The Pedagogical Coordinator in High School: Possibilities and Challenges

Déborah Christina de Mendonça Oliveira; Victor Hugo Luna Peres

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602829

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

The role of the pedagogical coordinator in public high schools in the Federal District was analyzed, focusing on their attributions, training, professional identity construction, and challenges. The study began with the observation that, despite its strategic importance, the coordinator’s performance faces challenges due to the ambiguity of their attributions and the practice of their functions. The objective was to analyze the pedagogical coordinator’s attributions and identify the challenges in constructing their professional identity and defining their tasks. The investigation adopted qualitative and quantitative approaches, combining bibliometric analysis of scientific production in Portuguese (1996-2025), examination of legal and normative documents, and critical interpretation of professional experience. The results indicated that pedagogical coordination remains a strategic function, but is marked by ambiguity of attributions, task overlap, training fragility, tensions between control and autonomy, and difficulties in consolidating a clear professional identity. The reviewed literature recognized the continuing education of teachers as a central axis of the function, but highlighted the gap between the intended role and the actual practice. It was concluded that strengthening pedagogical coordination in high school requires institutional reorganization of work, specific training policies, greater normative clarity, and valuing the coordinator as an articulator of the pedagogical project and teacher development.

Keywords: Pedagogical coordinator; High school; Teacher training; Identity.

1. Introduction

In the context of school organization, the pedagogical coordinator (CP) assumes a strategic position in articulating educational practices, acting as a mediator between teachers, students, and the management team. Their work is fundamental to qualifying teaching and learning processes. When this work is intentional and recognized, the school gains pedagogical direction, the teacher ceases to work in isolation, and the student is seen in their concrete trajectory. However, coordination runs the risk of being reduced to a space for improvised conflict mediation, fulfillment of administrative routines, and response to daily recurring emergencies, a scenario commonly observed in school life.

In high school, the discussion about the role of the pedagogical coordinator takes on particular contours, given the complexity of this stage. This phase is marked by multiple challenges, such as class heterogeneity, performance pressures, curricular redefinitions, historical difficulties in student retention, dilemmas of contemporary youth, and increasing demands on school professionals. In this scenario, the pedagogical coordinator is called upon to monitor teaching practices, stimulate reflection processes, articulate the political-pedagogical project (PPP), mediate relationships, strengthen the culture of planning, and support the team in a critical reading of the school reality.

Despite the strategic importance of the pedagogical coordinator in school management, their performance still faces challenges arising from the ambiguity of their professional responsibilities and the practice of their functions. Current legislation, such as the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (Brazil, 1996), does not present a clear definition of the position, delegating to the educational networks the responsibility of structuring this role. In the Federal District, the choice of the pedagogical coordinator is guided by an ordinance published annually in the Official Gazette, which includes professional criteria, while the attributions are defined in the School Regulations of the Public Education Network of the Federal District (Federal District, 2015).

The literature on the subject, exemplified by Placco and Almeida (2019), indicates that the pedagogical coordinator frequently assumes a multifunctional role, being seen as a “jack-of-all-trades” within the school. The lack of clarity in the guidelines regulating this function contributes to an overload of tasks and difficulties in defining its scope of action. This ambiguity has direct impacts on the effectiveness of pedagogical management and on the professional development of the coordinators themselves. Furthermore, the professional identity of the pedagogical coordinator is a continuous process, influenced by the recognition of the social role played (Nóvoa, 1995), and the absence of clearly defined attributions hinders the consolidation of a solid identity.

It is in this context that the research problem is formulated: how to understand the function of the pedagogical coordinator in high school in public schools in the Federal District, considering the mismatch between their formal attributions and daily practice, the difficulties in constituting their professional identity, and the gaps in initial and continuing education? This question emerges from the confrontation between normativity, scientific production, and the concrete experience accumulated in daily school life.

The academic justification for this study lies in the fact that, although there is a growth in the production on pedagogical coordination, the bibliometric survey indicates thematic dispersion, little consolidation of research networks, and a more recent concentration of publications. This suggests that the field is still maturing, especially when specific segments, such as public high schools in the Federal District, are observed. From a practical point of view, discussing pedagogical coordination means discussing conditions for improving teaching work, planning culture, in-service training, and, ultimately, the quality of students’ school experience. Given this scenario, this work aims to analyze the role of the pedagogical coordinator in public high schools in the Federal District, investigating the challenges faced, the professional identity of this educational agent, their initial and continuing education, and their attributions.

2. Material and Methods

The investigation of the pedagogical coordinator’s role in high schools of public schools in the Federal District adopted a mixed methodological approach, combining qualitative and quantitative elements. This choice aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the object of study, considering the multiple facets of the coordinator’s performance.

The first procedure consisted of a bibliometric analysis of scientific production in Portuguese, published between 1996 and 2025. The survey was conducted on the Google Scholar search engine, using three descriptors: “pedagogical coordinator” (female), “pedagogical coordination,” and “pedagogical coordinator” (male). The inclusion of the feminine term considered the predominance of women in the role (Campos and Aragão, 2016).

For the corpus construction, journal articles, collection chapters, and works published in event proceedings were included. Dissertations, theses, final undergraduate projects, productions off-topic, or unavailable links were excluded. The search for the descriptors “pedagogical coordination” and “pedagogical coordinator” was limited to the first 25 and 30 pages of the search engine, respectively, due to the decrease in the relevance of the results.

After the initial identification, 30 works were selected for in-depth reading, prioritizing those with the highest number of citations. For each text, reading sheets were prepared with title, author, type of publication, summary of main ideas, and analysis of macrothemes.

The bibliometric analysis aimed to identify trends, gaps, academic communities, and researcher networks on pedagogical coordination (Chueke and Amatucci, 2015). The collected data were organized into spreadsheets, containing information on authors, titles, years and publication venues, keywords, methodological aspects, publication locations, Qualis, and number of citations.

