Article

Leila Cristina Huppes; Luciana Cristina de Souza

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602549

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 E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

School administration was approached from the perspective of integration between administrative and pedagogical managers, focusing on democratic participation, training, and qualification of the actors. The general objective was to develop a Guide of Orientations for Budgeting, aimed at the pedagogical management team and mediated by the administrative direction, in order to equip these professionals to understand and participate in the institution’s financial and decision-making processes. To this end, the study was developed in a private institution, adopting a qualitative, descriptive, and applied approach, with a case study methodological procedure. The research mapped practical challenges and communication difficulties between sectors, analyzed theoretical references of school management, and structured the proposed training instrument. The results showed that the lack of integration between the administrative and pedagogical areas can compromise the effectiveness of school management, highlighting the need for continuous training processes that promote mutual understanding, cooperation, and collective construction of solutions. The proposed Guide strengthened democratic management, enhanced the qualification of the pedagogical team, and improved institutional decision-making processes, emphasizing the training and strategic role of the administrative director.

Keywords: School communication; Participatory school management; School budgeting.

1. Introduction

The school constitutes a fundamental social and political environment for promoting the democratic participation of its representatives, fostering development, dialogue, and expression in decision-making. According to Libâneo’s (2018) conception, school management must integrate the main community actors, such as teachers, parents, students, and staff, in defining the institution’s direction. This process aligns with public educational guidelines and policies, which must be connected to the practical actions of schools’ Political-Pedagogical Projects (PPP) (Lück, 2013), prioritizing democracy, autonomy, participation, transparency, and information sharing (Bastos, Gonçalves, and Alves, 2018).

Effective and strategic school management is realized when all actors and leaders involved in the educational process, including principals, coordinators, and pedagogical supervisors, consciously and integrally understand and commit to their roles and responsibilities within the scope of the PPP. Although it is common for professionals in the pedagogical area to dedicate themselves to didactic knowledge and those in the administrative area to the conduct of financial processes, school management in its entirety requires the articulation between these two spheres, demanding joint, collaborative, and connected action to organizational objectives for comprehensive and effective administration.

In this context, school management takes on the task of integrating the skills of professionals from both areas, seeking more effective and strategic management, based on institutional interest and compliance with the PPP. The manager plays a democratic and leadership role, working in a team, so that the pedagogical, learning, and economic sustainability dimensions of the school become concerns of the entire group (Barboza and Brito, 2016). The execution of a quality PPP is inseparable from the availability of financial resources, and financial management, in turn, is only justified with a consistent pedagogical project to be implemented.

Despite the importance of integration, a disconnect is observed between the practices of the pedagogical and administrative areas, which can limit the flow of communication and information sharing between teams. This scenario sometimes generates institutional noise and challenges for the full integration of management processes and pedagogical actions. An identified gap lies in the lack of specific training for some pedagogical managers regarding the understanding and use of budgetary data in the educational context. In many cases, pedagogical decisions are made without proper alignment with budgetary information, reinforcing the need to strengthen communication and promote greater integration between sectors (Santos, 2011; Roberto and Weinstein, 2023).

The justification for this research lies in the premise that the administrative school manager’s experience, when acting in their area of expertise, can offer a significant practical contribution to the improvement of decision-making processes and the application of more effective management methods. It is fundamental to understand how the administrative manager can contribute to the improvement and strengthening of the pedagogical team in constructing the budgetary planning. This integration of administrative knowledge with pedagogical knowledge aims to reduce the gap between the actors within school management as a whole, making the process more participatory and oriented towards institutional objectives. The school, in this sense, is an educational space that provides opportunities for the growth and professional development of all involved (Libâneo, 2018).

Given this problem, the guiding question of this research is: How can the experience of an administrative manager support and contribute to the construction of a training instrument for the pedagogical team on school budgeting, aiming for a more integrated management? Thus, the general objective of this work is to Elaborate a Guide of Orientations for Budgeting aimed at the pedagogical management team, mediated by the administrative direction, in order to equip these professionals to understand and actively participate in school budgetary management.

2. Material and Methods

The research adopted a qualitative approach, of a descriptive and applied nature, with a case study methodological procedure. The qualitative approach, based on Minayo (2014), investigated relationships, perceptions, and interpretations of social reality. The descriptive nature aimed to outline characteristics of phenomena, using systematic observation and analysis of reports (Gil, 2008). The study was classified as applied because it sought a solution to a specific problem, according to Gerhardt and Silveira (2009).

