School Management
September 09, 2026
Continuing Education in School Management
Débora Barbosa Roncon; José Vaidergorn
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602200
Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the Revista E&S with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.
Abstract
Continuing education in school management in the State of São Paulo was investigated to understand the commitment of institutions in offering courses that train their staff. The study aimed to analyze how the State of São Paulo, the government, and the Secretariat of Education (SEDUC-SP) were dedicated to providing continuing education courses in School Management, aiming for administrative and pedagogical knowledge based on democratic and participatory management. A documentary analysis of the curricula and bibliography of three courses offered by SEDUC-SP was carried out: Leadership Development Program (PDL): Course 2, Specific Training Course for New School Principals, and School of Management Course. The analysis revealed that the State of São Paulo demonstrated concern in ensuring school managers’ access to continuing education that addressed school management, emphasizing technical-administrative and pedagogical responsibilities, without neglecting the democratic character. However, it was observed that the courses presented distinct approaches and did not provide complete and homogeneous training for school managers in a single curriculum. It was concluded that, although the courses sought a balanced training between technical-administrative and pedagogical aspects, based on democratic principles, this articulation did not materialize homogeneously, resulting in partial training for the manager.
Keywords: School administration; Curriculum; Democratic management; School manager.
1. Introduction
The redemocratization of Brazil drove significant transformations in the organization of national education. The Federal Constitution (BRASIL, 1988) and, later, the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (LBD) (BRASIL, 1996) established democratic management as a fundamental principle. In 2023, the new wording of Article 3º of the LBD (BRASIL, 1996) not only maintained democratic management as a basic principle for the promotion of teaching but also reinforced its decentralization, granting States, Municipalities, and the Federal District autonomy to legislate on their respective education networks.
It is from these public policies, added to governmental programs and actions, that a guideline is established for the functioning of educational institutions. Thus, in order for an education aimed at the full development of the person, qualifying them for the exercise of citizenship and for the world of work, to be promoted, it is fundamental that schools function well. In this scenario, the school manager emerges as a central figure for the organization, functioning, and promotion of a democratic environment at school. The responsibility for applying democratic management in the school routine falls on the educational manager (Silva, 2009).
To understand the role of the manager, it is essential to conceptualize school management and democratic management. Oliveira (2018) argues that school management is a mutable concept, historically constructed, which carries its own values and meanings, shaped by the political and educational context of each era. Initially focused on administrative issues, school management evolved to incorporate pedagogical and political dimensions at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Dourado (2007) complements that educational management transcends the mere application of business administration principles, seeking political-pedagogical objectives that consider the school as a social institution with its own logic. Democratic management, in turn, requires a leader who balances administrative and pedagogical dimensions, integrating the school community — staff, teachers, parents, and students — and reconciling their diverse opinions and aspirations (Oliveira, 2018).
Given the complexity and scope of the school manager’s functions, it is expected that their academic training will enable them to fully exercise their technical-administrative and pedagogical responsibilities, without neglecting the required democratic character. However, the literature points to significant gaps regarding the analysis of the continuing education offered by the State to education professionals for the improvement of their functions as school managers (Oliveira, 2018). There are few studies dedicated to investigating the training that the State has provided for these professionals to improve themselves or occupy school management positions.
Thus, this work is justified by the need to investigate how the State of São Paulo, the government, and the Secretariat of Education are committed to offering continuing education courses that train school managers in an administratively and pedagogically adequate manner, so that they can exercise their functions democratically. The objective of this study is to understand how, in the State of São Paulo, the government and the Secretariat of Education are committed to the training of administratively and pedagogically qualified school managers to assume their positions and exercise them democratically. To this end, the curricula and bibliography of three courses offered by the Secretariat of Education of the State of São Paulo were analyzed: Leadership Development Program (PDL): Course 2, Specific Training Course for Incoming School Directors, and School Management Course, seeking to verify the concern with technical-administrative and pedagogical training based on democratic principles.
