Revista Brasileira de Educação do Campo
The Brazilian Scientific Journal of Rural Education
ARTIGO/ARTICLE/ARTÍCULO
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.2525-4863.2018v3n2p705
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
705
Este conteúdo utiliza a Licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Open Access. This content is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY
Education in the MST before the State and public policy of
Rural Education under the influence of multilateral
organizations
Vagner Luiz Kominkiéwicz
1
i
,
Adriana D’Agostini
2
1
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - UFSC. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação. Rua Padre Salvador, 875.
Florianópolis - SC. Brasil.
2
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - UFSC.
Author for correspondence: vagnerluka@gmail.com
ABSTRACT. This article deals with the Education of the MST
in its relationship with the State and multilateral organizations,
synthesized in the Rural Education Policy. Our research was
based on the analysis of the documents of the MST, the State
and multilateral organizations, interviews and questionnaires.
From this study we come to the conclusion that the class
character of education in the MST is subsumed to the consensus
that starts from the I ENERA, focused on the struggle for
education focused on the public policy of Rural Education,
representing a consensus between antagonistic class fractions.
We support the need for an education of the working class,
which in this moment is given with limits and contradictions,
but we recognize it as necessary for the construction of
experiences for an accumulation of future forces.
Keywords: MST Education, Rural Education, Class Struggle,
State, Public Policy.
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
706
A educação do MST diante do Estado e da política pública
de Educação do Campo sob influência dos organismos
multilaterais
RESUMO. Este artigo trata da Educação do MST em sua
relação com o Estado e os organismos multilaterais, sintetizada
na política de Educação do Campo. Nossa investigação
fundamentou-se na análise dos documentos do MST, do Estado
e dos organismos multilaterais, entrevistas e questionários. A
partir deste estudo, chegamos à conclusão que o caráter de
classe da educação no MST fica subsumido ao consenso que se
inicia a partir do I ENERA, focado na luta pela educação
centrada na política pública de Educação do Campo,
representando um consenso entre frações de classes antagônicas.
Apontamos para a necessidade de uma educação da classe
trabalhadora, que neste momento se dá com limites e
contradições, mas a reconhecemos como necessária para a
construção de experiências para um acúmulo de forças futuro.
Palavras-chave: Educação do MST, Educação do Campo, Luta
de Classes, Estado, Política Pública.
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
707
La educación en el MST del Estado y la política pública de
Educación Rural bajo influencia de los organismos
multilaterales
RESUMEN. Este artículo trata de la Educación del MST en su
relación con el Estado y los organismos multilaterales,
sintetizado en la política de Educación Rural. Nuestra
investigación se basó en el análisis de los documentos del MST,
del Estado y de los organismos multilaterales, entrevistas y
cuestionarios. A partir de este estudio llegamos a la conclusión
que el carácter de clase de la educación en el MST queda
subsumido al consenso que se inicia a partir del I ENERA,
enfocado en la lucha por la educación centrada en la política
pública de Educación Rural, representando un consenso entre
fracciones de clases antagónica. Aponemos para la necesidad de
una educación de la clase trabajadora, que en este momento se
da con límites y contradicciones, pero la reconocemos como
necesaria para la construcción de experiencias para una
acumulación de fuerzas futuras.
Palabras clave: Educación del MST, Educación Rural, Lucha
de Clases, Estado, Política Pública.
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
708
Introduction
This article is a result and part of a
master thesis that approaches the trajectory
of the MST
ii
education in its relationship
with the State, Multilateral Organizations
and the public policy of Rural Education.
The aim was to analyze in what extent
MST education keep its class perspective
in its relationship with the State,
Multilateral Organizations and the public
policy of Rural Education, pointing out to
possibilities in course. Based on Minayo
(2004), the study was supported by
bibliographical and documental research,
interviews and questionnaire.
In order to present the research by
means of this article, we divided the text
into three parts. In the first one, we
demonstrate that MST education arises
from a need for the land struggle and
consolidates itself as a tactical formulation
in the struggle for Agrarian Reform.
Although MST education presents
contradictions in its formulation, it bears in
mind a class perspective and a link with
the goals of this movement. In the second
part, we demonstrate that the class
perspective of MST education is reduced
to the consensus that arises subsequently
the I ENERA, focused on the struggle for
education centered on the public policy of
Rural Education, representing a consensus
between antagonistic class fractions.
Following the national conferences “Por
Uma Educação do Campo” (For a Rural
Education), the consensus arises. And we
conclude pointing out some tendencies for
MST education in the face of the class
struggle.
The construction of MST education
proposal
First discussions related to the
struggle for school began after land
occupation in the Encruzilhada Natalino
farm in 1981, as a consequence of parents
concerned with camped children. The first
steps of struggle for school are anchored in
the basic need for school to children
camped with their families in the primary
encampments (MST, 2005, p. 13).
For Paludo (2006, p. 16), education
for children, youth and adults was a
concern since the early years of the MST.
In 1980, the initial concern was with the
early years of children's education.
Already, “in 1981, the first isolated
experiences in youth and adults literacy
also began” (Paludo, 2007, p. 16, our
translation
iii
). According to the author,
education was not only a concern of
parents and teachers, but also of “of
leaderships and agents of mediation,
mainly linked to Liberation Theology and
combative syndicalism”
iv
(Paludo, 2007,
p. 16).
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
709
Gradually, education and school
articulate themselves to the struggle for
land. According to Dalmagro (2010, p.
168), they arose and are can be understood
by the need for the school claimed by the
struggle. This would be the initial feature
of the school in the MST. The links
between school, MST struggle and the
realization of Agrarian Reform were
established in the late 1980s when school
is articulated to the landless struggle. It is
when one advances to the understanding
that the school has the role of linking
knowledge and the educational process to
the organization of the settled
v
and to the
forms of work and organization.
According to Paludo (2007, p. 16), in
the beginning of MST education
construction, were laid the foundations to
strengthen the struggle for education as a
right in Brazilian society. Also, in this
period, were constructed basis for
discussions concerning what kind of school
was pursued for the settlements.
Based on the analysis of the MST
documents related to education, we
observe a convergence of ideas focused on
school linked to work and to development
of the settlements. Although we initially
pay attention that school was mainly
related to the struggle centered on social
transformation and to the formation of
MST militants, for us it seems to be a
focalization in the claims of the settlements
internal work. This seems more evident
when we analyze the document Boletim de
Educação (Education Bulletin) No. 4,
Escola, trabalho e cooperação (School,
work and cooperation), published in 1994.
It expresses the intention to base
theoretically the proposal of MST
education, presenting the link work and
education as fundamental “pillar”. There
is a defense of constructing a school based
on work dimensions and cooperation, a
school “of the worker, of the working
class”
vi
(MST, 2005, p. 89).
The document clearly defends
foundations on which the school should
help to build the settlement through
education related to work and cooperation.
Linked to the goals and challenges posed
to the MST in the period related to
cooperation and development of the
settlements, it defends that the school
“needs helping to make the settlement
works”
vii
(MST, 2005, p. 94). Also, school
should educate to agricultural cooperation;
prepare to the work and enable technically
the settled, and develop in children the
“love for work and for work in rural
area”
viii
(MST, 2005, p. 95). In that
document, there is a defense that school
should contribute to socialism
construction, preparing new generations to
fight for a “society without exploited
workers or exploiters”
ix
(MST, 2005, p.
95).
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
710
The trajectory of the school in the
MST goes from the struggle for school in
the settlements and encampments to the
State denial as educator of the people. The
State denial is based on the need to
construct a differentiated education from
the MST perspective. MST considers
insufficient the education offered by the
State for understanding that it does not
comply with the claims of the settled
families to overcome poverty, as well as it
does not improve the necessary
consciousness for the MST social
struggles.
Analyzing the periods of education
and school in the MST, Dalmagro (2010)
demonstrates that important elements are
presented from the 1990s. They highlight a
proposal for MST education that breaks
with the fundamental pillars of the
bourgeois school.
The rescue of the school issue in the
MST thus far allows us to identify
that the foundations for a reversal of
the school perspective in the political
and pedagogical aspects are laid. In
the first, because the school ceases to
form for bourgeois citizenship, on the
contrary, it aims the consciousness
formation to change the world. If it
continues to form for work, it is no
longer intended to be submitted to
the capitalist market, but seeking for
other social relations. Pedagogically,
the socialization of knowledge is no
longer taken as neutral and stagnant.
The construction of new appropriated
knowledge to a new development
model also appears as a challenge.
Changes are also proposed in the
organization of the school. Finally,
with more or less emphasis, the
fundamental pillars of the bourgeois
school are being rethought
x
(Dalmagro, 2010, p. 175).
According to D’Agostini (2009, p.
