Fernando Alcoforado*
This article aims to present the evolution of education in Brazil throughout history and the requirements for its future development. To achieve this objective, the articles “As origens da educação no Brasil da hegemonia católica às primeiras tentativas de organização do ensino” (The origins of education in Brazil from Catholic hegemony to the first attempts to organize teaching) [1] and “História da Educação Brasileira: da colônia ao século XX” (History of Brazilian Education: from the colony to the 20th century) {2] were analyzed, as well as the book “A revolução da educação necessária ao Brasil na era contemporânea” (The education revolution necessary for Brazil in the contemporary era) [3].
The analysis of the article “As origens da educação no Brasil da hegemonia católica às primeiras tentativas de organização do ensino” (The origins of education in Brazil from Catholic hegemony to the first attempts to organize teaching) by Marcos Marques de Oliveira allowed us to reach the conclusions set out in the following paragraphs [1].
The history of education in Brazil begins with the Portugal colonization project that counted on the decisive contribution of the Catholic Church through the Society of Jesus, that is, the Jesuits. The Jesuits’ pedagogical proposal played a fundamental role in enabling the Portuguese colonization project to go from 1500 until Brazil’s independence in 1822. Teaching was one of the main instruments of Portugal’s colonial domination, whose function was delimited by the educational disciplinary system, based by a rigid pedagogical structure imposed by the Jesuits. The Jesuits were at the forefront of the educational project from the first moment of Portugal’s actions in Brazil, which began in the 16th century.
In the colonial period, it is possible to see the difference between the Portuguese and Spanish colonization project. While Spain opened universities in its colonies, Portugal took three centuries to open a university in Brazil, which only occurred with the arrival of the Portuguese royal family in Brazil in 1808. From 1500 until the 19th century, Brazilian education focused exclusively on training of the upper layers, with the aim of preparing them for political-bureaucratic activities and liberal professions, almost always in charge of or under the influence of private religious initiative.
After the Independence of Brazil from Portugal, during Brazil’s imperial period, the central power commanded from 1826 to 1889 by D. Pedro II was in charge of higher education throughout the country and the other levels were in charge of the provinces, with the exception of Colégio Pedro II, named in honor of our second imperial ruler, which should serve as a model for provincial schools. The lack of resources and lack of interest from regional elites prevented the organization of an efficient network of schools. In the final balance, secondary education was generally taken over by private initiatives, especially by the Catholic Church. Primary education, once again, was abandoned. At the end of the Empire, the general education framework was quite precarious with few primary schools (with 250 thousand students for a country with around 14 million inhabitants, of which 85% were illiterate).
The umbilical relationship between the Catholic Church and the Portuguese colonial power was maintained in Brazil even after its independence in 1822 during the imperial period and ended with the Proclamation of the Republic when there was an official divorce between Church and State. Catholicism, until then holding the monopoly in the educational field, suffered a severe blow with the secularization that was established in Brazilian society through the liberal movement and which took shape on the national scene with the Proclamation of the Republic in 1889. In the transition between the imperial period and the Republic in Brazil, with the adherence of part of the intellectual elite to the ideals of bourgeois liberalism, education is assigned the heroic task of promoting the construction of Brazilian society on new bases.
The first Constitution of the Republic, from 1891, instituted the federative system of government and, consequently, the decentralization of education. The Union reserved the right to create higher and secondary education institutions in the states and to provide secondary education in the Federal District. The states were responsible for providing and legislating on primary education, in addition to professional education, which at the time included normal secondary schools for women and technical schools for men. At the level of public policies, there were several attempts at educational reform by the republican central government. All these reforms ended up perpetuating the educational model inherited from the colonial period. Only the demand for expanding the supply of elite education (secondary and higher education) to the rising middle classes was met by the Union.
