SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.44 número3Autonomia e Políticaspráticas de Currículos: uma equação entre raízes e opçõesExistir é Ordinário: mapas de resistências nos currículos e na docência índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados




Links relacionados


Educação & Realidade

versão impressa ISSN 0100-3143versão On-line ISSN 2175-6236

Educ. Real. vol.44 no.3 Porto Alegre  2019  Epub 12-Set-2019 


Teachers and Their Education at a Time of School Metamorphosis

IUniversidade de Lisboa (ULisboa), Lisboa – Portugal


The First Tempo of the text is dedicated to an analysis centred on the educational policies and the organization of school, attempting to identify the process of metamorphosis of school that is currently underway. Then, after a Bridge, the Second Tempo is dedicated to teacher education, insisting on the need for a new type of institutionality, triangulating universities, the teaching profession, and schools. The text closes with a brief Epilogue about an exceptional initiative hosted by the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), the creation of a Teacher Education Complex.

Keywords: School Metamorphosis; School Model; Teacher Education; Teacher Education Complex; Teaching Profession


O primeiro andamento do texto é dedicado a uma análise centrada nas políticas educativas e na organização da escola, procurando identificar o processo de metamorfose da escola que está a ocorrer nos dias de hoje. Em seguida, depois de uma ponte, o segundo andamento é dedicado à formação de professores, insistindo-se na necessidade de uma nova institucionalidade, juntando em triângulo as universidades, a profissão docente e as escolas da rede. O texto fecha com um breve epílogo sobre uma iniciativa excecional que acontece na Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, a criação de um Complexo de Formação de Professores.

Palavras-chave: Complexo de Formação de Professores; Formação de Professores; Metamorfose da Escola; Modelo Escolar; Profissão Docente


I write this text during a time of profound transitions in the area of ​​education. In the mid-nineteenth century, some 150 years ago, a school model was consolidated and spread around the world, which, despite much criticism, has endured to this day.

Everyone knows the characteristics of this school model. Its strength is such that we can no longer even imagine other ways of educating. School has replaced work, the street, and even home as a place of socialization and development. The triumph of school is total, at least in the face of its main enemy, child labour, inside and outside families (Viñao Frago, 2004).

But just as it celebrates victory, school reveals itself unable to respond to the challenges of contemporary times. The school model is in disintegration. This is not a crisis, like many that have occurred in recent decades. This is the end of school as we know it, and the beginning of a new institution, which will surely have the same name but will be very different.

Within a generation’s timespan, in the next 20 or 30 years, we will see an intricate metamorphosis of school, that is, a transformation of its shape. This is a change of the form of school, a new origin (Morin, 2011).

This text is not intended to analyse this process, but merely to note its consequences for teachers and their education. After this Opening, the First Tempo is devoted to an analysis centred on educational policies and school organization, seeking to identify the school metamorphosis process that is taking place today. Then, after a Bridge, the Second Tempo is dedicated to teacher education, emphasizing the need for a new type of institutionality, bringing together universities, the teaching profession, and schools. The text concludes with a brief Epilogue about an exceptional initiative hosted by the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, the development of a Teacher Education Complex.

First Tempo

Educational policies and school organization

The current school model became consolidated around the world in the mid-nineteenth century. To understand its historical formation, we need to resort to a double analysis, both political and organizational.

Politically, States assume responsibility for education and impose compulsory schooling in order to construct civic and national identity. The public school - secular, free, compulsory and unique - is a central element in the process of nation-state building (Bourdieu, 1993; Hutmacher, 1981).

Nothing could have been accomplished without teachers. To fulfil their mission, States constitute a professional teaching body that is recruited, trained, compensated, and controlled by the public authorities. The professionalization of teachers is a decisive factor in the production of the school model.

Organizationally, the same school configuration essentially remains today: i) an own building, with the classroom as its structuring core; ii) an organic arrangement of space, with students sitting in rows facing a central point, symbolically occupied by the blackboard; (iii) a relatively homogeneous class of pupils, arranged by age and level established through regular assessments; iv) an organization of studies based on curriculum and teaching programs that are taught regularly in one-hour lessons.