115), after the elaboration of the Princípios
da Educação (Principles of Education) in
the MST, by the National Sector of
Education in 1996
xi
, it is possible to notice
the class political position presented in the
humanist and socialist principles, elements
of the Marxist theory, of counter-
hegemonic pedagogies (especially in the
work Pedagogia do Oprimido by Paulo
Freire; the influence of the Russian
pedagogues and the Cuban José Martí) and
socialism as historical horizon. In the
document, we found the indication of
“works of some classical authors” that
influenced in its construction.
For Dalmagro (2010, p. 179), after
the elaboration of the Princípios de
Educação, by the sector of MST education,
the school notion is broaden, going beyond
primary school of encampment and
settlement, as well as of the sector of
education itself. There is not a break with
the fundamental guidelines before
produced by the sector of education.
Dalmagro analyzes that the change related
to the prior documents about the basis of
the MST education proposal is in the
enlargement of the way of seeing the
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
711
perspectives. “It is also broaden because
school goes to be seen based on an array of
educative practices that happen outside it,
even the educative actions produced by
MST struggle”
xii
(DALMAGRO, 2010, p.
179).
The Principles of MST education are
oriented by actions proposed by the
Movement. They result of practices
previously carried out by the MST and
that, accumulated, point out to two linked
assumptions: the philosophical and
pedagogical principles. The philosophical
principles refer to worldview, to general
conceptions related to human being, to
society and to MST understanding about
education. They refer to the strategic goals
of the educative work of the MST whereas
the pedagogical principles refer to the way,
to the method that aims to carry out the
philosophical principles.
Conforming to Dalmagro (2010, p.
179), it is after the elaboration of the
Principles that the MST recognizes that its
proposal of education should contribute to
class struggle. The author also highlights
other new ideas that arise with the
elaboration of principles or new emphases
that are attributed, such as: massive
education or education as right for all;
omnilateral education, or focused on the
various dimensions of the human being;
education for new values that affirm the
socialist perspective.
Following the Principles, it is
possible to affirm, in agreement with
D’Agostini (2009, p. 117), that:
The MST and its education have their
actions guided by class struggle in
rural area and the conviction of the
construction of a new society and,
consequently, of a new education
based on socialist and humanist
foundations/values such as:
collectivism, collective work,
socially useful work, work as an
educative principle, solidarity,
organization and self-organization of
students, the link theory and practice,
among others.
xiii
For Santos (2011, p. 173), class
struggle in rural area is the guiding
principle of the MST educational project,
added to the need to construct new social
relations of production. Thus, education
should be based on socialist and humanist
values. As described in the philosophical
principles of MST education, “education
for social transformation. This is the
horizon that defines the perspective of
MST education”
xiv
(MST, 2005, p. 161).
There is undoubtedly an intentionality, a
political perspective centered on the
struggle for social transformation.
The concern to construct an
education that opposes the State as
educator of the people and that is an
element of tactical formulation of the MST
in the struggle for Agrarian Reform and for
social transformation in which socialism is
the horizon, points out to a class education.
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
712
“It is rather to affirm an education related
to a class that aims at a horizon of social
transformation; an education that opens up
an universal range for knowledge”
xv
(Kominkiwicz & Dantas, 2013, p. 120).
Dealing with educational and
political reforms based on neoliberalism,
D’Agostini (2009, p. 166) considers that in
the 1990s the MST assumes a position of
resistance to neoliberal policies with a
class-based education proposal.
In 1996, MST education was
improved with the elaboration and
publication of MST educational principles.
Its proposal assumes a class perspective
when presents itself predisposed to the
struggle for social transformation.
However, other elements/contradictions
compose the MST education proposal
besides its class perspective. In agreement
with D’Agostini (2009), we stress that “the
theory treated as secondary and the
theoretical fragility of the MST education
proposal allow deviations in the political
and educational practice”
xvi
, mainly
regarding the theoretical eclecticism and
the fragmentation of pedagogical practice.
Araujo (2007, p. 316) also considers the
“lack of theoretical deepening of the MST
own pedagogical proposal” as a problem.
These elements of contradiction allow
opening to other educational conceptions
and to educational policies of the 1990s
multilateral organizations to enter into the
formulations of educational policies and
also of social and popular movements.
Besides the inherent limits in
education, the 1990s present an
environment of expansion of the MST to
society. The relevant fact is the foundation
of Via Campesina, in 1993 (Ribeiro &
Sobreiro Filho, 2012), of which the MST is
inserted and gains international projection.
The articulations are broadened –
international partnership –, allowing
greater visibility of the MST to society.
This expansion of the MST to society
enabled partnerships not only with
fractions of the same class. In 1995, for
instance, there is approximation of the
MST with fractions of antagonistic classes,
as we shall see later. In the next section,
we try to demonstrate how the class
perspective of the MST education proposal
is reduced after the relationship with
multilateral organizations and how the
conceptions of the general policy of these
organizations go towards MST education,
resulting in the Rural Education.
The consensus about Rural Education
After the “I Encontro Nacional das
Educadoras e Educadores da Reforma
Agrária (I ENERA) (First National
Meeting of the Agrarian Reform
Educators)”
xvii
, in 1997, the MST
committed to the struggle for education
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
713
based on public polices, and defended
Rural Education as a tactic to access
education, in order to strengthen the
correlation of forces in the struggle for
hegemony within society.
Although a range of researches has
been defended and worked with the ideas
that the formulation about MST education
is identical to the Rural Education
formulations and practices, we defend the
difference between them. We corroborate
with D’Agostini (2009, p. 122) that,
although Rural Education is grounded on
MST education, it is based on peasants
education in the sense of social and human
development in rural area and of their
subjects, whereas MST education, as we
have seen, is a class education, based on
the class struggle for the specificity of the
struggle for the land.
Under the context of neoliberal
polices of the 1990s, discussions about
what would be Rural Education are arose.
According to Dalmagro (2010, p. 180),
from 1998, the debate about Rural
Education was inserted in the MST and,
from then on, it continues and marks the
education perspectives of the Movement.
For the author, the MST, linked to Via
Campesina, gradually resumes the
concepts of rural area and peasantry,
“pointing out that there is a culture, a way
of peasant life that should be respected
and, in a certain way, resumed as a form of
assuring the survival of the peasant
population”
xviii
(Dalmagro, 2010, p. 180).
For Kolling (2005, p. 23), the Itaú-
Unicef prize, granted to the MST in 1995,
publically recognized and increased its
work in education area to future
partnerships, enlarging its responsibility
with education and the struggle for public
policies. Even, according to this author,
the unfolding of this prize resulted in the
accomplishment of the I ENERA.
In an interview for Anhaia (2010, p.
74), Caldart argues that the multilateral
organizations symbolically represent the
legitimacy of the MST to society. Also,
that there are two important factors to
accomplishment of the I ENERA: the
above-mentioned prize, that recognized the
MST work in the encampments and
settlements; and the results of the III
Congresso Nacional do MST (Third
National Congress of the MST), in 1995,
with “Reforma Agrária: uma Luta de
Todos” (Agrarian reform: a struggle for
all) as motto, i.e., of the MST to society.
In the first volume of the collection
Por uma Educação Básica do Campo, we
found a mention to the I ENERA related to
partnerships and challenges to the meeting
promoters. Among the challenges, one is
accomplished by the UNICEF
representative, Ana Catarina Braga that
convenes the promoter entities, mainly the
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
714
MST, to expand the work that had being
developed in education.
The enthusiasm with the success of
the I Enera led the UNICEF
representative, Ana Catarina Braga,
to challenge the promoters and
supporters of the event for a wider
work on education based on rural
world, taking into account the rural
context in terms of its specific culture
concerning the way of seeing and
relating with time, space, the
environment and the way of living, of
organizing family and work
xix
(Kolling, Nery & Molina, 1999, p.
13-14).
In the sequence of the document is
demonstrated that the challenge pointed
out by the UNICEF representative was
assumed by the promoter entities of the
meeting, resulting in a Conferência por
uma Educação Básica do Campo
(Conference for a Rural Basic Education).
Roseli Caldart presents more details about
the UNICEF representative provocation in
accomplishing an event beyond the
settlements of the Agrarian Reform and the
expansion of its proposal of education for
“other subjects that work in rural area”.
It was exactly the closing speech of
the UNICEF representative, Ana
Catarina, that publicly provoked the
MST to convene a similar event that
was not only for the Agrarian Reform
settlements, but which involved the
rural area as a whole. She even talked
to us informally, we thought, who are
we to take something wider? It was
an informal conversation, and
suddenly, at the closing table she
said: ‘The MST does not have the
right to argue only with itself’ in the
sense that the MST, by its
accumulation, for its struggle for
right, has an obligation to articulate
other subjects of rural area to have a
broader debate on education in rural
area. It must bring together other
subjects who work in rural areas
(Anhaia, 2010, pp. 79-80, excerpt of
the interview with Caldart).
