From Bureaucracy to Recognition: School Management Strategies to Reduce Teacher Overload

Marcus Vinicius Peres; Silvia Renata De Oliveira Santos

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603240

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

Given the intensification of bureaucracy in the contemporary educational context, especially in the post-pandemic period, the study analyzed the impacts of administrative demands on teaching work, considering their implications for school organization and teaching quality. The objective was to investigate the perception of pedagogical coordinators and principals regarding school bureaucracy, as well as to identify management practices capable of reducing administrative overload and promoting greater institutional balance. A qualitative, exploratory-descriptive approach was adopted, based on the multiple case study method. Data collection was carried out through semi-structured questionnaires applied to three managers from two private basic education institutions, with the responses analyzed using the content analysis technique. The results indicated that bureaucracy is recognized as a necessary element for the organization of school work, especially concerning planning, evaluation records, and pedagogical monitoring. However, when structured in a fragmented and redundant manner, it was associated with rework, loss of pedagogical time, and intensification of teaching work. In contrast, collaborative management practices and strategies for integrating and organizing processes showed potential to mitigate these effects. It was concluded that the effectiveness of school bureaucracy depends on its organization on integrated bases and its articulation with pedagogical purposes.

Keywords: Bureaucratization of education; Organizational culture; Organizational efficiency; Process improvement; Professional appreciation.

1. Introduction

In the contemporary educational context, especially after the pandemic period between 2020 and 2022, debates about teaching working conditions and the challenges faced by educational institutions have intensified. With the return to in-person teaching, the presence of students with significant learning difficulties has become recurrent, often attributed to the formative gaps of that period. This scenario has led to an increase in pedagogical and administrative demands, such as the elaboration of more detailed planning, the implementation of recovery processes, and constant revisions, configuring a new set of requirements in daily school life (Cruz, 2024).

In this context, a reconfiguration of educational management is observed, marked by a shift in focus that displaces the centrality of the formative dimension to a more bureaucratic-administrative logic, associated with processes of rationalization and control (Dalbosco et al., 2023). This transformation can be understood from a critical perspective of education, which sees it as a historically situated practice traversed by political and social disputes (Saviani, 1999).

In this direction, the incorporation of managerial principles in education reinforces a logic of performativity, control, and accountability, contributing to the intensification of teaching work and the reorganization of school practices under parameters of efficiency and productivity (Hypolito, 2011). The literature indicates that this process materializes in the intensification of teaching work, characterized by the multiplicity of tasks, the demand for strict adherence to deadlines and records, and the constant need for professional updating (Arruda, 2015).

Such conditions, often incompatible with the workload and remuneration of professionals, tend to generate processes of precariousness and alienation of teaching work, impacting their autonomy and working conditions (Oliveira, 2004). Another relevant element refers to the growing incorporation of digital technologies in school management. Although often presented as instruments for optimizing processes, these tools do not always result in simplification of tasks. On the contrary, they can expand control mechanisms and intensify work, configuring what Lima (2021) calls “augmented bureaucracy”.

From this perspective, studies on managerialist management indicate that such devices also produce specific forms of teacher subjectivation, marked by the internalization of goals, individual accountability, and the continuous pursuit of efficiency, increasing pressure on teachers and reducing the time allocated to pedagogical activities. In a convergent manner, Rizo (2020) highlights that the growing centrality of administrative processes and formal requirements has contributed to the construction of school environments oriented by quantitative indicators, not always aligned with the effectiveness of educational practices. This scenario highlights a tension between administrative means and pedagogical ends, questioning the role of bureaucracy in the school context.

It is important to highlight that the intensification of teaching work is not a recent phenomenon. Garcia and Anadon (2009) already identified, in the educational reforms of the 1990s, the expansion of administrative demands and the accountability of teachers for educational results, indicating the continuity and deepening of these processes. Furthermore, the workload does not fall exclusively on teachers, but also extends to school managers, who act under constant pressure to meet institutional requirements and ensure the school’s functioning (Brenner; Ferreira, 2020). School administration, understood as the rational use of resources for the achievement of educational goals, is not limited to bureaucratic control, but is directly linked to the quality of the pedagogical process (Paro, 2010). Thus, management’s performance can both intensify and mitigate the effects of bureaucratization on teaching work.

