Reflections about School Finance Education activities for Youth and Adult Education

1 Introduction

Making purchases on credit has become a part of people's daily lives, and its use stimulates consumption and sometimes debt. The concern of Chicó, a character in Ariano Suassuna's book, film and television series O Auto da Compadecida, needs to be a path taken by education, that is, to promote critical thinking and reflection. In the same way, the solution proposed by João Grilo, another character in O Auto da Compadecida, needs to be combated, because financial planning for consumption is also urgent, given the current demands of a Brazilian society that lives in constant vulnerability.

It is these vulnerabilities that encourage uncritical consumer attitudes, since Chicó goes into debt in search of better conditions, albeit in a questionable way, in order to guarantee a better quality of life. Consumption is strongly related to human relationships, because in wanting to dress well to present himself to Major Antônio Moraes, another character in O Auto da Compadecida, as a good candidate to be the fiancé of his daughter, Rosinha, Chicó searches for the tireless world of appearances, which are gaining more and more ground in the liquid society discussed and criticized by Bauman (2001), whether physical or digital.

In this text¹, we propose a discussion about School Financial Education (SFE) promoted by reflections based on the miniseries O Auto da Compadecida, by Ariano Suassuna (1999), and adapted for television by Guel Arraes (1999). The proposed discussions follow a sequence of four activities developed to be worked on with students from the initial modules of Educação de Jovens e Adultos (Youth and Adult Education - EJA). In this sense, we aim to identify, in the light of Critical Mathematics Education (Skovsmose, 2014; 2018), in the work O Auto da Compadecida, elements that promote the invitation to reflect on School Financial Education with students of Youth and Adult Education (EJA).

The culture of a consumer society, as explored by Bauman (2008), has become a challenge for human relations, particularly in our relationship with the environment. Consumption and consumerism are associated with SFE themes, which need to be debated and reflected on in the classroom, not just with the aim of saving to fulfill dreams or make purchases. We need an SFE that goes beyond these objectives and proposes a change in our habits, transforming individualism into collectivism and solidarity, degradation into preservation, inequalities into opportunities and social injustices into social, political, economic and cultural balance, etc.

Consumption is linked, in a macro view, to a nation's level of development. In this sense, we support the idea of Sen (2010), who advocates economic development that is based on improving people's quality of life and not on the mere accumulation of wealth by a small portion of the population. In this way, we believe that socially inclusive economic development is essential. However, we need to think about the economy not only from a macro viewpoint, but we also need to focus on micro issues that impact on people's daily lives, such as housing, sanitation, sustainability, pollution, security, health and education, for example.

Therefore, the school plays an important role in providing quality education aimed at human citizen formation, which includes a diversity of knowledge, among which we highlight SFE, the subject of our study. By promoting debates and reflections on the subject, in its different themes, as suggested by Santos (2017), SFE will enable students to emancipate themselves in their role as citizens, since they will have greater discernment to reflect on the issues of their daily lives and seek improvements, whether through public policies or collective actions.

In order for the school to become an environment that forms critical, reflective and socially and politically active subjects, one alternative is the idea of Educação Matemática Crítica (Critical Mathematics Education — EMC) advocated by authors such as Skovsmose (2011). In EMC, the theorist presents different concerns that are essential elements in the composition of the classroom routine, particularly in math classes. Skovsmose's (2011) ideas are in line with our perspective on SFE, which we see as one of the pillars of education for today and the future.

2 Critical Mathematics Education and Financial Education

In order to understand the composition of the activities announced and discussed later, we need to consider the context in which they were created. In the development of the questions, to direct the reflections with the students, we can find two of the different concerns presented by Skovsmose (2011) for EMC in a more explicit and intentional way: the scenarios for investigation and the backgrounds and foregrounds.

We continue dialoguing with Skovsmose (2011) to establish connections between these concerns of EMC and elements of SFE present in O Auto da Compadecida. In general, we need to understand that Skovsmose (2011) idealizes the theory based on some commitments that are based on the social responsibility of Mathematics Education, training for citizenship and critical training that considers political and social aspects. In this sense, our idea of SFE also seeks to achieve these commitments.

