Physical Education teacher training in Brazil and Argentina: a comparative analysis of current legal guidelines

Abstract

This article analyzes the current legal guidelines governing the initial training of Physical Education teachers in Brazil and Argentina. Methodologically, it is based on a comparative approach, an opportunity to characterize, in official documents, the general principles and conceptions of Physical Education that regulate training in both countries. The analysis concludes with an exposition of the differences and similarities identified in the two educational realities investigated

Keywords
Physical Education; teacher training; public policies

Resumo

Este artigo analisa as diretrizes legais atuais que normatizam a formação inicial de professores de Educação Física no Brasil e na Argentina. Metodologicamente, baseia-se na abordagem comparada, oportunidade para caracterizar, em documentos oficiais, os princípios gerais e as concepções de Educação Física que regulamentam a formação nos dois países. A análise é concluída com a exposição das diferenças e similitudes identificadas nas duas realidades educativas investigadas.

Palavras-chave
Educação Física; formação de professores; políticas públicas

Resumen

Este articulo analiza las directrices legales actuales que regulan la formación inicial de profesores en Educación Física en el Brasil y en la Argentina. Metodológicamente, se base en un abordaje comparativo que permite caracterizar los principios generales y las concepciones sobre la Educación Física presentan en los documentos oficiales que regulan la formación en los dos países. Se concluye con la exposición de las similitudes y diferencias identificadas en las dos realidades educativas investigadas.

Palabras clave
Educación Física; formación de profesores; políticas públicas

Introduction

This article is the result of a postdoctoral internship, whose objective was to discuss, from a comparative point of view, the current guidelines that regulate the initial training of Physical Education teachers in two territories of South America: Brazil and Argentina, countries that share a common historical heritage, which led to the constitution of Physical Education as a profession and academic field, but whose recent developments have given rise to a restructuring of initial training with its own characteristics. The research that supports it is situated within a broader study that also aims to comparatively understand experiences of epistemological, curricular, and political critique and renewal in Physical Education across South American countries.

Within the scope of comparative studies, understanding and comparing the realities of each country requires considering the nuances that make each context unique, so as not to compare the incomparable nor to incur the errors produced by perspectives that tend toward a colonizing gaze, which subjects “others” to totalizing and hierarchical judgments, as well as to single answers for solving educational problems (Carvalho, 2014; Ferreira, 2008). As Rocha (2003) points out, such studies enable and value a look “with” others, rather than “about” others, to deepen relationships and open spaces for interaction and mutual learning. It is, above all, according to Carvalho (2014, p. 221), to interpret the why of the similar and the different and “… through this experience, to be able to provide greater intelligibility to divergences and convergences, giving meanings and senses beyond explicit rhetoric …” Therefore, comparing aspects of the educational systems of different countries on the continent implies learning about their histories, their conditioning factors, their actors, and their modes of resistance, strengthening partnerships to confront common social ills and to affirm the cultural identities, autonomy, and sovereignty of the Latin American peoples.

Regarding the documents used for comparison, in Argentina, we primarily considered the “Recomendaciones para la elaboración de diseños curriculares. Profesorado de Educación Física” [Recommendations for the Development of Curriculum Designs. Physical Education Teachers] (Ministerio de Educación, 2009) and the “Resolución nº 272/19, de 9 de diciembre de 2019: marco de organización para la enseñanza de la Educación Física escolar en Argentina” [Resolution No. 272/19, of December 9, 2019: Organizational Framework for the Teaching of Physical Education in Schools in Argentina] (Resolución nº 272/19). Both regulate, so to speak, the initial teacher training in that country. In the Brazilian case, Resolution CNE/CES No. 06 of December 18, 2018 (Resolução CNE/CES nº 06/2018), which establishes national curriculum guidelines (DCNs) for undergraduate courses in Physical Education and provides other measures, and Resolution CNE/CP No. 04 of May 29, 2024 (Resolução CNE/CP nº 04/2024), which provides for the DCNs for initial higher education training of professionals in basic school education (undergraduate teaching courses, pedagogical training courses for graduates, and second undergraduate teaching courses), in force since July 1, 2024, will be analyzed in detail to achieve the objective of this article.

The text is organized into three sections. In the first two, we present the analyzed documents from Brazil and Argentina separately. In the third section, which concludes the article, we compare the realities of initial teacher training in Physical Education across the two countries, providing an opportunity to highlight similarities and differences.

Current guidelines for initial training in Physical Education in Argentina: a characterization

Argentina is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. It is a federation of 23 provinces and one autonomous city, Ciudad Autónoma Buenos Aires, the country’s capital. “The federated entities are of a national, provincial, and municipal nature, with the provinces being equivalent to the Brazilian states and their municipalities not having specific educational competences as occurs in Brazil” (Perboni et al., 2021, p. 7). The Federal Education Law of 1993, enacted during the government of Carlos Menem, underwent several reforms, converging in the creation of new legislation that remains in effect to this day: the National Education Law (LEN) No. 26,206, enacted in December 2006 (Ley nº 26.206/2006). Thus, in the context of higher education, in 1995, the Higher Education Law No. 24,521 was enacted, which, in its Article 43, established that “… the study plans (for teacher training) must take into account the basic content and the criteria regarding the amount of practical training established by the Ministry of Culture and Education, in agreement with the Council of Universities,” and Article 23, according to which

… the plans of non-university teacher training institutions, whose degrees qualify individuals to teach at non-university levels of the system, will be established respecting the common basic content of teacher training, which, in turn, must respect the parameters of the Federal Council of Culture and Education

(Argentina cited by Campomar, 2015)¹.

The initial teacher training courses are structured based on LEN No. 26,206/2006 (Ley nº 26.206/2006) and Law No. 24,521, and comprise two cycles: (i) a common basic training, focused on the fundamentals of the teaching profession and on knowledge and reflection on educational reality; and (ii) specialized training, for teaching the curricular content of each level and modality (Ley nº 26.206/2006; Perboni et al., 2021). Lasting four years, during which forms of teaching residency are introduced from the beginning of the course, according to the definitions established by each province, and in accordance with the regulations of this Law.

Still regarding teacher training, Law No. 26,206/2006 (Ley nº 26.206/2006) stipulated the national teacher training plan for the national sphere, whose objective was to generate initial and continuing training policies, as well as professional and curricular development in a coordinated and concentrated manner throughout the Argentine territory for the period from 2007 to 2015 (Perboni et al., 2021). In this context, in 2009, the document entitled “Recomendaciones para la elaboración de diseños curriculares. Profesorado de Educación Física” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009) was launched, which serves as a guide for initial training in non-university institutions throughout the country.

Here, we consider it necessary to provide brief clarifications about the initial teacher training system in Argentina, which includes university education delivered at universities and non-university higher education delivered by the Higher Institutes of Teacher and Technical Training (ISFDyT) – also known as “non-university tertiary training institutes”. In this context, a teaching career can be university-based or not. In the case of Physical Education, the largest offer is made by the public and private Higher Institutes of Physical Education (ISEFs), responsible for 88% of the training, especially that carried out in the interior regions of the country (Ley nº 26.206/2006; Levoratti, 2018, 2021, 2022; Perboni et al., 2021).

Regarding this situation, Levoratti (2022) and Levoratti and Kopelovich (2021) cite some tensions generated in the field of initial training and professional practice. The fact that Physical Education training and its inclusion in higher education developed outside the university system produced two phenomena: the first concerns the disputes between the actors of the ISEFs, considered “practical,” and those of the Universities, considered “theoretical.” The second relates to “... the distinct mechanisms of ‘diversification’ that occur among students according to the institution where their training takes place.”² As academic titles are important social and recognition distinguishers (Bourdieu, 1997), classifications of what is “better or worse” can constitute symbolic forms of reproduction of social inequalities³.

