Introduction¹

Full-time integral education, in the sense that we will discuss in this article, dialogues with a conception of education as a human right because, in an unequal society like ours, it is through education that the possibilities of overcoming inequality are expanded. In this wake, ^{Severo and Zucchetti (2020}, p. 14) ensure that “the right to education is a prerogative for the realization and expansion of fundamental guarantees to people in a democratic society”. The full-time school, in this perspective of Integral Education, “can materialize this right when it acts in an intersectoral way and focusing on the multiple conditions that lead to the full development of the person” (^{SEVERO; ZUCCHETTI, 2020}, p. 14). We believe in Integral Education in this perspective because we defend access to education with social quality for all people, particularly for children and adolescents belonging to families living in contexts of social vulnerability.

From the investigation of formative spaces in two public elementary schools of the municipal networks of the cities of São Leopoldo and Novo Hamburgo, located in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, we identified the offer of different didactic-curricular modalities described as experiences of integral education. In these, the educational dimensions offered were problematized, asking about concepts of integral education and full-time school as bets made by public schools for children and adolescents. In both, we seek to understand the need to know which meanings are attributed to the educational modalities by teachers and families of the students. We believe that knowing these meanings allows us to reflect on the implementation of quality educational public policies, in the direction of undertaking them outside the current neoliberal logic, in a logic of socially referenced quality.

The educational dimension as a social practice, the protection of those at a peculiar stage of development and the right to school as a social institution focused on teaching and learning guided the cut of the interinstitutional research called ‘Integral Education between School and Non-school Education Practices. Perspective of human formation and social development’, that has been active since 2018. Out of a total of 4 schools that had been investigated in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, this article works with a clipping of two of them, both inserted in the metropolitan region of Porto Alegre². Of a qualitative nature, carried out through the methodology of research in comparative education, of an intranational type, the research seeks for the relationship between education, development and innovation in precarious territories. For ^{Ferreira (2014)}, this methodological modality gives visibility to research procedures that seek to critically describe information and data through a systemic approach, of a comprehensive learning, which considers complex realities and the other, subject of the investigation, belonging to well-defined social groups.

As part of the adopted methodology, a thorough study of the context in which the schools are inserted was carried out. These are two districts of neighboring municipalities that border much of their territorial extension, both with high population density and elevated indicators of poverty and violence. Such proximity often allows the migration of residents as an escape resource from security agents and police in compliance with court orders. However, this movement is also characterized as a strategy to seek social protection services offered by municipal authorities, which sometimes seem more opportune in one city, sometimes in another. Data collection was performed through semi-open type questionnaires with 24 subjects, 12 teachers (identified as P) and 12 parents/relatives of students from the two institutions (identified as R). From the characterization of the informants, it is important to highlight: among the relatives, 80% of those who attended school to participate in the investigation were from 31 to 49 years old, had incomplete elementary school education and the almost absolute majority, 93%, were women. Among teachers, 93% had higher education and, of these, 75% had completed some specialization, 35% are masters; 75% have 6 to 15 years in teaching; 100% were public servants, and 75% of this group was composed of women.

The questionnaires, semi-open type, were applied in November 2019, a period that preceded the end of school and the subsequent closure of schools due to the Covid-19 pandemic, in March 2020.

The results were aggregated and a first analysis was performed using the analytical software SPSS statistics; subsequently, qualitative information present in the extension of the instruction was searched. The analysis prioritized the intelligibility of descriptive responses, seeking for “flows of relations or conflicts, homogeneities or heterogeneities, permanences or changes, protagonisms or resistances” (^{FERREIRA, 2008}, p. 124). This search occurs “in an attempt to know the explicit and implicit reasons of policies, the consistency of wills, the scope of the accomplished and the meaning of the unfulfilled”, in line with ^{Ferreira (2008, p. 124)}. Following, section 2 describes the territories in which the schools are inserted, which makes known the contexts of research. In section 3, we discuss the concepts of integral and full-time education from the perspective of theoretical studies and research results.

Then, in section number 4, we present what we call tensions between the expectations of family members and teachers in relation to the meanings of integral education. Finally, there are the closing considerations.

