Introductory considerations¹

Recurrently, but discontinuously, the debate on Integral Education embodied in that of the full-time school has circulated in the Brazilian context since the 1930s with the Pioneers of Education movement, an important historical boundary in the trajectory of construction of an ideal of a public education system for the country. Inscribed in a mosaic of experiences that took place in different times and territories, this perspective of education is far from configuring a single understanding of the formative mediations that correspond to the attribute used to characterize it.

Experiences ranging from philanthropic initiatives to government programs to induce the expansion of school time point out that the belief that offering learning activities for a longer period of time in the daily school routine can collaborate with the improvement of educational indicators. The reasons normally given to justify such an investment are also plural, involving holistic conceptions of human formation, conceptions of facing inequalities that originate or are updated in/by the absence of quality schooling, as well as reasons that are linked to social discipline and to the capitalization of learning according to market demands.

This paper proposes to discuss, in the light of data collected through a web questionnaire with 162 teachers from 18 full-time public schools in the state of Paraíba-Brazil, didactic challenges of building teaching practices from the perspective of Integral Education. In this direction, the paper collaborates with the problematization of the meanings of teaching in full-time school by focusing on the ways in which the teaching-learning processes are planned, developed and evaluated.

As a form of analytical treatment, the data were submitted to Categorical Content Analysis (^{BARDIN, 2010}). According to this procedure, nominal and thematic codes were extracted from the answers given by the teachers to the questions that made up the web questionnaire. Subsequently, these codes gave rise to categories on: a) Integral Education concepts; b) didactic planning; c) methodological characterization of teaching practices; d) didactic attitudes and learning assessment instruments.

Integral education and fulltime school

The logic of human formation linked to the notion of Integral Education operating in this paper proposes that the integral development of the human being stems from learning experiences capable of mobilizing the different dimensions that constitute him as a knowing subject, that is, inserted in a movement of dialogue, critical understanding and production of meaning about the world, sphere of sharing experiences and historical production through lived daily lives. These dimensions include cognitive, socio-affective and operational capacities that, articulated, configure possibilities of a critical-transforming, autonomous and collaborative action in the world, for the world and with the world. Learning experiences within the framework of Integral Education also contribute, in this sense, to the formation of people who perceive themselves as integrated into a world of intersubjective belongings disposed towards the human as a knowable object, on which different networks of knowledge are woven, and as a dialogical construction, the result of an “emergence of consciences, which results in a critical insertion in reality” (^{FREIRE, 1983}, p. 40). In this way, Integral Education is configured as a paradigm and not exactly as an organizational model. The Full Time School, in turn, concerns an organizational model that extends the time students stay in school institutions, not always established in the Integral Education paradigm. Because it does not represent, in itself, a guarantee of Integral Education, schools that configure their full-time formative dynamics should be questioned about whether there is “[...] more time for emancipation/transformation or more time for memorization mechanics of the list of contents chosen for the school?” (^{ROVERONI; MOMMA; GUIMARÃES, 2019}, p. 223).

Based on an analysis of the historical structural duality of the trajectory of educational policies in Brazil, ^{Libâneo (2012)} provokes a pertinent reflection about institutional arrangements aimed at the popular classes, which prioritize social acceptance and minimal learning for survival without attention to the specific purposes of the school. Such purposes necessarily involve what the school teaches and the didactic quality with which it does so, so that these arrangements can reinforce mechanisms of exclusion that anticipate or update exclusion in/from social life. Libâneo points out that, for popular children and young people, “[...] a school without content and with a mockery of social acceptance and socialization, including full-time school” (2012, p. 24). In contrast, he argues that the extension of the time spent in school should be converted into opportunities for “[...] cultural and scientific training with sociocultural practices in which differences, values and forms of local and everyday knowledge are manifested” (^{LIBÂNEO, 2012}, p. 24).

