SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.19 número3Revista brasileña de educación física: la moderna gimnasia sueca en Brasil (1944-1952)Instituto de Educación del Estado de Guanabara: pionerismo y formación para el audiovisual educativo (1960-1975) índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Compartir


Cadernos de História da Educação

versión On-line ISSN 1982-7806

Cad. Hist. Educ. vol.19 no.3 Uberlândia set./dic 2020  Epub 26-Oct-2020

https://doi.org/10.14393/che-v19n3-2020-3 

PAPERS

Primary school teacher’s housing in rural environment during the First Portuguese Republic (1910-1926): analysis of school projects and residences1

Carlos Manique da Silva1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4210-0723

1Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal) manique@net.sapo.pt


Abstract

In this article, I argue that the integrative approach of the republican project sought to enhance the social role of primary school teachers, namely, in rural areas, by assigning to them (or, at least, by intending to do so) certain conditions for the development of their mission. One of these conditions had to do with housing intended for the teacher. By adopting the analytical perspective defined by Viñao (2004), I try to understand the importance attributed to the teacher’s house in some projects of schools and autonomous residences designed by the architect Raul Lino during the First Portuguese Republic (1910-1926). I conclude that the overvaluation of this space, manifested in his drawings, didn’t find a corresponding practical translation; thus evidencing the limits of the Republican reformist project, particularly in rural areas (where urgent solutions were expected).

Keywords: Teacher’s housing; Primary schools’ projects; First Portuguese Republic (1910-1926); Raul Lino; School in rural environment

Resumo

No presente artigo, assumo que o projeto integrador republicano procurou valorizar o papel social dos professores primários, nomeadamente, em meio rural, atribuindo-lhes (ou, pelo menos, pretendendo atribuir-lhes) determinadas condições para o desenvolvimento da sua missão. Uma dessas condições teve que ver com a habitação destinada ao professor. Adotando a perspetiva analítica definida por Viñao (2004), tento perceber a importância que a habitação do professor tem em alguns projetos de escolas e residências autónomas desenhados pelo arquiteto Raul Lino durante a I República (1910-1926). Concluo que a sobrevalorização desse espaço, manifestada no desenho, não encontra correspondente tradução prática; evidencio, assim, os limites do projeto reformista republicano, particularmente nos meios rurais (onde eram expectáveis soluções urgentes).

Palavras-chave: Habitação do professor; Projetos de escolas primárias; I República Portuguesa (1910-1926); Raul Lino; Escola em meio rural

Resumen

En el presente artículo, admito que el proyecto integrador republicano buscó valorizar el papel social de los maestros de educación primaria, con particularidad en el medio rural, asignándoles (o por lo menos, intentando asignarles) determinadas condiciones para el desarrollo de su misión. Una de las condiciones estaba relacionada con la vivienda destinada al profesor. Adoptando la perspectiva analítica definida por Viñao (2004), intento comprender la importancia que la vivienda del profesor tiene en algunos proyectos de escuelas y residencias autónomas diseñadas por el arquitecto Raul Lino durante la Primera República (1910-1926). Concluyo que la sobrevaloración de ese espacio, manifestada en el diseño, no halla su traducción práctica; evidencio, así, los límites del proyecto reformista republicano, especialmente en los medios rurales (donde eran presumibles soluciones urgentes).

Palabras clave: Residencia del profesor; Proyectos de escuelas primarias; Primera República (1910-1926); Raul Lino; Escuela en el medio rural

Introduction

This dichotomy between the schoolmaster’s home and the school classroom played a decisive influence in the internal organization of primary schools until the first half of the 20th century (SILVA, 2005). The expression “school house” translates the dual idea of accommodation for the teacher and of rooms organized to receive students during the time span of the lessons. In this regard, Brullet (1998) introduces the concept of domesticity to demonstrate that, inside the teacher's house, the room that had initially been reserved for the classes will progressively become independent and aggregate other spaces, as a result of new pedagogical requirements.

In Portugal, the first regulations on the construction of primary schools and of housing intended for teachers were published since 1866. Later, in 1917, and according to the official rules2 it was determined that, in rural areas, the teacher’s home should be located inside the school building; however, there should be no communication between the two areas of the building. On the one hand, it was feared that the teacher would neglect his/her professional obligations; on the other hand, his/her presence inside the school building was valued as a form of identification with the school itself, and even as an element of his/her affirmation among the population (particularly, in rural areas). This also meant that, from then on, the social significance of school and the historical meaning of its own construction and transformation were to be put at the top of the agenda (MAGALHÃES, 2010).