Returning to the analysis of the document “Recomendaciones para la elaboración de diseños curriculares. Profesorado de Educación Física” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009), the text begins by highlighting the epistemological and pedagogical problems of Physical Education training. It discusses the expressions “body culture,” “motor culture,” and “body and motor practices.” In addition, the legislation strongly criticizes the dualistic conception of the body and positivism. It also highlights that the influence of Edgar Morin’s complex thought has brought about changes in the area, because:

… The emergence of this new thought paradigm enables the recognition of the different dimensions and relevant aspects of corporeality and human movement. Currently, Physical Education, conceived as a pedagogical discipline, seeks to intervene intentionally and systematically in the body and motor development of individuals, contributing to their integral formation and to the acquisition of specific cultural resources. This is achieved through pedagogical practices that consider individuals in all their human complexity and in their capacity to understand and transform their individual and social reality … (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 8)⁴.

With this document, the field of Physical Education seeks, in light of the LEN and the need for epistemic and pedagogical modifications that have taken hold in the field in recent years, to coordinate, nationwide, discourses and practices of Physical Education committed to critical training and transformative social practice. To this end, it provides a brief historical overview of the trajectory of Physical Education in the country, an opportunity to highlight the hegemony of the biological and sport-oriented perspective. In this review, there is an explicit dialogue with the ideas of Professor Valter Bracht, a recognized figure in Brazil’s critical tradition in the discipline.

The history of Physical Education in Argentina shares similarities with that of Brazil, as its implementation occurred through gymnastic methods (influenced by medical and military practices) in the school context, which were gradually replaced by sport. In this context, training was focused on body discipline and carried out through a reproductive and uncritical teaching approach:

In contrast, in the physical education programs outlined in the current curricula of primary and secondary education in most provincial jurisdictions, sport is presented didactically as a mediating element for the physical and motor development of citizens, focusing on the promotion of values and personal autonomy through the active use of free time. In this sense, the social needs and demands for sports practices suited to the diverse skills of individuals and groups, in contexts in which diversity prevails, do not allow for a model conceived from the idealization of sport as the ultimate expression of human potential or a marker of social distinction — an exclusionary and elitist model

(Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 10)⁵.

The concepts of “corporeality” and “human motricity,” both anchored in the phenomenological perspective, are frequently referenced in the first two chapters of the text. There are even two subchapters dedicated to understanding the terms, making clear the great concern to shift the focus of teaching from content to the subjects of learning.

The critical theory of the Frankfurt School is also mentioned, albeit less frequently: “… The influence of the Frankfurt School, with its socio-critical model, holistic conceptions, and the paradigm of complexity, among others, contributes to supporting a new disciplinary approach.” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 12)⁶. Then, there is the observation that “… In short, it is necessary to have an epistemology that links all these aspects …” (Argentina, 2009, p. 12)⁷.

Regarding pedagogical practice in Physical Education, there are mentions of “motor praxiology” and “sociomotricity,” by Pierre Parlebas, and the notion of “social learning,” developed by Valter Bracht in the mid-1980s in Brazil. Finally, the document adopts the definition of Physical Education proposed from the perspective of human motricity, as developed by the Portuguese Manuel Sérgio:

After this brief analysis of these positions, it is possible to confirm Physical Education as a pedagogical discipline that contributes to the development of corporeality and motor skills, taking into account the sociocultural contexts in which it operates, constantly reflecting on its own disciplinary identity and on the intervention strategies necessary to enable this contribution

(Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 14)⁸.

As can be seen, the 2009 document presents a series of theoretical references to overcome the biological and reductionist tradition still present in the field. It is evident that the document was written collaboratively and that its authors sought to construct a discourse that somehow reconciled the different theoretical and pedagogical preferences present in the team in charge (Luis Castillo, Silvia Ferrari, Jorge Gómez, and Eduardo Prieto) for its elaboration, in addition to complying with the LEN that deals with Physical Education. However, it becomes clear that references to Pierre Parlebas and human motricity prevail in the aforementioned document compared with references to body culture (of movement).

From the third chapter onwards, when the “General Training Field” is discussed, the recommendation explicitly states its ethical-political commitment to a critical and transformative training of reality. There is emphasis on the dilemmas and challenges of the relationship between theory and practice; on teacher professionalism; on the defense of a solid common base; on the relationship between the common and the diverse; and the need for training that encourages teachers to reflect critically on their own practice:

From this perspective, general education must provide the conceptual frameworks and bodies of knowledge that allow for an understanding of the structural and dynamic dimensions, the recognition of both regularities and contextual specificities, and the identification of problems

(Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 30)⁹.

Thus, general education should comprise the following subjects: Sociology of Education; Argentine and Latin American History; History and Educational Policy of Argentina; Philosophy; Pedagogy; General Didactics; Educational Psychology; Information and Communication Technologies; and Ethical and Civic Education, which should be taught in an integrated manner, based on variable or complementary proposals, such as seminars and workshops.

The “Specific Training Field,” which comprises the fourth chapter, begins by arguing that the objectives of training in Physical Education cannot be reduced to technical mastery. In reality, they are strongly supported by an ethical-political commitment to building a more just and democratic society. In this sense, it is understood that training should contribute to autonomy, with emancipatory awareness. The LEN states that physical and motor training should be part of education at all levels. Thus, “Health” and “Free Time” appear as the main thematic axes of the field in the school context, aligning with the conception that pedagogical practices should go beyond mere reproduction of technical gestures.

Finally, the fifth chapter, entitled “Field of Training in Professional Practice,” reflects on the importance of understanding the space of professional practice as a powerful field for training, since it is there that future teachers articulate and give meaning to the knowledge acquired in their training. Thus, confronting the problematic relationship between experience and knowledge established in this area is required, along with challenging the hierarchy between theory and practice or the distance between the school and the training institution. In this sense, internships and pedagogical residency practices should not be seen as mere bureaucracies, but as fundamental moments for a critical and emancipatory training.

More recently, in 2019, Resolution No. 272 was published, entitled “Marco de Organización para la enseñanza de la Educación Física escolar en Argentina” [Organizational Framework for the Teaching of Physical Education in Schools in Argentina] (Resolución nº 272/19), which, in a way, updates and complements the 2009 recommendations. This Resolution highlights inclusive education and sexual and gender education. In it, it is possible to perceive the adoption of a body culture of movement perspective as central. The expression “body education” also appears, revealing, once again, the possible disputes waged by intellectuals within the field.

While it is not a document that specifically addresses the initial teacher training, its content has implications for training curricula, as it takes inclusive education and gender issues as a starting point for teaching Physical Education. These two themes were not present in the 2009 recommendations.

The text of the new Resolution was constructed in the context of the approval of “Argentina Enseña y Aprende: plan nacional de acción 2016-2021” [Argentina Teaches and Learns: National Action Plan 2016-2021] (Resolución nº 285/16), which reaffirms the commitment to understanding education as a personal and social right for the construction of a more just, inclusive, equitable, and democratic society. In other words,

It proposes an updated and innovative approach to guarantee the right to physical education through continuous, comprehensive, and meaningful educational pathways. This approach aims to ensure that students have opportunities to acquire sufficient specific cultural capital for Physical Education, allowing them democratic access to the culture of the body. It is a national guiding framework that establishes common criteria and guidelines, agreed upon and developed jointly by the national government and the country’s jurisdictions

(Resolução nº 272/19, p. 6)¹⁰.

The issue of “difference” takes center stage in this Resolution, and there is an understanding that inclusion is not only related to people with disabilities, but to a broader understanding of difference, supported by the recognition that we all have particularities and specific needs, so that barriers to learning should be reduced:

Inclusive Physical Education is a right of all students. Currently, it is being implemented as a pedagogical approach that is not limited to educating students with disabilities, but also recognizes each student’s unique characteristics and needs. It is based on the principle that each child has distinct characteristics, interests, and learning needs, and that educational systems should be designed to take this wide diversity into account

(Resolução nº 272/19, p. 7)¹¹.

