influence of these transformations widely observed in school and family life. These studies are dedicated to macro and microstructural analyses.

^{Romanelli, Nogueira and Zago (2013}, p. 32) points out that studies on the relationship between family and school are not recent, but the analysis carried out has been generic, as “another dimension of schooling or domestic life”.

Based on the interpretations of French-speaking authors such as Bourdieu, Lahire, Van Zanten, Perrenoud, for example, research has focused on microsocial aspects of families and their relationship with schooling, without ignoring macrosocial aspects and their influences.

Therefore, it is necessary to think about the issue of inequality within and of education through economic, social and cultural determinants, interrelating it to individual strategies regarding schooling.

It is noteworthy considering that, although both family and school have distinguishing singularities, some elements directly influence this diversity, since structural determinations impose specific forms of organization and mode of operation. Another fundamental aspect for the analysis of the relationship between family and school refers to the value, or rather, the meaning that the two institutions assume for each other. In other words, what role do they play for each other in the schooling process of children and youth?

In a bibliographic survey conducted by ^{Romanelli, Nogueira and Zago, (2013}), they author found that among the selected articles, the analyses are theoretically based on studies of the sociology of education produced in France, inspired by works by Bourdieu and others who broaden these interpretations, proposing new theoretical approaches. This does not mean that Brazilian authors, considering this theoretical framework, do not assume a critical stance towards many concepts that deserve to be revised in light of the results of Brazilian studies.

Regarding the theme of studies, the author presents articles that discuss the relationship between family and school through different perspectives, bringing to light methodological, conceptual and theoretical aspects that help to rethink and broaden the focus of investigations.

These works discuss: the influence of the family on the cognitive development of children; the school paths and trajectories of students from lower classes; the relationship between middle-class families and school; rural schools; the elites and the schooling of children; family strategies regarding the choice of institutions and schooling; differences between fraternities and media in the structuring of school predispositions and dispositions.

Although the survey was conducted 10 years ago, its contribution remains undeniable and relevant in updating our understanding of knowledge production on this topic regarding diversity within the scope of the Sociology of Education on the focus of the family-school relationship within this academic field.

Thus, this article, materialized through a bibliographic survey of theses and dissertations on the family-school relationship and Special Education, aims to shed light on the theme focused on the relationship between the families of Special Education students and the school, within the field of Special Education. Thinking about this constitution can contribute to shaping future policy actions that meet the demands of both schools and families, ensuring that these subjects, as part of the school system, have their rights to schooling processes upheld. Furthermore, the relevance of analyzing research production in this field, highlighting theoretical and conceptual aspects, particularly on a theme that, until very recently, had not been the object of scholarly investigation.

Method

To conduct the bibliographic survey, the Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Theses and Dissertations Catalogue was selected, as this repository compiles the academic output of all Brazilian universities since 1987, reflecting knowledge production in graduate studies, despite its recognized limitations.

The search was conducted using search terms combined with Boolean operators: family AND defic*; family AND school AND defic*, family AND “Special Education”. The selection criteria included works with the following terms in the title: school, family, disability or similar terms. After reading the abstracts, some works were excluded because they did not correspond to the scope of the research, were duplicated, were not available online or could not be found, as shown in Table 1 below.

Seventy-seven works were selected to form the scope of this article. After reading each of their abstracts, we organized tables with information regarding: a) publication period, b) publication region, c) production level (academic master’s degree, professional master’s degree, doctorate), d) research institution, e) researched specificity, f) graduate program; in addition to a table containing g) the thematic axes of analysis.

Development and Discussion

As shown in Table 1293 works were found, and after refinement, 77 works, including theses and dissertations, whose themes refer to the relationship between family and school were selected. The production periods of these works can be seen in Table 2:

We observe a considerable increase in the number of studies since 2000, totaling 75 studies in 21 years, with a growing trend if we consider the last 10 years. Nogueira (2015) also identified the growing output of studies on the topic family-school relationship in graduate programs in recent years, which corroborates the collected data. We highlight that, within Special Education, we have an important legal framework regarding the publication and dissemination of the National Policy for Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education in 2008 (Brasil, 2008), which may have favored the interest in investigating the topic presented here.

Regarding the regions, we observe in Table 3 that the Southeast and South regions concentrate more than 80% of the publications, and the Northeast, Central-West and North regions together have 18% of the publications in the analyzed period. Comparing these data with those collected on the Sucupira Platform (2024) website, we found that the region of Brazil with the smallest number of graduate programs is the North region with 318 programs, followed by the Central-West region, with 406, the South region with 972, the Northeast region with 975 and finally, the Southeast region with 1983 graduate programs.

