Introduction

When we think about the teaching of History, we are led to reflect on the power relations that constitute educational policies and didactic proposals for the discipline. In Brazilian Education it was sometimes reduced to nationalist issues, sometimes it was without identity and diluted in the midst of contradictions. The autonomous and integral formation of the subject was thought from the Law of Directives and Base (LDB), of 1996, and deepened during the presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, affiliated to the Workers' Party (PT), between 2003 and 2010, with the creation of Curriculum Guidelines for High School (2006) and the reform of the National Curriculum Guidelines for High School (2012). (^{BITTENCOURT, 2009}; ^{FONSECA, 2009}).

However, this cycle was broken with the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff (PT) in 2016. Her successor, Michael Temer of the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB), introduced a series of reforms that changed High School and, consequently, the teaching of History, among which we highlight: the Common National Curriculum Base. (^{ARAÚJO, 2018}; ^{CARDOZO, LIMA, 2018})

The BNCC is configured as a normative document for Basic Education. His writing is related to: business groups, international organizations, as well as official documents such as the Federal Constitution of 1988, the LDB of 1996 and the PNE. The alterations present in the approved version of the Base even redirect the formative perspective of the subjects, especially in High School. (^{FERRETTI, 2018}; ^{MENDES, 2020}).

To understand this new formative perspective, we raised the following research problem: how does the new curricular orientation present in the BNCC affect the teaching of History in High School? In order to contemplate this questioning, we set out as an objective: to analyze the implications of the new curricular structure, present in the Common National Curriculum Base (BNCC), for the teaching of History in High School.

The focus of our research was based on the analysis of the Comum Nacional Curriculum Base (2018) based on qualitative research, with a focus on document analysis based on the assumptions of ^{Triviños (1987}). For the analysis of the document, we dialogue with ^{Apple (1982}) and his critical perspective on curriculum. The understanding of curriculum, therefore, is one that considers it a territory of conflicts and contradictions because it is involved in economic, political and social issues.

To present our analysis, we structure the text in two sections. In the first one, we worked with an overview of the context of formulation of the Base and the differences between the three versions of the document. Finally, we analyze the BNCC curriculum proposal for the teaching of History in High School.

The historical foundations of the BNCC

The proposition of a curricular orientation based on the indication of minimum contents dates from the 1988 Constitution and was ratified by the Education Guidelines and Bases Law (LDB) of 1996, although it is not determined that this is a prerogative of the Union. Only “the regulation of competencies, guidelines and regulatory bases of Basic Education” would be conferred on this one (^{LIMA VERDE, 2015}, p. 83). In other words, the autonomy of schools is maintained in the elaboration of their respective curricula and pedagogical proposals, respecting the common legal norms and those of their education system.

In 1997, as a guideline for the curriculum, the National Curriculum Parameters (PCN) were published. Although not mandatory, therefore, without normative character, they are examples of an attempt by the State to seek standardization of the curriculum on a national scale for elementary and high schools. The subject permeated the National Education Conferences (CONAE, 2010; 2014) and ended up appearing in the 2014 National Education Plan (PNE), for example. One year later, via the I Interinstitutional Seminar for the construction of the BNCC, the work began with the participation of expert committees ((Portaria n. 592, de 17/06/2015) and accompanied by a public consultation for the elaboration of the first version of the Base.

After review, in May 2016, the second version of the document was made available, a period of political effervescence as a result of the impeachment process of President Dilma Rousseff concluded in August 2016. Criticism of both the first and second versions of the document by the opponents of the government, found a means of articulation in what would be the third version of the Base, finally approved in December 2017. But, still, without the insertion of High School, which occurred in April 2018. The centralizing intention of the curriculum decisions at the national level.

