O Programa Nacional De Assistência Estudantil (PNAES) através das equipes pedagógicas no IFPR: possibilidades e desafios

Abstract

The aim of this thesis was to analyze the National Student Assistance Program (PNAES) across the 26 campuses of the Federal Institute of Paraná (IFPR), drawing from the experience of the Pedagogical and Student Affairs Section (SEPAE) teams. The objective was to contextualize the proposed actions, map the teams (profile, functions, and responsibilities), and analyze the changes in “what to do” during the Covid-19 pandemic. The study was guided by the historical and dialectical materialist perspective, with theoretical references from the fields of Historical-Cultural Psychology and Science, Technology, and Society (CTS). Qualitative epistemology supported the information collection, an approach capable of addressing the complexity of analyzing a public policy grounded in subjectivity. The methodological approach included field research to map information on campus websites, literature review, and the study of national and institutional documents regarding PNAES at IFPR. In the empirical field, two integration plans were outlined: an online questionnaire, answered by 53 workers from teams throughout Paraná, contributing to outlining the interdisciplinary profile and gathering information on routine, working conditions, and health in the pandemic context; and semi-structured interviews conducted with 11 workers via the Google Meet platform to explore the meanings and significance of PNAES and its implementation during the pandemic. The analysis was based on the interpretation of intelligibility indicators, including descriptive analysis and discourse analysis, resulting in the construction of empirical categories such as praxis, public policies, vulnerability, technological mediation, and the pandemic. The results revealed that PNAES plays a crucial role in an educational institution where 80% of students are quota beneficiaries and need support for retention and course completion. However, it pointed out weaknesses that impacted PNAES before the pandemic, such as workers’ lack of knowledge about the policy, insufficient or inadequate resources for the specificity of each student, inadequate deadlines, and rigid workflows, which intensified and required adaptations to the new context. The sudden implementation of remote work contributed to the workers’ illness, the weakening of their working conditions, and the overload of roles, especially for women, who faced simultaneous domestic and professional work routines. Subjective meanings indicated that PNAES cannot yet be considered a social technology, as it requires greater user and worker participation in all stages of its process, investments, and the expansion of its strategic areas. Approaching PNAES from the perspective of workers brings the emotiveness of those who implement and interpret the policy to the center of the debate, achieving “affection” as a criterion for the effectiveness of the policy, a qualitative leap in student support work. Being affected is configured as the meaning and guiding thread of the policy in interaction with the demand. A policy consists of resources, projects, pedagogical and psychological support, and equally, emotion and active listening, which, during the pandemic, highlighted the importance of SEPAE teams as a link between the institution and the student.