2. Material and Methods
This work was outlined as a case study, with a documentary research approach, aiming to analyze the curricula of the continuing education courses offered by the Secretariat of Education of the State of São Paulo.
For the collection of information and data, the virtual domains of the School for Training Education Professionals and the School of Management of the Government of São Paulo were used, where the course syllabi and programs were surveyed. Information not available in these domains, such as the specific bibliography for each course, was requested from the Secretariat of Education.
The data analysis involved the description of the objectives, programs, and syllabi of each course, followed by the identification of the types of approach, theoretical frameworks, assumptions, target audience, and proposals for democratic management. A critical analysis was carried out to verify whether the continuing education of the São Paulo Secretariat of Education balanced the technical-administrative and pedagogical responsibilities of the school manager, based on democratic principles, as highlighted by Dourado (2007) and Oliveira (2018).
3. Results and Discussion
The analysis of the data collected in the virtual domains of the School of Training for Education Professionals and the School of Government Management of São Paulo, complemented by the bibliography obtained through a request to SEDUC-SP, allowed for the description of the three continuing education courses in school management: Leadership Development Program (PDL): Course 2, Specific Training Course for Incoming School Principals, and the Management School Course.
Leadership Development Program (LDP): Course 2
The Leadership Development Program (PDL): Course 2, an 80-hour self-instructional distance learning course, is intended for SEDUC-SP servers from the Teaching Staff and the Secretariat of Education. Its objective is to strengthen the school management team, integrating theory and practice for the implementation of public policies (SEDUC-SP, 2025). The course is structured into four modules, each with a 20-hour workload, requiring 100% success in objective assessments for progression.
Table 1. Division of PDL modules: Course 2
| Modules | Topics | Workload |
|---|---|---|
| Module 1 | Classroom Management | 20 hours |
| Module 2 | Manager’s Performance in In-Person Classroom Support | 20 hours |
| Module 3 | Learning Assessment | 20 hours |
| Module 4 | Sense of urgency and decision-making | 20 hours |
Source: Leadership Development Program (PDL) Regulations: Course 2 – 1st Edition/2025
The modules address the role of the management team in knowledge construction, in-person classroom support, learning assessment, and attendance indicators, in addition to a sense of urgency and decision-making. The course is based on the pedagogical principles of the Paulista Curriculum (2018) and the Digital Material (2023), focusing on competency development and learning promotion, using Digital Platforms and the Total School Dashboard for monitoring. The bibliography, obtained upon request, does not distinguish between fundamental and secondary references nor organizes them by module. It includes authors such as Paulo Freire, José Carlos Libâneo, Antoni Zabala, and Philippe Perrenoud, who advocate for pedagogical and democratic management focused on learning and the manager’s coordinating role. Technical-administrative references include Paulo Roberto Motta and Vitor Henrique Paro, as well as official documents such as the BNCC and the Paulista Curriculum. Authors like Fausto Camargo, Thuinie Daros, and José Manuel Moran are cited in relation to active methodologies. Although the bibliography suggests a connection between theory and practice and a balanced view of the manager, the self-instructional format and the distance of the course, without moments for discussion or peer reflection, seem to offer no opportunities for the practical application of the theory of democratic and collective management.
Specific Training Course for Incoming School Principals
The Specific Training Course for Incoming School Directors is part of the probationary period for directors of the São Paulo State Public Network, and is intended for those approved in public examinations and permanent directors. With a duration of 360 hours, the blended learning modality includes 88 hours of in-person activities (eleven meetings of eight hours each) and 272 hours of self-instructional studies via AVA-EFAPE. The evaluation involves objective questions and attendance records, requiring 75% participation and 60% achievement for certification. The general objective is to deepen and update knowledge and methodologies, promoting reflection on professional practice and qualifying managers for pedagogical support, using Digital Information and Communication Technologies (DICT), aiming for the continuity of the São Paulo Curriculum (SEDUC-SP, 2024).
