Municipal School Curricula Knowledge Dynamics in Brazil’S Northeast
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MUNICIPAL SCHOOL CURRICULA KNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS IN BRAZIL’S NORTHEAST Steven Bartlett Hales A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto © Copyright by Steven Bartlett Hales 2011 MUNICIPAL SCHOOL CURRICULA KNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS IN BRAZIL’S NORTHEAST Doctor of Philosophy 2011 Steven Bartlett Hales Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto Abstract The global spread of the neoliberal paradigm has propelled a recent worldwide trend of educational decentralization/centralization policies. Such policies constitute a contradictory ensemble that has shifted authority and accountability across national, provincial or state, municipal, and school levels. They have also been marked by contestation over the extent to which curricula are nationally standardized or locally defined. Education reform in Brazil in this regard has been shaped by a confluence of neoliberal and critical theoretical currents: enhance the nation’s economic competitiveness in the global market and redress pressing societal issues. Using Basil Bernstein’s concepts of classification and framing together with critical educational scholars’ conceptualizations of knowledge and knowledge in the official and enacted curriculum as conceptual and theoretical frameworks, this comparative ethnographic case study examines the nexus between curriculum, knowledge, and pedagogy in municipal schools in Brazil’s Northeast. In doing so it addresses gaps in comparative educational research on curriculum knowledge along with how educational decentralization/centralization policies are implemented in practice. The central thesis is that municipal school curricula knowledge dynamics—the classification and framing of knowledge in the official curriculum and the relation of such with what knowledge is legitimized in classrooms, how such is transmitted and analyzed, and why— in Brazil’s Northeast encompass a multilevel web of contradictions. This web spans incongruent ii ideologies, opposing elements of autonomy and accountability, conflicting pedagogical principles and practices, and a chasm between curriculum ideals and urban periphery municipal school realities. iii Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all pedagogic staff from Salvador and Teresina for voluntarily participating in my study and accepting my presence in their schools and classrooms. I would also like to thank other school staff, students, neighborhood and city residents, and those from the respective municipal secretaries of education. All of you shared and taught me so much. I owe deep appreciation to my thesis committee. My supervisor, Professor Diane Gérin- Lajoie, was outstanding. She was always there to provide feedback and guidance over the past five years. I am grateful to the core members of my committee, Professors John Portelli and Sarfaroz Niyozov, who offered helpful critiques of my work at different stages. I am likewise honored that Professor Luís Armando Gandin accepted the invitation to serve as an external committee member. His appraisal of my thesis challenged me to see my research from different angles. I am also thankful that Professor Peter Trifonas agreed to take part in the Oral Defense, which I can honestly say was more energizing than painful. As well, I have to give a shout out to my OISE classmates and friends scattered around the world, in particular those in Brazil. Conversations with classmates in Toronto kept things in perspective and made the process enjoyable. Those in Brazil were pivotal in giving me direction and opening doors. Herbert, thanks for your insight and for proofreading letters and forms. Finally, this thesis would not have been possible without the love and support from my family. My wife Soyun endured my long absence away from home, yet she and our parents always listened to and encouraged me. The innumerable chat sessions with all of you meant more than you know. Comments from other family members also gave me real boosts. Thanks! iv Table of Contents List of Figures vii Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Curriculum Knowledge Dynamics: Neoliberalism, Education Policy & Curriculum 3 1.3 Research Contexts & Rationale 7 1.4 Empirical Study 10 1.5 Thesis Preview 11 Chapter 2 – Literature Review 2.1 Neoliberalism & Educational Decentralization/Centralization in the Americas 13 2.2 Critical Educators’ Conceptualizations of Knowledge 28 2.3 Critical Educators’ Conceptualizations of Knowledge in the Official Curriculum 33 2.4 Critical Educators’ Conceptualizations of Knowledge in the Enacted Curriculum 44 2.5 Conclusion 58 Chapter 3 – Research