NON-REPETITION POLICIES ON STATE EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN BRAZIL

Abstract

This paper aims to identify the state education systems whose regulation establishes non-repetition as a rule and emphasizes educational cycles (units longer than a grade) as the main subdivisions of basic education. It also investigates the extent to which those regulations have been implemented. To that end, we analyzed Brazilian states’ legislation on education and data from the School Census. We found that repetition and an emphasis on grades over cycles are characteristics of state education systems in most Brazilian states. However, non-repetition policies were found to be adopted to a greater extent in the states of Minas Gerais, São Paulo, and Mato Grosso.¹

EDUCATION SYSTEM; GRADE REPETITION; SOCIAL PROMOTION; CYCLES

Resumo

Este artigo tem como objetivo identificar quais sistemas estaduais de ensino preveem a organização do ensino em ciclos escolares e o regime de progressão continuada dos alunos. Pretende-se, ainda, investigar em que medida essas previsões têm sido implantadas nas escolas. Para tanto, além de consulta direta às secretarias de educação e da análise da legislação estadual, recorre-se a dados do Censo Escolar. Os resultados nos permitem concluir que, na educação básica das redes estaduais brasileiras, há predomínio da organização seriada e dos regimes de progressão regular ou parcial dos alunos. Não obstante, há sistemas de ensino que apresentaram maior adesão às políticas de não repetência de forma consistente ao longo do tempo, como os dos estados de Minas Gerais, São Paulo e Mato Grosso.

SISTEMA DE ENSINO; REPETÊNCIA; PROGRESSO ESCOLAR; CICLOS

Resumen

Este artículo tiene el propósito de identificar qué sistemas estaduales de educación prevén la organización de la enseñanza en ciclos escolares y el régimen de progresión continuada de los estudiantes. Asimismo, se pretende investigar en qué medida tales pronósticos han sido implantados en las escuelas. Para ello, además de consultar directamente las secretarías de educación y de análisis de la legislación estadual se recurre a datos del Censo Escolar. Los resultados nos permiten concluir que, en la educación básica de las redes estaduales brasileñas, predomina la organización en serie y los regímenes de progresión regular o parcial de los alumnos. No obstante, hay sistemas de enseñanza que presentaron una mayor adhesión a las políticas de no repitencia de forma consistente a lo largo del tiempo, como aquellos de los estados de Minas Gerais, São Paulo y Mato Grosso.

SISTEMA EDUCATIVO; REPETICIÓN DE CURSO; PROGRESO ESCOLAR; CICLOS

Résumé

Cet article a pour but identifier quels systèmes d’enseignement publique¹ prevoient l’organisation de l’enseignement en cycles scolaires et le régime de progression continue des élèves. On souhaite encore examiner dans quelle mesure ces prévisions sont mises en place dans les écoles. Pour le faire, en plus de la consultation directe des sécrétariats d’éducation et de l’analyse de la législation de l’État, on s’appuie sur les données du Recensement Scolaire. Les résultats nous permettent de conclure que dans l’éducation de base des réseaux publiques au Brésil, domine l’organisation par séries et les régimes de progression régulière ou partielle des élèves. Cependant, certains systèmes d’enseignement ont présenté une plus grande adhésion aux politiques de non redoublement régulièrement au long des années, comme les États de Minas Gerais, São Paulo et Mato Grosso.

SYSTÈME D’ENSEIGNEMENT; REDOUBLEMENT; PROGRÈS SCOLAIRE; CYCLES

We still have many conflicts and controversies around non-repetition policies. Teachers and parents, in a noticeable proportion, still believe that the failure tool can lead to academic recovery of students in cases when they do not meet up to a certain desired level at the end of a given grade (OLIVEIRA, 2014). Repetition pedagogy (RIBEIRO, 1991) or the culture of repetition (SILVA; DAVIS, 1994) are strong in Brazilian society beyond school walls as well.

Educational studies do not agree with this understanding on repetition. It is quite the opposite. A set of meta-analyses comprising investigations on this topic consistently showed the lack of effectiveness of repetition as a pedagogical measure (JACKSON, 1975; HOLMES; MATTHEWS, 1984; HOLMES, 1989; JIMERSON, 2001). We can find the same results in some Brazilian investigations (ALAVARSE, 2009; CORREA, 2013; CORREA; BONAMINO; SOARES, 2014; FERNANDES et al., 2018; LUZ, 2008; RIANI; SILVA; SOARES, 2012).

Simões (2016) proposes that grade retention is one of the main challenges to achieve universal and broad access to compulsory education in Brazil. All children and young people should be enrolled at schools regardless of “their socioeconomic level family, race/color conditions, gender or any other demographic characteristic”, and all students should complete “all school grades of basic education with satisfactory learning at the recommended age”² (SIMÕES, 2016, p. 21, own translation).

Non-repetition policies are, therefore, an alternative to improve student flow, reducing the process of students’ halts in education systems, thus improving their internal efficiency. On the other hand, such policies face societal and school community distrust regarding the educational quality they would achieve.

Therefore, it is important to assess the possible effects of non-repetition policies on Brazilian education, whether on student learning or on student flow. For this objective, we need to know, first, the level of adherence of the education systems to these measures.

When we talk about non-repetition policies, we have two main concepts generally related, but also independent: continued progression regime and school cycles.

In art. 24, item III, and art. 32, 2nd paragraph of Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (LDB [Law of Directives and Basis of the National Education]) (BRASIL, 1996), we find the types of grade progression: regular, partial, and continued.

LDB does not define the mentioned types of progression. Nevertheless, when we analyze the educational laws of States and Distrito Federal we see that regular progression by grade means the promotion of the student from one grade to the following in a sequential way. This means students that present insufficient performance are prone to be retained based on criteria established by education systems.

In partial progression, student may proceed to the next grade even if they have been retained in a certain number of curricular components, as established by education systems or schools.

Finally, in continued progression, the practice of retaining students according to performance criteria is prevented at the end of specific school grades.

LDB also presents, in its art. 23, several possible teaching systems (BRASIL, 1996). However, most of the schools are organized in grades or in school cycles.

School cycles seek to organize time in larger and more flexible units. The goal is to improve pedagogical work with students of different characteristics and learning rhythms (BARRETTO; MITRULIS, 1999). It is common to adopt continued progression regime inside a given cycle.

In our literature review,³ we found that only two of 75 selected academic articles from Brazilian literature on non-repetition policies focused on the data gathering of education systems that used these policies.

Fernandes’ study (2015) centered only on education systems from the State of Rio de Janeiro municipalities. The data was accessed with documents such as decrees, ordinances and curricular guidelines.

