Tatyanne Gomes MARQUES1 Eugênia da Silva PEREIRA2 Priscila Teixeira da SILVA3

RESUMO: Este texto tem por objetivo apresentar e analisar as políticas de Educação do Campo no microcontexto do Território de Identidade Sertão Produtivo na Bahia – Brasil. O estudo se situa no campo das políticas públicas educacionais e centra-se nas propostas implementadas e/ou reivindicadas por diferentes atores e atrizes que protagonizam a vida e atuam no microcontexto focalizado. Para isso, faz uso de uma metodologia de revisão bibliográfica das produções de 2009 a 2020 da linha de pesquisa “Educação do Campo, Educação de Jovens e Adultos e Movimentos Sociais”, do Núcleo de Estudo, Pesquisa e Extensão Educacional Paulo Freire (NEPE), da Universidade do Estado da Bahia (UNEB), que tem o Sertão Produtivo como lócus principais de suas investigações. O levantamento das produções evidencia uma produção diversa – teses, dissertações, Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso, artigos em periódicos e anais de eventos. A análise dessas produções confirma, no cenário local, as contradições da política pública para a Educação do Campo: uma crescente visibilização dessa modalidade educacional e seus/suas protagonistas; a inserção dessa pauta nos marcos legais e nas políticas municipais, ao mesmo tempo que ocorre o fechamento e a nucleação extracampo das escolas, políticas de formação e trabalho docente universalistas, bem como práticas pedagógicas que, enquanto escolhas políticas, negam a identidade e cultura dos povos do campo.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Políticas públicas educacionais. Território de identidade sertão produtivo. Educação do campo.


1 Universidade do Estado da Bahia (UNEB), Guanambi – BA – Brasil. Professora no Departamento de Educação

It was also due to mining that the first settlements were formed. Mining is still currently a strong economic determinant of the territory, as it is in this region that the largest concentration of ores in the state of Bahia is found.


In addition to the strong presence of large cotton farms, cattle raising and mineral extraction throughout the territory, in 2012 the largest wind farm in Latin America was inaugurated in the municipalities of Caetité, Guanambi and Igaporã, under the command of the company Renova Energia (SILVA, 2015).



The configuration of this territory is characterized by inequality in economic, political, cultural and social aspects, where the supremacy of large farmers and, currently, of large enterprises, is opposed to the majority of the illiterate population, without resources and punished by drought (PDTSP, 2010).

Thus, in the historical-geographic configuration of the Productive Hinterland Territory, guaranteeing public policies for rural worker peoples becomes an extremely difficult task, which makes up the scenario of strengthening the migration of rural peoples from the countryside to the urban centers of the region and, mainly to the center-south of Brazil. When comparing the number of inhabitants in rural areas from 2000 to 2010, it is observed that most municipalities have reduced the rural population. In the territory as a whole, from 2000 to 2010, according to data from the Demographic Census, there was a decrease of 7% of the rural population and an increase of 5.6% of the urban population.

This is the micro-context that has been the field of study for most of the line's research, and its historical, geo-economic and social characteristics are the basis for an analysis of the paths of public policies in Countryside Education.

Emerging themes in the Countryside Education policy in the Identity Territory Productive Hinterland

Public Policies for Countryside Education and Management

Of all the productions in the line, we identified twenty-two works that specifically discuss Countryside Education as a public policy and the school management of institutions. Of these, seventeen address the countryside education policy and bring the debate on this educational modality in general. The other texts articulate the struggle of social movements for rural education and analyze this in the Municipal Education Plans and in the framework of vacancies.

The works that discuss Countryside Education, in general, bring the debate on the historical trajectory of Countryside Education, the materiality of the concept and its legal legitimacy, the limits and possibilities. They conceive Countryside Education as a necessary articulation in the struggle for transformation in the countryside, as a path to human formation and social visibility for countryside peoples. In some of these works and in the specific work on social movements, the articulation and struggle of movements, social organizations and unions for Countryside Education stand out.


