The conception of childhood and the care of the young child in Brazil

The conception of childhood and child preponderant in each historical time influences the ways the right to the education of children at their young age is lived. When we look back on the history of children’s education in Brazil, several perspectives of care can be identified: charitable, philanthropic, welfare, as well as the conception that considers the child as a subject of rights. Currently, in the post-impeachment political scenario, i.e., in Temer’s administration, we see the resumption of the welfare perspective marking the direction of the care of young children, especially the disadvantaged segments of society, such as in the proposal of the Criança Feliz (Happy Child) Program (^{DAROS; PALUDO, 2012}; ^{MARCÍLIO, 2011}; ^{KRAMER, 1984}).

In this sense, with the Happy Child Program¹ , the current government shows one of their options in the face of a historically built social debt by the Brazilian elite (the exclusion of many children and their families of their right to education, among other social rights). And this “apparent” form of rights promotion evidences - by mitigating exclusion (and not solving it) - a political culture of maintaining inequalities, oppression, manipulation and, explicitly as an educational process, points to benevolence as one of the attributes of a model of clientelistic and patrimonialist State.

It is thus necessary to present the perspective of care provided by the Happy Child Program, in order to contribute to a possible understanding of the concept of childhood signaled by the respective Program, as part of a set of public policies that goes against a rights society which dignifies everyone.

The Happy Child Program (Criança Feliz)

The Happy Child Program launched on October 05, 2016 by the first lady Marcela Temer is intended to serve pregnant women and children up to three years of age from beneficiary families of the Bolsa Família Program² [Family Grant Program], children under six years of age whose families are beneficiaries of BPC (Continued Cash Benefit)³ and children who are away from their families due to the enforcement of institutional care protection measure. The program intends to accompany four million children from 0 to 3 years of age covered by the Family Grant, but families receiving BPC will be accompanied until the children are six years old.

As indicated in Decree (BRASIL No. 8869, Art. 3º, 2016), the aims of the program are:

I - To promote human development through support and follow-up of comprehensive early childhood development; II - to support the pregnant woman and the family in preparation for birth and perinatal care; III - to collaborate in the exercise of parenting, strengthening the bonds and the role of families to perform the function of care, protection and education of children in the age group up to six years of age; IV - to mediate the access of pregnant women, children in their infancy and their families to the policies and public services they need; and V - to integrate, expand and strengthen public policy actions aimed at pregnant women, children in their infancy and their families.

The Happy Child Program coordinated by the MDSA (Ministry of Social and Agrarian Development) will operate through weekly home visits of monitors responsible for accompanying and guiding, under the justification of strengthening family and community ties and stimulating child development, but which will in fact promote control through the supervision of parents, with families being given sole responsibility for the care of their children, regardless of the objective conditions in which these families live.

Bodies representing Social Service professionals, such as the CRESS/MG (Regional Council of Social Services), consider that the Happy Child Program overlaps and does not align with the organization and guidelines defined by LOAS (Organic Law of Social Assistance) No. 8,742 of 1993. This is because the target audience of the Happy Child Program, beneficiary families of the Family Grant and other income transfer programs, are already a public priority in the PAIF (Service of Protection and Integral Assistance to Families) and CRAS (Centers of Reference of Social Assistance) all over the country. According to the document published by CRESS/MG, entitled “Say no to the Happy Child Program”, the program essentially entails policing poor families, assuming that they do not know how to take care of their children, as follows:

This is about the creation of a parallel program, overlapping socio-assistance services, with a return to a past anchored in the culture of punctual, fragmented and segmented programs and projects, specifically geared to early childhood. Happy Child is one who lives in protected families (CONSELHO REGIONAL DE SERVIÇO SOCIAL, 2016, p.3).

In this sense, one perceives a conception of childhood that resumes precepts that “apparently” are already obsolete, such as the compensatory (cultural deprivation ^{KRAMER, 1982}), police state character imposed by the social policy on poor families; the overlapping of care programs for children (Projeto Casulo, Mobral); fragmentation and segmentation in the pursuit of intersectoral policies, such as the “Early Childhood Education Program”, whose actions aimed at achieving the goal of expanding childcare services, were divided between MEC (Ministry of Education) and MAS (Ministry of Social Assistance) and ended up suffering distortion and inaccuracy as to the target audience, and eventually did not reach the initial goal, which was to increase the attendance at daycare centers for the population 0-3 years of 10.6% in 2001, according to (PNAD/IBGE) to 34.0% in 2007 (^{CASSIOLATO, 2004}).

Although child education is a policy of intersectoral intervention, articulated between education, health and social assistance, since the discussions of the LDB and, especially, the Fundeb, it is a consensus among experts and the very set of documents emanating from the federal government via MEC (National Curriculum Guidelines for Early Childhood Education, even the guiding document of the National Curricular Common Core for Early Childhood Education) and the social movements that the focus of early childhood care should be on promoting access to daycare (caring-educating, games and fun; different and diverse languages, learning and integral development, social interactions, appreciation of the background of the child, leading role of the child in the learning processes etc.). However, the “Happy Child” policy for early childhood is centered by social assistance, not by education, as it had been in the previous period, a matter of concern for several experts in the field, as shown in the report “New measures change the focus of education policies for early childhood”⁴.

