Vanda Mendes Ribeiro

INDICADORES DE QUALIDADE PARA A MOBILIZAÇÃO DA ESCOLA

Este artigo descreve e analisa um sistema de indicadores sobre qualidade da escola que tem sido desenvolvido no Brasil por iniciativa de uma organizacao nao governamental (Acao Educativa) e dois organismos internacionais (Fundo das Nacoes Unidas para a Infância -Unicef - e Programa das Nacoes Unidas para o Desenvolvimento - PNUD), contando com a participacao de outras instituicoes governamentais e nao governamentais de todo o pais. O objetivo principal desses indicadores e o engajamento da propria comunidade na luta pela melhoria da qualidade da escola, o que lhes confere caracteristicas peculiares. Em primeiro lugar, desenha-se o contexto politico que gerou a iniciativa, em seguida, o processo de elaboracao do sistema, depois seus fundamentos e caracteristicas. Conclui-se com comentarios sobre as principais questoes surgidas na primeira utilizacao experimental do sistema em 14 escolas de educacao basica e as perspectivas do projeto.

Que princípio de justiça para a educação básica

This article discusses principles of justice for basic education. François Dubet proposes the Rawlsian principle of justice, basic equality, which advocates that all students should master a basic framework of knowledge. Marcel Crahay proposes the equality of achievement. Both proposals avoid the principle of meritocracy, due to the contradiction between meritocracy and compulsory right. They are in the field of egalitarian distributive justice that values the results of policies due to the correlation between social and educational inequalities. The two authors claim fairness as a relevant part of educational equality; and, they relate tensions in school to principles of justice that express contradictory interests. For these reasons, they support permanent monitoring of policies and their consequences. BasiC eduCaTion • equiTY • eduCaTionaL PoLiCies • JusTiCe W H A T P R IN C IP L E O F J U S T IC E F O R B A S IC E D U C A T IO N ? 10 9 6 C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a v .4 4 n .1 5 4 p .1 0 9 5 -1 10 9 o u t. /d e z . 2 0 14 IN RECENT YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN a growing call for improvement in the quality of education in Brazil. Among the contents of the concept of quality of education are the outcomes, including student learning and fairness. Resources and processes of educational policy implementation are also regarded as dimensions of the concept in question (ADAMS, 1993; UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND, 2000; OLIVEIRA, 2010). With respect to outcomes, studies show high levels of educational inequality linked to students’ socioeconomic status (SOARES, 2005; SOARES; ALVES; 2003; ALVES, 2006; FRANCO et al., 2007). As regards financial resources, although an arguably low percentage of the Brazilian Gross Domestic Product – GDP – is allocated to education,1 there is evidence of gradually increasing investments in basic education.2 Hence, there is evidence that a new challenge is taking form in the country – havingmore public resources available, managers of public basic education will be urged to implement more effective education policies. If this scenario truly comes to pass, research in Brazil on educational policies and school practices that are better able topositively affect fairness will become more relevant. One particular principle of justice for schools exposes the political conception that supports implementing the distribution of “school education” social assets.3 According to Waltenberg (2008), pure libertarians focus only on policy implementation processes, regardless of their consequences. For them, the outcome is the fruit of individual merit. Thus, if the process is fair, its outcomes will necessarily be fair. In contrast, egalitarians value the weight of social origin over merit and, therefore, acknowledge the need to address the distribution of the consequences and the processes. Hence, when considering fairness as part of the concept of quality of education, It is within the scope of political philosophy that proclaims the impossibility of achieving justice, in the type of society we live in, without taking into account the outcomes. This article intends to discuss principles of justice that are aligned with the objective of fairness in basic school education, considering that we live in a democratic society in which the values “freedom” and “equality” are relevant representations. In order to do so, reference is made to theoretical discussions that relate justice and school, especially 1 According to Oliveira & Gadelha (2010), “Considering the expenses in Education from 2002 to 2007, the values invested have remained close to 4% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). [...] In 2008, this amount rose to 4.5% and, in 2009, to 4.7%. Although they indicate an increase, the values achieved are still far below the 7% reported at the beginning of the [Lula] government.” Amaral (2010) compares the level of GDP invested by Brazil up to 2007 with that of other countries in similar situations or experiencing greater difficulties in terms of GDP per capita. According to the author, these countries made greater efforts at the time, as concerns investment in education. Bolivia invested 6.4% of its GDP; Yemen, 9.6%; Botswana, 8.7%; and Mexico and South Africa invested 5.4%. 2 Since 2006, there has been a yearly increase in the student/year value for this stage of schooling. (FNDE, 2012). Law n. 11.738 (BRASIL, 2008) established a minimum wage for teachers and has the potential to provide more resources to basic education. 3 Michael Walzer (2003) conceptualized social assets as those which social groups conceive, raise, value, give meaning to and trade. Social assets are not only wealth. Public positions or recognition, political status, education, among others are also social assets that set people apart and require judicious distribution. V a n d a M e n d e s R ib e ro C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a .4 4 n 15 4 p 10 9 5 -110 9 o u t./d e z . 