Supervised Internship (SI) and BNC-Training

The SI, in initial teacher training courses, has been thought of as an element that organizes, structures, and operationalizes, in an articulated way, the relationship between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and schools, considering not only legal issues but also training and professional development throughout the career.

Conceptually, SI is the educational act of preparation for work that must be provided for in the course's pedagogical project, articulated with the training itinerary, and also aims to learn the skills to teach in a contextualized way with social and political objectives that promote interactions with the future field of work. From a legal point of view, the workload is a requirement for approval and obtaining a diploma, and it takes place through the signing of a term of commitment between the student, the granting party, and the educational institution (^{BRASIL, 2008}).

From this perspective, the SI has been an undeniable tool for training future teachers, but the challenges in its implementation place it in a difficult situation. According to ^{Veloso and Pivovar (2021)}, the launch of government policies and programs, such as PIBID and PRP, aim to help overcome the obstacles encountered by SI to fully achieve its objectives.

Regarding the concept of SI in the recent publication of the DCNs - Resolution CNE/CP 02/2019, there is an excessive emphasis on the practical dimension, called practical rationality, no longer thought of as pedagogical praxis, with a simplified and reduced connotation. For ^{Veloso and Pivovar (2021)}, Resolution 02/2015 stated that the SI has a theoretical-practical character, attributing unity to theory and practice in training. With this, the initial teacher training project can be designed and developed based on the articulation between the HEI and the teaching unit, in this case the Basic Education schools.

On the other hand, the document presenting the National Basis for Teacher Training (BNC-Training), published in December 2018, included among some of the diagnoses the need for this document to "cover" recurring insufficient student learning results; the low quality of teacher training, which relies on more theory than practice; the lack of depth in initial training, especially in the early childhood education and initial years stages; as well as reporting that supervised internships take place without planning and without links to schools².

It should be noted that both SI and PRP (^{CAPES, 2018} and 2020) have legal apparatuses and regulations regarding the purpose, the institutional framework, the role of the subjects, as well as the structural and human organization, with a view to qualifying the initial training and professional development of future teachers and those working at the various levels.

The total workload of teacher training courses for basic education, at the higher education level, is set at 3,200 (three thousand two hundred) hours and must consider the development of the professional competencies set out in the BCN-Training. These hours are distributed and organized into three groups:

I - Group I: 800 (eight hundred) hours, for the common base which comprises scientific, educational, and pedagogical knowledge and underpins education and its links with systems, schools, and educational practices. II - Group II: 1,600 (one thousand six hundred) hours, for learning the specific content of the areas, components, thematic units, and objects of knowledge of the BNCC, and for the pedagogical mastery of this content. III - Group III: 800 (eight hundred) hours, pedagogical practice, distributed as follows: a) 400 (four hundred) hours for the supervised internship, in a real work situation in a school, according to the Pedagogical Project of the Course (PPC) of the training institution; and b) 400 (four hundred) hours for the practice of the curricular components of Groups I and II, distributed throughout the course, since its beginning, according to the PPC of the training institution (^{BRASIL, 2019}, emphasis added).

The emphasis on theoretical and practical training, in the format of the law, reiterates the importance of valuing the work of teachers and the qualification of their teaching practice to work in basic education from their initial training. It is a fact that, in recent years, teachers have been faced with unique and complex demands, given the heterogeneity of the public and the plurality of the agenda in schools, which goes beyond the predictability of a pedagogical action (^{LELIS, 2008}).

In the SI case, due to its compulsory nature, the fact that it is part of the training pathway, whose workload is a requirement for passing and obtaining a diploma, the fact that it does not have a financial counterpart - because, according to Law 11.788/2008, SI in the university and school relationship does not create an employment relationship of any kind -, the fact that it enters into a term of commitment between the student, the party granting the internship and the educational institution, among other regulatory elements, they have their peculiarities and specificities.

We are therefore starting from SI as a fundamental element, present in the Curriculum Guidelines which, as a regulatory document, organize, structure, and streamline the action of teacher training curricula. Considering these elements that make up the SI, we will now present the PRP and its similarities and differences to the BNC-Training.