Along with the change of focus of the policies to the area of social assistance, there is also a weakening of the Proinfância programs (National Program for Restructuring and Acquisition of Equipment for the Public School Network of Early Childhood Education) due to the end of the transfer of funds, and of Brasil Carinhoso, which will have cuts in budgets and scope of resources release limited to the Ministry of Social and Agrarian Development⁵ only, although the target audience is expanded, admitting not only children of beneficiary families of the Family Grant, but also the beneficiaries of the Continuous Cash Benefit (BPC).

Cutting funds is due to reduction in the percentage of 50% to 25% of the minimum annual amount per enrollment, defined nationally, for municipalities that do not meet the target set by the Ministry of Social and Agrarian Development, so as to enroll a sufficient number of children in daycare centers each year, to reach by 2024 at least 50% of the total number of children in the 0-3 age group.

Only the municipalities that achieve the target calculated by MDSA will receive the percentage of 50% of the minimum annual amount per enrollment, defined nationally. This measure penalizes small municipalities that find it more difficult to increase the number of places in daycare centers and creates instability as to the amount that will be received by the municipalities, since the amount passed on will be calculated according to the criteria mentioned above, and in case of non-compliance of the targets, the value passed on by the Union falls by half. That is, for municipalities that are far from achieving a percentage of enrollments in line with the goals of the PNE (National Education Plan), cuts of funds, instead of incentive, or additional allowance. Without a doubt, this model of public policy management is a return to managerialism based only on the efficiency and effectiveness of the 1990s, implemented by Bresser Pereira in the extinct Mare (Ministry of Federal Administration and State Reform).

In addition to these, other managerial measures and budget cuts are being implemented, e.g., PEC 241/55, which will be dealt with in the next topic.

PEC 241/55 (EC - 95)

From the impeachment of President Dilma on August 31, 2016 and the rise of Vice-president Michel Temer to power, we saw a reckless avalanche of “tax adjustments” growing over several of the historically conquered social rights.

The government opened its reform proposals to institute the “New Tax Regime” with PEC 241/55 (Proposed Constitutional Amendment - actuality EC95), whose text establishes a ceiling on federal government spending played by the executive, legislative and judicial powers, including the Public Prosecution of the Union and the Court of Auditors of the Union, with primary expenditures⁶, those responsible for ensuring the provision of public services to the population.

For education, the immediate impact is the overthrow of the constitutional linkage, which obliges the Union to invest 18% of the education budget provided for in the 1988 Constitution. This is because, according to the new rules, the readjustment is calculated by the variation of inflation, without taking into account the growth of revenue or the increase in demand. Only in 2017, the adjustment will be 7.2%, then the amount spent will be adjusted based on the previous year’s expense, adjusted by the variation of the IPCA (National Consumer Price Index) of the last 12 months, in a period that goes from July to June of the previous years referred to in the budget law. The change becomes valid for education and health from 2018, for a period of 20 years, and only after the end of ten years of validity of the respective rule can it be changed.

Excluded from this measure are the expenses with the Electoral Justice for holding the elections, constitutional transfers to states and municipalities (FPM, FPE, 50% of the ITR collection, 10% of the IPI on exports of industrialized products, Quota part IOF/Gold, oil and gas royalties, among others), the Education Salary, the resources to complement Fundeb (Fund for the Maintenance and Development of Basic Education) and the capitalization expenses of non-state-owned companies.

Although many argue that for education and health there will be no ceiling, only a floor, because if the government wants to invest more in health or education, it can withdraw resources from other areas to reallocate it in these two areas, without suffering penalties for overcoming the limit of inflation, the fact is that there will be a ceiling on all primary expenditures, making it difficult to redirect resources from other areas to health and education, because all areas will already be working with scarce resources within this new rule.

In order to advance in the understanding and to make a broader analysis of how the calculations will take place, it is worthwhile to check the information in the PLOA (Annual Budget Bill) for fiscal year 2017 of the tax revenue resources destined for the Maintenance and Development of Education, as well as the application of resources in the Maintenance and Development of Education.

According to information from Table 1, the Union must rely on a tax revenue of 476 billion, of which there will be a deduction of 189 billion for the mandatory transfers to states and municipalities, established by the Federal Constitution, and there remains, then, a total of 286 billion, related to net revenue from taxes, i.e., tax revenues deducted from constitutional transfers to states and municipalities, on which the 18% deduction is incumbent on the Union to allocate for Maintenance and Development of Education (MDE). Therefore, in 2017, the Union must apply 51 billion in the Maintenance and Development of Education (MDE), referring to the revenue of its taxes, not counting the contributions of the education salary and other specific and obligatory revenues that are also a part of the Union’s budget for education.

The following tables detail how this application can happen in the allocation of resources in the MDE, according to sub-functions and funding sources.