The second methodological procedure was documentary analysis, which comprised the qualitative dimension of the research. Legal and regulatory documents that govern the role of the pedagogical coordinator were examined, focusing on the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (Brazil, 1996) and the School Regulations of the Public Education Network of the Federal District (Federal District, 2015). The reading of these documents aimed to confront the formally prescribed attributions and expectations for the role with the practice effectively observed in daily school life, establishing an objective parameter for discussing the gap between the normative and the executed plan.

The third qualitative procedure consisted of the elaboration of an experience report, conceived as an interpretive device. This report was based on the author’s own professional experience as a pedagogical coordinator in public high schools in the Federal District, from 2007 to 2014. The production of the report followed the assumptions of Mussi et al. (2021), who define it as a critical reflection on an experienced reality.

The author’s professional experience was used as material for critical reflection on concrete situations, seeking to understand the realization of pedagogical coordination in the real school. The experience was constantly discussed with the consulted literature and with bibliometric data, avoiding impressionism or the generalization of singular experience.

For the organization and systematization of information, the support of artificial intelligence tools was used. These tools were strictly employed to structure the data, without any interference in the production or interpretive analysis. Regarding ethical considerations, the research, as it falls under items VI and VII of the sole paragraph of Article 1 of CNS Resolution No. 510 of April 2016, was exempted from registration and analysis by the CEP/CONEP system.

The adopted methodology, by integrating bibliometrics, documentary analysis, and experience reporting, sought to preserve the complexity of the object of study. Limitations included the concentration of the bibliometric survey on publications in Portuguese and specific formats, the non-exhaustion of all regulations on the function in the Federal District in the documentary analysis, and the specific temporal and institutional scope of the experience report. These delimitations situate the scope of the results for understanding the function.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis and discussion of the results presented in this section constitute the interpretive core of the study, articulating the research findings with the theoretical framework and the empirical context investigated. Initially, the results of the bibliometric analysis are detailed, which allowed mapping the main trends in scientific production on pedagogical coordination, identifying reference authors, and highlighting gaps in the field. These data dialogue directly with the documentary analysis, making it possible to understand to what extent the legally foreseen attributions are materialized in school practice, especially in public high schools in the Federal District.

Subsequently, the discussion incorporates the author’s experiential account, a fundamental element for understanding the real dynamics of school life. This articulation between theory, legislation, and practice allows for the highlighting of recurring tensions, such as the multifaceted role of the pedagogical coordinator, the overload of demands, and the ambiguity of their field of action. The combination of these methodological approaches offers a comprehensive and multifaceted view of the complexity of the pedagogical coordinator’s function, as proposed in the research objectives.

Panorama of scientific production

The data obtained through bibliometric analysis indicate that the field of study on pedagogical coordination still presents characteristics of incipient development, with low theoretical consolidation and fragmentation in scientific production. The difference between the descriptors used is revealing: “coordenadora pedagógica” returned 61 results, “coordenação pedagógica” presented 728 results, and “coordenador pedagógico” obtained 1,280 results. This data suggests that scientific production is more strongly organized around the professional figure of the pedagogical coordinator than around the institutional phenomenon of coordination itself.

From the collected data, not many consolidated author networks are observed on the topic, as most works appear in isolation. Some authors, such as Placco, Souza, Almeida, Fernandes, and Bruno, are repeated with some constancy, indicating the existence of research and collaboration networks, especially the works of Placco, Almeida, and Souza, developed almost always in partnership, with a high concentration of publications between 2001 and 2016. This dispersion points to the absence of recurrent collaboration among researchers, groups, or laboratories, evidencing a predominance of productions linked to individual research, such as TCCs, dissertations, theses, or experience reports.

Regarding the methodologies adopted in scientific production, the most frequent were bibliographic review, experience report, and qualitative research using semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. Therefore, there is an emphasis on theoretical approaches of a bibliographic nature and on studies of a descriptive nature. This methodological predominance reflects the consolidation phase of the field, where description and literature review are important initial steps for building a more robust body of knowledge.

The distribution of publications over the period considered (1996-2025) revealed a greater concentration of studies in the years 2013 to 2024. This period coincides with the strengthening of public policies aimed at school management, the valorization of the teaching career, and the incentive for continuing education. This recent growth can be interpreted as an indication that the topic has been gaining visibility, possibly due to the expansion of the debate on continuing education, school management, and collective teacher work.

On the other hand, the recent concentration of publications also reveals that, for a long time, pedagogical coordination did not occupy a central place in the educational research agenda, despite its practical importance within schools. Specifically for the descriptor “pedagogical coordinator”, out of the 10 studies used, 50% refer to studies from the years 2022 and 2023. For “pedagogical coordination”, out of the 39 studies used, 30 were published between 2016 and 2024, representing about 77% of the total. As for “pedagogical supervisor”, 64% of the studies were published between 2016 and 2025, confirming the recent growth trend.

The number of scientific papers published between 1996 and 2015 reveals that the role of the pedagogical coordinator, despite being foreseen in the LDB (Brazil, 1996), was little studied and understood during this initial period. This research gap prior to 2013-2016 suggests that academia was slow to recognize the relevance and complexity of the role, which impacted the construction of a more consolidated theoretical body to support educational practices and policies.

Regarding the publication location, most works originate from public institutions, with a strong concentration of production in the South and Southeast regions, more particularly in the state of São Paulo. For the descriptor “pedagogical coordinator”, São Paulo accounts for 60% of publications, followed by Pernambuco, Bahia, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul, each with 10%. For “pedagogical coordination”, São Paulo concentrates 36.8%, followed by Paraná (15.8%) and the Federal District (10.5%). For “pedagogical coordinator”, São Paulo represents 33.3%, with Rio Grande do Sul (15%) and Paraná (10%) also having significant participation.