Territories and schools: contexts of the research

It has not been possible - if ever it has been - to dismember the studies on education by fragmenting the parts that constitute it, among them, the policies of education, educational institutions, the territories where they are inserted and the subjects of them participating. As ^{Morin (1990}, p. 124) rightly points out, the part is more than the sum of the whole, the “whole is more than the sum of the parts that constitute it. [...] The whole is then less than the sum of the parts, the whole is simultaneously more and less than the sum of the parts”. Observing the caveat, this section presents some elements that we consider fundamental for understanding the meanings of integral education expressed by teachers and family members of students of the schools in question. In this perspective, aligning contexts with data that emerge from research supports, in the dynamics of research in comparative education, the dialogical dimension that is intended for the analysis of the object of this article.

About the neighborhoods in which the schools are located, it can be said that they have great geographical extension, being among the most populous of the cities already mentioned. They are conformed as territories with different delimitations and geographic spaces understood as fields of forces, by the unequal formation, in the sense assigned by ^{Santos (1978)}. They are also imprecisely configured, consisting of complex power relations, in a given period, involving several social actors (^{SAQUET; SILVA, 2008}). These neighborhoods are inhabited by low-middle class people whose monthly family income is mostly lower than the average of the cities in which they are located.

The precariousness of housing, the basic sanitation system and garbage collection, high unemployment rates and underemployment are characteristics of both neighborhoods, which coexist given their proximity.

About the schools, it is called school 1 that one located in the municipality of São Leopoldo, 34 kilometers away from the state capital. School 2 is based in Novo Hamburgo, a city that borders São Leopoldo to the north. The neighborhoods Santos Dumont - São Leopoldo (school 1) and Santo Afonso - Novo Hamburgo (school 2) connect one city to another.

Among the characteristics of the school’s headquarters territory 1, there is a 336% increase in the number of homicides in the first month of 2017, compared to the previous year. According to the socioterritorial diagnosis of the municipality, from the data of the Cadastro Único - CadUnico for programs of the Federal Government, the city had at least 12,334 families who had low monthly income, which corresponds to 17% of the city’s population (^{SÃO LEOPOLDO, 2016}). Data from 2021 raise the number of users of the Bolsa Família³ to 19,000 (^{AGUIAR, 2021}), which demonstrates, compared to 2016, a significant impoverishment of the population. The Reference Center for Social Assistance - CRAS Nordeste, which serves two neighborhoods, among them the Santos Dumont, registers 7,678 people in CadUnico, 62% of the beneficiaries of the Bolsa Família Program for 13% of the total population of the municipality. The per capita income is R$ 166.00, and only the other neighborhood that makes up the same coverage in the division by CRAS has lower income, R$ 162.00. These data indicate that we are facing the most impoverished region of the city.

In the neighborhood Santos Dumont, the school is in the Subdivision Padre Orestes.

Created through public housing policy from a “term of commitment signed between the Ministry of Cities, City Hall of São Leopoldo and Company of Urban Trains of Porto Alegre - Trensurb” (PPP, 2019, p.9), the Subdivision welcomed families removed from Vila dos Tocos, existing occupation in the expansion range of the metropolitan train to the municipality of Novo Hamburgo. However, after a few years, Padre Orestes has become a mixed subdivision, in the category of types of housing, which compromises the infrastructure, accentuating the precariousness of leisure services, among others.

The school, built by municipal decree in May 2012, began its activities in July of the same year⁴ and welcomes students from early childhood education to the last year of elementary school, serving 510 students from a board composed of 47 teachers, distributed in 19 classes. Still in 2013, discussions were initiated on the implementation of integral education in school, which has been consolidated since 2017. In 2019, the increase of the workload to nine hours daily is now offered from early childhood education to the 9th (ninth) year of elementary school, according to the Political-Pedagogical Project - PPP (2019) of the school. Some conceptions support the work in the institution, among them: integrality of the subject, pedagogical praxis, scientific initiation, education in human rights, full-time integral education.

