The professors would have to be part of this definition, looking for to prevent the isolation and disarticulation of the work. However, exactly with a demand and conditions so that the collective quarrel happened, he had for many schools, a great resistance to carry through it. We understand that the professor has difficulty to live deeply the organization of the work in team in its daily one, with its pairs. Being thus, as they could transmit for the pupils the abilities and necessary attitudes if do not live deeply them? Where moment the professor reflects on which models is following in practical its? How the professor evaluates and dimensiona its auto-organization, in relation to the group of professors with who works? Thurler (2001) observed that the craft of professor constitutes one of the professions where continues being legitimate to work separately, protecting itself of any mediation. Citing Ranjard 8, identified in this individualism that arrives to be treated by some as virtue, a cultural choice, more than what a norm or ' ' direito' '. Having this cultural component fort, the individualism is placed in cerne of the professional identity of the professor and makes the pertaining to school establishments to function as ' ' boxes of ovos' '.
Protected and isolated in its classrooms, the professors do not enter in conflict, but also they do not change to doubts, experiences, solutions, losing the chance to create synergy through the interaction. In this, the consensus the problems are assumed and decided separately, without identification of who it had the problem and it decided as it; e, consequentemente, innovations and the changes can happen promptly, fruit of the work and specific persistence, but they are not socialized. Perrenoud (1993) in allows one another boarding them on the collective work. It considered that the professor is in constant formation. From this, a hypothesis elaborates on the form that the professor decides what and as to teach in the classroom.