Given this scenario, it becomes fundamental to reflect on management practices capable of minimizing the effects of excessive bureaucratization and promoting greater institutional balance. Strategies based on collaboration, professional recognition, and efficient process organization can contribute to improving the organizational climate and strengthening pedagogical work. In this sense, school bureaucracy should be understood not only as a set of administrative requirements but as a complex phenomenon, whose effectiveness depends on its articulation with pedagogical purposes. Thus, investigating the perceptions of school managers proves particularly relevant, as these professionals occupy a strategic position in the organization and reorganization of institutional processes. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the perception of pedagogical coordinators and directors regarding school bureaucracy, as well as to identify management practices capable of reducing administrative overload and promoting greater institutional balance.

2. Material and Methods

This research adopted a qualitative, exploratory-descriptive approach, with the purpose of investigating school managers’ perception of bureaucracy and its implications. The central methodological procedure was the multiple case study, according to Yin’s (2015) guidelines. This choice proved adequate for investigating complex educational phenomena, allowing for a contextualized analysis of school management practices and an understanding of the mechanisms by which administrative decisions impact teaching work.

The choice of multiple case studies was justified by the need to obtain a broad understanding of the phenomenon, enabling the confrontation of different institutional realities and conferring greater robustness to the interpretation of the data (Gil, 2017). The study involved two private basic education institutions, located in the same city, with the objective of comparing contexts and identifying similarities and specificities in management practices. The anonymity of the institutions and participants was preserved, in accordance with the ethical principles of scientific research.

The research participants were three school managers, specifically pedagogical coordinators and principals, working in the two basic education institutions. Initially, four managers were expected to participate, but the final analysis considered the three valid responses received. The selection of participants occurred based on their positions, which strategically place them in the organization and reorganization of institutional processes.

Data collection was carried out through semi-structured questionnaires, applied virtually. The instrument consisted of twelve essay questions, organized into four sections. The first section sought to identify the professional profile of the participants; the second, their perceptions of school management practices and bureaucracy; the third, the impact of management actions on teaching work; and the fourth, suggestions for institutional improvement and balance.

For the application of the questionnaires, an electronic form was used, accessed by the participants upon prior consent. In addition to the data obtained directly from the questionnaires, the research was complemented, when authorized by the managers, with the analysis of institutional documents, such as school records and administrative records, aiming to contextualize the collected information.

The analysis of the collected data was conducted through the content analysis technique, according to Bardin’s (2016) propositions. This process involved three chronological phases: pre-analysis, which included the organization of the material and the formulation of indicators; material exploration, with coding and enumeration operations; and treatment of results, inference, and interpretation, to make the raw data meaningful.

To guide the analysis, thematic categories were defined a priori, elaborated from the dialogue between specialized literature and the study’s objectives. The categories included: Professional profile and responsibilities; Essentiality and management practices; Dysfunctions and bureaucratic overload; Efficacy and management strategies; Organizational climate and appreciation; and Improvement and innovation proposals. This structuring ensured rigor in interpretation and coherence with the research problem.

Ethical considerations were rigorously observed. The research was submitted to and approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), under the Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Appreciation (CAEE) No. 94403225.8.0000.9927, in accordance with Resolution No. 466/12 of the National Health Council. Ethical rigor, participant protection, absolute confidentiality of personal information, and anonymity of data were guaranteed, and the data were stored securely and accessible only to the research team.

Participants were informed about the study objectives, the procedures involved, the potential minimal benefits and risks, and the voluntariness of their participation, with the possibility of withdrawal at any time without penalty. Free and informed consent was obtained electronically, and all collected information was used exclusively for scientific purposes, ensuring the confidentiality and privacy of individuals.

3. Results and Discussion

The present investigation, although initially planned to include the participation of four school principals, had its final analysis conducted based on three valid responses. One of the invited participants did not submit their answers within the established deadline, even after contact attempts. However, this change in the number of respondents did not compromise the robustness of the research objectives, nor the consistency of the analyses performed. The qualitative approach adopted, focusing on the depth and interpretation of the data, allowed for the identification of patterns, convergences, and relevant elements in the principals’ perceptions, ensuring the validity of the findings for understanding the phenomenon of school bureaucracy and its impacts on teaching work.

The data analysis was structured from previously defined thematic categories, which guided the interpretation of the empirical material. These categories, developed in dialogue with specialized literature and the study’s objectives, allowed for the inclusion of both structural and dynamic aspects of school management. The dimensions included the professional profile and responsibilities of the participants, the essentiality of management practices, dysfunctions and bureaucratic overload, management effectiveness and strategies, organizational climate and professional appreciation, and proposals for improvement and innovation. This systematic organization ensured rigor in interpretation and coherence between the theoretical framework and the results obtained.