To understand the research scenarios, we present Table 1, in which the theorist discusses the different learning environments that are explored in classrooms.

With this matrix of learning environments, the theorist proposes that we observe the teaching and learning process through two paradigms: exercises and scenarios for investigation. Exercises are those most commonly explored in classrooms, with questions to assimilate the content studied, in which there is a comfort zone with their solutions, following an expected, planned and safe path. Scenarios for investigation are environments in which students are encouraged to gain a broader understanding of the content studied, so that they reflect on the situations posed and are thus in a risk zone, as the path to resolution is uncertain and planned without so much control by the teacher.

Skovsmose (2000) points out that:

Different types of references are possible. Firstly, mathematical questions and activities can refer to mathematics and only mathematics. Secondly, it is possible to refer to a semi-reality — not a reality that we actually observe, but a reality constructed, for example, by a math textbook author. Finally, students and teachers can work on tasks with references to real-life situations (p. 7-8).

It's important to stress that none of the six environments need to follow an order or gradation in order to take place in class, i.e. they can occur in different combinations or even on their own. According to the theorist, the teacher must move through all the learning environments so that students learn mathematics in a variety of situations. Specifically, the environments located in the paradigm of scenarios for investigation are those that we seek to create in SFE classes, mediated by the four activities developed for this research.

A scenario for investigation is one that invites students to ask questions and seek explanations. The invitation is symbolized by the teacher's “What happens if...?”. The students' acceptance of the invitation is symbolized by their “Yes, what happens if...?”. In this way, the students get involved in the exploration process. The teacher's “Why is this...?” represents a challenge and the students' “Yes, why is this...?” indicates that they are taking up the challenge and are looking for explanations

(Skovsmose, 2000, p. 6).

The invitation is the starting point for creating scenarios for investigation. Thus, according to the theorist, teachers who plan to create scenarios for investigation in their classes need to issue invitations to their students and they, in turn, need to accept this invitation so that a scenario for investigation can be created. However, as pointed out by Silva, Pessoa and Carvalho (2021), these invitations can also be issued by students in classroom practice, inviting both their peers and the teacher, who, in turn, may or may not accept the invitation.

Students may not accept an invitation from the teacher or their peers if, for example, they are not interested in the subject being discussed or if they don't see the relevance at the time. The teacher, on the other hand, may refuse invitations because they feel insecure about leaving the comfort zone of their planning or because they don't see the potential in them to create scenarios for investigation.

According to Skovsmose (2000, p. 06), “in the scenario for investigation, the students are responsible for the process” of its creation. However, based on Silva, Pessoa and Carvalho (2021), we realize that this responsibility is not exclusive to the students, but we should treat it as a co-responsibility, since the invitations are launched and accepted by the different actors present in the classrooms.

With this brief contextualization of learning environments, we present below, in Table 2, how Skovsmose (2014) conceives of backgrounds and foregrounds, the second concern of EMC that corroborates this research.

The aspects listed in the table show us a dimension of the relationship between backgrounds and foregrounds, beyond thinking of them as past and future. Although organized in this way, the aspects should not be seen as opposites, as they complement each other, i.e. a subject's background influences their foreground, while their foreground influences the way they understand their background.

In a didactic way, looking at Table 2, more specifically the line that divides the two columns, we can think of it as a border position. Skovsmose (2014) uses this metaphor to explain the existence of a conflict between the subject and the forms of social life they envision.

Being in a border position allows the subject to perceive their social environment and the possibilities of accessing other social environments, whether they are environments that promote their living with a diversity of experiences or environments that they see as inaccessible to experience. It should be noted that the environments mentioned here are not the same as those previously explored as learning environments, as they are didactic environments, not physical ones. The environments highlighted here are social and physical.

According to Skovsmose (2014), the border position exists for everyone and enables people to experience social, cultural and political differences and stigmatization. In this understanding, the theorist proposes that there is interpretation for foregrounds when the subject is positioned on a border, since this position allows them to see possibilities or not for their future.