The document addresses gender issues by recognizing that gender stereotypes historically constructed by the field need to be revised to guide fairer, more inclusive practices¹², and by breaking with the practice of separating the sexes in Physical Education classes. On page 14, it reads:

In this context, the issue of gender has challenged the traditional educational approach from a rights-based perspective. Feminist and LGBTQ+ movements began to question established stereotypes and behaviors for men and women, while critically examining mandatory heterosexual norms and the discrimination suffered by those who did not conform to them. Their arguments have had a significant impact on society as a whole, creating new representations and values regarding gender

(Resolução nº 272/19, p.14)¹³.

Another striking feature of this Resolution is the significant change in epistemological orientation, compared with the 2009 recommendations. The perspectives of sociomotricity and human motricity are absent from this document. In their place, the body culture of movement is consolidated, again revealing the Brazilian influence in Argentina as a result of the strengthening of ties and cooperative dialogues between the two countries.

Unlike the 2009 document, this Resolution recognizes the difficulties in considering Physical Education as a science. While some efforts have been made in this direction, “… This situation obliges us to analyze Physical Education itself, regardless of the place it occupies or not in the scientific field” (Resolução nº 272/19, p. 10)¹⁴. It must, therefore, be recognized that it is an area of knowledge with its own knowledge and, with that,

… This can be interpreted as a new stage for this discipline, constituting the need to demonstrate and affirm that Physical Education carries a body of knowledge, a knowledge (including conceptual knowledge) necessary for the full development of the citizen. Ultimately, Physical Education is part of culture and produces culture, both in school and in the social environment, shaping and expressing itself as a cultural project that influences social representations and subjectivities

(Resolução nº 272/19, p. 10).¹⁵

Physical Education is, therefore,

Conceived as a recognized pedagogical discipline, constructed by culture as a social practice that, mediated by intentional and systematic teaching processes, specifically impacts learning manifested in the bodily dimension of individuals. It currently bases its teaching on knowledge that structures the body culture of movement as its purpose and claims for this discipline the status of a school subject… It assumes the responsibility of studying the body culture of movement… It must pedagogize systematized body practices and the social representations linked to them, providing the individual with access to a dimension of knowledge that would not be possible otherwise

(Resolução nº 272/19, p. 10-11)¹⁶.

Teaching physical activity in schools cannot be done from the same perspective as practices carried out in clubs and gyms, but must be subordinated to school purposes, “… Highlighting the multiplicity of senses and meanings that social groups attribute to body practices, as well as the possibility of their transformation” (Resolução nº 272/19, p. 11)¹⁷.

In the document, the content of Physical Education is considered a “public tradition” that should democratize knowledge. It is reaffirmed that the democratic State needs to make available and guarantee to all students a “common capital,” and that its teaching should be equitable, democratic, and meaningful, not focusing solely on the transmission of knowledge but also on the appropriate ways of using such knowledge in social life.

“Health” is also cited as a knowledge of Physical Education. The text explains that the healthy body practices developed in classes aim to foster healthy habits, improve students’ relationships with their bodies, and expand possibilities for expression, interaction, and communication. This can increase involvement in their physical and social environment, as well as a sense of well-being from enjoying these activities (Resolución nº 272/19).

Current guidelines for initial training in Physical Education in Brazil: a characterization

Brazil has 26 states and 1 Federal District, totaling 27 federative units and 5,570 municipalities. The country adopts an educational policy that, in addition to the federal and state governments, transfers certain responsibilities to municipal governments, which are legally considered federated entities. Perboni et al. (2021, p. 11) explain that:

Given this complexity, educational issues are often regulated on the same subject across three administrative spheres: federal, state, and municipal. These, in turn, must be articulated and cooperate, although the literature on the Brazilian federative organization, and specifically on educational organization and planning, points to various difficulties in this articulation

(Perboni et al., 2021, p. 11).

As a general rule, the federal government is directly responsible for Higher Education and the Federal Institutes that offer Secondary and Vocational Technical Education. The states, in turn, are responsible for Secondary Education and the final years of Elementary Education (6^th-9^th grade). The municipalities, in turn, are responsible for the first years of Elementary Education and Early Childhood Education. In Brazil, the National Education Guidelines and Bases Law, No. 9,394, of December 20, 1996 (Lei nº 9.394/1996), defines nine years of compulsory basic schooling throughout the national territory since 2006, and the initial teacher training takes place entirely at the university level.

While in Brazil, Higher Education, especially universities, enjoys curricular autonomy and academic freedom, guaranteed even by the Federal Constitution (CF), promulgated in 1988, the pedagogical projects and curricular matrices of the training institutions must be supported by federal laws.

Regarding the initial teacher training in basic education, the country has issued several guidelines over the last 25 years to guide training. In 2002, the National Education Council (CNE) proposed new DCNs for training in all areas of the national Basic Education Curriculum, including Physical Education (Resolução CNE/CP nº 01/2002; Resolução CNE/CP nº 02/2002). A significant determination is that the document established its own completion point for undergraduate teaching degrees, which means that, in practice, the so-called “full teaching degree” (which qualified one to work in any professional segment) would end, and that graduates with teaching degrees and bachelor’s degrees would need to undergo specific, separate training. In 2004, the CNE also launched the DCNs for bachelor’s degree courses, putting an end to the possibility of any training institution still offering the course in a unified manner (Resolução CNE/CES nº 7/2004). In 2015, the DCNs were updated, and undergraduate teaching courses had their workload increased to 3,200 hours (Resolução CNE/CP nº 02/2015).

However, in December 2018, the CNE, disregarding the interests of Physical Education professionals, established new specific DCNs for Physical Education courses only. This is Resolution No. 06/2018, which imposes a pseudo-unification of the course in the first two years of training. Article 2 reads: “… The undergraduate course in Physical Education has a reference workload of 3,200 (three thousand two hundred) hours for the development of academic activities …” (Resolução CNE/CES nº 06/2018). Article 5 states the following:

Article 5. … the training of graduates in Physical Education will have a single entry point, intended for both bachelor’s and teaching degrees, and will unfold in two stages, as described below:

I - Common Stage - Core studies of general training, identifying the area of Physical Education, to be developed in 1,600 (one thousand six hundred) reference hours, common to both trainings. II - Specific Stage - Specific training to be developed in 1,600 (one thousand six hundred) reference hours, in which graduates will have access to specific knowledge of the bachelor’s or teaching degree options

(Resolução CNE/CES nº 06/2018).

A specificity of this Resolution that regulates Physical Education courses is that it prevents students from having contact with subjects related to the school field in the first years of training. The common phase planned for the first two years, consisting of general subjects common to both specializations, clearly weakens the curriculum and preparation for the school environment.

Another novelty made explicit in the 2018 DCNs is the definition of the Physical Education area based on a plurality of epistemological references, ignoring the advances achieved in the field in the last 40 years, especially in undergraduate teaching programs, which since the 1990s had been linked to the field of Languages, based on the notion of the body culture of movement, which disappears from the Resolution, as revealed in Article 3:

Article 3. Physical Education is an area of knowledge and professional intervention that has as its object of study and application motricity or human movement, the culture of body movement [emphasis added], focusing on the different forms and modalities of physical exercise, gymnastics, games, sports, martial arts and dance, aiming to meet social needs in the fields of health, education and training, culture, high-performance sports and leisure

(Resolução CNE/CES nº 06/2018).

The epistemological eclecticism expressed in the terms “motricity or human movement” and “culture of body movement” (the latter of which does not even exist as an epistemic production of the field) shows that, by encompassing “everything,” it contemplates “nothing” at the same time and places the field in confusion about its identity.

