Graduate Studies

Self-assessment project of the PPGE of the Faculty of Education (four-year period 2021-2024)

Schedule

December 09, 2020 – Presentation of the PPGE/Unicamp Self-Assessment and Strategic Planning Project, during the regular meeting of the Graduate Studies Committee

Guests: Prof. Dr. Cristiane Machado and Prof. Dr. Mara Regina Lemes de Sordi. 

January 22, 2021 – Presentation of the PPGE/Unicamp Self-Assessment and Strategic Planning Project, during the regular meeting of the Graduate Studies Committee

Guests: Prof. Dr. Cristiane Machado and Prof. Dr. Mara Regina Lemes de Sordi.

April 14, 2021 – Presentation of the PPGE/Unicamp Self-Assessment and Strategic Planning Project, during the regular meeting of the Graduate Studies Committee

Guests: Prof. Dr. Cristiane Machado and Prof. Dr. Mara Regina Lemes de Sordi,

1. explanatory statement 

The inclusion of self-assessment as one of the items in the PPG evaluation form is recognized as an achievement for the area, as it relocates to the level of the programs the responsibility for explaining the image of the future that it chooses as a guideline for its actions, clarifying the analysis references that it intends to be recognized and taken into account, also, in the external evaluation process.

This results in a set of developments that qualify the evaluation process, allowing the results of the four-year period to be understood and problematized in light of the commitments assumed within the programs and permeated by the external requirements agreed upon at the level of the set of programs in the area. Such interfaces favor a comprehensive and simultaneously critical dialogue between complementary visions, which enables a contextualized and responsible look at the intended objectives, the established goals and the results achieved.

The defense of the relevance of institutional self-evaluation processes does not, therefore, aim to replace the references adopted by external evaluation. It merely subsidizes, in a complementary manner, the consequent performance of the program evaluation by putting into relational and co-responsible dialogue, the external and internal perspectives, illuminating the dimensions and indicators considered significant for improving the training of researchers in the educational field, which reverberates in the social commitment of the public university.

Every institutional self-evaluation process/project combines a set of principles and values ​​that organize the locally planned evaluation process, which allows the community's movements to be objectively directed toward previously agreed-upon goals. Once the authorial responsibility is assumed, the community of teachers, technical-administrative staff, students, and program coordinators come together and outline paths that they deem necessary to follow toward their understanding of educational quality. This clearly demarcates a concrete way of training researchers committed to social criticism, to defending the social quality of public education for all, and involves recognizing and assuming the meanings involved in this ethical-political option.

It is important to emphasize that a self-assessment project is not born out of the intentions present in the program's political-pedagogical project. Being a tributary of the program's larger plan, the systematization of the self-assessment project brings to light the commitments made and allows for updated readings about advances, setbacks, vulnerabilities and strengths considering a historically demarcated timeline that crosses desires, wants and powers. It also responds to the interests of the Strategic Planning of both the Graduate Program and the School of Education and the university that houses it, as can be seen in item 1.3 of this four-year assessment.

It is worth noting that we live in times marked by performativity and managerialism, which tend to subtract from the debate on the quality of postgraduate programs the founding principles that originated their proposal. And pressured by the circumstances (im)posed by policies of vertical accountability, the time for critical reflection and accurate examination of quality indicators can be converted into a mere exercise of adaptation to external demands without implication with the local or regional interests that legitimized the conception and implementation of the programs (Freitas, 2014; Afonso, 2012; Sordi, 2018). We therefore see, with renewed hope, the possibility of contributing to advances in the field of assessing the quality of postgraduate programs in education in the country and with this spirit we conceived this PPGE self-assessment project, confident that this strategy will favor the engagement of our community in the important activity of thinking and rethinking its paths. The principles of formative assessment and participatory accountability in the construction and building of a path focused on the social quality of education are taken as guidelines for our assessment proposal, which is in line with the studies of the CAPES Assessment GT and Leite et al, 2020. 