The I ENERA promoted the idea of a
national conference that became the “I
Conferência por uma Educação Básica do
Campo” (First Conference for a Rural
Basic Education), in 1998. Challenged by
the UNICEF representative in the I
ENERA to “raise a broader discussion on
education in Brazilian rural area”, the
discussions concern the “preparation of the
base document of the First Conference,
concluded in May 1998, where are
presented the “baptism arguments” of what
would be Rural Education (Caldart, 2012,
p. 260).
During the I ENERA, participants
elaborated the “Manifesto dos Educadores
e Educadoras da Reforma Agrária”
(Agrarian Reform Educators Manifesto).
We highlight the defense expressed in the
Manifesto, in a broader sense, of “public,
free and quality school for all, since child
education to University”, affirming the
need to build a “self-identity of rural
schools” considering new forms of rural
area development, “based on social justice,
agricultural cooperation, respect for the
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
715
environment and valorization of peasant
culture” (MST, 1997).
The unity established in the I
ENERA between fractions of distinct
classes (workers represented by Landless,
Rural Trade Unions, Universities and
Bourgeoisie represented by Multilateral
Organizations, as UNESCO for instance),
has the struggle for public policies for rural
education as a common point. Caldart
expresses this contradictory relationship of
interests that result in the struggle for
education right, arguing: “we had different
ideas among people who were there, even
different political positions, but we found
identification at the Mystical moment
xx
,
for example”
xxi
(Anhaia, 2010, p. 81,
excerpt of the interview with Caldart).
In the interview, Caldart clearly
demonstrates that the unity established in
the I ENERA between fractions of distinct
classes only concerns to struggle for
education right. She also demonstrates her
understanding about the international
organizations – UNESCO and UNICEF –
in aiming to “ease the conflicts”, and to
stablish harmony between classes in order
to keep the class struggle over control.
There is not an alliance in the sense
of a project. We know the role of
these organizations … If we analyze
the positions of UNICEF and
UNESCO, mainly UNESCO, we can
see how the capitalism crisis are,
because it just demonstrates the
intention to ease conflicts, what it is
done to avoid stronger conflicts. In
the face of a tension in rural area,
there is support to certain initiatives,
in agreement with the way we act in
order to avoid unsustainable
situations. It even can be in favor of
Agrarian Reform to this does not
become something effectively
destabilizing to society. The role of
these organizations is not
circumstantial, it is structural. What
kind of adjustment is done in the
capitalist society to keep it capitalist?
For that, it is necessary to keep the
struggle class over control, without
considering it evidently as class
struggle (Anhaia, 2010, p. 79, excerpt
of the interview with Caldart).
In relation to this unity made in
between distinct classes, Santos (2011)
argues that there is an agreement in the
plan of the pedagogical and political
formulations between the Rural Education
foundations. For him:
It is possible to argue that are specific
alliances to construct a wider
movement that cover several “actors”
considering that the political
conditions of the time to
formulations of a rural education
with the exclusive presence of
movements of social struggles would
be impossible. However, this
argument is not justified because, in
terms of pedagogical and political
formulations, the foundations of the
Rural Education and the
interpretations of the reality of most
of the organizational entities of the
rural workers struggle are in
agreement with the formulations of
the New School updated in the motto
"learn to learn", advocated and
disseminated by institutions such as
UNESCO (Santos, 2011, p. 188)
xxii
.
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
716
Reporting by means of interview
about the Rural Education trajectory, the
member of the education sector of the
MST (Interview D2) emphasizes that the
relationship established with the partners
of I ENERA, UNESCO, UNICEF,
Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil
(CNBB) (National Conference of Bishops
of the Brazil), UNB, is the result of a given
context of struggle against the State,
represented in the government policy of
the then President Fernando Henrique
Cardoso (PHC). Since the establishment of
the National Education Sector of the MST,
in 1987, during the First National Meeting
of Educators of the MST in the State of
Espírito Santo, the MST has constructed its
education proposal when, in 1997, “was in
the ENERA facing a context in which the
FHC government of was closing
schools”
xxiii
(Interview D2). Following this
context, with the high rate of school
closure, the member of the education
sector of the MST analyzes that the
enlargement of MST education beyond the
movement itself was a matter of survival in
the face of FHC political offensive.
Another member of the education
sector of the MST, interviewee by us, also
considers relevant the political context
related to FHC government offensive. The
reason of the union with UNESCO,
UNICEF, CNBB and UNB, in the face of
conjuncture of that time, was to bring to
debate the rural problems in the Brazilian
society as well as the educational
perspectives and Rural Education.
In that conjuncture, to strengthen the
struggle, the tactic was the construction of
partnership between MST, other social
rural movements, State and Multilateral
Organizations. We understand that, in that
process, the MST treated its educational
proposal as secondary in which it is more
important for it, the theoretical and
revolutionary formulation. The member of
the education sector of the MST considers
it as a way to advance:
In that moment, it was more to bring
partnership together than to propose a
theoretical and revolutionary
proposal. Actually, in that moment,
the MST retreated a little bit more its
theoretical proposal in order to bring
partnership together. Its partners
were politically more backward than
the MST itself, to say so. The
problem was delaying, retreating
years ago and then you can’t push
yours partners to the combative field.
For me, it seems that the problem it
is to stay in the field of the more
reformist hegemonic constitution
instead of advance in a more
offensive and revolutionary field
xxiv
(Interview D3).
Bearing in mind the structural
divergences or the position of classes of
the social movements and the international
organizations, the unity between fractions
of distinct classes occurred by means of
struggle for education right. In the I
Conferência Nacional por uma Educação
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
717
Básica do Campo (First National
Conference for a Rural Basic Education)
documents, in July 1998, we perceive the
elements that unify the promoting entities
in the construction of Rural Education, as
well as point out elements that constitute
the Rural Education trajectory.
The First Conference dealt with the
following themes: a) rural development
and education in Brazil: challenges and
perspectives; b) the situation of rural
education in Brazil and Latin America; c)
public policies in education in Brazil:
municipalization; d) financing of
education; e) educational policy for
indigenous schools; f) searching for a new
development project for Brazil; g) popular
development project for rural area; h) basic
education for rural area; i) our commitment
as educators in rural area (Kolling, Nery &
Molina 1999, p. 17-18).
In an excerpt of the document No. 1
Por uma Educação Básica do Campo, it is
signed the unity about the specificity of the
Rural Education, as we present below:
Since the beginning, there was a
consensus about the specificity of the
“basic rural education”, i.e.
considering the culture, the features,
the needs and dreams of who live in
the rural area and of the rural area.
Another promoters consensus is
related to the link to the basic rural
education with a popular project of
Brazil and with a popular project of
the rural area development
xxv
(Kolling, Nery & Molina, 1999, p.
15).
Moreover, it is signed the unity about
education as a right and as an inclusion
strategy. Another unity element we
highlight between promoter entities is
related to the conceptions and pedagogical
principals of a rural school. The document
defends a transformation in the scholar
pedagogy based on the choice of learning
in progress, pointing out to “learn to learn”
(UNESCO, 2010).
Suggesting a transformation in the
scholar curriculums for rural schools in
agreement with the UNESCO policies and
guidelines, the document follows
“affirming the importance of learning to
learn, what means learning to transform
information into knowledge or into
position in the face of certain life
situations”
xxvi
(Kolling, Nery & Molina
1999, p. 68). These guidelines rescued of
the multilateral organization – constructed
in a set of documents designed to carry out
the process of “worldwiding” of education,
aiming the active consensus of the
governed (Gramsci, 2007) – “begin to
guide the theoretical production and the
political-pedagogical elaboration”
xxvii
(Titton, 2010, p. 188).
After the First Conference, it is
constituted the National Articulation for a
Rural Education, having as motor the
UNICEF, UNESCO, MST and UNB. The
National Articulation for a Rural Education
represented an increase of the “subjects”
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
718
that joins the struggle for the Rural
Education. Besides, as Molina argues, the
established union via National Articulation
is centered on the perspective of the
struggle for specific public policies to the
rural area.
