Democratic management of public schools: who, how, in what to participate?

We assume that democratic management is

[...] a process of learning and political struggle that is not limited to the boundaries of educational practice, but envisions, in the specificities of this social practice and its relative autonomy, the possibility of creating channels of effective participation and learning of the democratic 'game' and, consequently, of the rethinking of the structures of authoritarian power that permeate social relations and, within these, educational practices (^{Dourado, 2007}, p. 79, author’s italics).

Therefore, it is understood that democratic management is linked to the democratization of relations within the school and the educational system, that is, to participatory processes in the political and social spheres extended to the whole of civil society.

However, the absence of normative elements allows the formation of an open field, in which different conceptions and management logics are included.

Therefore, the concept of participation needs to be well defined, because it translates itself into a fundamental element, which can be transformed into a merely consultative and instrumental model, or as a transformative movement.

With regard to the first, we understand that ^{Souza (2009}) points out at least three important aspects, to record: the normalization and standardization of participation, which by promoting excessive discipline of the participation of the population, prevent unusual actions, which could surprise and pressure the rulers of the public thing itself; non-participation, ranging from simple disinterest to the discomfort caused by the consequences of participation; and finally, the defense of participation only in decision-making, disregarding that democratic participation demands a regulatory, supervisory, evaluating action, and decision-making on the direction of political and social life of school institutions and society.

In a bolder move, it is reasonable to consider ^{Lima’s (2014}) definition of democratic management of the education system. In the last three decades, it encompasses three dimensions of extreme importance, associated and dependent, which are: election, collegiality and participation, constituting and legitimizing itself as an indispensable contribution to the process of materializing the right to education and the democratization of its school organizations, its structures, decision-making processes, power relations, educational practices and knowledge production, rights to exercise the democratic citizenship and the active participation of education professionals, students, families and the community, in a perspective of socio-community construction of the autonomy of the school, towards its self-government¹⁷.

That said, it is understood that public education policies, in a democratic way of governing, would provide conditions of participation for all social segments. It is not just about the democratic management of the school for the practical implementation of deliberations defined at the state summit.

This means that

[...] it is not inappropriate to understand that school is the epicenter of the educational system and, therefore, its management must be based on democratic principles and procedures. However, it is not enough, since it is reasonable to assume that principals will tend to act in relation to school workers and students and their families, in a similar way as they are treated by the system managers, that is, if we want more horizontal relationships in everyday school life, a good incentive to this is precisely to turn the relationships within the educational system itself horizontal. Thus, seeking ways to democratize the management of the educational system as a whole is urgent (^{Souza & Pires, 2018}, p. 69)

In this sense, it is important to emphasize that democratic management is part of a broader chain of processes, procedures, instruments and mechanisms of actions, involving policy and educational planning.

The Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education (9394/96)¹⁸, after the CF of 1988, reiterated the principle of democratic management, according to Art. 14:

Art. 14. Education systems will define the norms of democratic management of public education in basic education, according to their peculiarities and according to the following principles:

I - participation of education professionals in the elaboration of the pedagogical project of the school;

II - participation of school and local communities in school boards or equivalents (^{Brasil, 1996}, p. 6).

However, by focusing on democratic management with emphasis on the school space (restricted to the school environment, with the election of principals, school councils, and the collective construction of the Political Pedagogical Project), political and organizational relationships are disregarded in the sphere of the educational system as a whole.

Although it is extremely important that school relations are guided by democracy, discussion processes, collective decision-making, monitoring of actions and evaluation of results, it is insufficient to comply with the constitutional principle of a Social and Democratic State of Law¹⁹.

The dissatisfaction of the progressive forces of the educational community with the propositions of LDBEN 9394/96 led, according to ^{Valente and Romano (2002}), in the I and II National Congresses of Education (CONED), to the collective elaboration of the National Education Plan (PNE) of the Brazilian Society, by educators, education professionals, students and parents of students. It was embodied in Bill No. 4,155/98, headed by Congressman Ivan Valente²⁰ and signed by more than 70 parliamentarians and all the leaders of the opposition parties of the House of Representatives.