2 0 14 10 9 7 those of Crahay (2000) and Dubet (2008, 2009). The first author proposes a principle of justice for basic education based on Aristotle; whereas, the second claims to have been inspired by the ideas of John Rawls. The theoretically established relationship between justice and school is considered as the debate that supports the understanding of which principles of justice guide and define the distribution of the “school education” social asset, by means of education policies and practices that enable the identification of its consequences, within the scope of school and society. To clarify Dubet’s (2008, 2009) Rawlsian propositions, John Rawls’ (2003) principles of justice as fairness will be briefly presented. Why were Rawls’ (2003) ideas so important to the universe of social policies in contemporary democratic societies? It could be said that his distributive theory unified the discussion on policy, democracy, justice and capitalist social relations in an attempt to lessen the gap between formal democratic rights and real life,4 without proposing radical ruptures in social structure, but also without violating the idea that groups might organize themselves politically for such a change. For Rawls, policies can guarantee institutions that are ruled by criteria of justice designed to maintain basic freedoms, equality of opportunity and justice in distributions that affect circumstantial inequalities (those produced by social relations throughout generations and for which individuals are not responsible). Rawls (2003) was able to propose a theory of justice that embraces good arguments from authors, such as Marx (1980), who related justice to the social issue. For him, focusing only on individual freedom does not guarantee distribution among everyone in such a way that social cooperation is preserved. The idea of the outcome as satisfaction of the majority or of individual well-being, as advocated by utilitarianism,5 is not present in Rawls (2003). The outcome is intertwined with the idea of social cooperation over time between equal and free people, as the fruit of rights that apply to all and to the collectivity, considering the preservation of social cooperation over generations and not of individual feelings, as proclaimed by utilitarianism. Regard for the outcome will therefore be linked to the interests of collective life, but in such a way that everyone is favored in the distributive processes even if this distribution does not presume equal portions. In order to comprehend the Rawlsian concept of justice, it is necessary to clarify how the author understands the idea of natural talent which he expresses as “innate intelligence and natural aptitudes.” For Rawls (2003), such talents can only be perceived and exercised through the mediation of social relations. He believes talents are accomplished or educated through institutional arrangements and the individual’s experiences in social life, which can be more or less comprehensive 4 A reference to how Marx (1980) indicated the contradiction between formal and real equality. 5 This principle of justice arose in England, with Jeremy Bentham and Stuart Mill, and advocates that a policy can be judged as fair if it satisfies or yields results to the majority. It is criticized by Rawls (2003) who believes that, according to this type of proposition, justice can be achieved even if minorities are negatively affected. W H A T P R IN C IP L E O F J U S T IC E F O R B A S IC E D U C A T IO N ? 10 9 8 C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a v .4 4 n .1 5 4 p .1 0 9 5 -1 10 9 o u t. /d e z . 2 0 14 considering circumstantial situations of origin. When accomplished, talents are not equivalent to what each individual possesses as intelligence or natural aptitude. They merely express what was possible to achieve due to these experiences and institutional arrangements. Trained aptitudes are only a selection among many possibilities and also depend on institutional arrangements. This Rawlsian conception of talent has a wide repercussion on how individual merit is discussed as a criterion of justice. For him, aptitudes and talents are not independent of society and its institutions. Even when these institutions are appropriately organized to enable proper expression or education, of whatever talents or aptitudes individuals may potentially display, there is no way to measure if they are fully implemented in social life. For example, it would not be possible to say fairly that someone is more worthy due to their talents and natural aptitudes. It is not possible to accurately assess who has greater natural talents. Social institutions enable their establishment to a greater or lesser extent. Rawls (2003) might be better understood if juxtaposed to Nozick (1991), his main opponent and defender of the merit principle. Nozick’s (1991) theory of justice defends the individual’s right to property and to formal equality of opportunity. The State is only justified when there is need for a guarantee of these two structuring eEste artigo discorre sobre principios de justica para a educacao basica. Francois Dubet propoe o principio de justica rawlsiano igualdade de base, o qual apregoa que todos os alunos dominem um quadro-base de conhecimentos. Marcel Crahay propoe a igualdade de conhecimentos adquiridos. Ambos os principios evitam a meritocracia na educacao basica por sua incoerencia com o direito obrigatorio e estao no campo das teorias da justica distributiva igualitaria valorizando os resultados da politica, devido a correlacao entre desigualdade social e escolar. Os dois autores afirmam a equidade como meio de ampliar a igualdade e relacionam tensoes vivenciadas na escola e principios de justica que expressam interesses contraditorios. Por essas razoes, eles defendem o monitoramento permanente das politicas e de suas consequencias.