Despite all the legal framework that has helped to configure a public policy of Integral Education in Brazil, it is not possible to affirm it, however, as a right, since the school experiences are guided by criteria of selectivity of the public, destined, not infrequently, to segments of children and youth in situations of greater risk and social vulnerability, in the case of public institutions (^{CAVALIERE, 2014}).

Meanwhile, the arrangements for the better economically situated classes remain strongly committed to the socialization of powerful knowledge (^{YOUNG, 2013}). The nature of this knowledge - asymmetrically distributed due to school dualism - “is different from the experiences that students bring to school or older students bring to basic cycles or university. This differentiation is expressed in the conceptual boundaries between school and everyday knowledge” (^{YOUNG, 2013}, p. 19). They are formalized knowledge that, although they must be linked to the students’ daily experiences, challenge these experiences, re-signifying them, expanding them, constituting networks for the construction of a complex and unveiling view of the world.

The pedagogical quality of full-time school experiences is conditioned, therefore, to an understanding of Integral Education as a possibility of articulating plural learning experiences within the framework of a multidimensional curriculum that qualifies, as an expression of a clear pedagogical project, the expansion of training times and spaces, valuing the “plurality of knowledge, interpersonal relationships as a motto for learning and teaching, reading the world as a political act” (^{MOLL; LECLERC, 2013}, p. 292).

A full-time school from the perspective of Integral Education can be constituted as a learning community and appreciation of the different ways of expressing how one learns, which means valuing the uniqueness of the learning subject in their contexts of belonging. Human diversity, when transformed into a factor of stigmatization and social exclusion, justifies training approaches that do not arouse the engagement and protagonism of subjects who, in the broader social fabric, carry marks of discriminatory processes that structure the symbolic and material organization of society. In this sense, this school can enhance social changes when it is linked to the historical processes of struggle to guarantee and consolidate the rights of individuals and groups who have always had limited education not only in time and space, but also in terms of learning expectations.

Despite the positive evaluation of the experiences accumulated with the initiatives to implement full-time schools in Brazil throughout the 20th century and that the Law of Diretrizes and Basis of Education (^{BRASIL, 1996}) has foreseen the progressive expansion of the daily journey in the elementary school, it is only as the National Education Plan 2001-2010 (PNE) that the full-time school begins to be unveiled in the midst of the silencing of policies, until then. The institution of the National Fund for the Development of Basic Education, which took place in 2007, collaborates with the standardization of this modality of school functioning, determining its own financing mechanisms. Decree nº 6.253/2007 (^{BRASIL, 2007}) regulated that full-time corresponds to a minimum offer of seven hours of school activities per day.

As a program that induces experiences to expand the daily journey in schools, the Plus Education Program was created in 2007. Acting in such a way as to offer cultural educative activities to children and young people in schools to expand educational opportunities, the Plus Education Program provided opportunities for “the creation of educational territories, the use of non-school educational spaces for the development of so-called complementary activities and the incorporation of other professionals for the performance of the educational action” (^{PARENTE, 2018}, p. 421). The Innovative High School Program, launched in 2010, also served as an induction device to expand the journey associated with the restructuring of curriculum for education for young people in High School based on principles of curriculum integration, pluralization of opportunities, spaces and learning times. These two programs underwent successive reformulations that reconfigured the framework of their objectives and operational guidelines.

Integral Education is reintroduced in the agenda of educational policies with the National Education Plan 2014-2024 through target 6, which estimates the provision of “[...] full-time education in at least 50% (fifty percent) of public schools, in order to serve at least 25% (twenty-five percent) of basic education students” (^{BRASIL, 2014}); given the ineffectiveness of the Ministry of Education in the implementation of the Plan, the aforementioned goal remains a challenge for the next decade.

Assumed, then, as a State policy, Integral Education, consubstantiated in the full-time school, follows a path of production of meaning that, even permeated by discontinuous practices and without a clear conception of what would constitute it as an educational paradigm, leads it to the National Common Curricular Base (^{BRASIL, 2017}) as a pedagogical foundation of the competence development process in Basic Education. In the wake of neoliberal policies in the educational field, the notion of competences has represented the imposition of the logic of developing productive capacities according to the interests of private sectors in the school, restricting the teaching-learning processes to capacities with added market value.

