INTRODUCTION

The first Full-Time Citizen Schools (in Portuguese, Escolas Cidadãs Integrais — ECI) and Vocational Full-Time Citizen Schools (Escolas Cidadãs Integrais Técnicas — ECIT) were established in 2016 in the state of Paraíba, Brazil, through a public-private partnership between the State Secretariat for Education, Science and Technology of Paraíba (SEECT/PB) and the Institute of Co-Responsibility for Education (ICE), in accordance with Decree No. 36,408/2015 (^{Paraíba, 2015}), published in the Official Gazette of the State of Paraíba on December 1, 2015. Initially, only eight schools adopted the new pedagogical guidelines. By 2021, the number had increased to over three hundred schools, which accounted for almost half of the 654 schools in the state network of Paraíba (^{João Azevêdo, 2019}). Furthermore, there has been a recent commitment to implement this educational model in all state schools by the year 2022 (^{Leite, 2020}). Considering the extensive reach and the significant number of school communities included in this pedagogical and management model in public full-time schools in the state of Paraíba, academic studies and research on the principles, values, objectives, and curriculum that underpin these institutions are of utmost importance.

In Paraíba, the term “citizen” is included in the names of schools that are part of the Full-Time Education Program. This term highlights the relevance of citizenship in the organization of the pedagogical work of educational institutions that adopt this proposal. Furthermore, one of the objectives stated in Decree No. 36,408/2015, Article 2, item I, is to “[…] educate capable, supportive, socially active, and competent citizens¹” (^{Paraíba, 2015}, p. 1, our translation), which reinforces an apparent emphasis on the citizenship in this school model. Therefore, it is important to know which conception of citizenship is adopted by the program, since we are discussing a polysemic concept with a long history, whose adoption has brought consequences in terms of content, methods and management that have significantly altered the processes of teaching and learning in school communities.

To this end, we examined documents produced by the government of the state of Paraíba and those designed by the ICE to identify the type and concept of citizenship adopted by the state public schools participating in the program. We employed a qualitative approach (^{Minayo, 2008}) and conducted a documentary research (^{Flick, 2009}), treating and assessing the data using content analysis (^{Bardin, 1977}). Categorical analysis was employed to quantify the occurrences of the term “citizenship” and the meaning items associated to it. We justify the use of this technique because we believe that it provides a comprehensive understanding of the text, through a process that considers the frequency or absence of meaning items. Based on data analysis, we identified the purposes and intentions outlined in the documents.

CITIZENSHIP: CONCEPTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS IN OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

Citizenship is a word with a controversial meaning as it involves disputes over its real significance and, more importantly, its realization in the daily lives of individuals. The term also holds an evident cross-disciplinary relevance, as it is the object of studies in various fields. A casual research endeavor can lead us to different definitions of the term from diverse sources. Dictionaries, legal manuals, history books, and articles on political science present distinct conceptions of citizenship.

In the attempt to define it, it is common to associate citizenship with other concepts such as democracy, city, nationality, state, human rights, and duties. Expressions like “exercise of citizenship”, “citizenship education”, “critical citizenship”, and “active citizenship” are also frequently used. However, this text does not aim to present the different conceptions of citizenship or to further the discussion on the term. Nevertheless, we understand that it is necessary to situate, in time and space, which concept of citizenship we will engage with for our analysis.

^{Tonet (2005)} presents three traditions of theories on the origins and meanings of citizenship. The first group, belonging to the liberal tradition, understands citizenship as a tool for reducing inequalities. This tradition acknowledges that individuals are born free and equal, and inequality is a consequence of these natural attributes. It is the role of an external authority to smooth out differences and equalize them. Thus, inequality is insurmountable as it arises from the nature of individuals. However, it is up to the state and society to create mechanisms to balance the extremes. This is where the meaning of citizenship lies for the liberal tradition, viewed as a tool for reconciling the contradictions between freedom and equality.

On the other hand, the left-wing democratic tradition is based on the Aristotelian premise that man is a political animal and, therefore, citizenship must be understood as an inherent aspect of this condition. The dynamics between social classes, the mode of production, and citizenship assume different forms throughout history and are crucial elements for understanding the meaning of citizenship (^{Tonet, 2005}). In the capitalist mode of production, for example, citizenship is a product of class struggles and, therefore, should be seen as an achievement rather than a concession by the bourgeoisie. According to this tradition, the full realization of citizenship collides with the logic of capital. Hence, the working class's struggle aims to overcome the limits imposed by this mode of production. Due to these reasons, citizenship can be seen as a social process and, as such, it takes place in a specific time and place.