However, the consideration of Baseline versions does not imply continuity or deepening of the proposal. The third version of the document can be considered the first version of a new document due to the many differences and divergences from what was proposed in the previous versions. This is understood by the change in the political-administrative orientation of the federal government after the inauguration of Vice President Michel Temer (2016-2018). From then on, agents from the private sectors entered the education scenario, influencing the process of building public policies, aiming at greater control over curricula. Among these, we highlight the foundations linked to Roberto Marinho, Victor Civita, Airton Senna and Paulo Lemann, companies such as Natura, Gerdau and Volkswagen, as well as the Todos pela Educação movement (^{MACEDO, 2014}). This is an example of the articulation between government agencies and associations of educational directors. In addition to these entities, it is worth mentioning the “academic bodies such as and educational research such as Anped, Anfope, ABdC and Anpae, government bodies such as the MEC, Consed and Undime⁴, in addition to groups such as Escola Sem Partido” (^{ROCHA; PEREIRA, 2019}, p. 207).

The curriculum field is, therefore, a territory of disputes related to public policies and in which not only curriculum theorists speak out, civil society and the business and industrial sector also participate in the debate. “However, one configuration reveals itself increasingly clear: the influence of the private sector in the decision-making processes of public policies” (^{LIMA VERDE, 2015}, p. 79). This is the neoliberal wave, from the 1990s, in which business reformers gain space, as stated by ^{Freitas (2014}). Thus, to speak of curriculum is to deal with distinct and conflicting interests.

Specifically about the Todos pela Educação (TPE) movement, created in 2006, with a focus on a kind of pedagogy of results, it intended to “modernize” the Brazilian nation, making it more “efficient” to meet the needs of capital. The movement pays attention to quantitative aspects measured by international organizations and that affect the teacher, school management and the curriculum. Thus, since 2010, they have defended the need for a national curriculum with description of specific skills for students by grade, as well as the importance of evaluations being able to measure the quality of education and serve as a parameter for guiding educational policies. and pedagogical practices. In addition, the TPE defends the responsibility of managers for the performance of students and the increase of teaching hours using the counter shift for school reinforcement (TPE, 2008). Curriculum prescription thus serves to transfer competences and responsibilities to the local levels of administration of the school system. In this way, “assessment systems are used as a government at a distance, through results management” (^{HYPOLITO, 2019}, p. 189).

A curriculum focused on “know-how”, as indicated by the TPE, was also defended by the Movimento pela Base (MPB), created in 2013. According to ^{Moreno (2016}, p. 10), the MPB “was formed by foundations and institutes maintained by the private sector, linked to ideals focused on creativity, technology, entrepreneurship and, at least in terms of discourse, education as applied science rather than political praxis”. Like the TPE, the MPB reaffirms the need for interference in the public administration, which is responsible for the crisis in quality and school management.

Being aware of these Movements is a condition for understanding the discontinuity of the current Base with the proposals presented in previous versions of the document. In the first version of the Base, for example, the curricular components were accompanied by their respective “learning objectives”, defined “(...) by the articulation between the uniqueness of the areas of knowledge and their components and the specificities of the students throughout the course. of basic education” (BRASIL, 2015, p. 10). Thus, the document was related to the principles of an inclusive school, attentive to diversity issues, as signaled by the many national curricular guidelines in force in the country and, specifically in relation to History, with attention to the decentralization of a Eurocentric curriculum. According to the first version of the Base, “the heterogeneity of worldviews and coexistence with differences favors the exercise of sensitivity, self-criticism and creativity in school productions”. (BRAZIL, 2015, p. 240).

The second version of the document, made available in May 2016, was articulated to four policies: National Policy for Teacher Training, National Policy on Educational Materials and Technologies, National Policy for the Assessment of Basic Education and National Policy for School Infrastructure. We noticed the influence of TPE guidelines (2010), especially related to the importance of evaluations that should measure the quality of education. Still subtle, the influence is demonstrative of the scenario of political changes with reflexes in the definition of educational policies.

The fact is that, three months later, with a different view of education from that presented by the previous government, the management of Michel Temer coordinated the final process of building the Base and from new perspectives, including with regard to public participation in the elaboration process via receipt of contributions. After the second version of the BNCC was made public, 27 public hearings took place. Nine thousand contributions were submitted for this version⁵. A situation very different from that when the Ministry of Education received around 12 million contributions relating to the first version of the document.