It is also important to consider that the way in which the subject sees these possibilities is related to their past, in other words, to the conditions in which their backgrounds were constituted. Furthermore, from the moment the subject moves towards a foreground, they will also construct or reconstruct the meanings of their past.

I am proposing an interpretation of meaning based on the concept of foreground, which helps to reveal the complex socio-political formatting of meaning experiences in mathematics education. I want to emphasize that social, economic, cultural and religious conditions, as well as views, assumptions, presumptions and prejudices can establish something as meaningful or not for students

(Skovsmose, 2018, p. 767).

Interpreting foregrounds is a process that requires attention so that the backgrounds and foregrounds of the researcher/teacher don't influence the interpretation of the students' foregrounds. Although it's not possible to have zero influence, distance and intellectual effort are essential if the interpretations are to photograph the subject being observed.

In constructing their foregrounds, students are exposed to a series of conditions, as Skovsmose (2018) points out. These social, economic, political and cultural conditions, among others, determine whether a student's foreground deserves their attention or not, whether they see themselves occupying that space or perceive it as out of their reach.

To interpret the foregrounds, we used the interpretations of meanings explored by Skovsmose (2018) and organized in Table 3 below.

These interpretations are only perceived after the process of reflection with the students. By anticipation, i.e. in his planning, the teacher only has control over how he will mobilize the students' reflections, paralleling the scenarios for investigation, and how he will invite the students.

We'll call them invitations to identify backgrounds and invitations to mobilize or explore foregrounds, since access to students' individuality and particularities only occurs according to their willingness to do so. In other words, if they accept the invitation launched by the researcher/teacher to give access to their experiences and expectations. In order to do this, certain aspects need to be considered, particularly when it comes to SFE, since the individualized relationship of subjects with money is an intimate one and is related to aspects of personal and social well-being or malaise.

In this sense, the possibility arises of developing pedagogical work using audiovisual resources that generate identification, i.e. students perceiving aspects of society, whether or not related to their daily lives, on screen, by observing the characters in O Auto da Compadecida and then reflecting on the attitudes and scenes they watched. This identification goes beyond the mere stereotyped representation of characters, as it positions students as spectators of fiction and real life, so that parallels can be found in reflective debates.

3 Methodology

To develop the four activities that are the subject of this section of the study, we considered the work O Auto da Compadecida in its miniseries version, because it is the most complete audiovisual version and because it is already divided into four episodes, which helps to organize the work in class. As a result, all the questions are based on scenes and dialogues of the characters. The episodes, their duration and the themes proposed for reflective debate in the activities are shown in Table 4 below.

The third column of Table 4 refers to the themes worked on in classes already held with EJA students, in the course of our doctoral study, which is being supervised and co-supervised by the second and third authors, respectively. The themes emerged from the analysis of each episode highlighted, taking into account our views and those of the students in the class. However, for the purposes of this text, we have focused only on the analysis of the activities as teaching tools.

Each episode presented in Table 4 therefore corresponds to a lesson activity, resulting in four activities which will be discussed in detail in the next topic on teaching tools. The analysis will be based on the following categories:

The school being investigated is a municipal one, located in a suburb of the city of Garanhuns, in the agreste region of Pernambuco, which has EJA classes, covering primary and secondary education in the evening. The class that took part in the research is multigrade and caters for students in modules II and IV of the Early Years of Youth and Adult Education.

The activities were carried out over a four-week period with six students from the class in question, three from Module II and three from Module IV. Considering that the survey was carried out in the second semester of 2022, there was already a dropout rate in the class, with 15 students enrolled, but only six with daily attendance. Of the six participants in the study, two dropped out during the collection, one due to a change of address and the other due to a highrisk pregnancy. We therefore applied the activities in two stages: 1) Watching the episode of the miniseries; 2) Discussing the questions in the activities with the students.

4 Discussion of teaching tools

In this section, we present the four activities developed to help with the research. These activities will be discussed individually so that we can highlight their potential for building knowledge of a critical and reflective SFE, based on the specific concerns of the EMC adopted.

