Brasil
Educação & Formação (Fortaleza)
Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte
Sumário
ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Educ. Form. 11 • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.25053/redufor.v11.e16931/en linkcopy

Open-access Youth and Adult Education in prisons: legislations, challenges and teaching practices1

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Introduction.  This article analyzes Youth and Adult Education in contexts of deprivation of liberty, focusing on current legislation and pedagogical practices in Santa Catarina, seeking to understand how normative guidelines and official orientations influence the daily life of teachers in the prison system.

Methodology.  The methodology combines analysis of legal documents such as the Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education, the National Common Curricular Base, the Basic Curriculum of Santa Catarina, and the State Plan for the Education of People Deprived of Liberty and Released from the Prison System of Santa Catarina, and semistructured interviews with teachers who work or have worked in prison units.

Results.  The results highlight structural limitations, the absence of a specific curriculum, weaknesses in teacher training, and challenges imposed by the logic of institutional security, which restricts methodologies and resources.

Discussion.  The need for more consistent educational policies to guarantee the right to education in environments of deprivation of liberty is observed.

Keywords
Youth and Adult Education; prison system; educational policies; teaching practices.

Resumo

Introdução.  Este artigo analisa a Educação de Jovens e Adultos em contextos de privação de liberdade, com foco nas legislações e práticas pedagógicas vigentes em Santa Catarina, buscando compreender como diretrizes normativas e orientações oficiais influenciam o cotidiano docente no sistema prisional.

Metodologia.  A metodologia combina análise de documentos legais, como Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional, Base Nacional. Comum Curricular, Currículo Base de Santa Catarina e Plano Estadual de Educação de Pessoas Privadas de Liberdade e Egressas do Sistema Prisional de Santa Catarina, e entrevistas semiestruturadas com professores que atuam ou atuaram em unidades prisionais.

Resultados.  Os resultados evidenciam limitações estruturais, ausência de currículo específico, fragilidades na formação docente e desafios impostos pela lógica de segurança institucional, que restringe metodologias e recursos.

Discussão.  Observa-se a necessidade de políticas educacionais mais consistentes para garantir o direito à educação em ambientes de privação de liberdade.

Palavras-chave
formação de professores; prática docente; educação para a cidadania.

Resumen

Introducción.  Este artículo analiza la educación de jóvenes y adultos en contextos de privación de libertad, centrándose en la legislación vigente y las prácticas pedagógicas en Santa Catarina, con el fin de comprender cómo las directrices normativas y las orientaciones oficiales influyen en la vida cotidiana de los docentes en el sistema penitenciario.

Metodología.  La metodología combina el análisis de documentos legales, como la Ley de Directrices y Bases de la Educación Nacional, la Base Curricular Nacional Común, el Currículo Básico de Santa Catarina y el Plan Estatal para la Educación de Personas Privadas de Libertad y Liberadas del Sistema Penitenciario de Santa Catarina, y entrevistas semiestructuradas con docentes que trabajan o han trabajado en unidades penitenciarias.

Resultados.  Los resultados resaltan las limitaciones estructurales, la ausencia de un currículo específico, las debilidades en la formación docente y los desafíos impuestos por la lógica de la seguridad institucional, que restringe las metodologías y los recursos.

Discusión.  Se observa la necesidad de políticas educativas más consistentes para garantizar el derecho a la educación en entornos de privación de libertad.

Palabras clave
Educación de Jóvenes y Adultos; sistema penitenciario; políticas educativas; prácticas docentes.

1 Introduction

This work analyzes Educação de Jovens e Adultos (EJA) in contexts of deprivation of liberty. It focuses on the implementation of EJA in the Santa Catarina prison system, as well as the gap between legislation that guarantees the right to education and the working conditions of teachers. These conditions are marked by institutional restrictions, a lack of a specific curriculum, and precarious pedagogical practices. The study aims to examine the regulations governing the provision of education for adults in prisons, understand how these guidelines affect daily school life in prison, and identify the challenges teachers face in ensuring this right. Organized into three sections, the article presents the national and state theoretical-normative framework, describes the methodology based on document analysis and interviews with teachers, and discusses the results, highlighting structural, institutional, and pedagogical obstacles, as well as advocating for more consistent public policies.