In relation to the territory where school 2 is inserted, the situation is very similar to that of school 1. In Santo Afonso, Novo Hamburgo, live 9.64% of the population of the municipality, with a predominance of the youth age group. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics - IBGE (^{BRAZIL, 2010}), the neighborhood has the worst per capita income in the city: the equivalent of R$366.13. It has one of the worst indicators of violence, concentrating approximately 30% of cases involving homicides in the city, and most of them (attempts and/or consummated) target adolescents and young people aged 13 to 24 years, According to Consolidated Data of the State Public Security Secretariat (SSP/RS, 2012), ratified in the Map of Violence in Novo Hamburgo, generated by the Citizen Security Observatory of Novo Hamburgo - ^{ODSC (2016)}.

The high rate of homicides in the neighborhood became even more evident in 2019, when those classified as consummated accounted for almost half (45.45%) of the total homicides in the municipality. In relation to the homicides of adolescents aged 12 to 18 years, 22 occurred in the Santo Afonso neighborhood, representing 43.14% of a total of 51 victims of this crime in the city. Data from ^{ODSC (2016)} also showed a higher proportion of violent crimes against female adolescents. Over the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, 44 rapes of the total of 283 occurred in the city victimized adolescent girls in the neighborhood. One of the indicators of the Online Registry of Violence in School - ROVE⁵ showed that, from the reports of physical aggression registered until 2019, the highest number came from the Santo Afonso neighborhood, with a total of 60 records (^{ODSC, 2016}).

The Political Pedagogical Project (2019) of school 2 confirms the context when it states that many students are residents of Vila Palmeira, an even more precarious space in the neighborhood, where approximately 2,000 families live⁶. The school was founded in 1987 with 428 students from preschool to the 4th grade of elementary school. In 2019, there were about 585 students enrolled in the final years of elementary school and in Youth and Adult Education - EJA. The school, of a single shift, performs full-time through the various program, with the participation of students in projects of services to strengthen links, social assistance policy. In the school are offered extracurricular vacancies in the Program Movements and Experiences in Integrated Education (MOVE) of the Department of Education of the Municipality, a local program created to replace the extinct More Education Program.

The PPP (2019) contemplates the conception of integral education relating it to the idea of integrality and dignity of the citizen in its relationship with others and with the environment. Recognize, respect and live with cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious, gender and sexual differentes and subjects who have specific educational needs, providing opportunities for activities in which fundamental values of human coexistence are rescued, enable the collective construction of rules and actions of coexistence and tolerance, according to the Project.

As we observed, the schools surveyed are in contexts of severe vulnerability, which require public policies that provide conditions for the school to perform its function of offering education of social quality and contribute to reduce educational inequalities and provide students and their families opportunities to improve their living conditions. We are therefore exploring this argument.

School education and fulltime integral education: the conceptions that support this work

In an unjust and unequal society like the one we live in, school is one of the scarce possibilities of improving social conditions for most people, especially those who live in marked contexts of vulnerability. School is, for many families, the only safe space to leave their children during the work period, as well as a social space; a place to eat; learning about knowledge is considered essential socially; learning to become citizen, with the various effects and implications of this notion; and to qualify professionally, among others.

According to ^{Biesta (2018, p. 24)}, school education “[...] is never just to qualify children and young people and offer them a particular place in society”, but a space to learn about the “ability to take a critical perspective towards existing traditions, practices, ways of doing and being” (^{BIESTA, 2018}, p. 24). The school is a space in which we learn about socially valued knowledge and should also be a space to learn to reflect critically on this knowledge, denaturalizing the inequalities reproduced in our society.

The pedagogical and social function of the school is in full debate, with understandings that pass through the school as an expanded educational space, as proposed by ^{Biesta (2018)}, to others according to which it is up to the school to instruct (because it would be up to families to educate) vision of school and education itself. For our part, we defend the school as a strategic space for the promotion of education as a basic and inalienable human right. The lack of access to school and to the knowledge it provides contributes to exclude a considerable portion of the population from the possibility of understanding their place in the world and to promote it from the perspective of human emancipation, which is always collective, once it allows students to “enter the social fabric and therefore be entirely relational” (^{BIESTA, 2013}, p. 48), constituting themselves as a collective subject.

