INTRODUCTION

The context of COVID-19 and the necessary suspension of in-person classes brought about diverse reactions and approaches from governments, education professionals - particularly teachers -, students and parents, who were suddenly faced with a totally unusual reality. Over the period of approximately one year, several initiatives were implemented by states, municipalities and schools to mitigate the consequences that the abrupt interruption of activities related to school year 2020, which had barely begun, would bring to students in their schooling process and to the social and affective relationships that are part of schools’ everyday life.

The proposals that were brought about derived from individual responses built by education systems and schools, as there were no actions by the Ministry of Education (MEC) that might guide and support states and municipalities by organizing parameters and conditions to materialize responses to the extraordinary times that Brazil and the world were, and still are, going through.

What was seen on the part of federal government was the enactment of the Law 14,040 (BRASIL, 2020f), which was sanctioned by the Brazilian president and a few ministers,¹ in August 2020, which “[...] establishes extraordinary educational norms to be adopted during the state of public calamity” and delegates to the National Education Council (CNE) the task of establishing national guidelines to implement said law. However, before that date, the CNE had already issued four opinions (numbers 5, 9, 11 and 15) with guidelines and recommendations for education systems, schools and universities on how to conduct the educational process during the sanitary crisis (BRASIL, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d).

The norms established by said Law basically deal with bureaucratic aspects relating to calendar and the number of school days. Although it establishes, in its article 2, paragraph 9, that “[…] the Union, the States, the Municipalities and the Federal District shall implement, on a collaborative basis, cross-sector strategies for the return to regular school activities in the education, health and social work areas”, no measure can be found that expresses cooperative action between the various levels of government.

One of the goals of this article is to systematize contributions provided by studies published in the form of research reports that aimed to characterize proposals for the continuation of education - including assessment processes - and to describe reactions of teachers, students and parents to, and their interaction with, what was generally denominated “remote education”. In addition to that output, this article presents an analysis of academic articles that sought to problematize the subject of educational evaluation in the context of the pandemic.

Based on that output, the other goal is to explore the notion of evaluation and curriculum that has predominated in the Brazilian school and is more clearly revealed by means of questions that have been central in the debates and propositions dealing with the return to in-person classes. In an interlocution with these revelations, the article considers possible paths to be taken in the return to in-person activities as regards pedagogical action, particularly focusing on issues related to assessment and curriculum.

REVELATIONS PROVIDED BY RESEARCH

Considering Brazil’s continental dimensions, with marked differences and inequalities between its localities, the studies’ results are not expected to encompass the multiplicity of situations, challenges and responses that were set off by states, municipalities and schools. Therefore, the results of the studies listed here should be taken as an illustration of trends of implemented actions, as well as interactions and reactions to the context of the pandemic, since they do not exhaust the number or the nature of experienced situations. In addition, we did not intend to cover all studies conducted by universities and/or civil society institutions that are concerned with the course of education in the current scenario. However, these works provide an overview of perceptions of different interlocutors about the educational process in this context. In Chart 1, we list the title, the organizers, the period of data collection, the breadth, the interlocutors and the goals of the nine analyzed studies.

As regards the studies that had teachers as their interlocutors, five of them encompassed the national territory, and one was restricted to the metropolitan area of ABC Paulista. These studies aim to cover, to different extents, the stages (early childhood, elementary and secondary education) and types (youth and adult education and special education) of basic education.

Regarding the other nationwide studies listed here, one had education secretaries and staff at central education bodies as respondents, another obtained information from families of students enrolled in the public education system, and finally, one study focused on the perceptions of young people aged 15 to 29, and here we are interested in the responses of those who declared they were attending basic education when data were collected.

As to the goals stated by these nine studies, they can be summarized as: i) to understand the contexts in which the educational process took or is taking place; ii) to identify and analyze the challenges posed to teachers in reconciling work and private life and in developing their pedagogical work with students; iii) to map the obstacles facing students in accessing and performing the activities proposed by the school and, moreover, in getting organized to have a study routine; iv) to know the perceptions of teachers and students about the feelings that emerged in the context of the pandemic; v) to show the effects of the measures implemented by systems and schools on teachers’ work; vi) and to support the development of public policies; among others

The results of these investigations shed light on concerns of the various interlocutors about diverse subjects: learning; students’ and teachers’ access to material and technological tools; teaching methodologies in the context of the pandemic; educational inequalities; school dropout; curriculum implementation; learning assessment processes, external assessment and the National Exam of Upper Secondary Education (Enem); among others. Chart 2 below provides a summarized view of the results of the studies mentioned here.

