Introduction

The movement of workers in education at all levels has advocated that the valorization of teaching profession materializes in career, training, salary and working conditions. Our central objective was articulated based on the problem that we proposed: to analyze whether, nowadays, valorization is a reality or is it just an empty discourse, which has been the professional life of workers in education?

The article aims to work on the issue, raising the hypothesis that educational policies have built a contradictory process that values and at the same time devalues the magisterium, threatening public education, since increased privatization actions compromise the Public School, despite significant advances in the norms, by this we used bibliographic research as a technique, which allowed us to analyze the documents discussed in the article.

To deepen the defense of the hypothesis, we worked on the process of productive restructuring, which undertakes actions to increase the productivity of capital, which, in turn, also affects the worlds of work and the whole of society, since it engenders changes in all institutions, including the state structure (^{Mourão & Almeida, 2005}; ^{Mourão, 2006}).

According to ^{Alves (2007}), 'the new form of work organization brings with it not only the precariousization of work'. But it also creates difficulties for the development of a class consciousness that drives the struggle of workers, given that there are pressures that lead to neo-corporate practices that "implode the 'organic core' of the organized salaried worker of Fordist-Keynesian base, agents of the trade union movement and political of the proletariat class".

Thus, we discuss in the work the struggle of teachers who advocate the valorization of teaching and how the power of the State devalues the teaching work with economic, political and ideological actions that seem to be structuring the valorization, but which in practice insecure the work of the teacher. We briefly discuss productive restructuring because it allows capital to increase accumulation and we understand that historically the distribution of unequal and combined income throws open the door to social segregation between the poor and rich, assuming as "[...] assumption that capitalist production is the production and reproduction of capitalist relations of production [...]" (^{Kuenzer, 1986}, p. 32), accentuated by the logic of the hegemonic capitalist class model, has led a large portion of the world's population to a situation of misery (^{Silva & Mourão, 2017}). This process emerges from our reflection on the CNTE, we affirm that normative acts represent a gain for the career of education professionals, but are not structuring due to class struggle, to deepen this criticism we focus on the financing of education, outsourcing and labor reform with the support of an analysis of ideological, political and attacks that act to demobilize workers' fighting mechanisms.

Our research on the Brazilian Educational Policy led us to reflections that guided us to choose the method of approach. We anchored ourselves in the work category as a founding element of the social being, to the extent that man acts in the world and in doing so modifies it, transforms himself and, consequently, transforms social relations (^{Marx, 2004}). The categories of the whole method, praxis, contradiction and mediation allowed us to analyze the reality that presents itself as a whole structure.

Thus, we utilized a critical-dialectical approach, whose intention is to unveil the conflicts of interests that are established in society and, more specifically, in social movements, seeking with this processes that transform social reality (^{Gamboa, 2010}).

We are militant 'researchers', because by inserting ourselves in academic life, fulfilling all the necessary requirements to be university professors, we also engage in social struggles. The criterion of truth is the social practice that is unveiled at a certain historical time (^{Triviños, 1997}).

Productive restructuring

The search for greater productivity, whose objective is to increase the process of capitalist accumulation, brings new forms of work organization, triggering the following characteristics: a) Organizations have to be leaner, that is, structures have to be more horizontal, hence teamwork; (b) the contents of the work must be richer and workers must do so, which requires continuous training processes; c) Work autonomy is essential; d) Trust and participation of workers in processes become important, because involvement and participation lead to more responsible behaviors (^{Mourão, 2006}).

The control of labor in the capitalist system assumes its ideological bias acting on power relations aiming at salaries management and training. Concrete work alienated as the essence of man (^{Marx, 1988}) is part of its existence given the present conjuncture inherent to nature, Marx concludes that there was never any other work other than alienation. The European discourse mentioned processes of democratization of companies, in which the humanization and democratization of work would occur. However, in practice what happens is a growing differentiation in the worlds of work with inequalities in processes. Thus, "[...] inequalities related to autonomy at work tend to worsen with the expansion of flexible forms and, above all, with precarious forms of employment, with the diversification and individualization of labor relations" (^{Kovács, 2006}, p. 4).

The new standards of work management also seek a new sociability that is built inside and outside work. Capitalist rationality is not abandoned, but, even so, there is the ideological construction of a new vision of post-economic social utility (^{Mourão, 2006}). ^{Zarifian and Palloix (1988}) affirm that the post-economic reality leads to the construction of a new society anchored in new processes of socialization - a transformation they call civil socialization. The need to produce collectively pushes workers to collective social actions, since society has to change and the new economic and social order is erected in representations, in the political debates that build paths of a new economic order (^{Zarifian, 1992}).

