The government selling the idea that this would fight inequality. In videos, slogans and arts, creating the illusion of an adjustment that reaches only those from above. The reaction of the congress, which has signaled the obvious: the measure is politically noisy with low economic impact on the structure of public spending.
Given this, if the goal is to reduce inequalities, why not invest in what has transformative power? Why do we continue prioritizing symbolic gestures rather than policies with real potential to change trajectories?
Brazil, more than many OECD countries. But it occupies one of the last positions in international learning evaluations. In Pisa 2022, between 80 evaluated countries ,. At the age of fifteen, most Brazilian students do not understand what they read or solve elementary mathematical operations. The contrast between spending volume and concrete results has become routine.
One offers empirical base to rearrange this discussion. Using data from 154 countries, covering 97% of the global population, the author estimates that educational expansion accounted for up to 60% of the world’s poorest 20% increase in income between 1980 and 2019. Even in countries with fragile systems, the impact of income education was significant. For those who depend solely on their own work, studying is the main lever of progress.
Remember that the poorest in the world are not just in low -income countries. They are also on the outskirts of average income economies, such as Brazil, where the school exists, but does not teach. And it is precisely in these contexts that learning has more redistributive effects. Because it is the only asset that does not require inheritance, network or property in the plant. It only requires the school to work.
The problem is that, here, the operation is unequal. It’s not just about spending little – we spend badly. There are schools with adequate physical structure and low learning. Lacking teachers graduated in key disciplines, curricula left with theory and little practical learning on how to teach and maintain discipline. Still, managers without autonomy or incentives to implement changes.
There are examples of what works. In Ceará, the combination of external evaluation, technical support and financial induction. Reinforcement policies focused on reading and mathematics in the early years of elementary school, generated sustainable gains even with low budget. Experimental evaluations also show that teacher training based on professional practice and school management substantially increases learning.
None of this requires more expense, it requires facing the fact that public investment has been concentrated where it is easier to apply, not where it is needed. That the expansion of higher education, though important ,. And that resource allocation mechanisms are not sensitive to the real needs of the most vulnerable schools.
Anyone who does not inherit heritage or support networks need the school to deliver something real: knowledge, mobility and future perspective. Without this, other social policies only compensate for failures that education has not resolved. The IOF controversy exposes the superficiality of our tax debate. It is evident that discussing the regressive structure of the Brazilian tax system is necessary, but it does not begin where the impact is almost null and void. Developed countries, by the way, have zeroed this type of tax for a long time. It is not increasing the IOF that we will reduce poverty.
While symbolic measures are highlighted because they are easy to communicate, which in fact could change trajectories follows without priority. Education requires more difficult decisions: professional management, clear goals, results linked to practice and teacher education. A less unequal country is not built punishing financial transactions, but ensuring that those who inherit boundaries find at school the chance to break the poverty cycle.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