In April 2017, the third version of the Base was made available. Public participation for contributions was almost nil. Between July and August 2017, five hearings were planned with representatives from each region of the country, which, in addition to being quantitatively small, had limits in their achievements. Even so, in December of the same year, the Base was approved by the Ministry of Education, even though it did not include secondary education. This one was only added in 2018⁶.

Unlike previous versions, whose teaching was guided by rights and learning objectives, this one came to be taken as a means to promote “competencies” and “skills”, a model criticized worldwide for secondary to knowledge as the axis of training, as the nucleus of the curriculum aimed at developing students' intellectual capacity. Thus, a break was promoted with the orientation of the proposals of the Lula (2003/2010) and Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016) governments aimed at the formation of the autonomous and reflective subject. The approved Base dates back to proposals from the Fernando Henrique Cardoso government (1994-2002), by proposing teaching based on “competences and abilities”, directed to “know-how”, the appropriation of knowledge to be applied in solving superficial and/or susceptible problems. of immediate use in the labor market. Diversity and inequalities in the country are disregarded, which ultimately ends up attributing the responsibility for the student's success or failure to the student himself.

Limitations also refer to teachers. The Base as it is set, above all, for the final years of Elementary and High School, segments in which History teachers work, promotes the non-recognition of teachers as autonomous professionals and actors in the school training process. They start to be considered as transmitters of content and performers of tasks in favor of the development of students' skills, therefore, it depreciates their intellectual character and promotes the disqualification of their social role. As ^{Rocha and Pereira (2019}, p. 212) point out, when determining and legitimizing certain knowledge, skills and abilities rather than others, “these curricular regulations seek to control teaching work through monitoring and accountability mechanisms”.

The Base was initially organized through a joint process, since there was the formation of work teams, study meetings, discussion by area in schools and universities as well as from the different segments or specific disciplines. In the end, what we saw was a discontinuity between versions. The third, especially with regard to High School, can even be considered a new Base and not a third version of whatever the document may be.

The third version of the BNCC was prepared under a conservative orientation, from public managers and legislators, clearly against the treatment of themes related to diversity, for example. Without scientific and pedagogical basis and claiming a defense of morality and supposed preservation of the family institution, they distorted, for example, discussions about gender relations and sexual education, which ended up being removed from the final version, something that has been deepened by the current management. of the federal government (2019-2022). This is how the school today, as ^{Hypolito (2019}, p. 196) rightly notes, “is riddled by policies that intend to submit it increasingly to the market and neoconservatism”.

Thus, Brazilian education followed, as a point of conflict, on the one hand, the need to promote sociability guaranteeing the formation of students and, on the other hand, the call for students to be trained in the perspective of competences and abilities in order to meet to the precarious job market. Because it is public, education becomes the target of attacks. “The current and seemingly incessant attacks by conservative forces on anything that is 'public' in our society document just how politicized the process has become” (^{APPLE, 1982}, p. 7).

We also need to consider that the BNCC of Secondary Education was linked to the segment reform law (Law. as a result of the links it encourages for the articulation of education systems with the private sector. This link results in the fact that the Base corresponds to 1,800 hours (out of 3,000) of High School. What should be considered learning rights was reduced to 60% of the curriculum and still transformed into competencies and skills. If added to this, the fact that part of high school can be taken at a distance or with teachers without the proper training as a result of the restoration of “notorious knowledge”, the Base can come to represent a fatal blow for Brazilian youth and future generations. generations of the economically less favored layers that will have an impact on the development of their capacity for intellection, creativity and autonomy of thought. The concern increases even more when we think of History as a non-mandatory school subject as established from then on.

The fact is that the BNCC is what we have today in terms of normative public policy for education, touted as that orientation that would allow all students in the country to have access to the same school contents in basic education, leading the population in general, and even some teachers, uncritically assuming that this is an equality of opportunity. It takes discernment to realize that this is not synonymous with a school of equal quality for all. Curriculum cannot be confused with simple exposition of contents, transmission of knowledge. As ^{Freitas (2014}) points out, the influence of business reformers in the Base results in training restricted to the cognitive dimension. The other dimensions of training are camouflaged under the heading of “socio-emotional skills”, therefore, reduced to a set of adaptive behaviors.

What becomes important is to guide school education through large-scale assessments. As ^{Süssekind (2019}) points out, the Base consists of a relationship of prescription and control of meanings based on an arbitrary coding of knowledge collected in standardized external tests. It is a normative document detached from the multiple school subjects and their real curricular experiences. It prescribes trajectories and itineraries. In addition, it “produces injustices, invisibilities and inexistences, objectifying knowledge, injuring autonomy, dehumanizing teaching work and, also, mischaracterizing the student in his condition as different, as a legitimate other” (^{SÜSSEKIND, 2019}, p. 92). It is important not to lose sight of the fact that prescriptive curricula threaten diversity as a social value, but do not nullify difference.

Building curriculum is a social, pedagogical and political action. That is why, when we talk about a quality school for all, it means that it needs to guarantee respect for diversity, the right to difference and the importance of the positive construction of the identities of the subjects in formation as a basic element for the formation of a democratic society. Faced with the orientation of dealing with a curriculum based on competences and abilities, limits are established, via BNCC, to discussions about diversity, difference, construction of identities, social inequalities, distancing young people from the problematization of reality and, consequently, weakening the perspective of the contextualized school, promoting curricular justice, cultural changes and social transformation.

The BNCC and the teaching of History in High School

Organized in areas of knowledge, the subjects Geography, History, Religious Education, Philosophy and Sociology make up, at BNCC, the so-called Human and Social Sciences. However, in association with Law 13415/2017 (High School Reform) it makes it possible for the student not to have access to the teaching of History in about 40% of the curriculum, if he/she follows a training itinerary focused on natural sciences, for example. . The itineraries are definitions of the Secondary Education Reform Law, regulated by the segment's BNCC. What we have before this is a rupture in the formative character of High School, proclaimed since the 1988 Constitution and ratified by the 1996 LDB, which defined the segment as an integral part of Basic Education, removing the character of terminality from the studies that it had until then, as a result of the legislation of the military period that formatted high school education as a stage of compulsory professionalization.

Despite the official propaganda boasting that the student has the option of choosing the itinerary to take, the text of the Law is clear when it states in Art. 4 that “(...) training itineraries, (...) should be organized through the offer of different curricular arrangements, according to the relevance to the local context and the possibility of the education systems”. The possible choice of students is, therefore, conditioned to a pre-definition of the education system, leaving no doubt that the long-term result of this will be an increase in social and school inequalities.

We must also be aware that, although the document associates History with a construction, as something produced by the confrontation of forces, and mentions the existence of the “other” as necessary for understanding the world and oneself (BRASIL, 2018, p. 397-398), the new version of the document homogenizes values ​​and cultures by stating that “comparison in history makes the Other see better”, which, according to the document, would be better interpreted from the comparison and not from itself. in its specificities. In addition, the supposed purpose of the Base to face inequalities and improve the quality of education becomes empty when it proposes training based on an extremely detailed set of skills and abilities, disqualifying the general education of young people. This moves away, for example, from discussions on topics such as diversity and solidarity that should mark training in Basic Education according to national curriculum guidelines (BRASIL, 2004, 2012).

There has been much discussion about the renewal of History teaching (^{AZEVEDO, 2010}). This should no longer focus on the history of the “heroes” or be linked to the legitimation of political and state discourse. It must express, in fact, the relationship that is established and built between peoples and their nations. However, the Base retreats in this orientation, first, by adopting linear chronology as a guide for the contents, limiting itself to French quadripartism; second, for reinforcing Eurocentrism, something that has not been recommended since the PCN-History of the last century (BRASIL, 1998).

In the BNCC, historical thinking, called “historian attitude” is summarized in the processes of: identification, comparison, contextualization, interpretation and analysis. Contextualization, for example, boils down to the attitude of knowing how to locate specific moments and places of an event to avoid anachronism. (BRAZIL, 2018, p. 399). We understand that contextualizing goes much further, it implies the interrelation between the understanding of the knowledge exposed in the class and the context experienced by the students. (^{AZEVEDO, 2013}). The History teacher needs to establish conditions for his students to critically reflect on their own experiences and establish relationships between the present and the historical events of different subjects, in their various times and spaces.