PRP and BNC-Training

Recently, proposals for induction and insertion into the teaching profession, aimed at valuing and qualifying the work of teachers, such as PIBID and PRP, have been configured on the national scene as part of recent teacher training policies (CAPES, 2020; ^{CAPES, 2020b}). As such, they seek to promote the equation and overcoming of educational challenges through access, incentive, and permanence programs in the teaching career.

The Pedagogical Residency Program is one of the actions that are part of the National Teacher Training Policy and aims to induce the improvement of practical training in undergraduate courses, promoting the immersion of undergraduate students in basic education schools, starting in the second half of their course (CAPES, 2020, p.1)

The PRP has its roots in the Medical Residency (MR) programs, which are offered to students who have graduated from Medicine, and are therefore consolidated programs, but which take place after their initial training, at postgraduate level. This training path, in the field of medicine, represents one of the main divergences between the residency models designed for the educational field, since the PRP is carried out in the final years of the initial training period in undergraduate courses, while the MR is established as a postgraduate course, at the end of the undergraduate course and in the transition to the profession (^{BENDRATH; REIS, 2021}).

To a certain extent, the PRP presents assumptions similar to those established by the MR, such as being a means of deepening professional knowledge through practice and real experience, accompanied and guided in the context of their (future) workplace (^{FARIA; DINIZ-PEREIRA, 2019}).

In its first notice, the PRP proposes a minimum workload of 440 hours, which are earmarked for the implementation of the program in conjunction with the school year, distributed as follows: 60 hours of joint orientation, 320 hours of immersion in the school and 40 hours of evaluation and socialization (^{CAPES, 2018}). In this sense, according to ^{CAPES (2018)}, the PRP has the following objectives:

I. To improve the training of undergraduate students by developing projects that strengthen the field of practice and lead undergraduates to actively exercise the relationship between theory and professional teaching practice, using data collection and diagnosis on school teaching and learning, among other didactics and methodologies;

II. Induce the reformulation of the supervised internship in degree courses, based on the experience of the pedagogical residency;

III. Strengthening, expanding, and consolidating the relationship between the HEI and the school, promoting synergy between the entity that trains and the one that receives the graduate, and stimulating the role of the education networks in teacher training.

IV. Promote the adaptation of the curricula and pedagogical proposals of the initial training courses for basic education teachers to the guidelines of the National Common Curriculum Base (BNCC) (^{CAPES, 2018} p. 01, emphasis added).

The Capes Notice No. 1/2020 has the following objectives:

I. Encourage the training of teachers at higher education level for basic education, leading students to actively exercise the relationship between theory and professional teaching practice; II. Promote the adaptation of the curricula and pedagogical proposals of degree courses to the guidelines of the National Common Curriculum Base (BNCC); III. Strengthening and expanding the relationship between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and public primary schools; and IV. Strengthen the role of education networks in training future teachers (^{CAPES, 2020a}, p. 1-2, emphasis added).

In addition to the objectives mentioned above, one of the main changes is the workload, which, in the first call for proposals, was 440 hours in a single module and is now reduced to 414 hours available over 18 months and divided into three individual six-month modules, which should increase in complexity gradually and increasingly and, despite being individual, should establish a connection between them. A noteworthy point is that the resident will receive certificates for each completed module and no longer one at the end of the 440 hours as was done in the PRP in 2018, giving the PRP greater flexibility in terms of participation time (CAPES, 2020).

For the moment, it is possible to identify that the relationship between practice and theory is made explicit right at the beginning of the PRP's objectives, emphasizing its importance for initial training and possibilities for professional development, which is in line with the debates in the specialized literature (^{PIMENTA; LIMA, 2010}; ^{TARDIF, 2014}; ^{SOUZA NETO; CYRINO; BORGES, 2019}).

The notices also define the roles of those involved and what the institutions are responsible for.

