Introduction

This research aims to analyze the work of the pedagogical coordinator from the critical perspective of education, identifying possible contributions to the development of pedagogical practices that are based on the classic educational purposes of the school. Thus, the specific objective is: to problematize the research object in the face of the scientific production produced on the work of the pedagogical coordinator, establishing the approaches and presenting the singularities of this function in the Municipal schools of Cruzeiro do Sul - AC.

It is, therefore, a qualitative research, developed from the perspective of historical-dialectical materialism, which according to ^{Frigotto (2006}, p. 77) “[...] the method is linked to a conception of reality, of a world and life as a whole. It constitutes a kind of mediation in the process of learning, revealing and exposing the structuring, development and transformation of social phenomena”. Therefore, the instruments used for data collection are interviews, with open questions, and semi-structured observations. The research subjects are six coordinators of Elementary School I of the municipal education network of Cruzeiro do Sul - Acre.

The interest in the theme arose from both personal and professional experiences, which allowed us to live closely with the pedagogical coordinators, recognizing numerous situations related to their work, specifically regarding the performance of their duties. We noticed that the work of the pedagogical coordinator at school is very diversified, because at times he is helping the teacher in planning his activities, at times preparing pedagogical meetings, holding meetings with parents, dealing with so-called undisciplined students, planning and elaborating continued training in school, among many other functions it performs within the school. In this way, all these conditions aroused our curiosity regarding the work of this professional and from there we began to plan and elaborate the initial project that guided the production of this study.

The results of our readings, dialogues with the sources and reflections are organized in three moments, in addition to the conclusion. Initially, we present the theoretical-methodological foundations on which we rely and which are the benchmarks of the study. Next, we describe the methodological procedures of the research. Finally, the analysis of the data collected in the field research from the theoretical framework assumed in this study. The considerations return to some central categories for the discussion around the work of the pedagogical coordinator of the municipal education network of Cruzeiro do Sul - Acre.

The article we present bears the marks of the objective conditions with which we carried out the research, as well as the possibilities and limits in raising awareness and refinement of the investigative gaze, as a historically situated subject.

The function of the school in a critical perspective

According to ^{Saviani (2005}, p. 11), “[...] the school exists, therefore, to provide the acquisition of instruments that allow access to elaborated knowledge (science), as well as access to the rudiments of this knowledge.” Also according to the author, basic school activities should be organized based on this question, since systematized knowledge, erudite culture, is a literate culture. Thus, the fundamental content of elementary school should be: reading, writing, counting, the rudiments of natural sciences and social sciences (human history and geography). Therefore, for the author, the classic at school is the transmission-assimilation of systematized knowledge. This is the end to be achieved (Saviani, 2005).

^{Oliveira (2013}, p. 245) states that “[...] education is, above all, the development of potentialities and appropriation of social knowledge, aiming at the integral formation of man, that is, the physical, political, social, cultural, philosophical, professional, affective development, among others.” Therefore, he understands education as a determining element for the development of man in all his potentialities.

The conception of education that is being advocated is based on a critical perspective that conceives man in his entirety, as a being constituted by the biological, material, affective, aesthetic and ludic. Therefore, in the development of educational practices, it is necessary to bear in mind that the subjects of educational processes are men and their multiple and historical needs (^{Oliveira, 2013}, p. 245).

Thus, when designing an education project in schools, one must consider the social reality of students, bearing in mind the transformation of this reality through historically constructed knowledge, which also remains in constant transformation, therefore, it is never ready and finished. For ^{Oliveira (2013}, p. 245) “[...] it is not a question of attributing any salvationist function to the school, but of recognizing its undeniable social role in the development of educational processes, in the systematization and socialization of the culture historically produced by men” . Thus, in this context of social transformations, ^{Frigotto (2010}) thinks school dialectically when he states that:

The school is a social institution that, through its practice in the field of knowledge, values, attitudes and even through its disqualification, articulates certain interests and disarticulates others. It is exactly in this contradiction, existing within it, that the germs of change are present, as evidenced by the struggles fought there. Therefore, thinking about the social function of the school implies rethinking its own role, its organization and the role of the actors that compose it, aiming to insert it in a broader social transformation project (^{Frigotto, 2010}, p. 148).