This proposition denies the value of exchange, privileges the value of use and, therefore, hides that wealth is constructed by the labor force in a process of expropriation of the worker. There is a fetish around the concepts, since the proposal of a new process of social construction subsidizes capital when it advocates exits from the crisis without shaking its logic. Part of the premise that a new consciousness is being constructed, which we contest, because ideals are not separated from material life and it is precisely human action in the world that develops cognition and behaviors (^{Marx & Engels, 1991}).

The alignment of workers with the objectives of organizations requires new management of human resources, now called people management. In order to have a relationship between the worker and the company a new social contract is explained, which is based on results. To this end, continuous learning is needed to assimilate new knowledge and, at the same time, increase a process of adaptation to the work environment (^{Trassatti & Costa, 1999}).

By digging into the problem seeking to know it with the support of the method, the understanding emerged that the model of people management presents fluidity of the social codes that are socially inscribed and, with this, there is concretely the rupture of labor and union rights (^{Manfredi, 1998}). It is in this perspective that the restructuring of the State and the broad discourse of reforms that, in the name of the 'crisis', destroy the rights conquered. Based on this understanding we question: is there really a process of valorization of education professionals?

Valuing education professionals in CNTE's vision

Since the 1970s, education professionals have discussed the valorization of their profession, establishing the following axis of claims: a) Salary issue (with emphasis on the wage level); b) Democratic freedoms (Elections for school principal and greater participation in decisions); c) Better working and teaching conditions (reduced workload, time to plan and assist students, funds for public school and greater participation in educational issues); training (qualification to subsidize work in the classroom) and career (Statute of the magisterium) (^{Mourão, 1997}).

According to the Brazilian National Confederation of Education Workers [CNTE] in the 2000s there is the return of the debate on the valorization of education professionals, in the context of a new paradigm, that of the construction of the Articulated System of Education. This occurrence occurred due to the creation of three regulatory frameworks that supported the process: Basic Education Fund [FUNDEB] - Law No. 11,494/07 (^{Brazil, 2007}), Wage Level Law (Law 11,738/08) (^{Brazil, 2008}) and Law that incorporates school employees as education workers (Law 12.014/09) (^{Brazil, 2009}). The institution considers:

Based on the foundations of Constitutional Amendment No. 53 of 2006, which establishes FUNDEB along with several other provisions, especially those incorporated into Article 26 of CF/88 (items V, VIII and sole paragraph), the valorization of education professionals has assumed the status of structuring policy for the quality of education, alongside financing, management and institutional evaluation (^{CNTE, 2009}, p. 6).

CNTE understands that there has been an advance in its struggles for valorization and points it to two union actions. The first is the struggle to convince managers who reaffirm the concepts of the wage level law and the second is the construction of plans for positions, careers and salaries, at the state and municipal level. It is important to highlight that we also agree that there has been progress in the construction of regulations that ensure the valorization of workers in education. However, we emphasize that there was an illusion that the regulations would be complied with and would never be subtracted from the workers.

When the progressive trade union movement adests to the Government without more forceful criticism of politics, it loses its class perspective, it shares the idea that the state would be changing, without deepening the relations established by the great capital regarding Brazilian development. They have forgotten, however, that capitalism is a mode of production that expropriates and massacres workers. They did not take into account that the process of globalization points to unequal and combined development and, thus, the norms are the same throughout the capitalist world, given the globalization of capital (^{Chesnais, 1996}).

Some issues needed to be deepened and combated, not only by the movement of workers in education, but by all those who were and are committed to building a more harmonious and egalitarian society. This is because at all times the rights are withdrawn, and the struggle for the guarantee of such achievements resumes. Thus, although the norms are a great advance, they cannot be considered structuring so that there is an improvement in education, even because empirically we have found the opposite and, therefore, we raise questions to deepen our reflection.

Issues to deepen criticism

Final considerations

In a way, the changes that occur in society expanded the locus of the struggle and differentiated the subjects, giving greater visibility to the differences. This process was an achievement of social movements, responsible for building the processes of social inclusion. Recognizing the differences and social rights of citizens requires answering some questions.

At first we draw attention to the need to objectify what we want, that is, 'is the struggle of organized civil society a struggle for all?' In our understanding, we say no. To qualify our denial, we ask: Does the women's movement respond to the interests of all women? In some ways, yes. In others, class interest divides women, like the woman who works, takes care of the family, does not have resources for daycare or to hire domestic services, has a double shift. This woman is not the same as the one who has purchasing power and has the means of production.

This reflection permeates all other movements and, thus, it is important to enhance mechanisms of struggle and formation. Fight together for the interests of the class that lives from work and, at the same time, trace frameworks that understand the different moments of the struggle, so that they can stand firmly before the challenges of the 21st century. It is essential, therefore, to respond to the interests of groups, without leaving aside class interests.

Drawing together tactics requires understanding that ideological differences must be overcome at this time. The movement together has to answer: What unites them and what differentiates them? Choosing tactical actions requires understanding the strategic objectives of the movement. Is the strategy outlined the same for all representations of the workers' union movement in Education?