Meanwhile, at an international level, a new dimension of liberal ideology emerged that will be expressed in the pragmatic pedagogy of the New School, based on the thinking of the North American John Dewey, who proposed a reformist school model. The New School’s thinking was assimilated by several Brazilian educators, including the great educator Anísio Teixeira, consolidating itself into an educational ideology that will influence the development of teaching in Brazil. The first document expressing this ideology is the Manifesto of the Pioneers of New Education, from 1932, which sought to overcome the partial attempts at reform made until then and to establish a single, clear and defined direction for the movement to renew national education. To this end, based on the individual right to education, it determined that the State, representing the community, assumed responsibility for organizing education, with the task of making schools accessible, in all its levels, to citizens kept in conditions of economic inferiority. . The authors of the Manifesto of the Pioneers of New Education had as their ideal an education system in which popular mass education and specialized training would appear as complementary.
Thus, with the exception of the Catholic Church, which opposed secular education and the state monopoly advocated by the Manifesto of the Pioneers of New Education, the Estado Novo dictatorship that began in 1937 incorporated the ideas and rhetoric of the New School. In the educational sphere, the rise of Getúlio Vargas to power, in the Church’s view, represented the strengthening of the ideals of the Escola Nova, which, with the defense of secular education and public schools, put at risk the hegemony of the Catholic Church in the area of education in the Brazil. However, the Catholic Church would soon find its space. After 40 years, religious education was once again allowed in public schools, proving that the Brazilian secular state was a fallacy. In the 1930s and 1940s, the objectives proposed by the pioneers of the New School were not fully achieved because the traditional dualist, elitist and academic structure of Brazilian education was preserved.
The growing need for fast and cheap labor imposed by the industrialization process in Brazil triggered by the Getúlio Vargas government had imposed new demands for technical professional qualifications. The solution found by the nascent industrial bourgeoisie was the creation of a system of technical instruction institutions unrelated to the Ministry of Education, whose exclusive objective was to meet the interests of employer unions for minimally qualified workers, as was the case with the creation of SENAI (1942 ) and SENAC (1946). The economic and political elites who directed the transition from agricultural to urban-industrial society since 1930 in Brazil were not able to create a state school, public, secular and unique for all, conceived through a pedagogical project that brought together general education with technological training focused on the world of work.
The analysis of the article “História da Educação Brasileira: da colônia ao século XX” (History of Brazilian Education: from the colony to the 20th century) by Amarilio Ferreira Jr. allowed us to reach the conclusions set out in the next paragraphs [2].
The first Constitution of the Republic, from 1891, instituted the federative system of government and, consequently, the decentralization of education. The Union reserved the right to create higher and secondary education institutions in the states and to provide secondary education in the Federal District. The states were responsible for providing and legislating on primary education, in addition to professional education, which at the time included normal secondary schools for women and technical schools for men. At the level of public policies, there were several attempts at educational reform by the republican central government. All these reforms ended up perpetuating the educational model inherited from the colonial period. Only the demand for expanding the supply of elite education (secondary and higher education) to the rising middle classes was met by the Union.
Meanwhile, at an international level, a new dimension of liberal ideology emerged that will be expressed in the pragmatic pedagogy of the New School, based on the thinking of the North American John Dewey, who proposed a reformist school model. The New School’s thinking was assimilated by several Brazilian educators, including the great educator Anísio Teixeira, consolidating itself into an educational ideology that will influence the development of teaching in Brazil. The first document expressing this ideology is the Manifesto of the Pioneers of New Education, from 1932, which sought to overcome the partial attempts at reform made until then and to establish a single, clear and defined direction for the movement to renew national education. To this end, based on the individual right to education, it determined that the State, representing the community, assumed responsibility for organizing education, with the task of making schools accessible, in all its levels, to citizens kept in conditions of economic inferiority. The authors of the Manifesto of the Pioneers of New Education had as their ideal an education system in which popular mass education and specialized training would appear as complementary.