Professional Profile and Responsibilities

Regarding the participants’ profile, a diversity of experiences and levels of institutional insertion was observed, which enriched the analysis of perceptions about bureaucracy. P1, a coordinator, and P2, a director, had less time in their positions, with six months and a few weeks, respectively. In contrast, P3, also a coordinator, had a consolidated career of 34 years in the role. This variation in professional background directly influenced how each manager interpreted bureaucratic processes, evidencing that accumulated experience broadens the capacity for institutional reading, allowing for a deeper understanding of phenomena (Yin, 2015).

P3’s trajectory, with its long tenure, gave its analysis a historical-structural character, distinguishing it from P1’s more immediate and operational perspective. While P1 tended to focus on concrete aspects of daily life and the direct impacts of bureaucracy on the teaching routine, P3 demonstrated a broader understanding of institutional processes, situating current demands within a historical movement of school management transformation. This difference corroborates the literature that points to school management as a mediating practice, whose understanding requires the articulation between technical and political dimensions, especially in subjects with greater historical insertion in the institution (Paro, 2010).

The expanded P3 perspective, which interprets relations and changes over time, rather than just in their immediate dimension, aligns with studies that highlight the importance of experience for understanding climate and institutional dynamics (Sanches et al., 2023). This historical view allows for a more critical and relativized reading of changes in education, suggesting that many current challenges are developments of previous processes, such as the expansion of administrative demands and the intensification of control over teaching work, as already pointed out by Garcia and Anadon (2009).

On the other hand, P1’s perspective, more focused on the present, revealed with greater clarity the immediate impacts of bureaucracy on daily school life, especially in the organization of work and time management. His analysis emphasized the practical difficulties faced by teachers, which aligns with literature that highlights the direct influence of concrete working conditions, including overload and task organization, on the organizational climate and teacher satisfaction (Cruz, Silva and Rodrigues, 2021). Thus, the articulation between the perspectives of P1 and P3 enriched the analysis, combining a historical and structural reading with an operational and daily view of bureaucratic processes.

This complementarity of perspectives reinforces the importance of considering different levels of experience in the analysis of school management, showing that the understanding of the phenomenon requires the articulation between different scales of analysis, from the structural to the everyday. Studies on management and organizational climate, such as those by Sanches et al. (2023), highlight the interdependence between institutional processes and concrete practices in the school environment. Bureaucratization, therefore, is not just configured as an excess of tasks, but as a historical process linked to the rationalization of organizational practices and the strengthening of institutional control mechanisms (Cruz, Silva e Rodrigues, 2021).

Essentiality and management practices

The category “Essentiality and management practices” allowed the identification of administrative activities that participants considered fundamental for institutional functioning and the achievement of educational goals. These processes were understood as necessary for the organization of school work, pedagogical coherence, and systematic monitoring of learning. In a synthesis of the most recurrent terms in the managers’ responses, the prominence of words such as “planning,” “management,” and “pedagogical” was observed, indicating the centrality of these dimensions in the participants’ discourse. Other terms such as “bureaucracy,” “overload,” and “records” reinforced the difficulties faced, while “organization,” “collaboration,” and “valuation” suggested the importance of management practices for improving the institutional climate and reducing administrative demands.

In P1’s statements, pedagogical planning was highlighted as a structuring element of teaching practice and management, being understood as an instrument for guiding pedagogical action capable of promoting alignment among teachers and ensuring the intentionality of the teaching-learning process. This understanding corroborates the literature that recognizes planning not only as a technical procedure but as a fundamental mediation of educational practice, organizing teaching work around clear and shared objectives (Arruda, 2015). The effectiveness of school bureaucracy, in this sense, depends on its organization on integrated bases and its articulation with pedagogical purposes.

P2 expanded this perspective by emphasizing the systematic recording of assessments and the analysis of educational indicators as essential practices for monitoring student performance and for making informed pedagogical decisions. The valuation of data use highlighted the importance of evidence-based management. This finding dialogues with studies indicating that assessment and internal communication processes are central to school management, directly influencing pedagogical monitoring and the quality of institutional decisions (Sanches et al., 2023). P2’s statement, therefore, integrates planning into a broader management cycle, which includes diagnosis, monitoring, and intervention.