It should be noted, albeit tangentially, that this perspective of Integral Education, apparently linked to the assumptions of a holistic human formation, contextualized, centered on the potential of people and on networks of multiple knowledge, finds limits for its didactic-curricular translation; considering that the Base itself configures a structure of objects of knowledge taken as universal, which weakens the local production of curricula by subjects of contexts and knowledge marked by diversity. Another factor that hinders the articulation of knowledge is the superimposition of lists of learning objectives, classified as skills, for each curricular component in its respective area, with little intersection and organicity, important didactic criteria of a curricular integration approach. Thus, the instrumental nature of competences, the dispersion of teaching contents and the tendency towards curricular standardization are factors that can compromise the concept of Integral Education pointed out as the foundation of the Base.

With Law No. 11.100 of 2018, the State of Paraíba regulates the Integral Education Program and, with Law No. 11,314 of ²⁰¹⁹, establishes Operational Guidelines for the operation and organization of Integral Citizen Schools (ECI), Technical Integral Citizen Schools (ECIT) and Socio-Educational Integral Citizen Schools (ECIS), in addition to establishing the Integral Teaching Dedication Regime (RDDI). Given the general parameters of curriculum development, each model of Citizen Schools is distinguished by contemplating specific purposes, bearing in mind the profile of the students for which it is intended. The ECIs serve young people who attend regular high school, the ECITs offer high school integrated with vocational training at a technical level, and the ECISs are located in units for carrying out socio-educational measures for young people deprived of liberty. In 2021, the State had 302 Citizen Schools throughout its territorial extension. The Integral Education model in the State of Paraíba proposes to extend school time and the training of students, “[...] seeking to contemplate the cognitive and socio-emotional aspects from the observance of the following pillars: learning to know, learn to do, learn to live together and learn to be”. (^{PARAÍBA, 2018}, p. 103).

Teaching in full-time school: concerns for didactic

The teachers who participated in the survey worked in ECIs in different micro-regions of the State of Paraíba and were contacted through a strategy of disseminating the virtual questionnaire by the pedagogical coordinators who participated in an extension action of a formative nature promoted by the Group of Studies and Research in Pedagogy, Educational Work and Society (GEPPTES) in the first half of 2020. The group of respondents comprised 162 teachers, of which 48% identify themselves as women and 52% as men, aged between 21 and 54 years. There is a predominance of age group between 27 and 40 years (42%).

About academic training, all of them have degrees in undergraduate courses of Humanities (55%), Exact and Natural Sciences (32%) and training in bachelor’s degrees in the area of Applied Social Sciences (16%). A percentage of 41% has training at the lato sensu postgraduate level, with a predominance of courses in the area of Education and Human Sciences. Adding up to 20%, there is a group of professors holding a master’s degree, predominantly in the areas of Education and Teaching, while 5% hold a doctor’s degree, with a concentration in the area of Education.

With regard to the length of time they have worked at Citizen Schools, 49% of teachers have between one and three years of experience, 37% have less than one year of experience, 11% have between three and five years and 3% are working on this school model for more than five years.

Next, reflections will be structured based on the data produced, understanding them as elements that signal the way in which they have been didactically translated, in the organization of school pedagogical work, different meanings of Integral Education that, just as they are pluralized in the specialized literature and in regulatory documents of educational policies, they are molded into a heterogeneous mosaic of understandings about teaching in the perspective of Integral Education.

In this sense, teaching practices need to be configured within the framework of a Didactic conception that involves reflection on Integral Education as an end and the expansion of school time as a means, inquiring about the pertinence of the methodological choices that organize the teaching-learning processes in relation to the panorama of formative objectives that constitute the Political-Pedagogical Project of the school. It is, therefore, within this horizon that the pedagogical work in Integral Education is faced with Multidimensional Didactic, a tendency characterized, according to ^{Franco and Pimenta (2016)}, by the understanding of teaching as a complex phenomenon that goes beyond the transposition of disciplinary objects.