Lastly, ^{Tonet (2005)} presents the Marxian tradition on the understanding of citizenship, which posits that work is the foundation of all social relationships, distinguishing itself from other traditions in matters relating to the ontological origins of social beings. Tensions between social life and political life stem arise from the origin process of private property and social classes. In turn, the capitalist mode of production fosters a type of sociability in which the process of buying and selling labor power is a determining element. The functioning of this sociability requires the existence of free, equal, and property-owning individuals. Thus, a legal framework is necessary to safeguard the right to property and, consequently, the actions of buying and selling. According to this tradition, political emancipation derived from the conquest of rights serves as a mechanism for reproducing of inequalities, and citizenship resulting from this emancipation falls short of the human condition.

The Marxian tradition, by exposing the inherent limitations of citizenship subjected to capital, perceives it as a partial and alienated form of freedom. From the author's perspective, formal freedom, from a legal standpoint, is the precondition for capital reproduction. In this sense, individuals are perceived as buyers, sellers, and owners thus enjoying only partial freedom. Full or genuine freedom, as a human condition, transcends citizenship. The Marxian tradition, as presented by ^{Tonet (2005)}, advocates for human emancipation, based on associated labor as a prerequisite for experiencing complete or real freedom. Associated labor refers to the “[…] type of relations that men establish in economic production and in which they pool their individual strengths and maintain conscious control of the process in its entirety, that is, in production, distribution, and consumption”² (^{Tonet, 2005}, p. 476, our translation). Therefore, genuine freedom can be considered as a degree of freedom achievable by an individual who is part of a real community. This condition is necessary for the holistic development of human beings, free from the constraints imposed by social interactions within the capitalist mode of production.

Considering the insights provided by ^{Tonet (2005)}, traditions also diverge in their perspectives on the ontological origins of the social being and the role of citizenship in the full development of individuals. For the liberal tradition, individuals precede society; therefore freedom, a natural attribute of human beings, forms the foundation for social inequalities. Consequently, it is a responsibility of the State, through citizenship, to ensure that differences are not extreme. On the other hand, the left-wing democratic tradition views the individual as a product of social relations influenced by class and context constraints. Within the context of the capitalist mode of production, citizenship is restricted by the operating logic of capital, and its complete realization would only be feasible with the end of these barriers. Conversely, the Marxian tradition traces the ontological origins of individuals back to work. Due to the co-optation of the meaning of work by the logic of capital, citizenship is perceived as something that restricts the potential for human emancipation, as it undergoes a process of legitimizing oppressions inherent in the buying and selling of labor power.

These three traditions stem from different starting points and, as a result, harbor distinct understandings of citizenship. However, to establish a coherent framework for dialogue between the concept at hand and the proposed analysis in our article, it is essential to delve into the trajectory of citizenship and its manifestation in official documents.

Traditionally, the trajectory of the concept of citizenship can be traced back to its origins in Classical Antiquity, when life in Athens and, later, in Rome assumed a central role (^{Cardoso, 1985}); in the relationship between sovereigns and subjects during the period of Absolutism (^{Anderson, 1985}); and in the events of the cycle of Bourgeois Revolutions, with particular emphasis on the French Revolution (^{Hobsbawm, 1996}; ²⁰¹⁰). In the context of Antiquity, citizenship differed in criteria from those of modernity in terms of breadth (restricted/universal) and depth (diversity of rights). In the Greek polis, particularly in Athens, citizenship was primarily associated with political rights granted to free men and the children of other Athenians.

In the context of modernity, with the publication of the Declaration of Human Rights, a movement towards the universalization and expansion of the types of rights that constitute citizenship emerged. Understanding the trajectory of modern citizenship is essential, as it will serve as our reference for the discussions in the subsequent pages.

^{Marshall (2002)} conceptualizes citizenship as a collection of articulating elements with different normative natures. Civil rights, political rights, and individual rights together form a liberal and modern idea of citizenship. The trajectory analyzed by ^{Marshall (2002)} points to an idea of citizenship that was developed throughout the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th centuries in Western Europe.

According to ^{Marshall (2002)}, the initial stage involved the conquest of civil rights, which arose from conflicts of interest between monarchs and feudal lords. Subsequently, conflicts between the bourgeoisie and other members of the nobility aimed to eliminate distinctions based on birth. This process of “equality under the law” led to the emergence of political rights, allowing broader segments of society to participate in political life. Social rights then followed as a consequence of the consolidation of previous rights, representing a minimum level of social welfare guaranteed by the State.

^{Marshall (2002)} proposes that citizenship is akin to a “status” bestowed upon individuals, whereby everyone should be fully integrated into a community and consequently possess equal rights and responsibilities. However, the historical circumstances and dynamics of social classes, particularly in Western Europe and England, possess their unique characteristics. Therefore, as argued by ^{Mastrodi and Avelar (2017)}, ^{Marshall's (2002)} interpretative framework serves didactic purposes and is more structured around the unfolding of historical events rather than an inherent internal logic.