This motion aimed to organize the educational management, demanding the strengthening of the state public school and full democratization as an axis of the effort to universalize Basic Education. This would imply proposing bold objectives, goals and means, including the expansion of total public budget for the maintenance and development of public education, and the implementation of a National Education System.

However, concomitantly to this project, the PNE project developed by Fernando Henrique Cardoso government, from the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) under number 4,173/98 was processed in the Legislative Chamber, based on the maintenance of the educational policy sustained by the maximum centralization of decisions, especially in the federal sphere, of the formulation and educational political management, with the progressive removal, by the State, of the tasks of maintaining and developing education, transferring them, whenever possible, to society.

At the end of the entire process²¹, the PNE that was approved by Law 10.172/2001, from the vetoes of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, referring to the financing, became, according to ^{Valente and Romano (2002}), a letter of intent. In other words, the president vetoed everything that could have the image of a plan, removing from the PNE mainly the provision of funds and the devices of direct participation in the deliberative processes, executives and evaluative sums of educational policies that popular pressure had forced them to insert.

In addition, for the management of education, the PNE (2001 - 2010) affirmed the principle of democracy at the system management level, through Education Councils and, at the level of school units, through the formation of school boards for the participation of the educational community and ways of choosing school management that associates the guarantee of competence with the commitment to the pedagogical proposal longed from the school boards.

In the chapter related to the set of goals connected to funding and management, the orientation was that each education system should define democratic management standards of public education with the participation of the community; and the other goals included pointed to the administrative, pedagogical and financial autonomy of schools; the articulation with universities to offer continuing education, including to school principals, aiming at improving their performances; as well as the requirement to ensure, at the end of the decade, that all principals were graduated in higher education, preferably in specialization courses.

Such a proposal, although important, limited the participation to councils²², i.e. representative democracy. Therefore, it cannot be denied that there have been advances in representative participation, the search for autonomy and democratic management in school, but according to ^{Gadotti (2014}), in relation to effective popular²³ participation in the planning and organization of National Education, the pace of these advances has not been the same.

Regarding school management, the PNE (2001 - 2010) was still flawed in not recognizing the need to ensure that, leaders are chosen by the community through direct voting in all public schools, of all levels, stages or modalities. In this question, ^{Gouveia and Souza (2010}) ponder the need to define whether the school management is a public office or a public function, because,

[...] it was understood as a position (career), the Federal Constitution does not allow any form of provision other than the public contest (except for cases typified in the Constitution itself, in Article 37). However, it seems to us that such a discussion could take another step, including overcoming the currently accused unconstitutionality against the laws that exist and regulating election procedures for school management, if it is considered that, at least in basic education, it is a function to be performed by the holders of the public office of teacher/teacher/educator/pedagogue; because, thus, there is the possibility of electing educators to assume the school direction, who will temporarily perform this function (during a term or two) and then return to their function of origin, tied to the position for which they were appointed (^{Gouveia & Souza, 2010}, p. 800).

Considering these inconsistent points, the PNE (2001 - 2010) that was approved, partially expressed the needs and proposals from the society by that time. In 2010, at the Education conferences, a preparatory to the first National Conference on Education - Conae 2010, the process of developing a new PNE was triggered.

The Reference Document prepared by the Organizing Committee of Conae, which was delivered to the MEC to constitute the basis of the Bill of Law (PL) referring to the new PNE, according to ^{Peroni and Flores (2014}), presented proposals for the commitment of the public power to the financing of a Social Quality Education for all, consolidated due to the implementation of a 'National Articulated System of Education' and with the guarantee of investments appropriate to an offer quality public education.

However, in the correlation of forces between civil society entities organized by the National Forum in Defense of Public School and the Federal Government, during the procedure²⁴ of PL 8.035/10 related to the new PNE, until Law 13.005/2014, which approved PNE - 2014-2024, the text was amended by the Special Committee of the House. It was presented, at the end, with “[...] timid goals and strategies that are not proposed for educational levels, stages and modalities, disregarding a substantial part of the recommendations present in the Final Conae Document” (^{Peroni & Flores, 2014}, p. 183).