Derives from this understanding the place of Didactic as a structuring element of a pedagogical work that is based on the understanding of curricular contents as training resources and not as ends in themselves. This implies thinking that the teaching practice can mobilize students’ learning from these resources, remaining linked to an intentional and methodical project that transcends the emphasis on knowledge disconnected from networks that trigger them as elements capable of favoring the development integral human. Integral human development is understood as the formation of knowledge and skills that lead the subject to participatory social insertion, enhancing his awareness of the phenomena that constitute reality as a way of boosting the engagement necessary for the construction of a democratic and inclusive society, autonomy and critical thinking in lifelong learning experiences. In this sense, teaching practices need to be configured within the framework of a Didactic conception that involves reflection on Integral Education as an end and the expansion of school time as a means, inquiring about the pertinence of the methodological choices that organize the teaching-learning processes in relation to the panorama of formative objectives that constitute the Political-Pedagogical Project of the school. It is, therefore, within this horizon that the pedagogical work in Integral Education is faced with Multidimensional Didactics, a tendency characterized, according to ^{Franco and Pimenta (2016)}, by the understanding of teaching as a complex phenomenon that goes beyond the transposition of disciplinary objects.

Derives from this understanding the place of Didactics as a structuring element of a pedagogical work that is based on the understanding of curricular contents as training resources and not as ends in themselves. This implies thinking that the teaching practice can mobilize students’ learning from these resources, remaining linked to an intentional and methodical project that transcends the emphasis on knowledge disconnected from networks that trigger them as elements capable of favoring the development integral human. Integral human development is understood as the formation of knowledge and skills that lead the subject to participatory social insertion, enhancing his awareness of the phenomena that constitute reality as a way of boosting the engagement necessary for the construction of a democratic and inclusive society, autonomy and critical thinking in lifelong learning experiences.

The settings of teaching practice are linked to the knowledge as an object with epistemological and methodological specificities. The whole curricular planning and development work involves questions that are posed by specific areas of curriculum content. However, in the logic of Multidimensional Didactics, the meanings of these contents “[...] necessarily pass through the analysis of the different cultures present in the institutions, as well as through the analysis of the tensions and values necessary to explain the purposes of teaching” (^{FRANCO; PIMENTA, 2016}, p. 545). The meaning of teaching is not stated as crystallized reasons in the curricular documents, it is up to the teachers to didactically decant the purposes and modes of action that best meet the principles of Integral Education as a pedagogical concept that guides their work. Didactic is necessary for the construction, in the field of intentions that give direction to the pedagogical work, of situational theories that explain, dynamize and give reflective vitality to the options that are open to the teacher in his/her practice.

Conceptions of teachers about Integral Education

In order to discuss didactic challenges inherent to practical mediations, it is important to know which conceptions translate into the elements evoked by teachers when asked about what they mean by Integral Education. In a total of 479 mapped content codes, it was possible to establish three thematic categories: a) integral education as human development (34%); b) integral education as an extension of the school day (51%); c) integral education as a link between professional and academic training (15%).

The first thematic category, called “integral education as human development”, brings together codes that signal a conception of integral education as an expression of the multidimensional process of training developed within the scope of educational institutions. This conception is linked to a paradigmatic perspective that incorporate key terms whose circulation has been favored by current curricular policies such as: life project, education for life, protagonism, change and personal transformation. These terms accompany a sense of learning that emerges from the subject’s own engagement to reach individual goals, often dispensing with a conjunctural questioning about what self-entrepreneurship represents in a performative society (^{BALL, 2010}), strongly arbitrated by the logic of market, that is, by capitalizing on the human capacity to live and coexist. This sense, at the limit, hinders the construction of policies that establish macrostructural mediations to face dynamics that tend to naturalize inequalities, blaming the subject, or its performance, for its failure or success.