2. Principles of self-assessment design

 Our self-assessment project is based on the following assertions, which express the values ​​adopted in its conception, which are guided by a formative concept of assessment, the principles of participatory accountability and democratic management. It particularly reflects the value placed on dialogue between professors and the PPG coordinators, and aims to become a primary communication channel effectively used to express criticisms and suggestions for the PPG. Communication between professors and the PPGE coordinators has been continuously improving in recent years, greatly favored by the reformulation of the Program, organized in Research Lines since 2010. Currently, the coordinators of the Program's Research Lines have contributed to facilitating this two-way communication: taking the Program's coordinators' demands to the professors who are members of their respective lines and bringing their demands and suggestions regarding the Program from these colleagues. This more decentralized and participatory form of management also involves the study and production of documents that are significant to the program; the joint definition of work agendas for the different advisory committees of the CPG and have both given greater agility to the Program's daily routine and affected the feeling of belonging to the Program, involving everyone in the process of building quality, which undoubtedly has effects on the broader evaluation process.

Principle of Co-management and self-government

1. It is up to the Program's internal community to assume ownership in proposing paths that adhere to its political-pedagogical project (PPP), using its capacity for self-knowledge, self-criticism, self-monitoring and self-organization (Leite, 2005). Fidelity to the value assumptions of the political-pedagogical project is considered a non-negotiable condition. The procedural and collective discussion will support the longitudinal definition of rhythms and priorities, duly considering the existing objective conditions. 
2. The actions of the actors involved in the procedural construction of the Program's quality signal their involvement in the defense of a socially referenced educational project that will determine its logic of action. 
3. The implementation and consolidation of an educational project governed by the social quality of education is always an expression of collective work, permanently evaluated, whose priorities and goals are negotiated pari passu, generating a “Negotiated Quality Pact” (Bondioli, 2005; Freitas, 2005). By revealing local commitments, clearly assumed and duly compared with the dimensions and indicators formulated for the area, such a pact defines the contours of the dialogue and ensures the transparency of the process.
4. The Negotiated Quality Pact will reference the self-assessment process as well as support the dialogue with external evaluators.  
5. The program's self-evaluation allows and establishes a historically marked timeline that expresses the program's advances and setbacks in light of the objective conditions demanded and provided by institutional strategic planning and made possible by educational policies developed by the federal government. 
6. The construction of a climate favorable to self-assessment, which allows trust and presupposes autonomy of expression of the participants, “in order to allow the deconstruction of analytical and interpretative biases built in the institution, which, often, hinder its development” (Souza and Gatti, 2015, p.31) is an imperative condition for the success of the self-assessment process.

Principle of political and pedagogical praxis

1. The self-assessment project will necessarily be dialogic and aims to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the process. Forms of participation linked exclusively to the provision of data or that prevent contributions to the decision-making process are rejected. 
2. The inclusion of all those involved in the self-assessment process requires ongoing awareness-raising actions so that a new assessment culture can be established, contributing to the construction of relational trust and early identification of possible contradictions in the conduct of the agenda. 
3. All actors can exercise government functions, for some time, in the Program's evaluation actions, that is, the conditions of equality, isegoria and isocracy must be ensured as proposed by Leite (2005).
4. The category of complexity, inherent to evaluation processes, unfolds into conflict, which is understood as a strength of the self-evaluative project that will remain open to the questioning of the meanings it produces and also to the impossibilities or contradictions that mark its construction in action.
5. The local community's decision-making about the relevance of a self-evaluation project will require a willingness to adopt evaluation as a permanent policy of the Program. 
6. The PPGE self-assessment affects and is affected by the dynamics of the Faculty of Education, with “domino effects” being predicted and desired, which will have repercussions on undergraduate teaching, extension practices, forms of intellectual production; pedagogical practices, management models, among others.   