The studies showed that the perception of their interlocutors, especially public school teachers, is that the pace of student learning has decreased. Some factors contribute to making this situation worse: teachers have difficulty dealing with technological tools and remote teaching, students’ anxiety has increased and they lack the encouragement to do the activities proposed to them, especially because they are often unable to understand them without the contact with the teacher and classmates they would have in in-person classes.

Similarly, there is some incomprehension on the part of teachers regarding the need to reorganize the curriculum, and here we highlight the results that show that the existing curriculum in the system and/or the school was maintained during 2020 - including for special education students. This course of action fails to consider what was suggested by Opinions CNE/CP number 11 and number 15 from 2020, which recommend selecting the content, skills and competencies considered “essential”. Without ignoring the various reasons that lead to this difficulty, it is necessary to recognize that some guiding criteria should have been provided for selecting what is “essential”, as well as a warning that this should not be interpreted as curriculum impoverishment.

It should be noted that the CNE’s opinions above were issued in July 2020², and a considerable part of the surveys reported here collected their data before that period. Even though most states had already issued regulations with guidelines on how schools and systems should conduct the educational process during the pandemic (^{PELLANDA, 2020}, p. 35), it is certain that MEC’s delay in adopting a clear position (^{SANTOS, 2020}) had effects on the performance of systems and their professionals.

Furthermore, the first half of 2020 was a period of reorganization and planning - often with limited resources - for systems and schools in terms of continuing classes and conducting the educational process. At the same time, it revealed the following problems: both teachers and students experienced difficulty accessing resources, especially technological tools; there were gaps in the training provided to teachers so that they could deal with remote teaching and, at the same time, develop teaching methodologies capable of motivating the participation of students in the proposed activities; guidance on the assessment processes to be conducted by teachers and schools was poorly structured; among others. In addition to such evidence, there is the fact that most students lack preparation to study autonomously, which is aggravated by their lack of familiarity with remote learning.

Still regarding curriculum content, it is worth highlighting the results of the study that had young people as interlocutors. Although 32% of respondents mentioned that working with the subjects of the school curriculum was important, 54% of them indicated that activities to work on emotions was necessary, and 49% said that it is important for schools and universities to teach strategies to help them organize time and studies. The contributions of this age group enrich the findings and revelations usually mentioned in research by pointing to the need for approaches with initiatives that go beyond merely cognitive aspects and/or concerns about covering the curricula prescribed for the school year/grade.

The demand of young people for school activities that work on emotions should be interpreted in connection with the responses of parents or guardians regarding the great number of students who had been showing anxiety, irritation and sadness, as well as fear of returning to in-person activities.

Data referring to public schools, which were highlighted by the analyzed studies, also reveal differences between them and private schools, especially regarding the slower learning progress, the readiness of teachers to conduct their teaching in the context of the pandemic and the probability of school dropout. It should be noted that access to equipment and the internet for remote study is better addressed in the case of private school students, which is a major factor for increasing the gap between them and public school students.

With regard to learning evaluation processes, the results of the investigations indicate: concerns about how to evaluate student learning in this context; perceptions that evaluation processes need to be readjusted; a need for planning in order to conduct diagnostic evaluation, especially in the return to in-person education, as well as recommendations on the importance of conducting teacher training processes about evaluation.

Regarding large-scale external assessments, only the study that had staff at central education bodies as respondents provided information. According to this survey, 20% of municipal departments and 53% of state departments understand that preparing students for this type of assessment is one of the strategies to combat the learning gap. However, on this issue, the CNE recommends “[...] avoiding external assessments for purposes of evaluation of education systems’ performance in 2020” (BRASIL, 2020c, p. 24).

Finally, it is noteworthy that the investigations that are dealt with here showed the impression that we will live with hybrid learning in basic education for some time, which is already certain, given the still persistent contamination rates in 2021. This will certainly imply, among others, reviewing evaluation models and instruments in order to promote substantial evaluations that collaborate with teaching and, consequently, with the promotion of student learning.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ACADEMIC ARTICLES

Throughout 2020, academic articles were published that proposed to discuss and analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on Brazilian basic and higher education, especially in public schools. Topics such as school management, funding, teacher training, the use of information and communication technologies, education inequality and evaluation, among others, sometimes took on a new shape in the debates that emerged in this context. In this section, we present a summary of articles that dealt with educational evaluation in the current scenario, seeking clues to help us understand the movements observed in this period of “remote education” and in an effort to outline approaches to action that can be relevant in the return to in-person activities.

The articles were selected from the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Portal Educ@ and Google Academic platforms³, using the following descriptors: avaliação educacional, avaliação externa, avaliação em larga escala and educação básica [educational evaluation, external assessment, large-scale assessment and basic education]. These descriptors were combined with the terms “pandemia”, “coronavirus” and “COVID-19”. A total of 29 articles were found, of which 12 dealt directly with the subject at hand.