Thus, with the exception of the Catholic Church, which opposed secular education and the state monopoly advocated by the Manifesto of the Pioneers of New Education, the Estado Novo dictatorship that began in 1937 incorporated the ideas and rhetoric of the New School. In the educational sphere, the rise of Getúlio Vargas to power, in the Church’s view, represented the strengthening of the ideals of the New School, which, with the defense of secular education and public schools, put at risk the hegemony of the Catholic Church in the area of education in the Brazil. However, the Catholic Church would soon find its space. After 40 years, religious education was once again allowed in public schools, proving that the Brazilian secular state was a fallacy. In the 1930s and 1940s, the objectives proposed by the pioneers of the New School were not fully achieved because the traditional dualist, elitist and academic structure of Brazilian education was preserved.
The growing need for fast and cheap labor imposed by the industrialization process in Brazil triggered by the Getúlio Vargas government had imposed new demands for technical professional qualifications. The solution found by the nascent industrial bourgeoisie was the creation of a system of technical instruction institutions unrelated to the Ministry of Education, whose exclusive objective was to meet the interests of employer unions for minimally qualified workers, as was the case with the creation of SENAI (1942) and SENAC (1946). The economic and political elites who directed the transition from agricultural to urban-industrial society since 1930 in Brazil were not able to create a state school, public, secular and unique for all, conceived through a pedagogical project that brought together general education with technological training focused on the world of work.
The analysis of the article “History of Brazilian Education: from the colony to the 20th century” by Amarilio Ferreira Jr. allowed us to reach the conclusions set out in the next paragraphs [2].
In 1948, the minister of education, Clemente Mariani, sent a bill to the National Congress with a secular-liberal character. The Catholic Church and conservative sectors of society reacted against the Mariani project and began to put pressure on the matter not to be approved in the Chamber of Deputies. Defenders of public and secular schools then began to mobilize at a national level and launched the “Campaign in Defense of Public Schools”, which culminated, in 1958, with the publication of the Educators’ Manifesto. The “1959 Manifesto”, as it became known, made a vehement defense of the State, public and secular school as the only educational institution capable of overcoming the ills of national education and helping to produce the “scientific and technical progress necessary to economic development” of Brazilian society.
The first LDB (Brazilian Education Guidelines and Bases Law) in the history of Brazilian education was approved in 1961, after 13 years and much ideological dispute, in December 1961 and came into force the following year. In addition to the institutionalization of the Federal Education Council, the end of discrimination between propaedeutic education, which seeks to provide foundations on certain knowledge, in a more generalist way, and professional education and the periodic elaboration of the National Education Plan, keeping the structure of the different degrees intact and existing branches of national education. The LDB/61 was, however, far below the educational demands generated by the modernizing contradictions of the capitalist logic imposed on Brazilian society from 1930 onwards because it maintained, in essence, the teaching structure inherited from the “Organic Laws” approved during the Estado Novo without breaking the binomial of elitism and exclusion that has manifested itself in Brazilian education since the colonial period.
The LDB of 1961 made it possible for public and private schools to cohabit. The national dual education system (public and private) engendered a new phase in the binomial based on elitism and educational exclusion. From then on, the schooling of the children of the elites began, roughly speaking, to have basic education in private schools with excellent quality of education, whose monthly fees were (and are still today) very high by the standards of the vast majority of the Brazilian population and the school public was intended for the children of the popular masses. The former have access to the best public universities. The latter barely complete compulsory education (currently 9 years) and are forced to enter the world of work with or without professional technical education. In other words, the good old public higher education courses in Law, Medicine and Engineering continue to be reserved for the children of the economic and political elites who have governed Brazil for centuries.
This educational situation in force in Brazil in the second half of the 20th century had a scathing critic in Paulo Freire. In 1961, the great Brazilian educator stated that Brazilian society had not yet resolved the two basic dimensions of any national education system, that is, the quantitative expansion of compulsory public school for all children of school age and the quality of school knowledge that were offered to children. Even worse, according to Paulo Freire, within the scope of the few existing schools, a conception of teaching-learning prevailed based on pedagogical contents that were completely disassociated from the concrete socioeconomic reality experienced by Brazilian society at the time. Paulo Freire developed his “pedagogy of the oppressed”. For him, the transition from a “closed society” (agrarian) to an “open society” (urban-industrial) necessarily demanded the eradication of illiteracy, as the condition of existence of the illiterate implied the manifestation of a naive consciousness in relation to the surrounding world and, therefore, reproduces the old agrarian social “status quo”.