Principle of participatory accountability and social control 

1. The evaluative findings of any nature will be shared and discussed in several complementary instances, with an initial emphasis on the lines of research, preserving the multiplicity of views and visions of the different Interpretive communities. That said, the approaches duly guided by the program's vision of the Common Good will be systematized. The actors will see themselves from a relational perspective, in the interplay of knowledge, powers and duties and imbued with the spirit of participatory accountability (Sordi and Freitas, 2013), they will return to the action plan aiming at its improvement for the following year.
2. The self-assessment process will involve social control, with all stakeholders acting in a consensual direction and remaining open to any demands or criticisms that may arise, ensuring the conditions and space for clarification and justification. Unilateral accountability will not be accepted under any circumstances.
3. The argumentative exercise in defense of the best possibilities for the PPGE's advancement towards excellence will occur in a negotiated manner between local multi-actors, sensitive to the contributions of external evaluators but strongly committed to society's legitimate desires for the social commitment expected of a public university, in such adverse scenarios. 

3. Moments in the construction of the Self-Assessment plan 

The PPGE self-assessment project involves different movements that are organically linked, and the decision to avoid using the term “stages” aims to reinforce the sense of globality and desirable articulation between them and the possibility of resuming any of them when convenient. We emphasize the transversality of the awareness-raising moment, emphasizing the differentiation of emphases in relation to the needs identified. This option aims to intensify the formative perspective of the process. The aim is to work in a logic based on the principles of continuity, whole/part consistency, and the historicity of the program. It favors the establishment of democratic and equally rigorous forms of management regarding the commitments agreed upon for the four-year period that will be benefited procedurally through reflective stops aimed at the responsible monitoring of the PPG goals. Derived from this architecture, the confrontation of an assessment culture focused on results, returning emphasis to the process of building quality that, carefully thought out and monitored by all those involved, will result in greater formal and political quality for all, decisively and positively affecting the life of the Program.

For educational purposes, we indicate below the stages of the project from conception to meta-evaluation.

1. Conception 

a.1 Zero moment

• Designation of a committee with a specific purpose: to design and support the implementation of the self-assessment project (responsible for the PPGE Coordination)
• Selection of materials produced by Capes, bibliographic review and debate for conceptual refinement 
• Preparation of meeting with CPG members 
• Preparation of a roadmap to guide the work of the Research Lines 

 a.2 Moment 1 

• Community Awareness Start 

• Sharing the project's purposes and inviting the Research Lines to engage through an action orchestrated by the coordinators together with the research faculty. Action initiated by the Postgraduate Program Coordination in response to the demand of the designated committee. Conceptual refinement regarding the principles that will govern the evaluation processes, with emphasis on strengthening a culture of formative evaluation committed to the program's pedagogical project.  
• Line Coordinators involve the different research groups to speak out about the program's strengths and weaknesses, based on the diagnosis carried out during the Institutional Assessment of FE UNICAMP and presented in the work plan.
• Reports are produced by the lines and forwarded to the Program Coordination and Evaluation Committee for compilation of contributions.
• Socialization of the findings in an extraordinary meeting of the CPG with a view to establishing agreements for the development of the program's Self-Assessment Project for the strategic planning of the future four-year period. Identification and collective agreement on the program's strengths and weaknesses with the definition of priorities and the longitudinal establishment of socially referenced goals 

These two moments occurred in the second half of 2020.

a.3 Moment 2 (Negotiated Quality Pact)

• Public presentation of the program's self-assessment project to comply with the principles of value transparency and signing of the Negotiated Quality Pact that will guide the work and support demands and inclusions in the PE. 
• Establishment of a schedule aiming at activities that reinforce the FE community’s belonging and involvement with the Postgraduate Program. This schedule should prioritize internal Seminars and Discussion Groups with the participation of external guests to share experiences and successful paths, as well as procedural readings of the choices made by the program. The inclusion of external researchers is planned to act as both advisors and evaluators of the project throughout the four-year period. The advisory will be provided by Prof. Dr. Denise Leite (UFRG). The external evaluator will be Prof. Dr. Almerindo Janela Afonso from the Institute of Education of the University of Minho, Portugal. The evaluators will also be Prof. Dr. Inés Dussel from the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute – CINVESTAV-IPN – Mexico. And Prof. Dr. Ofelia Agoglia is the coordinator of research and postgraduate studies in Sciences and Technologies and Arts at the National University of Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina. 