We understand that access to more dignified social conditions will only be possible for this significant layer of the population, through schooling, however, we advocate for an education that is based on collective principles, not as a mere tool for access to knowledge considered valid for the market. In other words, our perspective is not one that is based on the discourse of meritocracy, which disregards social inequalities and diversities, focusing on the individual and not on the conjunctural conditions that allow them or not to succeed in their schooling process (^{PONCE; LEITE, 2019}, p. 794).

In Brazil, although universal access to school - both for children and young people, as for adults and elderly people - is legally guaranteed, it should be noted that this right has been neglected for several people, in terms of access, permanence and learning⁷. This framework highlights the need for intersectoral public policies that provide basic conditions (such as health, housing and food, among others) so that the school can exercise its role as an educational institution. Intersectoriality, according to ^{Silveira, Meyer and Felix (2019, p. 427)}, is a strategy that allows equalization of resources within public policies, as it “makes it possible to address and solve multicausal problems” to the extent that it allows “plan, implement and monitor public policies that define joint and articulated solutions” in various sectors. In the case of education, intersectoriality is what will allow mitigating contexts of social vulnerability that affect students in schools like the ones we researched.

In addition to the necessary articulation between the various sectors of public policies, the contexts of vulnerability in which families find themselves indicate the need for full-time school as a space to leave children and adolescents in second in the time that family members need to work, and expand the repertoire of learning of these students. This can be observed in the excerpts from the questionnaires carried out with the highlighted relatives to be guided, in which, when asked about what they think about the fact of having their children in a full-time school or in a school with extracurricular projects, they say:

Once I work all day long, and so I don’t have to leave him at anyone’s house, I decided to left him here (R2, School 1).

For the tranquility of the family that can go out to work (R3, School 1).

I think it’s better for her if she stays here rather than being on the streets, because I work with recycling all day (R10, School 2).

Excerpts R2, R3 and R10 mention the school as a place for families to leave their children safely to go to work. Their speeches give us clues to think about the need for public social assistance policies that allow families to work leaving their children and youth in a place where they are protected and safe. It is, therefore, a school dimension that expands the educational aspect and demands the need for intersectoral articulation of policies. This perception is shared by some of the teachers, as we can see in the following passages:

Advantage of removing the student from being exposed to risks (drugs, violence, child labor). Participate in musical activities and theater (P4, School 1).

Advantage: Provides an opportunity to expand the use of school space, as well as providing opportunities for differentiated experiences (P5, School 1).

Teachers, however, note as an advantage the contributions of full-time school for learning and educational training of students, as indicated in the following excerpts from respondents of School 1, listing advantages:

Students participate in workshops that help the learning (P1).

The student has more time to consolidate their learning (P3).

Support and improve the learning of students who have difficulties understanding the contents in the normal shift (P4).

It provides a great reinforcement in students’ learning (P5).

The concern of teachers with learning makes a lot of sense because, in the scope of educational evaluations and public education policies, the quality of schools has been measured by the result that students get in the external evaluations, carried out periodically. In this sense, it is worth checking whether schools have been competent to prepare students to live in a globalized world. Problematizing this perspective, ^{Biesta (2018)} states that, in many countries, educational policies have been defined “in terms of knowledge and skills useful for the functioning of the economy - referring to the labour market and competition - and for flexible adaptations to conditions in Permanent Change” (p. 26). The author also argues that this focus is limited and that these policies need to consider

[…] a broader and different frame of reference for education, which includes issues of democracy, ecology and care as guiding points for engagement with the issue of what should give direction to educational enterprises (BIESTA, 2008, p.26).

For the author, it is necessary to consider “issues of democracy, ecology and care”. These would be, in his words, themes related to the “existential questions that are faced when trying to discover how one can live together in the plurality of human forms in a vulnerable and already significantly exhausted planet” (^{BIESTA, 2018}, p. 26).