The author found that, in 2007, 60% of the municipalities adopted school cycles. Most of them (33% of all municipalities) used the Literacy Cycle in the first two grades of elementary school. He also found school cycles implemented from the 1st to the 5th grade (16%) and municipalities where cycles covered all elementary and middle school (11%).

In 2010, however, the number of municipalities that used school cycles decreased, reaching 28%. The highest drop was precisely among municipalities that implemented cycles in the first two grades of elementary school (from 33% to 12%).

As Fernandes (2015) pointed out, this seems to be related to a change of perspective. Municipal education systems started to understand that they did not need to use cycle as means to solely identify non-repetition in the firsts grades of elementary school. The author states that “a refueling of technicist pedagogy in the educational field, linked to a more conservative thought”⁴ (FERNANDES, 2015, p. 28, own translation) is also possibly related to the lesser adoption of school cycles on education systems.

Franco (2004), in turn, researched the adherence of state and municipal Brazilian capitals education systems to school cycles at the end of the elementary school, using the school answers on 2001 Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Básica [National System of Basic Education Assessment] (Saeb),⁵ analyzing the class survey.⁶

In 2001, this survey posed three questions regarding teaching organization in each evaluated class: the first was whether school cycles were in place; the second was on the length of the cycle; and the last one asked which was the year of the cycle at that moment. Franco (2004) used only the first question in his study, as he claimed that the question on the length of cycles did not work properly.

Franco (2004) did not use the data from the School Census⁷ in his analysis. Nevertheless, he explains that, since 1999, the instrument had also included two questions related to teaching organization. The first asked to specify how the school was organized: in grades; in cycles/phases/stages; or by subject. More than one option could be checked by the respondent. The second question asked for information on the number of existing cycles and their lengths. The author reports that, again, the respondents had great difficulty to correctly understand the second question, thus it could not be used.

In conclusion, he stated that the elementary school were mostly organized in grades. Also, municipal education systems of capitals were more likely to choose school cycles than state systems (FRANCO, 2004).

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The studies mentioned above show that schools and education systems had trouble to understand the classification criteria concerning their teaching organization.

The variables of 1999 School Census and 2001 Saeb, indicated in Franco (2004), are no longer used in the same way. Saeb only presents the variable for the year in question (2001). School Census kept using variables related to school cycles, number of cycles, and length of each cycle until 2006. The data collection on this information was interrupted in 2007 and 2008 editions. 2009 School Census brought the theme back, but only asking whether elementary and middle school is organized in cycles. One can no longer reach information on the number of school cycles and their lengths through Brazilian basic education databases.

It is remarkable that the question is specifically about the presence or absence of school cycles. We have seen that cycles are generally linked to continued progression regime through the school years that comprise each of them. However, it is not possible to get to any conclusion on the adoption of the policy of continued progression based only on this variable of the School Census.

If the goal is to understand the level of adherence of education systems to non-repetition policies, one needs to analyze beyond to surpass the limitations presented.

Our study, therefore, analyzed information from the 27 federative units (FUs) to identify the endorsement of state education systems regarding school cycles and continued progression regime at the end of specific grades. Lastly, our work investigates their implementation.

We focus only on state systems as our effort is to deal with a national level of analysis. We do so because Brazil has many municipalities and, in many cases, access to their specific legislation is unavailable.

METHODOLOGY

We researched each state education system to understand those who endorse school cycles and adopt continued progression regime in certain grades. We used three types of analysis:

1. non-repetition policies legislation in each state education system;

2. grade retention rate at basic education students in state schools, from 2009 to 2018, using School Census data;

3. how elementary and middle education state schools are organized, using 2018 School Census data.

LEGISLATION ON NON-REPETITION POLICIES IN STATE EDUCATION SYSTEMS

We contacted each of the 27 FUs. We sent emails to education secretariats. At times, we reached for each state ombudsman or Citizen Information Service. We sent four questions to each of them related to their basic education standards:

1. How is teaching organized in state schools? School cycles, grades, or mixed (school cycles and grades)?

2. If your answer was School Cycles or Mixed: How many of them? Which school stages⁸ does each cycle cover?

3. What is the student promotion regime⁹? Is it continued progression? Or are the students prone to be retained due to insufficient performance at the end of each school stage?

4. Which laws, decrees, ordinances etc. guide teaching organization and the promotion of students?

We analyzed attentively answers coming secretariats, but we went further. We also researched on their websites, and on each state education council website. After, we created a scheme presented in Chart 1, in the Results section. Our goal is to enable an easier comprehension on how each state education system adopts policies regarding school cycles and student progression.

We highlight the difficulty, in some cases, to get responses from secretariats. At moments, we had to insistently try to reach several agencies from each state. This was the only way to get an accurate interpretation on each legislation and to overcome the challenging absence of accountability.

Nevertheless, secretariats did not always bring clear answers. Frequently, the answer was not consistent with the legislation. In these cases, we followed the legal information for the schemes we present.

Chart 1 brings one item related to the progression of students at the end of each grade (from 1st elementary school to 2nd high school; 3rd grade of high school, generally, does not present progression, but the completion of basic education.)¹⁰ Following LDB, state regulations present three types of progression:

• Regular progression, marked in red;¹¹

• Partial progression, marked in yellow;

• Continued progression, marked in green.

Generally, legislations from FUs repeat parts of the LDB text, such as: “institutions that use regular progression by grade may adopt continued progression system in elementary and middle school, without prejudice to the evaluation of the teaching-learning process”; or “in institutions that adopt regular progression by grade, the school regiment may admit forms of partial progression, as long as the curriculum sequence is kept”¹² (BRASIL, 1996, own translation). Nevertheless, we chose to use green and yellow marks only when we state legislations explicitly mention grades on continued progression or partial progression of students, respectively. We believe that school adherence to continued or partial progression is stronger when legal support is in place.

When state legislation poses continued progression, it is usually mandatory in the first years of elementary school (Literacy Cycles), and it must be implemented in all schools. However, in other school grades, it is usually optional. Similarly, partial progression is usually not mandatory for schools, even when it is a legal option.

In our color scheme, we choose the color mark connected with the lesser interruptions on school flow in cases when state legislation says schools can choose more than one form of student progression. Therefore, we marked green when the three forms of progression are allowed and yellow when both partial and regular progression are allowed.

Chart 1 also brings school cycles organization. When we refer to the type of student progression, the color marks are between each grade square. Differently, when the colors marks are inside each school grade square, we are indicating school cycles. Each color comprises one of them. Three different colors in the same education system chart mean three specific school cycles are possible.

Again, even though many of the state legislations repeat LDB text, saying that

[…] basic education can be organized into annual grades, semester periods, cycles, regular rotation of study periods, non-graded groups, based on age , competence and other criteria, or by a different form of organization, whenever the interest of the learning process recommends it¹³ (BRASIL, 1996, own translation),

we only consider the possibility of school cycles on legislations that use the term for a particular set of grades.

