Teacher training is perhaps the most divisive issue in the field of education. One thing, however, is certain: according to research and studies of academic relevance, teacher quality is the intraschool factor that has the greatest impact on student learning (see, for example, Rivkin, S. G., Hanshek, E. A., Kain, J. F., “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,” Econometrica, vol. 73, no. 2, March 2005, pp. 417–458). And why is it so divisive? There are several issues at play, starting with the number of hours allocated to teacher training. Today, according to CNECP Resolution No. 022019, at least 3,200 hours are allocated to teacher training. However, reaching this figure—in accordance with the previous resolution of the National Education Council (CNE) itself—was no trivial matter.

Another issue was how many of those 3,200 hours should be allocated to practical training. At the time the above resolution was drafted, based on studies and research, there was a strong call to strengthen it, since education in Brazil—compared to that of other countries at the forefront of global education—was highly theoretical, and little attention was given to practical training that addressed real-world classroom situations. Today, it amounts to 800 hours, which is equivalent to 25% of the total, and begins as early as the first year of the program.

Another important aspect is this: what kind of teacher training are we talking about? The kind that is more closely tied to content-based instruction—which no longer engages with a disruptive world—or the kind based on the development of skills and competencies? On one occasion, during a visit to the National Institute of Education in Singapore—one of the most highly regarded in the world— the faculty members at that institution were struck by the amount of theory involved in teacher training in Brazil—in other words, a lot of theory and very little practice. According to Richard Hamming, an American mathematician who passed away in the late 1990s, teachers should prepare students for their own future, not for the teacher’s past.

Another issue at stake is how to use new technologies in teacher training. The pandemic has clearly shown us that not only our teachers, but those in almost every part of the world, were unprepared to use these technologies in the teaching and learning process. And within this context lies the debate over in-person versus distance education; today, in Brazil, most teacher-training programs are delivered through distance education (EaD). Worse still: in many cases, these are institutions that do not prioritize quality, offering programs at a much lower standard than what is expected of serious, high-quality teacher training. That is why I advocate for the creation of a Student Financing Fund (FIES) specifically for courses with innovative curricula in the field of teacher training.

Finally, every time this topic comes up, it creates an atmosphere that is not conducive to a calm and balanced discussion, especially in light of what science and research have been showing us regarding teacher training that engages with students’ futures. We must not turn this into a crusade, but rather view it as an opportunity to develop the innovative and creative training programs that are so necessary in a disruptive world.

About the author:

Mozart Neves Ramos holds the Sérgio Henrique Ferreira Chair at USP’s Ribeirão Preto campus, is a professor emeritus at UFPE, and serves on the Advisory Board of Bett Brasil. 

Article published in the Jornal do Comércio de Pernambuco - https://digital.jc.ne10.uol.com.br/edicao?ed=1218