Perception of principals about the attributions in the pedagogical management of municipal schools in Jacobina, Bahia, Brazil¹

Abstract

This work is based on a research about the principal’s perception about the management of municipal schools in Jacobina, Bahia, Brazil. The aim of this research was to analyze how principals perceive the pedagogical attributions that are required to develop the management of municipal schools in Jacobina. For this, we used as a data collection instrument a questionnaire whose application involved 22 principals who work in the city and rural schools. We adopted as a method a case study that uses, predominantly, ordinal variables, resulting from the application of Likert scale, and the result of the principals’ perception was presented by degree of agreement/disagreement. The questionnaire contains proposals on the elaboration of the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP), the School Development Plan (SDP), the participation of the principal in the pedagogical actions and the promotion of the participation of the different segments in the pedagogical actions. Based on the analysis of the data, we observed that most of the principals perceive that there are problems regarding the elaboration of the PPP and the SDP. They point out lack of time to participate in the pedagogical questions and, in relation to the participation of the several segments, indicate that there are difficulties in bringing the family to participate in the pedagogical actions, which does not happen in relation to teachers and pedagogical coordinators. We conclude that principals strive for pedagogical actions to occur in a participatory manner and realize the need to direct part of their work to follow the pedagogical attributions that are demanded of them when they take over the direction of the school.

Public schools principals; Principal’s roles; Pedagogical management

Resumo

Este artigo decorre de uma pesquisa sobre a percepção dos diretores acerca da gestão das escolas municipais de Jacobina (BA). A referida pesquisa teve como objetivo analisar como diretores percebem as atribuições pedagógicas que lhes são demandadas para desenvolver a gestão das escolas municipais de Jacobina (BA). Para tal fim, utilizamos como instrumento de coleta de dados questionário cuja aplicação envolveu 22 diretores que atuam nas escolas da sede e da zona rural. Adotamos como método um estudo de caso que faz uso de variáveis predominantemente ordinais, decorrentes da aplicação de escala tipo Likert, e o resultado da percepção dos diretores foi apresentado por grau de concordância/discordância. O questionário contém proposições sobre a elaboração do Projeto Político-Pedagógico (PPP), do Plano de Desenvolvimento da Escola (PDE), da participação do diretor nas ações pedagógicas e da promoção da participação dos diversos segmentos nas ações pedagógicas. Com base na análise dos dados, observamos que a maioria dos diretores percebe que existem problemas em relação à elaboração do PPP e do PDE, apontam falta de tempo para participar das questões pedagógicas e, em relação à participação dos diversos segmentos, indicam que existe dificuldades em trazer a família para participar das ações pedagógicas, o que não acontece em relação aos professores e coordenadores pedagógicos. Concluímos que os diretores se esforçam para que as ações pedagógicas ocorram de forma participativa e percebem a necessidade de direcionar parte de seu trabalho para acompanhar as atribuições pedagógicas que lhes são demandadas ao assumir a direção da escola.

Diretores de escola pública; Atribuições do diretor; Gestão pedagógica

Introduction

In general, the management of public schools was, historically, exercised by principals who represented sectors outside the school and higher agencies of the administration, being limited to “ensure compliance with the norms, determinations and regulations emanating from them” (LUCK, 2013, p. 34). In this context, institutional attributions, that is, a set of complementary laws and norms established to guide these principals, consisted mainly of maintaining order and discipline, responding to procedures and making decisions individually, as well as passing information from central agencies of education and, finally, to meet the external norms that schools should obey.

For many years, the school lived with authoritarian and centralizing practices of power that manifested an understanding of the relationship between society, state and individual. Nowadays, however, some local public schools have undergone significant changes and presented new demands that reflected in the daily life of the school and in the action of the principal. Prior to the implementation of the National Education Guidelines and Bases Law (GBL) nº 9.394/1996 (BRASIL, 1996), the principal’s assignments were exercised in a traditional way, that is, to control, supervise and pass on information to the central agencies education. The right to the voice for the subjects who worked in the school was restricted to pre-established tasks. This phase seems to be being overcome, since, after the GBL, the management of the school started to demand coordination and participation. On this transition phase, Marques and Silva (2004/2005, p. 3), consider that “the fragmented perception of reality is replaced by the integral vision of the school and the objectives to be achieved, the rigid division of work makes possible the action and cooperation supportive towards the achievement of collectively defined objectives”.

In this context, managing the school “is to organize, mobilize and articulate all the material and human necessary conditions to guarantee the advancement of the socio-educational processes of schools” (MARTINS; BOCANELLI, 2010, p. 81). In this case, the principal, who is the main responsible for the school, has the assignments assigned to them in order to carry out this type of management.