With the National Articulation, the
possibilities of partnership between
fractions of the same class are expanded –
for instance, MST and Confederação
Nacional dos Trabalhadores na
Agricultura (CONTAG) (National
Confederation of Agricultural Workers) –
even partnership between distinct classes -
MST, CONTAG, Multilateral
Organizations and the State. The criteria of
action of the Rural Education construction
that we observe above considers social
movements, entities and organization of
peasants and others that are worried or
interested in the rural education cause. In
that array of partnership concerning Rural
Education was possible the negotiation
between distinct fractions of classes
constituting a wider movement for
implementation of public policies for the
Rural Education. The agenda and actions
carried out by the National Articulation for
a Rural Education involve different and
even antagonistic class subjects. On the
other hand, it constitutes a strong
movement towards the realization of the
intended actions. Maintaining the
characteristics of consensus between
classes, the National Articulation carries
out some actions in favor of Rural
Education.
We emphasize that one of the
achievements of the Movement for a Rural
Education was the promulgation of the
Diretrizes Operacionais para a Educação
Básica nas Escolas do Campo (Operational
Guidelines for Basic Education in the
Rural Schools), Resolution CNE/CBE No.
1, April 03, 2002. The Guidelines
elaboration represents a moment closer of
the State. Based on the Guidelines
proposals, which CONTAG had greater
participation - which does not reduce the
relevance of the MST participation in this
process (Anhaia, 2010) -, the State and
society dialogue for the regulation of the
Guidelines.
The unity established between forces
that struggles for Rural Education goes
beyond social movements and trades
union. The State begins to control the
Rural Education policies based on the
Guidelines. Contradictorily, the State
begins to compose a unit with Social
Movements and trade unions in favor of
the legalization of the Rural Education
policies. However, what we see is a
convergence of fractions of distinct and
antagonistic classes that becomes
“regulated” by the State, in agreement with
the strategies of the Capital. Anhaia (2010,
p. 91) argues that “a political force that fits
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
719
with the materialization of Rural Education
is, contradictorily, the need imposed by the
capital to universalize basic education,
expressed in the motto Education for
all”
xxviii
.
After enlargement of the
participation of entities aiming at the
regulation of the Rural Education policy, it
opens to the direct intervention of the State
by means of public hearings
xxix
with the
purpose of elaborating the Basic Education
Guidelines. Regarding public hearings,
Anhaia highlights its importance in the
relationship between civil society (entities
of social and trade union movements) and
the State:
The hearings were important
instruments to promote the debate
with civil society and with the State
and to establish some basic concepts
defended by both, emphasizing that,
to a certain extent, the State accepts
the propositions of civil society,
especially when those who propose
are subjects organized collectively,
whether in social movements or trade
unions (Anhaia, 2010, p. 91).
The State begins to control the
prepositions to be regulated, determining
what is allowed or not to be transformed
into law, obviously in order to guarantee
the interests of the class that represents,
after all, the State represents the interests
of the dominant class (Marx & Engels,
2007).
Analyzing the I ENERA deployment,
Oliveira e Dalmagro (2014, p. 107)
consider that there is a process of
generalization and specificity of Rural
Education for moving the education of the
struggle for Agrarian Reform, the main
instrument of struggle of the MST, to the
specificity of rural area.
It highlights the perspective that in
rural area there is another way of life,
culture and work, different from
others spaces of social life. It is
supposed that in this reformulation
had occurred or reinforced education
displacement in a context of struggle
for Agrarian Reform to an education
centered on “specific rural culture”,
generically defined
xxx
(Oliveira &
Dalmagro, 2014, p. 107).
The Rural Education policy
implementation, related to the normative
milestones, is given after the promulgation
of the Diretrizes Operacionais para a
Educação Básica nas Escolas do Campo,
Resolution CNE/CBE No. 1, April 03,
2002, under the government of Fernando
Henrique Cardoso – Partido da Social
Democracia Brasileira (PSDB) – based on
the Opinion No. 36, December 4, 2001.
The Resolution CNE/CEB No. 2, April 28,
2008, under the government of Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva (2003-2010) – Partidos dos
Trabalhadores (PT) – by means of Decree
No. 7.352, November 4, 2010,
reformulates, enlarges and regulates the
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
720
Rural Education Policy after Resolution
CNE/CBE No. 1, April 03, 2002.
In other words, the political struggle
of social movements, especially the MST,
takes a new perspective in the Lula
government. For the member of the
education sector of the MST, “with the
Lula government there was a possibility to
advance significantly in the public policy
of Rural Education
xxxi
(Interview D2). I.e.,
with the PT electoral victory in 2002 for
the Republic Presidency, represented by
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the MST begins
to believe in the possibility of advances in
the struggle for the Rural Education public
policy.
In this sense, the MST claims an
agenda with a vindication for “a
department in the MEC
xxxii
to deal with the
Rural Education policy. It was given a
coordination of Rural Education within the
Department of Continuing Education,
Literacy and Diversity”
xxxiii
(Interview
D2).
The first struggle attempts for a
Rural Education policy in the PT
government were frustrated e already
indicate the government position in the
face of the rural workers struggle. The
member of the education sector of the
MST stresses that the implementation the
normalization of the Rural Education
policy meant “a displacement from Rural
Education, having as a mark the second
conference that no longer exists and that
debate will now take place in
institutionalized spaces, committees and
forums, and became an academic
debate”
xxxiv
(Interview D2).
From 2008, there is an incorporation
of the struggle for Rural Education by the
State. The incorporation of a
specific/different education for rural area,
guided by social movements, resulted in its
“imprisonment in politics”
xxxv
(Titton,
2010). This represents that the Rural
Education policy is definitely under the
dictates of the State, moving social
movements away from a more significant
interference in politics. According to the
member of the education sector of the
MST, in interview, the Programa Nacional
de Educação na Reforma Agrária
(PRONERA) (National Program for
Education in Agrarian Reform), created in
April 16, 1998, through Ordinance No.
10/98, in order to increase the formal
schooling levels of settled rural
workers
xxxvi
, loses its proximity to social
movements. She points out that “the
PRONERA, a program that directly
responded in its formulation and execution
the link between university and social
movements, now loses its feature of
effective subjects participation in its
elaboration”
xxxvii
(Interview D2).
Insofar as Rural Education was
institutionalized, it was also incorporated
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
721
by the State. “It is to surrender to
incorporate. And, today, not only
concerning incorporation, but also the
defeat we have undergone in the Rural
Education policy”
xxxviii
(Interview D2).
This “defeat” is more evident after the
Programa Nacional de Educação do
Campo (PRONACAMPO) (National
Program of Rural Education) in 2010,
under Decree No. 7.352/2010. After the
Program,
all policies implemented in Rural
Education undergone operations,
either suppression or reconfiguration,
and then the PRONACAMPO was
postponed several times for it does
not dialogue with the Fórum
Nacional de Educação do Campo
(FONEC) or with Comissão
Nacional de Educação do Campo
(CONEC) and there is no budget for
it
xxxix
(Interview D2).
The PRONACAMPO construction
represents a distance of the organized
social movements from the possibility of
intervention on the educational policy for
rural area. Social participation forums such
as FONEC and CONEC did not participate
in the discussions surrounding the creation
of the Program. The Rural Education
policy is subject to State control while it is
institutionalized away from the
participation of society and social
movements.
Analyzing the Operational
Guidelines for Basic Education in the
Rural Schools, Santos (2011) points out
that the perspective of Rural Education
expressed in the document stresses the
formalist idealism when separating rural
area and city. The documents contradicts
“when names idealistic vision the process
of industrialization and urbanization of
rural area by means of transnational
corporations that control and define the
production, including small producers”
xl
(SANTOS, 2011, p. 190). The author
follows pointing out the absent of objective
and current questions of rural area in the
document:
Seasonal migrations turn farmers in
wanders searching for temporary
occupation; besides the questions
related to slavery and child labor in
rural area are not mentioned in the
report, corroborating the abstract
perspective of rural and rural
education predominant in the
propositions on this subject (Santos,
2011, p. 190).
For Santos, the phenomenal feature
of the approach made in the opinion of the
National Council of Education, excludes
class struggle and the inherent problems to
the objective and historical nature of the
capital by reducing them to a question of
life choices and diversities in rural area
(Santos, 2011, p. 190). In this way, the
opinion itself expresses the understanding
it has about the rural area, when
considering:
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
722
The heterogeneity of rural area,
highlighting economic diversity due
to the engagement of families in
agricultural and non-agricultural
activities (multiple activities), the
presence of fecund social
movements, multiculturalism, claims
for basic education and the dynamics
that are established in rural area
based on the interaction with
communication and literate culture
xli
(Brazil, 2012, p. 8).
There is a search for attending the
differences and diversities intimacy related
to the circumstantial need to enable a
minimum of schooling to the entire
Brazilian population. According to Santos
(2011, p. 190), this document complements
the Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação
(LDB) (Law of Guidelines and Bases of
Education) concerning the right for
differentiated education and diversity.