We understand adult education as an inalienable right, extending to the prison population under the State's responsibility, in accordance with Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (UN, 1948, p. 6).

However, the right to education in prison is constantly challenged by moralistic and punitive discourses that call into question the legitimacy and accessibility of education for incarcerated individuals. These discourses, frequently mobilized by certain sectors of society and even by state representatives, carry historical legacies of a eugenicist, racist, and classist nature, which naturalize the exclusion of certain individuals from social rights, including the right to education.

The obstacle to effectively implementing an educational process within the Brazilian prison system lies not only in the absence of formal regulations, but also in the contradiction between the legal discourse of reintegration and the reality of prisons. Although the right to education is guaranteed in the Constitution, the Penal Execution Law, and international treaties, the scenario of overcrowding, structural deficiencies, and systematic violation of fundamental rights compromises its realization. The Supreme Federal Court's recognition of the "unconstitutional state of affairs" demonstrates that the prison system operates under conditions incompatible with human dignity, which directly affects the provision of education (Nunes, T.; Nunes, L., 2023). In this context, education ceases to be a policy that promotes reintegration. Instead, it occupies a marginal space, becoming subordinate to punitive logic and the management of containment. This hinders the construction of environments that are adequate to support consistent pedagogical practices.

In addition to structural limitations, cultural and political obstacles impact the consolidation of education as a right within the prison system. The low participation of incarcerated individuals in educational activities, even considering the high rate of low educational attainment among the prison population, reveals that access to education remains restricted and insufficient (Lobato; Lima; Chaves, 2020). Additionally, the widespread social understanding that education in prison is a privilege, not a right, weakens investments and permanent institutional commitments. Although adult education has the potential to be transformative in terms of resocialization, its effectiveness depends on continuous public policies, adequate teacher training, and integration between the justice and education systems. These elements remain weak in the Brazilian prison system (Bento, 2021). Thus, the central obstacle is not only pedagogical but also structural, political, and cultural, embedded in the very logic of the penal system's functioning.

Prison education is a key area of debate regarding the type of social system one wants to maintain or change through education. In investigating adult education in the context of deprivation of liberty, Gomes and Araújo (2023) show that incarcerated individuals attribute meanings to education linked to resocialization, the reconstruction of life projects, and emancipation. An analysis of educational policies in prisons in countries with the largest prison populations in the world indicates that such policies oscillate between formative conceptions oriented towards emancipation and models centered on correctional training or on merely legal-normative adherence to international human rights pacts (Barros Filho; Leite; Monteiro, 2023), revealing different societal projects that guide the penal system.

When examining the paradigms that permeate prison education under the conservative order, França (2023) argues that its implementation has been marked by elitist and privatizing perspectives that reinforce structural inequalities of class, race, and gender, converting prison into an instrument for maintaining power and repressing socially vulnerable groups. Therefore, educational efforts within the prison system are not neutral. They can either perpetuate an exclusionary, punitive model or challenge it by affirming education as a fundamental right necessary for building a more just and democratic society.

Since the research is focused on the state of Santa Catarina, we chose to analyze the guiding educational document for Santa Catarina, which addresses the EJA. The document is structured in sections representing the different levels of education, such as Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, and High School. Analyzing the material titled Currículo base da Educação Infantil e dos Ensinos Fundamental do território catarinense, a specific chapter dedicated to EJA is identified. This chapter is under the title "Educação de pessoas jovens, adultas e idosas - EJA." In the chapter's introductory text, the document points out that:

This text aims to present theoretical and methodological assumptions for Youth, Adult, and Elderly Education (EJA) within the context of the Basic Curriculum document for Currículo Base da Educação Infantil e Ensino Fundamental do território Catarinense (SANTA CATARINA, 2018), being an integral part of another specific document entitled Youth, Adult and Elderly Education: Philosophical, legal and curricular principles for Youth and Adult Education in the state of Santa Catarina (Santa Catarina, 2019, p. 66).