Countryside Education, the result of the struggles of social movements organized in collectives in the late 1990s (MOLINA, 2010), today constitutes one of the modalities of basic



education in Brazil and has its legal legitimacy guaranteed in the Normative Frameworks of Countryside Education, highlighted, in the Educational Guidelines – Resolution No. 1 (BRASIL, 2002) and No. 2 (BRASIL, 2008a) and in Decree 7352 (BRASIL, 2010).

However, despite this entire process of institutionalization as a way of demanding the State to pay a historic debt regarding access to school education by countryside peoples, research shows that, in reality, the municipalities in the territory have not yet been able to implement the wishes of this movement that took place at the federal level. Vilhena Júnior and Mourão (2012) highlight that, in general, the actions for those who live in the countryside are born at the federal level and are often not carried out at the state and municipal levels, which becomes even more worrying in light of the current federal government in Brazil, which openly defends agribusiness and large estates by ignoring the environmental and social impacts of capital in rural areas. Municipal and state governments, and especially social movements that do not agree with such a political perspective, will have to organize themselves even more to guarantee the rights of countryside peoples.

In this scenario of antitheses, the works that analyze the reality of the municipalities of Productive Hinterland show a policy of closing countryside schools and the non-offer of early childhood education in the children's community itself, as required by the Guidelines (BRASIL, 2002, 2008a). Although most of the Municipal Plans bring discussions of important issues related to Countryside Education, such as teacher formation, curriculum, school transport, there is no deeper debate on Countryside Education as a concept of education, and it is verified a certain invisibility about the closing of schools. While Countryside Education gained space in the legal documents, dozens of rural schools were closed in the Territory, as will be discussed in the next topic.

Another aspect to be highlighted is that the Municipal Education Plans that were built with the effective participation of organized social groups in the countryside are the ones that bring a more critical analysis of the reality of the municipalities and show the disagreement with national legislation and with the wishes of the movements social.


Such challenges of institutionalizing Countryside Education in schools can be one of the elements that hinder the conditions of countryside school management. In these, the political nomination is predominant in the position of principal; the principals do not live in the countryside and the position has a high turnover of professionals. Added to this is the fact that school councils meet only once a year and there are a considerable number of schools without councils; and that the Political Pedagogical Projects of the schools are, in most cases, built with ready-made models, without the participation of the community.



According to Nunes, Silva and Silva (2017), the perspective of democratic management present in the Countryside Education guidelines expands the participatory subjects and inverts the logic of management, as it puts schools, community and social movements together in favor of economic development fair and ecologically sustainable for the countryside. For this, direct elections for directors, an active and deliberative management council, and a Political Pedagogical Project collectively built with an effective local diagnosis are essential.

The line's productions that deal with this theme demonstrate how Countryside Education has been strengthened as a movement in the struggle for the right to education in and of the countryside, whether in the dimension of collective, theoretical struggle or in the field of public policies. However, ensuring its effectiveness in the reality of municipalities in the Productive Hinterland Territory is still a challenge. It is necessary to guarantee the existence of schools in the countryside, the expansion of the debate on the concept of Countryside Education and democratic management with the participation of the community, social movements and unions in the region.

Denial of Countryside Education as a policy: from the closure to the nucleation of schools in the city

In the production of the researchers in the line, there are thirty works that address the nucleation policy and the closing of rural schools in some municipalities in the Territory.

Of these, we identified eleven productions on nucleation: four (4) dealing with nucleation policy; five (5) on the impacts of the process of closing schools, whether on learning or on students' lives; one (1) on the practice of teachers and one (1) on changing the multi-series model to the series. Ten works specifically deal with extra-field nucleation, bringing the view of rural students about the city school, the representations, the lived and the desired, the implications in daily life and the schooling process and the provision of early childhood education for the country children in the city.

Five productions have as object of analysis the closing of countryside schools. They address the history of closing schools in the countryside, including Agrarian Family Schools, the uncertainties of the continuity of operation of some institutions and the impacts on the lives of students and their families.