The empirical case study method, proposed by Yin (2001), was employed to investigate participatory school management in the real context of a private institution. The unit of analysis consisted of a private school for early childhood, elementary, and middle school education, located in the Southwest of Paraná. This institution is part of a Catholic confessional education network, with shared management between religious sisters of the maintaining congregation and hired lay professionals.

The school’s management team is composed of an institutional representative, the administrative management, and the pedagogical management. The participants in the training were specifically the pedagogical team, including the pedagogical management, five pedagogical coordinators, and an educational advisor. The research and data collection period extended for four months, during which systematic observation and monitoring of management practices were carried out.

To develop the Budgeting Guidelines, the study was divided into six methodological stages. The initial stages included a literature review on integrated management, systematization of the professional experience report, and data analysis based on the theoretical framework. The subsequent stages focused on discussing strategies, structuring the institutional training proposal, and developing the training material, culminating in a specific training session with the pedagogical team.

Data collection involved direct observation, analysis of documents and artifacts (Yin, 2001). An initial meeting was held with administrative and pedagogical managers, with an agenda outlined to discuss budgetary issues and communication difficulties. Active listening and dialogue were used to identify participants’ understanding of budgetary indicators and integration challenges. A script of open-ended questions addressed the budget composition, resource allocation, and cost calculation criteria for classes. The administrative management explained elements of the budget, such as fixed and variable expenses, operational costs and revenues, and financial indicators.

Questions were raised to identify the familiarity of pedagogical managers with financial information and its application in decision-making. The analysis of the collected data, including speeches and direct observations, was meticulous, interpreting them in light of the theoretical framework of school management. This process allowed for an understanding of the professional dynamics and challenges faced in school management, especially in internal communication and the integration between administrative and pedagogical areas, as well as the absence of specific training in budgetary data.

The Budget Guidance Guide was the final product of the research, aiming to instrumentalize the pedagogical team. Its construction involved the school community management team to promote information exchange and the sharing of objectives. The instrument was organized into four main thematic axes: Analysis of the economic scenario; Understanding and purpose of the school budget; Alignment, participation, and stages of the school budget elaboration process; and The budget’s chart of accounts.

To facilitate the understanding of budgetary information, the Guide used a spreadsheet model, structured based on the Income Statement (DRE), according to Costa et al. (2016). The data were organized into three main categories: revenue spreadsheets, detailing resource inflow sources; expense spreadsheets, recording maintenance and operating costs; and results spreadsheets, evaluating the balance between revenues and expenses to support decision-making.

The Guide also proposed a schedule for the preparation of the annual budget. This included the comparative analysis between the planned and executed budget (August and September), the survey of institutional needs and the definition of tuition fee adjustments (September and October). The consolidation of the budget proposal and the definition of goals (October), the forwarding to the accounting department for technical detailing and approval, and the final review of the budget after the enrollment period (March of the following year) were foreseen stages.

3. Results and Discussion

This section details the research findings and the discussion on the integration of administrative and pedagogical management in the school context, focusing on the elaboration of a Budget Guidance Manual. The results are presented in three main axes, according to the study’s structure: the diagnosis of integrated management, the analysis of institutional communication challenges, and the description of the Budget Guidance Manual, which constitutes the intervention proposal. The analysis of empirical data, collected through a case study in a private institution, was confronted with the theoretical references of school management, allowing for an in-depth understanding of institutional dynamics and decision-making processes.

Initial findings revealed that, despite school management being conceived democratically and participatively, there were significant gaps in the integration between the administrative and pedagogical areas. The research sought to understand how the administrative manager’s experience could equip the pedagogical team for more active participation in budget management, aiming for a more cohesive and effective administration. The lack of systemic understanding of financial processes by the pedagogical team limited the effectiveness of decisions and the full execution of the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP), as pointed out by Lück (2013) and Libâneo (2018) regarding the need for the involvement of all stakeholders. Diagnosis of integrated management

The first stage of the study consisted of an initial meeting with administrative and pedagogical managers to address budgetary issues and intersectoral communication difficulties. The meeting was planned to foster dialogue and collective reflection on the institutional budget, adopting a participatory approach that encouraged managers to share their experiences, knowledge, and perceptions about the use of budgetary data. This initiative was crucial for mapping the pedagogical team’s familiarity with financial indicators and their application in decision-making, a fundamental aspect of democratic management (Libâneo, 2018).