Regarding the level at which the works were produced, we observe, in table 4, that 69% of the analyzed works refer to academic master’s theses, while 23.3% are doctoral dissertations and only 7.8% are professional master’s theses. This finding corroborates other investigations in the field of Special Education (^{Bueno, 2014}).

According to the Sucupira Platform, Brazil has 758 Professional Master’s Programs and 1210 Academic Master’s Programs, which does not seem to justify the low number of productions in this type of Master’s program.

As for the establishment that served as the research field, we observed that 68.8% of the works are dedicated to analyses focused on general schools, 16.8% on special schools and only 1.29% on special classes or pedagogical support centers.

General schools were the most analyzed educational establishments, with 68.8% of the studies, followed by special schools with 16.8% of the studies, and only 1.29% dedicated to special classes or pedagogical support centers. It is noteworthy that, even today, 16 years after the publication of the National Policy on Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education (Brasil, 2008) and 30 years after the Salamanca Declaration ((UNESCO, 1994)) that disseminated the discourse of school inclusion in Brazil, there is a considerable number of special schools resulting from the country’s own social organization and its established consensus.

Regarding the specificity analyzed in the selected works, we observed that 66.2% of the investigations address disability in general and mental/intellectual disability. When separating the categories, we have 51.2% of works focusing on disability in general, and 15% focusing on mental/intellectual disability, a fact that differs from studies focused on the production of knowledge about Special Education in Brazil, which indicated intellectual disability as the most researched specificity, and disability in general as the least researched (^{Bueno, 2014}). Even so, this concern corroborates the 2023 basic education census that indicates 1,617,420 enrollments of Special Education students in general classrooms in general schools, of which 830,718 are students diagnosed with mental/intellectual disability. These numbers require more in-depth analysis than simply understanding them as the expansion of opportunities for students with disabilities; however, given the object of study and the limits of this chapter, this task becomes impossible in this article^3.

Regarding graduate programs, it is observed that 81.8% of the studies were developed in programs linked to Education or Special Education, perhaps due to the search terms, while 18.18% was distributed among other programs, as indicated in Table 7, corroborating ^{Bueno’s (2014}) findings. We highlight the low incidence in Psychology programs, given their historical trajectory of production in the field.

After reading the abstracts of the 77 works selected for this research, we proceeded to the organization into thematic axes of analysis according to ^{Bardin (1997}). We emphasize that the object of the survey refers to the theme family-school relationship; however, some thematic axes based on this object of study guided the discussions held in each of the 77 works, as highlighted below.

Through the grouping, we observe that the thematic axis with the largest number of works, totaling 46.7%, is the one that specifically discusses the relationship between families and schools, followed by works that address the conceptions, representations and expectations of parents and professionals who serve people in the Special Education audience, with 24.6% of the works. Next, we find the works addressing the schooling processes with 15.5%, and other categories between 1 and 5% of the works analyzed in this sample.

Family-School Relationship thematic axis address issues such as a) raising awareness of the families regarding their role in the development of public students with Special Education; identifying the needs and potential of families for their effective participation in the process of inclusion and schooling of their children; interventions, assistance, guidance and training aimed at families based on their needs; b) the influence of family dynamics and the relationship with the school on the subjective constitution of the student with disabilities and on the learning process of basic activities; teaching and learning process, assessment, school management and socialization; c) the organization of the school to welcome the family; the quality of the relationship established between family and school; identifying aspects necessary to facilitate closer ties between family and school; identifying barriers that hinder this relationship; analyzing how this relationship is addressed in political-pedagogical projects; examining the role of school administrators in fostering stronger connections between school and family environments; d) the investment of families from economic and social elites in the schooling process of their children with disabilities; family-school relationship within lower classes.

The results highlight the need for changes, both in the family and in the school, regarding the way this relationship occurs, observing the potential of the subjects. They point out the tensions and divergences, as well as the possibilities of actions that aim to bring these two institutions closer together. They indicate the importance of the relationship between family and school for social and school inclusion, and perceive the importance of this relationship in favoring the schooling process, even though they do not analyze the schooling process itself.