GRADE RETENTION RATE IN STATE SCHOOLS

Inep calculates grade retention rate using School Census data. This data and other educational indicators are available on their online portal (BRASIL, 2020b).

This rate uses data from schools (surveyed at the start of the year after Census base year) informed at School Census second stage (BRASIL, 2013, 2019b).

Analyzing retention rates, we understand that values close to zero for certain grades, in the sample period (2009 to 2018), would indicate the adoption of continued progression policy.

We can see patterns of student retention in each education system. A sharp drop in the retention rate from one grade to the next would also indicate the adoption of the continued progression regime. A sharp increase from one grade to another may indicate, on the other hand, that students may not progress and, therefore, are prone to be retained at the end of the cycle.

Figures 1 to 8 (in the following section) show grade retention rate at state schools of the 27 Brazilian FUs. Therefore, we can check the consistency between these data and state education systems legislations on continued progression policy (Chart 2).

TEACHING ORGANIZATION IN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL

We verified answers of each FU state schools regarding school cycles using a national level database: the 2018 School Census. This was the most recent census used in this work (BRASIL, 2018a).

State schools that do not offer elementary and middle education are not of a part of this analysis since our question focus solely on those levels. With such filter, we had 100% of state schools answers. This provides access to the percentage of schools that state school cycles structure in each of the FUs (as Table 1 shows, on Results section).

ENROLLMENT DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO PUBLIC SCHOOL STATE/MUNICIPALITY ADMINISTRATION

Finally, we highlight a remarkable variation on the proportion of enrollments in the elementary and middle school linked to state schools in each FU. This happens in spite of the fact that LDB points to the FUs responsibility on “ensuring elementary and middle education, with complete priority given to high school to all who demand it”,¹⁴ and that it is up to the municipalities¹⁵ “to offer children education in daycare centers and preschools, with complete priority given to elementary and middle education”¹⁶ (BRASIL, 1996, own translation).

According to 2018 School Census,¹⁷ most enrollments in elementary school were in the municipal system, especially in Pará, Maranhão, Piauí, Ceará, Pernambuco, Alagoas, Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, and Goiás. In these FUs, less than 10% of all enrollments on public education are on state schools (BRASIL, 2018b). Thus, results of analyses on their elementary education are to be looked with caution, since state system enrollment is relatively small.

Oppositely, in middle school, the proportion of enrollments in state and municipal institutions was, generally, more balanced in 2018. Maranhão and Ceará were the only exceptions as they had less than 10% of enrollments in state schools (BRASIL, 2018b).

Thus, the results presented below are more robust and relevant for FUs with high proportions of enrollments on state schools. This is more frequent in middle school than in elementary school.

2018 School Census pointed out that more than 88% of public education enrollments in high school were linked to state schools in all FUs (BRASIL, 2018b). As the results will show, only one state education system presents the legal possibility of school cycles at this stage. In addition, we could not find legal possibility for continued progression in any education system. This means there is no need for specific caution on handling high school data.

RESULTS

We here present results of the before described analyzes. We could see the presence or absence of non-repetition policies on state education systems legislations, but also their consistency with grade retention rates.

LEGISLATION ON NON-REPETITION POLICIES IN STATE EDUCATION SYSTEMS

After analyzing legislations of the 27 FUs regarding continued progression regime and school cycles organization, presented in Chart 1, we could identify four groups based on level of adherence of state education systems to these policies:

1. state education systems legislations that mention continued progression of students at the end of at least five of the nine grades of elementary and middle school: Acre, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Paraná, Mato Grosso, and Distrito Federal. Acre and Paraná are the only ones that do not use the term cycle to name a set of grades.

2. State education systems legislations that mention student continued progression at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th grade of elementary school: Amazonas, Pará, Pernambuco, Alagoas, Rio de Janeiro, and Santa Catarina. Santa Catarina, however, does not use the term cycle to name a set of grades.

3. State education systems legislations that only mention continued progression regime at the end of the 1st and 2nd grade of elementary school, indicating compliance with recommendations of Article 30 of Resolution CNE/CEB No. 07/2010 (BRASIL, 2010):¹⁸ Rondônia, Amapá, Tocantins, Maranhão, Piauí, Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Bahia, Espírito Santo, Rio Grande do Sul, and Goiás. Among them, Ceará, Sergipe, Bahia, Espírito Santo, and Rio Grande do Sul do not use the term cycle.

4. State education systems that present no compliance to recommendations of Resolution CNE/CEB No. 07/2010 (BRASIL, 2010). In one of these cases, Mato Grosso do Sul, continued progression regime is only mentioned for the end of 1st grade of elementary school. Differently, Roraima, and Paraíba mention both continued and/or partial progression of students and school cycles organization on their legislations: “whenever in favor on the interest of the learning process” and “as long as the sequence of the curriculum is preserved”,¹⁹ following the text of LDB (BRASIL, 1996, own translation). Nevertheless, they do not establish in which grades these measures must be adopted. Therefore, we understand that, in these cases, implementation of non-repetition policies is nuclear.

CHART 1
TEACHING ORGANIZATION AND STUDENT PROGRESSION TYPE ON STATE EDUCATION SYSTEMS, ACCORDING TO LEGISLATIONS

Federative unit	1st grade elementary school to 3rd grade high school
Rondônia	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Acre	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Amazonas	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Roraima	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Pará	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Amapá	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Tocantins	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Maranhão	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Piauí	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Ceará	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Rio Grande do Norte	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Paraíba	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Pernambuco	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Alagoas	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Sergipe	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Bahia	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Minas Gerais	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Espírito Santo	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Rio de Janeiro	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
São Paulo	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Paraná	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Santa Catarina	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Rio Grande do Sul	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Mato Grosso do Sul	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Mato Grosso	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Goiás	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd
Distrito Federal	1st		2nd		3rd		4th		5th		6th		7th		8th		9th		1st		2nd		3rd

• Source: Prepared by the authors.
• Legend:
• Continued progression found on legislation.
• Partial progression found on legislation.
• Regular progression, meaning no other type of progression was found on legislation.
• Each color refers to a school cycle adopted by the education system.

In most cases, the name school cycle means that students are expected to follow a continuous educational flow progression (at least between the grades that make up the cycles) with no interruptions. Nevertheless, there are inconsistencies. In the education system of the state of Minas Gerais, progression of students is partial in the Intermediate and Consolidation Cycles (middle school). In the state of Mato Grosso, progression of students in the Youth Cycle (1st to 3rd grade of high school) is also partial. This comes to show what we previously brought in the paper introduction: there is a high correlation between school cycles and continued progression regime, but of non-mandatory nature.

CONTINUED PROGRESSION REGIME AND GRADE RETENTION RATE AT STATE SCHOOLS

After analyzing state education systems legislations in Brazil, we tried to understand if the non-repetition policies mentioned have in fact been implemented in schools.

One way to get to this answer is to monitor the grade retention rate at state schools throughout basic education in the 27 FUs.

As we previously presented, we compared FUs as means to classify them according to four groups based on level of adherence to non-repetition policies. By doing so, we could see consistency or discrepancy between legislations and grade retention rates.

We also looked towards state systems that show greater adherence to non-repetition policies and mention student continued progression at the end of at least five of the nine grades of elementary and middle school. In this group, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Mato Grosso, and Distrito Federal presented consistency between legislation and grade retention rates, as shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1
RETENTION RATES FROM 2009 TO 2018 FOR EACH GRADE OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE SCHOOLS IN MINAS GERAIS, SÃO PAULO, MATO GROSSO, AND DISTRITO FEDERAL

Figure 1 data show that continued progression policy kept being consistently implemented, despite a few variations, on state schools of Minas Gerais, São Paulo, and Mato Grosso from 2009 to 2018.

Distrito Federal presents legal standards on continued progression regime at the end of 6th and 8th grade of middle school since 2013 (DISTRITO FEDERAL, 2013). Despite this fact, a remarkable decrease on retention rates in these grades only happened in 2018. In addition, we can see high grade retention rates at the end of school cycles in this FU, meaning that bottlenecks related to student repetition are only being transferred to subsequent grades.

São Paulo state education system understands the possibility of student to be retained based on insufficient knowledge acquisition at end of each school cycle. The system started to use three cycles instead of two since 2014. Student repetition can happen at the end of 3rd, 6th, and 9th grades. This affected the post-2014 curve patterns, as there was an increase of retention rate at the end of first and second cycle. This means higher rates on 3rd and 6th grades, and smaller at the 5th (final grade of the old cycle). However, the student flow can only be stopped once, and they must subsequently continue the schooling process. Hence we see relatively low retention rate in those grades when compared, for example, to grade retention rates in high school on their education system.

Although Minas Gerais state specifically mentions continued progression regime related to elementary school, retention rates show that this policy is continuously applied from 1st to 5th grade.

In Mato Grosso, there is no retention of students at elementary and middle school according to performance criteria. Student flow is continuous from 1st to 8th grade. This state education system has the largest number of grades in which continued progression is adopted.

Acre and Paraná present rules on non-repetition of students concerning the elementary school, but the legal text is not mandatory. Acre legislation, art. 33 of CEE/AC Resolution No. 160/2013 says: “Elementary school regiments must bring continued progression up to the 5th grade, when in favor of the teaching-learning process”²⁰ (ACRE, 2013, own translation). In Paraná, we have the Legal Order Aspects of EEC/PR Decision No. 03/2006: “we recommend non-retention of students between the transition from one grade to the next until the fifth grade, and that the school use, upon prior analysis, whichever pedagogical intervention it must regarding different aspects of student development and learning”²¹ (PARANÁ, 2006, own translation).

Furthermore, Acre Education Secretariat had answered us stating the adoption of student continued progression only at the end of 1st grade elementary school. As for Paraná Education Secretariat, they told us that there was no student continued progression in middle and high school. None was said about elementary school. It is possible that the lack of response happened because less than 1% of enrollments in the elementary school were linked to Paraná state schools in 2018 (BRASIL, 2018b).

The grade retention data from both states agree with their answers. Therefore, they go against what the legal text recommends, as shown in Figure 2. We can see a mismatch between the prescriptions found on state legislations and what really happens in schools.

FIGURE 2
RETENTION RATES FROM 2009 TO 2018 FOR EACH GRADE OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE SCHOOLS IN ACRE AND PARANÁ

On student continued progression at the end of 1st, 2nd and 4th grade of elementary school, the states that present consistency between retention rate and their legislations are Amazonas, Pará, Pernambuco, Alagoas, and Santa Catarina, as shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3
RETENTION RATES FROM 2009 TO 2018 FOR EACH GRADE OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE SCHOOLS IN AMAZONAS, PARÁ, PERNAMBUCO, ALAGOAS, AND SANTA CATARINA

It is important to notice the higher numbers, in recent years, on retention rates at the end of the 3rd and 5th grades of elementary school in the state of Pernambuco. In this case, we found inconsistency between the education secretariat answer and the state legislation. This might impair the implementation of continued progression policy, as it seems that not all educational institutions are following the same path.

From this group, the only state educational system that presented full inconsistency between grade retention rates and the fact that their legislation mentions two school cycles was Rio de Janeiro, as shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4
RETENTION RATES FROM 2009 TO 2018 FOR EACH GRADE OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE SCHOOLS IN RIO DE JANEIRO

From our previously presented groups, the third comprises the set of state education systems whose legislations mention continued progression regime only at the end of the 1st and 2nd grade of elementary school. On this group, the states of Rondônia, Amapá, Tocantins, Sergipe, Bahia, Espírito Santo, and Rio Grande do Sul showed consistency between grade retention rate and legislation, as shown in Figure 5.

FIGURE 5
RETENTION RATES FROM 2009 TO 2018 FOR EACH GRADE OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE SCHOOLS IN RONDÔNIA, AMAPÁ, TOCANTINS, SERGIPE, BAHIA, ESPÍRITO SANTO, AND RIO GRANDE DO SUL

In Maranhão, Piauí, Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, and Goiás, grade retention rates are not consistent with state legislations, as they mention continued progression at the end of elementary school 1st and 2nd grades. We can see this on Figure 6 graphs.

FIGURE 6
RETENTION RATES FROM 2009 TO 2018 FOR EACH GRADE OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE SCHOOLS IN MARANHÃO, PIAUÍ, CEARÁ, RIO GRANDE DO NORTE, AND GOIÁS

The graphs of Maranhão, Piauí, and Ceará point to the lack of continued progression regime throughout basic education. Data from Rio Grande do Norte, and Goiás, however, indicate that this policy is in place not only at 1st and 2nd grades, but also 3rd grade of elementary school.

It is important to highlight that the rules establishing this progression system in Ceará and Piauí date from 2018 and 2019, respectively. And, for this reason, they would not have influenced the grade retention rate on our analytic time frame. Therefore, it would be possible to see whether the measure was in fact implemented in state schools of these FUs with further investigation on subsequent years.

In the state of Rio Grande do Norte, most recent legislation mentions student continued progression at the end of 1st and 2nd grades of elementary school (RIO GRANDE DO NORTE, 2019). Nevertheless, the retention rates are consistent with the previous normative text (RIO GRANDE DO NORTE, 2016), which stated that assessment from 1st to 3rd grade of elementary school should monitor student learning performance without repetition. Thus, it is expected that data on student retention in later years might show changes consistent to the ordinance.

In the state of Goiás, student retention data indicate continued progression at the end of 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades of elementary school as well. This either might be due to legislation misinterpretation or due to school autonomy on the adoption of continued progression. It is also possible that there is a law on this matter that we were unable to find, even though our search was intensive and not limited to education secretariats answers.

The last group comprises state education systems in which there is no compliance with Resolution CNE/CEB No. 07/2010 (BRASIL, 2010). Continued progression is only expected at the end of 1st grade of elementary school (Mato Grosso do Sul), or it is not explicitly stated for any grade (Roraima and Paraíba).

From this group, only Mato Grosso do Sul presented consistency between legislation and grade retention rates, as shown in Figure 7.

FIGURE 7
RETENTION RATES FROM 2009 TO 2018 FOR EACH GRADE OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE SCHOOLS IN MATO GROSSO DO SUL

Although we found no explicit mention to the adoption of continued progression policy in specific grades in Roraima and Paraíba legislations, their grade retention rates are inconsistent with this supposed absence is legislation, as shown in Figure 8.

FIGURE 8
RETENTION RATES FROM 2009 TO 2018 FOR EACH GRADE OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE SCHOOLS IN RORAIMA AND PARAÍBA

Roraima presents a gradual drop in the proportion of students retained in the first three grades of elementary school in our analytic time frames (from 2009 to 2018). This may indicate that a specific legislation did not influence on continued progression policy adoption in those grades. Perhaps, state schools little by little started to walk towards this direction inspired by national guidelines on non-repetition policies and the fact that various education systems are adopting them.

In Paraíba, retention rates show that continued progression might be in place the end of 1st, 2nd and 4th grades of elementary school. Maybe two school cycles are in place, with retention being possible at the end of each one (3rd and 5th grades). However, legal texts do not explicitly mention continued progression regime at the end of specific grades. We found word on the Literacy Cycle solely in 2019 Operational Guidelines for State Schools Work without, however, indicating grades covered.

This might indicate autonomy on student progression decisions regarding state schools of Paraíba, following LDB itself and state legislation, or a shared understanding built between schools. A specific rule might exist, as well, although we could not find it. Once again, we remark that we researched websites of both the secretariat and state education board, in addition to the data coming from the secretariat answer.

After our analyses, we may group the 27 FUs in two (Chart 2): (i) those who present consistency between current legislation and grade retention rates from 2009 to 2018; and (ii) those who present significant inconsistency between the aforementioned aspects.

However, we point out that most state education systems legislation repeat LDB text, therefore giving autonomy to schools regarding student progression system “without prejudice to the evaluation of the teaching-learning process, according to the respective education system rules”²² (BRASIL, 1996, own translation). The inconsistency between legislations that mention continued progression at the end of specific grades and the retention rates in those same grades, however, does not necessarily mean lack of compliance to rules. This is especially true regarding Piauí, Ceará, and Rio Grande do Norte education systems, in which legislation recently changed in 2018 and 2019. Our analytic time frame (2009 to 2018), therefore, could not cover this possible change in student retention rates.

CHART 2
ANALYSIS OF CONSISTENCY BETWEEN GRADE RETENTION RATE AT STATE SCHOOLS AND LEGISLATION OF EACH FU GROUPED IN FOUR CATEGORIES BASED ON LEVEL OF ADHERENCE TO NON-REPETITION POLICIES

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4
Data consistent FUs	São Paulo Minas Gerais Mato Grosso Distrito Federal	Amazonas Pará Pernambuco Alagoas Santa Catarina	Rondônia Amapá Tocantins Sergipe Bahia Espírito Santo Rio Grande do Sul	Mato Grosso do Sul
Data inconsistent FUs	Acre Paraná	Rio de Janeiro	Maranhão Piauí Ceará Rio Grande do Norte Goiás	Roraima Paraíba

• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

STATE SCHOOL ANSWERS REGARDING TEACHING ORGANIZATION IN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL

We used the aforementioned School Census question regarding teaching organization in elementary and middle school: the presence or absence of school cycles. Our goal was to understand this policy implementation, and its agreement or divergence with state education legislations, as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1
TEACHING ORGANIZATION IN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL AT STATE SCHOOLS - STATES AND DISTRITO FEDERAL - 2018

Federative unit	Cycles
	NO	YES
Rondônia	85.8%	14.2%
Acre	97.5%	2.5%
Amazonas	67.6%	32.4%
Roraima	99.2%	0.8%
Pará	95.7%	4.3%
Amapá	77.5%	22.5%
Tocantins	98.7%	1.3%
Maranhão	95.1%	4.9%
Piauí	99.6%	0.4%
Ceará	97.5%	2.5%
Rio Grande do Norte	63.9%	36.1%
Paraíba	96.9%	3.1%
Pernambuco	82.4%	17.6%
Alagoas	94.9%	5.1%
Sergipe	61.4%	38.6%
Bahia	84.8%	15.2%
Minas Gerais	3.6%	96.4%
Espírito Santo	98.9%	1.1%
Rio de Janeiro	96.0%	4.0%
São Paulo	0.4%	99.6%
Paraná	98.0%	2.0%
Santa Catarina	100.0%	0.0%
Rio Grande do Sul	99.4%	0.6%
Mato Grosso do Sul	100.0%	0.0%
Mato Grosso	2.1%	97.9%
Goiás	99.8%	0.2%
Distrito Federal	1.3%	98.7%

• Source: Made by the authors based on Inep data (BRASIL, 2018a).

We can see that, according to 2018 School Census data, only two state education systems answers - Santa Catarina and Mato Grosso do Sul - presented a full agreement among all educational establishments.

It is also relevant that some legislations present the term cycle for one or more groups of elementary school grades, but data from 2018 School Census answers show that most of these state schools said they did not use cycles. This is the case of Rondônia, Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, Tocantins, Maranhão, Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte, Pernambuco, Alagoas, Rio de Janeiro, and Goiás.

On the other hand, Sergipe and Bahia legislations did not use the term cycle referring to the first two grades of elementary school in which students are expected to follow a continuous educational flow progression. Even so, the proportion of schools that stated cycles structure for this stage reached 38.6% and 15.2%, respectively.

The mismatch between legal text and school answers may point to a lack of legislative implementation, but it may also be linked to school autonomy regarding teaching organization choices. It could be a possible terminological confusion, as well, on what school cycles in fact stands for.

As we can see, the School Census does not provide quality data on school cycles organization. A possible explanation is that schools may not tell how many cycles are adopted throughout elementary and middle school and what grades they comprise. Therefore, it might be difficult to answer a yes/no question when education systems adopt school cycles specifically in the first two grades of elementary school (literacy cycle), or even in a greater number of grades, but not in all elementary and middle school.

On the other hand, in Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Mato Grosso, and Distrito Federal, more than 96% of these FUs state schools answered that elementary education was organized in cycles. Thus, the data agrees with the legislation analysis and grade retention rates, as they pointed to school cycles and continued progression regime in five or more grades.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

We have seen much confusion around non-repetition policies concepts. Therefore, we noticed several contradictions regarding state legislations of each FU, education secretariat answers, and what is in fact happening in schools.

In addition, we had a long and difficult data collection process, showing that legislations on non-repetition policies of each education system are hard to reach. We remark that all rules should be clear and easy to find, not only for research purposes, but mainly so that school managers and teachers are able to know their own FU education guidelines, which is essential for policy implementation.

Triangulation of data allowed us not only to know which state education systems present school cycles, but also how many cycles and their lengths. In addition, we could see data on continued progression regime at the end of specific grades in each education system.

We could also check consistency between legislations and their implementation in schools by monitoring student retention rates at the end of each grade throughout basic education. Here, we highlight the solid process of municipalization taking place, focused on elementary education. Therefore, enrollments linked to state schools in this stage do not accurately represent reality in some FUs. In Pará, Maranhão, Piauí, Ceará, Pernambuco, Alagoas, Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, and Goiás, less than 10% of enrollments in elementary school were in state schools, according to 2018 School Census data (BRASIL, 2018b).

The fact that School Census posed a yes/no question regarding school cycles organization in elementary and middle education has rendered this data insufficient. We underline that more accurate information can be provided with a better question that asks the number of cycles and which grades they comprise.

Besides that, we need data collection on large educational databases, such as the School Census, in order to monitor properly the adherence of education systems to non-repetition policies based on types of student progression at the end of each grade in basic education.

Our conclusion, based on the results before presented, points to a predominance, in state education systems, of graded organization and regular or partial student progression, instead of continued progression. State education systems still emphasize the most traditional types of progression and educational structures, regardless of the important innovations brought by LDB.

Although we researched all basic education, only Mato Grosso state education system mentions a cycle in high school (youth cycle). Nevertheless, progression of students in this stage is partial, according to the rules we analyzed. This means that continued progression policy in state education systems is restricted to elementary and middle education.

Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Mato Grosso, and Distrito Federal were the education systems that showed the greatest adherence to non-repetition policies in the set of the analyzes presented.

School cycles implementation combined with continued progression regime seems to be well established in Minas Gerais, São Paulo, and Mato Grosso. In Distrito Federal, instead, we can see an effect on grade retention rates only in 2018. Even so, we find high rates at the end of each cycle, unlike the three states previously mentioned.

Therefore, we can say that Minas Gerais, São Paulo, and Mato Grosso education systems are great for studies on possible effects of non-repetition policies in the educational and learning processes; especially São Paulo and Mato Grosso, as such policies are also implemented on middle school and as they present consistency in our analytic time frame.

REFERÊNCIAS

• ACRE. Resolução CEE/AC n. 160/2013. Diário Oficial do Estado do Acre, 6 de novembro de 2013. Disponível em: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/61355913/doeac-caderno-unico-06-11-2013-pg-10?ref=next_button Acesso em: 19 jan. 2020.
  » https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/61355913/doeac-caderno-unico-06-11-2013-pg-10?ref=next_button
• ALAVARSE, Ocimar Munhoz. A organização do ensino fundamental em ciclos: algumas questões. Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro, v. 14, n. 40, p. 35-50, jan./abr. 2009.
• BARRETTO, Elba Siqueira de Sá; MITRULIS, Eleny. Os ciclos escolares: elementos de uma trajetória. Cadernos de Pesquisa, São Paulo, n. 108, p. 27-48, 1999.
• BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira”. Nota Técnica n. 3/2013, de 25 de março de 2013. Cálculo das Taxas de Rendimento Escolar - Censo da Educação Básica, 2013. 6p.
• BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira”. Microdados - Censo Escolar 2018a. Disponível em: http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados Acesso em: 24 set. 2019.
  » http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados
• BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira”. Sinopse estatística da educação básica - 2018b. Disponível em: http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/sinopses-estatisticas-da-educacao-basica Acesso em: 7 out. 2019.
  » http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/sinopses-estatisticas-da-educacao-basica
• BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira”. Nota Técnica n. 10/2019/CGIM/DAEB, de 3 de julho de 2019. Detalhamento da população e resultados do Saeb 2019, 2019a. 11p.
• BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira”. Inep divulga taxas de rendimento escolar; números mostram tendência histórica de melhora. 2019b. Disponível em: http://portal.inep.gov.br/artigo/-/asset_publisher/B4AQV9zFY7Bv/content/inep-divulga-taxas-de-rendimento-escolar-numeros-mostram-tendencia-historica-de-melhora/21206 Acesso em: 24 set. 2019.
  » http://portal.inep.gov.br/artigo/-/asset_publisher/B4AQV9zFY7Bv/content/inep-divulga-taxas-de-rendimento-escolar-numeros-mostram-tendencia-historica-de-melhora/21206
• BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira”. Censo Escolar. 2020a. Disponível em: http://portal.inep.gov.br/censo-escolar Acesso em: 24 set. 2019.
  » http://portal.inep.gov.br/censo-escolar
• BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira”. Indicadores educacionais. 2020b. Disponível em: http://portal.inep.gov.br/indicadores-educacionais Acesso em: 24 set. 2019.
  » http://portal.inep.gov.br/indicadores-educacionais
• BRASIL. Lei n. 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (LDB). Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9394.htm Acesso em: 6 nov. 2018.
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9394.htm
• BRASIL. Ministério da Educação. Conselho Nacional de Educação; Câmara de Educação Básica. Resolução CNE/CEB n. 7/2010. Fixa Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para o Ensino Fundamental de 9 (nove) anos. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 15 de dezembro de 2010, Seção 1, p. 34. Disponível em: portal.mec.gov.br/dmdocuments/rceb007_10.pdf Acesso em: 16 ago. 2019.
  » portal.mec.gov.br/dmdocuments/rceb007_10.pdf
• CORREA, Erisson Viana. Efeito da repetência nos anos iniciais do ensino fundamental: um estudo longitudinal a partir do Geres. 2013. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação) - Departamento de Educação, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2013.
• CORREA, Erisson Viana; BONAMINO, Alicia; SOARES, Tufi Machado. Evidências do efeito da repetência nos primeiros anos escolares. Estudos em Avaliação Educacional, São Paulo, v. 25, n. 59, p. 242-269, set./dez. 2014.
• DISTRITO FEDERAL. Secretaria de Estado de Educação. Portaria n. 304. Diário Oficial do Distrito Federal, 31 de dezembro de 2013. Disponível em: http://www.tc.df.gov.br/sinj/Norma/75815/Portaria_304_30_12_2013.html Acesso em: 19 jan. 2020.
  » http://www.tc.df.gov.br/sinj/Norma/75815/Portaria_304_30_12_2013.html
• FERNANDES, Claudia de Oliveira. Uma breve análise das políticas de avaliação e sua relação com a organização escolar por ciclos: resultados de pesquisa. Educar em Revista, Curitiba, n. especial, n. 1, p. 17-33, 2015.
• FERNANDES, Luana de Mendonça; LEME, Vanessa Barbosa Romera; ELIAS, Luciana Carla dos Santos; SOARES, Adriana Benevides. Preditores do desempenho escolar ao final do ensino fundamental: histórico de reprovação, habilidades sociais e apoio social. Temas em Psicologia, Ribeirão Preto, SP, v. 26, n. 1, p. 215-228, jan./mar. 2018.
• FRANCO, Creso. Ciclos e letramento na fase inicial do ensino fundamental. Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 1, p. 30-38, jan./abr. 2004.
• HOLMES, C. Thomas. Grade level retention effects: a meta-analysis of research studies. In: SHEPARD, Lorrie A.; SMITH, Mary Lee (org.). Flunking grades: research and policies on retention. London: The Falmer Press, 1989. p. 16-33.
• HOLMES, C. Thomas.; MATTHEWS, Kenneth M. The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, v. 54, n. 2, p. 225-236, 1984.
• JACKSON, Gregg B. The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational Research, v. 45, n. 4, p. 613-635, 1975.
• JIMERSON, Shane R. Meta-analysis of grade retention research: implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, v. 30, n. 3, p. 420-437, 2001.
• LUZ, Luciana Soares. O impacto da repetência na proficiência escolar: uma análise longitudinal do desempenho de repetentes em 2002-2003. 2008. Dissertação (Mestrado em Demografia) - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2008.
• OLIVEIRA, Adolfo Samuel. Progressão continuada e outros dispositivos escolares: êxito e fracasso escolar nos anos iniciais do ensino fundamental. 2014. Tese (Doutorado em Educação) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2014.
• PARANÁ. Conselho Estadual de Educação. Deliberação n. 03, aprovada em 9 de junho de 2006. Disponível em: http://www.cee.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=166 Acesso em: 19 jan. 2020.
  » http://www.cee.pr.gov.br/modules/conteudo/conteudo.php?conteudo=166
• RIANI, Juliana de Lucena Ruas; SILVA, Vania Candida da; SOARES, Tufi Machado. Repetir ou progredir? Uma análise da repetência nas escolas públicas de Minas Gerais. Educação e Pesquisa, São Paulo, v. 38, n. 3, p. 623-636, jul./set. 2012.
• RIBEIRO, Sérgio Costa. A pedagogia da repetência. Estudos em Avaliação Educacional, São Paulo, n. 4, p. 73-85, jul./dez. 1991.
• RIO GRANDE DO NORTE. Secretaria de Estado da Educação, da Cultura, do Esporte e do Lazer. Portaria n. 1.878. Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte, 08 de dezembro de 2016. Disponível em: http://www.diariooficial.rn.gov.br/dei/dorn3/docview.aspx?id_jor=00000001&data=20161208&id_doc=557080 Acesso em: 19 jan. 2020.
  » http://www.diariooficial.rn.gov.br/dei/dorn3/docview.aspx?id_jor=00000001&data=20161208&id_doc=557080
• RIO GRANDE DO NORTE. Secretaria de Estado da Educação, da Cultura, do Esporte e do Lazer. Portaria n. 115. Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte, 02 de abril de 2019. Disponível em: http://diariooficial.rn.gov.br/dei/dorn3/docview.aspx?id_jor=00000001&data=20190402&id_doc=640526 Acesso em: 19 jan. 2020.
  » http://diariooficial.rn.gov.br/dei/dorn3/docview.aspx?id_jor=00000001&data=20190402&id_doc=640526
• SILVA, Rose Neubauer; DAVIS, Cláudia. É proibido repetir. Brasília: MEC/Unesco, 1994.
• SIMÕES, Armando Amorim. As metas de universalização da educação básica no Plano Nacional de Educação: o desafio do acesso e a evasão dos jovens de famílias de baixa renda no Brasil. Brasília: Inep, 2016. 43p. (PNE em Movimento; n. 4).

