Post by SHIHAB on Jan 11, 2024 3:51:55 GMT -5
An important controversy has brought together, on different sides, political entities, teachers, jurists and citizens concerned with the valorization of public education — it is the update of the national minimum level of public teaching, established by Law No. 11,738/2008 [1] . Even after the confirmation of the constitutionality, by the Federal Supreme Court, of the updating of the floor by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education (ADI 4,848), the discussion resurfaced due to the repeal of Law No. 11,494 /2007, which contained the criterion for defining the value minimum annual fee per student [2] .
SpaccaThe debate is intriguing because it involves a variety of issues: a) the complex distribution of federal responsibilities for funding public policies; b) the priority (or lack of) given to education; c) the problematic coupling between fiscal policy objectives and benefit rights ; d) legal disputes over the WhatsApp Number List interpretation of applicable rules, often leading to a scenario of intense judicialization and consequent impasses, undesirable for the good execution of public policy. With regard to public educational policies, the Brazilian institutional arrangement is possibly one of the most complex and refined constitutional mechanisms of federative financial collaboration in the world. The sharing of responsibilities between the federation entities is the basis of the organization of Brazilian education (CF, article 211),the main financing mechanism for basic education is Fundeb (article 212-A), a typical federal solidarity arrangement for funding a public policy.
The sharing of duties and responsibilities is always complex and generates non-conformities, especially with regard to the distribution of income and expenses [3] . The national floor for public teaching is a typical case of establishing, in federal law, an obligation to be fulfilled by other entities. It deals with the regulation (insufficient, since the Constitution establishes the floor for public education professionals, and not just for teaching) of a rule improperly included among the constitutional principles of teaching, insofar as that principle is the valorization of professionals of school education (article 206, V), with the floor being one of the means of its desification.
SpaccaThe debate is intriguing because it involves a variety of issues: a) the complex distribution of federal responsibilities for funding public policies; b) the priority (or lack of) given to education; c) the problematic coupling between fiscal policy objectives and benefit rights ; d) legal disputes over the WhatsApp Number List interpretation of applicable rules, often leading to a scenario of intense judicialization and consequent impasses, undesirable for the good execution of public policy. With regard to public educational policies, the Brazilian institutional arrangement is possibly one of the most complex and refined constitutional mechanisms of federative financial collaboration in the world. The sharing of responsibilities between the federation entities is the basis of the organization of Brazilian education (CF, article 211),the main financing mechanism for basic education is Fundeb (article 212-A), a typical federal solidarity arrangement for funding a public policy.
The sharing of duties and responsibilities is always complex and generates non-conformities, especially with regard to the distribution of income and expenses [3] . The national floor for public teaching is a typical case of establishing, in federal law, an obligation to be fulfilled by other entities. It deals with the regulation (insufficient, since the Constitution establishes the floor for public education professionals, and not just for teaching) of a rule improperly included among the constitutional principles of teaching, insofar as that principle is the valorization of professionals of school education (article 206, V), with the floor being one of the means of its desification.