Weaknesses and contradictions that affect the teaching of History are those still linked to large-scale assessments, which propose goals to be achieved and quantitatively measured with attention to curricular components such as Portuguese Language and Mathematics (^{MACEDO, 2014}; ^{PEREIRA; OLIVEIRA, 2014}). ; ^{SOUSA, 2015}; ^{LIMA VERDE, 2015}). The result of this is the secondary importance of History. How can we talk about quality education without the subject in training developing the ability to analyze and critically reflect on his own reality, which, in turn, requires reading and interpreting the world? This experience will be developed in History classes. Therefore, despite statements that “Basic Education should aim at global human training and development (...).” (BRAZIL, 2018, p. 14), the Base's proponents remove the mandatory character of curricular components that are fundamental for the integral development of students. The fact that the Portuguese Language has 54 skills and Mathematics has 43 skills to be developed, while together the subjects History, Geography, Philosophy and Sociology add up to a total of 32, demonstrates how small the space destined for training is. integral part of young people who, as an integral subject, must be content to be an “entrepreneur” responsible for their choices, successes and failures.

The retreat of the theoretical-critical training of Brazilian youth is clear (^{KRAWCZYK; FERRETTI, 2017}; ^{HERNANDES, 2019}). The knowledge historically produced by humanity is minimized due to a know-how considered supposedly synonymous with curricular modernization. The Base moved away from the DCNEM (BRASIL, 2012) in its defense of schools with a unitary base and the training of students for integral, human education, articulated to work, science, culture and technologies.

Let's see how the BNCC structures its skills for History. It offers, for example, the ability to:

(EM13CHS203) To compare the meanings of territory, borders and emptiness (spatial, temporal and cultural) in different societies, contextualizing and relativizing dualistic views (civilization/barbarism, nomadism/sedentary lifestyle, enlightenment/obscurantism city/countryside, among others).

In this skill, we can highlight at least seven contents: territory, border and void in the spatial, temporal and cultural perspective; complex activity even for undergraduates in History; in addition, students have to contextualize and relativize concepts such as civilization, barbarism, nomadism, sedentarism, enlightenment, obscurantism, city and countryside. All these concepts/contents to be understood need to be analyzed, discussed and observed in their specificities. By presenting content that is far from the reality of the students and linked to a traditional, positivist and linear conception of History, the Base directs towards a learning marked by the memorization of concepts and content. Thus, the teaching-learning process is standardized and controlled without taking into account the social and cultural circumstances of the students.

Historical knowledge is not limited to presenting facts in time and space, although linked to a vast documentation that proves its existence (^{BITTENCOURT, 2009}). It is necessary to relate the facts to the themes and subjects that produced them so that the historical explanation makes them intelligible. In this process, problematization is necessary. The exercise of “identifying”, “understanding”, “elaborating”, “producing”, “using” and “analyzing”, to which the Base refers, can exclude the problematization, necessary for the deepening of the reading and understanding of the world. Not being a “blank slate”, in which knowledge can simply be deposited or, even, a doer of things materialized via supposed skills, the student needs basic general training, which includes reading, interpreting and writing historically. The process is much more qualitative than quantitative. However, instead of thinking about the multiplicity of human experiences and the plurality that surrounds them, the student is led to develop supposed skills that, in fact, consist of memorizing a vast list of contents that, despite being considered minimal, by the high quantitative, can even be considered definitive.

Based on the specific skills in the area of ​​Applied Human and Social Sciences for High School (BRASIL, 2018, p.571), we are faced with a wide range of possibilities for study topics and with attention to the need for students to develop conditions to position themselves critically and scientifically in relation to all of them, as well as to participate in the public debate in a critical way. How, however, to form the critical and propositional subject from a curricular structure based on an extensive list of fixed contents, understood as minimum or mandatory? The questions are the result of the concern with a possible emptying of the school tomorrow. The school that must form for life and work, according to LDB of 1996, should not be confused as an instance of professionalization or vocational guidance.