The document presents theoretical and methodological foundations, philosophical principles, constitutional rights, and curricula for the EJA modality; however, the Basic Curriculum of the Santa Catarina Territory itself establishes that:

This text will not delve into the specific characteristics and objective conditions of education in spaces of restriction and deprivation of liberty (EERPL), although it fits within the context of many different ways of thinking about Youth and Adult Education, it is believed that it demands attention to its specificities. However, this text can help EERPL educators develop their own curricula and pedagogical approaches (Santa Catarina, 2019, p. 67).

According to Ribeiro (2023), the absence of spaces for debate on education in the prison system, within the document that serves as the basis for the organization of education in the state of Santa Catarina, results in scarce public policies and low investment in the EJA modality, which contributes to the even greater precariousness of the educational process intended for people deprived of their liberty. In 2010, a new resolution was published with specific guidelines aimed at EJA in the prison system: Resolution No. 2, of May 2010. For the first time, the federal document established national guidelines for providing education to adults in penal establishments. This resolution represented a significant step forward in recognizing the right to education for people deprived of their liberty. According to the text, education in the prison system:

[...] they must be based on the educational legislation in force in the country, the Penal Execution Law, and international treaties signed by Brazil within the scope of human rights and deprivation of liberty policies, and must meet the specificities of the different levels and modalities of education and teaching, and be extended to pretrial detainees, convicts, former inmates, and those serving security measures (Brazil, 2010, p 2).

The 2010 Resolution establishes guidelines and public funding for EJA, especially through the Fundo de Manutenção e Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica e de Valorização dos Profissionais da Educação, reinforcing its legitimacy and expanding resources for the prison system. In Santa Catarina, this policy is implemented in the Plano Estadual de Educação em Prisões, established by Resolution No. 110/2012 and readjusted in 2021, which adopts comprehensive education as its central axis and articulates the right to education with the guidelines for penal execution in the state.

From this perspective, a partnership was sought between the Secretaria de Estado da Administração Prisional and Socioeducativa (SAP), Secretaria de Estado da Educação de Santa Catarina (SED), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Instituto Federal de Santa Catarina (IFSC) and Sociedade Civil de Santa Catarina (TJSC, 2021, p. 4).

The analysis of the educational process within the prison system raises questions about how the Plano Estadual de Educação em Prisões de Santa Catarina (PEEP/SC) addresses the diversity and specific needs of incarcerated individuals. This requires an understanding of how pedagogical practices are structured to avoid perpetuating discrimination historically associated with class, race, and gender. A reading of the institutional guidelines highlights the need for deeper reflection on the effectiveness of these policies in addressing inequalities. This underscores the importance of taking a critical and contextualized approach to the plan to evaluate its contribution to achieving an equitable and inclusive right to education. Based on an analysis of educational legislation and regulations focused on the prison environment, it is reaffirmed that the education of incarcerated individuals is a constitutional right, the guarantee of which must be associated with quality and a commitment to overcoming trajectories marked by exclusion and denial of rights.

2 Methodology

This research is based on an examination of a set of regulations that guide adult education, especially in the context of deprivation of liberty. Among the documents analyzed, the following stand out: the Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (LDB), the Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC), the Currículo Base do Território Catarinense, the PEEP/SC, and the resolutions that establish the National Guidelines for the provision of EJA in penal establishments. These regulations formed the basis for a critical analysis of the policies implemented and the challenges faced by teachers in this context. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers who work or have worked in adult education within the prison system of Criciúma2, to understand their experiences and teaching practices. The choice of this group aimed to understand how these professionals develop their lesson plans and construct their pedagogical methodologies in an environment marked by institutional restrictions and a logic of security. Rather than focusing on curricular aspects, the research aims to explore the conditions that facilitate the implementation of adult education in these settings. This investigation considers the discrepancies between official guidelines, which often fail to address the unique challenges of the prison environment, and the practical difficulties encountered in the daily school life of prisoners. The research was conducted in accordance with the criteria established by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unesc). To ensure confidentiality, the participants' names were replaced with the letter "P" followed by sequential numbers from P1 to P8. This identification system preserves the interviewees' identities, respects their privacy, and protects their personal histories.