The document’s text, in its second chapter, presents how the composition of the “Common Stage” of training should be, as follows:

1. Biological, psychological, and sociocultural knowledge of the human being (such as physiological, biomechanical, anatomical-functional, biochemical, genetic, psychological, anthropological, historical, social, cultural, and others), emphasizing its application to Physical Education;

2. Knowledge of the biological, psychological, and sociocultural dimensions and implications of human motricity/human movement/culture of body movement/physical activity [emphasis added] (such as exercise physiology, sports biomechanics, motor learning and control, sports psychology, and others);

3. Instrumental and technological knowledge (such as study and research techniques - types of knowledge, techniques for planning and developing academic work, bibliographic research techniques, reading and documentation techniques; instrumental computing - spreadsheets, databases; techniques for lay and scientific communication and expression, and others), emphasizing its application to Physical Education;

4. Procedural and ethical knowledge of professional intervention in Physical Education, such as code of ethics, diagnosis and evaluation, risk stratification, exercise prescription variables, environment and sustainability, cultural diversity, individual differences, and others (Resolução CNE/CES nº 06/2018).

As can be seen in item II of the quote above, once again there is mention of different epistemological perspectives, with the “culture of body movement” now followed by the expression “physical activity,” which also demonstrates a return to an expression linked to the biological bias and which the field had also been pushing for in favor of replacing with the notion of “body practices,” a concept whose epistemological identity is traditionally linked to the perspective of body and movement understood from the perspective of the Human and Social Sciences.

In the third chapter, which alludes to the specific undergraduate teaching training in a Physical Education degree and its program content, which should only be included after the halfway point of the course, Article 15 states:

Article 15. Physical Education teaching degree courses, respecting national diversity and the pedagogical autonomy of institutions, must guarantee professional training adequate to the following program contents: a) Policy and Organization of Basic Education; b) Introduction to Education; c) Introduction to School Physical Education; d) Didactics and teaching methodology of School Physical Education; e) Curriculum development in School Physical Education; f) Physical Education in Early Childhood Education; g) Physical Education in Elementary Education; h) Physical Education in Secondary Education; i) Special/Inclusive School Physical Education; j) Physical Education in Youth and Adult Education; and k) School Physical Education in non-urban environments and in distinct communities and ethnic groups

(Resolução CNE/CES nº 06/2018).

In 2019, two other important Resolutions were enacted: No. 01, of July 2, 2019, which defines the DCNs for initial higher education (undergraduate teaching courses, pedagogical training courses for graduates, and second undergraduate teaching courses) and for continuing education; and No. 02, of December 20, 2019, which defines the DCNs for initial teacher training for Basic Education and establishes the National Common Base for the Initial Education of Teachers for Basic Education (BNC-Formação).

These documents aim to adapt the then-current legislation to Resolution No. 04, of December 17, 2018, which establishes the National Common Curriculum Base (BNCC) and establishes the competences and skills to be developed throughout basic schooling and the common basic content that must be taught in schools throughout the national territory, essential for the exercise of citizenship and insertion into the world of work in contemporary society. Since the enactment of the BNCC, initial teacher training curricula have been “pressured” to adapt to this regulation and promote training aligned with the “objects of knowledge” and “competences and skills” proposed by the BNCC.

The DCNs for teacher training underwent further modifications during Lula’s government, which began in January 2023. Thus, in July of the following year, a new text was approved, based on the need to comply with the provisions of the National Education Plan (PNE), whose goals should be included in the institutional and pedagogical projects of teacher training institutions (while guaranteeing the maintenance of the curricular autonomy of initial teacher training courses), in addition to the inclusion of a chapter on the BNCC.

Resolution No. 04/2024, which establishes the DCNs for initial higher education training for Basic Education teachers, came into effect on July 1, 2024. The current text explicitly states that initial training should provide a broad, contextually grounded understanding of school education, guaranteeing learning rights and the principles of democratic management. It should also prioritize methodological diversification and the use of different languages. Furthermore, the text reaffirms the commitment to ensure active and critical contact with the school from the beginning of initial training (Resolução CNE/CP nº 04/2024).

In the second chapter of the 2024 DCNs, Article 4 defends and values science. The subsequent article addresses the principles of gender diversity and equity, a rather sensitive topic in the current Brazilian context, in which evangelical and far-right political movements have criminalized issues related to gender and sexual identities, resulting in experiences such as the “School Without Parties” movement, which prohibits addressing the topic in schools.

Also in this chapter, there is an explicit defense of emancipatory education as an ethical-political foundation. In fact, the expressions “emancipatory” permeate the entire document, along with the notion of pedagogical praxis, indicating a theoretical affiliation with critical theories of education. These concepts are cited to justify the need to educate for a sovereign, democratic, just, and secular nation. Finally, there is concern about the relationship between theory and practice and the importance of recognizing the school as a key locus of education.

Regarding the graduate profile and the BNCC, a topic discussed in the third chapter, there is a defense of training that offers a broad, systemic view of teaching. Pedagogical practice is explicitly understood as “praxis,” which should foster interdisciplinarity and train an active and critical future teacher. The future professional must also recognize the different learning paces, something that, in a way, clashes with the definition of “what” to teach each year, as presented in the BNCC. The future teacher must also have basic mastery of information and communication technologies; value research, extension, and inclusion; use different languages and learning spaces; and know how to monitor learning through formative assessments and various records.

Initial training courses must ensure adequate monitoring of supervised internships and make use of various forms of observation and documentation, such as reports, portfolios, experience reports, and video and image records. In this sense, the importance of the partnership between the school and the training institution is highlighted. Future teachers must have ongoing support to expand their reading and writing comprehension, as deficiencies in this area are quite dramatic in Brazil, even among those who have completed basic schooling. They must also ensure that future teachers acquire basic knowledge of communication in Brazilian Sign Language (LIBRAS), to guarantee inclusive pedagogical practices and comply with the provisions of the Brazilian Law for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (Lei nº 13.146/2015) and the Teaching of African, Afro-Brazilian, and Indigenous History and Culture (Lei nº 10.639/2003; Lei nº 11.645/2008), which aim to recognize the historical and cultural importance of indigenous and Afro-Brazilian peoples. The objective of these laws is to democratize education, promote inclusion and the individual rights and freedoms of people with disabilities, and value black and indigenous culture. These provisions involve all levels of regular schooling, whether public or private.

In Article 8 of Resolution No. 04/2024, the text explicitly states that:

Article 8. Initial teacher training courses for basic school education for Indigenous School Education, Rural School Education, and Quilombola School Education will be taught based on the following guidelines:

1. Initial teacher training for basic school education in Indigenous School Education must consider the specific curricular norms and frameworks and legal order, with intercultural and bilingual teaching, aiming at the full appreciation of the cultures of indigenous peoples and the affirmation and maintenance of their ethnic diversity;

2. Initial teacher training for basic school education in Rural School Education and Quilombola School Education must take into account the ethnic-cultural diversity of each community.

In the fourth chapter, which deals with “Structure and Curriculum,” Article 13 ensures that initial training courses, respecting national diversity and the pedagogical autonomy of institutions, will consist of the following core areas:

Core I - General training studies: scientific, educational, and pedagogical knowledge common to all undergraduate teaching degrees. Core II - Learning and deepening of specific content in professional practice areas: components, thematic units, and objects of knowledge guided by the BNCC. Core III - Academic extension activities: practices linked to curricular components. Core IV - Supervised curricular internship.

Its structure will have the following organization:

Paragraph 1. The courses referred to in the heading will have a minimum of 3,200 (three thousand two hundred) hours in courses lasting at least 4 (four) years, comprising:

1. 880 (eight hundred and eighty) hours dedicated to general training activities, according to Core I [...]

2. 1,600 (one thousand six hundred) hours dedicated to the in-depth study of specific knowledge in the area of training and performance in education …

3. 320 (three hundred and twenty) hours of academic extension activities, developed in basic education institutions, a privileged place for the activities of undergraduate teaching courses. This workload, linked to the curricular components from the beginning of the course …

4. 400 (four hundred) hours dedicated to the supervised curricular internship, distributed throughout the course, from its beginning, in the area of training and performance in basic education … (Resolução nº 04/2024).