Assuming the specificity of the First Portuguese Republic (1910-1926) as historical-pedagogical conjuncture, I am interested in understanding how the integrative approach of the Republican project3 sought to value the social role of the primary teachers in rural areas, by giving them the conditions for the development of their mission. One of these conditions consisted, precisely, in the housing intended for the teacher. The analytical perspective adopted here focuses on legislation (standards and regulations for the construction of primary schools) and projects of school buildings which include housing for the teacher (and also some autonomous projects of residences) designed by the Portuguese architect Raul Lino (1879-1974). Following the work of Antonio Viñao (2004), in my analysis of these architectural projects I will pay special attention to: i) the relative size and dimensions of the school/housing; ii) the articulation/link between both of them (if existing); iii) the specialization of the housing spaces (existence or not of certain spaces, their deployment and size). My analysis will also be guided by a presupposition formulated by Thomas Markus (1993), according to which: "functions of individual spaces could be understood because the relations between them were meaningful" (p. 29).

School in rural environment

What are we talking about when we speak about school in rural areas? I tend to agree with A. Van Zanten’s interpretation, when he refers to a single-class school in a village or small town (which, by definition, is a “peripheral school”) as having “une configuration scolaire spécifique du fait des caractéristiques de son publique, de certains traits de son fonctionnement interne et des relations qu’elle entretient avec le centre” (as quoted by JEAN, 2007, p. 8).4 Historically, these characteristics became evident since the second half of the 19th century, the moment of consolidation of the graduate school as segmented by courses and ages (SILVA, 2008). It also became clear, for example, the cleavage between teachers who taught in single-class schools (mostly located in rural areas) and their peers who taught in graduate schools (located in cities).5 For instance, Aida Terrón and José María Rosada (2005) have shown this dichotomy (urban school/ school in rural areas), by establishing a clear differentiation between: school culture, whose origin they understand to be urban; and context culture in which, according to the aforementioned authors, the students are immersed before entering, and after leaving, the school's own cultural space.6 In this sense, for Aida Terrón and José María Rosada (2005), talking about school in rural areas means reporting two cultures that evolve in the opposite direction. More explicitly, the triumph of one implies the demise of the other:

La escuela se constituyó como un dispositivo institucional y organizativo especialmente destinado al modelamiento sistemático de la conducta infantil. Tuvo un origen urbano para atender a la demanda de unos saberes elementales, pero posteriormente se extendió a todos los ámbitos, penetrando en el medio rural sobre todo a partir de mediado del siglo XIX. En él la escuela contrastaba con la grande fuerza que tenía la cultura rural tradicional, en la que el niño vivía totalmente inmerso antes de entrar y después de salir de la escuela. Pero poco a poco la escuela se va asentando y adquiriendo fortaleza frente a la cultura rural […] Así, paulatinamente, la escuela colabora como un factor más en la transformación del mundo rural, cuyos principios tradicionales se van viniendo debajo de forma acelerada en los últimos tiempos. (TERRÓN & ROSADA, 2005, s. p.).

For years, the school in rural areas had been intertwined with the community. Among other factors, the weak mobility of rural populations contributed to this. Such a link also resulted from the fact that local authorities often took on various tasks in the allocation of primary education and, namely, in the provision of school buildings and furniture, housing for the teachers, as well as other supporting institutions such as the “Caixa Escolar” [a sort of school fundraising].

However, there is a paradox that has accompanied the school in rural areas since at least the 1990s, just when it begins to be valued (CANÁRIO, 2008).7 On the one hand, the school is seen as obsolete and heir to a 19th century pedagogical organization; and, on the other hand, it is envisaged as the school of the future, thereby serving both the interest of the educational system and the purpose of identity reconstruction of rural communities (JEAN, 2007; AMIGUINHO, 2008). Yves Jean (2007) speaks of a kind of nostalgia towards a school that many of today's generations were still lucky enough to meet, but which is about to disappear; as opposed to an urban school, often overloaded with pupils (JEAN, 2007). But, obviously, what is at stake here is the future of the rural world itself (CANÁRIO, 2008).