For Paulo Freire, it was therefore necessary to free the man who lived trapped in the “closed society” through access to knowledge historically accumulated by humanity. Transitive critical consciousness, achieved through knowledge, would make it possible to make the “open society”, that is, a democratic society, viable. Thus, critical consciousness and democratic society would constitute the two fundamental conditions for man to be an active subject of his own history. In summary: the combination of freedom, made possible by the “open society”, with conscious historical action would humanize man himself. However, the transition from naive consciousness to critical consciousness, according to Paulo Freire, would not occur naturally, but rather through the work carried out in the field of education. In this sense, the political nature of his literacy method is understood, as we can read in the work “Education as a practice of freedom”.
The literacy method created by Paulo Freire was based on the so-called “popular culture circles”. These circles brought together, for example, adults from a specific rural community and carried out a broad debate about their living and working conditions and the cultural elements that manifested themselves in the daily lives of that population. Thus, based on the stories told by the community’s residents, the educator collected the most significant and representative words of the local culture throughout the discussions, and it was this popular vocabulary that served as a reference for the literacy students’ achievement of written language. Therefore, the “generating words”, commonly used in the language used in people’s daily lives, were loaded with cultural experiences lived by the subjects of the spoken language learning process.
Paulo Freire’s method of literacy frightened the reactionary segments of Brazilian society. Contrary to the dominant conception in society defended by the elites who advocated the “domestication” of the people through education, the “pedagogy of the oppressed” proposed by Paulo Freire defended the education of the people as the true practice of freedom. It can be said that the Paulo Freire method of literacy, genuinely born from Brazilian historical conditions, aborted by the 1964 coup d’état, can be classified as the most radical of the 20th century’s educational initiatives. While Paulo Freire is recognized worldwide as a great exponent of education, he is the educator most opposed by Brazil’s reactionary elites.
The 1964 coup d’état represents the most serious institutional change in the history of Brazil that occurred in the second half of the 20th century. It radically changed the course of the political process of redemocratization that Brazil had been experiencing since 1945. The military dictatorship, with the two reforms (1968 and 1971), subordinated educational policy to the economic logic of accelerated modernization of Brazilian society, imposing the unilateral discourse that the only role to be played by education was to maximize the productivity of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), regardless of the distribution of national income. Thus, in the same proportion that the 1964 coup plotters were suppressing political freedoms, government technocrats propagated the technicist ideology as a dogmatically organized system of ideas that served to legitimize the organic unity between economy and education.
The educational policy of the military regime, based on technicist ideology, also resulted in failures, since education intended as a mechanism for changes in the training of labor and integrated into the productive system, in reality, maintained high rates of illiteracy and marginalized professionals, unemployeds. The Brazilian public university, in turn, suffered from four major problems: a) a lag in curricula and the qualifications of the teaching staff, which was determined by the role of the professor (position held by the full professor); b) precarious infrastructure of research and teaching laboratories; c) existence of an academic structure that gave the university system an authoritarian characteristic; d) elitism, as it was intended for a few.
The results of the direct elections for state governors in 1982 gave rise to alternative educational projects to the technical education imposed by the military dictatorship, such as what occurred in Rio de Janeiro during the government of Leonel Brizola, which implemented the so-called CIEPs (Integrated Centers for Public Education) which were full-time schools. There, students stayed from 8 am to 5 pm, seven hours of which were dedicated to classes and the others were divided between meals, sports, guided study and medical care. Some points in this list of initiatives aimed at democratizing Brazilian public schools were criticized by conservative sectors, especially the reactionary press, which resulted in a setback with the end of the so-called CIEPs.