Almost all of these articles were written by Brazilians, and two were written by Portuguese authors. Of the 12 articles analyzed, five focus on basic education, three on higher education, three on both levels and only one does not clarify this information. With regard to educational evaluation, the topics addressed by the papers are learning evaluation, large-scale external assessment and evaluation for higher education.

We assume that the short time between the start of the pandemic and the articles’ publication resulted in a predominance of essay texts with an exploratory approach to the subject of evaluation. This characteristic can be seen in the brief references below to the selected texts.

^{Oliveira and Souza (2020}) indicate aspects related to basic education that deserve further attention, mentioning, among them, the evaluation of learning. The authors note that, usually, the evaluation of students takes place in traditional ways, through the administration of tests that aim to assess the mastery of content transmitted in the classroom, whose results are interpreted for purposes of deciding on whether they can progress to the nest grade or not. They note the need to revise this concept, since school activities, in the context of the pandemic, occurred remotely.

In the form of an experience report, ^{Silva and Assis (2020}) present topics related to educational evaluation and how they are approached in a discipline called Evaluation and Education in Brazil, taught via remote learning by one of the authors in a graduate program in education, with emphasis on exploring the centrality of national exams in educational policies.

With a focus on teaching, ^{Paschoalino, Ramalho and Queiroz (2020}) explore evaluation-related challenges faced by teachers in higher education programs provided via distance learning (EaD, in the Portuguese acronym), which were already delivered in this format even before COVID-19. In these programs, evaluations were periodically carried out in person, but were exceptionally suspended due to the pandemic. Therefore, it became necessary for professionals in EaD programs to rethink the goals of evaluation. The article explores possibilities of reinventing evaluation processes and highlights the necessary revision of evaluation practices’ core concepts by the EaD professionals.

With a view to exploring how holistic evaluation serves the educational process in times of pandemic, ^{Monteiro (2020}) affirms the importance of conducting evaluations to promote learning rather the classification and selection of students.

^{Gonçalves et al. (2020}) present approaches to external and large-scale assessments in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the statements of 17 respondents at education departments in the five Brazilian regions. The information obtained reveals uncertainties as to whether tests should be suspended or not, or whether they should adjust their focus to provide a diagnosis of students’ learning when they return to in-person activities. Most respondents indicated that, due to the pandemic, external assessments are not a priority in this moment, since there are urgent demands, including the implementation of “[...] safe school protocols, new ways of interacting” (^{GONÇALVES et al., 2020}, p. 74), in addition to addressing inequalities.

The article by ^{Scantamburlo, Zangalli and Kohnlein (2020}) presents procedures that can be used to evaluate students’ online learning in the context of the pandemic. The authors suggest procedures and instruments that can be used for evaluation of remote education: cognitive maps, summaries, blogs, discussion forums, web folio, monitoring of participation.

In order to describe and understand representations of educational agents about Portugal’s External Assessment of Learning (AEA, in the Portuguese acronym) during the pandemic period, and to “[...] put them in dialogue with other data from education sciences”, ^{Miranda and Pereira (2020}, p. 263) analyzed public records released in March and April 2020 in the media and on the websites of entities. The authors note that

[…] the educational system was able to be flexible so as to maintain its core structure (contents, sequence, calendar stages) but was not able to adapt. Adaptability suggests another type of interaction, one in which schools can change for [addressing] something that emerges from the unique situation and interactions that could only be experienced in this exceptional time. (Cilliers, 1998; Fullan, 2001; Hamido, 2007; Silva, 2019)⁴

^{Cristo’s essay (2020}, p. 262) explores “[...] the meritocratic nature” of Enem and the “[...] implications of the [MEC’s] initial unwillingness [...] to postpone tests” in 2020, noting, in particular, the consequences of this situation for students in the public education system, who tend to lack favorable conditions to attend remote education, which was implemented as a result of the pandemic. The author concludes that, due to these elements, “[...] social, economic, technological and educational inequalities were maximized” (p. 262).

Based on the goals established by the National Education Plan (PNE/2014) and the Tocantins State Education Plan (PEE/2015), ^{Souza, Pereira and Ranke (2020}) examine a historical series of pre-pandemic data on school dropout in basic education. The authors note that the high rates observed, combined with the lack of public policies for alleviating the problem, tend to worsen with the closing of schools in the pandemic period.