The wear and tear of students regarding displacement, the risks they are exposed to in the home-school-home route and for being in the city are described through methodologies that take the narratives of these subjects as the empirical basis of the analyses. Likewise, school practices that do not dialogue with the realities and identities of countryside peoples in the semiarid



territory are problematized. The naturalization of closing schools is so striking that in the reports of countryside children who study in a core school in the city, the existence of a countryside school is something far from their imagination, reflecting the non-policy of education in their communities.

The significant production on this theme is certainly related to the current practice of intra- and extra-field nucleation in the territory's municipalities. With the rationale of reducing costs, improving the structural quality of countryside schools and ending multigrade, many municipalities have nucleated schools in more populated rural communities and, mainly, in cities, which consequently leads to the closing of countryside schools.

Despite the achievement of the legal frameworks of Countryside Education and the institutionalization of countryside education as a public policy by Decree 7352 (BRASIL, 2010), the right to schooling in rural areas is still a latent challenge in the country and in the municipalities of the micro-context focused here.

Productive Hinterland, among the territories of the state of Bahia, was considered in 2014 as the fifth territory in terms of closing countryside schools. When analyzing the data on the number of educational establishments in the countryside of the territory, in the last ten years (2009-2019), it is possible to identify that, of the twenty municipalities, eighteen have reduced the number of schools – in some cases, drastically.










Graph 1 – Number of countryside schools in the municipalities of the Productive Hinterland Territory (2009-2019)

Brumado Caculé Caetité Candiba

Contendas do… Dom Basílio Guanambi

Ibiassucê Ituaçu Iuiu

Lagoa Real

Livramento de…

Malhada de Pedras

Palmas de Monte…

Pindaí Rio do Antônio


Tanhaçu Tanque Novo


Source: Basic Education Census 2009 – 2019 – INEP


In the territory as a whole, three hundred and sixty-nine schools were closed, which is equivalent to 60.9%. The municipalities of Livramento de Nossa Senhora and Ituaçu, the ones with the greatest decrease in schools, closed together one hundred and thirty-three schools in the countryside.



It should be noted that one of the municipalities that increased the number of schools, Guanambi, two more schools, did so by simply renaming schools that already existed in the districts as “countryside schools”. Most of the research we have identified is about this municipality, highlighting the impacts and condition of countryside people studying in the urban environment. Growing searches point for an ever-decreasing number of schools in the countryside.

Another aspect highlighted is that, although the Complementary Resolution of the Countryside Education Guidelines (BRASIL, 2008a) has regulated the nucleation process, recommending that it can only happen intra-field from the planned study of the location, the demand for the supply of early childhood education in the communities themselves and considerations about school transport, the municipalities have been carrying out the nucleation in a disorderly way, which is even denounced as urbanization of education.

Therefore, although Law 12,960 (BRASIL, 2014), which amended article 28 of LDB 9,394/96 and added a regulation on the closing of countryside schools, states that this process can only take place upon approval by a regulatory body, considering the justification, the analysis of the diagnosis of the impact of the action and the manifestation of the school community, the research data show that the struggle for the realization of the right to school education in the countryside is still a challenge posed in public educational policies. The awareness of the right has advanced, as stated by Caldart (2002, p. 18, our translation): “[...] the countryside people have the right to education in the place where they live; the people have the right to an education designed from their place and with their participation”, now it is necessary to create a movement of struggle and resistance.

The policy of formation and work of countryside teachers in the Productive Hinterland territory

The research and extension projects developed over ten years in the identity territory Productive Hinterland, systematized in more than twenty-one publications (dissertation, TCC, book chapters, articles in journals and event proceedings), show that formation and the work of teachers for a countryside school is characterized as a non-place. That is, a place denied, not occupied, as was thought by Certau (1994).


From the formation prior to the requirement of LDBEN 9394/1996 for licensed teachers to work in Basic Education to the guidelines of the most recent legal frameworks, such as the Operational Guidelines for Basic Education in countryside schools (BRASIL 2002; 2008a),



courses that form teachers, for the most part, were little occupied/occupied with the specifics of teaching in rural contexts.

Marques (2016) shows that, in undergraduate courses, there is an invisibility of countryside education, whether as content, discipline or internship practices. In the specific case of undergraduate courses at Uneb, present through three campuses in the Identity Territory Productive Hinterland and one of the institutions responsible for the formation of teachers in this context, Marques et al. (2016) found that only the undergraduate teaching course in Pedagogy (offered on the Guanambi and Brumado campuses) includes in its curriculum a subject called “Countryside Education” (60 hours). In the other degrees, which form teachers to work in the final years of Elementary and High School, offered at the Uneb Campus in Caetité, at the Federal Institute of Bahia (IFBaiano - Campus Guanambi) or at private institutions present in the Distance Education modality in all municipalities in the territory, there is no discipline or internship in countryside schools.

What can be observed in this context, common to the national scenario, is that the debate on the specifics of teaching in schools in the countryside, does not exist or is incipient. Only teachers who work in Kindergarten, Early Years of Elementary School and Youth and Adult Education (cycles that correspond to the early years of elementary school), when graduated in Pedagogy at the State University of Bahia, come closer the debate about the singularities of teaching with students of the countryside and/or in countryside schools. Still, when Marques et al. (2016) conducted a research with undergraduate students of this course, the statements of the majority demonstrate that the 60-hour discipline, by itself, is not enough to prepare future teachers.

The only formation experiences that oppose the presented reality refer to policies that are articulated with the struggles of social movements for Countryside Education (Teacher degree in Pedagogy of the Land) and research groups that stand as protagonists of continuing education projects (Lato Sensu specialization course in Countryside Education). However, it is noteworthy that the Pedagogy of the Land course, although researched by Marques (2010), was developed on the Campus XVII of Uneb and has little incidence in schools in the Productive Hinterland Territory. On the other hand, the Lato Sensu specialization course in Countryside Education, even though it is characterized as continuing education, attended only 21 teachers who work in schools in the territory, out of a total, in 2019, of one thousand six hundred and ninety-six teachers of the countryside (INEP, 2020).


The productions we analyzed do not indicate the existence of policies and plans for formation of teachers in coutnryside schools, such as Active School (BRASIL, 2008b);School of



the Land (BRASIL, 2013) and the Support Program for Teaching Degrees in Countryside Education (Procampo) in Productive Hinterland. These policies, if implemented in the region, have little impact or have not yet been the object of study in the field of Countryside Education, Youth and Adult Education and Social Movements of NEPE/Uneb.

What studies carried out on the theme of teacher formation and work in schools that serve countryside students demonstrate is that countryside realities are absent from the formative curricula of most teachers who work in the territory whose municipalities have majority of rural population. Consequently, the knowledge pointed out by Silva and Pereira (2018) as necessary for the educator of the countryside are not present in the performance.

In this context, universalist teacher education and work policies are configured, as Arroyo (2007) discusses. For this author, “our thinking and our practice assume that policies should be universalist or generalist, valid for everyone, without distinction” (ARROYO, 2007, p. 160, our translation). Therefore, research show that, even in the Productive Hinterland, where there are many children, young people and adults in the countryside or who live there, the formation of teachers and their practices is based on the discourse that “everyone is equal in school". Differences and the different, therefore, are left out and people become uniform.

Political and Pedagogical Choices: Implications for the Practices and Identities of Countryside Schools in the Productive Hinterland

The analysis of twenty-seven of the productions in the research line highlights pedagogical practices as political choices. This is because the texts evaluated deal with curriculum and teaching practices, both in Early Childhood Education and in the early and final years of Elementary School, and are marked by choices of a school-education-society project. These choices are presented in the denial of a curriculum that considers the specificities of countryside people, from (and mainly) Early Childhood Education. The study by Ferreira, Silva and Marques (2018) points out that, despite the efforts of some school institutions, the principles of Countryside Education are still not effective in pedagogical practices, especially in Early Childhood Education.


In this sense, we observe that in the various studies there is a gap in relation to legislation and the effectiveness of actions. Baleeiro and Silva (2018) point to a distance between the legal and the real in educational policies that work with countryside peoples. Pereira, Ribeiro and Trindade (2017, p. 38, our translation) state that “We increasingly perceive the implementation of a policy of expropriation of peasants and the strengthening of education based on an urban vision, which does not consider the particularities of the countryside”.