According to Libâneo, Oliveira and Toschi (2012), the assignments of the principal correspond to all activities of coordination and monitoring of people’s actions, accomplishment of group work, maintenance of the work level and evaluation of performance. Thus, in assuming the role of manager, the principal becomes the main responsible for making the school work, through the work of other people. For this, it is essential that he/she recognizes in his/her function a genuinely interactive characteristic - that is, he/she is at the service of the people and the organization. Thus, the attributions of the principal “should lead to the efforts necessary to implement the goals, strategies and methods of action foreseen or presupposed to the development of the school” (SOUZA, Ângelo, 2010, p. 2).

As mentioned, up until the 1980s, some attributions were not conferred on the principal, such as the management of financial resources, the direct management of pedagogical projects, the teaching-learning process and the inclusion of the school community in school decisions. These changes resulted in a new way of acting, which required the principal to know the school management processes and educational legislation, as well as the ability to negotiate conflicts and guarantee the participation of the public power, the school community and the local community, to improve the educational process. In exercising the management function, the principal must know better the bases of the effective exercise of his/her tasks, aiming to develop the competences and abilities to consciously fulfill the assignments in the dimensions of the school management.

From this, the changes and new demands of management reflected, above all, within the school, making it responsible for the materialization of a new model of school administration. We understand that some changes have led to multiple demands and attributions for school management, particularly for principals, who find difficult to put them into practice. It is possible to verify the scope of assignments that have been incorporated into the role of the school principal, created from legal and normative requirements, which requires greater involvement in both administrative and pedagogical issues, aiming at the proper functioning of schools.

It is imagined that, from many activities developed by the principals in the administrative dimension, the assignments of pedagogical dimension are in the background, or under the responsibility of another professional of the school - in this case, the pedagogical coordinator. The effort to solve the problems of an administrative nature, in part, occurs because the more immediate results come of the administrative dimension. Another factor that may be associated with the administrative dimension is related to the form of power dispute in the school, considering that it is in this dimension that financial and material resources are involved. Authors such as Souza (2006) understand that administrative and pedagogical functions can not be placed in antagonistic positions.

About the emphasis on the administrative dimension of school management, Russo (2016) states that there is strong evidence that most principals devote significant part of their time to such a dimension. This author associates this phenomenon with two factors: 1) the great demand in the administrative dimension and that occupies a lot of time and, 2) “the lack of interest and competence to conduct the pedagogical questions of the school” (RUSSO, 2016, p. 197).

This, of course, limits the condition of making shared decisions. Shared decisions, according to Carneiro and Novaes (2011), presuppose the involvement of social actors in the decision-making process about the various demands attributed to the school, especially those aimed at the education of students. This implies the principal’s commitment to promote discussions about the pedagogical planning instruments of the school.

In this case, the principal is responsible for: planning goals, which are represented in the PPP; organization of the people and resources to achieve the intended goals; execution with quality of the planned works; evaluation of all processes and activities carried out; communication of activities and results achieved for the school community; and continued training for professional improvement (VANDRESEN; FREITAS, 2014).

The assignments cited require the principal to bring together three types of skills: technical skills (decision making and conflict resolution), human skills (relating and solving conflicts), and conceptual skills (systemic vision, ie, ability to understand school as a whole).

In practice, a function of the principal became very complex, that is, many demands were necessary, and many doubts were necessary to respond to them.

Assignments of the principal in the pedagogical dimension

Regarding the pedagogical dimension of school management, Ângelo Souza (2010, p. 1) observes that the role of the principal can be understood “as the central executive, dealing with conflicts and power relations, aiming to the development of school work.” According to Libâneo, Oliveira and Toschi (2012, p. 500), this dimension corresponds to actions of pedagogical-curricular nature, which are related to “the management of the pedagogical-curricular project, curriculum, teaching, professional development and evaluation, ie, the management of the very elements that constitute the nature of the school activity.”

The principal has many assignments that go beyond the bureaucratic responsibilities, especially about his/her responsibility in the elaboration and monitoring of the PPP and the SDP; in the participation and in the accompaniment of the pedagogical actions; and in promoting the participation of the various segments in the pedagogical actions of the school. However, what often happens is the transfer of the pedagogical assignments to the pedagogical coordinator, leaving the principal responsible for getting involved with the administrative aspects, due to the demand for bureaucratic activities.

The bureaucratic activities referred to in this text are related to the technical-administrative attributions, such as: knowledge of the rules for the functioning of the school; planning, organization and control of financial resources, materials and infrastructure; supervision and guidance of all people to whom responsibilities at school delegated; conflict mediation and decision making; involvement in the execution and monitoring of projects and programs; school-community relationship; and integration with other schools. These are activities that, although related to the teaching-learning process, do not do so directly. They may be feasible or preconditions for the direct realization of the pedagogical process that takes place in the classroom (LIBÂNEO; OLIVEIRA; TOSCHI, 2012).