2. Implementation 

b.1 Moment 3

• Implementation of the Program's qualifying intervention proposals (Laboratory of Qualifying Action Strategies)

Based on the initial and exploratory survey carried out with the Research Lines, needs were identified and grouped into thematic axes. 

• Graduate Monitoring
• Formative assessment as praxis (teacher assessment, program assessment and student assessment)
• Training researchers for teaching. 
• PPGE's Political Pedagogical Project and its ambitions for the future 
• Infrastructure as a component of PPGE quality 
• Quotas and Social Commitment of the Program (involves discussion of epistemic quotas)
• Social insertion of the PPGE (commitment to public education networks, socially referenced research and internationalization).

These axes, indicated after listening to the Lines, will finally be ratified in a meeting of the CPG, which will establish the Program's guidelines for the next four-year evaluation period. This will give transparency to the Negotiated Quality Pact and this will allow the definition of the action schedule and the selection of the project's success indicators in a timeline.

c) Continuing Education 

This moment of the Evaluation Plan appears with the intention of intensifying actions towards a permanent center of reflection on the life of the Program and contributing to the continuing education of teachers, students and technical-administrative staff, meeting the demands of the Research Lines and external requirements. It seeks to think of actions that integrate the Program into institutional life, activating in its favor the existing local policies and demanding, when necessary, support for the qualification projects required by the Negotiated Quality Pact.

It adds, qualitatively, to the teacher evaluation already implemented, based on the systematic policy of accreditation, monitoring, and re-accreditation of teachers –  https://www.fe.unicamp.br/ensino/pos-graduacao/mestrado-e-doutorado-em-educacao/sobre-o-programa-de-pos-graduacao-em-3, which is also in Appendix I of this Assessment item.

IV – The Self-Assessment Plan in Subprojects

PROJECT 1 – Monitoring the educational path of students and the professional trajectory of graduates completing the FE/UNICAMP postgraduate program

The proposal to monitor the educational path of students in the FE/UNICAMP graduate program (PPGE) emphasizes the characterization of new students and the monitoring of their educational experiences in the PPGE, as well as the analysis of the professional trajectories of graduates who complete this program. This project is justified by the need for the PPGE to know who the student is who enters the graduate program, in addition to verifying the impact of its pedagogical proposal on the training of researchers and on the personal and academic development of its students and analyzing the conditions that favor the completion of the program. In addition, it is unique that the evaluation and monitoring actions of any political-pedagogical project are not restricted to the training period, but that they encompass the implications of the intentionality of the educational actions in the professional trajectories of graduate students. To this end, monitoring graduates who complete the PPGE is another axis of this proposal.

The project is justified by the importance of knowing and characterizing the postgraduate students who begin their training at the PPGE, in order to build a pedagogical proposal that takes into account their characteristics and specificities. In addition, it is important to monitor the training process of PPGE students to support studies, analyses, reviews and reformulations of their political-pedagogical project. In addition, the rapid transformations experienced in contemporary society that have impacted educational practices and the production of knowledge make it urgent for educational institutions to analyze the training paths experienced by students in order to verify how the intentional set of educational actions comes to life in the daily routine of postgraduate studies. Monitoring the professional careers of PPGE graduates is also essential to broaden the program's ties with society, by understanding its challenges and new demands and needs to provide support for the construction of a political-pedagogical project that addresses new requirements for researcher training, based on a political positioning that is consistent with the defense of equity and inclusion in education, that recognizes education as a social right and the importance of knowledge production in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Furthermore, studying graduates is unique for planning academic activities, for institutional evaluation, and for meeting the requirements of CAPES' Quadrennial evaluation.