The following topics are addressed in the thematic axis Conceptions, representations and expectations: a) the conception and perception of parents about infants with disabilities, mothers of children with disabilities; participation in early stimulation programs; b) the perceptions of parents, teachers, and deaf students regarding deafness, sign language and the schooling process in general education; discourses elaborated by parents of deaf students; an analysis of the schooling trajectories of students, family members and teachers; conceptions of inclusion based on the life histories of parents; c) strategies used by families to face the challenges they encountered and the role of the special educator in this process; identification of factors that hinder inclusion in general school; d) assessments and actions related to inclusion from the perspective of family members and educators; e) expectations, perspectives, and family conceptions regarding the schooling process, multifunctional resource rooms, and specialized education services.

The obtained results demonstrate that conceptions are built from interactions, in which families, students and professionals construct their conceptions based on background and experiences, considering the importance of the relationship between family and school. They address the need for changes in the relationship between families and institutions and inclusion policies, fostering participation and collaboration between them, whether in general schools or specialized institutions. Regarding expectations, they demonstrate that families have high expectations for their children, especially when the specificity concerns sensory disabilities and high abilities/giftedness, while in other situations, some families and professionals demonstrate low expectations, which can impact the type of established relationship. They also present the need for professionals to believe in and support families. Some studies report a negative view of the families in relation to inclusion, arguing that the conditions for school inclusion to occur are not adequate. Other studies demonstrate a high degree of satisfaction with the services provided in certain spaces and locations in case studies. Some studies highlight the value that families of Special Education students place on schools and the schooling process, prompting reflections on the social place occupied by schools in the inclusion process perceived in different ways by certain families, raising key questions: which families? In which spaces? With which schools? With which subjects is school inclusion being discussed?

It is worth noting that, although the works have similar subjects, we chose to organize them separately, given the explicit focus on Schooling Processes. Thus, the works that cope with this thematic axis address: a) motivations, information, meanings, opinions and expectations regarding schooling, with regard to the selection of a specific school; the meaning of school; factors that favor this process; the configuration of families and their impacts on the process; specific terminality. Such investigations are carried out at different levels of education; b) opinions and expectations about school inclusion and the factors that foster or limit the learning process and the general development of their children; c) follow-up and perception of parents in general schools and in specialized education services; and finally, d) the trajectories of students who reached higher education, considering family relationships.

In this list of selected and organized works, we observed strong expectations from families regarding their children’s learning, although schools often continue to believe that these families do not participate effectively. Families demonstrate the need for more information about their children’s learning processes, while schools tend to emphasize their social development in Special Education. There is an asymmetry regarding education policies and what happens in the day-to-day life of schools in relation to families, although some families report the advances that have taken place in recent years in terms of guarantees of access to general classrooms. They also indicate factors that impact the relationship between family and school, such as social, economic and cultural factors, but the dynamics presented are not tense; on the contrary, this relationship is, in a certain way, naturalized, by emphasizing that the lower socioeconomic conditions families have, the less they participate in their children’s school life, harming the teaching and learning process or the urgency of schools to propose actions that bring families closer to schools.

Regarding the axis Inclusion Policies, the authors present works that: a) discuss the need to think about basic assistance policies for a specific audience that uses a specialized institution, in order to form autonomous individuals who are aware of their living conditions. These works reinforce the precarious conditions experienced by a segment of the population from the economically disadvantaged strata of society and who seek assistance in specialized institutions as the only alternative for demands that are not only school-related; b) advocate the need to think about inclusive policies aimed at bringing families closer to schools and the work developed there; c) analyze the discourse on inclusion produced by policies and how this construction can direct the form of surveillance over families of people with disabilities and the people themselves, managing the risks of exclusion; therefore, from this perspective, families are the target, but also the agents of implementation of inclusion policies.

Out of the 77 selected works, two discuss Diagnosis. This theme presents: a) the meaning that diagnosis has for families of children with disabilities and its impact on the schooling process; and b) the importance of diagnosis on vision, carried out in schools in a specific region of Brazil. The two works, which are distinct from each other, point to a paradox in the field of Special Education. If, on the one hand, diagnosis is necessary for some actions aimed at the subject, on the other, it can be harmful to the extent that it labels subjects with disabilities that are very close to what is conventionally seen as normal and not visible, as is the case with intellectual disability, especially mild ones. Thus, both works point to the need for care when carrying out the diagnosis of a child, as it can serve different demands.

Finally, a study provides an overview of academic outcomes - theses and dissertations - aiming at presenting how academic production is configured with regard to family-school relationship, through work from Sociology and Psychology programs. It is based on references from the history of education. It presents a set of data on the most frequently conducted locations, references, procedures and types of research, as well as some findings, such as the need for and importance of family participation in the schooling processes of children with disabilities, and the importance of the institution as a promoter of general education and care for the child. However, it also presents data on the research procedure, including the descriptors used for searches, the organization and systematization of data and its categorization, thus highlighting the need for studies that provide a review of the knowledge production in the area.