The educational projects implemented by the oppositions in the first half of the 1980s, when the military dictatorship was ending, basically resulted from the combination of two pedagogical trends. The hegemonic current was influenced, particularly, by the thoughts of Paulo Freire and Jean Piaget, and the result was a pedagogy that combined “genetic constructivism” with education centered on student activism. In short: it was a kind of “new school” pedagogically reinvigorated. The other was represented by the various educational concepts derived from Marxism, mainly those formulated by the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, who formulated a pedagogical model that valued human activity that interprets and transforms reality. However, these educational experiences adopted autonomously and in accordance with the correlations of forces that were established between existing pedagogical trends were destined to be short-lived, as in fact happened.
With the end of the military dictatorship in Brazil, the last decade of the 20th century was marked by the adoption of the neoliberal economic model by the governments of Fernando Collor de Mello (1990-1992), Itamar Franco (1992-1994) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995–2002) whose guidelines were established by the Washington Consensus. This meant the reform of the Brazilian State, the privatization of state-owned companies and the fiscal adjustment that harmed public policies, in particular education, as it allowed the growth of the private sector, mainly in the context of higher education, while in public schools teaching remained even more inefficient, a situation that continues today.
Linked to the globalization thesis, the “educational packages”, emanating from the center to the periphery of the capitalist system, took away the autonomy that Brazil had to structure its own educational policies. Brazil reached the end of the 20th century without solving the major problem of public schools: the quality of education it offers to the popular classes. In 2000, for example, there were more than 30 million students attending public elementary education. Of this contingent of children enrolled in public compulsory education for eight years, three million failed and 27 million were subjected to an educational process that was degrading from the point of view of the classical cultural capital historically accumulated by humanity, as school performance in subjects such as Portuguese and mathematics indicated what some scholars call “indigent intellectual training”, crowning a century of unsuccessful reforms and inefficient educational policies. Thus, Brazilian public education generated a situation of cultural and civil segregation for the absolute majority of Brazilian children aged 7 to 14. Now, however, the exclusion of the popular classes was no longer due to the absence of school, since the issue of access had been resolved; it manifests itself by staying in the school itself, that is, the State school does not guarantee the effective learning of the essential knowledge required by Brazilian society.
From the above, it can be concluded that Brazil reached the end of the 20th century, after the end of the military dictatorship (1985) and the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution, without having managed to resolve the issue of public schools for all and with good quality of education. The Brazilian public school reached the end of the 20th century without being able to fulfill the educational role that developed republican societies gave it from the 19th century onwards, that is, to constitute an educational institution whose main function is to generate and transmit the fundamental knowledge that enable citizens to face the cultural, scientific and technological challenges created by the contemporary world. Therefore, there is still a major task to be resolved by contemporary Brazilian society: the effective consolidation of state, public, secular and quality schools for all.
The analysis of the book “The revolution in education necessary for Brazil in the contemporary era” written by Fernando Alcoforado allowed us to see what the requirements for education in Brazil in the future are, which are summarized in the following paragraphs [3].
In the contemporary era, there is an urgent need to promote a revolution in Brazil’s education system, which has become necessary because Brazilian education has great weaknesses in primary, secondary and higher education. The Dilma Rousseff government’s Education National Plan has become a mere letter of intent with 90% of targets not met and the Michel Temer government’s secondary education reform presents numerous involutions. It can be said that the poor performance of Brazil’s education system results, among other factors, mainly from insufficient investment in Brazilian education when compared to investments in education in the best education systems in the world. Spending on education per student in Brazil (US$3,000/student) is ridiculously low compared to countries like the United States, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, among others, which invest massively in education up to around US$15,000/ student. If Brazil wanted to match developed countries in terms of spending per student, it should more than quintuple its spending per student on the educational sector. Brazil invests 0.76% of GDP in education while Finland, whose education system is recognized worldwide for being the most efficient and qualified from pre-school to higher education, invests around 7.1% of its GDP in a very high quality education system. Brazil would practically have to increase its spending on education by 9 times to match Finland.