With greater incidence among the constituted codes, the second thematic category, called “integral education as an extension of the school day”, refers to the conception most commonly associated with Integral Education: a model of school organization that is characterized by the extension of the time of study that student remains in the institution. The literature derived from research in the area of Integral Education policies in Brazil (^{RIBETTO; MAURÍCIO, 2009}) points out that, although it is a founding feature of the configuration of educational opportunities to qualify the offer of schooling in the country, the expansion of the length of stay of the student at school is a variable that, in order to result in positive effects on learning, demands didactic-curricular mediations that also expand spaces and training experiences as expressions of an innovative, integrating and socially referenced educational project. Among the content codes, as an example, stands out the record of a teacher who considers that “[...] having students inside the school is a way to minimize social risks” (participant 79).

The third category, called “integral education as an articulation of professional and academic training”, had a lower incidence and was composed by codes that had as a common element the idea of integrality as an association of general education with preparation for work. One teacher emphasizes that Integral Education would be able to “[...] give meaning to life, directing professional choices” (participant 106). This record signals a meaning that arises in the set of category codes: the belief that the purpose of Integral Education would be to develop skills for the productive world. Most of the participants who had records linked to this category are teachers working at the Technical Citizen Integral Schools, a institution model oriented towards professional training integrated into High School. The emphasis of the pedagogical project on the development of competences related to certain sectors of the job market implies a restrictive bias in the conception of Integral Education, transforming it into a strategy of social control along the lines of neoliberalism.

Didactic planning in Integral Education

The process of categorization of the concepts of Integral Education allows inferring a panoramic frame of explanatory elements about the didactic mediations that guides the work of teachers in full-time in schools, starting with the dimension of teaching planning.

It starts from the assumption that planning is a continuous, dynamic and integrative didactic practice. For this reason, it is not to be confused with the plan or other operational instruments, since it is permanently deployed by the teacher’s reflection on the relationship between educational purposes and means. Planning implies conceiving teaching as an intentional practice, whose references are made explicit, coherently, in decision-making about what, what, how, with and for whom, when and through what to teach.

In curricular development models that encourage teacher autonomy and collaboration, planning becomes a space/time for reflections on Integral Education as a pedagogical paradigm and the didactic configuration of teaching practices, allowing the problematization of contradictions that, not infrequently, distance the speeches from the acts. When the professional culture of teachers stimulates more associative and collaborative behaviors, the school can become a community of practice, through which, according to ^{Shulman (1998}, p. 521), “the individual experience can become a collective one”.

From the question about how they plan teaching, the teachers indicated elements grouped into two thematic categories: a) institutional planning routines; b) didactic planning attitudes. In fact, there are no obvious contradictions between one category and the other, since it is desirable that the organization of school processes be guided by parameters that, collectively and dialogically agreed, imprint coherence and synergy to the institutional dynamics. However, the codes mapped in the construction of these categories reveal a very strong emphasis on planning as an operational instrument arbitrated by certain institutional models (64%) to the detriment of references on the didactic action involved in the planning process (36%).

The participants whose dates were aggregated in the first category highlighted planning as weekly, monthly and semi-annual meetings to build the PDCA, reinforcing planning as an institutional routine. On the other hand, the records included in the second category indicate that, for a smaller group of teachers, planning implies becoming aware of the demands of Integral Education as a pedagogical paradigm and building connections between what one intends to do and what is practiced in relation to students. The teachers outline a perspective of attitudes, strategies and resources that seem to collaborate with a training project guided by Integral Education, as they explore interdisciplinarity, the study of teaching (individually, by curricular area and in pedagogical training) and experimentation with innovative mediations (design thinking, kanban, etc.).

Methodological characterization of teaching practices

When asked about the methodological characterization of their classes and other teaching activities - since in the models of the ECIs there are different didactic tasks that involve teachers in different arrangements for assisting students -, the participants composed a mosaic of didactic strategies and resources. Research in the field of Didactic and Teacher Education (^{GARCIA, 2010}) highlights that teaching practices are marked by methodological hybridism, which makes them internally contradictory, since principles or models of action associated with occasionally divergent pedagogical perspectives are juxtaposed. In view of this mosaic, it was possible to extract codes that configured two categories on methodological characterization: a) instructional methods, with occurrence of 57%; b) integrative methods with an innovative tendency, with occurrence of 43%.