The legislation about Rural
Education and the theoretical formulations
about the theme, regarding the main
references used in approaches and
researches that deal with this modality of
education, affirm the centrality “of culture,
daily, students interests, identity and
difference. Work, class struggle,
universality are denied or treated as
secondary”
xlii
(Santos, 2011, p. 192).
Following the analysis of the
Guidelines, Jesus, Rosa e Bezerra (2014)
stress that the conceptions that guide
public polices of Rural Education are
based on postmodern because when walk
together to the epistemological and cultural
relativism deny totality. For the author, the
speech expressed in Rural Education that
“suggests new methods, new sources e new
problems – search analyzing and valuing
the micro, the fragmentary, the daily, the
singular, the imaginary”
xliii
(Jesus, Rosa &
Bezerra, 2014, p. 207).
In this sense, the struggle for
education right, by means of the specificity
of Rural Education, becomes its opposite,
whereas, in the field of appearance, the
implementation of the Rural Education
policy represents an achievement within
the law, as instrument that allows access to
education, it is a strategy for the “unequal”
be replaced by “the specific" or “the
different”.
For Jesus, Rosa, Bezerra (2014), the
strategy expressed in the Rural Education
policy aims the fragmentation of the
working class by means of “the different”,
“the specific”. This fragmentation of
education for workers in specific
modalities entails serious risks for its
organizations as class. Besides, the specific
education is also a way of restricting
access to systematized knowledge
historically constructed by humanity. The
authors also warn against the
fragmentation of the working class when
disregarding the peasant student as part of
the working class.
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
723
It is also emphasized that the peasant
student is understood as different, or
bearer of specificities, by the fact of
residing in rural area; it is
disregarded that this student belongs
to the working class (we are referring
here to all workers, that is, all those
who are forced to sell their labor
force and not only the rural workers)
that has been deprived of the cultural
and scientific patrimony historically
elaborated by humanity
xliv
(Jesus,
Rosa & Bezerra, 2014, p. 208).
In this sense, Jesus, Rosa e Bezerra
(2014, p. 2010) argue that the Rural
Education conception, expressed in the
legal documents that guide public policies,
is to fulfill the claims of the Capital, to the
detriment of the work claims, bearing in
mind it defends a specific education for
students of rural area.
Based on the Rural Education policy,
the authors stress the need for
understanding the contemporary rural
school and its education project by means
of the understanding of the productive
processes of the capitalist system. That is
due to the intrinsic relationship between
the educative processes and the productive
processes. Also, it refers to the
organization of materiality and
objectification of work; to the class
struggle and to the dispute of historical
projects between the working class and the
bourgeoisie (Jesus, Rosa & Bezerra, 2014,
p. 210).
In these terms, they affirm the need
for “a counter-hegemonic conception of
society, education, human being, child,
student”
xlv
. And this conception is
expressed in the writings of Marx and
Engels, in the vast production of Russian
pedagogues (Makarenko, Pistrak,
Krupskaja, etc.) and contemporary Marxist
authors (Jesus, Rosa & Bezerra, 2014, p.
210).
According to D'Agostini (2009, p.
23), Rural Education assumes a State
perspective that, guided by international
organizations, synthetically aims
“education as security and alleviation of
poverty”.
In the State perspective, rural
education is one of the tactics to
reach established goals that
emphasize Basic Education for the
majority of the population. It favors
the development of skills or
competences based on learning to
calculate, read and write, minimally
enabling individuals to be “included”
in the productive organization in time
and in the way necessary for the
survival of the capitalist system.
Most of the State documents on
Rural Education identify its
orientation in a set of focal and
fragmentary State policies in its
neoliberal phase, whose basic
function is easily identifiable with the
recommendations of the international
organizations: education as security
and alleviation of poverty
xlvi
(D’Agostini, 2009, p. 23).
Based on this analysis, we can see
that the Rural Education policy is a tactic
of the Capital to include workers in the
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
724
productive organization, guaranteeing the
“survival of the capitalist system”.
Dealing with the formulation of the
Rural Education conception, D’Agostini
(2012) affirms the categorizations that
support it – such as culture, identity and
differences – are, in a certain way, denying
or treating as secondary the category of
work as founding of the social being.
Analyzing the propositions for Rural
Education by entrepreneurs, State and
MST, D’Agostini e Vendramini (2014, p.
318) point out that there is a predominance
of the entrepreneurship and State
perspectives for a technical, fragile and
fragmented education, forming a worker
with precarious formation. According to
the authors, Rural Education “is embedded
and imprisoned in politics through the
formation of consensus”
xlvii
(D’Agostini &
Vendramini, 2014, p. 318). They defend an
education that is both universal and
classical, but also critical and differentiated
in relation to capitalist education.
For D’Agostini (2012, p. 464),
although Rural Education aims to be an
education for the purpose of human
emancipation, when developed in the
capitalist society, it incorporates the
general contradictions between work and
the capital. These contradictions are
expressed both in the materialization of
public policies that are in agreement with
the guidelines of the Multilateral
Organizations, and in the pedagogical
work, mainly through the split between
theory and practice.
Vendramini (2010, p. 134) points out
to a denial of the class perspective in Rural
Education and an affirmation of culture,
identity and difference, what reveals a
reality in itself to the detriment of a
connection between the general, the
specific and the particular, resulting in a
denial of the work. In this way, the author
concludes defending the necessity of
historical-dialectical materialism as a
reference for analysis and intervention
(Vendramini, 2010, p. 134).
As we can see in Titton (2010, p.
167), Rural Education was a MST strategy
to advance in the achievement of public
policies. Nevertheless, this process braked
the theoretical-pedagogical debate for a
class education.
For the author, one of the central
limits imposed on rural education is its
imprisonment in politics, especially
through State and government (Titton,
2010, p. 208). He concludes:
The possibilities of essence to
articulate the educational project of
the rural people to a strategy of
overcoming of the capital, and for
Rural Education contributes for that,
are in breaking with the illusions that
the overcoming of the problems can
occur via conciliation within
bourgeois society
xlviii
(Titton, 2010,
p. 211).
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
725
The authors mentioned throughout
this paper converge in their analysis when
showing that Rural Education policy is
based on categories and conceptions such
as difference and diversity, culture,
identity, postmodernity, epistemological
and cultural relativism. For the authors, the
centrality of politics emphasizes the micro,
the fragmentary, the daily, the singular, the
imaginary, the specific and the different,
technical, fragile and fragmented
education, security and alleviation of
poverty, inclusion policy in the productive
organization of the capital. Thus, Rural
Education denies universality and class
struggle (Santos, 2011); totality; unity of
the working class (Jesus, Rosa & Bezerra,
2014); the category of work (D’Agostini,
2009, 2012); the class perspective, totality,
and work (Vendramini, 2010); class
education (Titton, 2010).
Also, according to the analyzed
authors, Rural Education policy assumes a
State perspective guided by international
organizations (D’ Agostini, 2009, 2012); of
the entrepreneurship and of the State (D’
Agostini; Vendramini, 2014); of the State
Policy and government (Titton, 2010).
In the propositions field, Jesus, Rosa
e Bezerra (2014) consider a counter-
hegemonic conception of society,
education, human being, child, and student
by means of a class education; Vendramini
(2010) and D’Agostini (2009) point out the
necessity of historical-dialectical
materialism as a reference for analysis and
intervention; and Titton (2010) proposes
breaking with the illusions that the
overcoming of the problems can occur via
conciliation within bourgeois society.
In this way, Rural Education is more
to attend the goals of the capital and the
State than to attend the claims of the
working class. If we consider only the
point of view of the access to education,
we can affirm that there were important
advances for the working class in its
struggle for Rural Education. However,
when we consider the conception and the
feature of education based on Rural
Education, it has fulfilled the claim for
“qualification or training of workers” as
well as “the ideological needs and of
workers formation in the field of bourgeois
sociability” (Oliveira & Dalmagro, 2014,
p. 113).
The context we demonstrated in our
research allows us to point out the
contradictions in the MST education
trajectory based on the class struggle and
the representatives of the capital,
highlighting the Multilateral Organizations
UNICEF and UNESCO and the State, on
the other hand, the social movements,
mainly the MST.
Conclusions
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
726
We show that the MST education
trajectory, until the mid-1990s, is a tactical
formulation inserted in the MST struggle,
mainly for its class perspective. Although
it did not arise with this perspective, the
linkage of the MST education proposal
with the struggle for Agrarian Reform and
the strategy of social transformation
elevated MST education to a class
perspective, which class struggle is the
guiding principle of the proposal of
education.