The work highlights the profusion of research on family-school relationship from the year 2000 on, with a concentration in the South and Southeast regions, predominantly in graduate programs in education, corroborating the data in this article. The selected works in the review indicate primarily three axes of analysis: the importance of family-school relationship; the expectations of parents and teachers about school and the forms assumed in this relationship. They present results close to those of this article regarding the tensions assumed around this relationship, the secondary role played in the schooling process of this audience, the requirement for the presence of parents as one important factor, characterizing the participation of the family in the school life of their children.

The survey and analysis carried out through the abstracts of the selected theses and dissertations highlight the complexity regarding the discussion on family-school relationship as various objects of analysis are constructed in order to approach this complex relationship and the intrinsic tension that permeates it, thus opening up possibilities for the development of further studies that have family-school relationship and Special Education as their research and theme of analysis.

Some considerations

We emphasize that these considerations do not aim to provide final conclusions on the family-school relationship within Special Education but rather to introduce key elements for reflection on the continuity of research focused on this critically important theme. Understanding knowledge production in the field is essential for identifying continuities, discontinuities, and ruptures, thereby fostering its advancement.

As pointed out by ^{Romanelli, Nogueira and Zago (2013}), it is necessary to consider which family is being discussed and analyzed by researchers, as well as the configurations that emerge in studies indicating various possibility of affirmation. After all, there is no single family model; therefore, the concrete, real family must be considered in the elaboration, organization, systematization and analysis of data. “If the emphasis falls on the family’s stance regarding the schooling of their children, who is the family, or rather, who speaks on behalf of this collective subject?” (Romanelli; Nogueira; Zago, 2013, p. 53).

It is also necessary to avoid abstracting the school institution, as it occupies a place in the social space and is composed of subjects with different experiences, conceptions, ways of engaging with the world, and, therefore, it is essential to think of the school in its multiplicity, in its various forms of organizing technical-administrative and pedagogical work, as well as its symbolic and meaningful dimensions within certain contexts for certain historical subjects.

The collected data disclose some important elements for considering the place occupied by both the family and the school, and the relationship established therein. Academic productions on the family-school relationship in the field of Special Education are recent, showing significant growth from the 2000s on, reflecting, on the one hand, the consolidation of research in the field of Special Education and, on the other, the dissemination of discourse and policies aimed at school inclusion of the Special Education audience, which has occurred more intensely from the end of the 1990s.

The thematic axes that emerged from the readings of the abstracts of the selected theses and dissertations demonstrate the different objects of research and analysis, having the family-school relationship as a central foundation: the discussion centered specifically on the family-school relationship object; the conceptions, representations and expectations of parents and professionals; the priority approach to the schooling process; teacher training; the focus on inclusion policies to think about the family-school relationship; the focus on diagnoses; and the state of the art on the subject.

They indicate the tense relationship established between family and school, as the conceptions considering the family as a homogeneous entity and that, therefore, all are expected to respond in the same way to the demands placed by the school are still common. On the other hand, the school is seen as a formative space that must consider the singularity of the subjects, but that often ends up, through its practices, homogenizing the way students and their families are treated. There is a tendency towards prescriptive work, interventions and training aimed at families, but there is an indication of research that analyzes the organization of the school itself with regard to work aimed at establishing some kind of relationship with families, concluding that there is a need to change conceptions about families.

It is worth highlighting that the analyzed works, even those few that include the concrete living conditions of families, do not place these conditions under tension and that the spaces occupied socially, both by families and by the schools, influence the relationship established between these two institutions, as they naturalize the precarious way these families establish themselves in society and end up transforming the school into a neutral and abstract instance.

In this sense, through the analyzed data, attempting to advance discussions on the relationship between families of Special Education students and schools, we can point out that issues related to the characteristics of disability, social class, gender and race/ethnicity are not present in the research. They treat the subject with disability in an abstract way, in a relationship between families and schools that is also abstract, overlooking the fact that the constitution of the subjects and, therefore, of their experience and expectations, although they have a relative autonomy, are closely linked to the place they occupy socially. Neither families nor schools can be understood as abstract spaces, but rather inserted in a dynamic marked by the way society is organized.

Thus, it is urgent that research on family-school relationships take into account the fact that we are talking about different families occupying different social places and relating to different schools in different spaces, therefore, a complex dynamic composed of intersections and interactions among subjects with their trajectories and these two socializing institutions.