In relation to democratic management, the National Education Plan (PNE (2014 - 2024), in its 19^th objective, established a 2 years’ deadline for the implementation of democratic management of Education, associated with technical criteria of merit and performance and public consultation with the school community, within public schools, providing resources and technical support of the Union to do so. This goal points to 08 strategies for the implementation of democratic management in Education: 19.1 - Legislation for Democratic Management in Schools; 19.2 - Formation of Counselors; 19.3 - Creation of permanent education forums; 19.4; Formation of the Guild and Association of Parents and Teachers (APMs); 19.5 - Strengthening the Councils; 19.6 - Participation in the Political-Pedagogical Project; 19.7 - Autonomy of Schools; 19.8 - National Selective Test of Directors.

Agreeing with ^{Souza and Pires (2018}), when examining the 19^th goal and its strategies, it is observed that the principle of democratic management remains, regrettably, only circumscribed to the school, because it indicates few tools of democratic management of education systems, even being mentioned in some Conferences, Forums and Education Councils

Moreover, the proposal of 19^th Goal, according to ^{Peroni and Flores (2014}), establishes the management model by pointing out, in a generic way, the participation of the school community; associating democracy with the definition of technical criteria of merit and performance, restricting the effectiveness of the principle; and to reduce the direct election of school leaders with the expression 'public consultation'.

Summing up, this legal framework at the national level, synthesizes that the democratization of Education or the instruments of participation, management and decision of the directions of Education resulted in educational reforms, mainly in the 1990s, that reduced human learning to attitudes and competences aimed at the market and consumer society, while “[...] aspects of broader democratization, which relates the democratization of education with the democratization of society and to the historical and social processes in our country, were gradually relegated to a background position or forgotten” (^{Machado, 2006}, p. 165).

In the state of Paraná, the reflection of federal educational policies influenced both mandates of Governor Jaime Lerner, affiliated to the Democratic Party (DEM), from 1995 to 2002. He maintained the discourse that schools with problems of evasion, repetition and violence would be those poorly managed. Therefore, it was necessary to encourage a new management model to face the school's efficiency crisis and ensure the effectiveness and quality of the school unit's operation.

In the light of this principle, it was defined that

This management is guided by the valorization of the school and its teachers, so that they take, in their context, a dynamic and effective work that increasingly enables the permanence of the student successfully in the system, also marked by a broad sense of collegiate work, involving the community outside the school (^{Paraná, 1995}, p. 5).

Therefore, the School Management Book, Paths to Shared Management (1995); the Action Plan of the Department of Education of the State of Paraná - from 1995 - 1998; and the Quality Project in Basic Education (PQE) from 2001, directed the responsibility to the school, for the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. Consequently, the school manager's tasks have been strengthened. As responsible for local education, he would need to lead, form, control and evaluate internal processes with creativity, flexibility and productive innovation.

^{Zanardini, Blun and Michellon (2013}) state that

[...] the materialization of the categories decentralization, participation and autonomy in their liberal meaning, is well illustrated by the proposal of shared management implemented in the State of Paraná in the 1990s, particularly from 1995 on, when the first management of the Jaime Lerner government began (1995-2002). This proposal is implemented based on the Financial, Technical, Political and Pedagogical Guidelines of the World Bank, under the pretext that peripheral countries would be inefficient in administering their public policies (^{Zanardini et al., 2013}, p. 141).

This shared management model, which requires administrative capacity in its various instances, such as schools, parents and teachers’ associations, groups and secretariats, aimed to articulate several actions in order to obtain the expected results, through the rationalization of costs and increase of productivity.

This conception of school management expressed in the SEED-PR documents emphasizes the performance of individuals, pointing them as the main responsible for the success or failure of the school, and it is built based on a market perspective, “[...] since it attaches great importance to customer satisfaction (community/student), leadership role played by the director and community involvement” (^{Zanardini, 2001}, p. 62).

From 2002 on, Roberto Requião administration (2003 - 2010) from Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) began. According to ^{Zanardini et al. (2013}), he announced, as principles of educational policy: a) Education as a citizen's right; b) universalization of education; c) free and qualified public school; d) fighting illiteracy; e) support cultural diversity; f) collective organization of work; and g) democratic management with emphasis and encouragement to the organization and functioning of the so-called Association of Parents, Teachers and Employees (APMF).