Objectives:

Build a program to monitor the trajectories and training experiences of students and the professional careers of graduates completing the PPGE.

Specifically, this project aims to:

. Describe the profile of the postgraduate student at the PPGE, taking as reference: gender, age, ethnicity, place of residence, schooling and professional experiences prior to training at the PPGE;

. Describe the educational path of PPGE students, highlighting the experiences lived during the postgraduate program, the receipt of scholarships and grants and work activities; 

. Describe the contributions perceived by students, resulting from their studies in the PPGE, for their personal, academic and research development.

. Identify the conditions described by students as favorable to the completion of the dissertation or thesis project;

. To describe the professional trajectory of graduates of the PPGE, as well as their perception of the contributions and limits of the PPGE for their professional trajectory.

Responsible:

This program will be under the responsibility of the PPGE coordination and will have the contribution of professors Prof. Dr. Cristiane Machado and Prof. Dr. Camila Fior.

Actors involved:

Monitoring the students' educational path will involve awareness-raising actions by the PPGE Coordination and the coordinators of the Research Lines. The work will be planned, implemented and evaluated with the participation of student representatives from the PPGE Postgraduate Association. The main actors involved in this project are the students and graduates who have completed the PPGE, who will be available to contribute to these investigations.

For the management, access and monitoring of information in other databases: Alumni, Lattes Platform and RAIS, we will have the support of PPGE servers and BAS scholarship holders.

Action Strategies:

1. Discussion and improvement of the proposal with the CPG and APG;
2. Project Preparation and Submission to the Ethics Committee;
3. Implementation of a form to collect data from new entrants;
4. Encouragement for students to continually update their personal data on PPGE, join the Alumni Platform and constantly update their Lattes CV.
5. Request for institutional authorization and implementation of a data collection form with the SIGA system, when requesting the Defense of a Master's Dissertation or Doctoral Thesis.
6. Creation of a form to collect data from graduates, highlighting the training path, perceptions about the program's contribution, and consent for the use of personal data (CPF) for consultation on the RAIS Platform. 
7. Survey of the bibliographic production of graduates completing the PPGE.
8. Creation of a form to monitor graduates and collect data from them over a period of 5 and 10 years after the end of the program;
9. Collection of information on the professional and scientific trajectory of the graduating graduate on the Lattes Platform and the Annual Social Information Report (RAIS);
10. Organization of the FE/UNICAMP Thesis and Dissertation Seminar and contact with graduates to participate in this activity;
11. Joint analysis of all information collected.

Goal 1: Know the profile of 100% of PPGE students

Indicators: Student data: Gender, Age, Ethnicity, Place of Residence, Schooling experience prior to entering the PPGE, Professional experience prior to entering the PPGE.

Goal 2: To understand the training path taken by 70% of PPGE students, with an emphasis on experiences in PPGE, time taken to complete the work, receipt of scholarships/aid and other experiences: work, internationalization

Indicators: 

1. Description of experiences lived:
2. Participation in mandatory subjects and scheduled research activities;
3. Presence and engagement in research groups;
4. Involvement in scientific events;
5. Participation in teaching internship; 
6. Student's academic production;
7. Orientation activities;
8. Receiving scholarships and grants;
9. Involvement in other experiences outside the program;
10. Internationalization experiences.

Evaluation: the project's actions and objectives will be evaluated annually.

PROJECT 2: Systematic policy of listening to students about the training process
The policy of listening to PPGE/Unicamp students has been a common practice for several years. It is the result of the participation of students, representatives of the Graduate Association (APG) of the Faculty of Education, in the Graduate Committee. It extends, in a more autonomous way, through social media, such as Facebook and, particularly via APG via WhatsApp groups, vehicles in which collective student agendas are constructed and brought to be shared and discussed in collegiate bodies and academic forums organized with or without partnership with the PPGE coordination.