This geographical concentration, especially in São Paulo, demonstrates that this state constitutes an active research hub on the topic. However, this predominance is also reflected in the themes addressed, as many studies focus on the reality of the state of São Paulo, which, although valuable, does not always explore the specificities of other contexts. Thus, an important gap remains regarding the high school curriculum and the context of the Federal District, justifying the relevance of the present study.

Regarding the type of publication, most of the scientific production on the topic is in journal articles in the field of education. For “pedagogical coordinator”, 70% are journal articles and 30% are book chapters. For “pedagogical coordination”, 82.1% are journal articles, 10.3% book chapters, and 7.7% event proceedings. For “pedagogical coordinator”, 85% are journal articles, 10% book chapters, and 5% event proceedings. This data reinforces the importance of scientific journals as the main vehicle for disseminating knowledge in the field.

Given this panorama, it is evident that scientific production on pedagogical coordination, although expanding in recent decades, still lacks greater theoretical consolidation, articulation among researchers, and diversification of methodological approaches. The predominance of descriptive studies, the dispersion of authors, and the geographical concentration of research indicate the need for advances in the field, especially in strengthening collaborative networks and expanding investigations that encompass different educational contexts. It is fundamental to invest in research that deepens the understanding of pedagogical coordination as an institutional phenomenon, overcoming the exclusive centrality on the professional’s figure, as well as expanding empirical scopes to include less explored educational stages and realities.

Topics addressed

The analysis of the 30 selected texts for reading allowed the identification of a consistent set of macro-themes that structure the field of study on pedagogical coordination in the context of basic education in Brazil. From a thematic approach, it was possible to map recurring patterns in the analyzed production. It was observed that the literature converges on a vision of the pedagogical coordinator as an articulator of pedagogical work, a teacher trainer, and a mediator of educational processes, but constantly strained by overload, bureaucratization, identity fragility, managerialist reforms, and insufficient material and training conditions.

Thus, the literature describes coordination not only as an administrative function, but as an eminently pedagogical and formative function, whose effectiveness depends on political, historical, institutional, and cultural conditions. The most recurrent macro-themes and their frequencies in the 30 texts analyzed were: teacher training and professional development (28 texts, 93.3%); collective work, collaboration, and dialogue (24 texts, 80.0%); working conditions, overload, and bureaucratization (24 texts, 80.0%); reflection on practice / action-reflection-action (22 texts, 73.3%); change, emancipation, autonomy, and transformation (22 texts, 73.3%); coordinator’s professional identity (18 texts, 60.0%); pedagogical planning, PPP, and work organization (18 texts, 60.0%); public policies, legislation, managerialism, and control (16 texts, 53.3%); theoretical basis and specific training (Didactics/Pedagogy) (13 texts, 43.3%); and institutional mediation and school relations (family, community, authority, group) (11 texts, 36.7%).

In the sample considered, the strongest data is the centrality of continuing teacher education, present in practically all analyzed texts (93.3%). Pedagogical coordination is repeatedly defined as an essentially formative function, whose main responsibility consists of promoting teacher professional development. This conception breaks with traditional perspectives that associate the coordinator with merely administrative or supervisory functions, as an agent responsible for implementing educational policies defined by higher bodies. On the contrary, studies indicate that the school is understood as a privileged space for in-service training, in which teaching practice constitutes an object of analysis, reflection, and change.

In this sense, pedagogical coordination assumes a strategic role by promoting moments of collective study and reflection, not only in traditional training spaces, such as courses, lectures, and workshops, but in all moments of sharing and discussion present in daily school life, including pedagogical meetings, class councils, and conversations in the teachers’ lounge. Souza (2001) highlights that these training spaces aim to articulate theory and practice, foster the construction of contextualized professional knowledge, and contribute to the improvement of teaching quality. The analyzed studies converge in defending that teacher training is a collective process and that the construction of pedagogical knowledge occurs through interaction among peers, with the coordinator acting as a mediator of relationships and an articulator of the teaching group.

However, it is evident that these spaces are often fragmented by emergency demands, overloaded with multiple bureaucratic agendas, and emptied of their formative function, as highlighted by Placco (2008). Thus, the spaces designated for reflection on pedagogical practice become moments for announcements, non-pedagogical discussions, and venting sessions, where teachers report their anxieties, difficulties, and dissatisfactions without any pedagogical intervention from school management. The coordination room therefore becomes an environment marked by complaints, where formative spaces cease to fulfill their central role and begin to assume an almost therapeutic function, as teachers use these moments to share accumulated frustrations from daily school life, seeking validation among peers who experience similar challenges.

The second axis strongly present (80% of the texts) is the appreciation of collective work, dialogue, and collaboration as foundations of pedagogical coordination. The consulted literature values collective work, dialogue, and reflection, but, at the same time, shows that these processes are continuously interrupted by lack of time, urgencies of daily school life, excess of demands, bureaucracy, and pressure for results. This constant interruption compromises the effectiveness of training actions and the consolidation of a culture of collaboration, transforming the potential space for professional development into an environment for managing crises and immediate demands.

Another relevant finding refers to the recurrent presence of a structural tension between the formative role attributed to pedagogical coordination and the real conditions of exercising the function. From the interpretation of the macrothemes, it is observed that 80% of the texts show that the daily life of the pedagogical coordinator is marked by an excess of administrative demands, such as carrying out training defined by educational directorates, accumulation of bureaucratic tasks, attending to emergency situations, and deviation of function. In some school units, the pedagogical coordinator performs tasks that should be developed by other employees, either due to ignorance of their real function or lack of human resources.