Finally, the 2024 DCNs, in the chapter entitled “Transitional Provisions and Annexes,” present a table of organization of “equivalent areas” between first and second-degree programs. In the table, Physical Education, which has been included in the area of Languages since the 1990s, as confirmed by the 2018 BNCC, appears as a field of Natural Sciences, which increases epistemological confusion about the field’s identity.

Current teacher training in Physical Education in Brazil and Argentina: between similarities and differences

Based on the descriptions and analyses of the resolutions and norms that guide the initial training of Physical Education teachers in Brazil and Argentina, we reserve this final section to compare these formative experiences.

Let us begin with the fact that both countries, since the first decade of the 21^st century, have organized policies for the inclusion and recognition of the cultures of minorities historically subjugated by processes of colonial and social domination. These laws thus represent an important advance in terms of equity and the strengthening of democracy. The comparison made, however, demonstrates nuances, as it is possible to perceive that, concerning the theme of gender and sexuality, Argentina has advanced more than Brazil, because the right to sex education, which includes the debate on these issues, is guaranteed by law, with concrete recommendations for the field of Physical Education in the organization of its content. In the Argentine Physical Education document, the very idea of inclusion is addressed in a broader sense, materialized in the concept of “difference,” rather than the more restricted notion of inclusion for people with disabilities. Undoubtedly, this is a great advance in Argentine Physical Education, as the problems of violence against women and LGBTQIAPN+ are alarming throughout the world. Thus, the implementation of educational policies that address the issue is fundamental, considering that many conservative groups, including religious ones, criminalize the topic, as can be seen in the Brazilian reality.

In Brazil, the advancement of laws addressing ethnic-racial issues (and the inclusion of people with disabilities) is highlighted . With the promulgation of laws through affirmative action concerning policies aimed at recognition and historical reparation for Black and Indigenous peoples, victims of colonial oppression, the country has advanced in laws that require school curricula and teacher training to address Afro-Brazilian and Indigenous cultures and inclusion. In the Argentine documents studied, no explicit guidance was found for teaching content related to the native peoples’ cultures. There is a certain invisibility of the topic. However, as the Argentine documents that guide the training curricula are “recommendations,” they allow each jurisdiction to adopt content and practices from the native peoples of their regions. On the other hand, it also enables this content to remain excluded and invisible.

Understanding these differences, which are reflected in legal documents and guide initial training in each country, is extremely complex. Thus, we venture to operate with some interpretative hypotheses, which involve the colonial history of each country, as well as the constitution of feminist and Black/Indigenous movements throughout the 20^th century, when both countries had already “emancipated” themselves. It is undeniable that, in Brazil and Argentina, European colonization promoted the genocide of native peoples and adopted practices of Black enslavement.

Brazil was the country that received the most enslaved Africans in all of the Americas, with significant impacts on the formation of Brazilian society and the constitution of its cultural identity. Due to forced migration and indigenous genocide, Afro-descendants, even in the face of whitening policies carried out throughout the 20^th century, ended up making up the largest population layer in the country and, since the colonial period, as Loango and Silva (2022) indicate, they have organized themselves politically and undertaken struggles for recognition that have materialized, in the 21^st century, through affirmative action policies and historical reparations, which are also expressed in the educational field.

Argentina, in turn, received far fewer people from the African continent during its colonial period. After the independence of that country and the adoption of whitening policies, this population was placed on the front line of wars and almost eliminated in the clashes. Loango and Silva (2022) also highlight that, regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, Argentina is advancing more slowly than Brazil. The latter country already has land demarcation laws and the inclusion of indigenous cultures in the school curriculum. The authors also emphasize that the genocide of indigenous and black people in Argentina, along with the large-scale European immigration, helped to build a sense of belonging and a national identity more identified with white and European people. Perhaps this helps explain the leniency in implementing affirmative action laws and policies for Argentina’s native peoples.

Regarding advances in women’s rights, we have a contrasting trend. While women’s rights in Brazil are advancing slowly, in Argentina, significant achievements have been observed since the end of the 20^th century. Aleixo (2020), when commenting on studies that address “50 years of feminism in Argentina, Brazil and Chile,” highlights that one of the main differences in the constitution of Argentine and Brazilian feminism is that, in the former, the movement emerges with an autonomous characteristic, prioritizing self-organization from the grassroots, while in Brazil it was constituted more institutionally, acting more in spaces of power, to approve laws and public policies. In this sense, despite its importance, there may be a greater distance from the grassroots and, therefore, less capacity for popular mobilization. Furthermore, Argentina democratized education much earlier than Brazil, which may have influenced awareness of women’s rights; added to this is the fact that Argentina has not experienced the vertiginous advance of neo-Pentecostal Christian religions, as has occurred in Brazil since the end of the 20^th century. Religious movements that repackage conservatism and revive the far right in the country, wielding significant political power and participation in parliament

The guiding documents for Physical Education teacher training in both Brazil and Argentina establish a commitment to the formation of the “integral individual” and to its articulation with the scientific, ethical, aesthetic, technical, and political dimensions of pedagogical practice. Furthermore, there is a valorization of science, of Physical Education as a dimension of culture, of different languages, and a defense of bringing the university closer to the school environment, materialized in internship and pedagogical residency experiences as vital training loci. This “progressive” horizon leads us to perceive a commitment to critical and emancipatory training for the strengthening of the democratic rule of law, with the reduction of social inequalities and recognition of the plurality that constitutes the world.

This progressive facet is also manifested, not without ambiguities, in the understandings of the identity of Physical Education in the documents of the two realities investigated. Furthermore, the theoretical eclecticism identified in the 2009 recommendations of Argentina is also evident in Resolution No. 06 of 2018 in Brazil. Moreover, this conceptual polysemy is a hallmark of Brazilian Physical Education, as the BNCC defines the specificity of the area; the specific guidelines that orient training (Resolução CNE/CES nº 06/2018); and, finally, we can also mention, without going into a more detailed analysis, the document from Area 21-CAPES (Ministério da Educação, 2025), which guides the evaluation of postgraduate studies in Brazilian Physical Education, presenting a third understanding of the school subject.

Despite these inconsistencies/incoherencies, it is clear that the educational fields of both countries have adopted a renewed vocabulary, some of which is linked to critical theories of knowledge. In this context, it is possible to conclude that the so-called renewal movement in Brazilian Physical Education has influenced the reorganizations undertaken in the neighboring country, which is manifested by the use of concepts frequently employed in Brazil (for example, body practices or body culture of movement) or even by the direct and explicit reference to Brazilian authors, such as Valter Bracht. It is not surprising that the 2019 document in Argentina adopts the perspective of the body culture of movement. Furthermore, highlighted excerpts from Resolution No. 272/2019 reveal an approximation to theses that associate the social function of Physical Education with the principles of a “republican school,” a proposition that, in Brazil, spread especially thanks to the texts of Paulo Fensterseifer and Fernando González, an author who is, incidentally, explicitly cited in the text. The understanding of content as “public traditions,” of “learning rights,” of “experience” as a producer of knowledge (with special emphasis on internships and teaching residencies), of a “common base” that should be accessible to all, or the understanding of body practices as bearers of “multiplicity of meanings” that are part of the body culture of movement of different social groups, all of which are present in the Argentine documents analyzed here, are very similar to what is outlined in the Brazilian BNCC¹⁸. It is also noteworthy that, as in the BNCC, health and leisure (free time) are similarly considered central axes of work in initial teacher training in Argentina¹⁹.

Despite these similarities, some important differences between the two countries also became evident. In this sense, we can cite the fact that, in Brazil, the DCNs and the BNCC are established as mandatory guidelines to be respected by states and municipalities in the construction of curricula and by universities in the elaboration of their curricular matrices. In Argentina, in turn, the investigated documents remain as legal instruments with the character of “recommendations” for non-university teacher training in Physical Education. Therefore, the regulations concerning the initial training of Physical Education teachers are general national recommendations that should support provinces in developing their local guidelines. However, the provinces have autonomy to develop their own matrices based on their local realities.

In Argentina, while the perspective of the body culture of movement is gaining ground in legal documents, in Brazil, it has receded in the specific DCNs for undergraduate courses in Physical Education (Resolução nº 06/2018). Furthermore, in the Brazilian case, a series of contradictions is evident between this guideline and the one currently guiding all initial teacher training in Brazil (Resolução nº 04/2024), placing the area in a state of legal and administrative uncertainty that weakens teacher training. In other words, there are currently two resolutions in Brazil that address the same subject, but they conflict on several points²⁰. For example, the specific content of the undergraduate degree, in Resolution No. 06/2018, has half the hours foreseen in the 2024 DCNs, preventing, among other things, compliance with what is stated in Article 13, paragraph 5 – item I, of the 2024 Resolution, which stipulates that the interaction with the school field and internships should have their workloads “… distributed throughout the training program, starting from the first semester of the course …” (Resolução nº 04/2024).

Important representative entities in the fields of Education and Physical Education, such as the National Association of Higher Education Professors (ANDES) and the Brazilian College of Sports Sciences (CBCE), have expressed their views and are making efforts to overturn the 2018 Resolution²¹. Public universities have also resisted the imposed curricular changes and maintained their separate courses within the legally permitted adaptation periods. However, the private sector, which is the overwhelming majority in the country, has already been working in this format. It is also noteworthy that only the Physical Education course has undergone this modification in Brazil, i.e., the other areas of knowledge comprising the school subjects continue to operate under the separation between bachelor’s and teaching degrees.

Another important point concerns the field’s identity and legitimation in both countries. In Argentina, there is a predominant focus, particularly in ISFDyT, on understanding Physical Education in its pedagogical character and in training for the school environment. The concern to highlight “teaching” as a central element of training is evident in the documents discussed in this article²². In Brazil, this identity seems more diluted between the pedagogical and the liberal professional aspects, since bachelor’s degree courses have grown and already exceed the number of places offered in teaching degrees. Bracht (2003) explains that, in the Brazilian case, what gave meaning to the identity of Physical Education at the beginning of the 20^th century was the school dimension, since it was the schooling of Physical Education and the pedagogization of its practices that created the need for its institutionalization and engendered the field from the 1930s onwards. Indeed, its insertion into the school later enabled it to become an academic discipline.

Affected by broader social and cultural changes, especially since the 1970s, the field has been undergoing a process of depedagogization, in which other meanings – in addition to those linked to formal education – have come to the fore, such as those related to aesthetics and fitness. In short, legitimacy and identity are no longer central to the pedagogical function, as contemporary political, economic, and cultural changes have promoted commodification in the cultural sphere. In this sense, the relationships established with cultural production are much more about consumption (or the exchange of commercial convenience) than pedagogical in the traditionally adopted sense (Gerez & Gonzaléz, 2020). Thus, there is “… a loss of the hegemony of the pedagogical vision or character with which body practices were imbued in the social imaginary …” (Bracht, 2003, p. 21).

Thus, it seems that currently in Brazil, the market is a significant player vying for control of the field of Physical Education, not only due to the predominance of for-profit private higher education institutions, but also through its forceful influence over the laws and DCNs that govern initial teacher training. Considering the analysis of the legislation in both countries and the fact that Brazil has established a vast for-profit private sector in higher education (resulting in the current instrumentalization of the field for market purposes), this trend appears stronger in Brazil than in Argentina.

Final considerations

Given the analyses conducted, it is possible to affirm that Argentina and Brazil have made significant advances in the field of Physical Education, as evidenced by their current legal frameworks. These movements sometimes reflect political and epistemic advances, and sometimes setbacks, as is evident in the Brazilian case. In the Argentine context, it is possible to perceive significant epistemological changes between the 2009 documents, with a psychopedagogical orientation, and the perspective of body culture of movement expressed in 2019. In Brazil, a country where the field, since the 1990s, has been consolidating the progressive notion anchored in the body culture of movement, especially in the school context, its current legislation (2018 and 2024) presents epistemic confusions and contradictions between the two documents that support initial training, which weakens the area in its progressive perspective.

In this sense, it seems quite plausible to affirm that the disputes surrounding the field of Physical Education and its meanings in the two countries also present differences. In Brazil, the market currently seems to have more influence in defining initial teacher training guidelines than in Argentina, where disputes over the contours of initial teacher training appear to occur much more between traditional and progressive perspectives in Physical Education and/or between the tradition of non-university training institutes and the university (two places authorized to offer initial training in Argentina). In Brazil, these disputes currently occur between the market and the academic field, and, for now, the market has been winning. Furthermore, the process of depedagogization of Brazilian Physical Education has also become evident.

It was also possible to identify that Physical Education in Argentina has been strongly influenced, in the last two decades, by issues of inclusion, gender, and sexuality. In Brazil, on the other hand, experiences of inclusion and recognition have placed greater emphasis on ethnic-racial issues. These differences can be explained by each country’s colonial history and emancipation processes, as well as the resulting peculiarities that shaped the constitution of feminist and Black/Indigenous movements in Argentina and Brazil.

With this further distinction, we conclude the comparative analysis of the legal guidelines and other documents that guide the initial training of Physical Education teachers in Brazil and Argentina. The reflections presented here can be complemented by those developed in another article (Gerez et al., 2025), which addresses the same topic with an emphasis on the administrative and organizational characteristics of the institutions responsible for the initial training of Physical Education teachers. We wish for both here and there a great reading experience.