The First Portuguese Republic and the acknowledgment of the rural world

With regard to Republican political activism, one of the fundamental issues was that of illiteracy (PINTASSILGO, 2010). Also undeniable is the fact that the First Portuguese Republic had been strongly committed to recognizing and shaping a project capable of embracing the rural world (AFONSO, 2016), which resulted in the creation of the so-called “mobile schools”.

Nevertheless, the aim here was not so much to develop “the rural as rural” (MAGALHÃES, 2016, p. 9). According to the analysis of Terrón & Rosada (2005), what was at stake here was the affirmation of the school as an institution or, rather, the affirmation of a cultural project of nationalization that implied the overlapping of rural culture by urban culture. Moreover, as shown by contemporary accounts, the underestimation of the modes of socialization and formation of children living in rural areas often went hand in hand with a persistent view of “rurality as an antidote for modernity” (AFONSO, 2016, p. 38). They also show that, in the Portugal of the First Republic, the presence of the school was still very weak. All the aforementioned accounts have been well evidenced and reported by Abílio David, a professor of History who, due to several vicissitudes, held a teaching position in a mobile school in the district of Leiria:

This mission could give so much more because, despite of being a roundly illiterate land, it is certain that its inhabitants crave for knowledge. This is an absolutely ignorant people, in the strict sense of the expression.

This land is 15 kilometers away from a civilized city, the capital of the district [Leiria].

With each passing hour I have the concrete, positive, inescapable notion that I am 1500 kilometers far from a civilized city.

It's a barbarian people! (DAVID, 1916, pp. 144-145).

The geography of “mobile schools” denounces, itself, the political will of the State to foster the schooling of children in rural areas. The State also sought to signal its presence in the national territory through the construction of schools, although, it must be said, inconsequentially. In fact, in 1918, and certainly responding to an official order, Raul Lino took over the project for the design of regionalized primary school buildings, from which resulted three architectural variations depending on whether they were destined to the North, Center or South of the country (SILVA, 2011). Even though this project never went beyond paper, it served, however, as a test for the regionalized projects approved in 1935, and effectively implemented in the regions of the Algarve, Extremadura, Alentejo and Ribatejo.8

The discovery of the rural country will be made, above all, in confrontation with “countless resistances [...] dependent on a daily life matriciated in a different time” (AFONSO, 2016, p. 77). In fact, mobile school teachers had privileged contact with local realities, and this contact allowed them to know exactly what the limitations of populations (particularly, the rural ones) were; which meant, one would say, the (im)possibility of building new forms of citizenship or, if we prefer, a liberal society. In this regard, the reports from the aforementioned professor Abílio David are very elucidative (1916). Taking, as an example, the case of a student who addressed the teacher in the following terms: “My father told me to tell you to teach me my lesson and send me away, cause I must go to graze the oxen” (DAVID, 1916, p. 148). It is not surprising, therefore, in the face of the many cases he witnessed, his following comment: “everyone, absolutely all of them, are infamously exploiting the work of minors” (DAVID, 1916, p. 150).

It is in the light of what has been mentioned that we can understand the importance that the First Portuguese Republic attributed, lato sensu, to the mission of the primary teacher (NÓVOA, 1988); in particular, and for the most part, the importance attached to those who taught in rural areas. The aforementioned official rules (TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS …, 1917) underline this distinction, that is, they recognize the specificity of the role/presence of the teacher in rural areas.

Acknowledging the identity of schools: the urban/rural dichotomy

In his book Les constructions scolaires en Suisse (1907), the Genevan architect Henri Baudin (1876-1929) states that, under the apparent uniformity of programs and regulations, the school building is a work of personal taste (in other words: unique). From his point of view, several items contributed to this condition, namely: i) the destination/function (primary school, secondary school...); (ii) the “dispositions générales” (school for girls or boys, mixed); iii) the environment or context (village, village, city, canton); (iv) the use of local materials (BAUDIN, 1907, p. 109). He also mentioned that the aesthetic aspect itself, often related to the local context, was a factor of specificity (BAUDIN, 1907).

For my research agenda, it is important to refer that the Swiss architect distinguishes between urban and rural school buildings (in his own terminology). For example, when he sets out the characteristics of modern primary schools, he makes it clear that only rural schools should include housing for teachers. Moreover, it is very interesting to note that such a distinction is, to a large extent, due to the need of adaptation to the rural environment. In fact, Baudin (1907) reports that as the altitude of mountainous towns increases, the school building must tend to simplification, that is: the more modest the more suitable for bearing the rigors of the climate.