This reality significantly compromises the time and quality of actions aimed at teacher training. In many cases, the coordinator acts as an “emergency manager”, shifting from their central pedagogical role to operational activities. This scenario reveals an important contradiction: although literature and educational policies recognize coordination as a space for training, institutional conditions often make the realization of this role unfeasible. This situation is reinforced by the fact that the pedagogical coordinator is the most accessible actor in the management chain, while the school administration’s doors often remain “closed to pedagogy” and to the “minor demands” of daily school life, leaving the coordinator to manage the day-to-day unforeseen events.

The analysis also shows that the professional identity of the pedagogical coordinator is a recurring theme (60% of the texts), being frequently described as ambiguous, fragmented, and under construction. This identity fragility may be associated with factors such as the ways of accessing the position (specific public examination, democratic election by peers, school management indication), the ambiguity of the role’s attributions, the lack of adequate specific training, the accumulation of non-pedagogical tasks, and changes in educational policies. Studies such as Fernandes (2009) indicate that the coordinator is often not recognized, either by themselves or by other school actors, as a professional with a clearly defined identity, which directly impacts their performance and their capacity for pedagogical leadership.

Another relevant result is the strength of themes related to professional identity, the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP), and public policies, present in 60% of the texts. This shows that the debate on pedagogical coordination is not just methodological, but also political, institutional, and historical. Coordination appears as a field in dispute: on one hand, a formative, democratic, and emancipatory perspective; on the other, a managerial, performative, and control-oriented perspective. This duality reflects the inherent tensions of the role, which needs to balance pedagogical demands with administrative and political requirements.

The influence of educational public policies, especially those guided by a managerialist logic, is another relevant aspect, addressed in 53.3% of the texts. It is observed that, in recent decades, there has been a shift in the role of pedagogical coordination towards activities of results monitoring, external evaluation follow-up, school performance control, and implementation of centralized policies. This change in perspective has produced a conflict between the formative role of the pedagogical coordinator and their use as an instrument for regulating and controlling teaching work, as highlighted by Fernandes (2012). Despite this, in daily school life, coordinators frequently reinterpret and adapt policies, exercising a certain autonomy by adapting external regulations to the reality of the school in which they operate.

From what was discussed in this section, it can be stated that, on the one hand, there is a theoretical consensus that the coordinator should act as a promoter of teacher training, an articulator of pedagogical work, a mediator of school relations involving different actors, and a promoter of teacher reflection and autonomy. On the other hand, the real conditions of pedagogical coordination reveal overload and bureaucratization of the role, identity fragility, insufficient specific training, and institutional and managerial pressures. This dichotomy between the ideal and the real is one of the main challenges faced by these professionals.

Attributions of the pedagogical coordinator: legislation versus practice

Although the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (Brazil, 1996) does not explicitly mention the role of the pedagogical coordinator, its provisions allow us to infer the role of this professional in supporting educational processes and in the organization of school management. The pedagogical coordinator is part of the group of professionals who work in supporting teaching and learning processes, playing a fundamental role in guaranteeing the quality of education. Their function is particularly articulated with the promotion of collective pedagogical work, the implementation of the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP), and the systematic monitoring of teaching practice.

The LDB (Brazil, 1996), by emphasizing democratic management (Article 14) and the need for training and valuing education professionals (Articles 61 to 67), supports the coordinator’s role as a mediator between educational policies and daily school practice. Thus, it is up to this professional to foster continuous training processes, support didactic planning, promote integration among the different school actors, and contribute to the construction of an institutional culture focused on student learning. Therefore, even if not explicitly named, the pedagogical coordinator emerges, in the context of the LDB, as an articulator of pedagogical work.

In light of the School Regulations of the Public Education Network of the Federal District (Federal District, 2015), the pedagogical coordinator is configured as a strategic agent in mediating between institutional guidelines and teaching practice, assuming functions that articulate the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of teaching and learning processes. Their attributions focus on the organization and conduct of collective pedagogical work, with emphasis on the elaboration, implementation, and monitoring of the Political-Pedagogical Project, as well as on the promotion of continuous training spaces with teachers, through pedagogical meetings, directed studies, and practice analysis. The coordinator is also responsible for monitoring student performance, analyzing educational indicators, and proposing interventions aimed at improving learning, acting collaboratively with the management team and the teaching staff.

In the daily school routine, their role also involves didactic-methodological guidance, support for the construction of inclusive strategies, and mediation of pedagogical conflicts, consolidating itself as a central element in guaranteeing the quality of education and in strengthening a school culture based on critical reflection and collective work. In the Federal District, the School Regulations (Federal District, 2015) establish Pedagogical Coordination as a space-time for reflection on teaching and learning processes and for continuous training, intended for the planning, guidance, and monitoring of didactic-pedagogical activities. Article 120 of the Regulations attributes to the local pedagogical coordinator, among other responsibilities, the annual elaboration of the Pedagogical Coordination’s Action Plan and participation in the elaboration, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the Political-Pedagogical Project.

The Regiment also provides for the guidance and coordination of faculty participation in the elaboration and evaluation of the curricular organization, the articulation of pedagogical actions between the different segments of the school unit and the Regional Education Coordination, the incentive to faculty participation in pedagogical actions promoted by SEEDF (Secretariat of State for Education of the Federal District), and the monitoring of faculty work in the implementation of the Basic Education Curriculum and Pedagogical Guidelines, using studies, research, and workshops as strategies for continuing education. Furthermore, the coordinator must encourage the use of technological resources and collaborate in institutional evaluation processes, articulating its different levels with a view to improving teaching and learning. The set of these attributions shows that, at the normative level, the function has a clearly pedagogical core, articulated to faculty training, planning, curriculum, evaluation, and democratic management, which allows for the establishment of an objective parameter for the analysis of the distance between the prescribed work and that effectively carried out in the daily life of schools.