The school is a space of contradiction, a place where interests, conflicts and struggles that take place in broader social relations are expressed. Thus, when rethinking the role of the school, school agents need to have the same rights, mainly to express their thoughts and, although they do not agree, they must also respect the other's way of thinking. In this sense, they make the school a space for change, be it a change in conception or, who knows, a change in worldview. Thus, in order to reduce these divergences and contradictions present in the school space, all school members, directors, teachers, parents and the community in general must participate in the construction of the political-pedagogical project, which is a document that expresses the purposes of the school and must be prepared taking into account the social and cultural reality of its community.

Role of the pedagogical coordinator

According to the school's organizational structure based on democratic-participatory management, each sector and each member of the school team has a role that ensures the proper functioning of the whole - in this case, the school. In this regard, ^{Libâneo (2000}, p. 72) states that “[...] the way a school is organized and structured has a pedagogical character, that is, it depends on broader objectives regarding the school's relationship with conservation. or social transformation”. From this perspective, what would be the repercussions of this new organization of the school on the work of the pedagogical coordinator?

The pedagogical coordinator or teacher-coordinator supervises, monitors, advises, supports, evaluates the pedagogical-curricular activities. Its priority attribution is to provide pedagogical and didactic assistance to teachers in their respective disciplines, with regard to interactive work with students. Another attribution that falls to the pedagogical coordinator is the relationship with parents and the community, especially with regard to the pedagogical-curricular and didactic functioning of the school and communication and interpretation of the students' evaluation (^{Libâneo, 2000}, p. 75).

According to ^{Libâneo, Oliveira and Toschi (2003}, p. 374) “[...] the role of the pedagogical coordinator is to systematically monitor the teaching pedagogical practice, above all through reflection and investigation procedures”. In this sense, they record other attributions of the pedagogical coordinator, namely “[...] the supervision of the elaboration of diagnoses, for the school's pedagogical-curricular project and for other plans and projects; [...] the proposal and coordination of continuing education and professional development activities for teachers” (^{Libâneo et al., 2003}, p. 374).

Therefore, the pedagogical coordinator is the one who is directly involved with the organization of the pedagogical work in the school, through the guidance, elaboration and systematization of pedagogical practices, directed from the educational purposes of the school, notably those considered classic, namely: the reading, writing, calculus, science.

Education for human emancipation

For ^{Vieira Pinto (2010}, p. 29) “[...] education concerns human existence throughout its duration and in all its aspects. [...] Education is the process by which society forms its members in its image and according to its interests”. Each society creates its own way of educating, based on its social principles and values. Also, according to this author:

Education is a teleological activity. The formation of the individual always aims at an end. In the general sense, this purpose is the conversion of the student into a useful member of the community. In the strict, formal, scholastic sense, it is the preparation of different types of individuals to perform specific tasks in community life (hence the division of instruction into degrees, careers, etc.). What determines the purposes of education are the interests of the group that holds social command (^{Vieira Pinto, 2010}, p. 32).

Therefore, “[...] the value of education is expressed as the promotion of man. [...] education, as communication between free people in different degrees of human maturation, is the promotion of man, on both sides - that is, both the student and the educator” (^{Saviani & Duarte, 2012}, p. 14 ). As the authors point out, this ascension will not only be the merit of the individual man, it will be in part of his educator who made a great effort during his formation, and of the social group to which he is inserted, because man is not a solitary being, he is a collective being.

^{Severino (2001}, p. 72) explains that “[...] education acquires a new meaning and starts to be understood as a social and historical practice. This process involves behaviors, customs, institutions, cultural activities and bureaucratic-administrative organizations. Education is a social event that unfolds in historical time”. Therefore, one of the main objectives of education is the socialization of the younger generations, in the sense of keeping the history of their group alive. These values, behaviors, and customs are passed down from generation to generation, however they adapt to their respective times. The educational act mainly develops the function of mediator, “[...] mediation of sociability, its purpose being to insert the new generations into the social universe, outside which they cannot survive” (^{Severino, 2001}, p. 72).

According to ^{Vieira Pinto (2010}, p. 31), education has a double aspect: first, the “[...] incorporation of individuals into the existing state [...] and the second is related to progress, that is, need to break the present balance, advance, create the new”. In the knowledge society, or rather, capitalism, the predominant aspect is the first, related to the incorporation of individuals to the existing state, that is, keeping relations as they are, through a false meritocracy discourse when, in fact, the what the school should actually do was encourage and provide real and equal conditions for all individuals in search of their growth, their progress, their social ascension, breaking with the barriers of exclusion and misery to which millions of people are subjected.