In the centre of the scene are the teachers. They are responsible for the school discipline, in the double sense of the term: they teach the subjects, the “disciplines” of the program, in classes given simultaneously to all students; and they ensure student discipline, rules of behaviour, and conduct.

The establishment of normal schools in the mid-nineteenth century clearly reveals the role teachers play in producing the school model. It is in these specialized teacher training institutions that a professional teaching body is born and strengthened, playing an important role in promoting mass schooling. But it is also in these institutions that the school model is normalized: over a short historical period, we moved from a relative disorder in educational spaces and processes to a structured and standardized school model.

The school model is based on a social and political contract that endows it with the responsibility for the integral education of children, inside a well-established organizational standard. By the beginning of the twenty-first century it has become clear that this contract and this model need to be deeply rethought. Improvements or enhancements or even innovations are no longer required, but rather a true metamorphosis of school. To make this statement is also to acknowledge the changes that inevitably affect teachers and their education.

And now?

This school seems lost, unfit for present circumstances, as if it had not yet entered the twenty-first century. Admittedly, there are many promises from the past yet to be fulfilled, starting with the commitment to a quality public school for all. But this model reveals, above all, a great inability to think about the future, a future that is already part of our children’s lives. Without giving in to excessive oversimplification, we want to present two very distinct tendencies to help us think about the current school crisis and its present future.

The first tendency calls into question the social contract of education based on privatization and seeks to overcome the difficulties of the school model founded on individualization processes and a consumerist approach.

Privatization has a double meaning, both social and economic. From a social point of view, it signifies a more noticeable withdrawal of children within their communities of origin, their cultural or family spaces (the expansion of home-schooling practices, a kind of return to a time before the school model, is a good example of these trends). From an economic point of view, it carries a critique of the State’s inability and weakness, in order to open the educational field to the operation of economic groups, either directly or through civil society organizations (the so-called “school choice policies”, namely the famous school vouchers, illustrate the ideology that seeks to redefine, and diminish, the role of the State in education).

Individualization manifests itself in discourses that value education more as a private than a public good, as well as in criticism of the “single school” ethos, with the consequent expansion of distinct teaching paths (professional and academic). References to learning are ubiquitous, a kind of learn-exorbitance, an excessive, exaggerated discourse focused on learning that relegates the other dimensions of education to the background. There is a devaluation of the collective meaning of school, while stressing the importance of putting new technologies at the service of individualizing learning.

The second tendency refers to the need to rethink the social contract and the school model, but without undermining the public dimension of education and the importance of school in building a common life.

One of the best news today is the emergence of movements around the world seeking to reshape the school model without compromising public commitment to education. The change is made from a cultural and scientific perspective, reaffirming the importance of knowledge, without giving up either to the ideology of back to basics (the old school of the three Rs), or to a kind of “folk school” distracted by a multitude of projects that often only reveal the difficulty of renewing pedagogical practices. It is not worth sustaining illusions, bringing everything into school, an overflowing, aimless, and meaningless school. But working for the construction of a public space for education, the educating city, in which school articulates with other institutions, groups, and associations, is a worthy undertaking.

Organizationally, it is interesting to follow innovation processes that are happening in many places, opening the school model to new forms of work and pedagogy. It is impossible to ignore the impact of the digital revolution, as well as the need to differentiate students’ pathways, but this does not imply that school should abdicate from being a common good. Today, the fragmentation we are witnessing in cyberspace, and in societies, challenges school with the urgent need to value our belonging to the same humanity and the same planet. This commonality comes not from a community of identity, of identical people, but from a community of work, that is, what we do in common with each other regardless of our backgrounds, beliefs, or ideas.