Uma leitura dos usos dos indicadores da qualidade na educação

O texto analisa os dados obtidos por estudo sobre o uso dos Indicadores da Qualidade na Educacao − Indique −, instrumento participativo de autoavaliacao voltado para escolas. O estudo teve como objetivo buscar informacoes sobre as formas de utilizacao do material, seus limites e resultados, e consistiu na realizacao de entrevistas e grupos focais com tecnicos de Secretarias de Educacao, diretores, professores, funcionarios, alunos e familiares. A analise, realizada a luz dos padroes de qualidade de processos avaliativos e dos desafios contemporâneos para a avaliacao propostos por especialistas, mostrou que o uso do Indique cumpre o criterio de utilidade e pode manter um nivel aceitavel de precisao, conseguindo assim envolver stakeholders em processos de mudancas. A avaliacao e as acoes por ela desencadeadas ocorrem dentro de campos de tensao relacionados a modelos de avaliacao, compartilhamento de saberes dominados pelos professores (sobretudo os de carater pedagogico) e resistencias a participacao, dentre outros. O Indique e considerado simples e factivel pela maior parte dos entrevistados. Contudo, tal factibilidade tem limites: esbarra na dependencia das escolas em relacao aos orgaos dirigentes e mesmo das Secretarias de Educacao em relacao a instâncias externas que estimulem seu uso.

