Gestão escolar e o programa BH Metas e Resultados: há espaços para a participação da comunidade escolar?

• Ano de defesa: 2016
• Autor(a) principal: Luiz Fernando da Silva
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; UFMG
• Palavras-chave em Português: Gestão Escolar; Gestão Gerencial; Participação; Belo Horizonte; Sistemas de escolas municipais Belo Horizonte (MG); Comunidade e escola; Educação; Planejamento educacional; Gestão democrática; Escolas Organizacao e administracao; Educação e Estado; Avaliação educacional
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/BUBD-AA2HYZ

Our study investigates if The Program BH Goals and Results (PBHMR) reconfigures the school management of the Municipal Network of Belo Horizonte (RME/BH) and influences in the school community participation process. Our hypothesis is that the PBHMR, created in 2009, centralizes the management of school in the figure of the school Principal and weakens school instances established for the promotion and expansion of the 'participation' of the school community in the democratization of management (Direct Election for school Board, collegiate School and School Assembly). In the research and discussion of the 'participation' of the school community in school management in RME/BH, as well as the analysis of data collected in the eight surveyed schools and 36 semi-structured interviews which are the main reference, non-exclusive. We chose to guide ourselves by the studies of Carole Pateman (1992) and her characterization of participation (pseudo-participation, partial participation and full participation). We identified that its first types approach the 'participation' which is vested in a management model, more restricted, limited, in which those who are present do not have indeed the power of making decisions. We identified in RME/BH overlaps of regulations, some of them aiming to promote the school community participation in school management, others inducing the same school community to carry out a mere role of supervisory but not 'decision-maker' of school issues, reducing in my understanding the scope of action of the Collegiate School and the School Assembly. We identified that the creation of PBHMR caused changes (intentional or not, planned or not) the guidelines dealing with the 'Democratic Management' in RME/BH, such as reducing the deadlines for the election and high prescriptive regulations, focusing management on the figure of the school Principal. The data collected in the field research indicates the 'low' presence and participation of the school community in school management, becoming distant from some legal guidelines, such as those highlighted in the Parecer CME/BH n. 052/2002. It is justified due to the current law which is under the current term of PBHMR and that is more prescriptive regarding to the school management and that focus more on the figure of the Principal and a results policy, hence, weakening and depoliticizing the presence and participation of the community in school management. The strong interference of SMED/BH on schools reinforces our hypothesis. There is no doubt of the importance of school instances of participation in the democratization of school management. However, the 'management' guidelines tend to turn them into 'bureaucratic' spaces, distancing itself from their original purpose. There are strong indications that the participation of the school community would be weakening if we take as a reference the third type of participation (full participation) mentioned by Pateman (1992), but, concurrently, it would be 'increasing' if we consider the other types (pseudo-participation and partial participation). The latter ones, moreover, are defended by PBHMR management model.