In line with ^{Biesta (2018)}, we understand that it is necessary to broaden the concepts of integral and full-time education from the perspective of human rights. Our argument lies in the ethical commitment that the school has to provide education with social quality, which directly implies the right of students to learn both the knowledge considered basic by curricular policies and those that allow them to understand their place in an unequal and unfair world.

It is also necessary to take into account that school is the formal space for knowledge considered socially valid to be addressed/ taught and that, for most people, access to this knowledge is one of the very few possibilities to access rights and assets. According to ^{Gallego (2020, p. 13)}, it is in school that boys and girls “learn basic notions of socially accepted knowledge, with which one can exercise citizenship and access the cultural and economic assets that society distributes”. That is, the school is a fundamental institution for several reasons, among which, because it is the main space of formal education and also because it is a space in which children and young people are sheltered and even protected during the period of work of their families.

But, according to ^{Brandão (2019, p. 22)}, it is necessary to “relativize the growing tendency to functionalize education to enable the competent-and-productive”, thus activating “our vocation as educators, centered on rehumanizing education to form the conscious-creative”. These are terms as a horizon for the construction of a school that, in addition to being concerned with transmitting knowledge considered valid by curricular policies or just keeping students in their space full-time, builds relationships of collaboration and appreciation of both local and popular knowledge. In the words of ^{Brandão (2019, p. 24)}, “we must be attentive not to transform an integral education into something that, instead of integrating creative people, further disintegrates agitated individuals through a “full-time” accumulation of successive, hurried and competitive activities”.

In this direction, we agree with ^{Ponce and Leite (2019)} when they state that the curricula (as well as the pedagogical proposals of the schools) are not neutral and that “since access to school education is a right, it is important to ensure conditions of successful permanence for students”, from the perspective of “curricular justice” and, thus, of “social justice”. The authors define curricular justice as being “a conception of curriculum that recognizes human diversity; that is interested in overcoming the various inequalities while maintaining the appreciation of differences” and, in this wake, “that promotes critical thinking about the world; that values the diverse knowledge of different cultures”, committing “to an inclusive, just and democratic world; that does not accept as a version of any fact, a ‘unique history’ [...]” (^{PONCE; LEITE, 2019}, pp. 794-795).

This conception seems to us important because it helps to situate the relevance of the development of school activities that are not limited to the contents of curricular policies, but cover the learning of knowledge about citizenship and diversity, to understand the social inequalities that cross and constitute our society and that must be addressed/faced by public policies. In addition, it is essential to promote access to physical activities, sports and cultural events that allow students to expand their repertoires of understanding the world. In this sense, in order to understand the conception that the families have on this issue, we asked to family members what they understand by full-time school:

It is a project for them to stay neither at home nor on the streets (R2, School 1).

Take up their free time (R3, School 1).

Children are not on the streets. They are hosted in the school while we’re working (R8, School 2).

For me, as a mother, it is good, because he stays longer at school (R9, School 2).

More classes, more learning and more study time (R12, School 2).

We observed, in the speeches of these family members, two perspectives of full-time school understanding. On the one hand, R1, R2, R3 and R9 refer to school as a physical space to leave children for a longer period of time, and on the other, R12 recognizes the full-time period as a possibility to expand learning and time dedicated to studies. In this sense, we value full-time integral school, considering its importance in contributing to access to social justice for many poor children and young people. However, we consider that the full-time school is not enough to promote educational processes of curricular justice - which, in our perspective, requires an integrative pedagogy.

In the words of ^{Severo and Zucchetti (2020, p. 15)}, integrative pedagogy allows extending time and space beyond the classroom, broadening the understanding of the traditional social function of the school from the perspective of understanding the “spaces in which school education is seen in the presence of other institutions of a socio-educational character, and which also extends, often, to a school open on weekends”, but not disjointed, as in general.

For the authors, it is necessary that intersectoral and interinstitutional relations occur in an articulated way, sewn through an integrative pedagogy. Still, in the words of ^{Severo and Zucchetti (2020, p. 15)}, “a pedagogy of this type and that presupposes such a precise articulation of a rigorous intentionality”, which demands “not only curriculum development beyond divisions between knowledge and educational contexts, but the emergence of a field of dialogue construction, debate about which public school to offer” (^{SEVERO; ZUCCHETTI, 2020}, p. 15) in the context of schools such as those to which we refer in this work.