However, the results of this research point to the contrast, frequently observed in daily school life, between what legislation assigns to the pedagogical coordinator and what they actually do at school. The normative plan and the theoretical plan converge in pointing to the continuing education of teachers, the articulation of the PPP, the organization of pedagogical meetings, and the monitoring of teaching practice as central elements of the function. Daily life, however, distributes the coordinator’s time across a network of demands that commonly displace this formative core to the background, compromising the effectiveness of their pedagogical performance.

The texts studied describe this phenomenon with some recurrence. Bruno (2006) identifies writing routines, family support, and meeting conduction whose reflective potential is often reduced by operational logic. Almeida et al. (2016) show that administrative tasks, organization of school routines, and resolution of emergency problems consume a large part of the work time. Franco (2008) deals with a school with little planning and much improvisation, without planning, in which coordinators find themselves tired. It is not, therefore, a punctual or localized problem; it is a structural trait of the function in various educational contexts.

The experience of public high school in the Federal District dialogues intensely with this literature. In many schools, the coordinator starts the day with an agenda designed for pedagogical support and study with teachers, but is quickly called upon to substitute for teachers, resolve conflicts between students, attend to requests from the administration, welcome guardians, and fulfill administrative urgencies. At the end of the day, the feeling remains of having worked hard and achieved little progress in what would be essential. This reality highlights the difficulty of maintaining focus on pedagogical responsibilities in the face of pressure from operational and emergency demands.

There is an important aspect to highlight: the multiplicity of tasks is not, in itself, illegitimate, as the school is a living institution, full of unforeseen events, and the coordinator, due to their position of reference, naturally participates in various mediations. The problem arises when the set of these mediations is organized without hierarchy and without criteria. In this circumstance, any demand can gain immediate priority, and teacher training becomes dependent on what time and energy are “left over”. Placco’s (2008) study is relevant to this discussion by proposing that the CP needs to learn to transform many urgencies into routines, anticipating necessary behaviors and actions. Thus, they need to analyze their daily routine and evaluate which actions and activities need to be improved or organized more efficiently to recover the pedagogical focus.

When confronting legislation and practice, this research therefore sustains that the central problem is not the absence of a definition for the CP’s role, as there is a set of described attributions; what is missing is an institutional organization that preserves the centrality of these attributions in the face of the pressures of daily school life. The mere existence of regulations does not guarantee the effectiveness of the function if the working conditions and institutional culture are not aligned with the expected pedagogical role of the coordinator. The implementation of support policies and the restructuring of school routines are essential for the coordinator to effectively exercise their formative function.

Challenges of the function

The challenges identified in the analyzed corpus can be organized into three central axes, namely: workload, functional deviation, and intensification of institutional demands. Although this separation analytically contributes to the understanding of the phenomenon, in practice, these dimensions are dynamically articulated, potentiating the negative impacts on the pedagogical coordinator’s performance. Understanding these axes is fundamental for proposing interventions aimed at strengthening pedagogical coordination in high school.

Work overload appears recurrently in the literature examined. Franco (2008) describes coordinators subjected to extensive workdays, marked by exhaustion and the perception that the results do not match the effort expended. Placco et al. (2012) highlight the accumulation of responsibilities, the insufficiency of material resources, and the limitation of time for training activities. Cunha et al. (2013), on the other hand, show that the feeling of “not being able to cope” permeates collective pedagogical work moments. These elements indicate that overload is not episodic, but constitutive of the conditions for exercising the function, becoming a structural obstacle to the effectiveness of coordination.

Beyond the quantitative aspect, overload also assumes a qualitative dimension, expressed in the dispersion of activities. The pedagogical coordinator is frequently required to move between multiple functions, which compromises the continuity of the formative work, demanding constant adaptation and hindering the concentration necessary for pedagogical reflection. This dispersion of tasks prevents the coordinator from deepening their performance in specific areas, transforming them into a professional who acts on various fronts, but with little depth in each one, which generates frustration and ineffectiveness.

The deviation of function aggravates this scenario by transforming the coordinator into a convergence point for heterogeneous demands. In contexts where the boundaries of the function are not clearly established, there is a shift to activities that, although relevant to the school’s dynamics, should not occupy the center of their performance. Some studies, such as Fernandes (2009), explicitly mention the deviation of function; others describe it indirectly. In both cases, a weakening is evident in both the organization of work and the institutional recognition of pedagogical coordination, as the professional ends up assuming responsibilities that do not correspond to their main role, diluting their identity and focus.

Institutional demands, in turn, increase the complexity of work by extending beyond the school space. Educational policies, external evaluations, official programs, and accountability requirements impose a logic of monitoring and control. Fernandes (2012) demonstrates how educational reforms can assign the coordinator the role of a policy disseminator and a teacher practice regulator. In this context, the professional begins to mediate the implementation of guidelines, the monitoring of indicators, and the fulfillment of goals, often at the expense of more in-depth processes of listening and teacher training, transforming them into an agent of control rather than a pedagogical facilitator.

In high school, these challenges are intensified by the specificities of the stage, such as curricular complexity, the presence of specialist teachers, the high number of students, and the demands of youth. Added to this is the social pressure for results, which leads the coordinator to simultaneously deal with issues such as dropout, learning gaps, inclusion, and preparation for higher education or the world of work. This multiplicity of factors demands even greater management and articulation skills from the coordinator, in an already overloaded scenario with unclear responsibilities.

Finally, it is essential to avoid individualizing these challenges. Attributing exclusive responsibility to the coordinator for difficulties related to pedagogical organization disregards the structural conditions under which the function is performed. Although individual competencies are relevant, they are not sufficient to overcome a context marked by overload, ambiguity, and institutional pressure. Thus, the analysis demands a broader approach, which recognizes the pedagogical coordinator as a subject embedded in a network of institutional and political conditioning factors that go beyond their individual actions. The solution to these challenges therefore involves a systemic reorganization and not just punctual improvements in the professional’s performance.