And now? The two tendencies presented above are clear. Personally, I frame my thinking and action within this second tendency: the renewal of school in the context of a public space for education; and the effort to rebuild the common, while valuing diversity. It is in this sense that I am interested in reflecting on the metamorphosis of school, a historical process that obviously causes profound changes in the teaching profession and teacher education.

Bridge between Tempos

The changes enunciated in the First Tempo have profound consequences in the way we think about the teaching profession, its function, its status, and its work.

Movements that fit the first tendency (privatization and individualization), while recognizing the importance of teachers, tend to blur professional boundaries and even collective references. They often make use of the vague concept of “educators”, bringing together teachers, managers, tutors, sometimes psychologists, and even parents and others who play an educational role. In this way, they dilute the principle of teaching as a profession, leading to policies that devalue teacher education and legitimize themselves through pragmatic discourse: if we choose people with good knowledge of a given subject, we can easily prepare them to be teachers; and if we give extra compensation to teachers whose students are successful, teaching will improve; and if we have good materials (books, programs, etc.) and good technologies, we will be able to address the shortcomings of teachers and their training; and so on.

Symbolically, one of the most striking initiatives is Teach for America, which began to gain prominence in the early twenty-first century. Through a subtle blend of conservative values ​​and references to talent and entrepreneurship, this initiative aims to call and train new people to teach. In spite of assuming teaching functions, in the documents of this initiative the word teachers is avoided, because of its professional sense, favouring expressions such as staff members, leaders, or educators. Once recruited, they follow a brief training period (about 3 to 5 weeks) and are placed as teachers in schools.

Movements such as this have as their starting point a very critical diagnosis of the difficulties of schools and the weaknesses of teacher education institutions. Very popular in the world today, they are in a process of international expansion, leading to policies of deprofessionalization and depreciation of the teaching profession. Obviously, they always express great distrust of public schools and the desire to establish new forms of private regulation of education.

On the contrary, those who, like me, believe in the public commitment to education and the metamorphosis of school, also start from a critical diagnosis, but use it to reinforce and value the professional dimensions, whether in initial and continuing education, or in a practice of teaching which is only completed through collective work with other teachers. It is on these bases that my proposal for renewing the field of teacher education is founded.

Second Tempo

Teachers and their Education

Several twentieth-century thinkers argued that universities should be divided into two major types. On one hand, liberal education universities, offering a generalist, humanistic, and scientific education based on the cultivation of otium (otiosity in a philosophical sense). On the other hand, the universities of the professions, undisputedly as important as the former, but devoted to the education of professionals (medicine, engineering, law, teaching, etc.), and intended to prepare for negotium (nec-otium, non-otiosity).

This division is totally inadequate in that professions have a strong knowledge component, which is also academic, and nowadays all inventions and technologies have a scientific basis. But it helps to declare the professional character of teacher education.

The statement seems simple. And yet, this is the novelty we want to propose with this text, because it gives rise to a new way of thinking about teacher education. Instead of endless lists of aptitudes or skills to be acquired by teachers, attention is focused on how we build a professional identity, on how each person builds their path within the teaching profession.

Becoming a teacher - to use Carl Rogers’ celebrated title On becoming a person - requires thinking about personal dimensions, but also about the collective aspects of teaching. It is not possible to learn the teaching profession without the presence, support, and collaboration of other teachers.

It is not just a matter of calling up practical questions or professional preparation in the technical or applied sense, but rather understanding the complexity of the profession in all its dimensions (theoretical, empirical, cultural, political, ideological, symbolic, etc.). In this sense, the most appropriate comparison for teacher education is with the education of doctors or engineers. But to say this, which seems simple, is to question much of what is done nowadays in the field of teacher education.

Just as the metamorphosis of school implies the creation of a new educational environment (a diversity of spaces, cooperation, and working practices, close relationships between study, research, and knowledge), so does the change in the education of teachers imply the creation of a new environment for teacher education.

To make this statement is to immediately recognize that the environments that exist in universities (in the case of undergraduate degrees) or in schools (in the case of continuing education) are not conducive to teacher education in the twenty-first century. We need to rebuild these environments, always with the guideline that the crucial place for teacher education is the profession.