What each institution is responsible for is also defined. In the case of the field school, it is the public basic education institution authorized by the Department of Education or equivalent body and selected by the HEI to take part in the project, where the pedagogical residency nucleus is formed, in which the subjects listed above work (chart 1). It is important to note that the meetings, orientations, and gatherings of supervisors, preceptors, and residents take place at the field school (CAPES, 2020, p.2).

The sub-projects take place at the field school, many of them linked to the peculiarities of the different levels of education, such as early childhood education, literacy classes (1st and 2nd year of primary school), and Youth and Adult Education (YAE).

Regarding salaries, as a financial counterpart, unlike the SI, which only has a training counterpart, the PRP offers different types of scholarships for each of the subjects and positions³: Below is the latest update.

The chart shows the important point of the PRP, which is the salary of all those involved through scholarships funded by CAPES, whether they are undergraduates, preceptor teachers, mentor teachers, or institutional coordinators (^{CAPES, 2018}). The financial incentive is essential to help undergraduates stay in the PRP and even in their respective courses, due to the fragile financial situation in much of the country (^{PORTELINHA; NEZ; BORDIGNON, 2020}).

PRP, SI, and BNC-Training: similarities and differences

The PRP was considered a successful proposal, as it had its first edition in 2018 (^{CAPES, 2018}) and was followed by the 2020 call for proposals (CAPES, 2020). This new version implements some specific changes, such as specific objectives for each stage, and deeply links the Program to the BNCC, a fact that generates some discomfort and sparks critical debate, as in the case of the movement to repeal the New High School. In higher education, resistance movements are aimed at aligning teacher training with the BNCC.

In this sense, we see the inclusion of the BNCC at the very beginning of the PRP's objectives, which is a significant difference from the previous notice, while the other objectives seem more coherent and promote a certain continuity with the objectives established in its predecessor. ^{Faria and Diniz-Pereira (2019)} state that this process can directly interfere with the autonomy of HEIs, as in many cases the BNCC is very different from the HEIs' conceptions of education.

Still regarding the PRP and its close relationship with the BNC-Training, which is based on the BNCC, a study by ^{Guedes (2019)} reveals that preliminary analyses of these new policies indicate their imposing nature, as no dialogues have been established with training institutions, teachers and basic education schools, nor with scientific educational entities. In this sense, the author reiterates that the legal documents - Resolution CNE/CP 2/2017 and CAPES Notice 6/2017 - show "the backward and centralizing nature" of the regulatory bodies that mask the absence of concrete actions by federal governance to ensure the material conditions necessary for teacher training, diverting society's attention from the contingency of public resources that should be allocated to public education (^{GUEDES, 2019}, p. 91).

The SI and the PRP are conceptually similar in terms of valuing teachers, linking theory and practice and reducing the distance between training institutions. The SI, by choosing the school as the locus for co-training, recognizing the schoolteacher as a producer of knowledge and strengthening relations in the collaborative research process, provides indications in this direction. The PRP, as a professional integration program that allows residents to stay in schools for 18 months, provides immersion in teaching work, values the experienced teacher, and promotes a dialogical relationship between the preceptor and the HEI's supervising teacher, elements that corroborate what we presented at the beginning of this debate.

The similarities between PRP and SI go further, sometimes complementing each other and, in some cases, it is possible for the workload allocated to PRP to be equivalent to the workload that SI provides (^{CAPES, 2018}), acting as a "substitute" for SI, provided that this substitution is provided for in the course's pedagogical project, both in terms of requirements and benefits.

Regarding the "hours dedicated to practice in the field school", the PRP and the SI are practically equivalent, but when it comes to the time spent, organization and systematization in the field school, there are some differences and peculiarities to be considered, including the concept of teaching practice proposed by the aforementioned document. Later in this text, we will present and discuss the peculiarities of each proposal regarding the conception, organization, structure, and operationalization of both the PRP and the SI.

