Teaching Profession Movement (PD): Conceptions about Initial Teacher Training

3.1 The teacher we want?

The first document analyzed is entitled The teacher we want: quality factors in initial teacher training. We will use the acronym PDa when referring to it to make it easier to identify this document. This report, which totals 35 pages, results from discussions and studies carried out by the Working Group (WG) on “Quality in initial teacher training.”

Based on the information in the PDa report, we identified the institutions that took part in this WG: a) the Península Institute, a social organization founded by the Abílio Diniz family in 2010, which currently focuses on teacher training; b) the Brazilian Association of Higher Education Maintainers (Abmes), founded in August 1982, which represents private higher education providers throughout the country; c) the National Association of Catholic Education of Brazil (Anec), which is present in all the states of the federation, demonstrating its massive presence in the Brazilian educational scenario; d) the National Council of Secretaries of Education (Consed), which is a private, non-profit association that brings together the education secretariats of the states and the Federal District; e) the National Union of Municipal Education Leaders (Undime), about which the report provides no information, but according to its official website, it is a non-profit civil association whose mission is to articulate, mobilize and integrate municipal education leaders to build and defend public education with social quality; and finally, f) the PD, which in the PDa report claims not to receive public money and to be supra-partisan. In addition, the report mentions that to transform policies on teacher attractiveness, training, and careers; the Movement works on the production and dissemination of knowledge, proposals for advances in teaching policies, articulation of policies and programs, and technical support for implementing proposals.

Based on the actors and organic intellectuals who were part of this WG, we can say that they represent the private hegemonic apparatuses of the Brazilian bourgeoisie, which gather around Todos pela Educação and defend a privatization and economistic education. ^{Martini (2021}, p. 83) points out that:

The term Private Apparatuses of Hegemony (APH) has its origins in Antonio Gramsci’s writings. Researchers commonly use it today to designate business institutions financed by private individuals who own capital, act in networks, and use these institutions to interfere in economic, educational, and social policies to guarantee their interests and propagate neoliberal ideology. Examples of APHs active in Brazil are the ‘Todos pela Educação’ group and the ‘Lemann Foundation.’

The meetings of this WG took place in the second half of 2021, according to the PDa report (2021, p. 11-12):

The discussions started with a broad reflection on the impact of the quality of the teacher’s practice on the student’s school life and on the recognition of the relevance that this professional has for improving the learning of the new generation. With the planning of five general meetings and six meetings in small groups throughout the second half of 2021, the WG had the opportunity to identify and discuss the critical quality factors in initial teacher training courses. It also held in-depth discussions on CNE/CP Resolution 2/2019, which deals with the National Curriculum Guidelines (DCN) for the Initial Teacher Training, based on a debate with the National Council of Education (CNE) president, Maria Helena Guimarães de Castro.

The PDa report emphasizes that two successful experiences in initial teacher training inspired the WG’s discussions: The first, Innova Schools in Lima, Peru, and the second, Faculdade Wlademir dos Santos in Sorocaba, São Paulo. “Both reinforced that the essence of curriculum development must be centered on practice and reflection on practice, based on the experience of real situations in primary education schools” (PDa, 2021, p. 12). The brief description of the successful experiences allows us to identify the training proposal defended by the document. It is linked to the pedagogy of skills and competencies, an ideology that aims to “[...] hide the antagonistic division of classes, distinguishing competent and incompetent through meritocracy” (^{Spricigo; Martins Filho, 2023}, p. 17).

The pedagogy of skills and competencies understands human formation as coming from the individual’s contact with the environment. It explains human development through biological and socio-interactionist aspects, so it is “[...] a conception of environmentalist development of adaptation to the stimuli offered by external reality” (^{Spricigo; Martins Filho, 2023}, p. 9), but which disregards cultural and historical issues and the power relations that mediate society.