Luck (2013) lists the following pedagogical responsibilities for the principal: (a) to encourage and assist school members in order to promote actions in accordance with the proposed educational objectives and principles; b) lead, aiming to achieving these objectives and principles; c) promote an integrated and cooperative system of action; d) maintain a clear communication process with the members of the school, as well as between the school and the community; e) stimulate innovative practices and improve the teaching-learning process.

As for the political-pedagogical process, Antônio Souza (2010, p. 4) understands that the principal also plays an important role in:

[...] mediation/promotion of pedagogical planning; the definition of priorities and methodological strategies that best fit the levels and modalities of the offered education, the sociocultural and learning characteristics presented by the students, as well as the pedagogical and cultural, disciplinary or interdisciplinary projects defined as priorities for each academic period; curricular adequacy; institutional evaluations and teaching-learning; increase of the quality standard in school attendance; the improvement of school results; the demands of initial and continuing education of professionals with a teaching and non-teaching function; the promotion of collegiate bodies within the school and its permanent articulation, given the need for collective participation, understood as a formative dimension and promoter of citizenship.

Based on these considerations, we can understand that the principal’s responsibilities in the pedagogical dimension go beyond coordinating and making the PPP of the school feasible. In this process, it is important for the principal to count on the participation of the pedagogical coordinator or the management group in the decisions, to reach the institutional objectives.

Faced with so many demands, bureaucratic demands and lack of follow-up regarding pedagogical supervision, the principal does not have time to follow all actions related to the teaching-learning process. For this reason, the PPP is important, considering that it will be the main tool for educational development. For Santana, Gomes and Barbosa (2012, p. 93), the process of creating the PPP “is very complex and delicate, and needs to be guided with competence, sobriety and, above all, patience.”

In fact, some consider that the PPP and the SDP have the same purpose and therefore there is no use of the two instruments. However, the SDP consists of a strategic plan that is the indicator of mission, values, purposes, objectives and strategies of practices adopted in the school, as well as the actions directed to a new perspective of promotion of the PPP. It is expected that the SDP constitutes as an instrument of collective elaboration, aiming at the autonomy of the school.

As for the PPP, it is important to emphasize that, due to the importance of this document for the school, should not only be drawn by a legal requirement, but rather by the implementation of a democratic organization (SANTANA; GOMES; BARBOSA, 2012). Thus, it is not a document to be constructed and filed, as justification of the bureaucratic services required by the higher bodies were exercised. It should be constructed and experienced all the time, involving of all the workers of educational process (VEIGA, 2004).

It is worth emphasizing that the pedagogical dimension focuses on the students’ learning and that it is the role of the principal, together with the teacher and the pedagogical coordinator, to follow up on how this learning is taking place. “This requires detachment and sensitivity on the part of all those involved in the process of knowledge construction.” (CRISTOVAM; FREITAS; SILVA, n/d, p. 3).

For Ribeiro (2012), the principal’s responsibilities in this dimension are tense, because pedagogical intervention, together with pedagogical coordination, affects teaching and learning. There are many factors that impede the progress of actions, such as the short period of time for pedagogical meetings, leaving many decisions without confirmation. Another worrying factor is the existence of teachers considered bads, and the school simply is not able to say that these professionals will not work there anymore. This is a complicated situation because, in trying to achieve change, even through dialogue, there is not always a positive result, which can lead to a weariness and even enmity within the group. The cited author notices

[...] the need for changes in the relationship between teacher and management group, necessary and common in favor of teacher improvement, disentangling these actions from a pejorative idea of criticism by the management group to the work being done by the teacher. (RIBEIRO, 2012, p 114).

On the other hand, Ogawa and Filipak (2013) affirm that the difficulties in dealing with the pedagogical issues of the principal, can be related mainly to the form of qualification of such professionals. The principals say that, by starting their function, many take short-term training from the Department of Education and take what they consider to be content related to legislation, administrative and financial issues. However, the pedagogical aspects are relevant. This is a complex situation, because, even though administrative aspects prevail in training, there are still several problems in this area, that is, the training is not being designed in order to bring benefit to the principal’s performance.

In order to analyze the problems of management training, Nascimento (2015), when conducting research on the school management course offered to municipal school principals in Salvador (BA), identifies some weaknesses in the course implementation. Among these weaknesses, the author mentions: lightened formation; very theoretical content; lack of alignment between the theory studied and the practice of the professional; non-use of managers’ experiences; lack of continuity of training over the manager’s term of the principal.