The data indicate that the resources allocated to Maintenance and Development of Education from the constitutional linkage of 18% of net tax revenue represent 61% of the total revenue used in education. The ordinary resources correspond to 25%. Just to emphasize, ordinary resources⁷ are those whose revenues are for free application, precisely because they are free of any binding or specific purpose, e.g., the resulting amount of tax revenues due to the Union, after the transfers required to states and municipalities, correspond to R$ 286,440,365,308.00, as well as the revenues obtained by issuing bonds and revenues incorporated into DRU (Discharge of Union revenues). Salary-education contributions account for 7% of total expenditure. Other sources linked to education⁸ add up to 5% and other sources 2% of the resources to be allocated to education in the year 2017.

As is clear in Tables 2 and 3, in the financial year 2017, child education should not receive resources from sources linked to the 18% quota or ordinary ones, but from the salary education and other sources linked to education, or more precisely, from the Social Fund - Portion for Public Education and Healt⁹ , according to the PLOA/2017 data.

It is important to emphasize that for children’s education, the investments of the federal government have been important, especially in the expansion of the service network with the resources of Proinfância, allowing the opening of new vacancies, and with Brazil Carinhoso in the supplementation of resources to the maintenance and development of early childhood education, as shown in the following table.

According to the data, we can see that the resources used in the implementation of the Proinfância correspond to a large part of the resources made available to the MDE for children education; from 2011 to 2016 resources on the order of 7,7 billion were implemented by Proinfância, and from 2011 to 2013 all the resources projected in the LOA (Annual Budget Law) were executed. As of 2014, however, there is a strong difference between the values projected in the LOA and the actual figures, with only 10.3% of the projected value being executed in 2015 and only 01.05% until June 2016. The Brasil Carinhoso resources, in turn, also dropped by almost 50% from 2014 to 2015. Thus, despite the substantial increase in federal government investment in children’s education made in the last six years, as of 2015 it is possible to see that we are experiencing a period of retreat of investments in children’s education, a measure that will be exacerbated by the implementation of the rules of the PEC.

Therefore, a rigid control, as presented in PEC 241/55, inasmuch as it imposes a spending limit for all public sectors, can indeed contain the investment advances that the federal government had been carrying out in children’s education. Although the resources of the education-salary and the complementation of the Union to the Fundeb are outside the budget cut established by the PEC, the pressure for resources from the other areas, and even from other sectors within the education portfolio itself, can cause investments in children’s education to decline, as is already noticeable since 2015.

A technical study carried out by the Chamber of Deputies on the effects of PEC 241 presents the expenses with MDE, making a comparison between the minimum application of 18% of the Net Revenue of Taxes (RLI), current rule, and the rule imposed by the constitutional amendment, from a seven-year perspective, if the rule proposed by the PEC was applied since 2010 with effect from 2011.

According to the notes in the table above, we note that with the application of the proposed rule with the PEC, not even the constitutional floor of 18% was achieved, PEC 241 would reduce the resources applied to education in 23.6 billion over the six years analyzed, as we compare the effects of PEC 241 with a minimum investment of 18% of the Net Revenue Tax (RLI). However, when we compare this rule with the application runs on MDE, PEC 241 would reduce the resources applied to education in 59.5 billion over the period analyzed. It is worth mentioning that the scenario for the year 2015/2016 was one of decrease in the collection of taxes and high inflation¹⁰.

Final considerations

The policy of fiscal adjustment implemented by the federal government through the PEC for the ceiling of spending, with the endorsement of the Brazilian elite that holds the power, means of production and mass media influencing public opinion, will certainly have negative repercussions for children’s education, mainly because of the policy of cuts that programs like Proinfância and Brazil Carinhoso have already begun to suffer. Just like the demagogic and retrograde discourse made to give support to the Happy Child Program, which reflects an outdated view for children policy, rather focused on the control, benevolence of the State, than on promoting access to social rights.

he children’s education that had been rocked by a time of advancement may be entering a time of “once there was a right ...?”, and returning to periods of a “minimal State” to the social policy (for the implementation of public policies that promote social integration, the human dignity of all Brazilian citizens) and a maximum State for the market, according to ^{Peroni (2008}).

It is expected that the “happy”, fortunate, lucky child and/or baby up to three years of age and their families that are beneficiaries of the Family Grant Program, as well as those covered by the Continuous Cash Benefit up to six years of age and those removed from family life due to the application of a protective measure, should be grateful to the State, whose current leaders want to prevent them from really appropriating their citizenship status; not to experience the possibility of protest and mobilization, not to exercise the broader social and political participation, since for the minimal (social) State, the poor and excluded man can live by bread alone.

And in this way, the elite, the majority leader of the Brazilian State public machine, reiterates to all of the uninformed of the country that the economic crisis is generated by the State that stops the promotion of social actions. Legitimized by the idea that this very elite promotes and conveys as “truth”, we continue to punish the poor and minorities for being the scapegoats of all the evils of humanity.