During the meeting, the administrative board presented a simplified overview of the budget components, including fixed and variable expenses, operational costs, revenues, and the institution’s financial indicators. This initial alignment aimed to level the participants’ knowledge before the in-depth discussion. Subsequently, the “active listening” technique, as advocated by Barboza et al. (2025), was used to gather perceptions from pedagogical managers regarding the financial results of the educational levels, the concepts of profit, loss, and budgetary balance, and the costs of maintaining classes.

The discussion also covered practical situations, such as the impact of opening or closing classes, the break-even point, the relationship between the number of students and financial viability, and the influence of the budget on pedagogical planning and institutional sustainability. In the end, it was possible to ascertain that there were different levels of understanding regarding the budget and difficulties in interpreting financial data. It was observed that many pedagogical decisions were made without proper alignment with budgetary information, highlighting the need to strengthen communication and integration between sectors for more effective and transparent management (Santos, 2011).

The diagnosis confirmed that all management instances are co-responsible for the institution’s success, and that the technical skills of the administrative and pedagogical areas are complementary and essential. The lack of mutual knowledge between the areas, however, represented a barrier. It was suggested that the administrative director promote training and guidance for the pedagogical team, actively involving them in the budgetary management process. In this context, the administrative director emerges as a leader who understands the school in its entirety — pedagogical, cultural, administrative, and financial aspects — and thus mobilizes the team for a common project, according to Libâneo’s (2018) vision of the manager’s role. Challenges of institutional communication

The analysis of reports and direct observations revealed weaknesses in internal communication processes and in the integration between administrative and pedagogical areas, in addition to the absence of specific training for some pedagogical managers on budgetary data. Effective communication is a structuring element of democratic and participatory school management, impacting professionals’ motivation, organizational climate, and the school’s ability to achieve its objectives (Santos, 2011). A structured management with participation and dialogue favors integrated practices and collective work (Barboza et al., 2025).

Transparency, clarity, and open dialogue are crucial for strengthening the organizational climate and professionals’ motivation, removing obstacles to cooperation and promoting an environment of trust. This not only contributes to effective administrative management but also improves learning and the educational process as a whole (Santos, 2011). School management, being a collective activity, requires all involved to contribute their individual capabilities and responsibilities, sharing the same objectives through articulated and controlled actions (Libâneo, 2018).

Regarding training, especially for the pedagogical team, the research found support in the contributions of Nóvoa (2002), who advocates for continuous training and the construction of a reflective professional, active in their own development. This implies the creation of a collaborative culture and the exchange of experiences. The school manager, in turn, has a political role of mobilizing, organizing, and managing, promoting the participation and autonomy of those involved (Barboza and Brito, 2016).

The gaps in communication and training identified directly impact decision-making, highlighting the need for qualification to strengthen technical and managerial skills, aiming for a more integrated and participatory school management. Qualified pedagogical leadership is fundamental to improving school performance, as principals and coordinators who articulate their responsibilities promote environments conducive to professional development (Roberto and Weinstein, 2023). Clear understanding of roles and alignment with institutional policies strengthen communication and enhance pedagogical leadership.

The systematization of managers’ reports allowed for an understanding of the professional dynamics of school management, highlighting challenges and learnings. Education management involves multiple areas of knowledge and distinct expertise, and the democratic-participative approach values personal development and professional and technical qualification (Libâneo, 2018). The experiences lived in the meetings revealed that the volume of daily pedagogical activities often hinders the consolidation of the budget as an instrument incorporated into the organizational routine, creating a gap between the pedagogical and administrative teams.

The pedagogical team, although participating in budget elaboration, often lacks in-depth knowledge of financial management or cash flow monitoring. This leads the administrative director to be primarily responsible for guiding and authorizing expenses, defining what can or cannot be done. This situation reinforces the distance in institutional communication and the need to improve integration mechanisms between budgetary planning and daily activity execution, as Azevedo et al. (2024) highlight the importance of effective communication for democratic and participatory management. Intervention proposal: The Budgetary Guidance Guide

Given the identified problem, the creation of a Budget Guidance Guide was proposed, a training tool for the pedagogical team. The Guide aims to assist in understanding the elaboration and monitoring of the school budget, subsidizing decision-making and promoting greater transparency in management. By ensuring full compliance with the budget through monthly monitoring and adjustments, the institution strengthens its sustainability and improves communication between teams, optimizing the execution of the PPP projects (Valverde, Chiareto e Goulart, 2019).