In any case, “[...] education is effectively a practice whose instruments are formed by symbolic instruments of work and action. [...] Hence the importance of theoretical knowledge in educational work and that is why we talk about the awareness-raising role of education” (^{Severino, 2001}, p. 70). Therefore, education has the main function of raising men's awareness, in the formation of critical, reflective people, who are able to interact in the society in which they are inserted, and with great decision-making capacity.

The author also explains that this awareness of the subject “[...] is a level of knowledge that is not merely descriptive, transferring technical data, but comprehensive, interpretive, reflective, unmasking illusions and falsifications that obscure the articulations of social power, ideologically prevailing in society” (^{Severino, 2001}, p. 70). For this reason, we defend the importance of a well-planned educational work, based on solid theoretical bases, which allows the subject to expand the knowledge acquired during this awareness process. According to this author,

[...] education is identified with the process of knowledge and the exercise of conscience. To educate oneself is to learn and build oneself more and more as a subject. [...] education is learning and experiencing symbolic culture, it is an experience of self-fulfillment. It must be intentional personalization process. [...] education is an investment in the consolidation of the autonomous subject endowed with will. It is not up to education to 'make' people, but to awaken them to their autonomy through the resources of culture. [...] education promotes the development of a range of specifically subjective sensibilities: logic, ethics, aesthetics, etc. (^{Severino, 2001}, p. 80, author’s emphasis).

Therefore, education, as a symbolizing practice, transmits to subjects the necessary knowledge for their emancipation and transformation, making them individuals capable of making conscious and intelligent decisions about the concrete problems of their most immediate reality, as well as of broader social relations. In addition, it is to awaken in the subject a feeling of self-confidence, ethical, political and aesthetic values, revealing the true human essence that is indispensable for the formation of his autonomy and identity.

Work as an ontological ground for the development of human formation

^{Paulo Netto (2006}, p. 29) understands that “[...] work makes possible the production of any good, creating the values that constitute social wealth, [...], it is a category that makes reference to the very way of being of men and society”. In the words of the author “'work is always a collective activity': its subject is never an isolated being, but is always inserted in a group of other subjects [...]” (Paulo Netto, 2006, p. 34, our emphasis). This collectivity of labor activity will be called 'social'.

For ^{Antunes (2002}, p. 136, our emphasis), “[...] work constitutes an intermediate category that enables the ontological leap from pre-human forms to the 'social being'. It is at the center of the process of humanization of man”. Therefore, work not only transforms nature, it also transforms the subject, giving rise to the social being. About this, ^{Paulo Netto (2006}, p. 34, our emphasis) points out that work, through which the subject transforms nature, “also transforms its subject: it was through work that, from groups of primates, the first human groups - a kind of 'leap' that gave rise to a new type of being, different from the natural being (organic and inorganic): the 'social being'”.

Therefore, work is an activity practiced only by man, which differentiates it from other species of animals. For ^{Antunes (2004}, p. 13, author’s emphasis) “[...] It is the basic and fundamental condition of all human life. And to such an extent that, to a certain extent, we can say that work created man himself”. The author also states that “[...] all that animals can do is use nature and modify it by the mere fact of their presence in it. Man, on the contrary, modifies nature and forces it to serve him, dominates it” (Antunes, 2004, p. 28). Therefore, there is, in the last analysis, the essential difference between man and the other animals, a difference that, once again, results from work.

However, this domination of nature by man does not occur directly, there is an intermediate object, called a work instrument, which mediates between man and nature, that is, “[...], between the subject and the natural matter there is always a way of working, an instrument that mediates the relationship between both. And nature does not create instruments: these are products, more or less elaborate, of the individual who works” (^{Paulo Netto, 2006}, p. 32).

However, in the words of ^{Paulo Netto (2006}, p. 44) “[...] the products of human work and imagination cease to show themselves as objectifications that express the humanity of men - they actually appear as something that, escaping the their control, comes to control them as a power superior to them”. For the author, this process characterizes what we call 'alienation'. Therefore,

[...] alienation is characteristic of societies where the social division of labor and private ownership of the fundamental means of production prevail, societies in which the product of the worker's activity does not belong to him, in which the worker is expropriated - whether that is to say, societies in which there are determined forms of exploitation of man by man. [...] With its foundations in the social-economic organization of society, in exploitation, alienation penetrates the set of social relations. [...] and its members move in an alienated culture that involves everyone and everything: human objectifications, alienated, stop promoting the humanization of man and start to stimulate regressions of the social being (^{Paulo Netto, 2006}, p. 45).