Qué principio de justicia para la educación básica

This article discusses principles of justice for basic education. François Dubet proposes the Rawlsian principle of justice, basic equality, which advocates that all students should master a basic framework of knowledge. Marcel Crahay proposes the equality of achievement. Both proposals avoid the principle of meritocracy, due to the contradiction between meritocracy and compulsory right. They are in the field of egalitarian distributive justice that values the results of policies due to the correlation between social and educational inequalities. The two authors claim fairness as a relevant part of educational equality; and, they relate tensions in school to principles of justice that express contradictory interests. For these reasons, they support permanent monitoring of policies and their consequences. BasiC eduCaTion • equiTY • eduCaTionaL PoLiCies • JusTiCe W H A T P R IN C IP L E O F J U S T IC E F O R B A S IC E D U C A T IO N ? 10 9 6 C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a v .4 4 n .1 5 4 p .1 0 9 5 -1 10 9 o u t. /d e z . 2 0 14 IN RECENT YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN a growing call for improvement in the quality of education in Brazil. Among the contents of the concept of quality of education are the outcomes, including student learning and fairness. Resources and processes of educational policy implementation are also regarded as dimensions of the concept in question (ADAMS, 1993; UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND, 2000; OLIVEIRA, 2010). With respect to outcomes, studies show high levels of educational inequality linked to students’ socioeconomic status (SOARES, 2005; SOARES; ALVES; 2003; ALVES, 2006; FRANCO et al., 2007). As regards financial resources, although an arguably low percentage of the Brazilian Gross Domestic Product – GDP – is allocated to education,1 there is evidence of gradually increasing investments in basic education.2 Hence, there is evidence that a new challenge is taking form in the country – havingmore public resources available, managers of public basic education will be urged to implement more effective education policies. If this scenario truly comes to pass, research in Brazil on educational policies and school practices that are better able topositively affect fairness will become more relevant. One particular principle of justice for schools exposes the political conception that supports implementing the distribution of “school education” social assets.3 According to Waltenberg (2008), pure libertarians focus only on policy implementation processes, regardless of their consequences. For them, the outcome is the fruit of individual merit. Thus, if the process is fair, its outcomes will necessarily be fair. In contrast, egalitarians value the weight of social origin over merit and, therefore, acknowledge the need to address the distribution of the consequences and the processes. Hence, when considering fairness as part of the concept of quality of education, It is within the scope of political philosophy that proclaims the impossibility of achieving justice, in the type of society we live in, without taking into account the outcomes. This article intends to discuss principles of justice that are aligned with the objective of fairness in basic school education, considering that we live in a democratic society in which the values “freedom” and “equality” are relevant representations. In order to do so, reference is made to theoretical discussions that relate justice and school, especially 1 According to Oliveira & Gadelha (2010), “Considering the expenses in Education from 2002 to 2007, the values invested have remained close to 4% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). [...] In 2008, this amount rose to 4.5% and, in 2009, to 4.7%. Although they indicate an increase, the values achieved are still far below the 7% reported at the beginning of the [Lula] government.” Amaral (2010) compares the level of GDP invested by Brazil up to 2007 with that of other countries in similar situations or experiencing greater difficulties in terms of GDP per capita. According to the author, these countries made greater efforts at the time, as concerns investment in education. Bolivia invested 6.4% of its GDP; Yemen, 9.6%; Botswana, 8.7%; and Mexico and South Africa invested 5.4%. 2 Since 2006, there has been a yearly increase in the student/year value for this stage of schooling. (FNDE, 2012). Law n. 11.738 (BRASIL, 2008) established a minimum wage for teachers and has the potential to provide more resources to basic education. 3 Michael Walzer (2003) conceptualized social assets as those which social groups conceive, raise, value, give meaning to and trade. Social assets are not only wealth. Public positions or recognition, political status, education, among others are also social assets that set people apart and require judicious distribution. V a n d a M e n d e s R ib e ro C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a .4 4 n 15 4 p 10 9 5 -110 9 o u t./d e z . 