P3, in turn, reinforced the operational dimension of these practices, mentioning lesson plans, test production, and attendance tracking as instruments that sustain the daily functioning of the school and enable continuous monitoring of pedagogical activities. These elements also contribute to communication between different management levels and to the transparency of institutional actions. This perspective is supported by the literature, which highlights the dependence of school work organization on administrative processes that ensure the coordination of activities and the circulation of information, fundamental elements for a functional institutional environment (Cruz, Silva e Rodrigues, 2021).

The intersection of the speeches of the three participants revealed that essential practices are directly related to organization, monitoring, and decision-making. Planning, evaluation, and record-keeping are configured as means to ensure the effectiveness of the educational process, contributing to the continuity of pedagogical work and the definition of more qualified interventions. This articulation highlights that such practices, when integrated, cease to be merely operational and assume a strategic role in school management, approaching the conception of management as mediation between educational means and ends, as defended by Paro (2010).

This sequence of findings corroborates the literature by evidencing planning as the structuring axis of teaching practice (Arruda, 2015) and the relevance of administrative processes for institutional functioning, provided they are organized efficiently (Rizo, 2020). However, the results also challenge these perspectives by indicating that the effectiveness of these processes depends not only on their existence but also on their articulation with a clear pedagogical purpose. Dalbosco et al. (2023) reinforce the need for management that preserves its formative character, avoiding the predominance of a strictly bureaucratic logic, which aligns with empirical evidence by showing that practices perceived as significant maintain a direct link with teaching and learning.

The distinction between essentiality and dysfunctionality, therefore, does not lie in the nature of administrative practices themselves, but in how they are structured and conducted within the school context. Integrated, organized processes oriented by a clear pedagogical purpose are recognized as necessary and legitimate. In contrast, those marked by redundancy, fragmentation, and lack of meaning are perceived as an overload and a factor of professional burnout. This finding expands the literature by demonstrating that bureaucracy, in itself, is not the central problem, but rather its disconnection from educational objectives, bringing the analysis closer to the critical perspective of school management, which indicates that the challenge lies in the redefinition of processes within pedagogical practice.

Dysfunctions and bureaucratic overload

In the field of dysfunctions, a pattern of criticism emerged regarding the redundancy and fragmentation of administrative processes. P1 mentioned the “repetitive entry of data into different systems”, P2 pointed out the “recurring completion of documents”, and P3 highlighted the “excess of platforms used by the institution”, in addition to the need to make the note-typing process more efficient. These elements reveal a disjointed bureaucracy, in which the multiplicity of tools generates rework and compromises institutional efficiency. This finding broadens the understanding of school bureaucratization by demonstrating that the problem lies not only in the quantity of tasks, but in how they are organized and operationalized, especially in contexts marked by technological fragmentation.

The articulation of managers’ speeches highlights a central tension between the essentiality and dysfunctionality of bureaucracy. If, on the one hand, records and platforms are indispensable for organization and decision-making, on the other hand, their fragmented operationalization has produced overload and inefficiency. This result dialogues with the literature by confirming that administrative processes are fundamental to institutional functioning, provided they are structured in an integrated manner and consistent with pedagogical objectives (Cruz, Silva and Rodrigues, 2021). At the same time, it strains this perspective by demonstrating that, in practice, such processes can deviate from their formative function, assuming a merely instrumental and bureaucratic character.

In this context, P1’s statement points to the duplication of tasks as a factor of wear and tear, while P3 broadens the analysis by highlighting the lack of integration between systems as one of the main drivers of contemporary bureaucratization. Thus, tools that should optimize work end up requiring the repetition of information in different environments. This scenario dialogues with studies on school management that indicate that the organization of processes and the quality of institutional communication are central factors for the efficient functioning of the school, and that their fragility compromises both the organizational climate and the effectiveness of pedagogical actions (Sanches et al., 2023).

The data allow for an interpretation in light of the tension between the desirable management model and the concrete practice of educational institutions. As pointed out by Bastos and Silva (2018), there is still a significant gap between the proposal of democratic, integrated, and participatory management and the reality marked by fragmented, centralized, and bureaucratized practices. In this sense, the fragmentation of systems can be understood not only as a technical problem but as an expression of a broader organizational logic, in which the expansion of control mechanisms is not accompanied by strategies of integration and rationalization. This scenario indicates that dysfunctionality does not stem from the existence of administrative processes but from the lack of articulation between them.