It is evident that all professions have a conservative and routine facet, which prevents them from building training policies that lead to the renewal of work practices and processes. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the importance of the interaction between these three spaces - professionals, universities, and schools - because it is in the exchange between three vertices, in this triangle, that we find the transformative potentialities of teacher education (Figure 1).

Source: Developed by the author.

Figure 1 Teacher education triangle 

In many discourses on teacher education we find an opposition between universities and schools. Universities are given a capacity for cultural and scientific knowledge, intellectual proximity to research and critical thinking. But we forget that sometimes this is just empty knowledge, without curiosity and creativity. Schools are associated with practice, with the concrete things of the profession, with all that would truly make us teachers. But we forget that this practice is often routine, mediocre, lacking in innovation, and useless for the education of new professionals.

To escape this unproductive opposition, we need to find a third term, the profession, and realize its potential, as long as there is a fruitful relationship between the three vertices of the triangle. It is through this mesh that professional education can be developed.

The link between training and profession is central to building coherent profession education programs, but it is also essential to the prestige and renewal of the teaching profession. Historically, this connection has been decisive for professional areas such as medicine or engineering. Unfortunately, with the exception of normal schools, which have been very important in the past but are no longer useful, in the case of teachers, teacher education institutions have not been able to commit to the profession, and vice versa.

Using this idea as a central argument, I will develop the analysis into the three moments which organize the teachers’ professional development: initial teacher education, professional induction, and continuing education. For each of them, I will try to explain the education-profession connection, always taking into account the need to rethink the teaching profession in light of current challenges, given the end of the school model (the metamorphosis of school) and the beginning of a new time for teaching and learning.

Initial teacher education

Throughout history, universities have shown a great indifference to teacher education. Unlike other professions (theology, law, medicine) which are at the origin of universities, teacher education has always been an absent or secondary concern.

Regarding the education of early childhood and elementary school teachers, the indifference was almost complete until recently, leaving this task in the hands of normal schools. With regard to the education of high school teachers, the interest of universities, mainly in Arts and Sciences, has often been merely opportunistic in order to secure posts and funding for the disciplinary areas that truly interested them. Also, many scholars in the field of education have relegated teacher training to the background, motivated by their legitimate scientific interests, but patronisingly taking advantage of teachers to justify their power in postgraduate studies and research.

The diagnosis might seem too harsh and even unfair, but we cannot mince words at a time when much of the future of teachers and schools is being defined. It is necessary to recognize the responsibility and commitment of many scholars, from different areas of knowledge, who have dedicated themselves to teacher education. It is in them, in their work, in their initiatives, in the networks they have been building, that the answer to our problems lies. We need to bring them together in the same institutional space, a common home for teacher education within universities, but always with an organic connection to teachers and schools.

It is in this common home where we can define a stimulating field that escapes the current fragmentation of initial teacher education and mobilizes the pertinent knowledge to educate the teachers of the future. We need, in this common home, knowledge of the scientific contents of taught subjects (mathematics, biology, history, etc.), because devaluing ​​them is a fatal mistake. If we do not master these contents, the most sophisticated teaching techniques will do us little good. We also need scientific knowledge in education, the foundations for didactics, psychology, and curriculum, and so many other subjects. But these two types of knowledge are insufficient to educate a teacher if they do not build a relationship with the teaching professional knowledge, the knowledge and the professional culture of teachers.

This is why it is so important for universities to have a common home, that is, a meeting place between university professors engaged in teacher education, teachers, and representatives of schools. This common home lies within university, but has a connection to the profession, giving it peculiar characteristics and playing a role as a “third place”, one of articulation between university and society, in this case, between university, schools, and teachers. In this common home, teachers are educated at the same time as the teaching profession is both produced and valued.

Professional induction of teachers

The relationship that is established, in initial education, between undergraduate students and teachers is very important to design policies of professional induction, that is, the inclusion of young teachers in the profession and in schools. Professional development is never complete and finished, but rather a lifelong process.