In this way, we can see that the political choices start from the denial of quality education, which allows countryside students to take their reality as a basis for expanding their knowledge. These choices reflect and often define the identity of the countryside school. When analyzing the research on the identity of schools in the territory, we realize that the process of extracampus nucleation has caused the uprooting of peasant subjects (OLIVEIRA; REIS; COTRIM, 2011). On the other hand, there are schools that resist, showing themselves to be integrated into the community, as the study by Marques, Pereira and Pereira (2019) points out. These schools seek in this articulation with the community to guide a curriculum that dialogues with the specificities of students.

Duarte, Morais and Silva (2017) indicate that, even being in the countryside, the school may not provoke a feeling of belonging in the community. This reaffirms the importance of a curriculum and a Political Pedagogical Project that listens to local demands, as recommended by the Operational Guidelines and Decree 7,352 (BRASIL, 2010). The authors point out the need to understand the students' sense of belonging to the school in the countryside in order to promote quality education.

The reflections and results of the studies contribute to understand that educational policies, implemented in pedagogical practices, need to consider the identity of the schools, the context of the community and the identity of the subjects – basic principles of Countryside Education.

Final considerations

The Identity Territory Productive Hinterland is marked by the dispute of antagonistic development models, a strong historical presence of large estates and large enterprises in the field of mining and energy, in contrast to the reality of eminently rural municipalities that suffer from the denial of rights, among them that of education.

Understanding the paradigmatic models in dispute at the local and national level makes the analysis of the real challenges posed to the realization of Countryside Education as a policy and conception of education more precise.


The analysis of the productions of researchers in the Line "Countryside Education, Youth and Adult Education and Social Movements", of the Center for Study, Research and Educational Extension Paulo Freire (NEPE) of the Department of Education - DEDC XII - of Bahia State University (Uneb), showed that the researches that dialogue with the basic education policy in the countryside deal with the following themes: Public policies and management; politics as a denial of rights, since there is a considerable number of productions on the closure and nucleation of



countryside schools; the formation and performance of teachers and pedagogical practices. We also identified other emerging themes in research, such as those that centralize the protagonism of women, youth and social movements while demanding public policies, but which, for the scope of this text, we chose not to look into.

Regarding the proposed objective - to present and analyze Countryside Education policies in the micro-context of the Identity Territory Productive Hinterland in Bahia/Brazil - the results show the contradictions of public policy for Countryside Education: a growing visibility of this educational modality and its protagonists; the insertion of this agenda in legal frameworks and municipal policies, at the same time as the closure and extra-field nucleation of schools; universalist formation policies and teaching work, as well as pedagogical practices that, as political choices, deny the identity and culture of countryside peoples.

This scenario reinforces the relevance of the research carried out by the line as a form of denunciation, historical record and as indicators of propositional paths for actions in the field of local educational public policies. These are scientific data that show the need for emancipatory public policies in opposition to public policies that have kept countryside peoples subordinated to the capitalist logic.


ARROYO, M. G. Políticas de formação de educadores do campo. Cad. Cedes, Campinas, v. 27, n. 72, p. 157-176, maio/ago. 2007.

BALEEIRO, I. M.; SILVA, P. T. Panorama da Educação Infantil no Campo: entre o real e o legal. 2018. Monografia (Trabalho de Conclusão da Pós-Graduação Lato Sensu em Educação do Campo) – Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Guanambi, 2018.

BRASIL. Conselho Nacional de Educação. Câmara de Educação Básica. Resolução CNE/CEB

n. 01, de 03 de abril de 2002. Institui Diretrizes Operacionais para a Educação Básica nas Escolas do Campo. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 09 abr. 2002.

BRASIL. Conselho Nacional de Educação. Câmara de Educação Básica. Resolução CNE/CEB

n. 02, de 28 de abril de 2008. Estabelece diretrizes complementares, normas e princípios para o desenvolvimento de políticas públicas de atendimento da Educação Básica do Campo. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 29 abr. 2008a.