Professional identity

The results of this research confirm that the professional identity of the pedagogical coordinator is marked by fragilities. Instead of speaking of an “absence of identity”, it seems more appropriate to speak of an identity under construction, marked by different institutional expectations and by the constant redefinition of their role. This continuous and, at times, ambiguous construction reflects the complexity of the function and the lack of unified social and institutional recognition of what it means to be a pedagogical coordinator.

Identity fragility appears, firstly, in the difficulty of delimiting a proper field of action. When the coordinator assumes very diverse activities and when the school does not clearly recognize what distinguishes their work from other functions, it becomes difficult to consolidate a consistent professional self-image. The subject knows they should act in the pedagogical field, but lives daily displaced to other fronts, as pointed out by Fernandes (2009). This contradiction produces insecurity, wear and tear, and a feeling of not fully belonging anywhere, impacting the professional’s motivation and effectiveness.

Secondly, identity is weakened by the absence or insufficiency of specific training. A professional who assumes coordination without preparation to lead groups, mediate conflicts, monitor teaching practices, and organize training processes may experience the role as a permanent exposure. Insecurity arises not only from the workload but from the feeling of not sufficiently mastering the required knowledge. Franco (2008) clearly registers this point by mentioning coordinators who would like to work better with teachers but do not feel sufficiently prepared for it, which limits their pedagogical leadership and qualified intervention capacity.

Third, the process of identity construction depends on recognition. Nóvoa (1995) teaches that professional identity is inseparable from the way society and institutions recognize a role. At school, this recognition materializes in small gestures: in the space granted to the coordinator in pedagogical decisions, in the type of demand addressed to them, in the degree of trust that teachers place in their mediation, in the support of the administration, in the way students and families understand their function. When the coordinator is only called upon to solve problems, the recognition of their pedagogical role is weakened, and their authority is undermined.

Despite this scenario, the identity of the pedagogical coordinator can be strengthened. This happens when the coordinator manages to articulate collective work, produce meaningful encounters, and build pedagogical authority based on coherence, listening, and competence. Souza and Placco (2006) remind us that the coordinator’s authority is not ready-made; it is built in relationships. According to the authors, authority is constructed in social practices, in a permanent movement that takes into account the needs, desires, and values of the interacting actors. It is necessary to invest in the construction of authority by investing in the formation of values such as respect, responsibility, admiration, and ethics, crucial elements for the consolidation of a robust professional identity.

The high school experience indicates that this strengthening usually occurs in processes, not in isolated acts. A well-conducted meeting, a consistent formative intervention, the careful mediation of a pedagogical conflict, respectful feedback to a teacher, the ability to transform data into collective reflection: all of this, accumulated over time, helps to consolidate the coordinator’s role. Professional identity, in this sense, is not given; it is built during the journey, through continuous and intentional actions that demonstrate the professional’s relevance and competence in the school context.

Professional training

Regarding the professional training of the pedagogical coordinator, the present research can affirm that there is an expressive contradiction. The pedagogical coordinator, as pointed out by Bruno (2006), is recognized as the main mediator of continuous teacher training in the school, but often performs this function without having a sufficiently structured training for it themselves. The school, therefore, places great expectation on a professional whose formative trajectory has not always been designed for the work they now need to perform, creating a mismatch between demand and effective preparation.

The revised texts converge in arguing that the continuing education of teachers cannot be confused with isolated or merely transmissive actions. Campos and Aragão (2016) highlight the importance of the pedagogical coordinator developing their actions in daily school life focused on teacher training, which demands action planning and intentionality in the organization of the school’s collective work. Similarly, Domingues and Belletati (2016) point to possibilities for the PC to act in continuing education, but from an emancipatory perspective that strengthens teachers’ autonomy. For this movement to happen, it is necessary for pedagogical coordination to establish priorities and enable effective changes, as it takes time to think about and decide on the school’s issues and problems, as pointed out by Cunha et al. (2013). All these perspectives affirm that training is not about passing on ready-made guidelines, but about creating conditions for teachers to critically analyze their own pedagogical practice.

The issue is that this same principle applies to the coordinator’s training. They also need spaces for study and reflection on their own practice. They need to discuss the school, analyze policies, review teaching conceptions, and develop sensitivity for collective work. When this does not happen, the coordinator tends to reproduce two problematic movements: either they assume an excessively bureaucratic role, due to a lack of repertoire to invest in another direction, or they try to improvise well-intentioned actions, but which are fragile in continuity and foundation. This lack of specific training for the coordinator compromises the quality of the training actions they should promote, perpetuating a cycle of improvisation and ineffectiveness.

This research also shows that the initial training of the pedagogical coordinator is weak. Souza et al. (2013) affirm that, in general, most pedagogical coordinators do not have initial training in management, most come from classrooms or undergraduate courses and assume the position without knowing and mastering the necessary skills and strategies for the role. In their study, there are reports that many coordinators, to feel “more prepared” to assume the coordination position, take complementary courses, such as specializations in the area of educational and school management. These reports show the lack of internship practices and theoretical subsidies for the training of the coordination professional in undergraduate courses. Therefore, it can be affirmed that pedagogical coordination has professionals who are poorly prepared to exercise it, due to a lack of initial training for the exercise of their role, as stated by Franco (2008).

In summary, the results reaffirm that the improvement of pedagogical coordination necessarily involves a continuing education policy focused on the coordinator themselves, articulated with the needs of public high school education and supported by institutional times, spaces, and priorities. Without this, the paradox will remain: demanding that the coordinator train others without ensuring their own training. This training gap is one of the main obstacles to the full development of the role and to the consolidation of an effectively transformative pedagogical coordination.

Experience report

The experience lived by the author of this research as a pedagogical coordinator in a public school in the Federal District, between the years 2007 and 2014, offers a concrete panorama of the challenges and possibilities of the role. The school operated in three shifts, and the author worked the night shift, which offered 10 regular high school classes for young students, aged between 18 and 25 years, who worked or interned during the day. The teaching staff consisted of 21 professionals, including 16 regular teachers, 1 principal, 1 vice-principal, 1 pedagogical supervisor, 1 administrative supervisor, and 1 pedagogical coordinator.

In the Federal District, pedagogical coordination is a function, not a position with a bonus, and is filled through a vote by the teaching staff, strengthening the culture of democratic management. The number of coordinators was defined by ordinance, and the school in question, with 10 classes in the evening, was entitled to a single coordinator position. In the daytime, the school had three more coordinators for the morning (high school) and three for the afternoon (middle school). For eight years, the author was elected pedagogical coordinator, a process that illustrates democratic management, allowing any teacher who met the requirements set forth in the ordinance to run for the position.

The ordinance that regulated the function brought the attributions of the CP, and its reading was done annually in a “load distribution” meeting, where professors and the management team elected the pedagogical coordinator and chose their classes and disciplines. The fact that the definition of the pedagogical coordinator in the DF is a democratic process allows for some mismatches, as professors who do not have the profile for pedagogical coordination can apply and be elected for the position. It is important to emphasize that a good professor will not always be a good pedagogical coordinator, as the competencies required to exercise the function of CP require the capacity for dialogue, active listening, openness to negotiation, and good team management, among others. It is also common to observe cases where the pedagogical coordinator is elected not for profile or interest, but because they do not have a defined workload at the school, wishing to remain at the educational institution.

The reported experience was inserted in a normative context that conferred to the pedagogical coordination a relevant role in the organization of school work. Ordinance No. 74, of January 29, 2009, established criteria for workload distribution, class selection, and the development of pedagogical coordination activities, in addition to defining the number of coordinators per educational institution. The regulation also determined that pedagogical coordination activities should be integrated into the organization of teaching work. In line with this provision, the School Regulations defined pedagogical coordination as a space for planning, guidance, and monitoring of didactic-pedagogical activities, assigning the coordinator the participation in the elaboration, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the Pedagogical Proposal, the articulation of actions between teachers and the management team, and the encouragement of continuing education.

Thus, the experience lived by the author finds support in a conception of pedagogical coordination linked to the collective organization of school work and teacher training. During the period she served as CP, the author performed various tasks, such as defining the school activities calendar, elaborating and articulating the PPP, holding weekly pedagogical meetings, organizing class councils, and attending to students, parents, and guardians. Furthermore, she mediated conflicts between teachers and between teachers and students, organized exam weeks, managed daily attendance and content records, and handled the opening and closing of the shift, which is not common for the school principal to be present at night.

Other activities included didactic-methodological support, organization of events, technical visits and cultural activities, dissemination of continuing education courses offered by the School for the Professional Development of Educators (EAPE), dissemination of administrative notices and regulations, replacement of absent teachers, and organization of class schedules. As can be seen, the range of tasks is multifaceted and covers pedagogical issues, but also administrative matters, which reinforces the results of this research and the reports from the analyzed texts that highlight the workload of the CP and the loss of identity given to the many activities it performs. Although the Regulations established general guidelines, in practice, the function often expanded beyond its formative scope, absorbing the school’s emergency demands.

This scenario produced a fragmented routine, hindering the continuity of more in-depth training actions. Teacher training, the central axis of the CP’s function, was carried out during pedagogical meetings, moments intended for continuing education and in class councils. However, it was noticeable that some teachers, perhaps due to not knowing the CP’s attributions, considered these moments of reflection unnecessary. It is common in high school for teachers to have difficulty accepting critical reflection about their pedagogical practice, as each one acts in a specific knowledge area, the coordinator is afraid to propose changes, since the CP does not master the teaching methodology of all disciplines.

Given this difficulty, the author had to, over the years, build authority with the teachers, not by mastering all methodologies, but by developing a culture of active listening and proposing pedagogical reflections at strategic moments. Other factors that the author considers relevant for building this authority were: ethical work, constant presence in daily school life, commitment to the tasks performed, and intentionality in the activities developed. According to Lima and Santos (2007), those in leadership positions need to abandon an autocratic position to enable the development of a climate in which everyone contributes ideas, criticisms, and directions.

Another relevant issue is that the pedagogical coordination’s function occupies a space in the management chain, and this leads teachers to confuse the PC with someone responsible for regulating their absences and results. Even if this were not an institutional culture, the PC often occupied the position of “chief”, since, at night, it is the member of the management chain most present in the school’s daily life. Regarding the results, in the DF, at the time, it was not the coordinator’s function to monitor these data, despite institutional pressure for good results in external evaluations. Over the years, the pressure for results has intensified, especially with the expansion of external evaluations and the growing culture of monitoring educational indicators.

In this context, the author gradually assumed, to a certain extent, the role of articulator of these policies within the school, being responsible for translating guidelines, monitoring goals, and mobilizing the teaching staff around the implementation of new educational policies. This scenario demanded constant balance between the formative dimension of the function and the technical-administrative requirements. Despite these limitations, the period in which the author acted as CP also highlighted important possibilities for action. The construction of spaces for dialogue with teachers, even if permeated by challenges, proved fundamental for strengthening collective work. This report also emphasizes the importance of qualified listening as a strategy for action. By recognizing the concrete working conditions of teachers and valuing their experiences, it was possible to establish relationships of trust and authority, and promote greater engagement in the proposed pedagogical actions.

In summary, the research revealed that pedagogical coordination in public high schools in the Federal District, although strategic, is marked by undefined responsibilities, task overload, training fragility, and tensions between the prescribed role and practice. Continuing teacher education is a central axis of the function, but the coordinator faces challenges in building their professional identity and obtaining specific training. Strengthening this function requires institutional reorganization, normative clarity, and valuing the coordinator as an articulator of the pedagogical project and teacher development, crucial elements for improving the quality of education.