Table 2. Division of the modules of the Specific Training Course for Incoming School Principals
| Module | In-person | The distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring and tracking of the teaching and learning process | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 24h |
| Management of educational outcomes | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 25h |
| Democratic and participatory management | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 25h |
| Organizational climate | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 25h |
| Leadership in school management | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 25h |
| Management of the Functional Life of School Unit Professionals | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 25h |
| Context Analysis: knowing to intervene and transform | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 25h |
| School Planning and Organization | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 25h |
| Administrative Management | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 25h |
| Physical Space and Heritage Management | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 24h |
| Module The School’s Social Role In The 21st Century | AVA-EFAPE Online Application Activity | 8am | 24 hr |
Source: Regulations of the Specific Training Course for Incoming School Principals 1st edition/2024
The course bibliography, based on Resolution SE 56/2016, is extensive and not segmented by module or level of importance. A strong emphasis was observed on technical-administrative and normative management, with modules addressing these themes. Authors such as Heloisa Lück, Idalberto Chiavenato, and José Carlos Libâneo, along with normative documents from the Secretariat of State for Education, reinforce the technical role of the manager in strategic planning, leadership, institutional evaluation, and resource management. However, the bibliography also includes Paulo Freire, Paulo Roberto Padilha, and Ilma Passos Alencastro Veiga, who address democratic school management and dialogue with the school community. This suggests that, despite the weight on technical-administrative issues, the course seeks to address a democratic perspective. Given the mandatory nature of the course for directors in probationary status, technical and normative training is expected to meet the specific demands of the position. The course attempts to reconcile online and in-person activities, promoting interaction and discussion among peers, which differentiates it from PDL: Course 2. However, it does not offer internships or supervision for the practical application of theory, which limits the training experience for the participant who already holds the position.
School of Management Course
The Management School Course, an initiative of SEDUC-SP in partnership with Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV), aims to train school managers to promote sustainable changes in public education, adapting Harvard University’s method. With 120 hours, the distance learning course uses synchronous and asynchronous activities in the AVA-EFAP, with classes taught by FGV professors and mediated by Multiplier Directors. Aimed at professionals from the Teaching Staff and Teaching Directorates, each of the ten modules is structured with a case study, theoretical content, two synchronous classes, and three assessment activities (objective questions, video production, and peer review). Certification requires 80% attendance in synchronous classes and 70% achievement. The objectives include offering specialized technical training, promoting collaborative work, expanding theoretical grounding and experience sharing, developing leadership and school management skills, and qualifying professionals to improve actions in school units (SEDUC-SP, 2025).
Table 3. Division of dimensions and modules of the School of Management Course
| Dimensions | Modules |
|---|---|
| People Management and Climate | Leadership; Community Partnerships; Conflict Mediation and School Vulnerability. |
| Teaching and Learning Management | In-person classroom support and formative feedback; Management of results and data from educational platforms; Active methodologies. |
| Organizational Management | Management of pedagogical and administrative processes; Participatory school management. |
| Strategic Management | Classroom management: culture of high learning expectations; Strategic management focused on learning. |
Source: Course Regulations School of Management – 1st edition/2025 – Student Profile
The bibliography of the School of Management Course, also obtained by request and without module organization, differs from previous courses by the strong presence of references on strategic management and business administration. Although it includes authors such as Heloisa Lück, Paulo Freire, and Vitor Henrique Paro, who advocate for balanced and democratic management, there is an inclination towards topics such as strategic planning, PDCA cycle, indicators, efficiency, and results, with authors like Idalberto Chiavenato, Arão Sapiro, and Renato Feder. Normative documents such as the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education and the National Common Base of Competencies for School Principals also standardize the profile of the manager. The modules and bibliography, despite addressing democratic and pedagogical management, tend towards a technical-administrative vision with a focus on efficiency and results. The course promotes debate and exchange among participants through synchronous classes and video evaluation, similar to the Specific Training Course. However, it does not offer internships or supervision for the practical application of theory. The partnership with FGV reinforces the course’s tendency to provide technical-administrative tools, even with room for pedagogical discussion.