If the principal performs his/her role of mediator of education in a transparent and democratic way, the involvement between his/her group and the other school segments in the teaching-learning process will certainly be easier. It should be considered that this process is not limited only to students and teachers, but it is necessary to involve the community in general, mobilizing it so that all seek the viability of the main objective, which is the students’ learning (MACHADO, 2001).

It is important to share responsibility in the management of the school. Paro (2008) states that the principal must be aware that he/she alone cannot manage or centralize all problems. It should be emphasized that the attributions of management are not only at the management level but involve several people in the implementation of actions. However, the principal assumes the role of coordinator of these actions, according to the objectives established in the pedagogical project of the school, always aiming at the quality of teaching.

When conducting management assignments, the principal must keep in mind that, in addition to the day-to-day experience, he/she can rely on educational legislation to guide the procedures concerning the management of the public school, in order to act and manage the school in a manner conscious and based on current standards. In addition, the qualification and motivation of the principal constitute a north for the integration of all those involved in the school, being elements that determine the effectiveness of the educational action.

The management of school units and the responsibilities of the principal in the pedagogical dimension of the municipal schools of Jacobina (BA)

We begin this topic with a brief history of Jacobina on which we dedicate our study. Next, we present the structure of the management of the Jacobina (BA) school units and the assignments of the principal in relation to the pedagogical dimension.

The municipality of Jacobina (Picture 1) is in the northern Bahian physiographic zone in the Diamantina Piedmont Identity Territory (BAHIA, 2014), 330 km from Salvador, the state capital, and comprises a territorial area of 2,359,965 km2. It is also known as Cidade do Ouro, an inheritance of the gold mines that attracted the bandeirantes of São Paulo in the early seventeenth century.

Picture 1
– Location of Jacobina, in the State of Bahia

According to the data of the last demographic census in Brazil (IBGE, 2016), the municipality has an estimated population of 84,811. Its territorial division consists of five districts: Caatinga do Moura, Lages do Batata, Itaitu, Itapeipu and Junco. In addition to the districts, there are some other communities, with the largest population being Paraíso, Cachoeira Grande, Cafelândia, Coxo de Dentro, Pontilhão and Roçadinho.

Jacobina is considered a polo city, because it has great economic importance for the region, not only for the mining, but also for the socioeconomic and educational activities that it develops. Its importance is also related to education, since the municipality has a well-developed school network, attracting students from several surrounding cities to attend secondary and higher education.

When making a survey of information about the organization of the Jacobina education system, it is observed that it follows the same logic of many Brazilian cities. Changes began with the amendment of its Organic Law, in 1990, to suit the requirements set forth of Constitution 1988; later, in 2002, new changes occur to suit GBL (BRASIL, 1996). The city, which was guided by the educational guidelines of the State of Bahia, became responsible for the creation of its own education system, defining the rules for adoption of democratic management in public education of basic education, with collaboration of the Union and the State (article 97).

As for the management of school units, according to the directives of the Unified School Regulations for Jacobina Schools (JACOBINA, 2004), it should be democratic and participatory. The implementation of democratic management in schools should be supported by the Department of Education. The achievement of the principles of democratic management in schools will be characterized by: I - Participation of professionals of the School Unit in the elaboration of the School Development Plan (SDP) and the School’s Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP); II - Participation of the different segments of the school community, direction, teachers, parents, students and employees, in the consultative, supervising and deliberative processes, through the Parents and Teachers Association; III - Democratization in pedagogical, administrative and financial management, guaranteeing responsibility, rationality and optimization in the application of public resources; and IV - Valorization of the teaching unit as a privileged space for the execution of the teaching-learning process (JACOBINA, 2004).

In relation to the position of principal, the institutional information is expressed in the Unified School Regiment (JACOBINA, 2004) and in the Career Plan, Career and Remuneration of Professionals of Basic Education of Jacobina (JACOBINA, 2013). These documents define the responsibilities of the head of municipal schools.

The Unified School Regiment is a unified document that was designed and developed to serve all municipal schools. He determines that the principal “is the qualified professional, legally able, who is responsible for presiding over all school activities and the school’s relations with the community” (JACOBINA, 2004, article 64). Regarding the pedagogical attributions, the following are included in the Rules of Procedure and the Plan for Jobs: a) promote school-family-community integration; b) articulate, together with the technical-pedagogical and administrative groups, reflections regarding the quality of teaching, seeking the improvement of the work; c) to monitor the dynamics of the activities in all the shifts of the school and to be acquainted with them; e) to preside over the Class Council and follow the pedagogical and parent-teacher meetings, planning actions together with the technical-pedagogical group, based on the reflections made; f) participate and develop the pedagogical proposal, together with the school community; g) collaborate with the pedagogical coordinator in the preparation of the PPP and the SDP.