From this perspective, we don't consider it fortuitous that this discussion is closely linked to the intense curricular reforms that try to project "what is" or "what should be" teacher training, such as the one that has taken place in Brazil in recent years (National Common Curricular Base, Pedagogical Residency Program, High School Reform, among others). There is a recurring attempt to determine a teacher identity project to be achieved (^{SANTOS, BORGES, LOPES, 2019}, p. 245).

We therefore understand the importance of researching the process of implementing the PRP as a proposal that starts from the HEIs towards basic education, because, despite establishing a partnership with the school, the HEIs still have a greater influence on teacher training (^{PORTELINHA, NEZ, BORDIGNON, 2020}).

In this context, the PRP is similar to the SI, especially when we look at the workload allocated to practice: as mentioned earlier, the PRP stipulates 414 hours, while the internship stipulates 400 hours. Another point in common is the period in which both are taken since they take place in the last two years of initial training.

However, the PRP is often seen as a "competitor" to SI, and becomes more attractive for various reasons, even with its differences and controversies (^{FARIAS; CAVALCANTE; GONÇALVES, 2020}). Therefore, the question here is whether the PRP can act in parallel with the SI without creating competition, but rather seeking to enhance the teaching profession, adding the values that educational policies attribute through legal documents, considering the high financial and structural investment made to implement the PRP.

It has become a consensus in the literature that the PRP seeks to involve undergraduates in their future workplace and, in addition, establish renewed links with schools and, therefore, value their participation in the training process (^{FARIA, DINIZ-PEREIRA, 2019}; ^{BENDRATH, REIS, 2021}; ^{TARDIN, ROMERO, 2022}). However, as highlighted by the roles assigned to PRP participants, this valuing of the school does not always occur in the planned way, because, as is evident, most of the responsibilities and control of the Program is restricted to the HEIs (^{PORTELINHA, NEZ, BORDIGNON, 2020}).

In this sense, it is understood that one area coordinator, one supervising professor and at least 24 residents become predominant when compared to the number of preceptor professors. Therefore, through the bias related to the HEI, decision-making can reallocate the needs of the school to an undervalued background. In addition to reducing the participation of school actors in the training process, it also fails to consider the reality of the school context, directly interfering with its functioning and the reality experienced in that context (^{VELOSO, PIVOVAR, 2021}).

This scenario goes against the proposal by ^{CAPES (2018)} to establish deep links and increase the importance of schools in the training of new teachers, since the hierarchical relationship analyzed by ^{Pimenta and Lima (2010)} is still in force, even if it is concealed by a new discourse.

We can then observe a process of regulation known as top and down that tends not to pay attention to important details of the reality of those "at the bottom of the food chain" leaving significant gaps during the development of the work and also in the training itself (^{TARDIF, 2014}).

This movement goes against what ^{Nóvoa (2022)} defends as necessary for quality initial training, demonstrating the need to establish a union between the "triangle" made up of schools, HEIs, and the community, in which everyone is equally responsible for the training process. This idea demonstrates how significant improvements in initial teacher training can be when the school participates in greater depth.

With this in mind, it is suggested that the preceptor be more involved in the dynamics proposed by the PRP, together with the school's pedagogical coordinators and principals, in order to contribute not only to the practical side of the classroom, but also to the documents that are part of the teachers' routine work in schools, since these are often not dealt with during initial training. In this way, during initial training, future teachers have more elements to build on as teachers.

Despite the divergences mentioned above, while it has similarities with the SI, the PRP seeks to induce the reformulation of the SI, establishing new quality standards (^{FARIAS, CAVALCANTE, GONÇALVES, 2020}), this statement is explicit in Objective II found in the CAPES Notice (2018, p.1) "II. Induce the reformulation of the supervised internship in undergraduate courses, based on the experience of the pedagogical residency".

In this sense, the PRP is established in the same period as the SI, with financial incentives and greater attention from legislation, a scenario that may seem like a completely unbalanced competition between the SI and the PRP.

Therefore, in its second notice, the idea is exposed that the PRP has taken over the function and workload of the SI, leaving it only for those undergraduates who cannot or have not been approved by the Program's selection process. This selectivity can promote inequality in training opportunities and, consequently, an imbalance in the quality of training courses (^{VELOSO, PIVOVAR, 2021}).