4. Conclusion

This research analyzed the role of the pedagogical coordinator in public high schools in the Federal District, seeking to understand their attributions, challenges, professional identity, and training. It was found that pedagogical coordination, although recognized as strategic, faces a significant lack of definition in its attributions and an overload of administrative tasks that frequently divert it from its central formative role. Bibliometric analysis revealed a field of study still in consolidation, with a predominance of descriptive approaches and a concentration of recent publications. It was identified that the continuous training of teachers constitutes the main axis of the function, according to literature and regulations, but the daily practice and professional experience of the author highlighted the difficulty in realizing this role due to the fragmentation of routines and the pressure of emergency demands. The professional identity of the pedagogical coordinator was shown to be under construction, marked by ambiguities and insufficient specific training for the complex demands of the function.

However, this study has limitations inherent to its methodological design, such as the concentration of the bibliometric analysis on publications in Portuguese and specific formats, the non-exhaustiveness of the documentary analysis in relation to all the norms of the Federal District, and the specific temporal and institutional scope of the experience report. Despite these limitations, the research offers a solid basis for future investigations that deepen the understanding of pedagogical coordination as an institutional phenomenon. For the strengthening of the function, it is recommended the institutional reorganization of work, the creation of specific training policies for coordinators, the promotion of greater normative clarity, and the valorization of the professional as an articulator of the pedagogical project and teacher development, aiming to overcome the reduction of coordination to a merely operational and bureaucratic role.

Bibliographic References

Almeida, L.R. Placco, V.M.N.S; Souza, V.LT. 2016. Sentidos da coordenação pedagógica: motivos para permanência na função. Revista Psicologia da Educação (42): 61-69.

Brasil. 1996. Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional, Lei nº 9.394 de 20 de dezembro de 1996.

Bruno, E.B.G. 2006. Tornar-se coordenadora pedagógica na escola pública. p. 81-86. In: Almeida, L.R.; Placco, V.M.N.S. O coordenador pedagógico e o espaço da mudança. 5 ed. Edições Loyola, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Campos, P.R.I.; Aragão, A.M.F. 2016. A coordenadora pedagógica e a formação docente: possíveis estratégias de atuação. Revista de Educação PUC-Campinas 21(2): 179-191.

Chueke, G.V.; Amatucci, M. 2015. O que é bibliometria? Uma introdução ao fórum. Internext 10 (2): 1-5.

Cunha, R.C.O.B; Ometto, C.B.CN.; Prado, G.V.L. 2013. Trabalho docente coletivo e coordenação pedagógica: entre a heterogeneidade do cotidiano e um projeto de formação de professores. Revista de Educação PUC-Campinas 18 (2): 171-179.

Distrito Federal. 2015. Regimento Escolar da Rede Pública de Ensino do Distrito Federal. Brasília, DF: Secretaria de Estado de Educação.

Domingues, I.; Belletati, V.C.F. 2016. A formação contínua em terreno colonizado: desafio para a coordenação pedagógica. p. 61-75. In: Franco, M.A.S; Campos, E.F.E. A coordenação do trabalho pedagógico na escola: Processos e práticas. Editora Universitária Leopoldianum, Santos, São Paulo, Brasil.

Fernandes, M.J.S. 2009. O professor coordenador pedagógico e a fragilidade da carreira docente. Revista Estudos em Avaliação Educacional 20 (44): 411-424.

Fernandes, M.J.S. 2012. O professor coordenador pedagógico nas escolas estaduais paulistas: da articulação pedagógica ao gerenciamento das reformas educacionais. Revista Educação e Pesquisa 38 (4): 799-814.

Franco. M.A.S. 2008. Coordenação pedagógica: uma práxis em busca de sua identidade. Revista Múltiplas Leituras 1 (1): 117-131.

Lima, P.G.; Santos, S.M. 2007. O coordenador pedagógico na educação básica. Revista Educere et Educare 2 (4): 77-90.

Mussi, R.F.F.; Flores, F.F.; Almeida, C.B. 2021. Pressupostos para elaboração de relato de experiência como conhecimento científico. Revista Práxis Educacional 17 (48): 1-18.

Nóvoa, A. 1995. Profissão Professor. 2 ed. Porto Editora, Porto, Portugal.

Placco, V.M.N.S. 2008. O coordenador pedagógico no confronto com o cotidiano da escola. p. 47-60. In: Placco, V.M.N.S.; Almeida, L.R. O coordenador pedagógico e o cotidiano a escola. 5 ed. Edições Loyola, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Placco, V.M.N.S.; Almeida, L.R. 2019. O coordenador pedagógico e questões emergentes na escola. Edições Loyola, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Placco, V.M.N.S; Souza, V.LT.; Almeida, L.R. 2012. O coordenador pedagógico: aportes à proposição de políticas públicas. Cadernos de Pesquisa 42 (147): 754-771.

Souza, F.J.S.; Seixas. G.O.; Marques, T.G. 2013. O coordenador pedagógico e sua identidade profissional. Revista Práxis Educacional 9 (15): 39-56.

Souza, V.L.T. 2001. O coordenador pedagógico e a constituição do grupo de professores. p. 27-34. In: Almeida, L.R.; Placco, V.M.N.S. O coordenador pedagógico e o espaço da mudança. Edições Loyola, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Souza, V.L.T.; Placco, V.M.N.S. 2006. O coordenador pedagógico, a questão da autoridade e da formação de valores. p. 25-40. In: Almeida, L.R.; Placco, V.M.N.S. O coordenador pedagógico e questões da contemporaneidade. Edições Loyola, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in School Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

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