The construction of the Guide materializes democratic and participatory management, as defended by Libâneo (2004), and is established as a strategic management tool. The process of elaborating the Guide involved the entire school community management team, including pedagogical and administrative directions, coordinators, and advisors. This collaborative approach facilitated the exchange of information, experiences, and perceptions, contributing to a broader understanding of institutional needs and financial challenges.

The main objective of the Guide is to facilitate the understanding of the school budget construction process by the pedagogical team and its impact on the execution of the PPP goals. More than a financial analysis, the Guide emphasizes the importance of participatory school management (Lück, 2009), encouraging everyone’s commitment and effort for a systemic understanding of the organization. To execute a PPP with quality and sustainability, it is essential that the actions are implemented within what was budgeted and planned, aligning pedagogical objectives with the use of physical, material, and financial resources.

The Guide was structured into four main thematic axes to present guidelines and information that assist the management and pedagogical team in understanding budget management, especially regarding the origin and allocation of financial resources and their impacts on institutional development. These axes are: i) Analysis of the economic scenario; ii) Understanding and purpose of the school budget; iii) Alignment, participation, and stages of the school budget elaboration process; and iv) The budget’s chart of accounts. This organization aims to make the school management process more democratic-participatory and transparent (Libâneo, 2004). Analysis of the economic scenario

The first stage of the Guide focuses on explaining the perspectives of the Brazilian economic scenario for the current year, presenting market growth expectations, challenges, and the main inflation indices, such as IGPM/INPC, INPC, and IPCA, in addition to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CLT). This financial market analysis is crucial for the school to plan, execute, and adjust its budgets strategically. Based on this scenario, the annual adjustments of tuition fees are defined, considering the institution’s operational costs and families’ payment capacity.

In the composition of tuition fee adjustments, several economic factors are considered. General inflation, measured by IPCA, is the minimum basis for maintaining the purchasing power of revenue, with projections ranging between x% and x%. Educational inflation, represented by the Sectoral IGPM/INPC, historically tends to be higher than general inflation, with projections between x% and x%, directly impacting sector costs. Salaries, including the Teacher Salary Floor and CLT, represent direct pressure on the payroll, which constitutes x% of the institution’s fixed costs, with adjustments expected between x% and x%.

Operational costs, which include expenses for energy, food, transportation, and maintenance, are also readjusted, often above the IPCA, with projections between x% and x%, aligned with the inflation of inputs and services. In addition to these indicators, the Guide emphasizes the importance of considering other aspects in the readjustment proposal, such as the socioeconomic profile of families, local competition, and planned investments by the institution. This holistic approach ensures that budgetary planning is realistic and sustainable. Understanding and purpose of the school budget

A fundamental step of the Guide is to clarify the concept, purpose, and relevance of the school budget in the context of educational management. The budget is an essential tool for the organization and management of financial resources, not limited to the maintenance of activities, but also supporting strategic decision-making, institutional development, and the implementation of new projects (Valverde, Chiareto e Goulart, 2019). It is defined as a financial planning instrument that forecasts cash flow, comprising revenues and expenses for a given period, generally the school year.

This mechanism is essential to ensure the efficient functioning of the institution, guaranteeing the availability of resources for the execution of pedagogical, administrative, and operational activities. The school budget plays a strategic role, providing a systematized overview of revenues and expenses. By establishing financial goals and spending limits, it enables efficient resource allocation, favoring the quality of educational services. The adequate preparation of the budget allows for the anticipation of financial unforeseen events, preventing imbalances and strengthening the economic sustainability of the institution.

The school budget is directly linked to the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP), being an essential instrument to promote transparency and trust among the segments of the school community. Its adequate execution allows for the efficient allocation of available resources and the constitution of financial reserves for institutional sustainability. Furthermore, the budget requires continuous monitoring, with systematic tracking of its execution and necessary adjustments. This integration with educational management contributes to consistent processes of evaluation and improvement of administrative and pedagogical practices, subsidizing the planning, organization, execution, and control of financial resources in accordance with the principles of efficiency, transparency, and responsibility. Alignment, participation, and stages of the school budget elaboration process

The elaboration of the school budget is an essential process to guarantee the institution’s functioning and the quality of teaching, being more than a control of expenses; it is a tool for planning, management, and decision-making that allows for the organization and application of resources efficiently and responsibly (Valverde, Chiareto e Goulart, 2019). It is a technical-administrative instrument that demands structured planning, careful data analysis, and the democratic participation of the institution’s various stakeholders. In the school studied, the budget is constructed based on real diagnoses, considering the cash flow of revenues and all anticipated expenses, such as maintenance, pedagogical materials, teacher training, and payroll.