• 1
  Au Brésil l’école publique est gratuite et de responsabilité des États, le District Fédéral et les municipalités. Dans cet article il s’agit des écoles sous la responsabilité de l’État.
• 2
  In the original: “do nível socioeconômico de sua família, das condições de raça/cor, gênero ou qualquer outra característica demográfica” [...] “todos “todos os anos escolares da educação básica com aprendizagem satisfatória na idade recomendada”.
• 3
  We used Capes (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior [Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel]) Online Journals platform with the following expressions (in Portuguese): promoção automática; progressão continuada; ciclo(s) de aprendizagem; ciclo(s) de formação; organização do ensino; não reprovação; não retenção; não repetência; and escola em ciclos. From these papers, we selected those published in journals with minimum B2 Qualis concept in the thematic areas of education and/or teaching for the 2013-2016 quadrennium. Additionally, we research journals that obtained at least Qualis A2 concept in the thematic areas of education and/or teaching for the 2013-2016 quadrennium with the following expressions (in Portuguese): promoção automática; progressão continuada; não repetência; and ciclo(s). The final selection of articles criteria were: (i) those who present theoretical analyses, literature reviews, survey or evaluation on education systems that adhered to non-repetition policies, excluding reviews, interviews, and conference speeches etc.; (ii) those who majorly focus on non-repetition policy itself, excluding papers focused on a single school subject.
• 4
  In the original: “revitalização de uma pedagogia tecnicista no cenário educacional, na esteira de um pensamento mais conservador”.
• 5
  In 2001, Saeb was still working based on samples randomly chosen by Inep (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira” [National Institute for Educational Studies and Research “Anísio Teixeira”]). It was an attempt to overview Brazilian educational development. Students from 4th grade (elementary school) and 8th grade (middle school), and from the 3rd grade of high school, took Mathematics and Reading (Portuguese) tests. There were also surveys to students, principals, teachers, schools, and classes. The system methodology has changed a lot over years: in 2005, a censitary component was introduced (splitting Saeb in Aneb, a sample-based assessment keeping trends from the former Saeb, and Prova Brasil, a population-based assessment of public schools); and, in 2013, the system merged with ANA (Avaliação Nacional da Alfabetização [National Assessment of Alphabetization]). In its most recent edition (2019), those labels have fallen, and all evaluations are now called Saeb (BRASIL, 2019a).
• 6
  Since the 2007 edition, a specific survey to collect information on each class is no longer present.
• 7
  The School Census collects, each year, data on Brazilian basic education. Inep is responsible for both the census and Saeb. The School Census, however, happens with collaboration of state and municipalities education secretariats. By doing so, it can reach all public and privates school in Brazil and all stages and types of basic and professional education (regular education, special education, Educação de Jovens e Adultos (EJA), and professional education) (BRASIL, 2020a).
• 8
  The questions sent to the state education secretariats used the term school stage as equivalent to grade.
• 9
  Studying educational legislation, after deepening our analysis, we identified that “progression regime” would be the most appropriate term to get the information we wanted, instead of “promotion regime”. We kept the term here to accurately represent the survey sent. However, the right term was adopted in every other moment of our paper.
• 10
  We saw, in some FUs, enrollments in the 4th grade of high school in the state administration. The proportion of enrollments was less than 2.11% of the total enrollment of state high schools in each FU, according to the 2018 School Census (BRASIL, 2018b). Thus, to simplify the analysis, we did not present the 4th grade of high school in the scheme.
• 11
  We understand that regular progression was in place when the state legislation does not explicitly mention partial or continued progression in the grades. Regular progression means it would be possible to retain students based on insufficient performance, according to criteria established by the education systems.
• 12
  In the original: “os estabelecimentos que utilizam progressão regular por série podem adotar no ensino fundamental o regime de progressão continuada, sem prejuízo da avaliação do processo de ensino-aprendizagem”; “nos estabelecimentos que adotam a progressão regular por série, o regimento escolar pode admitir formas de progressão parcial, desde que preservada a sequência do currículo”.
• 13
  In the original: “a educação básica poderá organizar-se em séries anuais, períodos semestrais, ciclos, alternância regular de períodos de estudos, grupos não seriados, com base na idade, na competência e em outros critérios, ou por forma diversa de organização, sempre que o interesse do processo de aprendizagem assim o recomendar”.
• 14
  In the original: “assegurar o ensino fundamental e oferecer, com prioridade, o ensino médio a todos que o demandarem”.
• 15
  Distrito Federal has both municipality and state competences.
• 16
  In the original: “oferecer a educação infantil em creches e pré-escolas, e, com prioridade, o ensino fundamental”.
• 17
  In Table 2 (^Appendix), we present the enrollment distribution in elementary and middle school, according to administration (municipality or state), by federative unit, in 2018.
• 18
  “Art. 30 The first three grades of elementary school must ensure: [...] III - the continuity of learning, taking into account the complexity of the literacy process and the losses that repetition can cause in elementary and middle education and, particularly, in the transition from the first to the second grade of schooling and from this to the third. § 1 Even when the education system or the school, in its autonomy, choose the graded system, it will be necessary to consider the first three grades of elementary education as a pedagogical compound or sequential cycle that must not be interrupted, focused on widening opportunities for students to frame and deepen their basic learning, which is crucial for educational success” (BRASIL, 2010, own translation).
• 19
  In the original: “sempre que o interesse do processo de aprendizagem assim o recomendar”; “desde que preservada a sequência do currículo”.
• 20
  In the original: “Os estabelecimentos de Ensino Fundamental devem prever em seus regimentos o regime de progressão continuada até o 5º ano, sempre que o interesse do processo ensino-aprendizagem assim o recomendar”.
• 21
  In the original: “recomendamos que a passagem de um ano para o outro seja sem retenção até o quinto ano, devendo a escola, ao analisar os diferentes aspectos do desenvolvimento e da aprendizagem do aluno, utilizar-se das intervenções pedagógicas necessárias”.
• 22
  In the original: “sem prejuízo da avaliação do processo de ensino-aprendizagem, observadas as normas do respectivo sistema de ensino”.

APPENDIX

TABLE 2
ENROLLMENT DISTRIBUTION ON ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL ACCORDING TO PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BY FEDERATIVE UNIT - 2018

Federative unit	Elementary school			Middle school
	State	Municipal	Federal	State	Municipal	Federal
Rondônia	18.1%	81.9%	0.0%	82.5%	17.5%	0.0%
Acre	43.4%	56.5%	0.2%	86.1%	13.6%	0.3%
Amazonas	22.6%	77.4%	0.0%	50.7%	49.0%	0.3%
Roraima	16.3%	83.4%	0.3%	95.5%	4.0%	0.5%
Pará	7.5%	92.5%	0.1%	23.7%	76.0%	0.2%
Amapá	35.4%	64.6%	0.0%	94.1%	5.9%	0.0%
Tocantins	11.8%	88.2%	0.0%	71.7%	28.3%	0.0%
Maranhão	1.4%	98.6%	0.0%	5.7%	94.2%	0.1%
Piauí	1.0%	99.0%	0.0%	19.8%	80.2%	0.0%
Ceará	0.7%	99.3%	0.0%	4.1%	95.8%	0.1%
Rio Grande do Norte	17.6%	82.3%	0.1%	35.9%	64.1%	0.0%
Paraíba	10.7%	89.2%	0.1%	36.4%	63.6%	0.0%
Pernambuco	1.7%	98.3%	0.0%	32.5%	67.3%	0.2%
Alagoas	4.3%	95.7%	0.0%	22.8%	77.2%	0.0%
Sergipe	19.7%	80.3%	0.0%	38.3%	61.5%	0.2%
Bahia	0.4%	99.6%	0.0%	20.1%	79.8%	0.0%
Minas Gerais	31.2%	68.7%	0.1%	69.6%	30.2%	0.2%
Espírito Santo	13.7%	86.3%	0.0%	37.2%	62.8%	0.0%
Rio de Janeiro	0.2%	99.2%	0.5%	25.1%	74.1%	0.9%
São Paulo	26.2%	73.8%	0.0%	71.5%	28.5%	0.0%
Paraná	0.5%	99.5%	0.0%	98.2%	1.8%	0.1%
Santa Catarina	27.9%	72.0%	0.1%	52.3%	47.6%	0.1%
Rio Grande do Sul	37.1%	62.9%	0.0%	49.2%	50.6%	0.2%
Mato Grosso do Sul	23.3%	76.7%	0.0%	55.3%	44.4%	0.3%
Mato Grosso	29.8%	70.2%	0.0%	70.4%	29.6%	0.0%
Goiás	5.3%	94.6%	0.1%	69.1%	30.8%	0.1%
Distrito Federal	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	99.4%	0.0%	0.6%

• Source: Made by the authors based on Inep data (BRASIL, 2018b).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  30 Nov 2020
• Date of issue
  Oct-Dec 2020

History

• Received
  02 Apr 2020
• Accepted
  22 June 2020