In this sense, knowing the assignments and reflecting critically on them may be a first step for principals to carry out their work in school more safely and effectively.

Methodology

The research used as a methodology the case study, which involved a universe of 22 principals from the municipal schools of Jacobina (BA) that work from the 1st to the 9th grade of elementary school. Initially a bibliographic and documentary survey was made; for the data collection, we opted for the application of a questionnaire. The present study used of predominantly ordinal variables, resulting from a Likert scale. The result of the principal’s perception was presented by degree of agreement/disagreement, measured by a scale already validated by Sanches, Marietto and Paixão (2011). The objective of the research was to analyze how the principals perceive the pedagogical assignments that are demanded them to develop the management of the municipal schools of Jacobina.

The elaboration of the proposals of the questionnaire aiming at analyzing the principal’s perception of assignments in the pedagogical dimension took into account the theoretical reference, the Unified School Regiment (Regimento Escolar Unificado) (JACOBINA, 2004) and the Career, Remuneration, and Remuneration Plan of the Basic Education Professionals of Jacobina (JACOBINA, 2013), resulting in questions related to the following attributions: (1) elaboration of the PPP) (2) elaboration of the SDP; (3) participation of the principals in the pedagogical actions; (4) participation of pedagogical coordination; and (5) promotion of the participation of other segments in the school actions.

The organization of the propositions considered the Likert type ordinal scale with 5 points (VIEIRA, 2009), treated statistically as an interval observation metric, namely: (1) totally disagree (TD); (2) partially disagree (PD); (3) undecided (U); (4) partially agree (PA); (5) totally agree (TA). The undecided scale corresponds to the neutral point, even at the risk of making the most insecure respondents choose to sit on the fence and mark this response (VIEIRA, 2009). Because they come from a Likert scale, the data collected are nominal qualitative.

After completion, the questionnaire passed by a process of validation by a professional, who analyzed the structure of the instrument. This stage was important because it allowed to perceive that some questions generated doubts as to the number of answers; in addition, contributed to a better disposition of the issues.

The next procedure was to submit the questionnaire to a pre-test, in order to analyze the feasibility of the questions. Considering these aspects, the questionnaire was applied to five former principals of municipal schools. Another concern was that the pre-test should be applied to professionals who had already acted in the management of municipal schools, both small and special. After being organized, the data were analyzed and interpreted to respond to the research objectives.

Perception of the principals on the assignments in the pedagogical dimension: analysis of results

The analysis of the research is presented in table 1, with the result of Degree of Agreement (DA) about the following attributions: (1) PPP and SDP elaboration; (2) participation of the principal in pedagogical actions; and (3) promoting the participation of other segments in pedagogical issues.

Table 1
– Degree of Agreement/Disagreement related to each proposal, according to Macnaughton (1966) and Wilder Jr. (1981)

Elaboration of PPP and SDP
Degree of Agreement	Proposition	Dimension/assignment	Status
13,6	The elaboration of PPP is practically responsibility of the principal.	Pedagogical/Elaborate PPP and SDP	Disagreement
95,5	Put together all the school community to participate in PPP elaboration is still a slow process.	Elaborate PPP and SDP	Agreement
45,5	The elaboration of SDP is exclusively responsibility of the principal.	Elaborate PPPand SDP	Disagreement
42,9	Despite the mobilization of the principal, the school failed to complete the PPP.	Pedagogical/Elaborate PPP and SDP	Disagreement
Participation of the principal in pedagogical actions
Degree of Agreement	Proposition	Assignment	Status
52,4	Due to day-to-day activities, the principal does not have the time to devote more time to pedagogical issues.	Participate in pedagogical actions	Agreement
66,7	Many assignments in the administrative part prevents the principal of participating and accompanying the complementary activities meetings (CAs).	Participate in pedagogical actions	Agreement
Promoting the participation of other segments in pedagogical issues
Degree of Agreement	Proposition	Assignment	Status
81,8	The school has an effective pedagogical coordination, which facilitates the principal’s work with pedagogical issues.	Involve the pedagogical coordination	Agreement
81,8	The family does not always respond the principal’s invite to participate and follow the children's school life.	Promote the participation	Agreement
50,0	Getting the family together to attend parent-teacher meetings is an easy process for the principal.	Promote the participation	Agreement
13,6	The principal realizes that teachers lack interest in collectively deciding on the indication and purchase of teaching materials.	Administrative/Promote the participation	Disagreement
30,0	The principal is disbelieving about the way school segments are involved in decision-making.	Promote the participation	Disagreement

• Source: Elaborated by the authors, based on the field research.

