Educational history in the United States has chronically omitted the role of settler colonialism and its impact on education and the creation of public schools.[i] Settler colonialism led to the United States supporting white supremacy and sustained the widespread practice of African enslavement, land theft, and genocide.[ii] Fueled by settler colonization and white supremacy the racialization of peoples in the U.S. began, leading to anti-blackness and the historical segregation of schooling in the U.S. The work of curating the history of education in the United States includes recognizing these harms and how educational history is impacted. Archives and foundational texts seen as educational history cannons tend to center the history of white schools, lack rich historiography of racial and ethnic groups and gloss over settler colonization and racism to move to a story of oneness interpreted in desegregation historical narratives. However, what does it mean to disrupt this approach to teaching educational histories and not begin history of education courses with these white cannons as foundational knowledge? What if we center courses with the understanding of how settler colonization impacted educational history and offer readings that center Indigenous, Black, Asian, and Latina/o histories? I am an Indigenous scholar who believes critically examining the impacts of settler colonization is paramount to educational history. Equally important is acknowledging, assigning, and engaging with localized histories, often written by diverse scholars reclaiming space in history. This approach to teaching actively disrupts the white-only educational landscape found in text and archives and aligns with my approach to writing historiography from a decolonial and Indigenous methodology. Understanding history is about power and how history has been written to portray Indigenous People verifies how power has been given to outsiders and their view of Indigenous communities.[iii] Therefore, including epistemological and decolonial analysis in my teaching and historiography of my tribal (Lumbee) community schools allows past histories and colonized perceptions of Lumbee identity to be re-examined. Reclaiming history and understanding how history informs the present is essential for decolonization.[iv] By centering my people, the Lumbee, and their response to schools, my scholarship seeks the broader goal of critically examining the colonial telling of the history of public schooling. Localized histories provide a more vibrant educational, historical landscape and lean into an Indigenous epistemological call to the importance of naming, place [land], and how place and community impacts history. This paper will discuss my decolonial and Indigenous methodological approaches to my scholarship and teaching educational history and historical research methods graduate courses.

The teaching of the History of Education in Brazil can be considered from three defined milestones. First, a conception linked to Jesuit studies, based on manuals of the History of Education, in which teaching would be based on the Ratio Studiorum. Second, amalgamated with a philosophical tradition in which history and philosophy would be two sides of the same coin. Finally, a third milestone, developed in the mid-1980s, highlighted the teaching of the History of Education as a disciplinary field relating it to school culture, ethnographic studies, memory, oral history, etc., demonstrating an openness to sources, methodology, narratives, theories, and pedagogical practices. Our proposal aims to reflect on the teaching of the History of Education from a perspective that considers the various research and teaching perspectives associated with the strands of global studies originating from approaches whose roots lie in European perceptions of man, institutions, and the teaching of the History of Education that have been present in this field from the early modern period until today (Bloch, 2001; Juliá, 1995). We consider it essential to recover the roots of the History of Education as a discipline and as a science that guides educational principles that consider human actions and institutions that have led to the constitution of a humanized and humanizing society. The current theoretical and didactic trends that seek to break away from colonial policies, and roots of contemporary social relations, aiming to produce new identities and build unique nationalities are historically justified (Nery; Nery; Dias, 2020). However, these perceptions and reflections can also break away from our origins and traditions that ensure our existence, turning us only towards the present, and promoting the forgetting of the past, memory, and identity. Due to the fear of losing our identities at the moment when we most want to rework them, we bring to the debate a narrative and a pedagogy that, according to Bacon (2006), was the starting point of modern science. We refer to the mendicant teachers of the thirteenth century, particularly questions 79 (I) and 114 (IIa — IIae), from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (2003). It was written at a time when people were returning to urban life, therefore needing to feel like subjects and develop habits of urbanity to live with others. With the Thomistic narrative, we will demonstrate that the debate on (de)coloniality needs to be careful not to promote what Saviani (2003) defines as the curvature of the rod: one cannot lean towards the present and reject the past, under penalty of losing the historical memory in which humanity, science, and urbanity originated. We also cannot subject ourselves to every historical legacy of the past as if an unquestionable and eternal truth emanated from it. The teaching of the History of Education needs to be ‘alive’ and historical, following the social waves promoted by human actions without jeopardizing our condition of being a being of memory (Ricoeur, 2007), a being of the human being.