Let me leave a tribute to one of the most remarkable educators of the twentieth century, Michael Huberman. Since the publication of his work on the lives of teachers (Huberman, 1989), we learned that the early years are decisive in shaping and defining our relationship with the profession. It is in the transition from university to school, and in the way that the most experienced teachers welcome the younger ones, that much of our professional future is played out.

What have we done with the knowledge produced by Michael Huberman and so many other authors? Nothing, or almost nothing. Unlike doctors, and other professionals, novice teachers are left to their own luck in schools, with little or no support, fighting alone for survival. It is necessary to change this state of affairs and to build public policies for professional induction.

Teaching residency programs, based on comparable medical residencies, are of the utmost importance, as they are conceived as a transitional space between training and profession. They should not serve to diminish initial education, and certainly not to rationalize management policies that accentuate precariousness and weaker working relationships. Since it is a matter of taking care of entry into the profession, these programs should underline all professional aspects of teaching, in all their plurality, and not just the pedagogical framework.

The key is the possibility to define, in schools, rules of co-responsibility for the integration of new teachers. This is considered a noble mission by most professions, because it is important for the future of young professionals, but also for the future and renewal of the teaching profession. And yet we have done little in teacher education, both in universities, in public policies, and in schools.

This ability to receive and accompany novice teachers implies deeper changes than might be apparent at first sight in the organization of schools and the teaching profession. It implies that we are able to value the best teachers and give them this mission, which is the most prestigious they can perform. It implies abandoning an individualistic view of the profession and being able to institute collective work processes.

This possibility is even more urgent today than in the past. No one is alone in a profession. No one builds new pedagogical practices without relying on reflection with colleagues. No one by themselves completely dominates the profession, as so often Sérgio Niza (2012) warned us. We need others to become teachers.

Continuing education

The cycle of professional development is completed with continuing education. Given the scale of the problems and the current challenges of education, we need, more than ever, to reinforce the collective dimensions of teachers. The image of a teacher standing in front of a blackboard teaching to a class of sitting students, perhaps the most striking image of the school model, is being replaced by the image of several teachers working in open spaces with individual and groups of students.

This new pedagogical construction needs teachers who are committed to teamwork and joint reflection. This is where continuing education comes in, one of the most important mediums for promoting this shared reality.

There are many discourses that refer to the impossibility of consistent and innovative continuing education practices in schools: teachers have many difficulties; schools have no material conditions; it is necessary to bring new theories and new models that do not exist in schools; etc. These speeches are not unfounded, especially for those who do not conform to the current situation of schools and intend to open new paths moving forward. They fear that rooting continuing education in schools will help to lock teachers into routine and mediocre practices by not allowing them access to new ideas, methods, and cultures.

But these discourses do not serve the profession well, as they inevitably lead to the downsizing or disqualification of teachers. Either way, they pave the way for a marketplace of courses, events, seminars, and gatherings where different specialists assemble their own personal spectacle to sell teachers useless fashions about the brain or the new ways of learnings, new technologies, or some other trend.

Of course, in some countries teachers need further training, either in the subject areas in which they teach or in pedagogical fields. But this training ought not to be confused with the continuing education that should take place at school, with the participation of professional teaching communities.

Advancing this proposal does not represent any devaluation of theoretical or scientific knowledge, but rather the desire to re-signify it in the space of the profession. It is within the complexity of training that extends from professional experiences and cultures that we can find a way out of teachers’ dilemmas.

In the midst of many doubts and hesitations, one certainty guides us: the metamorphosis of school happens whenever teachers come together to think about their work, to build different pedagogical practices, to respond to the challenges posed by the end of the school model. Continuing education should not dispense any contribution from outside, especially the support of university scholars and research groups, but it is inside the boundaries of school that it achieves self-definition, enriching it, and thus fulfils its role in the professional development of teachers.