BRASIL. Decreto n. 7.352, 04/11/2010. Política de Educação do Campo e o Programa Nacional de Educação e Reforma Agrária – PRONERA. Brasília, DF: Casa Civil, 2010.


BRASIL. Secretaria de Educação Continuada, Alfabetização e Diversidade. Ministério da Educação. Escola Ativa: projeto base. Brasília, DF: SECAD/MEC, 2008b.



BRASIL. Secretaria de Educação Continuada, Alfabetização e Diversidade e Inclusão. Ministério da Educação. Escola da Terra. Brasília, DF: SECAD/MEC, 03 out. 2013.

BRASIL. Lei n. 12.960, de 27 de março de 2014. Altera a Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996, que estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional, para fazer constar a exigência de manifestação de órgão normativo do sistema de ensino para o fechamento de escolas do campo, indígenas e quilombolas. Brasília, DF, 28 mar. 2014. Available: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011- 2014/2014/lei/l12960.htm#:~:text=LEI%20N%C2%BA%2012.960%2C%20DE%2027,do%20ca

mpo%2C%20ind%C3%ADgenas%20e%20quilombolas. Access: 10 June 2020.

CALDART, R. S. Por uma educação do campo: traços de uma identidade em construção. In: ARROYO, M. G.; CALDART, R. S.; MOLINA, M. C. Por uma educação básica no campo: Identidade e políticas públicas. Brasília, 2002. v. 4

DUARTE, E. C. S.; MORAIS, E. S.; SILVA, P. T. Olhares dos alunos sobre a escola no campo do município de Urandi. In: SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL, 1.; SEMINÁRIO

NACIONAL DE ESTUDOS, 4., 2017, São Carlos. Anais [...]. São Carlos, SP: UFSCAR, 2017.

FERNANDES, B. M. Construindo um estilo de pensamento na questão agrária: o debate paradigmático e o conhecimento demográfico. Tese (Livre-docência) – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Presidente Prudente, 2013.

FERNANDES, B. M. Políticas públicas, questão agrária e desenvolvimento territorial rural no Brasil. In: GRISA, C.; SCHNEIDER, S. Políticas públicas de desenvolvimento rural no Brasil. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 2015. 624 p.

FERREIRA, A. T.; SILVA, P. T.; MARQUES, T. G. Educação Infantil no/do campo no município de Guanambi-BA: olhares sobre a oferta e o trabalho pedagógico. In: TRINDADE, D.

R. et al. Sujeitos do campo em movimento: direitos, resistências e práticas formativas. Curitiba: CRV, 2018.

FRIGOTTO, G. Projeto societário contra-hegemônico e educação do campo: desafios de conteúdo, método e forma. In: MUNARIM, A. et al. (Org.). Educação do campo: reflexões e perspectivas. Florianópolis: Insular, 2010. p. 19-46.

IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo demográfico 2000 e 2010. Available: www.ibge.gov.br. Access: May 2020.

INEP. Censo da Educação Básica 2009-2019. Available: http://inep.gov.br/sinopses-estatisticas- da-educacao-basica. Access: Oct. 2020.

MARQUES, T. G. Pedagogia da Terra: significados da formação para educadores e educadoras do campo. 2010. Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2010.

MARQUES, T. G.; PEREIRA, E. S.; PEREIRA, R. Escola Municipal Colônia Agrícola


de Ceraíma: história e significados para a comunidade. Revista ComCiência, v. 5, p. 1-10, 2019. Available: http://www.revistacomciencia.com/arquivos/30.pdf. Access 10 Nov. 2020.



MARQUES, T. G. Os cursos de licenciatura e a formação para a docência em escolas no/do campo. Revista Cocar (Online), v. único, p. 76-97, 2016. Available: https://periodicos.uepa.br/index.php/cocar/article/view/1700. Access: 10 Dec. 2020.