^{Marx (2004}) found that the worker, in the context of industrial capitalism, was not only reduced to the condition of merchandise, but became the most miserable commodity. In this production process, “[...] the worker relates to the product of his work as [with] a strange object [...]” (^{Marx, 2004}, p. 81). And one of the consequences of this relationship between the worker and his strange object is that the more object the worker produces, the less he owns and the less he has control over it.

Therefore, the worker is deprived of the use of the goods he produces. The worker is also deprived of his freedom, “[...] man (the worker) only feels free and active in his animal functions, eating, drinking and procreating, at most qualifications, adornments, etc., and in his human functions [feels] like an animal [...]” (^{Marx, 2004}, p. 83). This makes work an inhuman activity, in which man himself performs it only to satisfy his physical needs. Therefore, for ^{Marx (2004}, p. 85, author's emphasis) “[...] man makes work a conscious vital activity, which distinguishes him from animal vital activity. Thus, [...] because he is a conscious being, he makes his vital activity, his 'essence', just a means for his 'existence'”.

Research methodological procedures

In this study, we assume Marx's theoretical-methodological conception for the development of knowledge about reality. In this sense, “[...] what we want to highlight is the conception of the world and of man proper to this theory and not the search for a pedagogical theory in Marx, since it is known that neither this thinker nor the classics of his thought elaborated a pedagogical theory in the proper sense” (^{Faria, 2011}, p. 3). According to ^{Paulo Netto (2011}) Marx objectively explains the method, or who knows the paths, that we must follow during the production of knowledge:

Marx clearly distinguishes between what belongs to the order of reality, the object, and what belongs to the order of thought (the knowledge operated by the subject): one starts with 'the real and the concrete', which appear as 'data'; through the analysis, one and another elements are abstracted and, progressively, as the analysis advances, we arrive at concepts, abstractions that refer to the simplest determinations. This was the path or, if you like, the 'method' (^{Paulo Netto, 2011}, p. 42, author’s emphasis).

The method is not something unknown, or something that cannot be understood in its entirety. For ^{Frigotto (2006}, p. 77) “[...] it is, therefore, a necessary condition to establish a dialectical method of investigation”. This reflection highlights the need for us, as researchers, to have intellectual autonomy to elaborate our own syntheses about things, breaking with the alienating thinking of capitalist society.

Thus, we emphasize that the research, carried out based on Marx's theoretical-methodological conception, expresses the construction of accurate, refined knowledge, based on complex thinking, which demands a higher intellectual effort from the researcher, allowing the understanding of the object in its totality and in its movement, thus transforming its way of being, thinking and acting on its social reality.

Therefore, methodologically, we opted for a qualitative approach, which according to ^{Minayo (2015}, p. 21) “[...] responds to very particular questions. It occupies itself in the social sciences [...]. That is, it works with the universe of meanings, motives, aspirations, beliefs, values and attitudes”.

Thus, we selected the interview and observation as instruments for data collection. In this regard, ^{Lakatos and Marconi (2010}, p. 147) explain that “[...] in investigations, in general, only one method or technique is never used, and not only those that are known, [...] most of the time, there is a combination of two or more of them, used concurrently”. In this sense, we understand that the interview and observation were central to capture the movement of the research object. ^{Minayo (2015}, p. 63) states that “[...] two are the main instruments of this type of work: observation and interview. The first is about everything that is not said but can be seen and captured by an attentive observer, the second has as its raw material the speech of some interlocutors”.

Thus, we started the data collection procedures from the interviews, because through these the research subjects have the possibility to express all their feelings, whether positive or negative regarding the investigated theme, in the same way that it is at this moment that a relationship of complicity is established between interviewee and interviewer. In this regard, ^{Minayo (2015}, p. 66) states that “[...] contrary to what many may think, the involvement of the interviewee with the interviewer is essential. [...] it is a condition for deepening the investigation and objectivity itself”. Regarding the elaboration of the interview script, ^{Ludke and André (1986}) state that:

It will be preferable and even advisable to use a script that guides the interview through the main topics to be covered. This script will naturally follow a logical and also psychological order, that is, it will ensure that there is a logical sequence between the subjects, from the simplest to the most complex, respecting the sense of their chaining (^{Ludke & André, 1986}, p. 36).

