Cartografando movimentos curriculares produzidos nas redes de conversações nos encontros-formações do Proeja/IFES/ES

Abstract

It questions the curriculum constitution (and the “teachers training” one within the curriculum field) on school everyday in the conversations dimension. It aims at following the curriculum movements which touch Proeja among complex forms and forces within Ifes’s everyday – Venda Nova do Imigrante’s campus (VNI). It draws up on the thoughts of Alves (2008, 2010, 2012); Carvalho (2004, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2012); Deleuze (1988, 2002, 2010); Deleuze and Guattari (1995); Ferraço (2007, 2008a, 2008b); Garcia (2011); Guattari (1987, 2004, 2012); Kastrup (2009, 2013); Lopes and Macedo (2011); Lopes (2010, 2011); Oliveira (2005, 2009, 2012); Paiva (2004, 2009); Rolnik (1989); and Spinoza (2013), threading the concepts of movements and affections in the field of curriculum in networks within the hybrid relation with the teachers’ trainings-meetings of/im Proeja. It adopts the (no) cartographic methodology as it follows (de)(re)territorializing curriculum movements on the conversation networks, specially on the trainingsmeetings: “Conversation webs with teachers and other Proeja’s workers”. It uses as main methodological instruments the participant observation, the voices recording and a field journal’s notes. It contributes to other research movements as it captures-produces and analyses data in which one can notice that: even though there had been a collective planning, other themes come up on the meetingstrainings (that had not been intended to be casted and neither aimed at stopping the flows that come through). Such themes could be used as triggers to the creation of other curriculum movements. The teachers’ conceptions on “difficulty/easiness” to teach Proeja and the established places among students and teachers on the teaching-learning process are not straightly related, as cause and effect, to the specific discipline/area of knowledge they teach, but to the agency, to the bonding and the breaking produced within thee relations to theses webs of knowledgemakingpowers that gather multiple agents: teachers, other workers, students, experiences and multiple meetings insideout the Ifes’s spacetime. A triple-chorus endorses the creation of a triangular mold that emphasizes pattern’s notion within a molar process rooted on the knowledge trees: profile, selection and grading. However, some dissenting scape lines are created within the breaks of the alleged harmonious tunes. The sentences “[…] the IF teachers are not prepared to teach Proeja […]” or “[…] there is no training/qualification to the teachers to get related to Proeja […]” are used in some speeches as shield-arguments to the political option of not offering places to the YAE mode agreeing with the trends that affirm such specificity of basic education within the federal system as a “social favor”. Processes which involve the (dis)organization of the syllabus are considered to be “product” and objective of the curriculum conversations by some of the participants, which causes tensions that (im)mobilizes and (does not) moves among the affections of the bodies, which might lead to the (not) collective action. The notion of “job market” still reins on speeches, cyclically, as beginning-end of the High School and YAE’s curriculum questioning. The expression “syllabus integration” is constantly used on the speeches that go around the campus, however, the senses produced, the conception and the curriculum theories which support the notion of “integration” within curriculum are very diverse. There is no totality on the speeches, no homogenization, no single cohesion/only voice (which had not been the research’s objective). Even though the network theme proposed the curriculum conversation on/to Proeja, on these meetings participants mentioned the necessity of intensifying the movements produced on the conversation networks by aiming at discussing the curriculumtexts from all the courses and educational modes offered by the VNI campuses and of the intensification of places for everyday curriculum experiences exchanges. By potentializing the differences as inventive possibilities of teachers’ meetings-trainings and the curriculum dances that involve many relations of learning within IFES, some experiments were carried on, among affections, creating (de (re)territorializing compositions which resonate with movements that are not restricted to the conversation networks, however, are engaged in threads of other spacetimes of the campus as attempts to spread curricula-multitude.