So that we can get to know the four activities, we have listed just three examples of invitations (not limited to them), based on EMC, which are explicit in them. It is important to note that the invitation may or may not be accepted by the student and the class, and that different groups will have different acceptances. We have also described extracts from the students' reflections throughout the lessons.

During the process of discussion and reflection in the classroom, it is important that the mediator (researcher/teacher) provides opportunities for dialogue between the students, taking on the role of listener and instigator of the debate. We believe that the process of stimulating the development of learning in SFE occurs in a critical-reflective way, in two dimensions. In this way, the students think about and interpret the situations provided by the mediator, present their ideas, evaluate the ideas of their colleagues, debate, change their minds or deepen them in order to consolidate their considerations on the subject debated and make their decisions. Table 5 shows the systematization of this conception of learning in SFE.

Based on Table 5, the critical and reflective aspects are arranged in two dimensions. The aspects located in the cognitive dimension refer to the part of learning that is constructed in the field of ideas, while the aspects in the operational dimension demand student attitudes, i.e. putting their ideas into practice. In this way, it is hoped that the mobilization of critical and reflective aspects will enhance learning in SFE.

In the following figures, we go on to present the four activities on episodes from O Auto da Compadecida, developed for SFE pedagogical work with classes in the initial modules of the EJA. Figure 1 shows the activity proposed for the first episode.

For this first activity, we identified the following central issues in the first episode of the miniseries, with the potential for a broader discussion of SFE, as we advocate: poverty, hunger, the preservation of inequalities and social injustices. Based on the scenes and dialogues, we can invite the students to reflect on these issues, both in the dimension of fiction and in the dimension of reality, be it their individual reality or with an eye towards society as a whole.

In the examples highlighted, there are three possible invitations. In the invitation to create scenarios for investigation, we propose discussions about a social problem, which is related to economic and development issues (Sen, 2010). For the background invitation, we seek an understanding of the students' professional experiences, bearing in mind that both adults and young people already have responsibilities in this respect, sometimes at an early age. As for the invitation to foregrounds, it is hoped that there will be reflections on working conditions and/or setbacks in the professional market, for example.

In the following excerpts from the students' speeches, we identify backgrounds and decision-making in part of the lesson with this first activity.

[Researcher reads out the second question.]

Ana Luíza: Man! That boss! Where does the rat get cleaned? No, professor!

Pedro Augusto: He wants to kill João Grilo!

Maria Helena: I went through something similar when I was a kid. If it had been in my paycheck, he would have said [inaudible] a lot, right?! [Background]. But, in order not to lose a piece of bread, he preferred to eat it, regardless of whether he was going to get sick or not [Decision Making].

Pedro Augusto: It's a question of our day-to-day lives, a question of people taking care of us. The baker isn't wrong to write it down, to count the loaves [Decision Making]. It's possible that the person working could go astray, right? So always keep track of how much is missing.

Maria Helena: If he asked him, Mr. Eurico, the teacher, I think he'd give him the loaves [Decision Making].

Ana Luíza: The baker, the baker, made a point of playing, and João went to eat [Decision Making]. Why? If he was a good boss, what would he say? “Keep it for yourself, throw it in the garbage can, take it, eat it.” But he didn't care about his hunger, he didn't care about those who worked for him [Decision Making]. He didn't even give bread, he didn't earn his money. He didn't care if João died, if he got sick, all he cared about was the money. That's it! If he took the bread to satisfy his hunger. Because [inaudible], and the dog was more valuable than he was.

Figure 2 below shows the proposed activity based on the second episode for pedagogical work with O Auto da Compadecida.

In Activity 2, we noted that the subjects covered in the miniseries episode were money, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Examples of the proposed invitations are shown in Table 7.

The three questions that exemplify the possibilities for invitations to the second activity have in common a social aspect that influences the lives, in particular, of the EJA students who are the subjects of the study. Power relations, social classes and human relations intertwined with money, as well as the influence of money on decisions that impact on the lives of the most vulnerable.