This process involves fundamental steps: surveying the school’s needs, forecasting revenues and expenses, defining priorities, elaborating the budgetary document with possible adjustments and approval, and continuous monitoring of execution. Although this process has been carried out for years at the institution, there is a perceived disconnect in understanding among the agents involved, especially from the pedagogical area. The pedagogical team’s understanding is fundamental, as the budget must be aligned with the PPP (Pedagogical Political Project) and the real demands of the school community. By collaborating in the definition of educational and pedagogical priorities, and in cost control, the team contributes to the more efficient application of resources, directly impacting student learning.

The process of developing a school budget is necessary to plan the use of resources consciously, efficiently, and focused on improving education. This aligns the work between the administrative and pedagogical teams, promoting the correct application of resources and ensuring that each school action is supported by a solid financial base. The main elements to be considered in budget development, according to the Guide, include data collection and analysis, school community participation, definition of goals and objectives, revenue projection, expenditure survey and classification, establishment of budgetary limits, budget review and adjustment, and approval and transparency.

Data collection and analysis involve gathering information on the previous fiscal year’s revenues and expenses, as well as a financial diagnosis of the institution, considering the number of students, staff, infrastructure, material and technological resources, and ongoing projects. The school community’s participation is crucial, with meetings recommended to identify financial priorities and institutional demands. The definition of goals and objectives for the following fiscal year, covering pedagogical, administrative, and financial aspects, must align with the institution’s strategic planning. Revenue projection consists of estimating resource inflows, such as tuition fees, based on realistic criteria and different financial scenarios.

The survey and classification of expenses identify and relate all planned expenditures, including personnel, outsourced services, maintenance, acquisition of materials, and events. The establishment of budgetary limits for each expense category aims to ensure financial balance and prevent deviations, prioritizing essential pedagogical and administrative demands. The budget should be subject to periodic reviews, especially at the beginning of the academic year, for adjustments based on changes in the financial scenario or institutional priorities. After its elaboration, the budget must be submitted for the appraisal and approval of the school administration and the maintaining entity, being communicated to the school community in observance of the principles of transparency and participatory management.

The annual budget preparation schedule suggests a comparative analysis between the planned and executed budget in the preceding months between August and September. The survey of institutional needs for the following fiscal year and the definition of tuition fee adjustments occur between September and October. The consolidation of the budget proposal and the definition of corresponding goals are carried out in October. The subsequent stage involves forwarding to the accounting department for technical detailing, followed by review and approval by the management and maintaining team. In March of the following fiscal year, after the completion of the enrollment period, the final budget review is carried out for the consolidation of the definitive version for execution. The budget’s chart of accounts

Managing the budget is a complex task that demands a competent department for its execution and monitoring. The Guide details the chart of accounts in order to familiarize the pedagogical team with the budgetary structure. To facilitate understanding, the use of a spreadsheet model based on the Statement of Financial Performance (DRE) was chosen, a financial management tool that summarizes expenses and revenues (Costa et al., 2016). This stage is fundamental for each team member to understand their role and responsibility in budget preparation, understanding how financial resources are generated and allocated to pedagogical projects.

The data were organized into three main categories: revenue spreadsheets, which cover all sources of resource input; expense spreadsheets, which record the expenses necessary for the institution’s maintenance and operation; and the results spreadsheet, which allows for evaluating the balance between revenues and expenses, supporting decision-making. The first revenue projection spreadsheet should consider the desired school model for the subsequent year, quantifying classes and projecting the number of students. It includes the projected tuition/annual fee value and the adjustment percentage, allowing for visualization of the estimated gross revenue.

After revenue projection, the values are allocated in another spreadsheet, where the first deductions are made, such as scholarships and discounts. Scholarships are granted at 100% and 50% of the value. The institution’s discount policy is standardized, including 50% for children of employees, 10% for enrolled older siblings, and commercial discounts of 5% to 10% or promotional discounts for early payment of tuition. Additionally, non-operating revenue amounts are recorded, such as rents, financial income, donations, promotions, indemnities, and reimbursements, which do not derive directly from enrollments.