The teachers were invited to reflect on the challenges they face in adult education within the prison system. This exercise aimed to shed light on the unique aspects of their daily work in this context. The proposal aimed to highlight the institutional, pedagogical, and subjective obstacles that arise in practice. These obstacles reveal how they influence and sometimes limit educators' ability to act. The testimonies revealed the multiple layers of difficulties experienced by these professionals, from initial bewilderment to adaptation to prison routines and the complexity of the relationship between security and education.

3 Results and discussion

This section analyzes, based on interviews, the conditions and limitations of teaching work in the prison context, highlighting how the logic of institutional security regulates time, space, and resources, restricts autonomy, impacts planning, and hinders the building of pedagogical relationships. The narratives point to training programs centered on procedures, constant administrative demands, and instability within classes, requiring permanent adjustments. They also reveal tensions between normative guidelines and daily practice, limitations on addressing sensitive topics, and gender inequalities. This set of factors highlights the mismatch between policies and reality and indicates critical points for strengthening adult education as a right in contexts of deprivation of liberty. The following observations arose regarding the limitations observed by the teachers:

The first challenge was figuring out how to get into the prison and what materials we could use with these students. For me, the materials available are very scarce. For security reasons, we can't bring much material into the classroom. So, that was my first challenge, and actually, it's worse because, since I like to work with a lot of different materials, I felt a bit restricted, you know, by not having so many different materials to use and implement a different methodology so as not to be so rigid, right? So, that was my first major challenge (P1).

P1's testimony highlights a structural challenge in education within a context of deprivation of liberty: the limited availability of teaching materials due to security and risk management protocols that restrict the entry, use, and circulation of objects, media, and any type of technology. The scarcity of manipulable, visual, and digital resources directly impacts methodological choices, pushing work towards more expository formats. With fewer tools for varying languages and media, it becomes more difficult to cater to diverse learning rhythms, interests, and literacy levels. This weakens curricular adaptations and the personalization of teaching, especially in adult education. In this scenario, teacher autonomy and planning are constrained by control demands and logistical barriers, leading to improvisations that, while important to the school context, do not replace access to adequate resources, directly impacting the educational processes of incarcerated students.

In light of the raised limitations, teacher P2 points out that access to prison units involves screenings, searches, security checks, and authorizations. This, coupled with strict rules and an environment far removed from school, creates physical, temporal, and psychological barriers for teachers and students. The unpredictability of arrivals and departures, delays, cancellations, and movements between departments fragment teaching time, compromise the continuity of lesson sequences, and foster a sense of constant surveillance that affects the educational bond. This situation directly impacts the planning, evaluation, and selection of content. It requires constant adaptations and fosters self-censorship practices regarding sensitive topics. Thus, P2 highlights the coexistence of a perceived freedom in content selection with the limitations imposed by a context of deprivation of liberty:

Regarding the planning, I had a certain amount of freedom, right? But we did have to be careful about some of the content, for example: in the gallery of the regional prison, that's where the rapists are kept, so I couldn't work with them on the topic of sexual abuse there, right? I worked with them on the issue of STDs [Sexually Transmitted Diseases]. I'm an educator, so I worked on leveling and literacy programs. I covered various topics, all the curricular components from 1st to 5th grade. In Science, I addressed the issue of STDs, but I couldn't address the issue of sexual abuse with them because I knew that some of them were already serving time for that crime. So, even among themselves, we know they don't accept it, right?

In the excerpt above, P2 indicates that, during their work in the prison system, they had a certain degree of freedom regarding the choice of content. This factor may stem from the absence of clear guidelines or a specific curriculum for adult education in the prison system; therefore, autonomy, at first glance, may seem positive, but it also reveals itself as a gap in institutional and pedagogical guidance for dealing with important topics in the classroom. The situation highlights less an individual problem and more a lack of guidance and pedagogical support, indicating the need for minimum standards and ongoing training for teachers.

The teacher's statement emphasizes that, in practice, the apparent freedom to choose content is limited by the logic of the prison system. This logic imposes self-censorship mechanisms to maintain internal order and prevent conflicts related to moral codes and group hierarchies. Sensitive topics, such as sexual abuse, are avoided or replaced, especially in a context marked by the division of spaces by criminal categories and the marginalization of certain individuals. This suppression reveals a conception of the student as someone devoid of knowledge and experiences before incarceration, as well as expressing an attempt to silence discussions about crime under the justification of preventing recidivism. This perspective appears paradoxical, as it disregards structural contradictions, such as social inequality, and supports the idea that ignoring issues related to social reality would be sufficient to prevent new crimes.