^{Mastrodi and Avelar (2017)} also argue that citizenship, in the terms presented by ^{Marshall (2002)}, found its synthesis, in Brazil, with the enactment of the Federal Constitution in 1988 (^{Brasil, 1988}), as it established civil, political, and social rights. Thus, it becomes imperative to examine the concept of “citizenship” within the framework of the Brazilian constitutional text.

According to ^{Carvalho (2002)}, the Federal Constitution (FC), approved in 1988, also known as the Citizen Constitution, stands as Brazil's largest, most democratic, and most liberal magna carta. Its democratic nature stems from its process of formulation, which involved broad popular participation, with the aim of transcending the previous undemocratic regime. The constitution's liberal character is reflected in the rights and individual guarantees enshrined within the document, which contributed to its designation. However, ^{Carvalho (2002}, p. 219-220, our translation) emphasizes that the trajectory of citizenship in Brazil did not unfold precisely according to the model proposed by ^{Marshall (2002)}:

The chronology and logic of the sequence described by Marshall were inverted in Brazil. Here, social rights were implemented first, implemented in a period of suppression of political rights and reduction of civil rights by a dictator who became popular. Subsequently, political rights were introduced, which also occurred in a peculiar manner. The largest expansion of the right to vote took place during another dictatorial period, in which the bodies of political representation became mere symbolic entities of the regime. Finally, even today, a significant portion of the population lacks access to many civil rights, which form the foundation of the Marshall sequence. In essence, the pyramid of rights has been turned upside down.³

It is important to emphasize, as highlighted in ^{Carvalho's (2002)} work, that there is no singular path to citizenship. Each country follows its own trajectory, resulting in diverse forms of citizenship and varying perceptions thereof. The unique and complex trajectory of Brazilian citizenship holds significant implications, particularly in relation to the functioning of our representative democracy. This aspect deserves careful consideration when examining political participation, individual freedoms, and the establishment of democratic rule of law in Brazil.

Within the 250 articles of the Constitution, the term “citizenship” appears on seven occasions. Article 1 establishes it as a fundamental principle, while Article 205 includes it within the section on education. These two instances underscore the central role of citizenship within the constitutional framework and its significance in the context of Brazilian education. The latter aspect serves as the focal point of our article.

The Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education (Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação — LDB — ^{Brasil, 1996}) presents, in Article 2, as one of its objectives, the preparation of students for the exercise of citizenship. The term in question also appears in articles 22 and 35, therefore, three occurrences. The term “citizenship” is also mentioned in Articles 22 and 35, thus making a total of three occurrences. Additionally, from the text of the law, we can infer the presence of two aspects that constitute citizenship: a passive dimension and an active dimension. According to ^{Benevides (1991)}, the passive dimension is formed through a relationship of concession between the State and the citizen, wherein guardianship plays a predominant role. In this perspective, citizenship is perceived as a favor rather than a right. This aspect can be understood as a consequence of Brazil's historical experience of authoritarianism, which, to some extent, still persists (^{Schwarcz, 2019}).

^{Benevides (1991)} presents a concept of active citizenship that views citizens as holders of rights and duties, creators of new rights, and, most importantly, participants in public life. The Brazilian Constitution provides institutional means for effective citizen participation in public life through referendums, plebiscites, and popular legislative initiatives. These legal mechanisms offer opportunities for exercising citizenship and deliberating on issues that impact our daily lives.

Regarding the passive aspect of citizenship, ^{Arendt's (2009)} conception sheds light on the idea that citizenship entails the right to have rights. While criticizing the alleged universality of human rights, the author emphasizes the fragility of the passive condition of “having rights”. This condition must be understood through the relationship between individuals and the State. Depending on the dynamics within this relationship, rights can be either revoked, as seen in totalitarian regimes, or assume a central role, as evident in the Brazilian constitutional framework. The State plays a crucial role as both a source of rights and a potential arena for exercising citizenship.

The LDB points to an evident need to prepare for the exercise of citizenship and, as a result, doubts arise about how, when and where citizenship can be exercised, as well as who should be responsible for enabling its exercise. It can be inferred that schools should be considered the main space and starting point for its exercise. Therefore, preparation for citizenship becomes an essential aspect of educational work. ^{Nóvoa (2005)} views the history of schools throughout the 19^th and 20^th centuries as a continuous process of accumulation of contents and functions. He views the trajectory, instruction, education, formation, and personal and moral development, in an education focused on citizenship as an example of this process. It is noteworthy that, in certain circumstances, what is not achievable in other social instances ended up being delegated as an issue to be resolved by the school and, consequently, by the teachers. This overflow (^{Nóvoa, 2005}) places pressure on the limits of school activities, requiring teachers to expand their knowledge and practices, and ultimately raising high expectations for education.