Source: BAUDIN (1907).

Figure 1 School in the mountain (Switzerland). 

The typification of the rural school building is well demonstrated by the work of the architect M. A. Audrey, who developed his professional activity in the Swiss canton of Freiburg (BAUDIN, 1907). Effectively, the analysis of some of his rural primary school projects makes the following common characteristics come to light: i) the existence of few classes (between one and three); (ii) very simple and sober façades; iii) housing for one or more teachers on the top floor of the school building (cf. BAUDIN, 1907).

In Portugal, the urban/rural dichotomy has become noticeable in building projects for primary schools since, at least, the mid-19th century. For example, in 1864, the Inspector Mariano Ghira released a set of projects that highlighted the aforementioned distinction (SILVA, 2005). This might seem less strange if we take into account that, by the middle of that same century, only 11% of the population lived in urban centers; and in 1890 this cipher didn’t go beyond 15% (BONIFÁCIO, 2005). We shall, now, pay attention to the following projects promoted by Mariano Ghira.

Source: GHIRA (1864).

Figure 2 Primary school model for cities. 

Source: GHIRA (1864).

Figure 3 Primary school model for rural parishes. 

As to the model for cities, it should be noted the existence of a small plot of land with planted trees in the area that is adjacent to the school entrances and residence of the teacher - the subliminal presence of nature. On the contrary, the model of school for rural areas shows the harmonious integration of the building into the natural environment. Moreover, the prospect of the school building for cities contrasts with the simplicity of the other intended for rural environments. In the first case, it is evident the need to affirm the school as the public locus of education and territory of power, not only made visible by the most distinct character of the building itself, but also by the imposition of physical barriers through fences and railing: “qui interdit de considérer une école comme un espace publique, même si c’est une institution publique”, to follow the words of Perrenoud (2001, s. p.).

In both situations, housing for the teacher is incorporated within the main building, having significant dimensions and communicating internally with the school. The first set of rules for the construction of primary schools (ORDINANCE OF JULY 20, 1866) will consecrate the existence of housing for the teacher, but separate from the school building, and according to the following set of arguments:

When residing in a public building, the teacher is relieved of a burden and care, and thus attaches himself more to the school, identifies with it and dedicates himself more willingly to his laborious profession. The master's dwelling is therefore a useful accessory to the school. This residence, as a rule, must be separated, but not distant from the school, so that the teacher can monitor the entry of the students. (ORDINANCE OF 20 JULY 1866, Article 46.º).

In the course of the First Republic these guidelines changed significantly. In fact, in the “TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS…, 1917” it was argued that the teacher should have his/her residence in the school building itself, but there shouldn’t be internal communication between both spaces; these standards referred only to rural villages and applied whenever it became difficult “to find accommodation for the teacher” (“TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS..., 1917”). But the normative goes further, by establishing that the teacher's residence should have, at least, the following divisions: study office, dining room, three bedrooms, kitchen and sanitary facilities. This last specification is representative of the importance that the First Republic attributed to the primary teacher (particularly in rural areas), who was considered to be the “arbiter of the moral destinies of the Homeland”.9

The teacher's home: projects designed by Raul Lino

Raul Lino was, perhaps, one of the architects who most influenced the design of the vast majority of school buildings in Portugal (kindergarten, primary schools, high schools and professional schools). During the First Republic he authored several projects that had no practical consequence (SILVA, 2011). Exceptions to this rule were, certainly, the João de Deus’ School-Gardens (Coimbra, 1911; Alcobaça, 1914; Lisbon, 1917...), which would continue to be built during the Estado Novo (New State) period, according to the same original plan.

Nevertheless, it is important to examine a number of Raul Lino’s primary school projects which have included plans for teacher housing and even a proposal for autonomous residences, designed between 1916 and 1922; and which, in fact, have not passed beyond the design phase. My analysis of the respective plans follows the methodology defined by Viñao (2004), which essentially considers: i) the specialization of spaces and their relative dimensions; ii) the relationship/articulation between different functional spaces within the building.