2 0 14 10 9 7 those of Crahay (2000) and Dubet (2008, 2009). The first author proposes a principle of justice for basic education based on Aristotle; whereas, the second claims to have been inspired by the ideas of John Rawls. The theoretically established relationship between justice and school is considered as the debate that supports the understanding of which principles of justice guide and define the distribution of the “school education” social asset, by means of education policies and practices that enable the identification of its consequences, within the scope of school and society. To clarify Dubet’s (2008, 2009) Rawlsian propositions, John Rawls’ (2003) principles of justice as fairness will be briefly presented. Why were Rawls’ (2003) ideas so important to the universe of social policies in contemporary democratic societies? It could be said that his distributive theory unified the discussion on policy, democracy, justice and capitalist social relations in an attempt to lessen the gap between formal democratic rights and real life,4 without proposing radical ruptures in social structure, but also without violating the idea that groups might organize themselves politically for such a change. For Rawls, policies can guarantee institutions that are ruled by criteria of justice designed to maintain basic freedoms, equality of opportunity and justice in distributions that affect circumstantial inequalities (those produced by social relations throughout generations and for which individuals are not responsible). Rawls (2003) was able to propose a theory of justice that embraces good arguments from authors, such as Marx (1980), who related justice to the social issue. For him, focusing only on individual freedom does not guarantee distribution among everyone in such a way that social cooperation is preserved. The idea of the outcome as satisfaction of the majority or of individual well-being, as advocated by utilitarianism,5 is not present in Rawls (2003). The outcome is intertwined with the idea of social cooperation over time between equal and free people, as the fruit of rights that apply to all and to the collectivity, considering the preservation of social cooperation over generations and not of individual feelings, as proclaimed by utilitarianism. Regard for the outcome will therefore be linked to the interests of collective life, but in such a way that everyone is favored in the distributive processes even if this distribution does not presume equal portions. In order to comprehend the Rawlsian concept of justice, it is necessary to clarify how the author understands the idea of natural talent which he expresses as “innate intelligence and natural aptitudes.” For Rawls (2003), such talents can only be perceived and exercised through the mediation of social relations. He believes talents are accomplished or educated through institutional arrangements and the individual’s experiences in social life, which can be more or less comprehensive 4 A reference to how Marx (1980) indicated the contradiction between formal and real equality. 5 This principle of justice arose in England, with Jeremy Bentham and Stuart Mill, and advocates that a policy can be judged as fair if it satisfies or yields results to the majority. It is criticized by Rawls (2003) who believes that, according to this type of proposition, justice can be achieved even if minorities are negatively affected. W H A T P R IN C IP L E O F J U S T IC E F O R B A S IC E D U C A T IO N ? 10 9 8 C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a v .4 4 n .1 5 4 p .1 0 9 5 -1 10 9 o u t. /d e z . 2 0 14 considering circumstantial situations of origin. When accomplished, talents are not equivalent to what each individual possesses as intelligence or natural aptitude. They merely express what was possible to achieve due to these experiences and institutional arrangements. Trained aptitudes are only a selection among many possibilities and also depend on institutional arrangements. This Rawlsian conception of talent has a wide repercussion on how individual merit is discussed as a criterion of justice. For him, aptitudes and talents are not independent of society and its institutions. Even when these institutions are appropriately organized to enable proper expression or education, of whatever talents or aptitudes individuals may potentially display, there is no way to measure if they are fully implemented in social life. For example, it would not be possible to say fairly that someone is more worthy due to their talents and natural aptitudes. It is not possible to accurately assess who has greater natural talents. Social institutions enable their establishment to a greater or lesser extent. Rawls (2003) might be better understood if juxtaposed to Nozick (1991), his main opponent and defender of the merit principle. Nozick’s (1991) theory of justice defends the individual’s right to property and to formal equality of opportunity. The State is only justified when there is need for a guarantee of these two structuring eEste artigo discorre sobre principios de justica para a educacao basica. Francois Dubet propoe o principio de justica rawlsiano igualdade de base, o qual apregoa que todos os alunos dominem um quadro-base de conhecimentos. Marcel Crahay propoe a igualdade de conhecimentos adquiridos. Ambos os principios evitam a meritocracia na educacao basica por sua incoerencia com o direito obrigatorio e estao no campo das teorias da justica distributiva igualitaria valorizando os resultados da politica, devido a correlacao entre desigualdade social e escolar. Os dois autores afirmam a equidade como meio de ampliar a igualdade e relacionam tensoes vivenciadas na escola e principios de justica que expressam interesses contraditorios. Por essas razoes, eles defendem o monitoramento permanente das politicas e de suas consequencias.

