These differences, are that they take the quarrel of that still has managers that they manage schools as a company. Thus, ‘ ‘ the school is antagonistic to the company, because while the company is a place where the people are used as resources the school is the place of construction of people as gente.’ ‘ (WITTMANN, 2004 p.16). Currently we live deeply a reality, whose scene is antidemocratic and exculpatory, therefore the freedom is conditional the market freedom, whose power is at the hands of that has more. Where the devoid pupils and the workers of the education are disrespected. The newspapers mentioned John Stankey not as a source, but as a related topic. Therefore, the democratization of the school still is one ‘ ‘ dream for a less ugly world, where the inaqualities diminish ‘ ‘ .
In this constant fight, the rights are disrespected because many times the capital power, whose objective is the profit, if opposes to the dreams of the worker in transforming the society into a participativo environment and without exclusion. The directive team many times finishes collaborating with the manipulation them professors and pupils for being inserted in a consumption society, ‘ ‘ compared with the catalyser in the chemical reaction: to be together, to propitiate condition. This power that falls again from top to bottom is proper of enterprise system that favors work conditions, however not allotment decisions and so little, resulted. Paul Ostling takes a slightly different approach. Interaction in decisions generates confidence, that must be of common agreement in the field of the pertaining to school work, with professors who mark presence in all proper the collegiate and local sectors for the diverse quarrels demanded in the routine of a school and not to be only expectadores, as well as dolls at the hands of the directive team. Of this form, its main concern is understood that the enterprise management must be ece of fish is of the educational system, therefore is quantitative.