PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro: three institutional arrangements of implementation

– PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro: three institutional arrangements of implementation. The article works with the literature on public policies in the study of the implementation of the National Pact for Literacy at the Right Age (PNAIC, in Portuguese) in the state of Rio de Janeiro. The analysis highlights the collaboration between the State Secretariat of Education and the municipalities of Rio de Janeiro and the partnership with the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) and the National Union of Municipal Education Leaders (UNDIME), which shared the coordination of the Pact throughout its term in the state. Among the main findings, it is possible to point the creation of specific departments, in the municipal secretariats, to take care of literacy policies, the inclusion of professors and students from normal schools and from the Pedagogy degree program at UFRJ in training initiatives and a greater motivation of professors for training in higher, graduate, and postgraduate courses.


Introduction
In recent decades, the production of public policies has become more complex because it started to involve the active participation of different spheres of the government, of state and non-state actors in the processes of formulation and implementation. This article concerns the literature on public policies and mobilizes concepts and authors in this field for the study of the National Literacy Pact in the Right Age (PNAIC, in Portuguese), aiming at understanding the way in which state and non-state actors at different levels of government acted in the production of this public policy. More specifically, the article aims to analyze the institutional arrangements for implementing PNAIC in the state of Rio de Janeiro between 2013 and 2019 and their variations over time, since the program was affected by national party-political issues, which influenced the reconfiguration of the initial proposal and its subsequent discontinuity.
PNAIC shared with other national educational initiatives, such as the Goal 5 of the National Education Plan (PNE, in Portuguese) 1 and the National Literacy Assessment (ANA, in Portuguese), and with educational systems, the challenge of promoting literacy for all children at the beginning of schooling. Established 2 by the federal government in 2012, PNAIC represented a policy to prompt states and municipalities to teach all the children to read and write until the literacy cycle is completed, at the end of the third year of elementary school.
Considered as a pedagogical block, the literacy cycle consists of the first three years of elementary school, according to the National Curriculum Guidelines (DCN, in Portuguese) 3 . Required by law (Brasil, 2010), even schools that organize their curriculum in a serial way must treat the literacy cycle as a single block, not subject to interruption, "aimed at expanding to all students the opportunities for systematization and deepening of basic learning, essential for the continuation of their studies" (Brasil, 2010, art. 30 § 1).
PNAIC was a policy that involved federative relations between the federal government and states and between these and the municipalities, in addition to state and non-state actors, which will be analyzed from political science references, examining as an empirical occurrence the specific case of the state of Rio de Janeiro. These references involve the concept of institutional implementation arrangement (Pires, 2016;Gomide, 2016; and the concepts of multi-layering and multi-level implementation (Hill;Hupe, 2003), which, jointly, direct our gaze to the articulation between different actors participating in PNAIC, and to the governance, the decisionmaking processes and the degrees of autonomy and discretion of their agents Galvão;.
The mobilization of these references is relevant to the analysis of this educational policy connected to the political-institutional arrangement, typified in the Federal Constitution of 1988 (CF/88), which instituted a tripartite federalism with the distribution of competences among the three federative spheres -the Union, states and municipalities -preserving their political autonomy.
The Pact's design accounted for collaborative actions among the three government bodies, in addition to including other state actors from Federal Higher Education Institutions (IES, in Portuguese) and non-state actors from the National Union of Municipal Education Leaders (UNDIME, in Portuguese). The collaboration regime, provided for in CF/88, assumes mutual understanding between federative entities and cooperation in favor of greater intergovernmental balance in the provision of public policies, in order to reduce the negative consequences of decentralization on the increase of state and municipal educational inequality.
With a focus on training literacy teachers, PNAIC presented a complex structure, with multiple actors from different levels of government -federal, state and municipal -and organizations -the Ministry of Education (MEC, in Portuguese), state and municipal secretariats of education, universities and schools -in addition to several mandates, resources, powers and legal instruments, as well as coordination mechanisms, negotiation and decision-making spaces, and different demands for transparency and accountability, and control.
PNAIC has its antecedents in previous national initiatives of teacher training and focus on literacy, such as the Literacy Teacher Training Program (PROFA, in Portuguese), 2001, andPró-Letramento, 2005. It is also clearly inspired by the Literacy Program at the Right Age (PAIC, in Portuguese) that started in 2007 in the state of Ceará to support municipalities in raising the quality of learning to read and write in the first grades of elementary school. After the implementation of the PAIC, there was a significant improvement in Ceará's educational indicators related to elementary education. All the municipalities improved their results in the external evaluations of the Permanent System of Evaluation of Basic Education in Ceará (SPAECE, in Portuguese), of Prova Brasil and in the Basic Education Development Index (IDEB), as shown by several studies about the subject (Calderón;Raquel;Cabral, 2015;Correa, 2018;Mota, 2018;Vieira;Vidal, 2013).