Crenças de professores sobre reprovação escolar

Este artigo analisa crencas de professores da educacao basica sobre reprovacao escolar. Para tanto, discute possiveis relacoes entre crencas sobre reprovacao, crencas acerca de principios de justica e avaliacao e o conhecimento de professores a respeito de resultados de pesquisas sobre efeitos da reprovacao. Explicita caracteristicas do perfil dos professores que podem influenciar sua adesao a reprovacao. A relacao entre as crencas e entre estas e o conhecimento de pesquisas foi analisada por meio de correlacao e a identificacao das caracteristicas associadas a adesao e a reprovacao foi feita com analise de regressao. Conclui-se que professores que aderem a reprovacao tendem a aderir ao principio de justica meritocratico e a avaliacao normativa. Ter maior tempo de experiencia docente, nao lecionar nos anos iniciais do ensino fundamental, maior conhecimento de pesquisas sobre o tema e mestrado e doutorado caracterizam os professores que concordam menos com a reprovacao.

Centralização e padronização dos currículos: posições e tomadas de posição

Este trabalho, de natureza exploratoria, tem por objeto a construcao do espaco das tomadas de posicao e argumentos sobre o debate a respeito do processo de centralizacao e padronizacao curricular no pais, por meio de uma Base Nacional Curricular Comum. Tem tambem por objetivo examinar as relacoes entre as tomadas de posicao e argumentos e a posicao social dos individuos entrevistados - agentes que participam do debate publico sobre o tema, porem atuando em diferentes campos do mundo social. Assim construido, o objeto de pesquisa se insere no quadro da sociologia de inspiracao bourdieusiana, de modo central em sua teorizacao sobre os campos sociais. Para realizacao da investigacao, foram efetuadas entrevistas com 103 nomes que em geral participam do debate educacional (academia, sociedade civil, educacao basica, sindicatos, gestao publica), de todas as regioes do pais, entrevistados, com base num roteiro semiestruturado, entre o final de 2013 e inicio de 2014. A analise permitiu que fossem construidas as tomadas de posicao, relacionadas a algumas das posicoes sociais dos individuos, especialmente a posicao em seu campo e em relacao as esferas de decisao politica. Palavras-chave Curriculo. Base Nacional Comum Curricular. Politica educacional. Curriculum centralization and standardization: positions and position-takings Abstract The object of this exploratory study is the construction of the space of position-takings and arguments about the debate on the process of curriculum centralization and standardization in the country, through a National Common Basis. It aims, moreover, to examine the relationships between positiontakings and arguments, on the one hand, the social position of the individuals interviewed, who participate in the public debate on the subject, yet working in different fields of the social world. Thus, we situated the object of research in a sociological framework inspired by Bourdieu, mainly regarding his theory about social fields. For this study, we conducted interviews with 103 persons who generally participate in the educational debate (universities, civil society, primary education, unions, public management) in all regions of the country, using a semi-structured interview script, from late 2013 to early 2014. The analysis allowed constructing the position-takings related to some of the individuals’ social positions, particularly their position both in their field and in relation to political decision-making spheres. Keywords Curriculum. National Common Basis. Educational policy.

Renovação dos documentos curriculares dos anos finais do ensino fundamental nos estados brasileiros: (2009-2014)

O objetivo deste artigo e examinar o processo de reformulacao dos documentos curriculares dos estados e do Distrito Federal ocorrido nos ultimos anos. Para tanto, apresenta-se levantamento realizado em 2014-2015 acerca dos documentos curriculares do ensino fundamental II dos estados e do Distrito Federal, o qual e comparado com levantamento anterior, efetuado por Sampaio e colaboradores em 2009. Conclui-se que nos ultimos anos ha, no pais, um movimento de renovacao curricular intenso. Compartilha-se tambem analise que categorizou os documentos em quatro modelos : curriculo, matriz curricular, proposta curricular e diretrizes curriculares, nos quais observam-se um movimento progressivo de maior especificacao de metas e objetivos, detalhamento da progressao e compassamento dos conteudos e intervencao no processo didatico.