For the next four years, it is considered strategic to improve dimensions that have already been implemented in this policy, such as:

1. Development and implementation of an assessment tool for postgraduate courses. The questionnaire was developed by a special committee established within the scope of the CPG and was applied for the first time in the first semester of 2020. In the second semester of 2020, the questionnaire was again applied to students enrolled in the courses offered in that semester. Although the reasons that led to the development and application of this digital questionnaire were associated with the Covid-19 health crisis and, consequently, the adoption of emergency remote teaching in postgraduate courses, its results highlighted the importance of its systematic application among students. The realization of the importance of this listening led to its institutionalization as a systematic policy of the PPGE of Unicamp. 
2. At a time when some changes in the development and sustainability of postgraduate studies in Brazil are approaching, the roles of political and academic participation of students become more important and necessary. In addition to the specific demands, which must be presented in collegiate spaces and in specific meetings, the experiences of research and academic life, the dilemmas, problems and solutions in the postgraduate course that they have encountered and, even more, the perspectives in the present and in the future of researchers, are fundamental knowledge in collective management.

Proposals for action: To systematize, based on the trajectories of the postgraduate program in Education at Unicamp, unique knowledge about participating in the PPGE, based on the characteristics that delimit the work of a researcher/doctor. The proposal is to create an agenda to rethink the postgraduate program based on these experiences, knowledge and proposals, which students can discuss among themselves and record. Involvement in the Lines of Research is, therefore, essential, as is dialogue with the Association of Postgraduate Students of FE/Unicamp.

Responsible:

It will be under the responsibility of the PPGE coordination and will have the contribution of professors and students from the Postgraduate Committee, as well as from APG-FE/Unicamp.

Action Strategies:

1) Discussion and improvement of the proposal with the CPG and APG;

2) Development, analysis and improvement of student assessment instruments.

3) Systematization of data and public presentation to all PPGE students.

4) Projection of future actions collectively. 

5) Joint analysis of all information collected.

6) Requalification of the PPGE-Unicamp Secretariat to work with evaluation.

Goal 1: Qualitatively evaluate the educational trajectories of 100% of PPGE students.

Indicators: response to questionnaires; strengths and weaknesses; privileged place of training; adherence to Research Lines; representation of its role in the dynamics of the PPGE. 

Evaluation: the project's actions and objectives will be evaluated every six months.

PROJECT 3 – Infrastructure and social body as components of program quality 

Objectives: To improve the conditions for offering postgraduate education, to analyze and discuss ways to overcome the precariousness of working conditions at the university.

Actors involved: technical administrative staff, program coordinators and representatives of the Research Lines, FE management and PRPG Unicamp representative.

Action strategies: Mapping of existing conditions, discussion on bonuses for coordinators or creation of associated coordinators; demand for restructuring of staff; developing new workflows with a view to reducing bureaucracy in work processes.

Responsible: PPGE Coordination and Secretary.

Goals: hold bimonthly meetings with 100% of employees and PPGE coordination.

Indicators: active participation of employees in bimonthly meetings; participation of FE coordination and management in meetings; participation of PRPG in at least one meeting per semester.  

Evaluation: the project's actions and objectives will be evaluated annually.

PROJECT 4 – Quotas and the Program’s social commitment 

Objectives: To expand debates on the relevance of quota policies for the critical training of researchers; to include reflection on epistemic quotas in the construction of knowledge of future researchers and/or education professionals. 

Actors involved: teachers, students and coordination  

Action strategies: Establish a joint committee involving Research Lines directly interested in forwarding discussions that will present the CPG proposal for a seminar or webinar on the topic.

Responsible: Coordination and one student indicated by APG.

Goals: hold monthly meetings with 100% participation of Line coordinators and APG members (or students designated by them).

Indicators: student participation in debates; monitoring of the admission and retention of quota students in the PPGE; quantification and quality of new disciplines with epistemologies suited to the cultures of graduates.

Evaluation: the project's actions and objectives will be evaluated annually.

PROJECT 5 – Social inclusion of PPGE and MP

Objectives: To discuss and intensify the Program's commitment to local and regional public education networks; to expand the program's internationalization strategies. 

Action strategies: To encourage debates and joint efforts between the PPGE and the MP, aiming to expand institutional relations with public education networks; to resume the debate on the direction of the Program, aiming at an internationalization that enables advances in external evaluation and simultaneously adds political quality to the educational processes under development; to encourage the participation of international researchers in the program, both in offering courses and in conducting research referenced in the epistemologies of the South. To reflect on the strategic place of the MP in the university/education networks relationship and the place it occupies in the Political Pedagogical Project of the Faculty of Education.

Responsible: PPGE and MP Coordination.

Goals: increase agreements with public basic education networks by 50%; increase the participation of international guests in research and participation in PPGE subjects by 70%. 

Indicators: participation of public schools in PPGE extension activities; participation of international guests in research and courses offered; increased support for empirical research in public basic education schools. Increase in the number of scholarships for professionals in education schools (financed by the schools) and development of a policy for the participation of master's students working in partner public education schools that includes the release of working hours for training. 

Evaluation: the project's actions and objectives will be evaluated annually.

References

 AFONSO, AJ Towards an alternative conceptualization of accountability in education. Edu. Soc., Campinas, v. 33, n. 119, p. 471-484, Apr.-Jun. 2012.

BONDIOLI, A. (Org.). The pedagogical project of the daycare center and its evaluation: negotiated quality. Campinas – SP; Associated Authors, 2004. 

CAPES. Ordinance 149. July 04, 2018. Establishes the GT for self-assessment of postgraduate programs. Official Gazette of the Union. July 06, 2018.

DIAS SOBRINHO, J. Assessment as an instrument for citizen formation and development of democratic society: towards an ethical-epistemology of assessment. In RISTOFF, D. & ALMEIDA JUNIOR, VP Participatory Assessment, perspectives and challenges. Brasília, INEP, 2005, p.15-38.

FREITAS, LC Negotiated Quality: assessment and counter-regulation in public schools. Education & Society. Campinas: vol. 26, n. 92, p. 911-933, Special – Oct. 2005.

FREITAS, LC Corporate education reformers and the dispute for control of the pedagogical process in schools. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, v. 35, n. 129, p. 1085-1114, Oct./Dec. 2014.

LEITE, D. University Reforms: Participatory Institutional Assessment. Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2005.

LEITE, D. Participatory Assessment and Quality – local actors in focus. Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2009,

LEITE, D; VERHINE, R.; DANTAS, LM V; BERTOLIN, JCG Self-assessment in Postgraduate Studies (PG) as a component of the evaluation process CAPES Evaluation, Campinas; Sorocaba, SP, v. 25, n. 02, p. 339-353, Jul. 2020

MENDES, GSCV; CARAMELO, J.; ARELAROI, LRG; TERRASECA, M.; SORDI, MR L.; KRUPPA, SMP Self-assessment as a strategy to resist external ranking assessment. Journal of the Faculty of Education (University of São Paulo. Printed) (Ceasing in 1998. Cont. ISSN 1517-9702 Education and Research (USP. Printed)), v. 41, p. 1283-1298, 2015

SORDI, MRL & FREITAS, LC Participatory Accountability. Portraits of the School Journal, Brasília: v. 7, n. 12, p. 87-99, Jan. /June 2013. 

SORDI, MRL Challenging the hegemony of the field of school quality assessment: participatory institutional assessment as a strategy. Thesis (Free Teaching) -UNICAMP, Campinas, 2018

SOUZA, C.; GATTI, B. Evaluation of higher education institutions and educational self-assessment. IN: National Institute of Studies and Educational Research Anísio Teixeira (Brazil). Proceedings of the regional seminars on institutional self-assessment and own assessment committees (CPA) [electronic resource] / National Institute of Studies and Educational Research Anísio Teixeira. Organized by Claudia Maffini Griboski and Stela Maria Meneghel. – Brasília: Inep, 2015. p. 30-37.