We recognize the importance of the full-time school as a space for social networking, but we need to focus on the main function of the school: its educational task. According to Biesta, this task is what allows the existence of a “human being in the world and with the world”, in other words, “consists in awakening in the other human being the desire to want to exist in and with the world in an adult way, that is, as a subject” (^{BIESTA, 2020}, p. 36). The author’s reflections point to the educational task in the context of democratic societies, recognizing the need to educate as part of the process of emancipation and opening of possibilities, what would be possible through an educational process engaged with social transformation.

Tensions between the expectations of family members and teachers regarding the meanings of integral education

As argued so far, the school is the social institution responsible for educating in a broad sense, a space for promoting education as a human right, but it is also, in the case of families in situations of social vulnerability, a place for children and young people to be safe in the absence of their guardians. That is, for poor families, the school has occupied other functions besides the educational task, context that brings challenges to think about the school and its social function.

In the case of the surveyed schools, we observe important distinctions. While School 1 has a full-time integral education, with enrollments in the modality of curricular expansion up to 9 hours for all who wish, School 2 offers a modality of expansion through partnerships, with full-time activities provided through extracurricular vacancies in the Program Movements and Experiences in Integrated Education (MOVE) of the Municipal Department of Education, as well as attendance in the opposite shift of students in socio-educational projects in social organizations and governmental social assistance projects. These perspectives point to important distinctions, because offering fulltime activities in the school itself, as part of its PPP, is different from providing extracurricular activities in non-school institutions.

From the point of view of occupying students all day and contributing to make families feel safe while working, both proposals are effective; however, it happens that we are arguing for an integrative pedagogy that is supported by, as we have said, the education as a basic human right. In addition, the activities at the school are offered to all interested students, whereas the MOVE proposal does not include all, as indicated by the concern of the teacher below:

The municipality has not joined the Novo Mais Educação Program since 2018. The municipal education network created MOVE and pays for it in partnership with institutions that the municipality provides. However, I am concerned about the limited and insufficient number of vacancies for such service (P2, School 2).

In addition, in the case of MOVE, which happens within the school, the emphasis is on school reinforcement and meets only those who demand, as the teacher says. In this case, the offer occurs “from lags that we identify in our school community” (P2). This scenario points to the need of offering full-time activities, which can be guaranteed through intersectoral actions developed locally to meet the needs of communities and families. However, from our point of view, if we want to offer education with social quality, rather than promoting fulltime activities, it is necessary to transform the school into a space for the development of an integrative pedagogy.

For ^{Moll and Barcelos (2021, p. 789)}, integral education implies “[...] overcoming the abyss of conditions of operation and access to knowledge, in schools where children of different social classes study”. Also according to the authors, integral education also implies “overcoming the naturalization of short time, exclusionary practices and archaic methods rooted in our educational system”. Another point that seems important for us is that, in School 2, the activities developed by students during educational projects of social character are almost never accompanied by school, because the demand for non-school education practices is carried out by families, without any articulation with the school and its pedagogical proposal. Therefore, we believe that, when the offer of integral education is promoted by the school itself, this action allows families greater security, since it makes it possible to keep children and young people in a same space.

We understand that this is an important issue for families. Thus, we highlight that while children stay Every day of the week in School, at the same time, in School 2, where extracurricular activities are offered by partner institutions, everything can change at any time, for different reasons (for example, a lack of social educators, which can impact the offer of opposite shift). Another potentially difficult factor of the system adopted by School 2 is the need to move children to social entities - many of which are far from school - in the company of adults, who are not always available, due to work. About this, the teachers say:

Advantage of removing the student from being exposed to risks (drugs, violence, child labor). Participate in musical activities and theater (P4, School 1).

It allows the students to broaden their vision and know different spaces, contributing to a reflection on the world around them and how to behave and interact with it (P8, School 2).