In the face of the offensive of the
Brazilian State, by means of FHC
government, which resulted in the closure
of schools in settlements of the Agrarian
Reform, the MST sought to strengthen its
struggle through partnerships as an
alternative to guarantee the achievements
and to advance in this field. The First
ENERA enabled an approximation of the
policies and international guidelines of the
Multilateral Organizations with the
education in the MST. The representative
of UNICEF proposed an extension of the
MST experience for the construction of a
proposal of education for all people of
rural area. This proposal is assumed by
social movements representing a consensus
among the forces and resulting in the
enlargement of access to education. We
observed in the document “Por uma
Educação do Campo” that besides the
enlargement of access to education, there
was an internalization of general policy
and international guidelines for education
and emptying of the class perspective
present in the MST education proposal.
We understand that, besides the
unfavorable conjuncture, another decisive
element that allowed the emptying of the
class perspective of the MST education
proposal by means of the relationship with
the Multilateral Organizations and the
State was the theoretical fragility present in
the MST education proposal due to the
theoretical eclecticism and a lack of
deepening in Historical and Dialectical
Materialism as the basis of theoretical
support for its pedagogical proposal.
The focus on the struggle for Rural
Education after 1997, in the sense of
enlargement of the struggle for public
policies through partnerships with class
representatives of the capital (UNICEF,
UNESCO), postulates a specific education
for rural area, adding the strategies of the
Multilateral Organizations. The struggle
for Rural Education led to the
normalization of policies that were
imprisoned in politics (Titton, 2010),
controlled by the bourgeois State. In these
terms, the class perspective expressed in
the MST education proposal is reduced to
Rural Education. In the same way, we
verify that based on the standardization of
the Rural Education policy, which is now
controlled by the State, reinforcing the
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
727
perspectives of diversity, on the
Capital/State and entrepreneurship.
In the last years, Rural Education has
been the main strategy of the MST in the
struggle for public education. The focus on
the struggle for education in the sense of
public policy, influenced by State
offensive – namely the closure of schools –
, as we had seen above, resulted in a
repositioning of the class perspective of
MST education. Whether, on the one hand,
“MST struggle against the closure of more
than 38,000 schools in the last decade is
necessarily a working class struggle”
xlix
(Leher, 2014, p. 88), on the other hand,
“limiting the right to the struggle for
education access just in the context of
rights, the efforts of the MST are closed in
the limits of rights and not in the
emancipation”
l
(Araujo, 2007, p. 316).
We argue that the workers
perspective in social movements that aims
a class education is reduced in the face of
the consensus between the distinct class
fractions that composed the First ENERA.
Thus, Rural Education represents an
important struggle to guarantee basic rights
for workers in rural area in times of fiscal
adjustment. We notice that by means of a
range of achievements in the educational
field: schools achievements, enlargement
of the access to education in all levels.
However, its limit, for those who aim a
class education as a tactical formulation for
the class struggle, is precisely in the
possible reform within the order of the
bourgeois State.
Our research points out that Rural
Education is constructed based on a
consensus and repositioning of class. The
first elements of the consensus appear after
the Itaú/Unicef prize, in 1995, as a public
recognition of the existence of a different
education, precisely recognized in the
MST. The consensus formulation becomes
public following the implementation of the
First ENERA with funding from UNESCO
and UNICEF. Although it is justified that
the participation of these organizations has
been limited to the opening and closing of
the First ENERA, we have shown in this
research that the participation of UNESCO
and UNICEF went beyond the lines and
the financial resource, because it resulted
in an articulation which the financing,
public recognition of MST education and
the strategic prepositions from the
UNICEF representative and assumed by
the social movements should be
considered.
The politic struggle of the social
movements within the State, in the terms
of the regulation of the Rural Education
policy, as well as the conceptions that base
it, represent a defeat for the fractions of the
working class that propose to construct an
education for the working class with class
perspective.
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
728
One of the challenges is precisely in
overcoming the limit of politics within
bourgeois rights. In this educational
context, one of the necessary measures for
the resumption and strengthening of a class
education is to break with the consensus on
Rural Education established in the 1990s.
We agree with D'Agostini and Vendramini
(2014) about the need for mobilization
concerning an education for the working
class, which is both universal and classical,
but also critical and differentiated in
relation to capitalist education.
We live a moment in the history of
the class struggle where there is a
hegemony of the capital over the work.
This reflects the limits of pointing out the
future prospects for the working class. In
education, this is not different. Currently
we see in Todos pela Educação, a class
articulation, of the ruling class, which sees
in education “a great business”.
The present of the MST education is
characterized by the confrontation of the
class struggle between the capital and the
work. Education in the MST is an
expression of the capital offensive under
the work, mainly after the 1990s and the
consensus between distinct fractions of
class in the construction of Rural
Education.
Although MST stands as a fraction of
the working class in the struggle against
the capital, the forces in the context of the
class struggle have tended to weaken their
education proposal and to reposition class
education for education in the struggle for
right within the logic of the bourgeois
State.
To point out prospects to the future
in the current political and circumstantial
context is not an easy task when defending
a working class education, especially if we
consider the ebb of class struggle and the
offensive of the capital over work that have
led to the fragmentation of the working
class, tending to corporatist struggles as a
focus. In dealing with future prospects, we
emphasize the immediate and historical
need to overcome class society. Thus, we
stand for the defense of a class education
that contributes to the transformation of
social relations and to human
emancipation.
We point out to the need for a
working class education that is given with
limits and contractions in this moment, but
that we recognize the importance of
defending it and constructing experiences
to accumulate forces. In this sense, we
highlight the importance of the experiences
carried out by the MST in the ITERRA
(Instituto de Educação Josué de Castro)
and by means of Travelling Schools that,
although its limits in this society, are
meaningful and possible experiences for a
scholar reorganization based on workers
perspective. It is also necessary the
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
729
overcoming of the false dualism between
rural area and city present in the
formulation of Rural Education, which
limits the understanding of the unity of
workers as a class, allowing fragmentation
and making unity difficult.
References
Anhaia, E. M. (2010). Constituição do
Movimento de Educação do Campo na luta
por políticas de educação. (Dissertação de
Mestrado). Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Florianópolis, 2010.
ARAÚJO, M. N. R. (2007). As
contradições e as possibilidades de
construção de uma educação
emancipatória no contexto do MST. (Tese
de Doutorado). Universidade Federal da
Bahia, Salvador. Recuperado de:
http://www.reformaagrariaemdados.org.br/
sites/default/files/TESE - MARIA NALVA
Brasil. (2012). Secretaria de Educação
Continuada, Alfabetização, Diversidade e
Inclusão. Educação do campo: marcos
normativos. Brasília, DF: SECADI.
Caldart, R. S. (2012). Educação do Campo.
In Caldart, R. S. et al. (Orgs.). Dicionário
da Educação do Campo (pp. 257-264). Rio
de Janeiro, São Paulo: Escola Politécnica
de Saúde Joaquim Venâncio, Expressão
Popular.
D’Agostini, A. (2012). A educação do
campo na educação brasileira: contradições
e perspectivas. Revista de Educação,
37(3), 453-468. Recuperado de:
https://periodicos.ufsm.br/index.php/reved
ucacao/article/view/4172/3971.
D’Agostini, A. (2009). A educação do
MST no contexto educacional brasileiro.
(Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal
da Bahia, Salvador.
D’Agostini, A.. & Vendramini, C. R.
(2014). Educação do campo ou educação
da classe trabalhadora? A perspectiva do
empresariado, do Estado e dos
Movimentos Sociais organizados. Reflexão
e Ação, 22(2), 299-322. Recuperado de:
https://online.unisc.br/seer/index.php/refle
x/article/view/5194/3694.
Dalmagro, S. L. (2010) A Escola no
contexto das lutas do MST. (Tese de
Doutorado). Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Florianópolis.
Gramsci, A. (2007). Cadernos do Cárcere:
Volume 3 - Maquiavel. Notas sobre o
Estado e a política. 3. ed. Rio de Janeiro:
Civilização Brasileira.
Jesus, A. C., Rosa, J. M., & Bezerra, M. C.
S. (2014). Educação do Campo e Política
Educacional em Debate: apontamentos
sobre a formação da classe trabalhadora
rural na atualidade. Revista HISTEDBR
On-line, 60, 200-214. Recuperado de:
https://www.fe.unicamp.br/revistas/ged/his
tedbr/article/viewFile/5723/5913
Kolling, E. J., Nery, I. I. J., & Molina, M.
C. (Orgs.). (1999). Por uma Educação do
Campo: memória. Brasília: Universidade
de Brasília.
Kolling, E. J. (2005). O MST e a
construção de Políticas Públicas de
Educação do Campo. 2005. (Monografia
de Especialização). Universidade de
Brasília, Brasília. [Mimeografado].
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & Dantas, J. S.
(2013). Escola Nossa Senhora Aparecida:
um movimento histórico de luta por escola.
Revista PerCursos, 14(26), 187 - 213.
