Portugal is discussing the announced creation of a single cycle between grades 1 and 6, a reform that is being debated primarily based on its consequences for teachers, such as training, schedules, and school organization. The author, E. Beatriz Rosário, argues that the central question should be different: what truly changes for the child. In the current Portuguese system, the transition from grade 4 to grade 5 is particularly abrupt, with the child moving from a stable universe with one reference teacher to multiple teachers, classrooms, subjects, and different assessment criteria.
The author compares the Portuguese model with the Spanish and French systems. In Spain, Primary Education extends from ages six to twelve, without breaks equivalent to those experienced in Portugal at the end of grade 4, allowing more time to consolidate knowledge and develop skills such as learning how to study, organizing materials, meeting deadlines, and working with peers. In France, although the boundary between primary school and middle school has not been eliminated, cycle 3 was created, integrating the last two years of primary and the first year of middle school, functioning as a year of consolidation and adaptation that prepares the child for the transition.
The author argues that a good transition does not eliminate change but gives the student conditions to face it. She suggests a smarter progression: in the early years, more integrated learning with strong pedagogical guidance; then, a gradual introduction of specialist teachers and interdisciplinary projects; finally, in grades 5 and 6, more demanding but still supported autonomy. She argues that students should arrive at the next cycle not just knowing more, but knowing better how to learn, and that educational continuity requires continuity among teachers, with teams, time for collaborative work, and real knowledge of students' trajectories.
The author also alerts to risks of the reform, including the possibility of it becoming a tool for managing teacher shortages rather than a true educational transformation. The criterion for evaluating the change should be simple: do students learn better? Do they reach age twelve more autonomous and better prepared to deal with different teachers? If the reform merely changes names and schedules without truly improving student learning, little will have changed in what really matters.
