Enem issue is not for students to agree with, says Inep – 11/08/2023 – Education

Faced with criticism from ruralists regarding Enem 2023 questions that addressed agribusiness, the president of Inep (National Institute of Educational Studies and Research), Manuel Palácios, said that the exam questions do not ask the student to agree with topics covered, but that understand what the texts say.

Palácios defended the technical criteria and the public spirit of preparing the exam. He said there was no reason to write off items.

The Agricultural Parliamentary Front published a note on Monday (6) calling for the annulment of two issues, which deal with the Amazon and the Cerrado. The note says that the questions have an ideological bias, without “scientific criteria”, and create a negative and distorted image of agribusiness.

The criticized questions fell on the first day of Enem, which started on Sunday (5) and continues on the next day (12). Inep is the body of the MEC (Ministry of Education) responsible for the exam.

“No one needs to agree with the support of the item, nor is the item asking if the student agrees. The question wants to know if the student is capable of understanding a certain text,” Palácios told Sheet.

The president of Inep should appear this Wednesday (8) at the Chamber’s Education committee and talk about these questions. He highlighted that all exam procedures are anchored in standards.

This is not the first time that Enem has been the target of attacks from political groups because of test issues. Former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) and right-wing allies have already accused the test of left-wing indoctrination.

According to Palácios, the teachers responsible for preparing the questions were selected in a public notice carried out in 2020, still during the Bolsonaro government.

“Whoever takes the test is a teacher, and the teachers form teams selected by public notices,” he said. “These are the same professionals who have been working over the years and who have prepared the latest editions of Enem.”

The criticism from the ruralist bench focused on the texts linked to the questions. Palácios stated that the contents that make up the exam are part of the national discussion.

“The teachers selected by public criteria address texts that are circulating in Brazilian life, at universities, in schools, in scientific life. No one needs to agree”, added Palácios.

“The cancellation of items is only justified when this issue harms the student”, he says. “What justifies cancellation is if an item does not have a well-constructed correct answer, or if it does not produce information effectively related to the assessed skill, which is part of the curriculum.

Enem questions are produced by university professors based on notices prepared by the government. They still go through a long review and validation process by a commission.

The items are pre-tested (several people answer the question) so that various attributes can be calibrated, such as degree of difficulty and chance of getting the shot right. This is part of the mathematical model adopted in Enem, the TRI (Item Response Theory).

Report from Sheetpublished in 2021, with an unprecedented statistical analysis, it showed that questions that caused controversy and were targeted by Bolsonaro and his allies had technical quality to assess competencies. In other words, they were efficient in identifying the best candidates.

In the case of Enem 2023, the two criticized questions contain excerpts adapted from scientific articles. Both ask the participant to interpret what the authors wanted to convey.

In the question about the cerrado, 89th in the white test, the text of the statement addresses the territorialization of agribusiness and says that its logic has overlapped with the knowledge of peasants.

The excerpt says that “the capitalist model subordinates men and women to the logic of the market” and that there are other negative factors, such as “heavy mechanization”, “symbolic violence, super-exploitation, rains of poison and violence against the person”.

The test asks participants to interpret what is written and point out what “the elements described in the text, regarding the territorialization of production”, demonstrate.

The official answer sheet was not released, but according to an unofficial correction published by Sheetthe correct alternative would be: “Siege of peasants, making it impossible to maintain living conditions.”

In the item dealing with the Amazon, number 70 of the same test, the excerpt indicates that “it is clear that the growth in deforestation has to do” with the “expansion of soybeans”, but also states that the “logic that generates deforestation is articulated by the tripod of land grabbers, loggers and ranchers”.

The statement asks the participant to indicate which alternative, “in the author’s view”, explains what triggers “the central problem of the situation described”. According to the unofficial template, the correct alternative would be: “the appropriation of vacant areas”.

In addition to asking for the items to be annulled, the Agricultural Parliamentary Front informed that it would request the summons of the Minister of Education, Camilo Santana (PT).

“The linking of crimes to legal activities in Brazil is a criterion of political rhetoric to cover up the State’s absence in developing efficient public policies and combating illegalities”, says the note.