The first project that is to be analyzed here was designed in 1916 (Figure 4), just before the publication of the “TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS..., 1917”. It is a school building containing four classrooms (common classes, everything leads to believe) and residence for a teacher (in the plan, located at the observer’s right). One of the features that are worth mentioning has to do with the connection between the space for working and the space reserved for living (housing). Thomas Markus (1993) elucidates this intimate connection when he states that, until the XVIII century, “work and living space” were often “hard to distinguish” (p. 284). According to the same author, the most universal architectural “type” is that of the farm, in which the space of the dwelling is combined with the space intended for animals, tools, dried food...The separation between the two spheres begins to emerge in some utopian projects of the first half of the Eight hundred, namely in New Lanark (Scotland), when Robert Owen moves away from the realities of production and begins to focus his efforts on housing and educational projects (MARKUS, 1993).

Source: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Raul Lino’s Estate.

Figure 4 “Project for a school building”, Raul Lino, 1916. 

In the case of the school building designed by Raul Lino, the connection of which Thomas Markus has spoken is inextricable. See, for example, that there is internal communication between the teacher's dwelling (which occupies about 1/5 of the total area of the building) and the school; something that, I recall, was about to be prohibited in regulation: “TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS..., 1917”. On the other hand, Lino’s project for teacher housing does not include a space for study/work (office or cabinet), as recommended in the 1917 normative.

In fact, in addition to rooms (in number of three), living room, kitchen and sanitary facilities, no other spaces are differentiated; the high permeability between the two spheres (housing and workplace) may explain the absence of an office or cabinet. The same situation can be observed in the project for a school building with eight rooms and residence for a teacher (Figure 5).

Source: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Raul Lino’s Estate.

Figure 5 “Project for a school building”, 1st floor, Raul Lino, 1916. 

Five years later, Raul Lino designed a set of projects entitled “Casas de habitação para professores” (“Houses for teachers to live in”), according to the following regionalized types: “Norte”, “Central”, “Ribatejano”, “Serrano”, “Queluz”. We are led to believe that this project was designed in order to satisfy the demands of an official order. The idea was to guarantee housing - in a very decent building, independent from the school - for primary teachers working in rural areas (who were, then, the overwhelming majority). The first four projects mentioned earlier, follow the same architectural plan that unfolds over two floors (Figure 6). In fact, changes to this standard plan would only take place outside the building, especially in the decorative elements and depending on the natural resources of the region.

Source: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Raul Lino’s Estate.

Note: The elevation of the “Ribatejano” type project does not appear in this figure.

Figure 6 “Housing for teachers”, Raul Lino, 1921. 

On the other hand, the “Queluz” type project has only one floor. However, in all of them there is the same specialization of spaces, in alignment with the “TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS..., 1917”.

Source: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Raul Lino’s Estate.

Figura 7 “Housing for teachers”, Raul Lino, 1921. 

Considering the plan shown in Figure 7, the division between the most private area of the house (bedrooms) and the social area of the same house, so to speak (living room and dining room), becomes clear. The office’s location is, somehow, symbolic. That is, next to the main entrance, placed in front of the living room and, at the same time, facing the building’s main façade. In my view, such implantation seeks to underline the value of the (intellectual) work of the teacher, as well as the affirmation of his/her social status within the community.

Comparison between the “Queluz” type project and the plans of the “North”, “Central”, “Ribatejano” and “Serrano” projects (the latter four are identical, as I’ve mentioned before) reinforces the idea expressed in the previous paragraph, that is, the intended symbolic effect of the location of the office.

As a matter of fact, and if we pay attention again to Figure 6, the architect Raul Lino decided to keep the office next to the entrance (ground floor), right in front of the living room and turning towards the main façade. The intention of giving some public visibility to this space seems to be overlapped by the possibility of deploying it in a more reserved place, for example, on the 1st floor (destined for rooms, only).

One last comment regarding these regionalized projects, in order to underline, once again, the importance attributed by the First Portuguese Republic to the primary school teacher (and, consequently, to the enhancement of his/her social status): in all of these projects there is an autonomous space that is intended for the maid's accommodation.

Source: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Raul Lino’s Estate.

Figure 8 “Project for a school with housing for teacher in the municipality of Figueira da Foz”, Raul Lino, 1922. 