Regarding the guidance offered to teachers in the prison system, we examined the Centro de Jovens e Adultos (Ceja) administration's practices for integrating teachers into the EJA program in Criciúma. Regarding the provision of training, guidance, or education, the following testimonies emerged::

There is training that is provided, but it's the responsibility of Ceja. Ceja schedules and receives the teachers, they provide regular monitoring, and the training is done by Ceja. And there's the specific issue of the prison system. That's it: in the prison, they pass on the information, for example: when you apply, you are evaluated to see if you are approved to teach in those spaces. There are some things that are prohibitive, for example, if you have a relative who has been arrested or is currently arrested, then it starts to become complicated for you to teach in that space. So they observe this: if you don't know anyone in the system, if you don't have any relatives or friends in prison, you can teach in that unit. If you do, then it becomes complicated. Are you approved to teach? Because we also have that security issue. They are concerned, for example, that you can't pass on information, receive information from the inmate, and then pass that information on (P6).

Teacher P6 discusses the training offered by Ceja, which is responsible for organizing and guiding teachers who work in the prison system. This training, conducted at the beginning of the academic year, focuses primarily on normative guidelines, institutional rules, and safety protocols, neglecting content related to teaching and learning and specific guidelines for adult education within the prison system, where the majority of the population suffers the impacts of social inequalities.

Although the question was directed at teacher training and the discussions held at that meeting, the teacher's statement also reveals the issue of teacher regulation. The rigorous criteria for the inclusion of educators in the prison system become evident. The Santa Catarina State Department of Education conducts a selection process for hiring teachers that includes document analysis. However, those entering the prison system undergo an even more rigorous process that excludes individuals with family ties to or emotional relationships with incarcerated people.

This practice underscores the relationship between education and the prison system. Despite its importance, education is subservient to the prison's internal dynamics, suggesting that technical qualifications are not the primary factor in admission.

We received training for teachers in general at the beginning of the year, just before the school year started, but it wasn't specifically geared towards Adult Education within the prison system; rather, it was focused on Adult Education in general. It was a three-morning training session, all conducted via Google Meet. For me, this training wasn't very good, especially since it was my first time working with young people and adults. It didn't cover what the daily work would be like in adult education, and the methodologies I could use aren't the same as those in mainstream education. So, I missed that part of getting closer. I believe they could do a little more with that training at the beginning of the year, before the teachers go into the classroom (P1).

The testimony highlights the teacher's dissatisfaction with the training offered by Ceja in Criciúma, which was broad and generic and did not address the specific needs of adult education within the prison system. The training, conducted online over three mornings via the Meet platform, did not provide opportunities for the exchange of knowledge and methodologies that could have been shared by teachers with experience in this environment. This disconnect further exposes the lack of attention given to welcoming new education professionals into the prison system, who often arrive with doubts and questions that could be resolved through conversations and discussions with colleagues, including during their own training. Furthermore, the professor emphasizes that the training does not include specific discussions about adult education within the prison system. This is because this modality requires specific approaches to address the daily problems of the prison context.

When I started, I went straight into the job, without any prior training. Everything was very new, and I felt a bit lost. The environment was very different: classrooms with barriers separating teachers and students, everything very strange. The only guidance I received was superficial talk, something like, "You'll find this or that," but nothing practical or in-depth about how to act or conduct teaching in that space (P5).

For teacher P3, the instructions given during the initial contact with EJA in prison were:

We didn't receive any official instructions, but on the first day, there is a meeting with the education coordinator, the head, and the director, and they talk about clothing and things that are allowed and not allowed. We have to wear a lab coat to protect ourselves more and to guarantee that those inside will know who the teacher is, so there is a difference between the agent and the teacher. Before entering, we have to wait a while for them to pat us down. The security personnel have to check our background before we go in to see if we have any relatives inside.

The absence of formal guidelines and adequate training beyond directives on attire, such as the mandatory use of lab coats and permitted or prohibited conduct, indicates the authority exercised over teachers in the prison system. This authority is based on the hierarchical structure common in prison relations. In a sense, this imposition shows that institutional authority takes precedence over teacher autonomy through codes of conduct and dress codes. Furthermore, the testimony reveals that the process of integrating teachers into the prison environment requires reform to provide teachers with more professional preparation. Although the initial meeting model presented by the teacher is important for establishing basic norms, it does not offer spaces for dialogue and exchange of experiences, which are fundamental for clarifying doubts and helping educators adapt to this specific reality.

The testimony also highlights the background checks carried out by the security team on teachers to prevent connection with inmates, a measure which, although justified by the need to preserve institutional order, reveals the rigidity of the prison system's protocols and their impact on educational dynamics. The requirement for specific dress codes and the constant checking of possible relationships between teachers and inmates reinforce symbolic and material boundaries between these groups, accentuating the distance between prison and the outside world. This process contributes to the crystallization of inmates' identities as "subjects deprived of liberty" and hinders the construction of more humanized and dialogical pedagogical bonds, essential for the effectiveness of educational work. For P2, the guidelines received at the beginning of the school year also proved insufficient in the face of the specific demands that EJA in a context of deprivation of liberty requires:

I didn't have any training on the prison system, only on Adult Education, which covers everything, right? It doesn't just cover the prison system, but as soon as you get there and do training only with the teachers of the system, no! I didn't go through that at Ceja, no, but the unit itself does training at the beginning of the school year; the head of security gives some guidance, but it's very little compared to what you experience throughout the year.

P4 reports that she participated in a meeting that, although not directly promoted by Ceja, provided her with some relevant initial information:

Yes. We participated in a meeting at Ceja as soon as we were called. At the time, some more professionals joined - thankfully - and I was a literacy teacher. So, they explained what was allowed and what wasn't. What we could bring, what the clothes were like, how to treat the student, how to speak... The materials that go inside, because they don't take anything into the cell and they don't bring anything back. We're the ones who take things in and bring them back.

Although P4 reported attending a meeting at Ceja when hired, the meeting only covered operational guidelines and regulations of the prison administration, such as permitted conduct, the mandatory use of specific clothing, and control over materials brought into the unit. Although it brought together professionals who would work in the prison environment, this meeting cannot be understood as a proper pedagogical training session, as it did not address educational, methodological, or reflective aspects of teaching practice in prison.

Although adult education was mentioned sporadically in the initial training, the accounts indicate a lack of pedagogical guidance tailored to the specificities of teaching in prison. Therefore, we sought to understand, based on the teachers' testimonies, how this training gap impacts (or does not impact) the methodological strategies used in daily practice and in the development of initial pedagogical practices within the prison system.

When questioned about the methodologies used to prepare the first adult education class in the prison system, the following statements emerged:

The methodology was based on introductions: me introducing myself, them introducing themselves, saying where they were from and if they had family. That was the maximum; it wasn't possible to go much further. Then I asked them to write a text-for those who were literate, because I had about four who weren't; they didn't know anything; they didn't know any alphabet. They were to write a text about what they expected from the classes, what they were looking for there, and whether they were there just to get a reduced sentence (P2).

P7 reports that, in his first experience teaching in the prison system, he assumed that the most appropriate methodology would be the oral transmission of content, adopting a traditional teaching model centered on the teacher's speech. Over time, however, he realized that this approach was not sufficient to meet the specific needs of that educational context:

We don't really know what we're going to find, and so, at first, I arrived with my guard up, you know, with some ideas for the classes, and they were very much in the traditional sense. I was saying things, and they were listening, because that was what I imagined I would be charged for. I always say this in the past tense, because, throughout the year, I realized what I could, what I couldn't, what was most interesting. I came to understand the students in the classroom who said they liked it. In the first few days and classes, they always followed a more traditional pattern. Eventually, however, it changed to other methodologies (P7).

Next, P7 addresses the need to make both the content and methodologies more flexible, which is affected by the shortening of class time.

First, you have to make the content more flexible. The teaching hours are a bit shorter, so you have to adapt your content and make it more flexible, because with less time, you wouldn't be able to cover all the content as you could in a regular school, but without compromising student learning. So, you adapt the content to fit the time you have, but then your lesson plan is constantly evaluated. So, you have to... in other words, you put it in the plan, you post it on the online teacher platform, which is a state system. You're going to teach; you make the plan and put it there. You post what you put in the plan. You have to teach the content you put in; you have to teach it. There's no point in filling the lesson plan with content and including a lot of topics if you don't have enough time to cover it all (P6).

Teacher P6's testimony reveals that the flexibility of content occurs within a context of tension, where the teacher must meet the bureaucratic demands of the system, such as the Professor On-line program, while simultaneously responding to the specificities of the prison context. Although it claims there is no detriment to learning, reducing teaching hours fragments and limits content. This restricts students' access to a broader approach and directly impacts the teaching-learning process. The account highlights a forced adaptation that characterizes teaching as a space of constant negotiation between autonomy and regulation; even so, over time, attentive listening and observation of daily life have allowed for the revision of practices, leading to methodological adjustments beyond the model. Teacher P1 demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding legislation for education within the prison system:

The only legislation we use, which is common to basic education, is the BNCC or a bit of the LDB, but mainly the BNCC, so that when we put together our annual, monthly, or bi-weekly plans, in some cases, we have a basis for how to follow it. But I didn't have the opportunity, or I didn't seek out, complementary information in the legislation for Youth and Adult Education. I followed the BNCC as if I were creating a regular basic education program, and then, within the classroom, a modification, an adaptation, was implemented for these students who don't yet have as much information as in regular education, and so some materials were adapted.

The teachers' statements reveal a superficial understanding of educational legislation for the prison system, showing the inadequacy of the training and guidance offered to teachers working in this context. The absence of clear and specific guidelines for EJA in the prison system creates conditions for teachers to use approaches from regular education, even though Adult Education has different configurations and educational characteristics.

I couldn't quite grasp how they're applied; I missed that because we're left very much to the mercy of God, we don't get much help from the coordinators, and we end up acting the same way we do in a regular classroom in our daily lives, right? The only thing that changes is the environment. So, as I said, there was indeed an adaptation of the legislation so that it could be included in the curriculum, and then this adaptation would also be implemented in the classroom. But I felt a lack of understanding of how the legislation for Youth and Adult Education is applied within the system, you know? I could indeed have looked into it, but I didn't, and I really missed that. I treated it as if it were a regular basic education in a regular school for students who are not part of the prison system (P1).

Teacher P1's statement demonstrates the lack of guidance in official education documents that direct content, approaches, and curriculum. His testimony also includes the absence of pedagogical support from educational coordinators, specifically from Ceja. The lack of specific guidelines is evident in the teacher's statement when reporting that "[...] we're left very much to the mercy of God [...]", which demonstrates a feeling of abandonment by the administration. This fact compromises the right to education and exposes the structural precariousness that permeates teaching in prisons. Next, in the previously prepared questionnaire, the question arose regarding the main challenges faced in implementing educational legislation for EJA. The question aimed to understand the obstacles that hinder the application of legal regulations in prison education from the teachers' perspective.

Much of what is in the legislation cannot be applied within an environment like a prison system, because the space is not a welcoming environment, and it lacks the necessary or sufficient materials. I also admit that the environment itself created a negative atmosphere. For me, it was a heavy atmosphere. The difficulty was due to the environment and insufficient materials. Often, not all the students were present, as many were frequently absent. These challenges were constant during the weeks I was there [...] (P1).

P1 points out the structural, institutional, and specific barriers that prevent the concrete implementation of legislation aimed at adult education in the context of deprivation of liberty, although it indicates at other times that it used the regular education curriculum in its prison system classes as a pedagogical strategy in the absence of specific guidelines, curriculum, and training for the prison context.

Based on the teachers' experience, the next question to be answered was: What changes did they suggest to the laws and regulations governing education in places of deprivation of liberty?

I think they should change these laws. I think that classes, for example, should be more frequent. Our time with the students isn't enough either. Like, 'Oh! You failed; you can't do study month.' I think there should be more sessions, because the time they spend in Portuguese classes and review sessions isn't enough for them to learn anything, you know? They continue to make the same mistakes, mainly the same interpretation errors. Students who were very bad at writing are still bad now, at a different point. So, I think they need to spend a little more time with them, because it seems like people only put on these classes or projects just to say they're doing them. It doesn't seem like they're really trying to improve their education (P3).