Graph 1 presents IDEB results of the initial years of elementary school in Ceará, in other states of the Northeast region, and in Brazil.
The data highlight the evolution of this indicator since 2005. In this year, Ceará's IDEB was 2.8 -close to the average for the Northeast Region (2.7) and far below the national average (3.6). From 2007 onthe year of implementation of PAIC -, Ceará's results began to increase, reaching 6.3 in 2019, placing the state above the national average (5.7) and far above the average of the Northeast region (5.2).

Graph 1 -IDEB of the Northeastern states and of Brazil between 2005 and 2019
Source: Designed by the author based on data from the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research (INEP) (2020).
The inspiration for PNAIC in PAIC is related not only to the good educational results in Ceará, but also to the collaborative model between the state and the municipalities that, mediated by technicalpedagogical advisory actions and guidance of management processes, provided the strengthening of the educational policy of Ceará's municipalities.
In the same manner as PAIC, PNAIC was conceived as a policy for training literacy teachers, supported by collaborative relationships among the federal government, states and municipalities, and mediated by a network of state, regional and local training and management structures, which sought an approach to the teachers and to the municipal public schools. Despite the collaborative model adopted, the Pact drew the scholars' attention for its focus on literacy and teacher training (Aguiar;Carneiro, 2020;Axer, 2019;Couto;Gonçalves, 2016;among others). This article adopts a different perspective, which emphasizes issues involved with the implementation of PNAIC and mobilizes references from political science authors in the study of the configuration and reconfiguration of this policy by the federal government and the state of Rio de Janeiro.
The study has us ed document analysis -laws, ordinances and resolutions, normative and regulatory frameworks of PNAIC -and interviews with literacy teachers, trainers and policy coordinators in the state of Rio de Janeiro, and with two secretaries of the Basic Education Secretariat of MEC (SEB/MEC), who acted on this position in different periods of validity of the policy.
The article is structured in four sections, in addition to this introduction. In the next section, the concepts of institutional arrangement of implementation and of multi-layering and multi-level contexts are presented. Then, we approach the design of PNAIC and, subsequently, the different configurations it assumed in the state of Rio de Janeiro between 2013 and 2019. In the fourth section, we make the final considerations.

Institutional Arrangement and Decision-Making Process
Implementation -the moment when the policy is put into actionhas only recently gained prominence in public policy studies. Although the policy cycle model is one of the most used and has at least four stages -agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation and evaluation -, until recently, most public policy analysis focused only on the formulation and the evaluation.
In the implementation studies, the institutional arrangement approach Pires, 2014; has contributed to the understanding of new policy configurations in complex politicalinstitutional contexts, such as those involving federative relationships, actors from different government and bureaucratic levels, as well as from civil society.
The implementation arrangement designates "the set of rules, mechanisms and processes that define the particular way in which actors and interests are coordinated in the implementation of a specific public policy" (GOMIDE; PIRES, 2014, p. 19). This arrangement conditions the State's ability to achieve its objectives in the process of implementing public policies.
This approach co nsiders that institutional arrangements matter because they directly interfere with the achievement of public policy objectives. Thus, based on the objectives of a policy, its outcomes are seen as a result of the configuration established for its implementation, as well as the existence of representative, participatory and controlling institutions and the promoted state capacities. Figure 1 illustrates the concept.
According to Gomide and Pires (2014, p. 20), the arrangement is capable of promoting technical-administrative and political state capacities. The technical-administrative dimension refers to the "competence of the State agents to mobilize coordinated and oriented actions to produce the intended results". Thus, technical-administrative capacity is concerned with the organizations' human, technological and financial resources, coordination mechanisms and monitoring strategies. In turn, the political dimension refers to the abilities of the executive actors to expand communication channels, dialogue, negotiation and consensus building for the realization of a public policy (Pires, 2016). Political capacity corresponds, more specifically, to the interaction between bureaucracies and political and legislative agents, to the existence of forms of social participation and to the performance of controlling bodies. These aspects and dimensions are involved with a greater or lesser state capacity to implement a policy.
The model developed by Gomide and Pires (2014) and Pires (2016) proposes the analysis of public policies based on five main steps: i) identification of the objectives of the policy, program or project under study; ii) identification of the actors involved directly or indirectly; iii) identification of processes, mechanisms and spaces that organize the relationships between the actors in policy management; iv) assessment of state capabilities produced by the arrangement; v) assessment of the effects of arrangements and their capabilities on observed or projected results. According to Pires and Gomide (2016), the results can be analyzed in terms of the achievement of goals and/or innovation of a policy. The authors relate the achievement of goals to the technical capacity of the actors to promote the intended products and deliverables, while the innovation capacity concerns how much a project has changed or improved its objectives or management processes by decision and action of its actors, when compared to the design foreseen in its formulation.