I close this article with some observations concerning a school project with housing for teachers, dated from 1922 (Figure 8). The dwelling, whose plan develops on two floors, receives great prominence. In fact, its area is larger than that of the school space (which is circumscribed to the classroom). Complying with the standards set out in the “TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS..., 1917", and contrary to what had happened in the projects designed before the publication of the aforementioned regulation (Figures 4 and 5), Raul Lino deliberately integrates the principle of internal non-communication between both spaces (school and housing). Rooms are located on the 2nd floor. On the other hand, there is no explicit reference to a space intended for the teacher’s office. However, on the ground floor, next to the entrance, the architect designed a “saleta” (a kind of lobby). There is the possibility of that being thought of as a multifunctional space.

Final remarks

As stated throughout these pages, the Republican integrative project sought to value the role of primary teachers, namely, in rural areas. In the historical-pedagogical conjuncture of the First Republic, the intention of building schools with housing for teachers and even autonomous residences was, to a large extent, designed to meet that purpose. Once again, I would like to underline the fact that the “TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS..., 1917” aimed to regulate the provision of housing for teachers - and for those teachers only - who exercised their teaching profession in rural areas. However, the official plans for school buildings - from regionalized schools in 1918, to autonomous residences for teachers in 1921, also regionalized - had no practical translation. Anyway, they were perfectly utopian in the face of the real conditions of the country.

In all of the school projects analyzed here, and with regard to the teacher's housing, it should be said that there is an overvaluation of this specific space. On the other hand, and particularly in the case of the autonomous residences, the internal specialization and division of the school building spaces somehow echoes the desire to dignify the status of the primary teacher within the rural community.

Following the analytical perspectives of Markus (1993) and Viñao (2004), my interpretation of the projects took into account the functions of the individual spaces and the interrelations between them. It is also clear that the lack of information about the descriptive memories of the projects under analysis have imposed limits on the readings I propose here.

Despite the inconsequence of the generality of measures taken in the course of the First Republic, and even though my scope here is limited to the reference of the main programmes for the construction of school buildings, the truth is that in these projects there is an idea of the future that reflects the desire to align the country with educational systems of reference, namely European (SILVA, 2016). Both the utopia and the comparative vision were, in fact, pivotal to the construction of the republican educational ideology.

REFERENCES

AFONSO, José António. Escolas rurais na I República Portuguesa. 1910-1926. Discursos e representações sobre a periferia. Santo Tirso: Whitebooks, 2016. [ Links ]

AMIGUINHO, Abílio. Escola em meio rural: uma escola portadora de futuro? Educação, Santa Maria, v. 33, n. 1, p. 11-32, 2008. [ Links ]

BAUDIN, Henri. Les Constructions Scolaires en Suisse. Genebra: Editions d’Art et d’Architecture, 1907. [ Links ]

BONIFÁCIO, Fátima. O século XIX português. 2.ª edição. Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 2005. [ Links ]

BRULLET, Manuel. L’arquitectura dels espais educatius. Temps d’Educació, Barcelona, n. 19, p. 23-34, 1998. [ Links ]

CANÁRIO, Rui. Escola rural: de objecto social a objecto de estudo. Educação, Santa Maria, v. 33, n. 1, p. 33-44, 2008. [ Links ]

DAVID, Abílio. Escolas Móveis. Lisboa: Bibliotrónica Portuguesa, 2015 [texto de 1916]. [ Links ]

GHIRA, Mariano. Casas para escolas. Archivo Pittoresco, Lisboa, v. VII, n. 21 e n. 26, p. 164-166 e 207-208, 1864. [ Links ]

JEAN, Yves (dir.). Géographies de l’école rurale : acteurs, réseaux, territoires. Paris: Éditions Ophrys, 2007. [ Links ]

MAGALHÃES, Justino. Prefácio. In Escolas rurais na I República Portuguesa. 1910-1926. Discursos e representações sobre a periferia, AFONSO, José António, 7-12. Santo Tirso: Whitebooks, 2016. [ Links ]

MAGALHÃES, Justino. Da cadeira ao banco. Escola e modernização (séculos XVIII-XX). Lisboa: Educa e UI & DCE, 2010. [ Links ]

MARKUS, Thomas. Buildings and Power. Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types. London and New York: Routledge, 1993. [ Links ]

“Normas Técnicas, Higiénicas e Pedagógicas a que devem satisfazer os novos edifícios escolares”, Decreto n.º 2947, de 20 de janeiro de 1917. [ Links ]