^{Martini (2021}) points out that training concepts based on developing skills and competencies lead to mechanical, instrumental training that disregards historical aspects and is not committed to human emancipation or overcoming educational and social inequalities. A concept also discussed by ^{Hobold (2023}, p. 54), when he states that:

Among the indicators that constitute knowledge, skill, and attitude (CHA), the latter, which refers to the personal actions of the student and/or worker, has permeated educational conception since the 1990s, mainly in the training spaces of Professional Education (technical, technological courses, etc.). It can be inferred that, more recently, the meaning of ‘personal attitudes’ has been given the guise of ‘socio-emotional competencies,’ with ideas of resilience, balance, partnership, self-care, etc. In this way, it is considered that the concepts of CHA have ‘guided’ the conception of training and work since that decade, given that companies’ career and salary advancement programs have aligned themselves with the capitalist ideological bias and transposed this conception, firstly, to vocational education schools and, in this century, to education in general.

Thus, it is worth mentioning the approval of the National Curriculum Guidelines (DCN) for Initial Teacher Training and the institution of the BNC for the Initial Training of Basic Education Teachers (BNC - Training), aligned with the BNCC, materialized by CNE/CP Opinion No. 22/2019 and CNE/CP Resolution No. 2/2019, which, for ^{Simionato and Hobold (2021}, p. 74), are:

[...] result of the emergency attributed to the definition of the role of the teacher according to the model demanded by the market in sustaining a knowledge society in the logic of capital. [...] From this perspective, the teacher’s subjectivity is excluded from the training process since it involves the fabrication of teaching identities subsidized by a discursive, performative hegemony that replaces the teacher’s cultural enrichment. The construction of this profile is supported by the prescriptive alignment of teacher training with the BNCC, based on the definition of general teaching competencies, specific competencies, and skills [...], which lead to a standardization of initial training in which subjectivity and the teaching subject are gradually undermined by an ideological redirection that undermines the epistemological issues that underlie the condition of the teacher as a worker in a capitalist society.

It is essential to say that these decisions revoked CNE/CP Resolution 2/2015, “[...] the fruit of achievements and struggles by national organizations representing educators and researchers in education” (^{Simionato; Hobold, 2021}, p. 77), a legal norm that was never implemented and evaluated. Since the BNCC, standardization, and curricular prescriptions have been imposed not only on primary education students but also on teacher training. Together with large-scale tests, this contributes to the de-intellectualization, de-politicization, and de-professionalization of teachers.

The PDa report points out that, after the discussions deepened, arose the “[...] need to agree on an understanding of the ‘teacher we want’ and, based on this consensus, to broaden the understanding of the curriculum needed to train this teacher” (PDa, 2021, p. 12, our emphasis), a statement that demonstrates the intention to influence and keep initial teacher training under control, to mold it according to capitalist-corporate dictates. However, the PDa report (2021, p. 14) goes beyond initial training, pointing out that:

[...] some countries, such as Australia, Chile, and Singapore, have focused their education policy efforts on strengthening teaching. To this end, among other actions, they have developed teaching performance benchmarks that have enabled a common understanding of what teachers need to know and be able to do, thereby establishing an important foundation to guide initial training, continuing training, and teaching careers as a whole. In addition, these countries have consolidated a style of teacher training that is increasingly guided by practice, reflection on practice, and the teacher’s concrete experience in the school, which is the professional’s field of activity.

In a one-sided defense of the need for teacher training courses to be permeated by practice, the PDa report cites a survey by the Canoa Institute and the PD based on the guidelines for initial teacher training in ten countries. According to the PDa report, these countries establish a minimum number of hours of practical experience, offer guidelines for the structure of the degree curriculum, and determine minimum competencies for graduates.

^{Brandt and Hobold (2019}) analyze that, for a teacher training course to achieve its objectives of bringing the experience closer to the social context of education, it is necessary to have training processes that include practices as curricular components, as well as teaching and learning actions that foster the transformation of school reality and bring the training institution closer to the universe of primary education. This certainly does not imply separating theory from practice, much less focusing only on teaching practices or disregarding historical-sociocultural issues.

The report also states that “Brazil [...] still has a long way to go” because “[...] it is not enough to serve more children and young people, it is necessary to guarantee excellence in learning results [because] compared to the other 70 countries evaluated by [...] PISA, the country ranks among the bottom” (PDa, 2021, p. 15). However, there is no mention of the educational duality and inequality (^{Araújo, 2019}) that have historically permeated Brazilian education, nor is anything stated about the educational policies linked to the productive needs of each historical period and the guidelines of multilateral organizations and private apparatuses of bourgeois hegemony. Therefore, the authors of this report do not understand that the capitalist system produces problems in Brazilian education and society.