The concept of institutional arrangement of implementation seems relevant to the study of a policy such as PNAIC, which establishes specific objectives and forms of coordination, with a view to promoting collaborative actions between different governmental bodies -federal, state and municipal -, involving political agents of the federal executive, MEC and state and municipal secretariats of education, as well as the different levels of the educational bureaucracy, which have different degrees of decision-making autonomy in the process of producing and delivering this policy. This diversified set with multiple dimensions and actors, while posing challenges of coordination of different orders, also tends to expand the potential for reviewing, learning and innovating for those responsible for this public policy. Hill and Hupe (2003) differentiate two levels of decision involving political and technical actors, based on the concepts of multi-layering and multi-level. In the first case, PNAIC involved multiple layers of government (multi-layering) and, therefore, the separation of powers among federal, state and municipal governments, whose actors have autonomy and a legitimate mandate to transform the policy and to reformulate it. We are, thus, within the scope of relationships that need to mobilize political mechanisms of persuasion and negotiation to promote adherence to the policy. In the case of PNAIC, this was expressed in the use of the term "pact" in the name of the policy, thus anticipating the adoption of a perspective of agreements and consensus between the federative layers, as provided for in the Federal Constitution through the collaboration regime (CF/88, art. 211). Multilayered relationships are concerned with how, in the process of formulating and executing public policies, each federative sphere relates to and takes responsibility for the policy with the others. In the case of PNAIC, these multi-layered relationships involved the federal government, states and municipalities.
The muti-level concept, on the other hand, refers to the fact that public policies are produced at different bureaucratic levels that involve different degrees of hierarchy and subordination and require coordination between state and non-state actors, and the mobilization of different forms of incentive, command and control. In the case of PNAIC, the different bureaucratic levels involved agents from public universities, state and municipal secretariats of education and public schools, linked to the implementation of the policy at the municipal level.
The concepts of implementation arrangement and multi-layering and multi-level implementation direct our gaze to the coordination of actions between different actors participating in PNAIC and to the governance, the decision-making processes and the degrees of autonomy and discretion Galvão;Favareto, , p. 2763) of these agents, and constitute the main references for the analysis of the specificities of the Pact in the state of Rio de Janeiro.

PNAIC
PNAIC was launched nationally by the federal government and required a broad work of dialogue and negotiation to encourage the adhesion of states and municipalities. The involvement of these federative layers in PNAIC arrangement demanded from the federal government an effort to coordinate political actors and to build consensus, proving to have a significant ability to act on points of conflict and to promote dialogue with governors and mayors and with the secretariats of educa-PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro tion. This fact preceded the launch of PNAIC, as reported in an interview by the secretary of Basic Education 4 from MEC.
It [PNAIC] starts with several actions, and among them is to convince, to dialogue with the state and municipal education secretaries. Then, a process of sensitization, which had as the protagonist the own Presidency of the Republic, in dialogue with governors and mayors. (Secretary of Basic Education, MEC, 2012, emphasis added).
The consensus reached between the state and municipal executives -governors, mayors and education secretaries -was materialized in the adhesion of the 26 states and the Federal District, and 5,276 of the 5,570 Brazilian municipalities 5 (MEC, 2013). A convincing work was carried out with the states, whose adhesion was a condition for the municipalities to adhere to PNAIC. The institutional arrangement of this policy, as in the case of PAIC in Ceará, was clearly informed by the collaboration regime and gave state governments an important role in coordinating actions with the municipalities.
The implementation of PNAIC depended on political actors and also on actors of different bureaucratic levels located in MEC, and in state and municipal secretariats of education, schools, universitieswho acted in the training of literacy teachers and in the management of the Pact.
The training activities involved the constitution of a network of teachers with a multiplier framework. The federal universities, chosen according to criteria defined in the public notice, qualified the regional trainer. This trainer gave the training course to the study advisors 6 (or local trainers) who finally trained the literacy teachers.
The universities had a prominent place in this policy, being an important institutional actor. The federal government's dialogue with public universities in its own network whose autonomy is constitutionally guaranteed (Brasil, 1988, art. 207), is added to the institutional role attributed by PNAIC to public universities and the financial incentives mobilized. These initiatives can be considered as part of the mechanisms of federal government and MEC to mobilize the adhesion of public institutions of higher education to the program. In all, 41 public universities, mostly federal, participated in PNAIC, at least one in each state.
There was also a whole coordination and dialogue work with the universities to which the resources were transferred, since they were responsible for the development of training actions with literacy teachers (Secretary of Basic Education, MEC, 2012, emphasis added).
The control and administration of PNAIC's resources were under the responsibility of the universities, but, in each state, a state collegiate, a Management Committee, should carry out the state coordination of the program with the municipalities.
The structure of the Management Committee should involve a state collegiate with representatives from the State Secretariat of Edu-cation, the training higher education institution, UNDIME, the National Union of Municipal Education Councils (UNCME, in Portuguese) and the National Council of Secretaries of Education (CONSED, in Portuguese). In PNAIC, the presence of these entities is linked to the institutionalization of participatory and controlling spaces. The formulation of the Pact emphasized the "strengthening of education councils, school councils and other bodies committed to the quality of education in states and municipalities" (Brasil, 2012a, p. 14), reinforcing the importance of collective participation and convergence of interests between state and non-state actors.
The main attributions of the Management Committee were the institutional coordination of PNAIC in each state and the political mobilization of the actors involved. Within the scope of the Management Committee, the training coordinator from the university was responsible for the general coordination of PNAIC in the state.
The municipal coordination oversaw the municipal secretariats of education and constituted the space for the management of the program within the scope of the municipal teaching network, with the secretariats being responsible for the relationship with the schools, for monitoring the actions and for the dialogue with the state, regional and central coordination. Each municipality had at least one local coordinator, with the function of "maintaining a permanent communication channel with the State or Municipal Council of Education and with the School Councils, aiming to disseminate the Pact's actions" (Brasil, 2017, p. 12).
The PNAIC structure counted with the participation of several actors -coordinators, supervisors, trainers, study advisors and literacy teachers -whose profiles were defined by criteria established in ordinances indicating the actors, their responsibilities and attributions. The person responsible for providing continuing training to literacy teachers, for example, should be a teacher in public service in the municipality, who would receive training from the university and would manage a class of 25 literacy teachers. The calculation of the maximum number of literacy teachers and trainers was based on the data from the INEP School Census (Brasil, 2014a).
To achieve the objective of teaching all children to read and write until the end of the literacy cycle, PNAIC's actions were structured around four axes: i) On-site continuing training for literacy teachers; ii) Teaching materials, literary works and educational support games; iii) Systematic assessments; iv) Management, mobilization and social control.
According to the secretary of Basic Education of MEC (2012), in addition to the mobilization work and preparation of the legal basis for implementing PNAIC, other resources were also made available for literacy teachers provided for in axis ii. As a strategy to expand the reach of the policy, for example, children's literature books were distributed by the federal government directly to the schools, based on the number PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro of literacy classes, which increased the chances of this collection reaching students and teachers directly (Brasil, 2015).
It was also agreed with the municipalities, through the commitment made with the federal government in the act of the formal adhesion to the PNAIC, the implementation of a large-scale assessment of literacy that would allow subsidizing the development of the program with data. From this perspective, in 2013, ANA (National Literacy Assessment) was established as part of the Basic Education Assessment System (SAEB, in Portuguese). However, divergences between the federal government and universities led to the interruption of the regular application of ANA, which was only carried out in 2013, 2014 and 2016, and then discontinued during the term of PNAIC.
The representatives of the universities participating in the Pact disagreed with the publication of ANA's results and, many of them, also disagreed with the standardized assessment of literacy. The publicizing of the ANA results in 2016 created such a conflict that led to some universities leaving from the PNAIC and the discontinuation of the ANA.
The first thing we asked was that ANA was not disclosed, not made public. Most universities accepted it and others did not. There was a group that argued that the assessment of literacy should be different. [...] We explained that we did not want the publicization, but that we would follow up with the networks, but not the results publicization. [...] When the disclosure of ANA came, it ended everything (UFRJ professor).
In the scope of PNAIC, despite the evaluation being expected in the policy and agreed with the municipalities, the tension around ANA basically involved the universities and MEC. The municipalities were familiar with Provinha Brasil, applied to children in the initial phase of schooling and, thus, an instrument for inducing the municipalities' commitment to improving the literacy process in their schools.
On the other hand, the academic and pedagogical management of PNAIC training was under the responsibility of the federal universities, which also certified the trainers and literacy teachers who completed the training course. The certification of training activities, as well as the scholarships distributed by the National Fund for the Development of Education (FNDE, in Portuguese) played a strong inducing role in the adhesion of educational and school bureaucracies to PNAIC.
As a form of control, MEC developed a module called SISPACTO, which could be accessed over the internet and was part of the MEC's Integrated Monitoring, Execution and Control System (SIMEC, in Portuguese), for the follow-up and monitoring of PNAIC training actions.
All those actions and people involved in PNAIC were registered in SISPACTO. From this register, the frequency and participation of the members of these teams were recorded (Brasil, 2013). Thus, the distribution of scholarships and certificates to participants of training activities was carried out based on the registration in the system of attendance and participation of the scholarship holders, what made SISPACTO a privileged instrument of regulation and control.
Ethical responsibility and accountability were present in this monitoring system, whose objective was to provide "agility and transparency to the processes of elaboration, analysis and monitoring of the Pact's actions" (Brasil, 2015, p. 41).
The transfer of financial resources in the form of scholarships and the offer of technical-pedagogical assistance to states and municipalities that adhered to the program played a strong inducing role in the implementation of PNAIC.
In PNAIC, the universities were responsible for the continuing training of teachers and for the management of the program. The original element of the Pact is management. In previous national teacher training policies, the role of universities was limited to technical advice and the development of pedagogical material. Among the programs that preceded PNAIC, universities were first involved in policy design with the Literacy Teacher Training Program (PROFA, in Portuguese), in 2001, and, later, with the Pró-Letramento, in 2005, which emphasized training activities for literacy teachers and were also formulated and coordinated by the federal government.
In the initial arrangement of PNAIC, universities played a central role in the configuration and mainly in the management of the policy. This role was changed by a new federal government legislation 7 in 2017, which provided for replacement of the universities in the general coordination of PNAIC by state secretariats of education.
As reported in an interview by the secretary of Basic Education of MEC (2015), this change sought to ensure that there was greater participation and alignment of states and municipalities with PNAIC, with a greater role for state and municipal secretariats of education in the administration and execution of the program.
There was a clear intention to give the Secretariats the role of protagonist, with the performance of this Management Committee, and in the attributions that this Management Committee came to have. But, in addition, there was a management structure in this proposal. [...] And that the state and municipal secretariats of education could find ways to adjust their work plan, with the programs of the secretariats that had similar or identical objectives to PNAIC (Secretary of Basic Education, MEC, 2015, emphasis added).
The measure gave the state management a prominent place in the task of making the continuing training of literacy teachers gain institutionalization, sustainability and capillarity in the most distant municipalities. With the creation of state support structures aimed at monitoring the regions and PNAIC in the municipalities, it was intended to encourage collaborative actions between states and municipalities that were more autonomous and less dependent on federal induction. In this new perspective, the state coordination developed by the Management Committee represented a space to support the implementation of PNA-IC in the municipalities and the development of collaborative actions between states and municipalities.

PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro
This new configuration of the implementation of PNAIC was even defined at a time when a huge political crisis was looming in the national context.
As a national educational policy, PNAIC was affected by the consequences arising from political, social, and economic instability, which culminated in the impeachment process against President Dilma Rousseff, in 2016. Among many consequences of this crisis, one of the most severe aspects was the progressive contingency of resources, which resulted in Constitutional Amendment 95 (Brasil, 2016) -a measure that limited public spending on education and health for 20 years, and which led to the discontinuation of several federal programs, including ANA and PNAIC itself. Thus, as a consequence of the confluence of questions posed by the trajectory of this policy with factors of an economic and political nature of the national context, PNAIC was discontinued by MEC at the end of 2018, as a result of the change of mandate in the federal government, after the election.
In Rio de Janeiro, however, the state Management Committee prepared a proposal to maintain this policy with the municipalities of the state. During the term of PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro, this committee was decisive for the configuration of the different arrangements of the program between 2013 and 2019.

Different Arrangements for Implementing PNAIC
Since its launch, the idea of the Pact has prompted the mobilization of various actors and institutions around the commitment to literacy and has played a role in inviting states and municipalities to participate and adhere.
The idea of the pact arises from the need for a broader mobilization of the country around the cause. It was not just another program, but a policy that could influence the engagement of municipal governments, state governments, an initiative of national mobilization. That was the idea of a pact, not a program anymore. Even if it was a plethora of initiatives within the Ministry of Education, with several focuses, but in any case, inspired by what was already happening in Ceará, a mobilization of all, right? A mobilization of federative entities, including, in a collaborative regime, with each other (Secretary of Basic Education, MEC, 2012, emphasis added).
Before the launch of PNAIC and the production of any document on the policy, the representatives of UNDIME and CONSED had participated in discussions with MEC, as reported by one of the representatives of UNDIME: "When the policy reaches the State, it is preceded by many previous discussions with MEC. Before the launch, UNDIME and CONSED had already participated in a lot of discussions with MEC".
At the same time of the negotiations between the federal government and organizations such as UNIDIME and CONSED, a public notice was launched for federal universities to present proposals for action in the training of literacy teachers. In Rio de Janeiro, only UFRJ joined the Pact, amid criticism from other universities in the state. Some points of conflict, such as the question of the right age for literacy -present in the name and objectives of PNAIC -and the understanding that the policy had components of accountability, created tensions among the university professors as well. The strategy adopted by UFRJ's group involved with the participation in the public notice was to use its discretionary space to minimize these internal points of conflict around the definition of the right age for literacy and the training of literacy teachers proposed by MEC in PNAIC. As the training of literacy teachers was already one of the fronts of UFRJ's extension activities, for the professors of the Faculty of Education who participated in the elaboration of the proposal, the adhesion to PNAIC could give a new territorial scope to its performance in the teachers' training, which was oriented towards promoting teacher autonomy and towards horizontal forms of interaction between the university and the school.
And one of the tactics was not to emphasize so much the question of the right age, but to work with this perspective of a teacher who can develop his or her autonomy, who produces knowledge at school, who is able to constitute him/herself as a teacher in practice, the university-school relationship as a horizontal relationship, in short, these are the principles that we defend (UFRJ Professor).
The UFRJ professor in charge of coordinating PNAIC was guided by MEC to contact the coordinator of Rio de Janeiro's State Secretariat of Education (SEEDUC) and the representative of UNDIME. The training activities were developed in study centers, based on the organizational structure of SEEDUC. Thus, UFRJ, SEEDUC and UNDIME constituted the State Management Committee that acted on the state coordination activities with the 92 municipalities in Rio de Janeiro that joined PNAIC in 2013. The training took place on an itinerant basis in study center cities.
She [SEEDUC representative] signaled to us: 'you can't set up the study center that way', because we, from the university, had no experience of setting up regional study centers throughout the state and SEEDUC has experience with this, and from there we set up the study center in a collaborative way. These kinships made the work function in a collaborative way: SEEDUC showed us a territorial reality that we did not know, and the university developed the training (UFRJ Professor).
This form of management fostered the development of training activities in study center cities and in regional seminars and promoted an encounter between municipal secretariats and state secretariat, and between the university and the municipalities of Rio de Janeiro.
In relation to previous teacher training policies, PNAIC made progress by investing in dialogue with the daily practice of teachers, expanding discussions on literacy methodologies. The relevance of these discussions can be better assessed when one considers that literacy methods constitute a traditional and fierce field of dispute. There was even disagreement on the part of the university with the theoretical PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro perspective which supported the didactic material of PNAIC prepared by the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), an institution selected for this activity through a public notice. The critics pointed out that it was a "material made just by them, [...] a homogenizing thing for the whole country", according to the report of one of the interviewed UFRJ professors. The movement of public universities around this criticism led UFPE to accept the proposal of the Forum of Universities participating in PNAIC, in the sense that the material would be collectively prepared by the 39 universities involved in the Pact, as occurred since 2015. The forum was one of the channels of dialogue between the federal government, the state secretariats education, the university and the civil society, since the members of the Management Committee of each state and representatives of MEC participated in the meetings.
The configuration of the first institutional arrangement of PNAIC is illustrated in Figure 2. The institutional actors that made up the Management Committee are presented horizontally, and the actors involved in the training activities, vertically.

Fi gure 2 -Institutional arrangement for implementing PNAIC (2013-2016)
Source: Designed by the author based on the 2014a Guiding Document.
The continuing education of literacy teachers was developed based on a multiplier model, in which the UFRJ coordination trained supervisors, who prepared trainers who, in turn, trained study advisors and these, the literacy teachers. This first configuration of PNAIC was in line with previous literacy programs conducted by MEC during Fernando Haddad's administration, which signals a line of continuity between policies that could favor the construction of institutional learning and municipal consensus.
Subsequently, the changes that took place in 2017 went against the leading role of universities. According to the new orientation of the federal government, the state secretariats of education should replace the universities in the general coordination of PNAIC, taking over the management of resources destined to training activities and the release of scholarships, upon authorization in SISPACTO. Under this new institutional arrangement of PNAIC, universities could remain in the coordination of continuing training, as long as they were invited to this role by the state secretariat of education. This new arrangement meant a loss of the positional value and the leading role that universities had in the first version of PNAIC, as well as the attempt to strengthen state coordination and municipal participation in PNAIC.
When I started at the Secretariat, I advocated a proximity between PNAIC and the state and municipal secretariats of education, trying to ensure that there was a participation of the management body and that they acquired a certain prominence in the administration and execution of the program (Secretary of Basic Education, MEC, 2015).
As it involves different federative layers, the objective of this change was to encourage dialogue and collaboration among subnational governments so that training activities could reach schools and classrooms, improving the performance of managers and teachers and the literacy of students.
For this end, it was necessary to build permanent collaboration networks that would reach greater capillarity in the development of PNAIC, at a time when a political crisis of major proportions was being announced on the national scene. With the impeachment process against President Dilma Rousseff, both the Minister of Education and the Secretary of Basic Education of MEC handed over their positions, but in view of the national political crisis, they sheltered the coordination of PNAIC at the state level.
In this new configuration, continuing training should be extended in order to serve not only teachers of the literacy cycle, but also those of early childhood education who worked in preschool, pedagogical coordinators of public institutions of early childhood education and the literacy cycle, as well as the school articulators and learning mediators of public schools participating in Programa Novo Mais Educação (PNME), as can be seen in Figure 3. The coordination of the PNAIC management ( Figure 3) was transferred to the state secretariats of education. Universities could maintain the coordination of training activities at the invitation of the secretariats, but they would lose their seat on the State Management Committee.
The state of Rio de Janeiro, however, chose to maintain the original structure of the Management Committee, which included, in addition to the state coordinator of SEEDUC and the UNDIME coordinator, UFRJ coordination. In this way, the university remained responsible not only for the continuing training, but also for managing the Pact, with SEEDUC controlling the granting of scholarships, through the monitoring in SISPACTO.
The decision from SEEDUC and UNDIME to keep UFRJ in the coordination of PNAIC is the result of the collaboration between the university and the secretary of education promoted by the first version of the institutional arrangement, the scope and recognition of the training action under the responsibility of UFRJ and also the significant closeness between the university and the secretariats of education of the 92 cities in Rio de Janeiro that adhered to the policy. On the other hand, the change proposed by the federal government, if implemented, would probably compromise the continuity of the program in the state, which was going through a serious economic and political crisis, exacerbated by investigations into corruption crimes committed by governors in previous administrations.
The institutional arrangement of PNAIC configured, since its first version, an implementation context with considerable space for the actors' discretion and for policy adjustments. This was the case, for example, of the change promoted by the Forum of Universities, which shifted the responsibility for the design and elaboration of support materials for the training of literacy teachers at UFPE to a collective of universities involved with the Pact. It was also the case of changes in the way of managing expenses within the scope of PNAIC, when the administration of the financial resources 8 of the Pact in Rio de Janeiro prioritized training in study center cities to which other surrounding municipalities sent their teachers. This logistics allowed for savings in financial resources, which were partly invested in other actions, such as the publication of books with reports on the experience of teacher training and the construction of a website to expand communication between teachers.
In addition to these actions, and with the panorama of closing PNAIC's activities by the federal government at the end of 2018, the State Coordination of Rio de Janeiro proposed to the municipalities that the literacy policy should not be interrupted, regardless of the discontinuity of the Pact by the MEC. This initiative was justified by the need to deepen the "collaborative experience lived between SEEDUC, UN-DIME, UFRJ and the municipal teaching networks, since 2013, in the training of literacy teachers" (Rio de Janeiro, 2019, p. 11). The proposal to continue the policy emerged during one of the UNDIME forums, with representatives of the Public Ministry and the PNAIC Management Committee in the state of Rio de Janeiro. The group defended the maintenance of the partnership between the state secretariat, UFRJ and the municipal secretariats of education, in favor of improving the literacy of students in municipal schools in the state. This demand led to the formulation, by the state coordination, of a proposal to help the municipalities of Rio de Janeiro to set up literacy councils or centers in their respective municipal secretariats.
The continuity of the policy was also guaranteed by the management of financial resources in the Rio de Janeiro context, which enabled the continuity of the program and its management by the tripartite Management Committee, involving SEEDUC, UNDIME and UFRJ.
As recorded in the Guiding Document of the state proposal for 2019 (Rio de Janeiro, 2019), the organization of work teams was planned for the constitution of a network of professionals focused on literacy, in addition to supporting municipalities in the formation of teams for planning, monitoring, and carrying out literacy actions. Based on these initiatives, the Rio de Janeiro Management Committee took on the role of coordinating the implementation of the literacy policy in municipal secretariats.
The new proposal formulated at the state level to be implemented in 2019 -when PNAIC had already been discontinued at the national level by the federal government -had the adhesion of 75 of the 92 municipalities in the state of Rio de Janeiro and was consolidated in a letter of commitment through which the municipal secretaries committed themselves to the literacy of children enrolled in their teaching networks.
A commitment letter was made in which all municipal secretaries signed and committed to making literacy effective in their networks, in favor of Goal five of the PNE (Representative of the State Secretariat of Education).

PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro
This way, a third arrangement was created for the implementation of the literacy teacher training policy that sought to strengthen collaboration between the state and the municipalities.
The arrangement in force throughout 2019 innovated by including the training of high school teachers and students from Normal schools (Teacher Training Schools). It was a decision based on the fact that the state of Rio de Janeiro maintains 95 Teacher Training Schools under its responsibility, which annually train around 8,000 teachers to work in the early years of elementary school and, therefore, in the literacy cycle. The justification also mentioned the finding that among literacy teachers working in municipal networks in the state of Rio de Janeiro, 36.5% had only the Teacher Training course (high school level). Figure 4 presents a third arrangement of the literacy teacher training policy in the state of Rio de Janeiro, a variation of the experience promoted by PNAIC. In this new configuration, the State Management Committee makes decisions about the priorities of policy coordination based on the territorial diagnosis, thus enabling a collaboration regime better adjusted to the diversity of Rio de Janeiro's municipalities. The training activities in 2019 also included the participation of female students from the Pedagogy degree program from UFRJ Faculty of Education. These students often reported that "[…] they learned more in a PNAIC seminar than in a whole semester of a curricular subject".