Therefore, we used a flexible script allowing the interviewer to change the order of the questions, according to the need for better clarification of the interviewees' answers. For ^{Lakatos and Marconi (2010}, p. 182) “[...] the interview, which aims to obtain valid answers and pertinent information, is a true art, which improves with time, with training and experience. It requires skill and sensitivity; It is not an easy task, but it is basic”.

As for the observations developed by the researcher, we used semi-structured observation, which allows us to record the different aspects of reality, without the need to elaborate a prior planning. In this regard, ^{Minayo (2015}) clarifies that:

The activity of observation also has a practical meaning. It allows the researcher to be freer from prejudgments, since it does not necessarily make him/her prisoner of a rigid data collection instrument or hypotheses tested before, and not during, the research process. As one lives with the group, the observer can remove questions from the script that he perceives to be irrelevant from the point of view of the interlocutors; the inverviewer is also able to understand aspects that emerge little by little [...] (^{Minayo, 2015}, p. 70).

To carry out the observations, we used the main working instrument of this process, the field diary, in which we made the relevant records about the subject observed. ^{Minayo (2015}, p. 71) explains “[...] that it is nothing more than a notebook, a little notebook, or electronic file in which we write all the information that is not part of the formal interview material in its various modalities”.

Therefore, the following sections constitute the interpretative and analysis phase of the empirical material collected, through the mediation of the concepts and theses of the theoretical framework assumed in the investigation process. It is worth mentioning that when we use the acronym PC in the text, it means that we are referring to the Pedagogical Coordinator.

The function of the school in the view of the research subjects

This section aims to interpret the interviews carried out with the research subjects, identifying in their testimonies the perception they have about 'the function of the school'. According to ^{Saviani (2005}, p. 98) “[...] the school has a specifically educational function, properly pedagogical, linked to the question of knowledge”. Therefore, given this conception of education presented by the author, the statements below reveal the research subjects' understanding of this category.

PC3's report emphasizes that the school does not have an exclusive function; the school has several functions and the biggest one is to make the student see himself as an individual who transforms reality, that this student can think, have their own opinion, recognizing that he or she is not a passive being, but a being of transformation, through of the knowledge he or she acquires in the environment with others and with the teacher's work within the classroom. He explains, therefore, that if the individual manages to recognize himself/herself as this subject of transformation, proposing changes in the family, in the home or in the neighborhood, with the aim of improving society, the school will certainly have fulfilled its role, because believes that the school is this link of social transformation.

We clearly identified in the testimony of this coordinator characteristics of an emancipating education, in which the individual, through education, appropriates theoretical and practical instruments that can guarantee their full development, their evolution and the expansion of their decision-making capacity and to contribute with overcoming problems that may arise in your life. About this emancipatory purpose of education, ^{Severino (2001}) understands that:

[...] education is identified with the process of knowledge and the exercise of conscience. To educate oneself is to learn and build oneself more and more as a subject. [...] education is learning and experiencing symbolic culture, it is an experience of self-fulfillment. It must be intentional personalization process. [...] education is an investment in the consolidation of the autonomous subject endowed with will. It is not up to education to 'make' people, but to awaken them to their autonomy through the resources of culture. [...] education promotes the development of a range of specifically subjective sensibilities: logic, ethics, aesthetics, etc. (^{Severino, 2001}, p. 80, author’s emphasis).

Still regarding this transforming purpose of education, PC6 understands that the role of the school is to train that critical student, active in society, with the ability to think critically and act intentionally, in the face of the challenges of life in society. He believes that the aim of the school is to help in the teaching and learning process, so that students, through studies, can reach the level of social life they have always wanted. We identified in the coordinator's statement a conception of human emancipation, which according to ^{Saviani (2005}) takes place through education and the appropriation of classical culture:

The school exists, therefore, to facilitate the acquisition of instruments that allow access to elaborated knowledge (science), as well as access to the rudiments of this knowledge. Basic school activities should be organized based on this issue. [...] Well, systematized knowledge, erudite culture, is literate culture. [...] This is the fundamental content of elementary school: reading, writing, counting, the rudiments of natural sciences and social sciences (human history and geography). [...] Well, the classic at school is the transmission-assimilation of systematized knowledge. This is the end to be achieved (^{Saviani, 2005}, p. 14-15).

