Eu vejo o futuro repetir o passado : a natureza da Política Nacional de Alfabetização (PNA/2019-2022) para as crianças da educação infantil brasileira
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a critical dialectical epistemological standpoint, this doctoral thesis, situated in the field of educational policies for Early Childhood Education (BRAZIL, 2009a; ABRAMOVAY, 1984; 1985; BARBOSA, 2009; CAMPOS, 1979; 2001; 2010; KRAMER, 1982; 1984; 1985; 2003; 2006; 2007; ROSEMBERG, 1992; 2001; 2002; 2003), aimed to develop a theoretical critique of the nature of the National Literacy Policy (PNA/2019-2022) for Early Childhood Education, reaffirming the sociopolitical and pedagogical role of the first stage of Basic Education in guaranteeing children's rights. Guided by the research questions, the following problematic issues were outlined: What conception of Early Childhood Education and literacy do the legal norms, publications, and actions of the National Literacy Policy (2019-2022) reveal? What is the nature of the proposal for Early Childhood Education expressed in the National Literacy Policy? The hermeneutic method was employed in the research process, involving analytical and careful interpretation of the documents that established the National Literacy Policy in Brazil (FLICKINGER, 2010; DALBOSCO; SANTA; BARONI, 2018; MATOS DE SOUZA, 2022). The research is of a basic nature, adopting a qualitative approach (BAUER; GASKEL, 2000). It has exploratory objectives and employs bibliographic and documentary procedures (CELLARD, 2008; FÁVERO; CENTENARO, 2019). To comprehend the essence of the studied phenomenon, the data produced were discussed using Discursive Textual Analysis (MORAES; GALIAZZI, 2007). Given the complexity of the research topic, the theoretical framework drew from a pluralistic perspective, combining the epistemological viewpoints of i) historical-cultural (VYGOTSKY, 2005; 2007; 2018); ii) poststructuralist (BALL, 2005; 2020; DARDOT; LAVAL, 2016; 2019; 2021; DAHLBERG; MOSS; PENCE, 2019; PERONI, 2006; 2018; 2020); and iii) critical dialectical (FREIRE, 1981; 1989; 2011; 2013; 2014; 2021). The research findings concluded that current educational policies for Early Childhood Education in Brazil, such as the National Curriculum Guidelines for Early Childhood Education and its revision (DCNEI/BRAZIL, 2009), standardize discourses that aim to insert children into the participation of a freer, fairer, and more solidary society, constructing new forms of sociability committed to breaking relations of domination and oppression. This entails ensuring the comprehensive care and education of children, respecting their own ways of learning and developing during childhood through social interactions, dialogical relationships, and play. Based on this premise, writing is conceived as a language, as a social right, as a cultural asset of humanity for the expression of thoughts, ideas, feelings, and imagination. These conceptions are centered on a democratic perspective of work, which contrasts with the individualistic, authoritarian, and compensatory nature presented by the National Literacy Policy, which idealizes Early Childhood Education as a preparation for literacy, anticipating content from primary education, in a mechanical and technical way. Therefore, it is concluded that the PNA, as an educational policy of a far-right government, views literacy as the teaching of mechanical coding and decoding skills, rendering the child invisible as a subject of rights and a participant in the learning process, as it focuses on a model of the universal, standardized, and homogeneous child dictated by the principles of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".