Methodology 3.1 Theoretical Framework 59 3.2 Comparative Ethnographic Case Study 60 3.3 Data Collection Techniques 68 3.4 Empirical Study 72 3.5 Conclusion 90 Chapter 4 – Research Context: The Urban Periphery in Brazil’s Northeast 4.1 Brazil: An Introduction 92 4.2 Brazil’s Northeast 98 4.3 Salvador, Bahia & Teresina, Piauí 107 4.4 Conclusion 112 v Chapter 5 – Public Primary Schooling & Education Policy in Brazil 5.1 Public Primary Schooling 113 5.2 Educational Decentralization/Centralization 120 5.3 The Politics of Education Policies 136 5.4 Conclusion 142 Chapter 6 – Classification & Framing of Official Curriculum Knowledge 6.1 Classification of Knowledge in the National Curriculum Parameters 143 6.2 Framing of Knowledge in the National Curriculum Parameters 148 6.3 Classification & Framing of Knowledge in Official Municipal Curricula 152 6.4 Conclusion 159 Chapter 7 – Curriculum Integration in the Enacted Curriculum 7.1 (Inter)disciplinarity 163 7.2 Contextualization 176 7.3 Conclusion 196 Chapter 8 – Policy & Curriculum Contradictions 8.1 Knowledge Mediation/Control 198 8.2 Predetermined Curriculum Knowledge & Pacing 206 8.3 “Makeup” 215 8.4 “Ideal & Real Curriculum” 224 8.5 Conclusion 239 Chapter 9 – Conclusion 9.1 Thesis: Curriculum Knowledge Dynamics Findings & Problematics 242 9.2 Centrality of the Periphery 250 9.3 Contributions to Comparative Education: Policy & Curriculum 257 9.4 Research Implications & Questions for Further Inquiry 262 vi List of Figures Figure 1, Political Map of Brazil 93 Figure 2, Brazil’s Regions 97 Figure 3, Northeast Region: States & Capitals 98 vii Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1 Introduction My interest in focusing my doctoral research on municipal school curricula in Brazil’s Northeast stems from my six years as a teacher across three continents. These experiences have enhanced my awareness of the bridge spanning education policy and curriculum as well as given me firsthand insight into the complexities of and contextual influences on the curriculum– knowledge–pedagogy nexus. They have also taught me the importance of supplementing observations with teachers’ perspectives of their pedagogical principles and practices in order to better understand what happens in classrooms and why. Two experiences stand out in this regard. My work as a university instructor in one country was particularly informative with respect to the connections between education policy and curriculum, including the impact on testing, teaching, and learning. There, tests for certain courses were designed by administrators who were unfamiliar with the curriculum. The tests did not parallel what was taught and learned. Rather they were created and administered to support the institutional policy that 33% of students in each class must fail and retake courses and exams in order to ensure a certain university income each academic year. In the event that the tests did not yield this target percentage, teachers had to randomly fail a number of students. As a result, teachers were expected to lie to students about their course performance. Teachers were fired if they refused. The cycle repeated itself since a percentage of those who retook the courses and exams were failed a second time, again to guarantee income. On a different but related note, the central curriculum–knowledge–pedagogy tension I have negotiated has been the conceptualization of the official curriculum as predetermined 1 2 knowledge and the enacted curriculum as the teacher transmission of this knowledge. For instance, my work as a “teacher trainer” in another country was evaluated according to how closely it paralleled a checklist of obligatory techniques posted in classrooms. Though I recognized benefits of the espoused pedagogy, the focus on teacher actions conflicted with my pedagogical beliefs. Namely, it dictated interaction patterns and defined the boundaries of whose and what knowledge was engaged with and how in class. What’s more, the post-observation conferences with a supervisor were mostly one-way feedback sessions comprising the observer’s perceptions of my teaching as mapped against practices I was to employ. Not only did the observer’s perceptions of my teaching occasionally differ from mine, the observer’s views also did not speak to why particular dynamics occurred given that how I made sense of what happened in class and why was not part of the evaluation. This made me cognizant of the implications for using observations and interviews in educational research to minimize the possibility of misunderstanding and misrepresenting pedagogical practices. Finally, the pedagogical practices modeled by the trainers were somewhat incongruent with the realities in public and private schools. While interactive, “communicative” teaching