According to ^{Nadal (2007}), the actions developed during both Requião administrations (2003-2006 and 2007-2010) in Paraná, incorporated the democratic management discourse as a topic of educational policy and priority in the creation of the State Education Plan, creation of the Training Coordination, the Support Coordination to the Direction and the Support Book for the Elaboration of the School Rules. Thus, his first administration did not effectuate a governmental project, because it developed the first State Education Plan (PEE-PR)²⁵ to introduce changes, resize and regularize the work conditions and organization Paraná schools.

In the document,

The proposal for managing schools that belong to the State Education System is based on the democratization of relations within the school, based on the development of their autonomy and political-pedagogical actions that value all education workers. To this end, it encourages democratic management, through the shared participation of all school groups, namely: class council, school board, student association and the Association of Parents and Teachers and Employees (APMF) (^{Paraná, 2005}, p. 76).

This legal precision, as can be seen, regulates participation in the scope of public education in Basic Education, which, both in the pedagogical proposal and in school councils or other collegiate bodies, occurs through aspects of the local school reality, that is, the propositions of democratic management were limited to the scope of the school unit.

In this scenario, other regulations resumed the democratization of school management through the approval of specific legislation - Law 14,231 of 11/26/2003 (^{Paraná, 2003}); Law 15,329 of 15/12/2006 (^{Paraná, 2006})²⁶ and Law 15,800 of 04/26/2008 (^{Paraná, 2008}) - referring to the consultation of the school community to provide the position of school principal, thus establishing the democratic management of the school as a state policy.

However, ^{Vieira (2007}) points out brilliantly that limiting democratic management to the school sphere is something that is far from achieving the expectations of educators who, moreover, want to be agents of policy formulation and management.

Therefore,

[...] democratic management of public schools cannot be reduced to the existence and functioning of the process of election to school principal. The elective process of choosing principals by the school community is an integral part of a much broader process (^{Feiges, 2013}, p. 32).

We believe that the participation of actors in several situations involving social decisions for the group would establish new social and political bases, which could reverse administrative, financial and pedagogical agreements between the ruling classes.

In this way,

[...] the management practice in a democratizing purpose visualizes the development of a political participation, from which the subjects assume a critical and active position, because the school space strengthens the construction of the collective, capable of participative in all spheres of public life, since educational issues go beyond the school universe and constitute public problems (^{Andrade, 2011}, p. 306).

By agreeing with ^{Feiges (2013}), we understand that the Roberto Requião management advocated for a social and educational policy of confronting the neoliberal model of his predecessor, towards democratization policies, opposing the previous management.

However, democratic management in Education is a part and also a challenge (at the same time) of the project to build the democratization of Brazilian society, because the

[...] political-pedagogical project, participation in school councils, the election for principals, the exercise of financial autonomy, are pedagogical processes of learning democracy, both for the school community and for the community in general, because participation requires a long process of construction in which democratic management is an end, but also a mean (^{Peroni & Flores, 2014}, p. 186).

Management, from a democratic perspective, is only effective and implies power when subjects are called to participate (directly and indirectly) knowing and being aware of the implications of their participation, managing to unravel the various facets that involve a decision-making process.

Summing up, the federal and state policies movements in Paraná, from 1990 to 2010, it is perceived “[...] a recess in the ascending process of organization and in the great mobilizations that characterized the educational field in the 1980s” (^{Saviani, 1997}, p. 235).

The PNE (2001 - 2010), as well as, the first PEE-PR of 2005, failed to overcome the forces opposed to the institutionalization of democratic management in its fullness (System, networks and schools). Such policies did not direct the possibility of broadening and articulating discussions for collective decision and deliberation for national education, demonstrating the lack of common objectives for education. This is because it is not foreseen procedurally, for example, the strengthening of the National Education Forum, state, city and district education forums, National Conference of Education, National Council of Education (CNE), state (EEC) and city councils (CME); collegiate bodies of higher education institutions and school boards. Furthermore, in the context of educational institutions, there are also few (or non-existent) predictions and moments for the collective construction of institutional development plans and political-pedagogical projects.

The lack of a national education system for the constitution/strengthening of mechanisms of social control and democratization of education management in municipalities, states and the Union implies in disconnected policies of common objectives, still generating mistaken understandings of democracy in school, such as, for example, by sizing democratic management only in the existence of elections for directors.