Based on the responses of education professionals in the state and municipal education systems of Rio de Janeiro about the remote learning adopted by these systems as a result of COVID-19, ^{Cunha, Scrivano and Vieira (2020}) record the worsening of social and educational inequalities resulting from the social distancing imposed by the pandemic. The authors note, however, that this context is an opportunity for building alternatives that explore the power that exists in the school space to promote an “[...] emancipatory, quality education and, above all, an education that allows understanding the coexistence of differences as an increase in the power to act in the world” (^{CUNHA; SCRIVANO; VIEIRA, 2020}, p. 135).

The article by ^{Albuquerque (2020}) presents partial results of an exploratory study that aimed to map the perceptions of teachers in the Rio de Janeiro state education system about the relevance of carrying out the 2020 Enem and to analyze the offer of remote pedagogical activities to students who would take the exam. The study finds different answers among teachers in relation to carrying out the 2020 Enem, although some of them use similar justifications to advocate different perceptions. The majority of teachers said they believe that the offer of remote pedagogical activities will result in a deficit in student learning, considering the difficulty students have faced in relation to the availability of resources and devices for remote access.

The study by ^{Ferreira and Bastos (2020}) presents results of research carried out with teachers of initial teacher education programs at the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), in Portugal, “[...] about teaching, student learning and evaluation in the context of distance education” (^{FERREIRA; BASTOS, 2020}, p. 109). Information was collected through a questionnaire and its analysis revealed, in sum, that,

[...] for teachers, teaching was carried out through synchronous classes and asynchronous interaction on social networks, in which students’ autonomous work and learning took on a relevant role. Also for teachers, a more structured formative assessment was encouraged with distance learning. (^{FERREIRA; BASTOS, 2020}, p. 109)

NOTES FROM THE STUDIES AND ARTICLES

Among the contributions of the studies and articles above, it is worth highlighting those related to school curriculum and student learning evaluation, including concerns and opinions that were expressed and provide clues for deducing what predominates in these records.

The articles, mostly essays, address the inseparability between curriculum and evaluation and, mainly, the impact that evaluation usually has on the curriculum, in addition to indicating the need for evaluation to overcome the selective and classificatory approach in order to support the promotion of learning for all students. This view of the meaning of assessment, which is advocated by the authors, is presented as fundamental for facing the worsening of educational inequalities resulting from the social distancing imposed by the pandemic.

As for the research reports, what stands out in educators’ statements, when it comes to aspects of the organization of education, is the emphasis placed on issues related to the need to recover learning content, in a reference to the “lag” in learning, or even the assumption that students “lost” learning.

In addition to the strangeness about the idea of recovery, since one cannot recover what was not learned, other disturbing findings include the notion of “loss of learning” in the period in which students did not attend in-person classes, as well as the disregard for learning that took place in non-formal education spaces. ^{Singer (2020}) observes that this view is present in a CNE opinion (BRASIL, 2020c), based on research by American consultants and Brazilian institutions. The author says:

Learning loss is a condition of dementia. [...] we know from experience, tradition and science that we learn from the moment we are born, we learn in different places, in the many social interactions experienced. Outside of the schooling system, we immediately find the idea of ​​“learning loss” strange, used only when referring to dementia and other extreme situations. (^{SINGER, 2020}, online)

The historical and brutal economic, social and educational inequality, which has become strikingly evident in the current scenario, has not translated into issues that gain centrality at this time when the return to schools is being discussed. What predominates is the expression of a notion of education quality that is restricted to covering the prescribed curriculum, or rather, the established content; the notion of assessment tends to focus on mastery of the content defined for each grade, and to be conducted for classification purposes. Hence the absence of evaluation-related propositions that go beyond students’ learning to encompass other dimensions that shape their performance - from living and working conditions to the conditions of offer and implementation of what has been called remote learning.

What does this reveal? A notion of curriculum that is limited to content and skills to be mastered in each grade and in each subject. This conception indicates the non-assimilation of a broad meaning of curriculum, i.e., a set of propositions, practices and interactions that take place in the school environment, which goes beyond the definition of goals, contents and skills to be worked on in the educational process - the prescribed and the experienced, relationships, interactions, what is silenced in schools and classrooms. As pointed out by ^{Alves (2014}, p. 1478), “[...] the curricula - in the plural - are formed by what teachers and students do and think in the classrooms of each Brazilian school”. The curriculum experienced by schools, through the action and interaction of professionals, students and parents, is never the pure expression of what is prescribed. Fortunately, there are disputes, in everyday school life, of education and society projects (^{SOUSA, 2020}).

As for evaluation, the trend that was revealed reiterates a meaning that has long been present in the school, which is based on the idea of ​​“[...] evaluation as the measuring of knowledge with classification purposes” (^{SOUSA, 2010}, p. 107). Numerous studies conducted across the country allow understanding the principles and purposes that have guided the way evaluation is experienced in the school context, revealing its essentially selective and authoritarian nature.

This vision has been strengthened in view of the centrality that external and large-scale assessments take on in educational policies and school practices, whose results are viewed as an expression of quality, without considering the context of their production (^{SOUSA, 2020}). The formative evaluation approach has not been able to take root in school practices and is confused with the purposes of large-scale assessment.

BY WAY OF PROPOSITION

We are facing a challenge and an opportunity to recreate the post-pandemic school, which includes calling into question the traditional notions of curriculum and evaluation. The challenge is to make the organization of education on new bases a reality. It implies, in addition to objective conditions, a profound transformation in the way schools usually conceive and carry out their work, assuming a confrontation with values ​​that have long been dominant in school culture.

The opportunity is that of setting off changes in the concepts of teaching and learning, curriculum and evaluation, to be expressed in new ways of using school space and time. As for evaluation, we do not propose its elimination, but, instead, that it be experienced in its constitutive sense (^{SOUSA, 1998}).

It is essential to seek inclusive alternatives for receiving students when they return to in-person classes and, from this perspective, it seems opportune to resume discussions and proposals that were widely disseminated in Brazil in the 1990s about propositions for school organization in cycles.

The notion of cycle assumes the proposition of alternatives for the organization of basic education that overcome the artificial fragmentation of the teaching and learning process caused by the grade system⁵ - that is, to go beyond the 1-year grade as the temporal unit for teaching and learning, which has led to ruptures in schooling, since it makes it possible to fail students. In order to summarize a few elements that guided the discussions and initiatives during that period, we included the quotation below, which, albeit long, allows us to illustrate the propositions’ foundations:

The implementation of cycles, by establishing the organization of education on new bases, assumes treating knowledge as a process, and therefore as a living experience that is not consistent with the idea of interruption, but rather with that of construction, where the student, as the subject of action, is continuously and actively experiencing education by building meanings based on the relationships he/she establishes with the world and with other human beings.

The dynamic, relative and plural nature of knowledge gains centrality, in opposition to the idea of knowledge as something static which translates into an array of contents and skills to be mastered by students within a given time frame, in a cumulative way, regardless of individual and sociocultural differences between students, which has historically resulted in our education system, in exclusion and selectivity for a significant part of those who enter it.

What is in question is the constitution of a school that is guided by the commitment to social and school inclusion for all, thus breaking with the traditionally assimilated notion that its purpose is to transmit a given set of information that should be assimilated by all students, but which, “it is well-known”, not all students have the conditions to master (self-fulfilling prophecies) in the preset times and conditions, which is why we live with high and persistent school failure rates.

Certainly, of all school practices and routines, the one that is most directly “shaken” by the implementation of cycles is evaluation, and its redefinition in school practice is necessary to make the reorganization of the educational process a reality. (^{SOUSA, 2007}, p. 34-35)

Exploring paths that allow recreating the school based on the commitment to promoting quality education for all, and which are expressed in new ways of using school space and time, such is the challenge that arises in times of COVID-19.

Should a flexible organization of education inspired by cycles be adopted, it is not enough to decree its implementation. As ^{Sousa (1998}) says, it is necessary to create working conditions and circumstances that allow school professionals, students and parents a collective reflection, as well as the construction of new proposals and responses capable of ensuring that this measure, a potentially valuable one in terms of promoting universal access to education, does not translate into a lack of commitment to the school learning process. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the role that government bodies have been playing towards the reconstruction of the public school after the pandemic.

It is opportune to summarize the conditions of implementation of new bases for the organization of education, as listed by the analyses that addressed the implementation of cycles; among such conditions of implementation, we highlight the following, based on ^{Sousa et al. (2007}):

The insights provided in the article by ^{Miranda and Pereira (2020}) are useful, in this reflection, as they suggest the distinction between flexibilizing and adapting, as treated in the section on the contributions from academic articles:

In addressing the return to in-person classes in public schools, ^{Afonso (2020}, p. 136) mentions the contribution of those

[…] who believe that a more radical reinvention of school (especially public school) is not only desirable but possible, in the expectation that this change (or even metamorphosis) will be part, in the post-pandemic period, of the same momentum of expected new national and global social movements of high democratic intensity which can seriously confront ecological threats, growing social inequalities, outrageous corruption processes and different forms of injustice, exploitation and domination.

We close this article by expressing our expectation that the considerations it contains about evaluation and curriculum will instigate reflections, debates and propositions, and mainly that these will continue and bring about studies and collective discussions in systems and schools.