Expense spreadsheets are the most detailed and frequently impact participants due to the magnitude of the amounts. Payroll is the main expense, varying between 65% and 70% of the budget, representing the largest cost for an educational institution. When entering the values, the projected salary adjustment for the subsequent year, as well as benefits and charges, must be considered. Expenses for outsourced services, such as IT systems, lawyers, cleaning, and pedagogical services, and for utilities and public services, such as water, telephone, internet, fuel, food, electricity, and maintenance, are also projected.

Expense deductions include maintenance and conservation accounts, which encompass the institution’s physical structure, such as buildings, gardens, machinery, furniture, equipment, and vehicles. Accounts for pedagogical materials and resources, although diverse, are primarily pedagogical in nature, including durable goods, protection and safety materials, IT, office supplies, sports equipment, cleaning supplies, school supplies, and teaching aids. All pedagogical projects must be related to and budgeted within this account. Communication and marketing expenses cover investments in advertising, promotion, and publications. Financial, tax, and general expenses include costs for banks, city halls, promotional gifts, festivities, courses, lectures, training, and the monthly transfer to the maintaining entity.

After all deductions from the expense spreadsheets, the operating result is obtained, which the Guide simplifies as the financial result. This result is distributed into three destinations: a contingency fund, essential for the institution’s survival in crises; investments in infrastructure; and investments in innovation or pedagogical projects, defined by the management team based on evaluation and need. The descriptions of accounts and spreadsheets are structured to facilitate the institution’s accounting order, and the Guide aims to guide the learning process and familiarize managers with the recording of budgetary values. The “budgeted” and “actual” tabs allow for the identification of discrepancies and points of variation.

It is up to the budgetary manager to carry out systematic and frequent monitoring to promote adjustments, make decisions, and redefine guidelines. The participation of the pedagogical team in monitoring the entries is recommended, at least quarterly, to develop competencies in budgetary management and strengthen engagement in participatory school management (Lück, 2009). This continuous practice contributes to the professional development and technical qualification of individuals, promoting a culture of collaboration and knowledge exchange. Barriers and opportunities in the implementation of the Guide

School management is a complex and challenging activity, involving the implementation of pedagogical actions and the conduct of administrative processes. The diversity of functions and roles shows that the school environment demands multiple skills and knowledge, making the integration among professionals a recurring challenge. The Guide was proposed as an introductory path for the pedagogical team in monitoring and learning the budgetary process, considering that all school activities imply financial planning and costs. Although the budget is already incorporated into the institutional culture, engaging and promoting a sense of belonging of “all” the pedagogical management team in this process still constitutes a significant challenge.

The turnover of collaborators in the pedagogical coordination, even if infrequent, presents itself as a barrier, as it requires continuous training of the team to ensure the perpetuity of the institutional culture and fidelity to the purposes. Another institutional barrier is ensuring that communication between the different levels of school management, pedagogical and administrative, is effectively disseminated clearly and accessibly to the entire team, aligning actions to ensure the fulfillment of the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP). Lack of alignment and communication can generate noise and challenges for the full integration of management processes and pedagogical actions.

On the other hand, relevant opportunities are identified in this process, especially in the expansion of knowledge fields, enabling the pedagogical team to learn in areas with which they often had no familiarity. The significant potential for strengthening integrated work, promoting more effective and fluid communication, and consequently, qualifying decision-making, making it more assertive, is highlighted. It is expected that, with the continuity of this practice and the support of administrative management, the pedagogical team will understand the balance point of each class, the need for student loyalty and acquisition as revenue, the institution’s expenses, and the correct application of results.

From this moment of greater understanding, the administrative director will cease to merely exercise the function of approving resources, becoming a strategic partner in school management, actively contributing to team development. This evolution in the role of the administrative director represents an opportunity to strengthen democratic and participatory management, promoting an environment of greater collaboration and shared responsibility. The integration of administrative knowledge with pedagogical knowledge aims to reduce the gap between stakeholders, making the process more participatory and oriented towards institutional objectives, according to Libâneo’s (2018) vision of the school as a space for professional growth and development.

In summary, the research results showed that the absence of integration and the lack of specific knowledge about the school budget by the pedagogical team compromise management effectiveness. The elaboration of the Budget Guidance Guide, mediated by administrative management, proved to be an effective strategy to strengthen democratic management, qualify the pedagogical team, and improve institutional decision-making processes. The implementation of the Guide promotes mutual understanding, cooperation, and collective solution building, transforming the administrative director into a formative and strategic agent, essential for the sustainability and success of the institution’s Political-Pedagogical Project.