Recuperado de:
http://www.periodicos.udesc.br/index.php/
percursos/article/viewFile/1
984724614262013187/2570.
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
730
Leher, R. (2015). Grandes grupos
econômicos estão ditando a formação de
crianças e jovens brasileiros. Entrevista
concedida para Luiz Felipe Abulquerque.
Recuperado de:
http://www.brasildefato.com.br/node/3235
9.
Leher, R. (2014). Organização, estratégia
política e o plano nacional de educação.
Recuperado de:
http://marxismo21.org/wpcontent/uploads/
2014/08/R-Leher-Estratégia-Política-e-
Plano-NacionalEducação.pdf.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2007). A ideologia
alemã: critica da mais recente filosofia
alemã em seus representantes Feuerbach,
B. Bauer, Stirner, e do socialismo alemão
em seus diferentes profetas, 1845-1846.
São Paulo: Boitempo.
Minayo, M. C. S. (Org.). (2004). Pesquisa
Social: Teoria, Método e Criatividade. 23a
edição. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
Molina, M. C. (2003). A contribuição do
PRONERA na construção de políticas
públicas de educação do campo e
desenvolvimento sustentável. Tese. (Tese
de Doutorado). Universidade de Brasília,
Brasília.
MST. (1999). Movimento dos
Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra.
Princípios da Educação no MST. São
Paulo: MST. (Caderno de Educação nº 08).
MST. (2005). Movimento dos
Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra. Dossiê
MST Escola: documentos e estudos 1990-
2001. São Paulo: Expressão Popular.
(Caderno de Educação nº 13).
MST. (1997). Movimento dos
Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra.
Manifesto das educadoras e dos
educadores da reforma agrária ao povo
brasileiro. Recuperado de:
http://www.bdtd.ndc.uff.br/tde_busca/arqui
vo.php?codArquivo=35.
Oliveira, M. A., & Dalmagro, S. L. (2014).
A questão Agrária, a Educação do Campo
e os projetos em disputa. Reflexão e Ação,
22(2), 94-119, Recuperado de:
http://online.unisc.br/seer/index.php/reflex/
article/view/5193/3684.
Paludo, C. (2007). Da raiz herança da
educação popular à pedagogia do
movimento e a educação do e no campo:
um olhar para a trajetória de educação do
MST. In Seminário Nacional de Pesquisa
em Educação, 30. Caxambu/MG. Anais...
Caxambu: Anped. Recuperado de:
file:///C:/Users/Home/Downloads/PALUD
O+Edu+Popular%20(1).pdf.
Ribeiro, L. N., & Sobreiro Filho, J. (2012).
Formação da Via Campesina no mundo e
atualidade das ações no Brasil (2000-
2011). In Encontro Nacional de Geografia
Agrária, 21, Uberlândia MG. Anais.
Uberlândia MG: UFU. Recuperado de:
http://www.reformaagrariaemdados.org.br/
sites/.
Santos, C. E. F. (2011). Relativismo e
Escolanovismo na formação do educador:
uma análise Histórico-Crítica da
Licenciatura em Educação do Campo.
(Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal
da Bahia, Salvador. Recuperado de:
www.gepec.ufscar.br/.../relativismo-e-
escolanovismona-formacao-do-educ.
Souza, R. L. (2013). Educação do campo:
Análise das reivindicações dos
trabalhadores do Campo e das propostas
dos Governos de Luiz Inácio da Silva e
Dilma Rousseff. Revista Tamoios, 9(2), 5-
28. Recuperado de:
http://www.epublicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/
tamoios/issue/archive.
Titton, M. (2010). Os Limites da Política
no embate de projetos da educação do
campo. 2010. (Tese de Doutorado).
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
731
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
Florianópolis. Recuperado de:
https://repositorio.ufsc.br/xmlui/bitstream/
handle/123456789/93937/279
656.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
UNESCO. (2010). Organização das
Nações Unidas para a Educação, a
Ciência e a Cultura. Educação um Tesouro
a Descobrir. Brasília: UNESCO. (Relatório
para a UNESCO da Comissão
Internacional sobre Educação para o século
XXI). Recuperado de:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/00
1095/109590por.pdf.
Vendramini, C. R. (2010). Educação do
Campo na perspectiva do Materialismo
Histórico-Dialético. In Molina, M. C. et al.
(Orgs.). Educação do Campo e Pesquisa
II: questões para reflexão (pp.127-135).
Brasília: MDA/MEC. Recuperado de:
http://www.mda.gov.br/sitemda/sites/sitem
da/files/user_arquivos_64/E
DUCA%C3%87%C3%83O%20DO%20C
AMPO%20e%20pesquisa%2 0II.pdf.
i
Program Scholarship UNIEDU Pós-Graduação.
ii
Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement -
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem
Terra (MST) in Portuguese.
iii
All translated quotes (from Portuguese to
English) are our translation. [em 1981, iniciam-se,
também, as primeiras experiências isoladas em
alfabetização de jovens e adultos].
iv
[das lideranças e de agentes de mediação,
principalmente vinculados à Teologia da Libertação
e ao sindicalismo combativo].
v
People settled in the lands that were supposedly
owned by landowners or, according to the Brazilian
law, does not comply with its social function.
vi
[do trabalhador, da classe trabalhadora].
vii
[precisa ajudar para que o assentamento dê
certo].
viii
[amor pelo trabalho e pelo trabalho no meio
rural].
ix
[sociedade sem explorados nem exploradores].
x
[O resgate da questão escolar no MST até aqui já
nos permite identificar que estão postas as bases
para uma inversão na perspectiva de escola nos
aspectos políticos e pedagógicos. No primeiro,
porque a escola deixa de formar para a cidadania
burguesa, pelo contrário, visa à formação da
consciência para mudar o mundo. Se ela continua
formando para o trabalho, este já não se pretende
mais submetido ao mercado capitalista, mas
buscando outras relações sociais. Pedagogicamente,
a socialização do conhecimento não é mais tomada
como neutra e estanque. Também aparece como
desafio a construção de novos conhecimentos
adequados a um novo modelo de desenvolvimento.
Na forma de organização da escola também se
propõem alterações. Enfim, com maior ou menor
ênfase, os pilares fundamentais da escola burguesa
estão sendo repensados].
xi
The Education Book (Caderno de Educação) No.
8: principles of education in MST, is a result of a
new edition of the Education Bulletin (Boletim da
Educação) No. 1, “How should be a settlement
school” (Como deve ser uma escola de
assentamento), written in August 1992 (MST, 1999,
p. 03).
xii
[Amplia-se também porque a escola passa a ser
vista com base num conjunto de práticas educativas
que ocorrem fora dela, inclusive as ações
educativas produzidas pela luta do MST].
xiii
[O MST e sua educação têm como eixo
orientador de suas ações a luta de classes no campo
e a convicção de construção de uma nova sociedade
e, consequentemente, de uma nova educação
pautada nos fundamentos/valores socialistas e
humanistas como: o coletivismo, o trabalho
coletivo, o trabalho socialmente útil, o trabalho
como princípio educativo, a solidariedade, a
organização e a auto-organização dos estudantes, a
relação teoria e prática, entre outros].
xiv
[Educação para a transformação social. Este é o
horizonte que define o caráter da educação no
MST].
xv
[Trata, isto sim, de afirmar uma educação
vinculada a uma classe que objetiva um horizonte
de transformação social; uma educação que abra
um leque universal para o conhecimento].
xvi
[a secundarização da teoria e a fragilidade
teórica da proposta de educação do MST permitem
desvios da prática política e educativa].
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
732
xvii
The First National Meeting of the Agrarian
Reform Educators, as the name points out, brought
together educator of the Agrarian Reform from all
Brazil. It was promoted by the MST together with
so-called partner entities: Universidade de Brasília
(UNB), UNICEF, UNESCO e CNBB (Kolling,
Nery & Molina, 1999, p. 13).
xviii
[apontando que há uma cultura, um modo de
vida camponês que deve ser respeitado e em certa
medida retomado como forma de assegurar a
sobrevivência da população campesina].
xix
[O entusiasmo com o êxito do I Enera levou a
representante do Unicef, Ana Catarina Braga, a
desafiar as entidades promotoras e as que apoiaram
o evento para um trabalho mais amplo sobre a
educação a partir do mundo rural, levando-se em
conta o contexto do campo em termos de sua
cultura específica quanto à maneira de ver e de se
relacionar com o tempo, o espaço, o meio ambiente
e quanto ao modo de viver, de organizar família e
trabalho].
xx
It is a kind of artistic activity that aims to raise
awareness to the moment.
xxi
[tínhamos ideias diferentes entre pessoas que
estavam lá, posicionamentos inclusive políticos
diferentes, mas, por exemplo, conseguiu-se em
momentos da mística uma identificação].
xxii
[Poder-se-ia argumentar se tratar de alianças
pontuais para a construção de um movimento mais
amplo, que abrangesse vários “atores” haja vista
que as condições políticas da época para a
formulação de uma educação do campo com a
exclusiva presença dos movimentos de lutas sociais
seria impossível. Contudo, este argumento não se
justifica, pois, no plano das formulações
pedagógicas e políticas, as bases que fundamentam
a Educação do Campo e as interpretações da
realidade da maioria das entidades organizativas da
luta dos trabalhadores no campo estão em
consonância com as formulações escolanovistas
atualizadas no lema “aprender a aprender”
defendido e divulgado por instituições como a
UNESCO].
xxiii
[vai se deparar no ENERA com um contexto
em que o governo de FHC estava fechando
escolas].
xxiv
Era muito mais juntar parceiros neste momento
do que você produzir uma proposta teórica e
revolucionária. Na verdade o MST naquele
momento histórico recua um pouco mais a sua
proposta teórica para poder se juntar a seus
parceiros. Os seus parceiros eram até mais
atrasados politicamente, se é que podemos colocar
assim, do que o próprio MST. O problema foi
atrasar, recuar alguns passos atrás, e depois você
não puxar os parceiros para frente, para o campo
mais combativo. O problema me parece ficar nesse
campo da constituição hegemônica mais reformista
do que você avançar em um campo mais ofensivo,
mais revolucionário.
xxv
[Desde o começo, chegou-se a um consenso
sobre o específico da “educação básica do campo”,
ou seja, que leve em conta a cultura, as
características, as necessidades e os sonhos dos que
vivem no campo e do campo. Outro consenso entre
os promotores referiu-se à vinculação da educação
básica do campo com um projeto popular de Brasil
e com um projeto popular de desenvolvimento do
campo].
xxvi
[afirmando a importância do aprender a
aprender, o que significa aprender a transformar
informações em conhecimentos ou em posturas
diante de determinadas situações da vida].
xxvii
[passam a orientar a produção teórica e a
elaboração político-pedagógica].
xxviii
[uma força política que coaduna com a
materialização da Educação do Campo é,
contraditoriamente, a necessidade imposta pelo
capital de universalizar a educação básica, expressa
no lema Educação para todos].
xxix
Public hearings were adopted by the CNE/CEB
to elaboration of the all Basic Education Guidelines
(Anhaia, 2010, p. 91).
xxx
[Enfatiza-se a perspectiva de que há no campo
outro modo de vida, de cultura e trabalho, diferente
de outros espaços da vida social. É de supor-se que
nesta reformulação tenha ocorrido ou reforçado um
deslocamento da educação num contexto de luta
por Reforma Agrária para uma educação centrada
na “cultura específica do campo”, definida de modo
genérico].
xxxi
[com o governo Lula havia uma possibilidade
de se avançar significativamente na política pública
de Educação do Campo].
xxxii
Ministry of Education.
xxxiii
[a criação de uma secretaria no MEC que
lidasse com a política de Educação do Campo. O
que foi ofertado ... era uma coordenadoria de
Educação do Campo dentro da Secretaria de
Educação Continuada, Alfabetização e
Diversidade].
xxxiv
[um deslocamento de lugar da Educação do
Campo, tendo como marco a segunda conferência
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
733
que não passa mais a existir e esse debate vai se dar
agora em espaços institucionalizados, nos comitês e
nos fóruns, e virou um debate acadêmico].
xxxv
[aprisionamento na política].
xxxvi
INCRA. Educação no Campo: Pronera. 2015.
Available in
<http://www.incra.gov.br/proneraeducacao>.
xxxvii
[o PRONERA, um programa que respondia
diretamente na sua formulação e na sua execução a
relação direta entre universidades e movimentos
sociais, agora perde este caráter da participação
efetiva dos sujeitos na sua elaboração].
xxxviii
[é um ceder para incorporar e, hoje, não só
do ponto de vista da incorporação, mas da derrota
que a gente vem sofrendo na política de Educação
do Campo].
xxxix
[todas as políticas que estavam sendo
executadas na Educação do Campo vão sofrer
operações, ou de supressões ou de reconfiguração e
aí foi adiado várias vezes o lançamento do
PRONACAMPO visto que ele não era dialogado
com o Fórum Nacional de Educação do Campo
(FONEC) e nem com a Comissão Nacional de
Educação do Campo (CONEC) e não saia no
orçamento].
xl
[ao chamar de visão idealista o processo de
industrialização e urbanização do meio rural por
meio das empresas transnacionais que controlam e
definem a produção, inclusive dos pequenos
produtores].
xli
[O campo como espaço heterogêneo, destacando
a diversidade econômica, em função do
engajamento das famílias em atividades agrícolas e
não-agrícolas (pluriatividade), a presença de
fecundos movimentos sociais, a multiculturalidade,
as demandas por educação básica e a dinâmica que
se estabelece no campo a partir da convivência com
os meios de comunicação e a cultura letrada].
xlii
[da cultura, do cotidiano, dos interesses dos
alunos, da identidade e diferença. Trabalho, luta de
classes, universalidade são negados ou
secundarizados].
xliii
[sugere novos métodos, novas fontes e novos
problemas – busca analisar e valorizar o micro, o
fragmentário, o cotidiano, o singular, o imaginário].
xliv
[Sublinha-se também que este é entendido
como diferente, ou portador de especificidades,
pelo fato de residir no meio rural; desconsidera-se o
fato deste aluno pertencer à classe trabalhadora
(aqui nos referimos a todos os trabalhadores, isto é,
todos aqueles que são obrigados a vender sua força
de trabalho e não apenas os trabalhadores rurais)
que tem sido privada do patrimônio cultural e
científico historicamente elaborado pela
humanidade].
xlv
[uma concepção contra-hegemônica de
sociedade, educação, homem, criança, aluno].
xlvi
[Na perspectiva do Estado, a educação do
campo é mais uma das táticas para atingir as metas
estabelecidas que atribuem ênfase à Educação
Básica destinada à maioria da população e que
privilegia o desenvolvimento de aptidões ou
competências assentadas no aprendizado do
cálculo, da leitura e da escrita, instrumentalizando
minimamente os indivíduos para que sejam
“incluídos” na organização produtiva no tempo e do
modo necessário para a sobrevivência do sistema
capitalista. Na maioria dos documentos do Estado
acerca da educação do campo identifica-se sua
orientação no conjunto das políticas focais e
fragmentárias próprias do Estado em sua fase
neoliberal, cuja função básica é facilmente
identificável com as recomendações dos
organismos internacionais: educação como
segurança e alívio da pobreza].
xlvii
[é incorporada e aprisionada na política por
meio da formação do consenso].
xlviii
[As possibilidades de essência para articular o
projeto educacional dos povos do campo a uma
estratégia de superação do capital, e para que a
Educação do Campo contribua com isso, está em
romper com as ilusões de que a superação dos
problemas pode ocorrer via conciliação no interior
da sociedade burguesa].
xlix
[a luta do MST contra o fechamento de mais de
38 mil escolas na última década é necessariamente
uma luta da classe trabalhadora].
l
[limitar o direito à luta pelo acesso à educação
escolar no âmbito apenas dos direitos, os esforços
do MST se encerram nos limites do direito e não na
emancipação]
Article Information
Received on May 23th, 2018
Accepted on July 11th, 2018
Published on August 30th, 2018
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in the MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations…
Tocantinópolis
v. 3
n. 2
p. 705-734
may/aug.
2018
ISSN: 2525-4863
734
Author Contributions: The authors were responsible for
the designing, delineating, analyzing and interpreting the
data, production of the manuscript, critical revision of the
content and approval of the final version to be published.
Conflitos de interesse: Os autores declararam não haver
nenhum conflito de interesse referente a este artigo.
Conflict of Interest: None reported.
Translation: Naylane Araújo Matos
Orcid
Vagner Luiz Kominkiéwicz
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5818-7184
Adriana D’Agostini
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1347-4198
How to cite this article
APA
Kominkiéwicz, V. L., & D’Agostini, A. (2018). Education in
the MST before the State and public policy of Rural
Education under the influence of multilateral organizations.
Rev. Bras. Educ. Camp., 3(2), 705-734. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.2525-4863.2018v3n2p705
ABNT
KOMINKIÉWICZ, V. L.; D’AGOSTINI, A. Education in the
MST before the State and public policy of Rural Education
under the influence of multilateral organizations. Rev.
Bras. Educ. Camp., Tocantinópolis, v. 3, n. 2, may/aug.,
p. 705-734, 2018. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20873/uft.2525-
4863.2018v3n2p705