Regarding this classic purpose of the school, PC4's statement indicates that the school's function is to prioritize student learning so that they leave school literate, especially in the first, second and third year, who should already know how to read and write. Affirming this discussion, PC3 affirms that mathematics and Portuguese have been a constant area of difficulty for students within the school, especially Portuguese, because, as she affirms, unfortunately the school has still not been able to teach students to read and write until the third year as it should be.

The coordinators' reports show that in today's society the classic purpose of the school, of teaching reading, writing and counting at the right age, has undergone some changes, in addition, it seems that the school is no longer able to fulfill its purpose of teaching. students the different knowledge elaborated historically by man. As ^{Pinto (2016}, p. 25) states “[...] with regard to the role of the school in contemporary society [...] is to develop in basic education students, methodical thinking, through the intense mental activity of understanding, memorize, compare, organize, analyze and relate knowledge of different types and origins”.

PC5's report on this issue indicates a concern, because as it clarifies the continuing education that the Municipal Secretary of Education (SEMED) offers to teachers, it is usually in the context of reading, writing, mathematics, because this is a major deficiency from the students. In addition, they emphasize Portuguese and Mathematics a lot because the external exams are only in these two areas of training and end up leaving the other subjects to be desired. However, in addition to this knowledge already mentioned in the coordinators' report, as stated by ^{Libâneo (2013}), it is necessary for the school to invest in a curriculum based on critical knowledge that incorporates sociocultural practices and introduces cultural diversity in the contents:

The vision of a school centered on cultural and scientific training emphasizes the universality of school culture, so that the school is responsible for transmitting, to all, public knowledge that has a value, regardless of circumstances and particular interests, due to the universal right to knowledge. On the other hand, as the school deals with different subjects, it is worth considering cultural diversity in teaching, the coexistence of differences, the interaction between individuals of different cultural identities (^{Libâneo, 2013}, p. 66).

However, the coordinators' testimonies indicate that there is an interference of educational policies within the school, changing the school curriculum and consequently the practices of teachers in the classroom, and, therefore, mischaracterizing the true purpose of education, because as if it prioritizes the teaching of only Portuguese and Mathematics, students are deprived of appropriating the cultural and scientific knowledge of other subjects, as explained by ^{Libâneo (2013}), thus reducing their chances of expanding their cognitive capacity, their personal growth , that is, their human emancipation. Thus, according to ^{Torres (2017}) education for emancipation is the way to reach freedom, therefore:

[...] the objective of this education is to overcome the contradictions of capitalist society, aimed at full freedom, a moment in which man will no longer be another's merchandise and as a new and total man, his multiple faculties will develop. Therefore, educating for emancipation is a revolutionary praxis, as it is at the same time training individuals to live according to their essence, that is, in the set of social relations without outside interference (^{Torres, 2017}, p. 1274).

This conception clearly establishes the understanding, according to which, educating for emancipation is to act intentionally and collectively aiming at overcoming capitalist social relations and the full development of individuals, a condition in which they will not only have their basic needs satisfied, as well as the full development of all sense organs (^{Faria, 2011}).

We also found in PC6's testimony an optimistic view regarding the purpose of education. Thus, the coordinator clarifies that the school, within its limited conditions, when it has a committed team, tries to do its best, and also tries to give its best in everything it does, but affirms that it has actions that are independent of it, that depend on third parties and often these third parties are not predisposed to help. The coordinator sees the school as the way out for the vast majority of social problems, but he believes that for this to happen, the competent authorities need to invest in education.

The coordinator's report indicates that structural changes in education are needed. Thus, it is up to the school to develop educational actions that aim to guarantee the full development of students, based on a critical perspective of education. Agreeing with this discussion, ^{Oliveira (2013}, p. 245) understands that “[...] the conception of education that is being advocated is based on a critical perspective that conceives man in his entirety, as a being constituted by the biological, material, affective, aesthetic and playful”. Therefore, in the development of educational practices, it is necessary to bear in mind that the subjects of educational processes are men and their multiple and historical needs (Oliveira, 2013).