4. Conclusion

The present study aimed to develop a Budget Guidance Manual, directed at the pedagogical management team and mediated by the administrative management, with the purpose of equipping these professionals to understand and actively participate in school budget management. It was found that the lack of integration and limited understanding of financial processes by the pedagogical team compromised the effectiveness of decisions and the full execution of the Political-Pedagogical Project. Gaps were identified in intersectoral communication and in specific training on budgetary data. The proposed Manual emerged as a practical and strategic contribution, strengthening democratic and participatory management by promoting mutual understanding, cooperation, and the collective construction of solutions, and by reframing the role of the administrative director as a formative and strategic agent.

However, the intense routine of daily pedagogical activities constitutes a limitation, making it difficult to consolidate the budget as an instrument incorporated into the organizational routine and the continuous engagement of the team. The turnover of collaborators in pedagogical coordination also requires constant training for the perpetuity of the institutional culture. It is suggested, for future studies, the development of evaluation mechanisms and instruments that allow measuring the evolution of knowledge and understanding of the school budget by the actors, as well as the maturity and capacity of the management team over time, from the implementation of the Guide.

Bibliographic References

AZEVEDO, Celine Maria de Sousa et al. A importância da comunicação efetiva na gestão educacional. Aracê, [S. I.], v. 6, n. 3, p. 4973–4986, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56238/arev6n3-043. Disponível em: https://periodicos.newsciencepubl.com/arace/article/view/1195. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2026.

BARBOSA, R. F. M.; BRITO, R. R. Mecanismo de gestão na instituição escolar. Revista Desafios, v. 2, n. 2, p. 85–99, 2016. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.20873/uft.2359-3652.2016v2n2p85. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2026.

BARBOZA, M. et al. Organização e gestão de centros educativos. Aracê, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56238/arev7n7-178. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.56238/arev7n7-178. Acesso em: 25 mar. 2026.

BASTOS, V.; ALVES, A. O projeto político-pedagógico como instrumento de gestão democrática e participativa. Revista de Gestão e Avaliação Educacional, v. 1, p. 87–93, 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5902/2318133830480. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2026.

COSTA, Robson Antonio Tavares et al. A análise da demonstração de resultado do exercício (DRE) como ferramenta de gestão para o administrador. Revista de Empreendedorismo e Gestão de Micro e Pequenas Empresas, v. 1, n. 1, p. 37–46, 2016. Disponível em: https://www.revistas.editoraenterprising.net/index.php/regmpe/article/view/72. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2026.

GERHARDT, T. E.; SILVEIRA, D. T. (org.). Métodos de pesquisa. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 2009.

GIL, Antonio Carlos. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. 4. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2008.

LIBÂNEO, José Carlos. Organização e gestão da escola: teoria e prática. 5. ed. rev. e ampl. Goiânia: Editora Alternativa, 2004.

LIBÂNEO, José Carlos. Organização e gestão da escola: teoria e prática. 6. ed. rev. e ampl. São Paulo: Heccus, 2018.

LÜCK, Heloisa. A gestão participativa na escola. 11. ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2013.

LÜCK, Heloisa. Dimensões da gestão escolar e suas competências. Curitiba: Positivo, 2009.

MINAYO, Maria Cecília de Souza. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde. 14. ed. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2014.

NÓVOA, António. Formação de professores e trabalho pedagógico. Lisboa: Educa, 2002.

ROBERTO, A. M.; WEINSTEIN, J. Liderança pedagógica e complexidade da gestão escolar: um estudo em escolas de São Paulo, Brasil. SciELO Preprints, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.7353. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.7353. Acesso em: 25 mar. 2026.

SANTOS, Jodilce Pereira dos. Comunicação na gestão escolar. Revista Interdisciplinar Aplicada, Blumenau, v. 5, n. 4, p. 1–22, 2011.

VALVERDE, Camila; CHIARETO, Joice; GOULART, Luiz Eduardo Takenouchi. The importance of financial planning and budget control for decision-making in basic education institutions. Liceu On-line, São Paulo: Fundação Escola de Comércio Álvares Penteado (FECAP), jul. 2020.

YIN, Robert K. Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. 2. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2001.

Article originating from the Course Conclusion Work of the Specialization in Business Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform