With a differentiated vision of Wedge (2002), Ferretti (2004) considers that the education had that to adjust itself to take care of the new requirements of the market, where the worker has that to develop new knowledge new abilities. The used term to indicate this new period of training was ' ' requalification profissional' ' understood not as the process for which the worker would be qualified of raised and complex type more, that he would also contemplate to know them already accumulated. (PAIVA, 1989, apud FERRETTI, 2004, P. 408). One becomes necessary a new form of if seeing and if arguing the relation Work and Education. One is not only about the junction of such concepts and nor so little to the separation to the same ones. In accordance with Axe (2005), is each more urgent time to deal with the quarrel the excellent elements of each concept in order to promote a cohesion in such debate. In accordance with Axe (2005), is necessary one another understanding of the education, in order not to only understand it as an alienator professional formation.
It is treated, for the opposite, to understand the education as a possibility of complete formation in all scopes of the life of the citizens; that is, it has of if worrying about the formation human being. At last, it is possible to verify, on the basis of the reflections gifts in this text, that the relation between Work and Education, possesss diversified vises that they send for different analyses. 5. CONCLUSIVE NOTES In short, it can be evidenced that the education and the work had always passed for changes that had affected its structure directly. These changes are, for example, pedagogical trends, the working revolutions, changes of the capitalist world, among others. One perceives that such changes had occurred for the effective historical context at each time in order to take care of the demands of evolution of the society.
They are new forms of organization of the capitalist process caused by the changes techniques that impactantes in the process of industrial mutation between firms. They are the new forms, imposing a destruction on the old form and generating a new, intra-system. To this process, SCHUMPETER (1984, pp. 112-113), it called ' ' destruction criativa' '. Who is the responsible economic agent for the changes techniques generates innovation impactando in the competition of the economic system and imposing a new dynamics to the capitalist process giving, and in this, new configurations? For SCHUMPETER (1988, P. 56), the changes techniques that result in innovation derive from the new forms of combination of production factors, vision innovative, capable to carry through new combinations, not necessarily tied with a sole proprietorship. The entrepreneur function is not inherited, this is defined from its action with capacity to take the handle new combinations and to influence in the process of capitalist competition. For SCHUMPETER (1988 and 1997), it fits to the capitalist, or banker, to offer capitals to stimulate entrepreneur so that this creative promotes the promotion of the economic activity. 