On the other hand, the vocabulary of the teachers’ struggles, the need to guarantee adequate working conditions, opportunities for professional development, and a training process that combines theory and practice can still be seen. However, the valorization proposed by the private apparatuses of bourgeois hegemony leads to accountability and meritocratic competition, implying the imposition of large-scale tests, targets to be met, and bonus programs based on results. Thus, the report states that:

To move forward in this scenario [...], it will be necessary to invest in the professionalization and valorization of teachers. Only objective measures, coordinated and guided by a training concept that expresses the competencies to be developed by teachers, can strengthen teaching careers. It is necessary to guarantee, among other measures, regime and adequate working conditions, and opportunities for professional development to improve teachers’ practice and permanence in the classroom/learning environment (PDa, 2021, p. 15, emphasis added).

The PDa report provides information that the CNE approved 2019 Resolution CNE/CP No. 2/2019, which defined the DCN for the Initial Teacher Training for primary education and established the BNC - Training. The report also highlights that the DCN for the Initial Training established:

Definition of competencies in the profile expected of the graduate; greater centrality in practice, contemplating 800 hours, distributed in: Four hundred hours for compulsory supervised internships and 400 hours distributed over the curriculum based on school reality; alignment with the National Common Curriculum Base - BNCC; strengthening of pedagogical knowledge of the content (specific didactics according to the curriculum component and teaching stage); supervised internships with mentoring at the school and guidance at the Higher Education Institution (HEI); strengthening of partnerships between training institutions, education networks and schools; three observable dimensions that make up professional teaching competence: professional knowledge, professional practice and professional engagement (PDa, 2021, p. 16).

We realize that the PDa report is nothing more than a reiteration of the BNC - Training, which, according to ^{Simionato and Hobold (2021}, p. 80):

[...] aligns itself with the BNCC’s concept of competencies and skills, constructed in discursive hegemony, within the ongoing project of dismantling for the last few decades. In other words, ten general teaching competencies are proposed, broken down into specific competencies, and linked to three fundamental dimensions: professional knowledge, practice, and engagement. It is no coincidence that the three dimensions end with the word professional, which means where do we perceive the training in this proposal?

When revisiting aspects of the BNCC, it states that, since it was drawn up, “[...] Brazil has achieved a national consensus on essential learning” (PDa, 2021, p. 16, emphasis added), an argument frequently used by the APHs, which also appears in the BNC - Training. Thus, it is worth remembering that, at the time, “[...] entities representing teachers were left out of the decisions, while foundations, organizations, and the private sector advanced in the determinations” (^{Simionato; Hobold, 2021}, p. 79), completely disregarding all the criticism from researchers in the progressive field of education and primary education teachers themselves about the undemocratic way in which it was drawn up and about its character of prescription and control of the training of teachers and students.

^{Spricigo and Martins Filho (2023}, p. 17) criticize the perspective of the development of skills and competencies on which both the BNCC and the BNC - Training are based, which, for its enthusiasts, “[...] would portray an assertive transformation in the students’ educational path, as it would provide them with the theoretical-practical framework demanded by 21st-century society.” In a move contrary to the criticism, the section “The teacher we want” describes the teacher we want in the 21st century, reinforcing that the DCN/2019 for the initial teacher training is in line with the proposals of the WG that originated the report, in which every teacher must:

[...] be committed to everyone’s learning: themselves, their students, their peers, and the school community; know how to relate and have socio-emotional skills developed to be able to develop them in students; know what and how to teach and also how students learn [... ]; develop an ethical, cultural and social sense in themselves and their students; understand and manage learning environments [...]; guarantee the essential learning expressed in the BNCC; have a research attitude [...]; know how to read and interpret data and make pedagogical choices [...]; plan and execute learning situations in different contexts: face-to-face, remote and hybrid; promote collaborative learning spaces inside and outside school; know and respect the plural contexts of children and young people; evaluate learning and teaching, aiming for more effective forms of cognitive, social and emotional development; constantly seek professional development (PDa, 2021, pp. 17-18).

