If we map our discipline globally, we can see an explicit shift from the Euro-centric viewpoint and topics toward a more diverse and complex picture. Our Standing Working Group ‘Observatory for the History of Education’ has been trying to reflect on this tendency since its establishment in 2019 Porto (see: Somogyvári, Bittar & Hamel, 2023), by doing this, we continue the work of the previous SWG, Mapping the Discipline History of Education. There are many works published in recent years about national and transnational developments or comparative studies related to the research field, including its topics and historiography (e. g. Rury & Tamura, 2019; Fitzgerald, 2020; Hofstetter & Huitric, 2020; Huerta, Cagnolati & Payá Rico, 2022; Ellis, Freeman & Olsen, 2023; Westberg, 2023). In this presentation, we would like to add the results of our extended group (colleagues from Hungary, Brazil, Canada, Ukraine, Norway, Nigeria, South Africa, and India) to this common knowledge, focusing on the institutionalization and personal dimensions of the HoE. For these purposes, we conducted two surveys, aimed to reach the national and regional associations of the field and the scholars of these communities. The work was highly supported by the ISCHE Executive Committee, which offered us to use the database of the national associations for the first inquiry. Altogether 43 HoE organizations are on this list, 21 from Europe, 15 from the Americas, 4 from Asia, 2 from Africa, 1 from Australia, and New Zealand. We attempted to reach all of them with a questionnaire, consisting of two sections: characteristics, structure, and activities of these societies; furthermore, the positions of the HoE in higher education and teacher training. The second sampling targeted individual historians of education, and the corpus was based on the participants of the previous 5 years’ ISCHE conferences. We were interested in scientific products and external relations of the field in this survey and the personal views about the current status of HoE. The findings may help us to give different answers to the question aimed at the importance and value of the history of education in public discourses and preparing decision-making mechanisms. This is another kind of enhancement about what we can learn from studying the past (Westberg, 2021), namely drawing attention to the relevance of the channels, which transmitted this knowledge, both on personal and institutional levels. In this intersection, we can see different stages of disciplinary development: there are many types of HoE, from liberation and getting independent status to the widely acknowledged scenes.

The emergence of the field of History of Education in Latin America is associated with its constitution as a university discipline and as a field of research within universities, mainly since the 1990s (Caruso, Toro-Blanco, 2023). Soto-Arango, Mora-García and Lima-Jardilino (2017), in turn, point to a new paradigm in the field over the last twenty years, also resulting from the processes of re-democratization and educational reforms in various countries from the 1980s onwards. It is in this context that the academic communities of historians of Latin American education have expanded and become institutionalized. Taking the specificities of the field in Brazil as a starting point, we set out to map the History of Education societies created in Latin America in recent decades, looking for points of connection between them and their trajectories. To this end, we took the perspective of the Transnational History of Education (Struck, Ferris, Revel, 2011; Roldán Vera, Fuchs, 2019). We highlight the transnational dialogues in the construction of national education systems and the circulation of institutional models while taking a polycentric view of the constitution of the field and choosing to understand the formation of these Latin American societies from the specificities of the region. As well as Brazil, we identified the communities formed in the following countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela. From the study, we highlight the strategies used by Latin American education societies to build spaces for discussion and dissemination of theoretical and methodological perspectives: scientific congresses and publication of specialized research journals. At the same time, we highlight the dialogues and connections with international scientific communities, especially in Ibero-American countries.

A emergência do campo da História da Educação na América Latina associa-se a constituição enquanto disciplina universitária e como campo de pesquisa dentro das universidades, principalmente, a partir da década de 1990 (Caruso, Toro-Blanco, 2023). Soto-Arango, Mora-García e Lima-Jardilino (2017), por sua vez, apontam para um novo paradigma no campo nos últimos vinte anos, também decorrente dos processos de redemocratização e das reformas educativas em diversos países a partir da década de 1980. É nesse contexto que as comunidades acadêmicas de historiadores da educação latino-americana expandem-se e institucionalizam-se. Tendo como ponto de partida as especificidades do campo no Brasil, nos propomos a realizar o mapeamento das sociedades de História da Educação criadas na América Latina nas últimas décadas, buscando pontos de conexão entre elas e nas suas trajetórias. Nesse intuito, assumimos a perspectiva da História Transnacional da Educação (Struck, Ferris, Revel, 2011; Roldán Vera, Fuchs, 2019). Evidenciamos os diálogos transnacionais na construção dos sistemas educativos nacionais e na circulação de modelos institucionais, ao mesmo tempo em que ao assumir uma visão policêntrica de constituição do campo, optamos por compreender a formação dessas sociedades latino-americanas a partir das especificidades da região. Além do Brasil, identificamos as comunidades constituídas nos seguintes países: Argentina, Chile, Colômbia, México, Uruguai, Paraguai e Venezuela. A partir do estudo, destacamos as estratégias utilizadas pelas sociedades de educação da américa latina na construção de espaços de discussão e difusão de perspectivas teóricas e metodológicas: congressos científicos e publicação de periódicos de pesquisa especializados. Ao mesmo tempo, destacamos os diálogos e as conexões com comunidades cientificas internacionais, sobretudo, privilegiando os países ibero-americanos.

