The division between “primary school” and “second cycle” could soon end if the Government moves forward, as stated in its program, with the integration of the first two cycles of compulsory education. A measure that divides opinions and raises many questions, although the discussion is not over now
The measure announced in the Government’s program to merge the 1st and 2nd cycles is raising some doubts among the school community, with some fearing that this reform is moving forward for “economist” reasons and as a way of address the shortage of teachers. The measure was included in the Democratic Alliance (AD) electoral program and the discussion is not new. Since 2008, it has been an “object of reflection” by the National Education Council (CNE). While there are those who point to benefits and advocate that progress be made as quickly as possible, there are others who fear that the intentions are not just aimed at the “well-being of students”.
“The main fear is that they want to take this measure for economic reasons, for reasons of fashions imported from countries with contexts very different from ours and not taking into account the student’s best interests. In other words, they did not talk about the pedagogical benefits of this measure. In education, the main beneficiary must be the student. I’m not sure that this premise is correct to this extent!”, considers Alberto Veronesi, 1st cycle teacher.
The 2nd cycle has between six and eight teachers per class council. The merger, depending on how it is done, could lead to large savings in teaching staff. The measure of combining the 1st and 2nd cycle could have the consequence of needing fewer teachers…”suggests Paulo Guinote, professor and author of the education blog “O Meu Quintal”.
This paragraph of the Government’s program raised more doubts than certainties and there are those who question the way in which this integration of cycles will be carried out. “Are we just going to extend the 1st cycle or are we going to try to make the 1st cycle, from the 4th year onwards, evolve differently? Is this combination just to integrate the contents of the 1st and 2nd cycles in part and instead of repeating them in the 5th and 6th years?”, asks Paulo Guinote.
Debate and consensus
Filinto Lima, president of ANDAEP (National Association of Directors of Groups and Public Schools), speaks of “structural change in the educational system”, which cannot be carried out without “a broad reparation and a broad national debate to understand whether the path it’s that”. The school leader also raises questions of a more practical nature: “We have 1st cycle schools and 2nd and 3rd cycle schools. First of all, will students continue at primary school for six years? Where are we going to accommodate our students?”
A concern also raised by Alberto Veronesi. “The school structures, or the buildings, do not seem, from the reality I know, adapted to the unification of the two cycles. Many primary schools do not even have spaces for support”, he notes.
Filinto Lima adds that one cannot “go into the unknown” and move forward “without a prior debate, without consultation with those on the ground, with the local authorities themselves”. “It is a difficult measure to implement, with many antibodies, which has to be explained to people how it can be applied in practice. One legislature does not seem enough to me. And who comes next? Will you agree?”, asks Filinto Lima, also director of the Dr. Costa Matos School Group, in Vila Nova de Gaia.
The school leader even questions the moment and context in Education in Portugal to move forward with the measure: “If things were stable in schools, if we had a sufficient number of teachers… but they are not. This is a change that cannot be a concern for this Government. And I insist: it must deserve a broad and very broad partisan consensus. It would only work if there was an Education pact.”
Filinto Lima even talks about “listening to students” and “debates with parents, teachers, unions, with all school actors”.
“If it takes place, it should never take place in the short period envisaged (up to five years), but rather the result of preparation deeply reflected by everyone, which requires changes particularly in terms of teacher training and current curricula. And, when we talk about ‘everyone’, we are also talking about professionals in the field who must necessarily be consulted, alongside theorists, valuing their empirical knowledge. There is a lot of planning that must be carried out and it cannot, once again and as in so many other measures in recent years, be a problem that requires a separate and remedial resolution”, adds Cristina Mota, spokesperson for the civic teachers’ movement Missão Public school.
From “one teacher” to “many teachers”
The implementation of the measure may require another measure that is also included in the Government’s program, which is the review of the Basic Law of the Educational System. A law that is almost 40 years old and to which many demand fundamental changes. But it will not be the only guiding document that will have to change.
We would be moving from a first cycle of six years to a first cycle of six years. And we don’t know what the final design would be. There must be a debate and an in-depth assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the current model and a projection of the advantages and disadvantages of the model to be implemented. It is a significant change, taking into account the reality of recent decades”highlights Francisco Gonçalves, deputy general secretary of Fenprof.
The 1st cycle has been losing the characteristics of monoteaching, with the introduction of subjects such as English or Expressions, which are taught by teachers other than the incumbent. But this issue could also be changed. “Missão Escola Pública argues that the possibility of merger could be analyzed, not that of ‘extending’ monoteaching to the 2nd cycle. It defends the possibility of, in the first years of schooling, students contacting several teachers instead of just one. That is, bringing the pluritude of the 2nd cycle (albeit in a smaller number of subjects) to the 1st cycle”, says Cristina Mota.
In fact, the “sudden” transition from a full professor to several professors “at a crucial age for learning” is one of the reasons cited by defenders of the integration of the two cycles. “It’s one thing to change to a multidisciplinary model at 12 or 13 years old and another to change at 9 or 10 years old. Maturity is completely different. We must put the best interests of students first. If it is known to be good for students, the system has to adapt”, argues Manuel Pereira, director at the General Serpa Pinto de Cinfães School Group and president of ANDE (National Association of School Directors), stressing that he speaks “in his own name” and not in the name of the association, which “does not have a position taken”.
“I have a hard time calling it a fusion. Maybe it’s not a simple merger. It must be integrated into a vision of education from zero to 12 years old. Especially from six to 12 years old. The proposal for an integrated education from six to 12 years old provides a progressive sequence more suited to the forms