The Social Economy Studies and Research Laboratory (LEPES) at USP Ribeirão Preto published a series of posts related to the theme of Holistic Development, one of the institution’s agendas. In this context, Beatriz Cardoso and Nicole Paulet, from the Education Laboratory, were interviewed about the implementation of the BNCC (National Common Core Curriculum). Below is the interview and our reflections on this tool to contribute to the effort of students’ full development.
LEPES_ What are the main changes that need to be made to ensure the implementation of the BNCC in relation to:
a) school management
b) the teacher’s role
c) the student’s place
d) the family’s role
LABEDU_ Facing the various challenges present in the context of Education in Brazil means investing on these different fronts, considering them in all their complexity. For example, school management plays a role in strengthening the relationship with families—regardless of the implementation of the BNCC. The BNCC may change over time (the objectives may be different, depending on the social transformations that take hold from now on), but the role of management should not be defined solely based on the BNCC. The BNCC is part of it, but since it is a document that organizes learning expectations, we need to remember that there are different ways to achieve it. The means also deserve discussion, as much as the ends.
LEPES_ How is the implementation of the BNCC going in Brazil, and what indicators and results have been found?
LABEDU_ We understand that a generic analysis is quite difficult in a country with so much diversity. Moreover, it depends on what we mean by “implementation”. If we look from the perspective of the system’s inputs, we have noticed investments in drafting curriculum documents aligned with the BNCC, and in producing materials also supposedly aligned with the Base’s objectives and premises. However, there is less data and it is harder to capture how much they are actually incorporated into practice.
LEPES_ What are the gaps in the construction of the BNCC document that could be filled in a next version? And in implementation within school institutions?
LABEDU_ In fact, the BNCC may fall short more due to excess than due to omissions. A next version would certainly need to include a prioritization of expectations.
In view of the “excess” in terms of skills and objectives, the document offers few inputs for understanding the relationship between them, giving the impression that they are isolated or fragmented aspects, rather than exemplifying how a pedagogical situation planned with intentionality can address multiple dimensions.
LEPES_ Is implementing the BNCC the path to promoting the student’s full development?
LABEDU_ The BNCC is a tool to contribute to this effort toward students’ full development, but it cannot take on this responsibility alone. The document regulates what is expected that children learn and, therefore, what the school needs to ensure is taught, which is undoubtedly relevant. However, student development is not guaranteed only by access to objects of knowledge. It also involves how they access knowledge, the materials they have access to, the school structure and how it operates, etc.
LEPES_ Does working on full development have the same meaning at all stages of life? Once implemented, will the BNCC have promoted full development?
LABEDU_ Certainly not; each stage of life has specific challenges. These challenges affect the possibilities for integration between curriculum areas, for example, or the autonomy children have to participate in situations using different tools (whether technological or not). Instructional planning needs to consider what is productive for children to learn, deepen, and advance—instead of trying to cover everything superficially.
LEPES_ To develop students’ various skills and competencies, is it necessary to work more, or in a different way?
LABEDU_ It is necessary to consider pedagogical know-how, which involves organizing time, spaces, and materials to create productive learning situations.
Thinking about skills in an isolated or fragmented way can strip teaching and learning objects of their meaning, and it also becomes unfeasible given the real constraints of how the school operates. Articulation is necessary, but it requires different kinds of knowledge to be put into practice by teachers: knowledge about the teaching objects, knowledge about how to plan and sequentially organize progression between learning situations, and knowledge about which situations and interventions may be more productive depending on the specificity of the teaching object.
Answering more directly: to develop students’ various skills and competencies, educators need a great deal of knowledge (knowing and knowing how to do).
LEPES_ Is full-time schooling necessary for full development? How can it help in this process?
LABEDU_ Certainly, when there is more time it is possible to do more, but we do not believe it is an inexorable condition. It is possible to do excellent work part-time and terrible work full-time.
LEPES_ What is the best way to offer full development to the student?
LABEDU_ For learning to make sense to students, teaching needs to make sense to teachers. And the relationships and practices established at school have an impact on this: there is no point trying to teach about democratic coexistence in the classroom if the school is an authoritarian space between administrators and teachers. That is why truly transforming Education is so complex: the way it is done matters, and it also teaches.
To learn about and reflect on the National Common Core Curriculum, the BNCC, visit the page on the MEC website here.