The third arrangement did not provide incentives or financial support for the participation of literacy teachers and for local trainers or coordinators. The training activities took place through regional seminars in different study center cities in the state and through webconferences. The hybrid model of face-to-face and remote training tried to supply the absence of trainers who occupied intermediate functions (regional and local).
One of the ways to evaluate the result of a public policy is to analyze the achievement of goals or the introduction of innovation (Pires and Gomide, 2016). In the case of PNAIC, the instrument par excellence for measuring the achievement of goals in terms of improving student literacy indicators would be ANA, which was discontinued while PNAIC was valid at the national level.
In terms of innovation, however, unexpected or innovative results from PNAIC were expressed in the extension of training to teachers and students from Teacher Training schools in the state and as recorded in several interviews, in the fact that many literacy teachers in the municipalities of Rio de Janeiro seek continuity of their training in higher education, graduate and postgraduate studies. Several teachers reported, during training meetings and interviews, that PNAIC's activities motivated the search for more training, and, in some cases, the continuity of training at a higher level was made possible by the scholarship received from the program.
Although it was planned in the formulation of PNAIC, it is still relevant that the Management Committee of Rio de Janeiro has assumed the role of coordinating the implementation of literacy policies in the municipal secretariats also in the third configuration, even without the participation of MEC. By including a term of commitment between the state secretariat and the municipalities that adhered to the 2019 proposal, it was possible to create councils or municipal sectors dedicated to literacy, expanding the state capacity of municipalities within the scope of education secretariats.

Final Considerations
This article examined PNAIC implementation arrangements, with an emphasis on policy configurations in the state of Rio de Janeiro. To this end, we examined the literature on public policies, looking for concepts and theories as a reference for the understanding of these arrangements and their variations between 2013 and 2019. The analysis indicated that PNAIC was marked by the mobilization of a variety of organizations and actors from different federative layers, composing a network of state and non-state actors responsible for different actions in the implementation process. In this network, the collaboration between SEEDUC and the municipalities of Rio de Janeiro and the partnership with UFRJ stands out, and that among state actors who assumed key roles in the production and delivery of PNAIC to literacy teachers. It is also worth mentioning the partnership with non-state actors, such as the one that the state and municipal secretariats of education maintained with UNDIME, a civil society institution that acted in the coordination of PNAIC in the state, also in 2019.
The analysis identified three implementation arrangements: the first characterized by channels of dialogue and negotiation on the part of the executive (MEC) -which allowed the processing of conflicts and the construction of necessary consensus for the implementation of PNAIC on a national scale. One of the results of this study is that the Forum of Universities, which brought together public universities participating in PNAIC and representatives of MEC, was the channel through which the conflict generated by the universities' dissatisfaction with the teaching material originally adopted by the Pact was processed. The collective elaboration, by the 39 public universities involved in PNAIC, of a new substitute teaching material, materialized the proposal built within the forum.
Another finding indicates that, in the configuration of the second arrangement, the normative changes related to the management of PNAIC shifted the coordination from universities to state secretariats of education, in an attempt to strengthen educational management and the regime of collaboration between states and municipalities. This strengthening was also expressed in the increase in decision-making space for state educational managers, who could choose to assume the general coordination of PNAIC or to invite the university to continue to coordinate only the training actions. This normative change is at the origin of a new conflict that resulted in the departure of several universities from PNAIC, which general understanding was that the changes introduced in the management of the policy would indicate a progressive deconfiguration of the Pact, which would justify its discontinuity in several states. In the case of the state of Rio de Janeiro, the decision by SEEDUC went in the opposite direction and involved the invitation to UFRJ to continue coordinating PNAIC, thus enabling the continuity of the Pact.
The third finding indicates the active involvement of managers and teachers with PNAIC in the state of Rio de Janeiro, which resulted in the maintenance of the literacy teacher training policy still in 2019. This continuity expresses an understanding of PNAIC as a state policy and not a government policy, which opposes the termination of the program by MEC in 2018, in the context of a new political-party framework at the head of the federal executive. The mobilization of managers and teachers in Rio de Janeiro also gave rise to collaboration between the state and municipalities in the creation of specific sectors in the municipal education secretariats to take care of literacy policies.
Finally, the analysis of the arrangements showed that the implementation of PNAIC in Rio de Janeiro also produced unexpected and innovative results, such as the inclusion of teachers and students from Teacher Training schools and students of the UFRJ Pedagogy degree program in the literacy training initiatives, in addition to a greater motivation of part of the teachers who participated in PNAIC for the continuity of the formation in higher, graduate, and postgraduate courses.
Although the findings are only valid for the analyzed state experience, the study points out trends and analytical references that can guide policy analysis in other contexts.
The open topics that demand new studies concern the sustainability of cooperation between the university and the municipalities