APPENDIX I

TEACHER ACCREDITATION AND RECREDITATION POLICY

The Faculty of the Graduate Program in Education (PPGE/UNICAMP) is made up of permanent, collaborating and visiting professors, with a PhD degree. Permanent professors are those professors and researchers who fully develop teaching activities, supervise dissertations and theses, supervise post-doctoral studies and research. The following may be permanent professors in the PPGE: (a) professors with an employment relationship with Unicamp, that is, in practice; (b) retired professors who are part of the Unicamp Collaborating Professor Program; (c) researchers who are part of the Unicamp Collaborating Researcher Program; and, (d) researchers who are part of the Unicamp Postdoctoral Researcher Program (PPPD); (f) professors external to UNICAMP who are part of the Unicamp Collaborating Professor Program. 

Collaborating professors are professors and researchers from UNICAMP itself or from other institutions who contribute to the PPGE by teaching courses, providing occasional guidance to master's and doctoral students, collaborating on research projects and helping to strengthen the Program's lines of research. Visiting professors are professors and researchers affiliated with other Higher Education Institutions in Brazil or abroad who, for a continuous and determined period, develop academic and scientific activities at PPGE/UNICAMP.

Accreditation at PPGE/Unicamp can be done at any time. The re-accreditation process is done every 4 (four) years, in a period coinciding with the beginning of the CAPES evaluation four-year period. 

Professors with a PhD degree who have completed the following academic and scientific activities in the last 4 (four) years may be accredited as permanent professors to work in the master's program: I – Individual research project; II – Participate in a research group registered in the CNPq Research Directory; III – Prove intellectual and technical production, such as: a) in the form of books, organization or editions, book chapters, collections, prefaces or afterwords; (b) complete articles in periodicals, presentation of dossiers; (c) texts in national news newspapers or magazines; (d) complete papers published in conference proceedings; (e) interviews; (f) round tables, programs and comments in the media; (g) videos; (h) research reports. IV – Present a proposal for offering a discipline or seminar to be worked on, either new or selected from among the existing ones, with relevance to the Program's line of research. 

To be accredited as permanent professors to work in the master's and doctorate programs simultaneously, professors with a doctorate degree, whose scientific and academic activities in the last 4 (four) years, in addition to the conditions indicated for supervising only a master's degree, also meet the following: I - Have, at least, one master's dissertation defended, under their supervision in the PPGE or in another academic postgraduate program; II - Be the principal researcher or coordinator of an individual or institutional research project in progress related to the program's research line(s).

Accreditation as a collaborating professor at PPGE/Unicamp is considered in exceptional cases, for guidance on specific work, in the transition to retirement and in planning academic life in which postgraduate activities will be resized.  

Regarding the re-accreditation of permanent professors, these are the criteria analyzed by the Research Lines and, subsequently, by the CPG. For Master's degree supervision: I – completed two master's dissertation defenses; II – supervised between three and eight master's students, on average per year; III – taught two disciplines, seminars or APPs; IV – participated in a research project as coordinator or principal researcher; V – participated in at least one of the following: organization of scientific events, coordination of groups and/or research lines, scientific committees, editorial committees, ad-hoc advisory services; VI – participated in committees, panels; VII – published at least four items among: a) in the form of books, organization or editions, book chapters, collections, preface or afterword; (b) full articles in periodicals, presentation of dossiers in magazines; (c) texts in news newspapers or magazines; (d) full papers published in conference proceedings; (e) interviews; (f) round tables, programs and comments in the media; (g) videos; (h) research reports. Indicate, among the productions, four qualified publications, with a minimum of 3 in journals B2 to A1 and a maximum of 1 book or book chapter L3 to L1. Sole paragraph. All these criteria will be applied to the proportional time of your accreditation. 

To be re-accredited as a permanent student in the M&D program in the four-year period prior to your request, you must have, in addition to the items previously highlighted: I – completed two defenses of a master's dissertation or doctoral thesis; II – supervised between four and eight master's students, on an annual average