More specifically, the invitation to create scenarios for investigation can lead to discussions about the specific problems of a region, as well as relating to the idea of privatizing water resources or even referring to agrarian reform. There are different possibilities for reflecting on this situation, mainly driven by the context in which the students are inserted and their day-to-day concerns or experiences.

As for the invitation to backgrounds, students can be encouraged to think about situations they have already experienced or witnessed of corruption or abuse of power, for example. In the invitation to foregrounds, they are led to think about what they hope for their professional future, as well as reaffirming their return to school in the quest to improve their quality of life.

In the following extracts, referring to part of the second lesson, we identify decisionmaking in their speech.

[Researcher reads out the first question.]

Pedro Afonso: Oh, it was for the priest to bury the dog! And the priest said he couldn't do it! And when he put money in the middle of it, on the spot, the priest did it! [Decision Making]. Then the bishop objected. When they said he'd left money for the diocese, the bishop accepted!” [Decision Making].

Ana Luíza: No, he's doing [inaudible]. Why did he do that? He did it for money! [Decision making].

Pedro Afonso: Thinking about money! It has nothing to do with church thinking. Money... That's corruption, [inaudible]. They were all interested in money! The priest refused because the bishop wanted to have the funeral in Latin, but when he said that the dog had a will, that she had left an amount to the priest and an amount to the bishop. Then he accepted [Decision Making].

Ana Luíza: But look! The most wrong thing, that the priest at the beginning of the story, and until the end of corruption, is the bishop [inaudible], he was supposed to correct it. And what example did the bishop give the priest? None, none! [Decision made] That doesn't exist, it doesn't exist! Why? The person... It's the priest's job to bring the child of God closer.

Figure 3 introduces the activity designed to work with the third episode.

In the third episode, the subjects selected for the activity were money, consumption, debt and planning. We are strengthening the idea of an SFE that has a broader identity, bringing together the subjects proposed in the other activities and others that can contribute to a society with less social injustice and more inclusion. The aim is for the improvement of quality of life to become a common, universal and priority objective, rather than focusing exclusively on the economic growth of a few.

In the example of an invitation to create scenarios for investigation, students can be led to reflect on consumption, debt, wants and needs, financial planning, among other SFE themes (Santos, 2017). At this point, it is hoped that the reflections will not only be limited to fiction, but that students' experiences will also be recalled. As in the example for the background invitation, in which the students discuss, based on the idea of credit, the possibilities of financial products and indebtedness, recalling their experiences with these financial elements.

In the foreground invitation, the focus is on long-term life and financial planning, considering the student's interest in pursuing professionalization through education.

In the following extracts, we identify backgrounds, foregrounds and decision-making in the students' reflections in part of the third lesson.

[Researcher reads out the first question.]

Ana Luíza: Because for him, for her, the diploma, for her it was better for him to have a profession, that's it. I think she has a diploma because she studied in the capital! [Background]

Cláudia Daniele: She went because she had more money, right? [Background].

Ana Luíza: A diploma means having a profession, better knowledge, more advanced knowledge, knowing how to [inaudible] defend yourself. Because that's what a diploma is to me! It's independence to leave home, to build a home, a family. That's what a diploma is to me [Foreground Direcionado].

Maria Helena: To improve your finances, right? Because if you don't study, you can't...

Ana Luíza: Nowadays, those who don't follow, have knowledge, have nothing! Why is that? Those who have knowledge open a lot of doors, whether here or abroad. And those who don't have knowledge will live on what? Nothing! Jobs for people who don't have knowledge are what? It's cleaning, it's being [inaudible], it's keeping a recycling [Foreground Destroyed]. And what independence does that person have? They won't have the knowledge to go out and build their own house. They'll be stuck in a life of cleaning, when they don't want to clean, they'll find a husband [Decision Making]. They just give her the responsibility: “I'm stupid, I have [inaudible], I'm going to find a husband, so I can throw all the responsibility onto him, because he's going to bring the food into the house and my job is to make children, raise children, put the house in order”. How independent is this person? They won't have any! [Foreground Amputee]. [Foreground Amputee] Why? They'll always depend on someone else. It's like a pillar, if it's fixed to the ground, it won't fall. And it won't depend on anyone else to hold it up. But a weak back will sooner or later need support from another back. It's the same with us. Life has already [inaudible]. In life, you have to be what you are. Fight, fight, fight to achieve what you want [Directed Foreground]. If a child wants to be a doctor, support them! If a child wants to be a doctor, support them! I think it's so sad that someone destroys a child's dream [Decision Making]. Why? Not if [inaudible]. What is the dream? The girl dreams of being a hairdresser. Why is that? Because her aunt, my sister, [inaudible], a teacher [inaudible] is supporting my sister's dream of being like my sister. What was her dream? To be the teacher's hairdresser! Or what is her dream? To follow the teacher at the board [Decision Making]. Not to be a bricklayer, he wants to be an engineer, more than a bricklayer. He had the biggest dream of being an engineer. Then I asked him: “Why, sir?” — Because I wanted to be a bricklayer like my father, and be an engineer to build lots of buildings [Decision Making]. I think it's beautiful for someone to have a dream. It's like the pillar of a house: you have to put it up so that it doesn't fall down, so that it stands firm. That's a dream! [Targeted Foreground]. And today's poverty destroys a child's dream, it destroys a family's dream. They do, but [inaudible] not much. But most of them destroy a dream [inaudible] [Foreground Destroyed]. Why is that? Home, then it doesn't work out, I'm going back, then it doesn't work out. But what's the father going to say? “Why study if you work here? And you can't [inaudible]. Why go to work? Then he destroys his dream with this attitude. Why? [inaudible], she supported his life. Her dream, in him! [Decision made]. So he was able to live his life [inaudible], and she [inaudible] him. Why? He's going to be the opposite of her. [inaudible]. The question about the movie, professor, is what? — To change real life? There it is, but you ask the question, but you wouldn't give her today's reality, would you?

Maria Helena: Rosinha's pillar is her father.

Ana Luíza: That's right, Dad! But Chicó didn't have any pillars. Rosinha's family came from other generations with money, [inaudible], she was already able to study in the capital [Background]. But Chicó, Chicó, we don't even know where he came from, right? We don't know his family and he doesn't have that pillar.

Júlia Beatriz: It's the world that teaches you how to live! [Background].

Carlos Joaquim: Yes! I helped a lot, my son! [Decision Making]. He's now studying to be a vet [Directed Foreground].

Júlia Beatriz: You're his strong pillar!!

Carlos Joaquim: I also helped him, and I was there to help him do his studies [Background]. Then he started at a school, a government school, near that college. And I went! I put him in a school that pays per month [Decision Making]. Then he started better at school. When he said: “I want to go to a nongovernment school”. Then I said: “Okay, I'll pay”! So I started paying for school, a bit tight, but I paid [Background]. Then he went on and had more desire to study. Today he's studying to be a vet. He's twentytwo, twenty-one... I don't know, I don't even have any contact with him. He's graduating as a vet and he's doing very well! Every month I help him [Decision Making].

Figure 4 shows the activity designed to work with the fourth episode of O Auto da Compadecida.

The fourth activity promotes discussions based on the issues highlighted, such as social criticism and prospects for the future, based on the last episode of the miniseries. In this sense, the SFE proposed with this activity enables students to develop critical thinking and debate, exploring their experiences and expressing their opinions.

The sample invitation to create scenarios for investigation proposes that reflections be raised on exclusion and violence against groups of people in society. It is hoped that some of the students will recognize personal experiences related to discrimination and that it will be possible to get them to reflect on ways of mitigating these social problems.

In the call for backgrounds, students are explicitly asked about their past and the influence it has on their lives. This question relates to the characters' speeches and experiences, which justify current attitudes on the basis of the past. On the other hand, the invitation to foregrounds reflects more than a projection or planning for the future, but rather the current condition of the students, since the public served by the EJA, in part, returns to school to seek improvements in the quality of life, in different areas.

In the following extracts, we identify backgrounds, foregrounds and decision-making in the students' reflections in part of the last lesson.

[Researcher reads out the third question.]

Júlia Beatriz: I don't think he had to get involved [laughs].

