The debates surrounding the high school curriculum are nothing new. They date back to the controversies that marked the passage of the Law on Educational Guidelines and Foundations (Law No. 4,024/1961), and thus to the 1960s. The unified curriculum model has been extensively implemented in Brazil since the 1970s. 

Generation after generation of students have had their educational paths dictated by a single, uniform curriculum imposed on everyone. The results, as repeatedly shown, consistently point to dramatic rates of failure, dropout, and school abandonment, which have made high school the level at which the most Brazilian youth—especially the most vulnerable—are pushed out of school. 

According to a survey conducted by the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV), students’ lack of interest tops the list of reasons for dropping out (40%), followed by financial problems and rising unemployment rates (27%). The other reasons cited in the survey account for 33%, including ineffective relationships between schools and students, a lack of engaging activities, and socio-emotional problems, among others.

If education isn’t engaging, how can we keep students interested in investing in skills and knowledge? It is undeniable—and supported by numerous studies—that educational attainment is directly linked to income in the labor market. The gap between what is taught in the classroom and students’ real-life and professional experiences fuels disinterest, and this was one of the main reasons for rethinking high school education.  

This situation can only be overcome through curricular flexibility and diversity. In democratic societies, families and young people have access to a variety of educational options, from which each can choose the one that best aligns with their life goals. Academic freedom, freedom of teaching, and freedom of thought are, at the same time, both a prerequisite for and a driving force behind democracy.

As proposed, the reform instills respect and trust in the role of the teacher: because they are in the classroom, they are best positioned to determine what their students should learn. The proposed approach grants autonomy and authority to teachers and school administrators. Nothing is imposed on them, nor are they restricted in any way: it is up to each individual to make judgments and take responsibility for the choices they make. Now, in the third decade of the 21st century, the mere suggestion of seeking state oversight harks back to an outdated misconception whose time has irrevocably passed.

Through its 22 regional unions, the National Federation of Private Schools (FENEP) brings together more than 40,000 educational institutions throughout the country. There is no doubt that, after so many years of a standardized curriculum, the High School Reform presents major challenges for everyone, calling on each school to reinvent itself and innovate in its teaching and learning processes. Nor can we run the risk of becoming as rigid as before; there is a need for debate to drive progress and improvements. 

There are decisions to be made and risks to be taken by administrators and teachers. And of all the stakeholders involved, students have the most to gain from the New High School Curriculum. And, as educators and as citizens, we are firmly convinced that they are the focus and purpose of our work. By making this commitment, Brazilian private schools endorse and support the High School Curriculum Reform and oppose its repeal, which we consider a step backward.

About the author: 

*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bett Brasil.

 

Did you like this article? Then share it on your social media: