A educação brasileira está melhorando? Evidências do Pisa e do Saeb

Martin Carnoy, Tatiana Khavenson, Izabel Fonseca, Leandro Costa, Luana Marotta

Resumo


Neste texto medimos as mudanças das pontuações em matemática e leitura dos alunos brasileiros favorecidos e desfavorecidos no Programa Internacional de Avaliação de Alunos – Pisa – entre 2000 e 2012 e no Sistema de Avaliação da Educação Básica – Saeb – no período de 1995 a 2013, a fim de extrair algumas conclusões provisórias em relação à variação da efetividade do ensino básico brasileiro (1ª a 8ª/9ª séries). Nossos achados mostram que os ganhos no teste de matemática do Pisa são muito maiores do que no teste de leitura. Os ganhos (ou sua ausência) entre 1999 e 2013 no teste do Saeb são também maiores em matemática que em português. Parte do ganho no teste de matemática do Pisa e a maior parte do ganho no teste de leitura resultam do aumento gradual no tempo que os alunos com a idade de quinze anos passam na escola. Os ganhos no Pisa para os estudantes brasileiros mais favorecidos são menores do que entre aqueles com níveis baixos de recursos acadêmicos familiares, o que também se verifica no teste do Saeb.


Palavras-chave


Avaliação; Educação Básica; Pisa; Saeb

Texto completo:

PDF PDF (English)

Referências


ADAMSON, F. How does context matter? Comparing achievement scores, opportunities to learn, and teacher preparation across socio-economic quintiles in TIMSS and PISA. Dissertation (PhD Philosophy) – Stanford University, 2010.

BOURDIEU, P.; PASSERON, J. C. La reproduction. Paris: Minuit, 1970.

BRAY, M. Private supplementary tutoring: comparative perspectives on patterns and implications. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, v. 36, n. 4, p. 515-530, 2006.

BUCHMANN, C. Measuring family background in international studies of education: conceptual issues and methodological challenges. In: PORTER, A.; GAMORAN, A. (Ed.). Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002. p. 150-197.

CARNOY, M. E.; ROTHSTEIN, R. What do international tests really show about american student performance. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2013.

CHUDGAR, A.; LUSCHEI, T. F.; FAGIOLI, L. P. Constructing socio-economic status measures using the trends in international mathematics and science study data. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2012.

COLEMAN, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, n. 94, (Special Supplement), p. 95-120, 1988.

COLEMAN, J. S. et al. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Government Printing Office, 1966.

GRONMO, L. S.; OLSEN, R. V. TIMSS versus PISA: the case of pure and applied mathematics. In: IEA INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE. 2. Washington, D.C., November 8-11, 2006.

HANUSHEK, E.; KIMKO, D. Schooling, labor force quality, and the growth of nations. American Economic Review, v. 90, n. 5, p. 1184-1208, 2000.

HANUSHEK, E.; PETERSON, P.; WOESSMANN, L. Endangering prosperity. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2013.

HAUSER, R. Some methodological issues in cross national educational research: quality and equity in student achievement. EurAmerica, v. 43, n. 4, p. 709-752, 2013.

HEATH, S. Brice. Ways with words: language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

JENCKS, C.; PHILLIPS, M. The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1998.

KLEIN, R. Uma re-análise dos resultados do Pisa: problemas de comparabilidade. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, v. 19, n. 73, p. 1-20, out./dez. 2011.

MARTINS, M. A Difference in Differences Analysis of an Extra Year of Compulsory Education in Brazilian Primary Schools. MA paper – Stanford University, 2014.

ORGANIZATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT – OECD. Pisa 2009 results: what students know and can do – student performance in reading, mathematics, and science. Paris: OECD, 2010a. v. I.

ORGANIZATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT – OECD. Pisa 2009 results: overcoming social background. Paris: OECD, 2010b. v. II.

ORGANIZATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT – OECD. Pisa 2012 results: what students know and can do – student performance in reading, mathematics, and science. Paris: OECD, 2013. v. I.

PEAKER G. F. The Plowden children four years later. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1971.

RAUDENBUSH, S. W.; CHEONG, Y. F.; FOTIU, R. P. Social inequality, social segregation, and their relationship to reading literacy in 22 countries. In: BINKLEY, M.; RUST, K.; WILLIAMS, T. (Ed.). Reading literacy in an international perspective. Washington, D.C.: NCES, 1996. p. 3-62.

SCHULTZ, T. Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, v. 51, n. 1, p. 1-17, 1961.

SCHULZ, W. Measuring the Socio-economic background of students and its effect on achievement in PISA 2000 and PISA 2003. In: ANNUAL MEETINGS OF THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION. San Francisco, California, April 7-11, 2005. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 14 fev. 2013.

SCOTT, E. Comparing NAEP, TIMSS and PISA in Mathematics and Science. Washington, D.C.: National Center of Educational Statistics, 2004. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 4 jul. 2013.

SIRIN, S. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytical review of research. Review of Educational Research, v. 75, n. 3, p. 417-453, 2005.

UNESCO. World education report 2005. Paris: Unesco, 2005.

WOESSMANN, L. How equal are educational opportunities? Family background and student achievement in Europe and the United States. CESifo Working Paper, Munich, n. 1162, 2004.


Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.