NÓVOA, António. A República e a Escola. Das intenções generosas ao desengano das realidades. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, Braga. v. 1, n. 3, p. 29-60, 1988. [ Links ]

PERRENOUD, Philippe. Espaces-temps de formation et organisation du travail, 2001. www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/groups/life/seminaire/S06 texte 07 11 2001.htm (acesso em 01/03/2020) [ Links ]

PINTASSILGO, Joaquim. A República e a educação: dos projetos às realizações. In José Mendes Cabeçadas Júnior e a Primeira República no Algarve, GUERREIRO, Luís M. Mendes & GASPAR, Diogo (coord.), 182-191. Loulé: Câmara Municipal de Loulé, 2010. [ Links ]

Portaria de 20 de julho de 1866, Diário de Lisboa, n. 163. [ Links ]

SILVA, Carlos Manique da. A Primeira República Portuguesa Recria o Ministério da Instrução Pública: um esforço de aproximação aos sistemas escolares europeus. História da Educação, Santa Maria, v. 20, n. 50, p. 367-381, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1590/2236-3459/63180Links ]

SILVA, Carlos Manique. Projetos de escolas primárias do arquiteto Raul Lino durante a I República portuguesa. Revista Linhas, Florianópolis, v. 12, n. 1, p. 33-50, 2011. [ Links ]

SILVA, Carlos Manique da. Do modo de aprender e de ensinar. Renovação pedagógica e cenários de experimentação da escola graduada (1834-1892). Tese de Doutorado. Lisboa: Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, 2008. [ Links ]

SILVA, Carlos Manique da. Escolas belas ou espaços sãos? Uma análise histórica sobre a arquitetura escolar (1860-1920). Lisboa: IIE, 2002. [ Links ]

TERRÓN, Aida & ROSADA, José María (2005). La escuela rural. In Los Asturianos. Raíces culturales y sociales de una identidade, RODRÍGUEZ MUÑOZ, J. (dir.), 546-560. Oviedo: Prensa Asturiana, 2005. [ Links ]

VIÑAO, Antonio. Espacios escolares, funciones y tareas: la ubicación de la dirección en la escuela graduada. Revista Española de Pedagogía, n. 228, p. 279-304, 2004. [ Links ]

1English version by Helena Margarida Reis Cabeleira. Email: helena.cabeleira@ie.ulisboa.pt.This work is funded by national funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), I.P., and co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (FEDER) through COMPETE 2020 and Lisbon2020, in the context of the Research Project: “Rescued Memories, (Re)constructed Identities - MRIR” (Ref: PTDC/CED-EDG/29091/2017).

2“NORMAS TÉCNICAS, HIGIÉNICAS E PEDAGÓGICAS A QUE DEVEM SATISFAZER OS NOVOS EDIFÍCIOS ESCOLARES, DECRETO n.º 2947, DE 20 DE JANEIRO DE 1917” [TECHNICAL, HYGIENIC AND PEDAGOGICAL STANDARDS WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED BY THE NEW SCHOOL, DECREE N.º 2947, OF JANUARY 20, 1917].

3The main idea here is that of the Republic needed to overpass the utopia facing the reality; thus, the rural world, where school rates were very low, represented a major concern to this matter (AFONSO, 2016).

4One of the specific characteristics is certainly the heterogeneity of students' ages and learning levels. In addition, for example, small scale and proximity (CANÁRIO, 2008).

5This cleavage became striking in the Municipality of Lisbon in the 1880s, when the teachers of single-class schools (also called parish schools) expressed their inferiority in relation to their colleagues from the graduate schools (also designated central schools). Such feeling derived, mainly, from a pedagogical difficulty in dealing with students of different cognitive levels (SILVA, 2008).

6For example, Abílio Amiguinho (2008) speaks of a clash between school culture and local culture.

7In Portugal, an educational intervention project in the rural world, called "Rural Schools Project", began in 1994 (CANÁRIO, 2008).

8The lack of consequence from the Portuguese educational policy in this chapter is, indeed, remarkable. Take as reference the Decree n.º 4642, July 14, 1918, which authorized the government to take out a loan from Caixa Geral de Depósitos in order to create primary schools with canteens throughout the country.

9REPUBLICAN REFORM OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, PRIMARY AND NORMAL, DECREE OF MARCH 29, 1911.

Received: March 26, 2020; Accepted: April 30, 2020

Creative Commons License Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto sob uma licença Creative Commons