What principle of justice for basic education

This article discusses principles of justice for basic education. François Dubet proposes the Rawlsian principle of justice, basic equality, which advocates that all students should master a basic framework of knowledge. Marcel Crahay proposes the equality of achievement. Both proposals avoid the principle of meritocracy, due to the contradiction between meritocracy and compulsory right. They are in the field of egalitarian distributive justice that values the results of policies due to the correlation between social and educational inequalities. The two authors claim fairness as a relevant part of educational equality; and, they relate tensions in school to principles of justice that express contradictory interests. For these reasons, they support permanent monitoring of policies and their consequences. BasiC eduCaTion • equiTY • eduCaTionaL PoLiCies • JusTiCe W H A T P R IN C IP L E O F J U S T IC E F O R B A S IC E D U C A T IO N ? 10 9 6 C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a v .4 4 n .1 5 4 p .1 0 9 5 -1 10 9 o u t. /d e z . 2 0 14 IN RECENT YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN a growing call for improvement in the quality of education in Brazil. Among the contents of the concept of quality of education are the outcomes, including student learning and fairness. Resources and processes of educational policy implementation are also regarded as dimensions of the concept in question (ADAMS, 1993; UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND, 2000; OLIVEIRA, 2010). With respect to outcomes, studies show high levels of educational inequality linked to students’ socioeconomic status (SOARES, 2005; SOARES; ALVES; 2003; ALVES, 2006; FRANCO et al., 2007). As regards financial resources, although an arguably low percentage of the Brazilian Gross Domestic Product – GDP – is allocated to education,1 there is evidence of gradually increasing investments in basic education.2 Hence, there is evidence that a new challenge is taking form in the country – havingmore public resources available, managers of public basic education will be urged to implement more effective education policies. If this scenario truly comes to pass, research in Brazil on educational policies and school practices that are better able topositively affect fairness will become more relevant. One particular principle of justice for schools exposes the political conception that supports implementing the distribution of “school education” social assets.3 According to Waltenberg (2008), pure libertarians focus only on policy implementation processes, regardless of their consequences. For them, the outcome is the fruit of individual merit. Thus, if the process is fair, its outcomes will necessarily be fair. In contrast, egalitarians value the weight of social origin over merit and, therefore, acknowledge the need to address the distribution of the consequences and the processes. Hence, when considering fairness as part of the concept of quality of education, It is within the scope of political philosophy that proclaims the impossibility of achieving justice, in the type of society we live in, without taking into account the outcomes. This article intends to discuss principles of justice that are aligned with the objective of fairness in basic school education, considering that we live in a democratic society in which the values “freedom” and “equality” are relevant representations. In order to do so, reference is made to theoretical discussions that relate justice and school, especially 1 According to Oliveira & Gadelha (2010), “Considering the expenses in Education from 2002 to 2007, the values invested have remained close to 4% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). [...] In 2008, this amount rose to 4.5% and, in 2009, to 4.7%. Although they indicate an increase, the values achieved are still far below the 7% reported at the beginning of the [Lula] government.” Amaral (2010) compares the level of GDP invested by Brazil up to 2007 with that of other countries in similar situations or experiencing greater difficulties in terms of GDP per capita. According to the author, these countries made greater efforts at the time, as concerns investment in education. Bolivia invested 6.4% of its GDP; Yemen, 9.6%; Botswana, 8.7%; and Mexico and South Africa invested 5.4%. 2 Since 2006, there has been a yearly increase in the student/year value for this stage of schooling. (FNDE, 2012). Law n. 11.738 (BRASIL, 2008) established a minimum wage for teachers and has the potential to provide more resources to basic education. 3 Michael Walzer (2003) conceptualized social assets as those which social groups conceive, raise, value, give meaning to and trade. Social assets are not only wealth. Public positions or recognition, political status, education, among others are also social assets that set people apart and require judicious distribution. V a n d a M e n d e s R ib e ro C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a .4 4 n 15 4 p 10 9 5 -110 9 o u t./d e z . 2 0 14 10 9 7 those of Crahay (2000) and Dubet (2008, 2009). The first author proposes a principle of justice for basic education based on Aristotle; whereas, the second claims to have been inspired by the ideas of John Rawls. The theoretically established relationship between justice and school is considered as the debate that supports the understanding of which principles of justice guide and define the distribution of the “school education” social asset, by means of education policies and practices that enable the identification of its consequences, within the scope of school and society. To clarify Dubet’s (2008, 2009) Rawlsian propositions, John Rawls’ (2003) principles of justice as fairness will be briefly presented. Why were Rawls’ (2003) ideas so important to the universe of social policies in contemporary democratic societies? It could be said that his distributive theory unified the discussion on policy, democracy, justice and capitalist social relations in an attempt to lessen the gap between formal democratic rights and real life,4 without proposing radical ruptures in social structure, but also without violating the idea that groups might organize themselves politically for such a change. For Rawls, policies can guarantee institutions that are ruled by criteria of justice designed to maintain basic freedoms, equality of opportunity and justice in distributions that affect circumstantial inequalities (those produced by social relations throughout generations and for which individuals are not responsible). Rawls (2003) was able to propose a theory of justice that embraces good arguments from authors, such as Marx (1980), who related justice to the social issue. For him, focusing only on individual freedom does not guarantee distribution among everyone in such a way that social cooperation is preserved. The idea of the outcome as satisfaction of the majority or of individual well-being, as advocated by utilitarianism,5 is not present in Rawls (2003). The outcome is intertwined with the idea of social cooperation over time between equal and free people, as the fruit of rights that apply to all and to the collectivity, considering the preservation of social cooperation over generations and not of individual feelings, as proclaimed by utilitarianism. Regard for the outcome will therefore be linked to the interests of collective life, but in such a way that everyone is favored in the distributive processes even if this distribution does not presume equal portions. In order to comprehend the Rawlsian concept of justice, it is necessary to clarify how the author understands the idea of natural talent which he expresses as “innate intelligence and natural aptitudes.” For Rawls (2003), such talents can only be perceived and exercised through the mediation of social relations. He believes talents are accomplished or educated through institutional arrangements and the individual’s experiences in social life, which can be more or less comprehensive 4 A reference to how Marx (1980) indicated the contradiction between formal and real equality. 5 This principle of justice arose in England, with Jeremy Bentham and Stuart Mill, and advocates that a policy can be judged as fair if it satisfies or yields results to the majority. It is criticized by Rawls (2003) who believes that, according to this type of proposition, justice can be achieved even if minorities are negatively affected. W H A T P R IN C IP L E O F J U S T IC E F O R B A S IC E D U C A T IO N ? 10 9 8 C a d e r n o s d e P e s q u is a v .4 4 n .1 5 4 p .1 0 9 5 -1 10 9 o u t. /d e z . 2 0 14 considering circumstantial situations of origin. When accomplished, talents are not equivalent to what each individual possesses as intelligence or natural aptitude. They merely express what was possible to achieve due to these experiences and institutional arrangements. Trained aptitudes are only a selection among many possibilities and also depend on institutional arrangements. This Rawlsian conception of talent has a wide repercussion on how individual merit is discussed as a criterion of justice. For him, aptitudes and talents are not independent of society and its institutions. Even when these institutions are appropriately organized to enable proper expression or education, of whatever talents or aptitudes individuals may potentially display, there is no way to measure if they are fully implemented in social life. For example, it would not be possible to say fairly that someone is more worthy due to their talents and natural aptitudes. It is not possible to accurately assess who has greater natural talents. Social institutions enable their establishment to a greater or lesser extent. Rawls (2003) might be better understood if juxtaposed to Nozick (1991), his main opponent and defender of the merit principle. Nozick’s (1991) theory of justice defends the individual’s right to property and to formal equality of opportunity. The State is only justified when there is need for a guarantee of these two structuring eEste artigo discorre sobre principios de justica para a educacao basica. Francois Dubet propoe o principio de justica rawlsiano igualdade de base, o qual apregoa que todos os alunos dominem um quadro-base de conhecimentos. Marcel Crahay propoe a igualdade de conhecimentos adquiridos. Ambos os principios evitam a meritocracia na educacao basica por sua incoerencia com o direito obrigatorio e estao no campo das teorias da justica distributiva igualitaria valorizando os resultados da politica, devido a correlacao entre desigualdade social e escolar. Os dois autores afirmam a equidade como meio de ampliar a igualdade e relacionam tensoes vivenciadas na escola e principios de justica que expressam interesses contraditorios. Por essas razoes, eles defendem o monitoramento permanente das politicas e de suas consequencias.

Indicadores de qualidade mobilizam a escola

This text talks about the Indicators of Quality in Education, developed in Brazil through an initiative by the Acao Educativa NGO, sponsored by Unicef (United Nations Children’s Fund) and the UNDP (United Nations Development Program). In the context of creating and reporting on the results of educational assessment systems, it was found that schools neither appropriate this information nor are they able to take on a leading role, furthermore ending up the victimized by the stigma of incompetence. The main goal of this project is engagement, mobilization of the community in the struggle to improve quality in the school. In the preliminary version of the Indicators, 14 schools in five regions of Brazil were included, formulating a measurement system that gives the subjects themselves the prerogative to attribute values to different aspects of academic reality, collectively assessing in a manner that everyone can learn and discuss, allowing them to decide on priorities for action to improve this situation. Debate was fostered by the methodology, highlighting differences and shedding light on issues that had previously gone unnoticed while instilling a willingness to resolve the problems found. The text concludes that one of the most important aspects was the diversity of the actors participating in the development of the indicators. A quality education for everyone in Brazil requires an alliance between teaching professionals, the population and civil society organizations with public agencies at the various levels of government and international agencies.