Adolescents are not neurobiologically prepared for the “choice” so publicized in government advertisements. Definitions with professional repercussions for adult life need to be taken in adult life and from their different experiences and appropriation of varied knowledge. This does not exist in the very organization of training itineraries that segment and exclude basic knowledge necessary for the global formation of the subject. In a society in which the government limits the ceiling on public spending on education⁷ and which authorizes the flexibilization (or end) of labor rights⁸, making labor relations precarious, in an experience that is in no way collaborative, what is history for?

Since the end of the last century, when teaching History, we have sought to develop concepts and problem situations; cooperate in the process of interpretation, development of reasoning ability and construction of arguments that help in the explanation of oneself and the other, enhancing the apprehension of the historical situation, as well registered by ^{Karnal (2007}). But, via BNCC, as a normative document, the curriculum of schools can be plastered. In addition to the intervention in the teaching practices in the classroom through the production of textbooks strictly aligned with the Base, as well as the association of teaching work with the requirements of large-scale assessments, there are governmental mechanisms created specifically for the implementation of the Base, the example of the Pro-BNCC⁹, which links the release of financial resources and the evaluation of Education to the implementation of the Base. The alphanumeric codes that appear at the beginning of each of the 155 skills will certainly guide the construction of questions for the National High School Exam (ENEM) in the very near future. Thus, the TPE's intention that the evaluations measure the quality of education in the country will be met.

Despite stating that teachers and students must assume a “historian attitude” in the face of the proposed content (BRASIL, 2018, p. 398), mentioning the importance of the teacher stimulating debate and a critical attitude of students, from the problematization of the past and of the present, mention the need to present several sources in the classroom so that in contact with them students can interpret the information. However, when we analyze the Base, we realize that its guidelines are contrary to the discourse exposed in its corpus. The skills listed in the document do not raise issues that stimulate the production of knowledge by students. The Base proposes visibly extensive skills and, thus, denounces the involvement of different actions. Let's look at one more example:

(EM13CHS204) Compare and evaluate the processes of space occupation and the formation of territories, territorialities and borders, identifying the role of different agents (such as social and cultural groups, empires, National States and international organizations) and considering population conflicts (internal and external), the ethnic-cultural diversity and the socioeconomic, political and technological characteristics.

We realize that there is an attempt to account for “the whole of History”, despite the Base being proposed as a normalizer of minimum contents. Thus, it greatly limits the possibilities of content selection by teachers. What is called “skill” in the document is not really so. Skill consists of a series of mental procedures that the individual activates to solve a real situation, where he needs to make a decision. (^{PERRENOUD, 1999}), that is, something practical and punctual.

Pedagogy by competences and skills is guided by an approach of transmitting content, therefore, of a traditional nature, which has undergone a process of renewal since the end of the 20th century. Through such Pedagogy “the subjects learn through systematized information, memorizing and repeating exercises, texts or behaviors and procedures”, and “the attitudes of students and teachers (Competences) for this are decisive” (^{AZEVEDO; STAMATTO, 2010}, p. 72). From this perspective, in the History class, the teacher would not start from a set of contents defined as more relevant to the global education of students. Instead, he would start from concrete situations and turn to discipline according to the needs demanded by those situations. The success of the teaching-learning process, therefore, would be linked to the development of the student's ability to solve simple problems of everyday life, thus ignoring different variables, such as issues of professional training and working conditions.

Through pedagogy of competences and skills, there is a direction for the instrumentation and disqualification of teaching. It is not up to the teacher to discuss political ideologies, divergent thoughts, but teach only what is stated in the document. Students must learn what would be “useful” for them in life, because the more skills young people have, the more possibilities they would have in the fierce competition for a job. Defending training through competences and skills is to consider that changes in society, especially in economic terms, require the construction of a new subject, capable of adapting to the changes, offering the best that it supposedly would have and without questioning the unfair and limiting social structures.