The accumulation of references from contemporary Pedagogy leads to the understanding that the method, strategy or resource, in itself, does not guarantee the quality of achievement of didactic objectives. Certain arrangements classified as traditional began to be opposed due to a romantic and little contextualized appropriation of the principles of Active Pedagogy, generating pressure on teachers to transform their practices through the adoption of socio-constructivist magic formulas - almost always generic and devoid of a more consistent conceptual basis, resulting from research with and for intervention in the school context. In this sense, this text will not incur a summary association between instructional methods and traditional school, since there are many teachers who make an effort, using the repertoire derived from the accumulation of experiences they have, to build a perspective of Integral Education, even than prioritizing more conventional strategies.

A founding element of this didactic approach would be the construction of teaching-learning situations “[...] that continuously stimulate the students’ desire to research, learn, create and communicate” (^{SEVERO; ZUCCHETTI, 2020}, p. 20). It is an approach that emerges within Integrative Pedagogy because it articulates people, knowledge and territories under a clear intention of giving pedagogical and social quality to teaching mediations.

In order to draw parallels between the two categories, an illustrative table is presented below with characteristics of the methodological approaches classified as instructional and those with an innovative tendency, according to the records provided by the teachers.

A recurrent contrast was observed between the expressions “expository class” and “active methodologies”, which makes the idea that the second rejects the first prevail. Among the 37 teachers who mentioned “active methodologies” as a didactic guideline for their practice, none made reference to oral exposition as a frequent methodological strategy, which, considering the daily life known within schools, seems to be unreal. It is important to emphasize that the label “active methodologies” is used as a generic expression that brings together different didactic arrangements guided by the principles of constructivism and socio-constructivism, and does not consist of an organized and coherent body of didactic characteristics (^{CARBONELL, 2016}). For this reason, it is fundamental that the debate on the convergence between active methodologies and Integral Education be guided at school, so that the expression does not disguise, on the one hand, usual practices that teachers feel if they are embarrassed to assume that they implement and, on the other hand, do not boil down to a generic vocabulary used when one wants to justify a certain innovative trend.

In any case, the full-time school from the perspective of Integral Education can and should be a space for innovative experiments that compete with the purposes of its political-pedagogical project and make it a distinctive presence in the life of the territories in which it operates. To this end, it requires didactic itineraries that expand and streamline students’ relationships with different types of knowledge, including those produced in emerging cultural curricula in other spaces beyond the school’s borders (^{BONAFÉ, 2016}).

An open, innovative, plural school that values protagonism and community engagement as an expression of an Integral Education project creates learning opportunities for and together with students, which need to be recognized and improved within the framework of an understanding more dynamic evaluation.

Didactic attitudes and learning assessment instruments

When asked about how they evaluated the students, the teachers provided data that were organized into two categories: a) instruments and evaluation criteria, with occurrence of 68%; b) didactic attitudes of learning evaluation, with occurrence of 32%. The first category encompasses codes that have in common a sense of evaluation linked to the technical-operational dimension of the use of certain instruments and criteria, while the second category includes codes that register a didactic sense of evaluation in view of its purposes and the required attitudes of the teacher. The percentage demonstrates that, similar to what was observed in the answers about planning, teachers tend to deal with evaluation based on protocols and institutional routines, with emphasis on instruments. Among the assessment instruments most frequently mentioned by the professors are: a) tests and tests (33%); b) seminars and oral activities (30%); c) continuous recording of activities (24%); d) observation, simulation and experimentation (15%); e) self-assessment (7%).