• Support and funding:
  Espírito Santo Research and Innovation Support Foundation (FAPES): Profix Notice 15/2022 (Process 2022-Z3971); Universal Notice 03/2021 (Process 2021-B3GXG); Capixaba Researcher Grant 06/2021 (Process 2022-D93DK); Universal Notice 28/2022 (Process 2023-DL91F).
  Foundation for Science and Technology of the State of Pernambuco (FACEPE): Pernambuco Productivity Grant Notice - 02/2025.
• Copy editing services:
  Portuguese version - Copy editing and standardization of citations and bibliographical references (7th Edition APA): Mayara Leite [e-mail]
  English version: Henrique Akira [e-mail]
• 1
  “Los planes de estudio de las instituciones de formación docente de carácter no universitario, cuyos títulos habiliten para el ejercicio de la docencia en los niveles no universitarios del sistema, serán establecidos respetando los contenidos básicos comunes para la formación docente que se acuerden en el seno del Consejo Federal de Cultura y Educación” (Campomar, 2015).
• 2
  “… distintos mecanismos de ‘diversificación’ que se dan entre los estudiantes de acordo a la instituición donde realizaron su formación” (Levoratti, 2022, p. 15).
• 3
  A more in-depth reflection on this topic was the subject of our analysis in another publication (Gerez et al., 2025).
• 4
  “… La emergencia de este nuevo paradigma de pensamiento posibilita advertir las diferentes dimensiones y aspectos relevantes de la corporeidad y motricidad humanas. En la actualidad, la Educación Física, concebida como disciplina pedagógica, tiene por objeto intervenir intencional y sistemáticamente en la constitución corporal y motriz de los sujetos, colaborando en su formación integral y en la apropiación de bienes culturales específicos, a través de prácticas docentes que parten de considerarlos en la totalidad de su complejidad humana y en sus posibilidades de comprender y transformar su realidad individual y social …” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 8).
• 5
  “En cambio, en la educación física que plantean los actuales diseños curriculares de los niveles primario y secundario en la mayoría de las jurisdicciones provinciales, el deporte se traspone didácticamente como un contenido mediador para la formación corporal y motriz de los ciudadanos, con un sentido recreador de valores y autonomía personal durante la utilización activa del tiempo libre. En este sentido las necesidades y requerimientos sociales de prácticas deportivas acordes con las distintas posibilidades de las personas y los grupos que constituyen, en contextos donde prima la diversidad, no admiten un modelo pensado desde la idealización del deporte como máxima expresión del potencial humano o de distinción social, excluyente y elitista” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 10)
• 6
  “… La influencia de la Escuela de Frankfurt, con su modelo sociocrítico, las concepciones holísticas y el paradigma de la complejidad, entre otras, contribuyen a sustentar un nuevo enfoque disciplinar” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 12).
• 7
  “En definitiva, se hace necesario disponer de una epistemología que religue todos estos aspectos …” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 12).
• 8
  “Luego del breve recorrido realizado por estas posturas, es posible confirmar a la Educación Física como una disciplina pedagógica que contribuye a la construcción de la corporeidad y motricidad, con fuerte consideración de los contextos socioculturales en los que ejerce su acción, en constante reflexión sobre su propia identidad disciplinar y sobre las estrategias de intervención necesarias para que dicha contribución sea posible” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 14).
• 9
  “Desde esta perspectiva, la formación general deberá aportar los marcos conceptuales y cuerpos de conocimiento que permitan la comprensión de las dimensiones estructurales y dinámicas, el reconocimiento tanto de regularidades como de especificidades contextuales, así como la identificación de problemas” (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 30).
• 10
  “Propone un enfoque actualizado e innovador, para garantizar el derecho a la educación corporal a través de trayectorias escolares continuas, completas y significativas. Este enfoque busca que los/las estudiantes dispongan de las oportunidades para apropiarse de un suficiente capital cultural propio de la Educación Física, que le permita un acceso democrático a la cultura de lo corporal. Es un marco nacional orientador que establece criterios y lineamientos comunes acordados y construidos en conjunto por el Estado Nacional y las jurisdicciones del país” (Resolución nº 272/19, p. 6).
• 11
  “La enseñanza de la Educación Física inclusiva es un derecho para todo el alumnado. La misma se despliega en la actualidad como un horizonte pedagógico que no reducido ni limitado únicamente a la educación de los estudiantes con discapacidad, sino que da cuenta del reconocimiento de las particularidades y necesidades de cada uno/a y de todos/as los alumnos/ as. Se basa en el principio de que cada niño/a tiene características, intereses y necesidades de aprendizaje distintos y deben ser los sistemas educativos los que deben diseñarse teniendo en cuenta la amplia diversidad de características y necesidades” (Resolución nº 272/19, p. 7).
• 12
  Argentina has had Law No. 26,150 (Ley nº 26.150/2006) since 2006, which created the National Program for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (ESI), “ ...established by the curricular guidelines defined by the Federal Council of Education, which determines the cross-cutting nature of ESI” (Resolução nº 272/19, p. 14). Original: “… plasmada en los lineamientos curriculares definidos por el Consejo Federal de Educación, que plantean el carácter transversal de la ESI” (Resolución nº 272/19, p. 14).
• 13
  “En ese marco, la cuestión de género interpeló la propuesta educativa tradicional, desde una perspectiva de derecho. Los movimientos de mujeres y LGTBIQ+, comenzaron a cuestionar tipificaciones y comportamientos establecidos para hombres y mujeres, a la par que realizaron señalamientos críticos a la normativa heterosexual obligatoria y a la discriminación que sufren las personas que no adscriben a dichas normas. Sus planteos, generaron alto impacto en el conjunto de la sociedad, creando nuevas representaciones y valoraciones sobre los géneros” (Resolución nº 272/19, p.14).
• 14
  “… Esta situación exige dirigir la mirada hacia la Educación Física misma con independencia del lugar que pueda o no corresponderle en el campo científico” (Resolución nº 272/19, p. 10).
• 15
  “ … esto puede ser interpretado como una nueva etapa para esta disciplina constituyendo la necesidad de demostrar y afirmar que la Educación Física es portadora de un conjunto de conocimientos, un saber (inclusive conceptual) necesario para la formación plena del ciudadano .…. En definitiva, la Educación Física forma parte de la cultura y produce cultura, en la escuela y en el medio social, conformándose y expresándose como un proyecto cultural que incide en las representaciones sociales y en las subjetividades” (Resolución nº 272/19, p. 10).
• 16
  “Concebida como una disciplina pedagógica reconocida y construida por la cultura como una práctica social que, mediada por procesos de enseñanza intencionales y sistemáticos, incide específicamente en aprendizajes que se manifiestan en la dimensión corporal de los sujetos, actualmente basa su enseñanza en conocimientos que estructuran la cultura corporal de movimiento como propósito, y reivindican para esta disciplina la condición de asignatura escolar …. Asume la responsabilidad de estudiar la cultura corporal de movimiento …. Debe pedagogizar las prácticas corporales sistematizadas y las representaciones sociales vinculadas a las mismas de tal manera que proporcione al sujeto el acceso a una dimensión de conocimiento que no sería posible de alcanzar de otro modo” (Resolución nº 272/19, p. 10-11).
• 17
  “… evidenciando la multiplicidad de sentidos y significados que los grupos sociales confieren a las prácticas corporales, bien como la posibilidad de su transformación” (Resolución nº 272/19, p. 11).
• 18
  This does not mean that all the influence is Brazilian. For example, the idea of a “public tradition” was already present in the Federal Law of the 1990s, which reproduced Lawrence Stenhouse’s perspective on the subject. Furthermore, “learning rights” are addressed in the new National Education Law.
• 19
  Regarding the influence of Brazilian authors on Argentine Physical Education, we suggest reading Levoratti (2017, 2021) and Nascimento et al. (2023).
• 20
  Added to this is the fact that both the 2018 and 2024 Resolutions disregard the understanding that, in the BNCC, Physical Education is included in the area of Languages, as a field that addresses the different body practices that make up the body culture of movement.
• 21
  Studies, such as those by Machado (2022), Abib and Knuth, and Figueiredo et al. (2021), have demonstrated that this Resolution fails to provide qualified training in either teaching or bachelor’s degree programs. What exists is a practice of instrumentalizing the curriculum, setbacks, and the dismantling of initial training in Physical Education.
• 22
  The same cannot necessarily be observed in higher education in Physical Education at university institutions.

Research data availability:

The contents underlying the research text are included in the manuscript.

References

• Abib, L. T., & Knuth, A. G. (2021). As diretrizes curriculares nacionais da educação física de 2018 e as imprecisões em torno da saúde coletiva e o SUS. Pensar a Prática, 24, e67182. https://doi.org/10.5216/rpp.v24.67182
  » https://doi.org/10.5216/rpp.v24.67182
• Aleixo. M. T. (2020). Argentina, Brasil, Chile entre feminismos e os direitos das mulheres. Revista Estudos Feministas, 28(2), e60428.
• Bourdieu, P. (1997). Os excluídos do interior. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), A miséria do mundo (7ª ed., (pp. 481-486). Vozes.
• Bracht, V. (2003). Identidade e crise da Educação Física: um enfoque epistemológico. In V. Bracht, & R. Crisorio. (Orgs.), A Educação Física no Brasil e na Argentina: identidade, desafios e perspectivas (pp. 13-34). Autores Associados; PROSUL.
• Campomar, G. C. Evolución del professorado de Educacón Fisica y su transición a la educación superior universitária Espacio Editorial.
• Carvalho, E. J. G. (2014). Estudos comparados em educação: novos enfoques teóricos metodológicos. Acta Scientiarum, 36(1), 129-141. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascieduc.v36i1.19012
  » https://doi.org/10.4025/actascieduc.v36i1.19012
• Ferreira, A. G. (2008). O sentido da educação comparada: uma compreensão sobre a construção de uma identidade. Educação, 31(2),124-138. https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/faced/article/view/2764
  » https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/faced/article/view/2764
• Figueiredo, Z. C. C., Andrade Filho, N. F., & Alves, C. A. (2021). A instrumentalização do currículo na formação de professores de educação física no brasil [Artigo apresentado]. XXII Congresso Brasileiro de Ciências do Esporte e IX Congresso Internacional de Ciências do Esporte. Belo Horizonte, Brasil. http://congressos.cbce.org.br/index.php/conbrace2021/9conice/paper/view/14666
  » http://congressos.cbce.org.br/index.php/conbrace2021/9conice/paper/view/14666
• Gerez, A. G., & González, F. J. (2020). La formación en Educación Física en Brasil: tensiones y transformaciones. Rivista Italiana di Pedagogia dello Sport, 1, 62-72.
• Gerez, A. G., Almeida, F. Q., & Levoratti, A. (2025). Motrivivência, 37(68), 01-21.
• Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. (1996, 23 de dezembro). Estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional. Diário Oficial da União, seção 1.
• Lei nº 10.639, de 9 de janeiro de 2003. (2003, 10 de janeiro). Altera a Lei nº 9.394/96 para incluir no currículo oficial da Rede de Ensino a obrigatoriedade da temática "História e Cultura Afro-Brasileira". Diário Oficial da União, seção 1.
• Lei nº 11.645, de 10 de março de 2008. (2008, 11 de março). Altera a Lei nº 9.394/96 para incluir no currículo oficial da rede de ensino a obrigatoriedade da temática “História e Cultura Afro-Brasileira e Indígena”. Diário Oficial da União, seção 1.
• Lei nº 13.146, de 6 de julho de 2015. (2015, 7 de julho). Institui a Lei Brasileira de Inclusão da Pessoa com Deficiência (Estatuto da Pessoa com Deficiência). Diário Oficial da União, seção 1.
• Levoratti, A. (2017). Configuraciones de la formación de los profesores en Educación Física: actores y sentidos en disputa en instituciones de educación superior en la provincia de Buenos Aires (Argentina, 1990-2015) [Tese de doutorado, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
• Levoratti, A. (2018). Los debates de la educación física y los enfoques de las ciencias sociales: un análisis de los lineamientos curriculares nacionales destinados a la formación docente en argentina (1993-2015). Revista da Associación Latinoamericana de Estudios Socioculturales de Desportes, 9(1), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.5380/jlasss.v9i1.61189
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/jlasss.v9i1.61189
• Levoratti, A. (2021). La construcción de la concepción de educación física en la instancia de definición curricular. Un análisis de los diseños curriculares para la formación docente inicial de la provincia de Buenos Aires-Argentina. Ágora para la Educación Física y Deporte, 23, 7-28. https://doi.org/10.24197/aefd.0.2021.7-28
  » https://doi.org/10.24197/aefd.0.2021.7-28
• Levoratti, A. (2022). Las formaciones de grado em Educación Física em la Argentina contemporánea. Instituiciones, proyectos curriculares y circulaciones posibles. Revista EFEI, 10.
• Levoratti, A.; Kopelovich, P. (2021). La Educación Física argentina en la actualidad: normativas, lineamientos curriculares, formação docente y desempenho laboral. Motricidades, 5(3), 317-328. https://doi.org/10.29181/2594-6463-2021-v5-n3-p317-328
  » https://doi.org/10.29181/2594-6463-2021-v5-n3-p317-328
• Ley nº 26.206, de 14 de diciembre de 2006. (2006, 28 de diciembre). Ley de Educación Nacional. Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina
• Ley nº 26.150, de 4 de octubre de 2006. (2006, 24 de octubre). Programa Nacional de Educación Sexual Integral. Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina
• Ley de Educación Superior n° 24.521. (1995).Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina.
• Loango, A. O., & Silva, P. V. B. da. (2022). Igualdade racial e ações afirmativas na Argentina e Brasil. Educação & Sociedade, 43, e264465. https://doi.org/10.1590/ES.264465
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/ES.264465
• Machado, R. B. (2022). Formação em Educação Física e a questão da diferença: um olhar a partir da Resolução 06/2018. Movimento, 28, e28027. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.121511
  » https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.121511
• Ministério da Educação. (2025). Documento de área: Educação Física, Fisioterapia, Fonoaudiologia e Terapia Ocupacional. Área 21.
• Ministerio de Educación. (2009). Recomendaciones para la elaboración de diseños curriculares. Profesorado de Educación Física
• Nascimento, D., Almeida, F. Q, & Levoratti, A. (2023). Tendências internacionais da Educação Física Argentina: a reinvenção de uma tradição. Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte, 45, e20230018. https://doi.org/10.1590/rbce.45.e20230018
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/rbce.45.e20230018
• Perboni, F., Farias, A. F., & Nogueira, I. de S. (2021). Formação de professores dos anos iniciais da escolarização: um estudo comparado entre Argentina, Brasil e Paraguai. Jornal de Políticas Educacionais, 15, e83188. https://doi.org/10.5380/jpe.v15i0.83188
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/jpe.v15i0.83188
• Resolución nº 285/16. (2016, 23 de agosto). Consejo Federal de Educación
• Resolución nº 272/19, de 9 de diciembre de 2019. (2019, 9 de diciembre). Marco de Organización para la enseñanza de la Educación Física escolar en Argentina. Secretaría de Gestión Educativa
• Resolução CNE/CP nº 01, de 18 de fevereiro de 2002. (2002, 9 de abril). Institui Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Formação de Professores da Educação Básica. Diário Oficial da União, seção 1.
• Resolução CNE/CP nº 02, de 19 de fevereiro de 2002. (2002, 4 de março). Institui a duração e a carga horária dos cursos de licenciatura. Diário Oficial da União, seção 1.
• Resolução CNE/CES nº 7, de 31 de março de 2004. (2004, 31 de março). Institui as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para os cursos de graduação em Educação Física, em nível superior de graduação plena. Diário Oficial da União
• Resolução CNE/CP nº 02, de 1º de julho de 2015. (2015, 2 de julho). Define as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a formação inicial em nível superior. Diário Oficial da União, seção 1, pp. 8-12.
• Resolução CNE/CES nº 06, de 18 de dezembro de 2018. (2018, 19 de dezembro). Institui Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais dos Cursos de Graduação em Educação Física. Diário Oficial da União, seção 1, pp. 48-49.
• Resolução CNE/CES nº 4, de 17 de dezembro de 2018. (2018, 17 de dezembro). Institui a Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC). Diário Oficial da União
• Resolução CNE/CES nº 1, de 2 de julho de 2019. (2019, 02 de julho). Define as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a formação inicial em nível superior (cursos de licenciatura, cursos de formação pedagógica para graduados e cursos de segunda licenciatura). Diário Oficial da União
• Resolução CNE/CES nº 2, de 20 de dezembro de 2019. (2019, 20 de dezembro). Define as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a formação inicial de professores para a Educação Básica e institui a Base Nacional Comum para a Formação Inicial de Professores da Educação Básica (BNC-Formação). Diário Oficial da União
• Resolução CNE/CP nº 04, de 30 de maio de 2024. (2024, 3 de junho). Dispõe sobre as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Formação de Profissionais do Magistério da Educação Escolar Básica. Diário Oficial da União
• Rocha, M. C. (2023). Infância, corpo e movimento na Educação Infantil de Brasil e Chile: uma perspectiva comparada [Tese de doutorado, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo].

Edited by

• Responsible editors:
  Associate Editor: Edivaldo Góis Junior https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0521-1937>
  Editor-in-Chief: Chantal Medaets https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7834-3834>

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 June 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  16 June 2025
• Reviewed
  20 Oct 2025
• Accepted
  18 Feb 2026