Although BNCC (2018, p. 470) states that its organization does not exclude disciplines, but strengthens them through relationships and contextualization, we observe, when analyzing the area of ​​Human and Social Sciences, that there is a dilution of knowledge in several non-disciplinary skills and with that the loss of deepening of the concepts, information and method that are part of each curricular component. Paying attention to this type of approach, we emphasize that by uniting the disciplines as proposed in the Base, we encourage deprofessionalization, since a teacher trained in any discipline in the humanities will be able to teach all the disciplines that are part of the area.

We also observed that there is no distinction of what will be worked on in each year of High School. The Base only presents for the area of ​​Humanities and Social Sciences, for example, six specific competences that must be acquired throughout High School. We emphasize that in specific competence No. 1, the Base states that students will: “Analyze political, economic, social, environmental and cultural processes at the local, regional, national and global levels” (BRASIL, 2018, p. 571), but in the skills does not mention or establish a relationship with indigenous and African peoples, as provided for in Law 10,639/03. The concept of time is mentioned in specific competencies nº 1 and nº 2, but it is not broken down into the skills, being presented in a vague way and without depth and the concept of space is used only as a synonym for territory.

Another problem present at the Base is related to specific competence nº 5: “Identify and combat the different forms of injustice, prejudice and violence, adopting ethical, democratic, inclusive and solidary principles, and respecting Human Rights”. (BRAZIL, 2018, p. 577). When we look at the skills to be developed from this competence, we realize that the terms are treated vaguely and without historical foundations, there is no indication of who these subjects are; how they were constituted; what are their cultural specificities; how inequality and prejudice were historically constituted. We observed that the work with transversal themes, guided by the PCNs (2000), was disregarded in the Base and expressions such as “sexual orientation and gender” were generalized and renamed “dimensions of human sexuality” in the document.

In terms of teaching History, we need to be aware that it is always the result of a selection, of a spatio-temporal, historical cut. It derives from different interpretations of socially situated historical subjects. Teaching History, especially in the 21st century, should not be limited to the transmission of content. It needs to be closely related to: reflection, problematization of reality, resignification of representations and concepts, in addition, obviously, to the construction of knowledge. Without this, we cannot speak of quality teaching of History (and education).

Through problematization, the study themes gain meaning, meanings, and become enablers of transformation of the subjects. ^{Azevedo and Stamatto (2010}, p. 719), when dealing with the teaching of History from problem-questions, state that these must be “(...) extracted from the social reality of students, seeking answers in the past, in different times and places, always guided by real doubts and inquiries, of the present time”. Working with problematization of reality in a historical perspective, encourages students to ask real questions and the search for concrete and contextualized answers, which generates a significant learning, and not the search for the memorization of events and dates as pointed out by the BNCC (BRASIL, 2018).

Conclusion

No problem in establishing minimum content for schools across the country, as long as this does not represent a limit to the action of education professionals in defining what and how to teach throughout the school year. The diversity of the Brazilian school public, the breadth of the many national curricular guidelines in force and the degree of maturity of the discussions on curriculum that have been reached in the country do not match an official training proposal based on competences and skills, above all, by the level of detail. end it presents. The construction of the BNCC is anchored in this intention, understandable as a result of business interference in educational issues via, for example, movements such as TPE and MPB.

The reflexes of the training proposal of the Base for High School affect more directly the public sphere¹⁰, on which business reformers (^{FREITAS, 2014}) have a clear interest in acting. Undoubtedly, the exhaustion of the technological part created by large higher education organizations to meet the high demand for distance education in the first decade of the 21st century, with the limit of its ability to generate profits, makes its entrepreneurs aimed at their insertion in another educational sphere. The focus is evident on the High School segment and on teacher training (according to the Base).

In terms of teaching History, the BNCC disregards its formative function of preparing for life and from which relationships of diversity, solidarity, equity, awareness, collaboration, resignification and construction of concepts and knowledge would take place. These are all aspects silenced in the BNCC of High School. In this, students should have their ability to memorize “truths” improved.