The theme of this issue of Educação & Realidade is Resistance, Creation and (Re) Existence in Brazilian Education: tactics, escape lines and emancipatory initiatives. I write this text in June 2018, a particularly tough time for Brazil. From the point of view of education, the same issues are shared with many other countries, but problems are bigger, clearer, especially with regard to the state of public schools and the working and career conditions of teachers. It is necessary to find an urgent solution that relies on politics, but also on the mobilization of society and all those who believe in the strength of the public school and its importance for the revitalization of democracy.

The field of teacher education has a set of greatly relevant authors, researchers, and institutional experiences. In an international comparison, the quality of the academic and scientific work done in Brazil can be easily confirmed, as well as the existence of initiatives, in universities and schools, which deserve greater dissemination and visibility. This robustness is also revealed in many legal norms, namely guidelines on teacher education.

But beyond the discourses, there seems to be a lack of daily commitment, also in universities, to value teachers and their profession. The numerous diagnoses made in Brazil do not yet seem to have given rise to a generational movement of profound transformation of the public school and the working and training conditions of teachers.

We are interested in pointing out, because it is our direct responsibility, the situation in universities, where we find a fragmentation of degrees and a devaluation of the field of teacher education. The choice of teaching courses rarely appears as a priority of university policies or as a first choice of students. No fundamental change is possible if university leaders, from the presidency of universities to colleges and institutes, do not provide a prominent role to undergraduate degrees in teacher education.

Transformation can begin in many ways, but perhaps universities are a good place to express the courage of beginnings (Jankélévitch, 1960). To take risks? Of course, but what harmless, empty thought would be worth it, without the risks of action, without the virtue of engagement. Courage is the opposite of fear; it is its antidote. Instead of devoting our time to developing justifications for inertia, let us focus on the unjustifiability of certain situations. There is no courage without action.

The beginning has already begun. When we look at programs like PIBID, and the way it has been implemented in many institutions across Brazil, we easily identify proximity to the proposal presented in this text. These are different ideas, but they are based on the same impulse for transformation of teacher education. In fact, the decision taken in 2007 to assign CAPES the mission of inducing and fostering the initial and continuing education of teachers is exceptional. The attribution of tasks in the area of ​​teacher education to a postgraduate and research entity is unique in the world because it is based on the clear understanding that without investment in the quality of basic education it is impossible for a country to develop from a scientific and technological point of view.

I am well aware that there has been a major setback for this CAPES action, but I want to point out the initial gesture and the unprecedented character of this program. One of its qualities was that it was able to link the debate on teacher education with the improvement of the teaching profession, as written in the Declaration of Uberaba, approved in 2013, with a very revealing title: In favour of identity and teacher professionalization: for an articulated and systemic State project that considers initial and continuing education, working conditions, career plan and teacher salary.

We cannot allow the erosion of the teaching profession that is being caused by policies attacking university teacher education institutions, seeking to replace undergraduate courses with practical 4 or 5-week training seminars, as with Teach for America.

We cannot allow teacher education to be redefined by practical models that advocate a return to mere practical training on the ground, on the school floor, with a more experienced teacher, thus eroding the intellectual, critical foundations of the teaching profession.

We cannot allow the inertia of universities, their indifference, as if it were possible to educate a teacher without seriously investing in this process, without studying ​​education, without building pedagogical knowledge, without seriously relating to the teachers who already exercise the profession.

We cannot allow teacher education to be taken up by the interests of many academics who occupy this field but do not engage in it, leading to endless and useless disputes between schools and departments, different disciplines and education, to determine who gets a larger portion of the curriculum (because that means more teachers, more money, more power).

We cannot allow teacher education to be transformed into a real market by groups, companies, and foundations due to the absence of universities and the fragility of public policies.

I could continue this kind of Manifesto of what we cannot allow. But it is more useful to briefly mention an initiative of great significance that is being developed at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), in which I had the opportunity to participate during the past months: the construction of the Teacher Education Complex.

