Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 21 Issue 5

students were able, therefore, to attend schools, but also a higher percentage of students earned the benefit of passing and completing courses” (Ministry of Education and Health, 1942, p.15). In a Bulletin entitled Teaching in Brazil in the five-year period 1932-1936 , published in 1939, it is argued that, in order to be able to appreciate the “real work” and the “effectiveness of teaching”, it would be necessary to examine the movement of enrollments, promotions and course completions. The observation makes one assume that the performance of teaching would be based on two interrelated elements: the first was student attendance to classes, without which, it was believed, the progress of the second factor – namely, the result of the year-end exams – was unlikely. Lourenço Filho, in charge of the publication of the Bulletins, emphasizes in this regard that “the number of school units indicates the supply of education. The general registration, its demand . But the true measure of the result of school work will only be provided by promotion and course completion rates” (Ministry of Education and Health, 1939, p.33, original italics). At the time, for general primary education, the provided data were as follows: Table 1 Years Registration Pass Rate 1932 2071437 831 223 40% 1936 2750014 1153212 42% (Ministry of Education and Health, 1939, p.33) Note that less than half of the registered students passed in the period. The bulletin General situation of primary education , published in 1941, features an item entitled “General aspects of teaching performance”, which provides general enrollment data, the percentage of passed students in relation to total enrollments, and course completions. With regard to these data, the following analysis is provided: “The general pass rates, calculated upon the effective enrollments or remaining students at the end of the year, portray [...] the real teaching achievement, allowing to acknowledge the overall deficiency of the school system ” (Ministry of Education and Health, 1941, p.40, added italics). According to this document, in 1937 the pass rate was 52.1%. Despite the mention, which indicates that these numbers are perceived as a problem in Brazilian primary school, the most prominent discussion in relation to achievement is around the so-called “exodus”, “avoidance” or “defection” of students. In 1937, of 2,702,383 individuals enrolled in primary education, 417,479 would have left school early (15.45%). Noteworthy in this regard is a debate between Teixeira de Freitas and Lourenço Filho, held in the 1940s, which shows the importance ascribed to the issue by the very commitment of both in arguing, and indicates interpretations in dispute. In 1940, the Brazilian Statistical Journal brings an article entitled, “Demographic dispersion and education” by Teixeira de Freitas (1940a). This same study was deepened and developed in certain points to be presented in a public session of the Brazilian Society of Statistics, in November 1940, under the title “School dropout in the Brazilian primary education” (1940b). The same journal would publish in 1941 an article in which Lourenço Filho reports his disagreements about the analysis presented in that study. Finally, in response to Lourenço Filho’s criticism, one last article by Teixeira de Freitas was published, “Still on school dropout in the Brazilian primary education” (1941). Several aspects are discussed by the authors in these articles. One of the significant differences between the authors concerned repetition rates. It should be emphasized that this problem had not featured the educational debate with the severity with which it came to be mentioned in the second half of the twentieth century. Rather, it was considered a natural and inevitable element in school movement – just like dropout, to a certain degree. Teixeira de Freitas points to the evidence of a marked improvement of achievement in second as compared to first grade, as well as in the third compared to second grade, although this last difference was weaker. The author points out that This improvement, however – one must say – should not be interpreted as a rapid elevation of the mental level of the pupils, or as a greater efficiency of teaching in higher grades. It is obvious that it stems from the progressive selectivity with which the later series are constituted, by virtue of the actual dropout seen, which naturally eliminates the least apt or least devoted students from the student body (Teixeira de Freitas, 1940a, p.504, italics added). It follows from this the inconsistency, pointed out by Lourenço Filho, in using, in that statistical study, an equal dropout rate to each of the different grades of primary education, as well as the option to disregard the occurrence of repetition of the same grade for more than once. He criticizes, for not being what was observed in fact, the “criterion used, which was to compute the repetition just once in the 1st year, two in the 2nd, and three in the 3rd” (Lourenço Filho, 1941, p.543). He goes on to argue that “higher rates of simple repetition, or its multiple incidence, are present precisely in the first grades or degrees of the course. And these, of course, contain the largest number of students” (Lourenço Filho, 1941, p.543), and completes stating Volume XXI Issue V Version I 51 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 C © 2021 Global Journals School Grade Repetition in Brazil: History of the Configuration of a Political and Educational Problem