The coexistence of multiple platforms and the repetition of records configure a fragmented structure, in which technology, instead of simplifying, complicates work and reduces the time available for pedagogical activities. This finding reinforces Lima’s (2021) analysis of “augmented bureaucracy,” in which technologies increase control without necessarily increasing efficiency. Rizo (2020) already pointed out that excessive formalization can compromise the functioning of school institutions. The rationalization of bureaucracy, therefore, depends less on its reduction and more on its reorganization on coherent and functionally articulated bases.

Effectiveness and Management Strategies

The category “Management effectiveness and strategies” highlighted the set of practices recognized by participants as capable of reducing the bureaucratic burden and, simultaneously, qualifying teaching work. Unlike dysfunctions, these actions were associated with a more intentional, organized, and sensitive management to the real demands of the school, oriented not only by task completion but by process optimization and the valorization of pedagogical time. This parameter aligns with Cruz, Silva, and Rodrigues (2021), indicating that management effectiveness lies not in the elimination of administrative processes, but in their strategic organization and alignment with educational objectives.

In P1’s statements, the importance of continuous dialogue between coordination and teachers, as well as close pedagogical support, was highlighted. These practices were understood as effective strategies for aligning expectations, anticipating difficulties, and avoiding rework, contributing to a more fluid organization of institutional demands. By prioritizing communication, management reduces noise and promotes greater clarity in processes, directly impacting the reduction of overload. This result corroborates studies that point to internal communication as a central element of school management, influencing not only the organizational climate but also the participation and engagement of professionals (Sanches et al., 2023).

P2, in turn, emphasized collective planning and continuous training as central elements of effective management. Collaborative work was pointed out as a strategy that favors the division of responsibilities, the joint construction of solutions, and the standardization of pedagogical practices, avoiding unnecessary individual efforts. Furthermore, continuous training contributes to professional development, allowing teachers to act with greater security and autonomy in the face of institutional demands. This finding expands the literature by evidencing that collaborative practices not only qualify teaching but also act as a workload regulation mechanism, reducing the fragmentation of actions and strengthening the sense of institutional belonging (Cruz, Silva and Rodrigues, 2021).

P3 has already highlighted strategies aimed at systemic organization and process rationalization, such as the use of a centralized platform for information storage and sharing. By concentrating documents and records in a single environment, data dispersion and the need for multiple entries are reduced, which significantly contributes to the decrease in rework. This practice highlights the role of technology when used in an integrated and strategic manner, which directly dialogues with the literature by indicating that administrative processes, when well-organized, can contribute to institutional efficiency, instead of generating overload (Sanches et al., 2023).

At the same time, this finding challenges studies on technological bureaucratization by demonstrating that the problem lies not in the technology itself, but in its fragmentation and disjointed use. The intersection of the three speeches indicates that management effectiveness is directly related to the capacity for integration, anticipation, and organization of demands. Practices such as information centralization, collective planning, and clear communication act as mechanisms for reducing excessive bureaucracy, while simultaneously strengthening institutional cohesion and process efficiency. This articulation approaches the concept of school management as a mediating practice, in which the manager acts by articulating administrative means and pedagogical ends, ensuring that organizational instruments serve the educational process.

Furthermore, it is observed that these strategies contribute to the valorization of teaching work, as they free up time for more significant pedagogical activities. By reducing redundant tasks and organizing workflows, management creates conditions for teachers to dedicate themselves to planning, reflection, and innovation, essential elements for the quality of teaching. This aspect is in line with Sanches et al. (2023), who directly relate the organization of work and institutional climate to teacher satisfaction and educational performance. The analysis shows that the effectiveness of management practices lies not only in the adoption of tools or procedures, but in how they are articulated and contextualized, promoting a more balanced, collaborative work environment oriented towards concrete educational results.

The identified strategies reinforce the perspective of Brenner and Ferreira (2020), by indicating that organized and collaborative practices contribute to the reduction of tensions in the school environment. Furthermore, they dialogue with Dalbosco et al. (2023), by highlighting the role of management as a mediator between institutional demands and pedagogical practices. However, the findings of this study advance by demonstrating that this mediation is realized, above all, in the capacity to integrate processes, reduce fragmentation, and align administrative practices with the real needs of teaching work. The discussions also allow for a tensioning of the literature by evidencing the gap between the desirable school management model, based on integration, collaboration, and pedagogical intentionality, and the concrete conditions for its realization in the institutional daily life.