Its goal is to create a new institutional space, both internal and external, that promotes an integrated teacher education policy, linking the university and the city of Rio de Janeiro. The intention is to establish not only a space for dialogue, but mainly a space for institutional decision, which implies profound changes in the organization of teacher education degrees.

In recent decades, universities have developed a movement of creating “third places”, linking universities to society and cities, in health, technology, law, or education. Like science and technology parks, the Complex can be described as a kind of “educational park”, connecting UFRJ with a network of municipal, state, and federal schools, as long as they are assumed as training schools.

The Complex’s mission is to network the university and schools, allowing teacher education students to have a relationship with the profession from day one. But a new conception of initial education must give rise to new policies for insertion in professional life (teaching residence) and a new design of continuing education for teachers, strongly based on schools and a collective reflection on pedagogical work.

The decisive element for the success of this UFRJ project is the construction of a new institution within which an educational, fertile, and fruitful environment for teacher education will be created.

The configuration of this new environment implies the recognition of the importance of the unique roles played by different actors inside and outside the academic community. The idea of a “​​third place” implies operating with the notion of ​​differentiation and convergence of roles, combating the widespread belief in academic culture of the existence of a hierarchy of the knowledge system that legitimates one over others, reinforcing asymmetrical power relations.

It is the establishment of an educational and training community in which, collectively, spaces for pedagogical experimentation and new practices are defined, thus creating the conditions for true teacher professional development. On the university side, it is important to cultivate openness in dialogue with schools and teachers, inducing opportunities for training and professional development. On the school side, it is important to have a welcoming and working commitment with undergraduates and beginning teachers.

Most important is the constitution of a common home, in which training is linked with pedagogical work, reflection, research, writing, and public action. For the Complex to be viable, it is necessary to enter into a real education and training contract, from the inside of the university and, later, with the city, with a network of partner schools.

If this happens, UFRJ will give a strong signal of commitment to the public school and for the renewal of teacher education. We need these signals in Brazil and in the rest of the world. It is necessary to link education/training and profession. In doing so, we are creating the conditions for teachers to be up to new challenges, to be able to actively participate in the metamorphosis of school. No one becomes a teacher without the collaboration of the most experienced colleagues. It starts at universities, continues at schools. No one can be a teacher today without reinforcing the collective dimensions of the profession. The future is written in the courage of action. To think the right thing is to act1.


1This article is part of the Thematic Section, Resistances and Reexistences in Educational Social Spaces in Times of Neo-Conservatism, organized by Inês Barbosa de Oliveira (Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) and Rafael Marques Gonçalves (Universidade Federal do Acre).


BOURDIEU, Pierre. Esprits d’État: genèse et structure du champ bureaucratique. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, Paris, n. 96-97, p. 49-62, 1993. [ Links ]

HUBERMAN, Michael. La Vie des Enseignants: évolution et bilan d’une profession. Neuchâtel, Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1989. [ Links ]

HUTMACHER, Walo. Préface. In: MORADPOUR, Eric. École et Jeunesse. Genève: Cahiers du Service de la Recherche Sociologique, 1981. P. 1-12. [ Links ]

JANKÉLÉVITCH, Vladimir. Avec l’âme toute entière. Bulletin de la Société Française de Philosophie, Paris, v. 54, n. 1, p. 55-62, 1960. [ Links ]

MORIN, Edgar. La Voie: pour l’avenir de l’humanité. Paris: Fayard, 2011. [ Links ]

NIZA, Sérgio. Escritos sobre Educação. Lisboa: Tinta da China, 2012. [ Links ]

VIÑAO FRAGO, Antonio. Escuela para Todos. Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2004. [ Links ]

Received: July 17, 2018; Accepted: April 08, 2019

António Nóvoa is Full Professor of the Institute of Education of the University of Lisbon. Honorary President of the University of Lisbon. ORCID: E-mail:

Creative Commons License Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto (Open Access) sob a licença Creative Commons Attribution, que permite uso, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, sem restrições desde que o trabalho original seja corretamente citado.