We evidence, therefore, in this section, reports of coordinators who have an optimistic view regarding the purpose of education, when in their testimonies they emphasize the transforming and emancipating conception of the school. However, we understand that the main purpose of the school is to guarantee students, regardless of any social situation, class, gender, ethnicity, color and creed, the necessary knowledge that will enable them to develop their critical capacity, their reflective thinking, their social formation, scientific and technological, that is, that education enables students to fully develop, an important condition for the processes and struggles for human emancipation, since this will only be possible in a broad sense with the overcoming of bourgeois social relations, imposing the need for intentional and collective self-organization, in the fight for the socialization of the means of production.

The centrality of the work of the pedagogical coordinator of the Municipal Education Network of Cruzeiro do Sul

This section aims to interpret the empirical material extracted from the interviews with the research subjects, identifying in their testimonies the understanding they have about the 'role of the pedagogical coordinator'. About this function, ^{Libâneo et al. (2003}) clarify that:

It is up to the coordinator the difficult task of assisting the teacher in the development of the pedagogical work in order to contribute to the improvement of the quality of teaching, building and managing learning situations adequate to the educational needs of the students, through reflection and investigation. This procedure is associated with the continuous and systematic training process that considers the needs of the educators involved (^{Libâneo et al., 2003}, p. 373-374).

From this idea elaborated by the authors, we observe the breadth of the role of the pedagogical coordinator, which is not only linked to pedagogical issues in the classroom, but, above all, to the role of this professional in the development of actions that help to improve the quality of teaching. In this sense, we will see below the testimonies of the research subjects about this category.

For PC1, the function of the pedagogical coordinator is related to bureaucratic issues at the school, stating that the school they work in, due to having a small number of students, does not have the right to have two coordinators, that is, the teaching and the pedagogical, so it accumulates the function of both. She also points out that “[...] the pedagogical aspect requires more, because I work closely with the teachers, helping, giving suggestions, seeking to find solutions to improve the teaching and learning process, but not the teaching one, the teaching one is exclusively the bureaucratic part” (PC1).

In this regard, ^{Pinto (2011}, p. 150) also emphasizes that “[...] the division of functions that may occur must be due to the size of the school and its demands. Thus, in a very small school, only one pedagogue can work in all these areas, unlike a very large school that can accommodate several pedagogues”.

Regarding the bureaucratic work carried out at school, PC1 adds that “[...] the bureaucratic part consumes me ninety percent, I stay ten percent to help the teachers”. The dissatisfaction of having to carry out bureaucratic functions that are not her responsibility can be seen in the speech of this coordinator.

We also identified in PC6's speeches the dissatisfaction of developing the school's bureaucratic work, when stating that the pedagogical coordinator often acts with other actions in the school, "[...] let's not say that he is just the pedagogical coordinator, many times he does the administrative, management work, it shouldn't be like that, but it's reality. And when the manager leaves, the pedagogical coordinator is responsible for everything at school [...]” (PC6). The coordinator's statement once again expresses the desire to only be able to do what is really assigned to his role. Although it is perceived that in the school routine, in the involvement of actions developed by the school, he needs to perform several functions so as not to disturb the progress of the school routine.

PC2 clarifies that “[...] this year I decided that I will only be pedagogical, so I will have time to monitor the teacher and the student better, because in fact the coordinator is the one who accompanies the teacher, to see the result in the student, this is the function [...]” (PC2). Her speech expresses that the coordinator needs to prioritize pedagogical actions, which contribute to the development of emancipatory practices whose consequences directly affect the teaching and learning process of students.

Still on the functions of the pedagogical coordinator, PC3 mentions the issue of teacher training, which according to her “[...] is also a responsibility of the coordinator”. For ^{André (2015}, p. 36) “[...] with regard to management teams, the pedagogical coordinator is seen as responsible for training”. The author also resorts to studies by ^{Placco (2003}) to state that “[...] the pedagogical coordinator is assigned the role of articulator of training actions in the school, which should promote the development of the pedagogical team (and not just the teacher)".

Therefore, in view of all these statements about his role as a trainer, PC3 also highlights that the Department of Education states that one of the major responsibilities of the coordinator is teacher training. According to her, “[...] what the university has not achieved, what the teaching practice of years, or months has not achieved, is the coordinator who will have to achieve it with difficulty, but he/she has to achieve it [...]”(PC3).