The teachers whose data were grouped in the second category detailed better the implications of the evaluation for the teaching practice, emphasizing didactic attitudes, among which stand out: evaluating the student at different times with a focus on qualitative aspects; find ways to assess students’ ability to act; evaluate to diagnose, intervene and certify learning. In the set of data belonging to this category, terms such as “continuous” (47 times), alluding to the procedural meaning of the assessment, and “qualitative” (38 times) were frequent.

Indeed, the evaluation processes in full-time schools are organized in different dimensions, but the data presented in this text contribute to reflections on the evaluation of learning developed by the teacher and his/her classes. From them, it is possible to point out some demands that inspire the didactic review of evaluation practices and instruments, namely: a) translation of the concept of learning in Integral Education into dimensions and criteria that can be systematically evaluated by the teacher and by the students themselves, dialogically; b) if knowledge is embodied in practical actions, the evaluative instruments need to reach dimensions of learning that are not always expressed in writing or orally; c) transforming evaluative practice into learning practice presupposes that students are metacognitively mobilized; d) to evaluate is to know in order to intervene; therefore, the data of the learning processes and their results need to be connected by the teacher in a systemic, continuous logic that integrates qualitative and quantitative aspects, with a focus on promoting learning and not on punitive schemes; e) the information resulting from the assessments need to be discussed in depth to inspire contextualized interventions that positively impact the integral development of the student.

Fulfilling its civilizing and republican purpose is a principle that leads Integral Education to be assumed as a pedagogical paradigm, taking into account the historical challenges of guaranteeing the Right to Education in Brazilian society. The quest to build a didactic perspective coherent with Integral Education implies tuning planning, mediations and teaching evaluation in an organic and coherent way. The data and reflections provided in this text outline a complex scenario of challenges that inspire the need for a Didactic that serves, mainly, as a perspective of critical analysis of the purposes of Integral Education and in the construction of methodological connections that mobilize teaching and learning in the direction of an emancipatory school in a context of social, cultural and political transformations that challenge democratic systems.

Final considerations

The nature of the teaching profession is to work with knowledge and human development. Teachers master, for this, a heterogeneous repertoire of knowledge that is organized around pedagogical teaching capabilities. Didactic, as a field of Pedagogy, conforms and imprints an identity sense to teaching as a social, political and pedagogically intentional action, structured in the ethical and conceptually justified relationship between ends and means. In order to achieve human development goals, it is necessary for schools - the locus of teaching as an object of teaching action, to achieve training goals - to conceive the quality of the learning experiences they promote in line with the demands of the contexts in which they are located. In this sense, Didactic is involved in a historically referenced reflection process on what it is to be/do school and what it is to teach and learn in times of emergence of Integral Education as a pedagogical paradigm and model of school organization.

The quantitative expansion of full-time schools does not mean that human development experiences in these institutions have been developed under the principles of Integral Education. The data discussed in this text indicate that the innovative pedagogical discourse and paradigm shift associated with Integral Education is crossed by challenges and gaps that distance teachers from a pedagogical practice that mobilizes the different dimensions of human development as an expression of an educational project consistent with the institutional practices that effectively find a place in the daily life of schools. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the capacities to inquire and didactically create teaching situations adjusted to such a project, considering it as a strategy for building a socially fair school, as it does not give up qualifying the time and space for learning to guarantee the right to education for students.

Didactic for/in Integral Education will certainly be fulfilling its purpose when it “rehearses. Analyze. Try it. It breaks with an individualistic professional practice. It looks for ways to increase the permanence of children in school [...] etc.” (^{CANDAU, 2011}, p. 24). This Didactic should inspire educators to ask themselves about: how can the different dimensions of human development be mobilized in integrative learning experiences? What didactic elements should be considered in the construction of curricula oriented towards Integral Education?

The reality of Brazilian schools, especially those of a public nature, is one of neglect and historical deficits that consist of forms of denial of the right to Education. It is essential to consider that the socioeconomic context of the students and the insufficient resources for investment in the quality of education will affect the quality of the teaching work, leaving Didactics to echo the defense of the public school as a locus of construction of citizenship and a determining factor for the reduction of inequalities.