Through the analysis of the data, the percentage of impact of each proposition is verified, according to the perception of the principals of the municipal schools of Jacobina listed below. The use of the Degree of Agreement (DA) technique allowed us to analyze the incidence of each agreement and each disagreement related to the alternatives/answers presented by the principals. The Degree of Agreement was used according to the proposals of Macnaughton (1966) and Wilder Jr. (1981), complemented by the Agreement table of Davis (1976).

The Agreement/Disagreement percentages were applied, according to the table below.

Table 2
– Interpretation of values according to Likert scale - DC value/appropriate sentence

Value of Degree of Agreement	Frase adequada
(DC)	Appropriate Sentence
0,90 or more	A very strong agreement
0,80 a +0,89	A substantial agreement
0,70 a +0,79	A moderate agreement
0,60 a +0,69	A low agreement
0,50 a +0,59	A negligible agreement
0,40 a +0,49	A contemptible disagreement
0,30 a +0,39	A low disagreement
0,20 a +0,29	A moderate Disagreement
0,10 a +0,19	A substantial disagreement
0,10 or more	A very strong disagreement

• Source: SANCHES; MEIRELES; SORDI, 2011, p. 6.

In the propositions regarding the principals’ perception of the assignments in the pedagogical dimension, it is verified that: in the statement related to the elaboration of the PPP, an issue was raised with very strong agreement, that is, the principals see as a “slow process to be able to gather the school community to participate in the preparation and follow-up of the PPP” (DA 95,5). On the other hand, they responded with a degree of substantial disagreement that “the elaboration of the PPP is practically under their responsibility” (DD 13,6) and with disagreeable disagreement that despite the mobilizations “the school was unable to prepare the PPP” (DD 42,9). There are, therefore, three conflicting situations, the first being an expected situation, because there are still difficulties in bringing together all the segments to think and elaborate the PPP, just as it is not the principal’s role alone to carry out the whole process. However, the fact that some schools have not been able to complete their project leads to the deduction that actions occur in a random way, without a north to be followed, and that, therefore, each one does his/her part without interacting with the objectives proposed for school.

The same situation occurs with the elaboration of the SDP: some principals disagree that “the elaboration of the SDP is an attribution that is exclusively under his/her responsibility” (DD 45,5), in a degree of negligible disagreement. This result is expected, that is, the preparation of the programs and projects should not really be attributed solely to the principal, as his/her function is to lead, collaborate and follow the work. Some actions should be considered in order to enable the conclusion of the PPP, as well as strategies aimed at a greater participation of the school community in both the PPP and SDP elaboration process.

In relation to the principal’s participation in the school’s actions, there was a proposal with a low degree of agreement, in which some principals perceive that “the assignments in the administrative dimension prevent them from participating in the meetings of complementary activities” (DA 66,7); and another with a negligible degree of agreement, in which some directors perceive that they “lack time to participate in pedagogical questions” (DA 52,4). A contradiction can be seen in relation to the time devoted to the development of activities in the administrative and pedagogical areas, since some of the directors justify their absences in pedagogical activities because of being overloaded with administrative activities.

As for promoting the participation of other segments, a proposal with substantial agreement was made, demonstrating that most of the principals perceives “the difficulties to enable the participation of the family to accompany the children’s lives” (DA 81,8). Despite previous confirmation, some of the principals responded with a negligible degree of agreement that “it is easy to get the family to attend parent-teacher meetings” (DA 50.0). Therefore, it is possible to deduce that, irrespective of whether the invite is individual or to participate in a group meeting, there are difficulties on the part of some principals in bringing the family to school. There is no doubt that the activity without the participation of this segment can be an obstacle to the accomplishment of a participative management.

Regarding the teachers, it was verified that the principals take kindly to the participation of this segment “in the collective decisions for indication and purchase of pedagogical materials” (DD 13,6), since they responded with a degree of substantial disagreement. This result demonstrates that the principals are achieving the adhesion of part of the school community in the actions that concern the acquisition and maintenance of material and equipment necessary for the pedagogical activities.

Concerning pedagogical coordination, there is a substantial agreement, in which the principals perceive an “effective pedagogical coordination” (DA 81,8). The answers confirm that the schools maintain professionals that directly aid in the work of the principal in the pedagogical part. Despite the difficulties, most principals believe in the way they are conducting the participation process, even though there is a low disagreement about being “disbelieving about the way the segments participate in decision-making” (DD 30.0).

Final considerations

Indeed, there is a wide range of laws in the attributions of public school principals, complementary rules and specific functions that guide their actions. In this, specific provisions are contained that the principals should take as reference to manage the school. In the case of Jacobina (BA), the attributions and competences established for the principals are linked to the Organic Law of the City and, particularly, in the Statute of the Magisterium.