We identified in the coordinator's speech the criticism she makes of the initial teacher training offered by universities, emphasizing that this training is not managing to meet the needs of the beginning teacher. Therefore, we agree with ^{André (2015}, p. 36) when “[...] he conceives initial training as deficient, which leads to attributing to continuing training a compensatory function, of supplying deficiencies”.

In the conception of PC4 “[...] the functions of the coordinator are several: it is to look at the planning, to test the students to see if they are advancing, to follow the teacher's classes in the classroom, to hold pedagogical meetings [... ]”. The coordinator's statement reveals that he is fundamentally concerned with the pedagogical part of the school, however, we know that in addition to pedagogical actions, the coordinator performs other functions, such as, for example, "[...] teaching learning takes place in a plausible way, with the teachers, with the students, getting involved in all pedagogical actions, such as planning, activities, the whole teaching and learning context, but unfortunately it escapes from this to carry out other functions. This is the reality!" (PC6).

Therefore, it is in this context of challenges and contradictions, mainly of function deviations, that the work of the pedagogical coordinator of the Municipal network of Cruzeiro Sul is constituted. It is therefore necessary to have a policy of valuing these professionals, which helps in the development of their training, thus providing an understanding of their true role in the process of organizing the school's pedagogical work.

Final considerations

In this article, we analyzed the work of the pedagogical coordinator from the critical perspective of education, identifying possible contributions to the development of pedagogical practices that are based on the classic educational purposes of the school. The reflections showed us that the classic purpose of education is to guarantee individuals the appropriation of scientific, ethical, political and aesthetic knowledge, making them capable of intervening in a conscious and transforming way in the concrete problems of life in society.

In this way, from the changes in the school's role, the function of the pedagogical coordinator also changes, that is, he/she becomes responsible for developing programs, policies, evaluations, methodological questions of teaching, selection systematic content, also being responsible for the planning and development of continuing education at school.

The analysis of the categories extracted from the testimonies of the pedagogical coordinators indicates that the practices of some of them are close to the classic purposes of the school, although it is necessary to face many challenges that the function imposes on them. Others show signs of ignorance of issues specific to their function, such as, for example, recognizing what is pedagogical, or carrying out routine activities that do not take into account the social reality of the school and the students.

We understand, therefore, that it is at school, through the work of the teacher, that the student has the possibility of developing superior forms of thought, that is, of appropriating systematized knowledge, of the cultural and scientific instruments that are essential for the full development as a singular and, at the same time, universal individual. However, the public school within bourgeois society finds challenges to fulfill its classic purposes, considering that educational policies tend to redirect their purposes to meet the interests of the capitalist market.

Therefore, the public school must be an instrument of fight, especially for educators, those who think and do education, in defense of the fulfillment of its purpose, which is to contribute so that students can appropriate the classic contents. We believe that the student's emancipation takes place through the active and critical appropriation of this knowledge that has been historically accumulated and developed, so that, by appropriating it, he is able to position himself as an active and critical subject in society.

In this perspective of educating for emancipation, the role of the coordinator becomes essential in conducting the pedagogical work with the teachers. Since the work of this professional takes place, in broader terms, in mobilizing all the subjects involved with teaching so that they have this active participation, locating the school's problems, pointing out the paths and positioning themselves from the pedagogical-didactic point of view and curriculum. Enabling the teacher to develop their critical capacity and autonomy in the development of the teaching activity. To this end, the pedagogical coordinator must provide opportunities for teachers to study and reflect on the school, the classroom and the pedagogical practice and their interrelationships and mediations with educational and curricular policies. Emancipating practices are brought about in intentional and systematic action with a view, in teacher training, to contributing to their intellectual autonomy and authorship.

Therefore, we understand that the work of the pedagogical coordinator in a critical, collective and solidary perspective in the construction and reconstruction of the classic purposes of the school allows this institution to become a place of learning not only for the student, but for the group of subjects involved in the teaching-learning processes. In order to create intra-school conditions conducive to fulfilling the school's function, which translates into guaranteeing students the appropriation of classical knowledge, cultural and scientific contents. Thus, this institution is a learning and study space for the school collective. However, the centrality of his/her work is the students' teaching-learning process, ensured by the mediation of the teacher's intentional work in the classroom.