Maria Helena: It depends on the situation! There are things that women get involved in when it comes to resolving something. It's, like, there's an issue that Pedro Afonso is debating, and as his wife, I get there: “Pedro Afonso, it's like this, it's not like this”! Everyone has their own things, right? Some things we have to get involved in [Decision Making]. There are things where the wife has to know how to get involved, so if she sees that her husband is doing something that isn't going well, you can get in there with him and give him advice. Say: “As your wife, I'd like to...” I've often done that with him. And then he understood! He doesn't like me giving him advice, but there are things I do, because often, if I don't give him advice on things, then he'll say: “I wish you'd tell me”! Me: “You see, you see, a woman can't miss everything”! [Background].

Cláudia Daniele: I think it's also prejudice, that only men solve things and women don't [Background].

Maria Helena: Yes, there's that too, prejudice!

Júlia Beatriz: In parts, yes! Right, professor? What's right is right!

Cláudia Daniele: I think that now, women are being [inaudible], but not before, women had to conquer space each time. But there's still prejudice. Like professions such as doctors, drivers, policemen, which used to be... [Background]

Maria Helena: In politics, it was only men, there were no women! [Background]

Cláudia Daniele: Now, there are many women competing. Women are running to be state governors. Who knows, one day it might be me, Júlia Beatriz! [Foreground Multiplied].

Júlia Beatriz: No, I don't want to!

Maria Helena: There are some who get paid more, right?!

Júlia Beatriz: They're the minority who get paid more. We don't have the same opportunities as men [Background].

Cláudia Daniele: No, they don't!

Maria Helena: The man, if he were a man, in my place, in the office, right? They wouldn't have done that, they would have treated me differently! [Background].

Júlia Beatriz: If he's finished school, he gets in!

Cláudia Daniele: I was going to choose the man, because women have children, because women get sick more, they have PMS [Background].

Maria Helena: My neighbor has a degree, right? She opened a firm in [inaudible]. Then she left because of the girl, she got sick [inaudible]. Then they pulled her over, but she said [inaudible] [Background].

Júlia Beatriz: At the FC, you can only get in if you have a tubal ligation [Background]. It's very [inaudible].

We hope that the examples explored in the four activities are not seen in a limited way, but rather as one possibility among many others that may arise in different classrooms and classes. However, we need to revisit the central ideas of EMC (Skovsmose, 2011, 2014, 2018), so that we understand that the activities, as invitations to reflect on SFE, can enable students to learn in order to form citizens who are critical, reflective, responsible and supportive of social issues.

5 Final considerations

Thus, we believe that the inclusion of SFE in classrooms, particularly in the EJA, needs to dialog with the social demands and needs of the different contexts in which students are inserted. In this way, their backgrounds can become objects of reflection. In addition, it is necessary to provoke discussions related to contexts that students do not have access to or find difficult to reach, as this puts them in a frontier position and their foregrounds can be stimulated.

The possibilities exemplified in the previous section, based on the questions in the activities, also present themselves as opportunities for scenarios for investigation to be built in the classroom.

The idea of SFE that we advocate needs to encompass not only the individual, with their personal issues related to their finances, but also aspects related to their community, since they live in a community and have their civic responsibilities. In this way, students need to be prepared not only to receive information or ideas related to finances, but also to be able to interpret them, evaluate them, reflect on them, position themselves, and be prepared for the conflict of ideas and thus make their decisions, both individually and collectively/socially.

In this sense, it is necessary for aspects of the student's individuality related to finance to be investigated from their backgrounds and foregrounds. Likewise, they also need to be prepared to think and take action that influences their community and society. This can be achieved by creating scenarios for investigation. However, it is important to emphasize that the development of students' SFE learning, whether individually or collectively/socially, should not be limited to the examples and discussions proposed in this text.

Finally, we would like to point out that the SFE themes discussed through the activities proposed and debated in this article do not exhaust the possibilities for analyzing the episodes of O Auto da Compadecida. Therefore, it is possible that other themes could be observed by other researchers, enriching the pedagogical potential of the work for working with SFE.