O ensino de História da Educação no Brasil pode ser considerado a partir de três marcos definidos. Primeiro, uma concepção vinculada aos estudos jesuíticos, pautada em manuais da História da Educação, nos quais o ensino estaria baseado na Ratio Studiorum. Segundo, amalgamada a uma tradição filosófica em que história e filosofia seriam faces de uma mesma moeda e, finalmente, um terceiro, desenvolvido a partir de meados da década de 1980, evidenciou o ensino da História da Educação como campo disciplinar relacionando-a à cultura escolar, aos estudos etnográficos, à memória, à história oral, etc., evidenciando uma abertura em relação às fontes, à metodologia, às narrativas, às teorias e às práticas pedagógicas. Nossa proposta propõe refletir sobre o ensino da História da Educação segundo uma ótica em que se considera que as diversas perspectivas de pesquisa e de ensino estão associadas às vertentes de estudos globais oriundos de abordagens cujas raízes estão nas percepções europeias de homem, de instituições e de ensino da História da Educação que estiveram presentes neste campo desde o início da modernidade até hoje (Bloch, 2001; Juliá, 1995). Julgamos fundamental recuperar as raízes da História da Educação como disciplina e como uma ciência que norteia princípios educativos que consideram as ações humanas e instituições que culminaram com a constituição de uma sociedade humanizada e humanizadora. As tendências teóricas e didáticas atuais que buscam romper com as políticas coloniais, raízes de relações sociais contemporâneas, com vistas a produzir novas identidades e construir nacionalidades singulares se justificam historicamente (Nery; Nery; Dias, 2020). Mas, essas percepções e reflexões podem, também, romper com as nossas origens e tradições que asseguram o nosso próprio existir, voltando-nos somente para o presente, promovendo o esquecimento do passado, da memória e da identidade. Em virtude do receio de perdermos nossas identidades no momento em que mais queremos reelaborá-la, trazemos para o debate uma narrativa e uma pedagogia que, segundo Bacon (2006), foi o marco inicial da ciência moderna. Referimos aos professores mendicantes do século XIII, particularmente as questões 79 (I) e 114 (II^a – II^ae), da Suma de Teologia de Tomás de Aquino (2003). Foi escrita em uma época em que os homens retomavam a vida citadina, necessitando, portanto, sentir-se como sujeitos e desenvolver hábitos de urbanidade para viver com o Outro. Com a narrativa tomasiana evidenciaremos que o debate sobre a (de)colonialidade precisa atentar-se para não promover o que Saviani (2003) define como a curvatura da vara: não se pode inclinar para o presente e rechaçar o passado, sob pena de perder a memória histórica em que a humanidade, a ciência, a urbanidade, originaram-se. Não podemos, também, nos sujeitar a toda e qualquer herança histórica do passado como se dela emanasse uma verdade inquestionável e eterna. O ensino da História da Educação precisa ser ‘vivo’ e histórico, acompanhar as ondas sociais, promovidas pelas ações dos homens, sem pôr em risco a nossa condição de Ser de memória (Ricoeur, 2007), de Ser do Ser humano.

The work is part of the investigative productions of the research project entitled “The theory-practice relationship in the training curricula of Science and Biology teachers: investigating alchemical processes in the present time” (CNPq). Its main purpose is to analyze how the training of teachers in undergraduate courses focused on Sciences and Biology at three Brazilian universities has been proposed. In other words, we seek to analyze what responses have been given by these institutions to the legal, institutional and social demands regarding the training of teachers to work in the school subject areas of Science and Biology. In dialogue with historian Reinhart Koselleck (2006 and 2014) and curriculum designer Thomas Popkewitz (2001 and 2010), we seek to understand how the curricula for teacher training in Science and/or Biology in these three institutions have been discursively produced by starting from social and historical processes that result in the formation of certain ways of teaching, being a teacher and being a degree student. For this author, these processes constitute curricular alchemy, a dynamic through which curricula are historically manufactured from three levels: one that concerns the fragmentation that naturalizes the knowledge to be taught; the focus on certain textual resources that materialize the rules and standards that dictate norms for students; and the relationships between subjectivities and evaluation processes. From this perspective, analyzes are presented here that take as empirical sources the curricula of undergraduate courses in Biological Sciences and Natural Sciences from three institutions, namely: Universidade Federal do ABC Paulista - UFABC, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ and Universidade Federal do Pará - Campus Tocantins-Cametá Campus UFPA-CUNTINS. From these documents, characteristic aspects that make up the history of these courses were raised, such as the curricular versions; the organizational structure of the courses; its duration; its opening hours; the workloads of pedagogical subjects and specific subjects; the workload related to teaching practices; projects within the scope of the Institutional Teaching Initiation Scholarship Program (PIBID-Capes) and the Pedagogical Residency Program (PRP-Capes). In preliminary analyses, it is clear that, despite the similarities related to aspects such as course workload and attendance at national institutional programs, elements such as the age of the course and the geographic region in which they are located participate in the alchemy that produces different ways of thinking about the relationship between theory and practice in the courses investigated. It is concluded that between approximations and distances in the elements that constitute the curricular propositions of these institutions, the relationship between theory and practice is central in institutional debates on teacher training.