In the chapter “Quality factors in initial teacher training,” the PDa report indicates that the WG sought to understand what a curriculum capable of providing adequate experiences for undergraduates would be to make them “the teachers we want.” In this way, they listed the quality factors considered essential and non-negotiable for quality initial training. They pointed to three factors: an innovative curriculum, a practical supervised internship in primary education networks, and the use of Digital Information and Communication Technologies (DICTs) in the service of learning.

s Drawing on authors such as ^{Gatti (2010}, 2013, 2015), Gatti and Nunes (2009), and ^{Shulman (1987}), the PDa report ratifies the criticism that the “teacher training curriculum is extremely theoretical” and again advocates “a practice-oriented education.” To do this, it takes the Singaporean curriculum as an example, which, according to the report, is among the best in the world in learning in the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) to compare it to the initial teacher training curriculum in Brazil. According to the report, Brazil has one of the worst results and an excessive theoretical base.

According to the PDa report, the WG put forward recommendations for achieving innovation and making progress in the construction of the undergraduate curriculum: a) updating the curricula in light of the BNCC and BNC - Initial Training; b) strengthening and mastering the skills and competencies established in the BNCC; c) developing pedagogical knowledge of the content; d) ensuring knowledge of the local curriculum and local and national education policies; e) curriculum development focused on collaborative work and the use of active methodologies; f) use of primary education data to monitor and to know how to make qualified pedagogical interventions during the training process; g) use of real school problem situations to thematize practice and discuss theoretical references that have successful experiences; h) guarantee of qualified spaces for reflection on practice; i) implementation of learning assessments focused on the development of competencies and skills related to knowledge, practices and professional engagement. Thus, based on the ontological and epistemological support that underpins Resolution 2/2019 and the PDa report:

[...] the teacher is not an intellectual producer of knowledge, so they become an instrument for applying knowledge, with the aggravating factor of theoretical impoverishment and centrality on a conception of pedagogical practice oriented towards results, similar to an ‘audit’ verifying the competences developed by the teacher in their initial training. Training that instills the notion of the teacher-leader, who organizes and manages the classroom in this format (^{Simionato; Hobold, 2021}, p. 80).

As for the internship, the PDa report (2021, p. 23) states that:

From the first discussions, the WG recognized that there is no initial teacher training without articulation with the school and, therefore, the compulsory curricular supervised internship in a school environment is essential. Therefore, the internship needs to include activities that are aligned with developing the competencies and skills that make up our desired teacher profile.

The report also states that after essential achievements, such as “[...] universal access to school, curricular guidelines based on the BNCC, transport, and school meals [...] to guarantee excellent education, it will be necessary [...] to prioritize investments in better teaching policies” (PDa, 2021, p. 31, emphasis added). It is worth questioning what prioritizing investments means for the bourgeois APHs, who, in addition to influencing educational policies, are also responsible for “[...] the appropriation of public funds by capital” (^{Ribeiro; Salvador, 2018}, p. 77) and for propagating the argument that “[...] the resources allocated to education in Brazil are sufficient and that the country’s educational problems are related to the management of schools and educational systems” (^{Pinto, 2021}, p. 689).

This document emphasizes the need to rethink undergraduate course curricula to adapt them to CNE/CP Resolution 2/2019, which shows the PD’s conception of curricular prioritization imposed by the BNCC and the BNC - Training.

What stands out as new is the defense of a misleading discourse, which points to the need to “restructure the teaching career” and “improve teachers’ working conditions.” However, a detailed examination of this bourgeois movement’s documents and actions is essential to understanding the true intention behind its recent softening of discourse. On the other hand, its approaches strengthen the narrative that “nobody wants to be a teacher,” that “there is a teacher blackout,” and that “the young people with the worst performance in basic education return to the classroom as teachers,” statements that, without in-depth analysis, reinforce the social devaluation of teaching.

It seems that the PD is trying to get closer to the agendas historically defended by teachers as a strategy to gain support and influence in order to achieve “practice-oriented education” without facing subversion by teachers while promoting policies that emphasize results, meritocracy and teacher accountability, which leads us to conclude that the national bourgeoisie has already recognized that Brazilian teachers are both obstacles and instruments for achieving an economic education that can shape minds according to neoliberal principles. Therefore, it is directing considerable efforts towards controlling the initial and continuing training of these professionals, with the aim of reaching millions of Brazilian students and guaranteeing its own interests.