National curriculum guidelines: training history teachers between the arboreal and the rhizomatic

Abstract

This article investigates the initial training of History teachers. It seeks to understand how this training can be understood from a rhizomatic approach, considering the different normative guidelines of the National Education Council for Undergraduate Courses, approved in the last decade and instituted by Resolutions No. 2/2015; 2/2019 and 4/2024. This is a qualitative research, of a critical-analytical nature, whose analysis takes as a reference the rhizomatic perspective of the curriculum, anchored in the philosophy of difference of Deleuze and Guattari (1995), according to which “a rhizome would not cease to connect semiotic chains, organizations of power, occurrences that refer to the arts, sciences, and social struggles” (p.14). The results reveal that the 2015 Guidelines, by assigning centrality to the constitution of ways of being a teacher, reject arboreal rooting, prioritizing difference and favoring a rhizomatic curricular perspective. In turn, the framework of the BNCC, defined by the 2019 Guidelines, BNC-Training, would hinder the existence of times and spaces for the variation, multiplication, dissemination and proliferation of meanings that characterize the rhizomatic curriculum. On the other hand, the 2024 Curricular Guidelines highlight, among the professional knowledge of the teacher, those linked to the contents of human rights, ethnic-racial, gender, sexual, religious and generational diversity, allowing the leakages, bifurcations and lines of flight inherent to the rhizomatic conditionality of the curriculum to emerge from these themes.