O trabalho é parte das produções investigativas do projeto de pesquisa intitulado “A relação teoria-prática nos currículos da formação de professores de Ciências e Biologia: investigando processos alquímicos no tempo presente” (CNPq). Tem como principal finalidade analisar como vem sendo proposta a formação de professores em cursos de Licenciatura voltados para as Ciências e Biologia de três universidades brasileiras. Em outras palavras, procura-se analisar que respostas têm sido dadas por essas instituições às demandas legais, institucionais e sociais sobre a formação de professores para atuarem nas áreas disciplinares escolares de Ciências e Biologia. No diálogo com o historiador Reinhart Koselleck (2006 e 2014) e o curriculista Thomas Popkewitz (2001 e 2010), busca-se compreender de que maneira os currículos da formação de professores em Ciências e/ou Biologia nessas três instituições vêm sendo discursivamente produzidos a partir de processos sociais e históricos que resultam na formação de determinados modos de ensinar, de ser professor e de ser aluno de licenciatura. Para esse autor, esses processos constituem a alquimia curricular, uma dinâmica pela qual os currículos são fabricados historicamente a partir de três níveis: um que diz respeito à fragmentação que naturaliza os conhecimentos a serem ensinados; a aposta em determinados recursos textuais que materializam as regras e padrões que ditam as normas para os estudantes; e as relações entre as subjetividades e os processos avaliativos. Nessa perspectiva, apresentam-se aqui análises que tomam como fontes empíricas as grades curriculares dos cursos de licenciatura em Ciências Biológicas e em Ciências Naturais de três instituições, a saber: Universidade Federal do ABC Paulista - UFABC, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ e Universidade Federal do Pará - Campus do Tocantins-Cametá UFPA-CUNTINS. A partir desses documentos, foram levantados aspectos característicos que compõem a história desses cursos tais como as versões curriculares; a estrutura organizacional dos cursos; a sua duração; o seu horário de funcionamento; as cargas horárias das disciplinas pedagógicas e das disciplinas específicas; a carga horária relativa às práticas do ensino; os projetos no âmbito do Programa Institucional de Bolsa de Iniciação à Docência (PIBID-Capes) e no Programa de Residência Pedagógica (PRP-Capes). Em análises preliminares, percebe-se que, a despeito das semelhanças relacionadas a aspectos como carga horária do curso e atendimento a programas institucionais de âmbito nacional, elementos como a idade do curso e a região geográfica em que estão inseridos participam da alquimia que produz diferentes modos de pensar a relação teoria e prática nos cursos investigados. Conclui-se que entre aproximações e distanciamentos nos elementos que constituem as proposições curriculares dessas instituições, a relação teoria e prática é central nos debates institucionais sobre a formação de professores.

I will have a presentation of a study which focuses on raciolinguistic perspectives of language policies in Turkey and provides a critical discourse analysis of minoritized communities such as Kurdish and Zazaki speakers. Although there is a huge demand from minoritized communities in Turkey to have bilingual education, only seven heritage languages are provided as elective courses in the elementary schools (Curriculum for Middle School Students, 2012). What’s more, there is very limited information about the language selection/teaching/learning process that how these languages were chosen to be taught and who were the decision makers; how many teachers have been employed for teaching and what training they have received; how many students have registered for these classes; how many schools have been offering heritage languages and in which levels; and/or in what regions of the country they have been offered remain vague. This study adds to a gap in illustrating the needs and expectations of minoritized communities in heritage language learning and the current policies in heritage language education in Turkey. The study first problematizes the language curriculum named “Living Languages and Dialects” which is based on a framework mainly prepared to teach European languages or foreign languages, Common European Framework (Curriculum for Middle School Students, pp. 5-6). This curriculum does not meet the heritage language speakers’ needs and expectations as such learners might be willing to learn their heritage languages with a purpose to communicate with family members, learn more about their culture, develop sense of belonging, learn about family’s oral traditions, songs and stories rather than developing career, working at an international company and/or studying abroad. As Brayboy (2013) states Eurocentric thinkers disregard Indigenous knowledge in the same way they disregard any socio-political cultural life (p. 92). On the other hand, the study shows that language teachers lack the necessary preparation to meet diverse needs, and are not provided with adequate educational materials nor professional on-site mentoring. However, Lopez (2020) claims that pedagogical adaptations should be facilitated to cater the linguistic and cultural needs of Indigenous students in different sociolinguistic settings (p. 957). Finally, the study discusses the process of nation-state/colonial governmentality by delving into the positioning of Turks as superior to non-Turks. As Rosa and Flores (2017) explains, raciolinguistic ideologies are situated in colonial histories which have shaped the co-naturalization of language and race as part of the project of modernity (p. 3). The construction and naturalization of race is bounded to the construction and naturalization of the language in Turkish educational systems. Throughout this presentation, I plan to use Padlet as backchannel communication tool to encourage participants to ask questions and make comments, which will be referred at the end.