We recognize the importance of safe spaces for children and adolescents in contexts of social vulnerability, but we understand that this offering full-time activities is not a school function. Our bet is on the offer of integral education, in the perspective defended by ^{Severo and Zucchetti (2020, p. 12)}, as a “formative paradigm”, which demands, for the authors, the “differentiate it from full-time school or extended day, and situate it in the context of a pedagogical society, in which people are inserted in multiple school and non-school educational networks” (^{SEVERO; ZUCCHETTI, 2020}, p. 12).

In this direction, it is interesting to think that while in School 2 the narratives of teachers are more organic in relation to the importance of a more integral formative process, in School 1, the emphasis is on the consolidation of learning and understanding of content, as indicated in the following excerpts.

Students participate in workshops that help learning (P5, School 2).

The student has more time to consolidate their learning (P3, School 2).

Support and improve the learning of students who have difficulties understanding the contents in the normal shift. It provides a great reinforcement in students’ learning (P4, School 2).

According to these excerpts from the teachers, School 2 considers the extension of the time of educational activities by its importance for learning.The speech of the teacher from School 1 points to the extension of the time of the activities as something more complex, which allows the school to build “strategies for solving problems”, as is explicit in the following passage.

It allows more time to work with important disciplines for the development of skills such as reflection, analysis and creation of strategies for problem solving. Obviously, it depends on how this workload expansion happens. For example, just expanding repetitive activities and exercises does not bring qualification to learning. Another conception of what means more school time and conception of extending the time of permanence of the child in school (P8, School 1).

When reflecting on the activities offered by the two schools, we observed that School 1 can have a focus on more integrated actions, once it does not have tutoring/school reinforcement and invests in various workshops and in addressing issues related to human rights. Meanwhile, the activities offered by School 2 are focused on thematic workshops and reinforcement of Portuguese and mathematics disciplines. The data analyzed from the two schools surveyed help us to understand that the integration of educational activities in full-time schools, from the perspective of an integrative pedagogy, is still a great challenge, which we need to reflect on.

Final Thoughts

In both schools studied, teachers report that educational processes should favor listening to students, as well as the knowledge of educational territories; however, it is the School 1, that has a full-time integral education, that recognizes being building a new pedagogical posture with integrative approaches: those that allow integrating actions, putting into operation the guarantee of education as a right. Understanding education as a right, and not as a privilege, means recognizing that its materiality is given by formation through learning, permanence and emphasizing the presence of a community and education workers who are summoned to impact the territory through school.

Integral Education, for School 1, is defined as an educational opportunity that is materialized by the expansion of times and educational spaces, carried out by sharing the task of educating among education professionals and other areas, families and other social actors. However, it reinforces that these strategies must be under the coordination and management of the school because, thus, they would be associated with the process of schooling. The School 2 scales the integral education associated with full time, that is, the expansion of the daily journey with the qualification of time, merging the offer of complementary activities and individualized monitoring from a new curricular organization, with a view to integral training. This should consider the dialogical and respectful relationship between the actors and the territory to which the school belongs in order to weave a network of intra and extra-school social spaces.

We agree with ^{Severo and Zucchetti (2020, p. 15)} that, “from the perspective of In-tegral Education, the classroom is not the only space for curricular development” and, in this sense, “implies the resignification of the very notion of curriculum and learning under the critique of disciplinary traditions that distance school knowledge from the broad training intended by the school”. The authors indicate that this perspective is “based on the purpose that students live significant experiences of construction of knowledge and practical capacities oriented to inclusion and social participation” (^{SEVERO; ZUCCHETTI, 2020}, p. 15).

In view of this, we ask ourselves if the integrative pedagogy, since it is not given by the sum of activities, but by the completeness of the actions developed, as well as by the intentionality of these actions, otherwise, will only be an expansion of time at school or in educational activities. In the case of full-time integral school education, intentionality is already in the proposal, but it is necessary to ensure the quality of what is offered there. As for family members and guardians, it is the guarantee of full-time integral schools that require less vigilance over the right to learning. Our study indicates some of the challenges to implement an integrative pedagogy in our schools, which requires efforts in the context of public policies of integral education.