As Bastos and Silva (2018) point out, school management is permanently built between the possible and the desirable, being crossed by structural, organizational, and political limits. The findings of this research corroborate this perspective by demonstrating that, although effective strategies exist, their implementation depends on institutional conditions that do not always favor the integration of processes and the rationalization of bureaucracy. Thus, the effectiveness of management cannot be understood solely as a result of good practices, but also as an expression of the concrete conditions in which these practices develop. Efficient management is that which is capable of aligning technology, organization, and interpersonal relationships, promoting a more balanced, collaborative work environment oriented towards concrete educational results.

Organizational climate and appreciation

The “Organizational Climate and Valorization” category brought together management practices and initiatives that directly impacted faculty satisfaction, engagement, and well-being. Unlike the more operational dimensions of management, this axis highlighted the role of interpersonal relationships, institutional culture, and recognition mechanisms in building healthier and more productive work environments. From this perspective, organizational climate can be understood as a structuring element of school dynamics, directly influencing professional performance and the quality of pedagogical work, as indicated by Brenner and Ferreira (2020).

In P1’s statements, the emphasis was on valuing a collaborative environment, marked by the development of socio-emotional skills and clarity of roles. This organization contributed to reducing conflicts, aligning expectations, and strengthening trust among team members. By promoting a space for dialogue and cooperation, management favored not only the execution of activities but also the teachers’ sense of belonging. This perspective aligns with the concepts of participatory management discussed by Luck (2009), for whom strengthening interpersonal relationships and building a collaborative culture are fundamental to the effectiveness of school actions, given that educational work develops collectively and interdependently.

P2, in turn, emphasized the importance of teacher autonomy, participation in institutional decisions, and strengthening the bond with the school. These elements indicated a more democratic management, in which teachers are recognized as active agents of the educational process. The possibility of participating in decisions contributed to increased commitment and the construction of a more engaged and co-responsible environment. Such evidence corroborates the perspective of democratic management defended by Luck (2009), who highlights participation as an essential condition for building more meaningful educational practices. However, it is important to consider that the mere openness to participation does not, in itself, guarantee effectively democratic management, and it is necessary to analyze the extent to which this participation is realized actively and deliberatively in daily school life.

P3 already highlighted the relevance of the anticipated organization of demands, clarity of deadlines, and recognition of good practices. From its perspective, the predictability of institutional actions generates “tranquility, planning, and security,” factors that directly impact faculty well-being. Furthermore, the recognition of work performed acts as a motivating element, reinforcing positive behaviors and valuing professional effort. Therefore, there is a dialogue with Oliveira (2004), by highlighting that more structured and organized working conditions contribute to minimizing the effects of faculty precarization, favoring greater stability and security in the exercise of the profession. At the same time, it expands this discussion by demonstrating that symbolic recognition also plays a relevant role in the motivation and engagement of teachers.

The intersection of the three speeches highlights that the organizational climate is directly related to how management structures relationships and conducts internal processes. Environments marked by clear communication, participation, recognition, and organization tend to reduce tensions and promote greater job satisfaction. On the other hand, the absence of these elements can intensify the perception of overload and devaluation, compromising not only the teaching staff’s well-being but also the development of pedagogical practices. Furthermore, it is observed that the appreciation of teaching staff is not restricted to formal aspects, such as remuneration or workload, but also involves symbolic and relational dimensions. The recognition of pedagogical practices, active listening, and the inclusion of teachers in decision-making processes are fundamental factors for strengthening professional identity.

This understanding expands the analysis proposed by Oliveira (2004), indicating that teacher appreciation is also built in the daily institutional relationships, beyond material working conditions. Finally, the analysis indicates that promoting a healthy organizational climate is a strategic element for improving educational quality. By investing in collaborative practices and appreciation mechanisms, management not only contributes to the well-being of teachers but also creates more favorable conditions for the development of meaningful pedagogical practices. Thus, organizational climate ceases to be a secondary aspect and begins to occupy a central position in school management, reaffirming its relevance in both the theoretical field and educational practice.

Proposals for improvement and innovation

The category “Improvement and Innovation Proposals” systematized the suggestions presented by the participants with a view to reorganizing institutional processes, optimizing workflows, and the more strategic use of technological tools. Unlike the previous categories, which focused on analyzing the existing scenario, this axis assumed a propositional character, highlighting possible paths for building more efficient, integrated management oriented towards valuing teaching work. This movement broadens the analysis by shifting the focus from problem description to solution construction, understanding school management as a space for institutional intervention and transformation, in line with contemporary perspectives that attribute an active role to the manager in driving change (Dalbosco et al., 2023).