MARQUES, T. G. et al. O curso de Pedagogia e a formação de professores para a educação do/no campo: uma análise a partir das falas dos estudantes. In: SEMINARIO INTERNACIONAL

DE LA RED ESTRADO, 6., 2016, Cidade do México. Anais [...]. Cidade do México, México: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional (UPN), 2016.

MÉSZÁROS, I. Para além do capital: rumo a uma teoria da transição. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2011.

MOLINA, M. C. Reflexões sobre o significado do protagonismo dos movimentos sociais na construção de políticas públicas de educação do campo. In: MOLINA, M. C. Educação do Campo e Pesquisa II: questões para reflexão. Brasília: MDA/MEC, 2010. p. 137-149.

NUNES, E. J. F. SILVA, P. T. SILVA, N.C. A educação do campo: perspectivas para um novo modelo de gestão escolar. In: SALES, M.V. S. (Org). Educação e contemporaneidade: perspectivas, interfaces e práticas formativas. Curitiba: CRV, 2017. v. 3.

OLIVEIRA, A.; REIS, C. M. D.; COTRIM, V. Da comunidade rural à escola da cidade: olhares dos sujeitos desses espaços. 2011. Monografia (Trabalho de Conclusão do Curso de Pedagogia) – Departamento de Educação Campus XII, Universidade do Estado da Bahia, 2011.

OLIVEIRA, D. A. Política educacional. In: OLIVEIRA, D. A.; DUARTE, A. M. C.; VIEIRA, L.

M. F. Dicionário: trabalho, profissão e condição docente. Belo Horizonte: UFMG/Faculdade de Educação, 2010.

PEREIRA, L. S.; RIBEIRO, M. S.; TRINDADE, D. R. Educação do/no campo: um olhar sobre

a prática do professor de educação física no município de Pindaí-BA. In: TRINDADE, D. R. et al.

Práticas educativas, currículo e formação: múltiplos olhares. Fortaleza, CE: RDS, 2017.

PTDSP. Plano Territorial de Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável do Sertão Produtivo. 1. ed.

Bahia, dez. 2010.

RIBEIRO, M. Movimento camponês, trabalho e educação: liberdade, autonomia, emancipação: princípios/fins da formação humana. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2010.

SANTOS, A. R.; BARBOSA, L. P.; ROSSET, P. M. Apresentação do Dossiê Temático. Práxis Educacional, Vitória da Conquista, v. 13, n. 26, 2018. Available: https://periodicos2.uesb.br/index.php/praxis/article/view/2818. Access: 14 Dec. 2020.

SILVA, P. T. O olhar da escola sobre a juventude do campo na comunidade de Mutãs - Bahia: linhas que se cruzam, tessituras a se fazer. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação da Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia. 2015. 121 p. [Relatório Técnico]


SILVA, P. T.; LIMA, P. A.; BEBÉ, F. V. Desafios da agricultura familiar no Brasil e no Território Sertão Produtivo-BA. Entrelaçando: Revista Eletrônica de Culturas e Educação, ano v, n. 10, p. 37-51, 2016.



SILVA, P. T.; PEREIRA, E. S. Autonomia e Emancipação: saberes necessários ao educador e a educadora do campo. In: (Auto)nomia: atuação do educador em diferentes espaços. 1. ed.

Curitiba: CRV, 2018. v. 1, p. 119-127.

VILHENA JÚNIOR, W. M.; MOURÃO, A. R. B. Políticas públicas e os movimentos sociais por uma Educação do Campo. In: GHEDIN, E. (Org.). Educação do campo: epistemologia e prática.

1. ed. São Paulo: Cortez, 2012.

How to reference this article

MARQUES, T. G.; PEREIRA, E. S.; SILVA, P. T. Policies of countryside education in the identity territory productive hinterland in Bahia-Brazil: research notes. Revista Ibero- Americana de Estudos em Educação, Araraquara, v. 16, n. esp. 2, p. 1267-1285, maio 2021. e-ISSN: 1982-5587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee.v16iesp2.15125


Submitted: 15/12/2020 Required revisions: 28/01/2021 Approved: 03/03/2021 Published: 01/05/2021