The answers obtained from the application of the questionnaire reflect, therefore, the diverse ways in which the principals deal with these normative attributions and with the demands that are presented in the daily of the school management.

It should be noted that, despite variations in the degree of agreement and disagreement, we noted that most principals strive for pedagogical actions and school management to occur in a participatory manner and meet regulatory requirements. The Political-Pedagogical Project and the School Development Plan, for example, present themselves as a reference to manage the school.

It is evident, on the other hand, that there are schools that still have problems regarding the constitution and execution of their project, suggesting the need for better monitoring by the Jacobina Municipal Education Department and the pedagogical coordination of these schools.

Among the several findings of this research, it is important to highlight those who present themselves as problems for the management of the school by the principals. In this sense, we emphasize the general perception of the principals regarding the overload of duties in the administrative scope, as well as the difficulties to enable the participation of the family in the school life of their children. These aspects negatively impact the time of dedication to pedagogical issues, as well as the strategies of participation and involvement of the subjects in the management of the school.

The difficulties of the participation of some segments in school meetings and pedagogical actions lead the principals to take decisions in isolation. This situation is reflected in the perception of the need to review the situation and direct part of his/her work to accompany, along with the pedagogical coordinator, the pedagogical activities.

Referências

• BAHIA. Superintendência de Estudos Sociais e Econômicos da Bahia (SEI). SEI conclui atualização territorial em mais dois territórios de identidade. 2014. Disponível em: <http://www.sei.ba.gov.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1650:sei-conclui-atualizacao-territorial-em-mais-dois-territorios-de-identidade&catid=10&Itemid=565 Acesso em: 2014.
  » http://www.sei.ba.gov.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1650:sei-conclui-atualizacao-territorial-em-mais-dois-territorios-de-identidade&catid=10&Itemid=565
• BRASIL. Lei n^o 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 1996.
• CARNEIRO, Breno P. Brandão; NOVAES, Ivan Luiz. Gestão educacional descentralizada: participação e tomada de decisão. In: SEMINÁRIO POLÍTICAS SOCIAIS E CIDADANIA, 3., 2010, Salvador. Anais... Salvador: Universidade Católica do Salvador, 2010. Disponível em: <http://www.interativadesignba.com.br/III_SPSC/arquivos/sessao5/124.pdf Acesso em: 9 set. 2011. p. 1-11.
  » http://www.interativadesignba.com.br/III_SPSC/arquivos/sessao5/124.pdf
• CRISTOVAM Francine P. P.; FREITAS Maria de S. T.; SILVA, Michele P. da. A importância da gestão escolar comprometida com o ensino aprendizagem dos alunos. Scientific Magazine, s/d. Disponível em: <https://www.yumpu.com/pt/document/view /12460238/a-importancia-da-gestao-escolar-comprometida-com-o-scientific>. Acesso em: maio 2013.
  » https://www.yumpu.com/pt/document/view /12460238/a-importancia-da-gestao-escolar-comprometida-com-o-scientific
• DAVIS, James. Levantamento de dados em sociologia. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1976.
• IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2016. Disponível em: <https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ba/jacobina/panorama Acesso em: abr. 2016.
  » https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/ba/jacobina/panorama
• JACOBINA. Lei Municipal no 1.231, de 17 de dezembro de 2013. Dispõe sobre o plano de cargos, carreira e remuneração dos profissionais da educação básica do município. Jacobina: [s. n.], 2013.
• JACOBINA. Regimento Escolar Unificado para as Escolas do Município. Jacobina: [s. n.], 2004. Homologado em 17 de abril de 2004.
• LIBÂNEO, José C; OLIVEIRA João F. de; TOSCHI, Mariza Seabra. Educação escolar: políticas, estrutura e organização. São Paulo: Cortez, 2012.
• LUCK, Heloísa. Ação integrada: administração, supervisão e orientação educacional. 29. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2013.
• LUCK, Heloísa. Dimensões da gestão escolar e suas competências. Curitiba: Positivo. 2009.