Teacher P3 reveals that insufficient class time is a problem, including for the assessment method of the "Despertar pela leitura" project, which is insufficient to promote progress in student development, especially in text interpretation and writing skills. Since these students undergo a monthly assessment review process, it is necessary to create spaces where they can discuss review structure, present models, and participate in text interpretation activities. This will give them a structured pedagogical process that addresses common review writing errors. “Having a solid curriculum is necessary. Another important question is how to train and prepare teachers to work there and for what might come. They focus a lot on security” (P2).

Teacher P2 indicates that teachers should receive training to prepare them to work in the prison system. The guidelines focus more on institutional security issues than on pedagogical guidance. The teacher emphasizes the importance of a specific EJA curriculum that provides concrete references for pedagogical work within the prison system.

4 Final considerations

Through documentary analyses of EJA and testimonies from teachers who have taught in prison systems, we identified the absence of specific regulations for this type of education as a structural problem impacting the education of incarcerated individuals. The lack of specific treatment for education in prisons in legislative and normative educational documents reflects historical processes that culminated in the dismantling of educational policies, especially adult education. In recent years, punitive policies have gained traction and impacted public education policies, strengthening the annulment of incarcerated individuals' rights, particularly in the educational field. This movement has had many negative effects, including the precariousness of teaching jobs. This instability is evident in factors such as low salaries, poor working conditions, fewer public hiring processes, political persecution, and violence. Specifically within the prison system, these professionals assume multiple roles due to a lack of specific guidance for developing content, lesson plans, and pedagogical practices. Furthermore, they face restrictions regarding the content they can cover and experience the daily regulatory and violent environment of the prison system.

Although the absence of specific regulations allows for a certain degree of pedagogical freedom, the lack of adequate educational guidelines and regulations for the prison system was demonstrated during the analysis of its impact on the development of teachers' pedagogical practices. Teachers working in the prison system are responsible for the entire educational process of incarcerated individuals. Teachers try to develop teaching methods and materials that address the specific needs of students in the prison system and that are approved by the prison authorities.

Therefore, there is an urgent need for educational public policies in the prison system that provide clear and consistent guidelines for teachers. These policies should encourage reflection on punitive practices in Brazilian history that affect many individuals' daily lives and deny them the right to education due to social inequality. To rethink public policies for adult education, it is necessary to consider Brazil's social structure.

  • 1
    This work was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) - Funding Code 001.
  • 2
    Criciúma, a municipality in southern Santa Catarina, located approximately 200 kilometers from Florianópolis, has a population exceeding 230,000 inhabitants and boasts approximately 159 basic education schools, including municipal and state networks, as well as higher education institutions such as UNESC, the Instituto Federal de Santa Catarina, and private institutions, forming the educational landscape that underpins this research.
  • How to cite this article (ABNT):
    VICENTE, Vanessa Santos; ALVES, Ismael Gonçalves; ASSUNÇÃO, Viviane Kraieski de. Educação de Jovens e Adultos em prisões: legislações, desafios e práticas docentes. Educação & Formação, Fortaleza, v. 11, e16931, 2026. Disponível em: https://revistas.uece.br/index.php/redufor/article/view/e16931
  • Ad hoc experts:
    Jesus Manuel Delgado-Mendez and Alessandra de Oliveira Maciel

Data availability:

The research data is available in the document.

References

  • Responsible editor:
    Lia Machado Fiuza Fialho

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    27 July 2026
  • Date of issue
    2026

History

  • Received
    22 Dec 2025
  • Accepted
    05 Mar 2026
  • Published
    03 June 2026
Creative Common - by 4.0
Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto sob uma licença Creative Commons.
location_on
Universidade Estadual do Ceará, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação Av. Dr. Silas Munguba, 1700 - Campus do Itaperi, CEP: 60714-242, Fone: +55 (85) 3101-9918 - Fortaleza - CE - Brazil
E-mail: revista.redufor@uece.br
rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
Reportar erro