Furthermore, it dialogues with the understanding that management is built on the tension between the possible and the desirable, requiring constant adjustments to the concrete conditions of educational institutions, aligned with the ideas observed in Bastos and Silva (2018). In P1’s contributions, the need to implement an integrated management system, capable of centralizing information and reducing the fragmentation of administrative processes, was highlighted. Furthermore, the importance of structuring institutional times for teacher planning was emphasized, so as to ensure that this essential activity is not compromised by bureaucratic demands.

These suggestions indicate a concern with time organization and task rationalization, which dialogues with Lima (2021) by pointing out that time management and the strategic use of tools are central elements for improving institutional efficiency. At the same time, they highlight an attempt to rebalance the administrative and pedagogical dimensions, often strained in daily school life, an aspect also discussed by Cruz, Silva, and Rodrigues (2021) when they emphasize the importance of process organization for the efficient functioning of educational institutions.

P2, in turn, pointed to the redistribution of administrative demands and the strengthening of technical support as fundamental strategies for improving the school routine. The proposal for integration between systems also appeared as a central element, reinforcing the need to eliminate redundancies and optimize the flow of information. In this sense, it is evident that institutional efficiency depends not only on tools, but also on better work organization and division of responsibilities. This impression approaches Rizo’s (2020) criticisms of the excessive bureaucratization of educational systems, indicating that the problem lies not in the existence of bureaucracy, but in the way it is structured, often generating rework and inefficiency.

At the same time, it dialogues with Sanches et al. (2023), by evidencing that the organization of institutional processes directly impacts the organizational climate and faculty satisfaction, reinforcing the need for more integrated and coherent practices. P3, on the other hand, presented a set of proposals that articulate technological innovation and structural reorganization. Among them, the suggestion to create a support team focused on the development of activities and assessments, especially in addressing inclusion demands, stands out, which can significantly reduce the teaching load.

Furthermore, P3 highlighted the importance of increasing teacher participation in decision-making processes and investing in the use of emerging technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, as a way to automate tasks and make processes more efficient. This point creates tension with the literature by indicating that the incorporation of technologies can take on different meanings in the school context. While some studies associate these tools with increased control and intensification of work, the data from this research suggest that, when used strategically, they can act as instruments for supporting and qualifying teaching practice, in line with Lima’s (2021) perspective, but also expanding this approach by highlighting potentially emancipatory uses of technology in the school context.

The intersection of the speeches reveals convergence around three main axes of innovation: systems integration, workflow reorganization, and technology incorporation. Integration appears as an essential condition to eliminate rework and ensure greater fluidity in processes; the reorganization of demands aims to balance the workload among different institutional actors; and the use of technologies is understood as a means to enhance efficiency and free up time for pedagogical activities. This articulation approaches contemporary educational management approaches that advocate for more integrated, flexible, and results-oriented models, as opposed to fragmented and overly bureaucratized structures (Dalbosco et al., 2023), while reinforcing the need for articulation between institutional processes and relationships, as pointed out by studies on organizational climate (Sanches et al., 2023).

The proposals indicate a change in perspective regarding school management, which is now conceived in a more strategic and less reactive way. Instead of merely responding to existing demands, the suggestions point to the need for anticipation, planning, and continuous innovation, focusing on improving working conditions and the quality of teaching. This understanding reinforces the idea that the school manager acts as an articulator of processes and an inducer of institutional changes, as discussed by Dalbosco et al. (2023), by highlighting the importance of aligning resources, people, and practices around common educational objectives, but also emphasizes, in line with Bastos and Silva (2018), that this action occurs within structural limits that condition the implementation of the proposed changes.

Finally, the analysis shows that the implementation of these proposals depends on an articulated movement between institutional investment, professional training, and review of current practices. Innovation, in this context, is not limited to the adoption of new tools, but involves a transformation in organizational culture, guided by efficiency, collaboration, and the centrality of pedagogical work. This understanding shows that the contemporary challenge of school management is not the elimination of bureaucracy, but its reconfiguration on more integrated, functional, and pedagogically oriented bases, reaffirming the need for articulation between technical, organizational, and human dimensions in the educational context.