In the National Common Curricular Teaching Base (Base Nacional Comum Curricular do Ensino — BNCC — ^{Brasil, 2018}), the term “citizenship” appears 58 times as an element in the definition of the tenth general competency, guiding all levels and modalities of Basic Education. Furthermore, apart from defining one of the ten general competencies, the term is present in specific competencies, knowledge areas, specific skills, and guidelines of different disciplines such as History, Geography, Physical Education, Portuguese, English, and Religious Education. Aligned with the constitutional framework, the BNCC, in a sense, broadens the understanding of the concept of citizenship and reinforces the objective of education as a means to prepare individuals for citizenship.

In the document, the term “citizenship” is associated 24 times with the word “exercise”, which, according to ^{Andrade and Costa (2019)}, entails a process of characterization that translates into the practice of rights and duties. ^{Santiago, Antunes, and Akkari (2020)} assert that the concept of citizenship is commonly linked to the notion of “exercise” and is presented as an element of a set of skills. The authors also highlight the use of adjectives such as “aware”, “critical”, “active”, and “participatory” to establish a specific type of citizenship experience.

According to Bourdieu (1993 apud^{Nóvoa, 2009}), the imposition of a dominant culture, via school systems, has been instrumental in constructing a national identity. Over the course of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, citizenship was experienced as a means of shaping a particular type of subject. Education for citizenship takes on various forms and is generally influenced by political agendas. Although the underlying intentions that guide the construction of the concept of citizenship and its subsequent experience within school communities are not always evident, traces of these intentions can be found in pedagogical processes.

For ^{Bittencourt (2004)}, in schools, the discipline of History has played a central role in the formation of subjects and in the development of citizenship in Brazil. Different governments used it to implement their own agenda, transmit values and principles, build a narrative about our past and, as a consequence, contribute to the experience of a type of citizenship. Soon after the proclamation of the Republic, the teaching of History became responsible for instilling values such as obedience to order and respect for hierarchy. This demand arose from the redefinition of symbols that were once associated with monarchy but now needed to reflect republican ideals, allowing for the inclusion of new social sectors in formal education. Therefore, schools, through the teaching of History, were tasked with molding a new type of citizen who should know their “place” in society.

During the Vargas Era, the teaching of History played a fundamental role in the construction of a citizenship subject to the values of nationalism. During the Vargas Era, the teaching of History played a fundamental role in constructing a citizenship subject aligned with nationalist values. In line with the process of building a national identity, the military regime introduced the discipline of Social Studies, which combined History, Geography, and Civics. ^{Bittencourt (2004)} asserts that excessively patriotic citizenship gave way to passive citizenship. The teaching of History, incorporated within Social Studies, focused on civic dates, as well as the rights and duties of citizens. With the process of democratic reopening, the teaching of History and education for citizenship underwent new transformations. The teaching of History transcended its role in consolidating the nation, and citizenship came to be understood as a means for individuals to actively participate in public life.

Given the above, we understand that it is not necessary for a government or group to explicitly and directly define the concept of citizenship in order for it to be imbued with meaning and incorporated into a country's educational curricula over time. Therefore, the notion of active citizenship identified in the aforementioned documents aligns, for instance, with the process of redemocratization that Brazil underwent in the late 20^th century. Although there is no clear definition of citizenship in the documents under review, there appears to be an intention to foster participation, which can be understood as active citizenship, as indicated by the use of adjectives such as “active”, “critical”, and “participatory”, as well as the term “exercise”.

However, it is worth noting that the lack of a specific definition and theoretical references regarding which concept of citizenship should serve as a societal reference raises questions about how this conceptual void is filled within the Brazilian education system. The diffusion of the term opens space for different interpretations, leading to the emergence of various proposals. Consequently, there is a space for dispute over the meanings of citizenship and how it should or should not be experienced in schools. In this contestation process, business sectors, through institutes, foundations, and public interest social organizations, present solutions that align with their own ideological frameworks.

^{Libâneo (2016)} asserts that educational policies implemented in schools in recent decades have been directly influenced by multilateral organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco), the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As a result, the ideological framework originating from the market permeates the concept and practice of citizenship, providing it with meaning.