Spending on education in Brazil has been declining since 2014, the Ministry of Education’s budget for basic education has been declining from 2012 to 2020. The Federal Government is a federated entity that participates little in investment in education in Brazil. According to INEP (National Institute of Education and Research), in 2012, for every R$1 invested in education, municipalities invested R$0.42, States spent R$0.40 and the Union invested only R$0. 18. It is necessary to increase the federal government’s participation in investments in education at all levels. For the Brazilian government to invest in education, it needs to reduce its burden on interest payments and amortization of public debt, which committed 50.8% of the 2021 Union budget, while only 2.49% was allocated to education. To reduce the federal government’s burden on interest payments and amortization of public debt, it is necessary to reduce public debt, which reached 79.8% of GDP in 2019.
To reduce public debt, the federal government must reduce the public deficit by promoting: 1) the reduction of superfluous spending and unnecessary public bodies; 2) increasing tax collection by taxing the super-rich; 3) promoting GDP growth with the federal government playing a proactive role in making investments, especially in infrastructure, including education; 4) encouraging exports; and, 5) the renegotiation with its creditors of the public debt with the extension of interest payments so that the Brazilian State has resources for investment in various sectors, including education.
Once the problem of insufficient resources by the federal government has been resolved by addressing and solving the problem of public debt, the education revolution in Brazil can be triggered with the planning of an education system aimed at overcoming current problems and meeting the needs of the future aiming to increase the number of quality educational units and have good managers, teachers and infrastructure. For this to happen, it is necessary to increase the participation of the public sector in the country’s higher education and restrict the participation of the private sector because it presents low quality of education, high dropout rates and high student/teacher ratio, among other problems. To overcome the existing weaknesses in primary education, secondary education and higher education in Brazil, it is necessary to increase public investments in education to bring about a revolution in Brazilian education that includes the adoption of policies similar to those adopted by countries that have the best systems of education in the world such as Finland, France, China, the United States, Cuba, South Korea and Japan.
REFERENCES
- OLIVEIRA, Marcos Marques. As origens da educação no Brasil da hegemonia católica às primeiras tentativas de organização do ensino. Available on the website <https://www.scielo.br/j/ensaio/a/Ms7rqgdwYhBLP7q5ZTYjLhb/>.
- FERREIRA JR, Amarilio . História da Educação Brasileira: da colônia ao século XX. Available on the website <https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5618173/mod_resource/content/1/Ferreira%20Jr.%2C%20AmarilioHist%C3%B3ria%20da%20Educa%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20Brasileira_%20UAB-UFSCAR.pdf>.
- ALCOFORADO, Fernando. A revolução da educação necessária ao Brasil na era contemporânea. Curitiba: Editora CRV, 2023.
* Fernando Alcoforado, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, of the SBPC- Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science and of IPB- Polytechnic Institute of Bahia, engineer from the UFBA Polytechnic School and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, college professor (Engineering, Economy and Administration) and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning, urban planning and energy systems, was Advisor to the Vice President of Engineering and Technology at LIGHT S.A. Electric power distribution company from Rio de Janeiro, Strategic Planning Coordinator of CEPED- Bahia Research and Development Center, Undersecretary of Energy of the State of Bahia, Secretary of Planning of Salvador, is the author of the books Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017), Esquerda x Direita e a sua convergência (Associação Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018), Como inventar o futuro para mudar o mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019), A humanidade ameaçada e as estratégias para sua sobrevivência (Editora Dialética, São Paulo, 2021), A escalada da ciência e da tecnologia e sua contribuição ao progresso e à sobrevivência da humanidade (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2022), a chapter in the book Flood Handbook (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida United States, 2022), How to protect human beings from threats to their existence and avoid the extinction of humanity (Generis Publishing, Europe, Republic of Moldova, Chișinău, 2023) and A revolução da educação necessária ao Brasil na era contemporânea (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2023).
Site Title 