• MACHADO, Maria A. de Medeiros. Desafios a serem enfrentados na capacitação de gestores escolares. Em Aberto, Brasília, DF, v. 17, n. 72, p. 97-112, jun. 2001.
• MACNAUGHTON, R. Jane. Numbers, scales and qualitative research. Lancet, v. 347, n. 9008, p. 1099-1100, 1966.
• MARQUES, Mara R. Alves; SILVA, Marcelo S. Pereira. O diretor da unidade escolar frente as tendências da gestão da escola pública na região do triângulo mineiro. Educação em Foco, Juiz de Fora, mar. 2004/fev. 2005.
• MARTINS, Ana P. Maioli; BOCANELLI, Cláudio R. O papel do diretor de escola frente aos novos desafios da gestão escolar. Colloquium Humanarum, Presidente Prudente, v. 7, n. 2, p. 80-85, jul./dez. 2010.
• NASCIMENTO, Leandro G. M. Políticas públicas de formação do gestor escolar na Rede Municipal de Salvador-B: uma análise do curso de gestão escolar. 2015. 114 f. Dissertação (Mestrado Profissional em Gestão e Tecnologia Aplicada à Educação) – Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Salvador, 2015.
• OGAWA, Mary N.; FILIPAK, Sirley T. A formação do gestor escolar. In: SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL SOBRE PROFISSIONALIZAÇÃO DOCENTE, 4., 2013, Curitiba. Anais... Curitiba: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, 2013. p. 94-108.
• PARO, Vítor H. Administração escolar: introdução crítica. São Paulo: Cortez, 2008.
• RIBEIRO, Helena C. Diretor escolar: novos desafios, novas funções. 2012. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação) – Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, 2012.
• RUSSO, Miguel H. Planejamento e burocracia na prática escolas: sentidos que assumem na escola pública. Revista Brasileira de Política e Administração da Educação, Goiânia, v. 32, n. 1, p. 193-210, jan./abr. 2016.
• SANCHES, Cida; MARIETTO, Márcio Luiz; PAIXÃO, Marisa Regina. Desenvolvimento e validação de questionário multidimensional, por meio da lógica paraconsistente, para medir a práxis de gestão de responsabilidade socioambiental. In: SIMPÓSIO DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO DA PRODUÇÃO. LOGÍSTICA E OPERAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS, 14., 2011, São Paulo. Anais... São Paulo: Simpoi, 2011. p. 1-16.
• SANCHES, Cida; MEIRELES, Manuel; SORDI, José Osvaldo de. Análise qualitativa por meio da lógica paraconsistente: método de interpretação e síntese de informação obtida por escalas Likert. In: ENCONTRO DE ENSINO E PESQUISA EM ADMINISTRAÇÃO E CONTABILIDADE, 3., 2011, João Pessoa. Anais... João Pessoa: Anpad, 2011. p. 1-17.
• SANTANA, Sabrina da Silva; GOMES, Roseli da Silva; BARBOSA, Joelma Sampaio. O papel do gestor na elaboração e execução do projeto político pedagógico numa visão democrática. Cadernos de Pedagogia, São Carlos, v. 6, n. 11, p. 62-73, jul./dez. 2012.
• SOUZA, Ângelo R. de. Diretor escolar. In: OLIVEIRA, Dalila Andrade; DUARTE, Adriana Cancella; VIEIRA, Lívia Fraga. Dicionário: trabalho, profissão e condição docente. Belo Horizonte: UFMG/Faculdade de Educação, 2010. CD-ROM. p. 1-5. Disponível em:<http://www.gestrado.net.br/?pg=dicionario-verbetes&id=147> Acesso em: 2015.
  » http://www.gestrado.net.br/?pg=dicionario-verbetes&id=147
• SOUZA, Ângelo R. de. O perfil da gestão escolar no Brasil. 2006. Tese (Doutorado em Educação) – Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2006.
• SOUZA, Antônio L. L. de. Direção escolar. In: OLIVEIRA, Dalila Andrade; DUARTE, Adriana Cancella; VIEIRA, Lívia Fraga. Dicionário: trabalho, profissão e condição docente. Belo Horizonte: UFMG/Faculdade de Educação, 2010. CD-ROM. p. 1-4. Disponível em:<http://www.gestrado.net.br/?pg=dicionario-verbetes&id=147 Acesso em: 2015.
  » http://www.gestrado.net.br/?pg=dicionario-verbetes&id=147
• VANDRESEN, Ana S. Ribeiro; FREITAS, Maria do Carmo Duarte. Conhecimentos administrativos necessários para o gestor. 2014. Disponível em: <http://www.diaadiaeducacao.pr.gov.br/portals/pde/arquivos/352-4.pdf Acesso em: fev. 2015.
  » http://www.diaadiaeducacao.pr.gov.br/portals/pde/arquivos/352-4.pdf
• VEIGA, Ilma Passos Alencastro (Org.). Projeto Político-Pedagógico da Escola: uma construção possível. 24. ed. Campinas: Papirus, 2004.
• VIEIRA, Sonia. Como elaborar questionários. São Paulo: Atlas, 2009.
• WILDER JR., J. Welles. New concepts in technical trading systems. New York: Trends Research, 1981.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  25 June 2018
• Date of issue
  2018

History

• Received
  25 Jan 2017
• Reviewed
  09 May 2017
• Accepted
  05 July 2017