The studies conducted by Rodrigues (2018), ^{Rodrigues and Honorato (2020)}, ^{Sena, Albino, and Rodrigues (2021)} on the Full-Time Education Program in Paraíba, implemented through the ECIs, have already identified the influence of national and international agencies with strong philanthropic and market appeals. These agencies employ mechanisms to maintain their presence in the proposed curricula for the youth of Paraíba. The authors light on the “new” logics and rationales of the Full-Time Education Policy, as well as its connections with political networks that promote neoconservative and neoliberal agendas in Brazil. These discussions are directly relevant to our research objective, as the implemented policy shapes the conception of citizenship that we are investigating.

The process of constructing and approving the BNCC (^{Brasil, 2018}) serves as an example for this type of citizenship. ^{Silva (2018)} argues that its prescriptive nature and its genesis outside of the school reflect an authoritarian aspect on the part of its authors. This approach further reinforces an old and traditional perspective on curriculum. The development of solutions removed from the school context and without broad popular participation, particularly without the meaningful involvement of educators, contributes to the marginalization of individuals within school communities, portraying them as incapable of reflecting on their own practices.

THE MEANINGS OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE INSTITUTE OF CO-RESPONSIBILITY FOR EDUCATION’S TEACHER TRAINING HANDBOOKS

The proposition of a “citizen school” is neither recent in Brazil nor exclusive to the state of Paraíba. ^{Gadotti (2006)} presents the genesis of this education project based on two educators: Myles Horton and Paulo Freire. Horton developed a proposal for a school that aimed to provide literacy to young black individuals, enabling them to access the US electoral system. Paulo Freire's ideas resonated in Brazil, leading to diverse educational experiences and proposals throughout the 20th century. Another significant aspect in the development of this “for and towards citizenship” school project is its connection with social movements and popular and community education.

According to ^{Gadotti (2006)}, the state of Paraná was the first to propose and implement a school model that explicitly identified itself as a citizen school in 1992. This experience was subsequently followed by similar initiatives in Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte in 1993, Natal in 1994, and Gravataí and Blumenau in 1997. The author notes that Paulo Freire's ideas served as the foundation for these proposals, and some key principles of Freirean education were present. Among the identified principles highlighted by ^{Gadotti (2006)} are a dialogical relationship between teachers and students, education for freedom and autonomy, community and participatory planning, and the notion of open science to address the needs of the popular classes. Each experience had its distinct name and characteristics, leading ^{Gadotti (2006)} to use the term “trends” to refer to the conceptions and practices of citizenship within each project.

The Freirean principles, as presented by ^{Gadotti (2006)} and associated with the notion of the “exercise of citizenship” found in the Federal Constitution and the LDB, lead us to the conclusion that citizenship is practiced within the school context through active participation in decision-making processes. It is important to emphasize that the principles of citizenship outlined in these documents also have an impact on the teaching-learning process. By analyzing the historical trajectories of different societies and their respective systems of government, we can gain a deeper understanding of our own history, which is inherently linked to citizenship. Based on the presented principles, we can state that the concept of a “citizen school” emerged in connection with the process of redemocratization and the understanding of citizenship as defined in the Federal Constitution. Pedagogical issues, such as content, methodology, and management, are also integral components within the realm of decision-making opportunities. It is crucial to question what kind of citizenship the state of Paraíba adopts when formulating a school project that claims to be citizen in its title, particularly in collaboration with philanthropic foundations.

The ICE, as a philanthropic foundation partnering with the State Secretariat for Education, Science, and Technology of Paraíba (SEECT/PB) in implementing the ECI and the ECIT, was established and is chaired by Marcos Magalhães, former executive director of Philips. On its website, the institute describes itself as “[…] a non-profit entity […] founded in 2003 by a group of businessmen motivated to design a new school model and revive the standard of excellence of the then-declining and long-standing Ginásio Pernambucano located in Recife”⁴ (^{ICE, 2015}, n. p.). Currently, the institute operates in 16 states and eight Brazilian municipalities, functioning within a philanthropic governance relationship.

The pedagogical model developed by ICE, originating from the experiences at Ginásio Pernambucano, was named “Escola da Escolha” (School of Choice). This model was subsequently adapted to the public education system in the state of Paraíba through the Full Time Education Program, regulated by Decree No. 36.408/2015 (^{Paraíba, 2015}), which established the legal foundations of what are now called “Citizen Schools”. This model encompasses propaedeutic school, vocational schools, and detention center schools, defining itself as a new type of public school with its own curriculum design, physical structure, internal and external management model, inspection and control instruments, work regime, and specific pedagogical objectives.

The curricular, theoretical-methodological, and educational management foundations are encompassed in a collection of five volumes consisting of twelve handbooks called “High School Teacher Training Handbooks”. These materials were created by ICE and serve as a reference for implementing the model in Paraíba and other Brazilian state education networks. ICE provided technical support and continuing training to teachers, school administrators, and SEECT/PB technical staff. The school teams were provided with theoretical materials, and regular bimonthly monitoring cycles were conducted in the school units.