In addition, the PRP can become exclusionary, since only some undergraduate students who receive a scholarship can enjoy the benefits of the Program, leaving a large part of the other undergraduates destined to fulfill the SI workload (^{GIMENES, 2018}). In this sense, the following point emerges: should the PRP be expanded, or should the conditions of the SI be improved in favor of quality initial training and so that everyone has access to the same chances?

Considering that the general objective of the PRP and teacher training programs is to train qualified teachers, the democratization and expansion of the supply of places needs to be reviewed. The PRP points to indications of a possible replacement for the SI in overcoming obstacles that are still challenges for the SI. However, the course and change in the status of the SI in recent years and their formative perspective within teacher training courses guarantees access to field schools for all future teachers, without distinction. The PRP, on the other hand, restricts access to a small proportion of undergraduates.

From this perspective, investments in initial and continuing training could consider the conditions in which SI has taken place. These conditions include the material reality of basic education schools, the precariousness of teachers' work, and the lack of investment in human resources in schools. As a result, the replacement of the SI by the PRP is being debated.

^{Veloso and Pivovar (2021)} present and discuss that PRP Notice 06/2018 aims to: "induce the reformulation of the supervised internship in undergraduate courses, based on the experience of the PRP" (^{CAPES, 2018}). It can be inferred that this goal of the PRP is based on a diagnosis of dissatisfaction with the SI and that the PRP, along the lines of the recent curricular reforms, would solve a complex and historically inherited problem, which has dragged on through the SI proposals; in other words, the HEIs that commit to recognizing the PRP as a solution for fulfilling the SI as "it should be" will be able to participate in the Call, decreeing the "death of the curricular internship" (^{VELOSO, PIVOVAR, 2021}, p. 189).

The authors also emphasize that the state assumes a position of neglecting and ignoring the problems that make up the trajectory of the SI in teacher training, in an anti-democratic stance perpetuated by the induction and insertion programs, since they mistakenly compete with the SI, which are provided as part of the compulsory curriculum for teacher training, considered a legal requirement for obtaining a teaching license.

As shown by ^{Faria and Diniz-Pereira (2019)}, the PRP is based on MR but was implemented in the final years of initial training and not in the initial years of the profession. ^{Huberman (2006)} argues that beginning teachers are those who find themselves in the first 5 years after the end of their initial training, trying to establish themselves in the job market, however, it is a period of significant difficulty and lack of guidance, when many teachers give up on their career.

More recently, ^{Nóvoa (2019)} promotes the concept of the in-between period, in which teachers are at the end of their training and the beginning of their profession. However, in this same work, the author states that this period is being forgotten and neglected by educational policies and the scientific field, leaving teachers at the start of their careers exposed to challenges without guidance on how to overcome them.

MRs are seen as a kind of post-graduate or specialization course, while residency is undertaken when the doctor can work but wants to go deeper into a specialty (^{CARVALHO FILHO et al., 2022}). The PRP can achieve more positive results if it is established in teacher training in the same way as the MR is established in medical training, guiding and collaborating positively in the construction and development of professional knowledge and a teaching career.

The SI would be responsible for initial training, being one of the main moments of insertion of the undergraduate in the school, becoming inclusive and accessible to all undergraduates, being a privileged locus for training (^{SOUZA NETO; CYRINO; BORGES, 2019}). With this proposal, both could be established at different times, fulfilling complementary functions, thus avoiding unfair and fruitless competition.

This is complemented by training policies that invest in initial training in an equitable and democratic way, and that consider the monitoring and permanence of beginning teachers by proposing the PRP along the lines of the MR. This proposal could generate greater attractiveness in teaching careers, professional integration and prevent early career abandonment.

In partnership, universities, HEIs, schools, and Education Departments have the possibility of raising the quality of initial training, with an eye on SI, implementing policies for integration and retention through the professional development of teachers at the start of their careers, with incentives for continuing training for experienced teachers.