In summary, the research results revealed that bureaucracy is an inherent element of school organization, recognized as necessary for planning, recording evaluations, and pedagogical monitoring. However, when fragmented and redundant, it is associated with rework, loss of pedagogical time, and intensification of teaching work. On the other hand, collaborative management practices, systemic organization of processes, and the strategic use of technologies have shown potential to mitigate these effects, promoting a more balanced work environment focused on pedagogical purposes. The effectiveness of school bureaucracy, therefore, depends on its integrated organization and its articulation with educational objectives, demonstrating that school management plays a central role in mediating between administrative demands and pedagogical needs for the quality of teaching.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to investigate the perception of pedagogical coordinators and principals regarding school bureaucracy, as well as to identify management practices capable of reducing administrative overload and promoting greater institutional balance. It was found that bureaucracy is an inherent component of school organization, recognized as essential for planning, recording evaluations, and pedagogical monitoring. However, it was observed that when structured in a fragmented and redundant manner, bureaucracy is directly associated with rework, loss of pedagogical time, and intensification of teaching work. In contrast, it was identified that collaborative management practices, systemic organization of processes, and strategic use of technologies have significant potential to mitigate these negative effects. The main contribution of this work lies in highlighting that the effectiveness of school bureaucracy is not found in its elimination, but in its integrated organization and its articulation with pedagogical purposes, emphasizing the central role of school management in mediating between administrative demands and pedagogical needs for the promotion of teaching quality.

It is important to consider the limitations of this study, which mainly refer to the small number of participants, as the research was conducted with only three managers, which restricts the generalization of the findings. Furthermore, the methodological approach of a multiple case study and the specific context of the institutions investigated may have influenced the perceptions presented, not encompassing the diversity of realities existing in the educational field. It is suggested that future research expand the number of participants and include different school contexts, deepening the understanding of the complex relationship between management, bureaucracy, and teaching work. Thus, the contemporary challenge of school management consists of reconfiguring bureaucracy on more integrated, functional, and pedagogically oriented bases, reaffirming the need for articulation between technical, organizational, and human dimensions in the educational context.

Bibliographic References

Arruda, H. P. B. 2015. Planejamento e plano de aula na educação: histórico e a prática de dois professores. Revista Educativa, 18(1): 241–260.

Bardin, L. 2016. Análise de conteúdo. Edições 70, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Bastos, A. S.; Silva, R. L. S. 2018. Gestão escolar: entre a dimensão possível e a dimensão do desejável. Estudos IAT, 3(2): 102-113.

Brenner, R. A.; Ferreira, L. S. 2020. Gestão escolar e conflitos: impactos no trabalho pedagógico dos professores. Revista Educação e Emancipação, 13(2): 67–86.

Cruz, A. M. B.; Silva, S. S.; Rodrigues, S. A. M. 2021. Gestão de clima organizacional no ambiente escolar: estudo bibliográfico em periódicos publicados entre 2018 a 2019. Faculdade Sant’Ana em Revista, 5: 82-95.

Cruz, R. R. 2024. Voltando ao “novo normal”: desafios, oportunidades e paradoxos do retorno ao trabalho docente no contexto da pandemia. Revista Docência do Ensino Superior, 14: 1-4.

Dalbosco, C., Garcia, G., Rizzi, L. 2023. Educación pública en tiempos pandémico-neoliberales: el papel intelectual-formativo del diretor escolar. Revista Praxis & Saber, 14(38): e15426.

Garcia, M. M. A.; Anadon, S. B. 2009. Reforma educacional, intensificação e autointensificação do trabalho docente. Educação & Sociedade, 30(106): 63–85.

Gil, A. C. 2017. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Hypolito, A. M. 2011. Reorganização gerencialista da escola e trabalho docente. Educação: Teoria e Prática, 21(38): 59–74.

Lima, L. C. 2021. Máquinas de administrar a educação: dominação digital e burocracia aumentada. Educação & Sociedade, v. 42: e249276.

LÜCK, H. 2009. Dimensões da gestão escolar e suas competências. Editora Positivo, Curitiba, PR, Brasil.

Oliveira, D. A. (2004). A reestruturação do trabalho docente: precarização e flexibilização. Educação & Sociedade, 25(89): 1127–1144.

Paro, V. H. 2010. Gestão democrática da escola pública. Ática, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Rizo, W. F. 2020. Fatores burocráticos que atrasam as Escolas Públicas de aproveitarem as tecnologias de modo satisfatório. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento, v. 03: 141-155.

Sanches, K. L.; Lima, L. A. O.; Palma, A. L. G. L.; et al. 2023. A influência da gestão escolar sobre o clima organizacional e satisfação docente: uma revisão sistemática. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 25(12): 38–45.

SAVIANI, D. 1999. Escola e democracia. 32 ed. Autores Associados, Campinas, SP, Brasil.

Yin, R. K. 2015. Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. 5 ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Article originating from the Course Conclusion 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