These handbooks not only serve as a basis for internal selections but also establish guidelines for the Citizen Schools, which have been launched annually since 2017. These guidelines also have a prescriptive nature and shape the pedagogical work and management of the Citizen Schools. Initially, the training for school teams was provided by ICE consultants, with the aim of ensuring that the school teams and SEECT/PB technicians would internalize and take ownership of this model.

In the 12 training handbooks, the term “citizenship” appears seventeen times. Handbook 1 contains three occurrences of the term, Handbook 3 has two occurrences, Handbook 4 has six occurrences, Handbooks 5 and 6 have two occurrences each, and Handbooks 8 and 12 each have one occurrence. The term is not mentioned in Handbooks 2, 7, 9, 10, and 11.

Four of these handbooks are titled “Innovations in Content, Method, and Management”. However, due to the absence of definitions and opportunities for practicing citizenship in these handbooks, particularly concerning pedagogical issues and school management, there seems to be no explicit connection between the concept of citizenship presented in the model and the institutional spaces for community participation within the school.

The expressions “exercising citizenship” and “fully exercise citizenship” account for eight of the 17 instances of the term “citizenship”. Additionally, the excerpt from Article 2 of the LDB, which states that “education […] aims at the full development of the student, their preparation for the exercise of citizenship, and their qualification for work” (^{Brasil, 1996}, our translation)⁵ appears in three handbooks (1, 4, and 5).

The handbooks do not provide an explicit and direct definition of the term “citizenship” that encompasses its meaning, functioning, incorporation, trajectory of the concept, and the authors and theoretical references that underpin its conception. This lack of definitions, which is also observed in other documents, suggests a diffuse understanding of citizenship, where different conceptions of society, subject, and state can be accommodated, potentially causing difficulties in aligning with the traditions developed by ^{Tonet (2005)}.

Nevertheless, it is possible to infer the concept of citizenship adopted by the model through the conceptions of education and its objectives presented in the guidebooks, as well as the identification of cited authors, theoretical background, and occurrences of the word “citizenship” and its qualifiers found in the guidebooks. In order to conduct a substantial analysis within the research format, our focus was on Handbooks 1 and 4, as they provide the foundations and fundamentals of the model and contain the highest number of occurrences of the word “citizenship” (three and six, respectively).

The first handbook, titled “Guidebook 1: Memories and conceptions of the Model: the designing of the Escola da Escolha Educational Model”, addresses the context of the creation of the model, discussions on psychological aspects related to education, a diagnosis of youth in Brazil, the challenges faced by education, the model's conceptions, and its theoretical framework.

The document highlights two agendas or tasks to be carried out. The first is termed “Productive Transformation”, which emphasizes the need for improving the quality and productivity of goods and services. The responsibility for enhancing competitiveness in both domestic and international markets is attributed to both the state and the private sector. The second agenda is referred to as “Social Equity,” which focuses on practices aimed at eliminating social inequalities. This agenda, in particular, is referenced in the text as the focus of action of the United Nations (UN). The document further identifies three major challenges that Brazil faces in the 21^st century: ensuring a more competitive integration into the global economy, eradicating social inequalities, and promoting increased respect for human rights and democratic participation among the population. Based on these challenges and agendas, the document emphasizes the role of education, which,

[…] as stated in the Context for Creating the Model, must confront significant challenges in order to address the interplay between economic development and social equity.⁶ (^{ICE, 2019a}, p. 40, emphasis added, our translation)

These challenges are best tackled within the context of Basic Education, starting from the integration of education and the family. In fact, a competitive economy, a fairer society and a strong and consolidated democratic rule of law depend almost entirely on the quality of education received by the new generations (children, adolescents and youth) at the beginning of their lives.⁷ (ibidem, p. 27, emphasis added, our translation)

On the other hand, the function of education is confirmed as a factor for the economic and social development of a country where it is imperative that it be attentive to changes in the context and demands of the society of knowledge⁸ (ibidem, p. 25, emphasis added, our translation).

In the highlighted passages, it is evident that the model recognizes the significant role of schools in the economic development of a country. The document emphasizes that schools are instrumental in preparing young people to enter the workforce, taking into account the new challenges brought about by the “knowledge society” and “postmodernity” (ibidem, p. 35). The gradual shift from the traditional concept of employment to self-employment and the importance of linking employability to personal qualifications are central aspects of this preparation. The document acknowledges the need for constant updating in response to a society characterized by the “transience of all aspects of life” (ibidem, p. 35). Consequently, the model proposed by ICE is committed to preparing students and has the following objectives:

The first occurrence of the term “citizenship” in the document refers to its commitment to educating actively engaged young people. The second occurrence is a direct quote from Article 2 of the LDB (^{Brasil, 1996}, emphasis added, our translation):

Education, a duty of the family and the State, inspired by the principles of freedom and the ideals of human solidarity, aims to promote the full development of students, prepare them for the exercise of citizenship, and equip them with the qualifications necessary for their future work.¹⁰

The first and second occurrences of the term “citizenship” align with the perspective of active citizenship as discussed earlier, which is in line with the ideas presented by ^{Benevides (1991)}. This perspective is also reflected in important documents such as the Brazilian Constitution and the more recent National Common Curricular Teaching Base (BNCC). The last occurrence, in the guidelines for the design of the model, is in the following excerpt: “Expectations of changes in society so that it is grounded in citizenship, strengthen democracy to enhance its legitimacy, influence the economy to make it more competitive, and, above all, contribute to the preservation of human dignity”¹¹ (^{ICE, 2019a}, p. 46, emphasis added, our translation).

We found the highest number of occurrences of the word “citizenship” in Handbook 4, titled “Memory and Conception: conception of the Pedagogical Model”. This handbook aims to present the pedagogical conception of the model, its foundations, and its interdependence with the management model. The first of the six occurrences is the direct citation of Art. 2 of the LDB, already mentioned in Section 1, which, once again, serves to provide the conceptual and philosophical framework for the design of the educational model.

The second occurrence, found in Handbook 4, is a repetition of the third occurrence in Handbook 1. It reflects the perspective of liberal citizenship, which, as ^{Tonet (2005)} argues, should be employed as a means to reduce inequalities since individuals are born free and equal. The excerpt, which aims to present the conception of the model regarding the “integrality of the educational action”, emphasizes that experiencing citizenship and democracy and influencing a competitive economy are processes that drive societal changes toward greater fairness.

The third occurrence bears the meaning of passive citizenship (^{Arendt, 2009}), stating “citizenship as the right to have rights and the duty to have duties”¹² (^{ICE, 2019a}, p. 21, our translation). However, the sentence itself provides little elaboration on the nature of citizenship and instead highlights the passive dynamic between individuals and the state, wherein rights are granted in exchange for the fulfillment of duties without specifying what those duties entail.

^{ICE (2019b)} presents the concept of “human development” as a paradigm, which is attributed to Amartya Sen, an Indian economist and Nobel laureate in economics, based on his book “Development as Freedom”. The book is a synthesis of lectures presented by the author, at the invitation of the World Bank, between 1996 and 1997.

^{Sen (2010)} argues that development should not be limited to economic indicators but should encompass the extension and guarantee of individual freedoms: “Freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means” (^{Sen, 2010}, p. 20). The author presents two reasons to argue in defense of the centrality of freedom for the process of development of society. The first, “evaluative reason”, indicates that progress should be assessed in terms of enhancement of individual freedom. The second, “effectiveness reason”, argues that development is thoroughly dependent on the free agency of people. ^{Sen (2010)} states that there are five distinct types of freedom, which work together and are essential for development: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security. He also highlights that deprivations of liberty — poverty, tyranny, lack of economic opportunities, systematic social destitution, neglect of public services, and excessive interference by repressive States — are among the main factors that impede development.

Another fundamental aspect in the arguments presented by ^{Sen (2010)} is the relationship between the “market mechanism”, “freedom” and “economic development”. He proposes an approach to development that operates within the existing order, without challenging the status quo. This suggests that the concept of citizenship underlying ICE's educational model aligns with passive citizenship and a liberal political orientation.

The fourth and fifth occurrences are the repetition of the expression “exercise of citizenship”, once again, in a perspective of liberal citizenship. In these two occurrences, there are indications of a relationship between the exercise of citizenship and qualification for the world of work, which points to a technical-oriented nature of ICE's school model. In the fifth occurrence, once again, the 2^nd article of the LDB is cited, which has been repeatedly presented in the handbooks.

The last occurrence of the word “citizenship” in Handbook 4 appears in the context of presenting the three training axes proposed by the model: life training, academic training of excellence, and skills training for the 21^st century. The emphasis on building the student's life project underscores the importance of solid training in academic excellence, since, according to the ICE, “[…] there is no citizenship without mastering language and mathematical operations”¹³ (^{ICE, 2019b}, p. 46, our translation). This statement reveals, once again, the liberal character of the model, based on the principle of freedom (^{Tonet, 2005}) present in the affirmation of the life project as the core of the model. We also found a concern with training in Portuguese and Mathematics, the only subjects measured in large-scale national and international assessments.

FINAL REMARKS

We observed, during our bibliographical-documental examination, that there is a liberal base alignment between the Federal Constitution, the LDB, the BNCC and the ICE training handbooks. However, this alignment is characterized by a diffuse notion of citizenship, as the documents that introduce and establish the theoretical bases of the Citizen School model do not provide a clear and concrete definition of citizenship or how it can be experienced within schools. Despite the relevance of the term, present in the name of the model, citizenship acquires an accessory status; although it is mentioned in some of the volumes of the ICE training handbooks, the notion of citizenship does not seem to play a significant role in the organization of the proposed pedagogical work. Therefore, the name chosen to designate Paraíba's school model is not related to the original proposal of citizen schools designed by ^{Gadotti (2006)} based on Freirean principles.

Regarding the occurrences of the term “citizenship” throughout the documents, and its alignment with the conception of citizenship present in the constitutional text, we can identify an approximation with the liberal tradition (^{Tonet, 2005}), since freedom, a natural condition of all human beings, promotes consequent inequality. It is up to the State, according to the liberal conception, to reduce these extremes. Aligned with these aspects, we have the school, presented, in the analyzed documents, as an institution responsible for preparing young people to enter the world of work and, through it, promote the “productive transformation” of our society. In the process of adapting to the new demands of the labor market, the new concept of employment and the need for constant updating are fundamental points for understanding the education proposal and the notion of citizenship present in the model.

Another aspect is the contradiction between the exercise of citizenship, which points to an active role, and the passive character identified in the documents. Although the handbooks often emphasize the need to prepare students to exercise citizenship, the motto “the right to have rights and the duty to have duties” signals a perspective of citizenship based on passivity. As the documents do not mention how citizenship should be experienced in schools, we can consider that the active character, present in the various citations in the documents, is not something concrete in the pedagogical horizon of the model.

The model in question is designed and implemented through a partnership between the State, philanthropic foundations, and companies that finance the project. Consequently, the involvement of the third sector in the model becomes a determining factor in shaping the pedagogical approach of citizen schools. These constraints were identified during the analysis of the training handbooks, which includes the diagnosis presented by ICE regarding the reality of young Brazilians and the challenges that schools must confront to overcome these issues. The diagnosis and challenges primarily revolve around economic aspects.

Due to the problematic scenario presented, the model assigns the school as the main institution responsible for providing solutions to these challenges. This aligns with the “overflow” phenomenon described by ^{Nóvoa (2005)}. The assumption that education is the sole means to address socioeconomic problems contributes to blaming school communities, especially teachers, and perpetuates the existing order. By assuming that public education is inherently flawed, it fosters the acceptance of philanthropic institutions’ intervention, which maintains strong connections with the private sector in public schools’ daily operations. These institutions offer seemingly efficient and cost-effective solutions to achieve goals and promote changes that align with the neoliberal agendas of national and transnational organizations but lack meaningful dialogue with school communities, particularly without the contributions of teachers.

Since the implementation of the citizen school model in Paraíba in 2016, school communities have undergone continuous training throughout the years. This training aims to enable professionals within these communities to adapt to and embrace the model. However, the documents analyzed do not show any institutional mechanisms for listening to teachers or students regarding the model's implementation. As the schools progress through what the training handbooks term as the “year of survival”, the “year of growth”, and the “year of replicability”, they are expected to internalize the model. According to ^{ICE (2019b)}, after three years, schools should have incorporated the principles, philosophies, and methodological foundations, enabling them to replicate the model in other communities, forming what they call a “virtuous cycle”.

In the perspective of maximum efficiency and effectiveness, based on the follow-up and monitoring of bureaucratic documents and rigid goals, the model proposed by the ICE, which shapes the ECI and the ECIT in Paraíba, lacks adaptability and promotes school uniformization. Therefore, the imposition of a curriculum document is incompatible with the conception of citizenship based on the active engagement and agency of individuals, especially when the document does not propose spaces for collective and democratic construction.

In its twelve training handbooks, ICE presents a diffuse concept of citizenship and points to an alignment with the liberal tradition of citizenship. Consequently, we understand that this diffuse concept, associated with a predominantly passive character, serves a political interest. Similar to how nation-states once imposed meaning through citizenship to shape a national identity in schools, the citizen schools in Paraíba currently use a diffuse notion of citizenship to construct a specific identity, in line with the liberal tradition.

Therefore, we emphasize the need to delve deeper into discussions about the values, objectives, functions, and methodologies of citizen schools, and particularly the type of identity being formed based on this model implemented in Paraíba. Furthermore, there is a demand for exploratory research on the citizenship practices offered through this model and the potential impacts of these experiences on individuals within these school communities.