The following paper discusses some popularised and incorrect concepts used by the political system about the "crisis of education". This idea in Uruguay refers almost exclusively to public education and generates an imaginary of permanent crisis which, in a recurrent way, basically questions the work of teachers. The arguments put forward arise from an uncritical reading of standardised assestssment programmes and, particularly, the low completion rate of secondary education in the country. It is worth discussing the relationship between education and development, since the dominant discourse simplistically maintains that more education is essential for more development, an issue that is not empirically corroborated in economic studies. More common than desirable, arguments point out that educational standards must be improved or else they will be an impediment to sustained economic growth. As well as other repeated fallacies such as higher budgets automatically lead to better educational outcomes or that higher education leads to higher wages and then better welfare.The reforms implemented in these countries take the idea of the educational crisis referred to in the dominant discourse as education for the most disadvantaged sectors of the population. That is to say, it is a pragmatic education for those who can only aspire to the labour market, formal education will give them those minimum competences for low-skilled jobs in a "flexible and disciplined" workforce. Teachers categorically reject such reforms, not because they oppose all reforms as they are accused of, but on the basis of theoretical accumulation and reflection on their practices, and yet they are systematically ignored by the political system and even by the "academic world". The pandemic acted as a catalyst of such reforms, which allow changes in the moda of training, including new methods that demand smaller budgets and generate teacher unemployment. This changes are based on an even bigger mistake, confusing the information available on the WEB with knowledge. The latter one is a social process, that implicates the construction of a pedagogical knowledge, product of a pedagogical relationship between the subjects of education. The pedagogical relationship is constituted on a supra-subject composed by the relationship between teachers and students, mediated by work, language and affectivity which is gestated in such relationship. The object of education is shaped by the relationship between social knowledge and this pedagogical knowledge. In the dominant reforms, the reproductivist philosophy is imposed and conceives the education not as a process but an accion where one subject who owns and dispenses knowledge and a demanding client who is nourished by the former. On the basis of a recent research on training teachers in Uruguay, the discussion of changes in the pedagogical relationship is problematised, which has been brought out by a "forced virtuality" to confront the problems of mobility in the health crisis and the learnings to be taken into account in order to move towards a planned virtuality. The latter requires specific training for teachers and students and the reconfiguration of a pedagogical relationship capable of constructing knowledge in accordance with future times.

El siguiente trabajo discute algunos conceptos tan popularizados como incorrectos utilizados por el sistema político sobre “crisis de la educación”. Esta idea en Uruguay refiere casi exclusivamente a la educación pública y genera un imaginario de permanente crisis que, de forma recurrente interpela básicamente la labor docente. Los argumentos esgrimidos surgen de una lectura a-crítica de los sistemas estandarizados de evaluación y, particularmente, el bajo porcentaje de culminación de la enseñanza media en el país. Vale la pena discutir la relación entre educación y desarrollo, ya que el discurso dominante sostiene con simplicidad que es imprescindible mayor educación para mayor desarrollo, cuestión que no se corrobora empíricamente en estudios económicos. Más común de lo deseable, aparecen argumentos que sostienen que deben mejorar los niveles educativos so pena de ser un impedimento para el crecimiento económico sostenido. Al igual que otras falacias repetidas como que mayores presupuestos llevan automáticamente a mejores resultados educativos o que la mayor formación a mayores salarios y mayor bienestar. Las reformas que se implementan en estos países toman la idea de crisis educativa a que refiere el discurso dominante, es una educación para los sectores más desfavorecidos de la población. Es decir, se piensa en una educación pragmática para aquellos que no pueden aspirar más que al mercado laboral, la educación formal le dará esas competencias mínimas, para una fuerza de trabajo “flexible y disciplinada”. Los docentes rechazan categóricamente tales reformas, no “por contras” como a menudo se los tilda, sino basados en una acumulación teórica y reflexión sobre sus prácticas, pero sistemáticamente, son ninguneados por el sistema político e incluso “la academia”. La pandemia fungió como catalizador de tales reformas y que permiten cambios en la modalidad de formación, incluye nuevos métodos que demandan menores presupuestos y generan desempleo docente. Tales cambios se basan en un error aún mayor, confunde la información o “saber” disponible en la WEB con conocimiento. Este último es un proceso social, que implica la construcción de un saber pedagógico, mismo que es producto de una relación pedagógica de los sujetos de la educación. La relación pedagógica se constituye a partir de un supra-sujeto compuesto por la relación entre docentes y estudiantes, mediado por el trabajo, el lenguaje y la afectividad que se gesta en la relación. El objeto de la educación se conforma por la relación entre el saber social y ese saber pedagógico. En las reformas dominantes la filosofía reproductivista se impone y concibe un sujeto propietario y dispensador de conocimiento y un cliente demandante que se nutre del anterior. En base a una investigación reciente en formación docente en Uruguay, se problematiza esta discusión de los cambios en la relación pedagógica que se dio por una “virtualidad forzada” para afrontar los problemas de movilidad en la crisis sanitaria y los aprendizajes a tener en cuenta para pasar a una virtualidad planeada. Esta última requiere una formación específica para docentes y estudiantes y la re-conformación de una relación pedagógica capaz de construir un conocimiento acorde a los tiempos futuros.