In summary, the analysis of the curricula of the three courses revealed SEDUC-SP’s concern in offering continuing education in school management, based on the assumption that the manager must balance technical-administrative and pedagogical responsibilities, with a focus on democratic and participatory management (Dourado, 2007; Oliveira, 2018). However, each course presents a distinct emphasis: the Specific Training Course for Incoming School Principals prioritizes the technical-administrative and normative dimension; the Leadership Development Program (PDL): Course 2 focuses on the pedagogical and leadership aspects; and the School of Management Course, in partnership with FGV, adopts a managerial and strategic approach, with a focus on results. This distinction suggests that the courses are not complementary and offer partial training. Furthermore, the absence of opportunities for practical training or reflection on the application of theory in daily school life was observed, especially for principals who already hold the position during the course. The provided bibliography, although extensive, proved to be more of a compilation of authors in the field than a structured guidance by modules or levels of importance.
4. Conclusion
The study sought to understand the commitment of the State of São Paulo, the government, and the Secretariat of Education (SEDUC-SP) in offering continuing education that would empower school managers administratively and pedagogically for the democratic exercise of their functions. It was verified that SEDUC-SP demonstrated concern in ensuring managers’ access to continuing education courses in school management. The analysis of the curricula and bibliography of three courses – Leadership Development Program (PDL): Course 2, Specific Training Course for Incoming School Directors, and School Management Course – revealed that, although they addressed school management with an emphasis on technical-administrative and pedagogical responsibilities, based on democratic principles, each presented a distinct focus. It was observed that the PDL: Course 2 prioritized the pedagogical and leadership dimension, the Specific Training Course for Incoming School Directors focused on the technical-administrative and normative dimension, and the School Management Course, in partnership with Fundação Getúlio Vargas, adopted a managerial and strategic approach, oriented towards results. This distinction indicated that the courses did not provide complete and homogeneous training in a single curriculum, resulting in partial manager training.
The main contribution of this study lies in the explicit clarification of the fragmented nature of continuing education in school management offered by SEDUC-SP, evidencing that, despite the intention to promote a balance between technical-administrative and pedagogical aspects based on democratic principles, this articulation did not materialize homogeneously. One identified limitation was the absence of opportunities for practical training or reflection on the application of theory in daily school life, especially for principals who were already exercising the function during the course. Furthermore, the provided bibliography, although extensive, proved to be more of a compilation of authors in the field than a structured guidance by modules or levels of importance. It is suggested that future studies investigate the effectiveness of these trainings in the daily practice of managers and propose integrated curriculum models that ensure more comprehensive and cohesive training, focusing on the practical application of knowledge and the promotion of truly democratic and participatory school management.
Bibliographic References
BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, DF: Senado Federal, 1988.
BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Lei n. 9.394/96, 20 dezembro de 1996. Estabelece a Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional. Brasília: MEC, 1996.
DOURADO, Luís Fernando. Políticas e gestão da educação básica no Brasil: limites e perspectivas. Educação e Sociedade, Campinas, v. 28, n. 100, p. 921-946, out. 2007.
OLIVEIRA, I. C. & lône V. M. Revisão de literatura: o conceito de gestão escolar. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 48: 876-900. 876-900. 2018.
SILVA, Eliene Pereira da. A importância do gestor educacional na instituição escolar. Revista Conteúdo, Capivari, v. 1, n. 2, p. 67- 83. jul./dez. 2009.
SÃO PAULO “Estado” – Secretaria da Educação do Estado de São Paulo. Programa de Desenvolvimento de Liderança (PDL): Curso 2 – 1ª Edição/2025, 2025. Disponível em: https://efape.educacao.sp.gov.br/
Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in School Management of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform