Now that the fireworks set off at the launch of the 2013/14Education for All Global Monitoring Report ( GMR) have died down, the GMR, asmost publications of similar nature, begins to slowly slide into oblivion.There are good reasons why we should rescue it though. It is beyond disputethat the report draws the attention to many issues that are fundamental to us,teachers. Consequently, we can only benefit from disseminating itsrecommendations and using it to further our cause. Nevertheless, there is norose no pun with the former reports director name intended- without athorn and certain GMR conclusions, if unchallenged, risk sending policy makersin the wrong direction.Let me be honest with you, from the start. I am not any people actually read it. One of the things thatalways called my attention about it is its tendency to serve as a platform forpublicity of NGOs. Year after year, the report highlights successful examplesof programmes run by NGOs in different countries and presents them as eitherinnovative or best practice. Of course, the source of such a conclusion is,more often than not, a report submitted by the very same organisation. One canonly wonder if an NGO would voluntarily submit a report that says a givenintervention failed. This raises concerns about whether the GMR team lookscritically at such programmes. This, per se, is not a major problem, but itdoes gain importance if we fail to take an in-depth look as to why a programmeis considered successful and what lessons we can learn from it. Afterall, as stated in the reports foreword, we must learn from evidence. The GMR team is entitled to throwing a spotlight oninterventions they consider successful. Nevertheless, when a report thataims to influence public policy fails to see that what is presented as asuccessful NGO intervention is nothing more than what governments should be doingin the first place, and what teachers unions advocate for on a daily basis, Iget worried. I get even more worried when the report makes the case that youcan learn faster in an NGO-run school than in formal government schools. Whatis the policy recommendation such a conclusion implies? When the GMR does not look further into why the students ofa certain NGO-run school, where the maximum number of students per class is 25- less than half the nations official , not the real pupil teacherratio- learn better than those who attend government schools, it ismissing an opportunity. Clearly, smaller number of students in a classroomallow for better learning. When the GMR says that students who attended an NGOliteracy programme which provided teachers with adequate materials and trainingperform better than students whose teachers did not receive any, it is missinganother opportunity to say that adequately trained and supported teachers willperform better. It seems that NGO best practice thrives when governmentworst practice is in place. Maybe the GMR could focus less on what the NGOS aredoing right and more on what the governments are doing wrong? Desde o dia em que o Brasil foi escolhido como sede de dois eventos esportivos internacionais de envergadura,especificamente, o festim da FIFA em 2014 e os jogos olimpicos