The first part of the study deals with the genealogy of teachers’ training in Czechoslovakia in the last fifty years, i. e. with the views held in this area (the theory of teachers’ training as a special part of pedagogical theory) and with the state of institutions, in particular the institutions of university level training primary and secondary school teachers. Under the conditions of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy before 1918 the teachers of the then Elementary School and Lower Secondary School built up a very progressive tradition of campaigns for university education. This tradition, which was promoted by the representatives of pedagogical theory (G. A. Lindner, F. Drtina, 0. Kádner and others), teachers (J. Olehla and others), a broader scientific front (T. G. Masaryk, F. Krejčí and others) as well as some political parties (the Social Democracy, too, had a significant share in this campaign) was followed up by the efforts of teachers and educationists especially in the first years of the newly established state of Czechs and Slovaks. These efforts were accompanied by proposals for social and material well-being of the teachers. The introductory study by J. Keprta on the Bill proposing the setting up of Faculties of Education in the universities (University education for teachers, Prague 1919) provides, together with the studies by O. Kádner of the same period an exceptionally significant basis for further theoretical and practical campaigns in this field. The problem of teachers’ training was formulated as being »a vital cultural problem« and the function of the university was defined as the function of the top organ of school organization and an aid in the realization of university education for teachers at all grades. A teachers’ rally in Prague in July 1920 culminated in a programme for a democratic nine-year school and university education for all teachers including nursery school teachers. In the subsequent periods of Czechoslovakia’s development before 1938 there arose and continued to arise considerable tension between the theory, the programme and the educational policy of the Czech and Slovak bourgeoisie. This resulted in numerous clashes of ideas and a further differentiation in the forms of approach to the realization of the university education of teachers. The system of teachers’ training in the pre-Munich Czechoslovak Republic remained practically in the same state as it was in 1918. The theoretical endeavours to solve the complex problems involved culminated in the year 1937 in a controversy between O. Chlup, professor at the faculty of philosophy in Masaryk University in Brno and V. Příhoda, associate professor at the faculty of philosophy in Charles University in Prague. Both of them agreed that the teacher should be a highly qualified specialist in psychological and pedagogical sciences and a highly educated interpreter of modern science. While Příhoda laid greater stress on the psychology of the pupil and the knowledge of it on the part of the teacher, Chlup built his approach on the interaction of teacher and pupil underlining the personality of the teacher. The controversy focused on the problem of the general education of the teacher, how deep it should be and how to acquire it. Chlup proposed a special type of school on university level, in which, together with pedagogical training lectures would be given on other branches of science, mother tongue, mathematics, natural sciences, music, but on a different level (scientific and methodological level) than at faculties of philosophy and science. Příhoda called for a »scientific« preparation of teachers in the sense that he considered it right that the future pedagogical faculty should build up departments of psychology and pedagogy for all grades of schools. He saw the specificness of pedagogical faculties in the unifying function of pedagogical disciplines. The content (subject-matter) component was to be provided in the first stage by the secondary school, in the second stage by other faculties of the university, end finally life itself, particularly the participation of the teacher in cultural life. Practical efforts culminated in the period of the development of people’s democratic Czechoslovakia after the revolution of 1945, in the Education Act of April, 1946, providing for the university education of teachers of all grades. While the above-mentioned Chlup—Příhoda discus sion was a manifestation of a relatively high level of the pedagogical sciense in Czechoslovakia towards the end of the first twenty years of the existence of Czechoslovakia as a young independent state, the Act of 1946 was something of extraordinary significance not only in Czechoslovakia, but also in the development of a modern system of teachers’ training in Europe and in the whole world. Natio nal tradition says that the personality of the teacher is also the main problem of the school reform. The main task of tea chers’ training institutions is, therefore, the formation and education of t e a c h e r s ’ p e r s o n a l i t i e s . Unfortunate ly in the subsequent development of the system of teachers’ education in Czecho slovakia some changes took place, which were a departure from the above-mentio ned theoretical efforts and from the con ception of pedagogical faculties in uni versities as formulated in 1946. Only in recent years have there been attempts to eliminate the shortcomings. The second part of the study «deals with some problems of the theory of teachers’ education from the viewpoint of training teachers for the various stages of the educational system and from the view point of the following components: gene ral education, specialization, philosophical and pedagogico-psychologicai education. Discussions in the past were concerned, most of all, with a synthesis of these components and were reflected in the pro posals for faculty organization (including the accentuation of philosophical educa tion, the environment and the atmosphere in which future teachers are trained, the equipment of faculties with modern tech nical devices, training schools and the like). History in this field can be a source of instruction and inspiration as regards the prospective solution of teachers’ edu cation in a country which has a relatively rich tradition of teacher movement and its efforts to ensure quality education and is facing the task of building a really modern, socialist and at the same time deeply democratic society. It is indispu table that a system of teachers’ education which would be scientifically based and would combine domestic roots with the world currents of thought might be one of the key factors in this process.