Governando para além do PISA: conhecimento, redes e narrativas

OECD’s search for a new set of prescriptions for governing education is expressed in their Governing Complex Education Systems project (GCES), which seeks to combine identification of best practices in system organisation, with specific narratives of equity and quality supported by metrics that create a “robust evidence base” for policy. This paper analyses the content and direction of GCES, considers its take up in policy in Scotland, especially as reflected in the aftermath of the 2015 OECD report on improving education there, and of the 2016 PISA results. The paper discusses the content of the recommendations, especially as they relate to the key concepts of knowledge, networks and narratives, and their attempted translation into policy, and concludes by identifying tensions within OECD’s governing project.La búsqueda de la OCDE por un nuevo conjunto de prescripciones para gobernanza de la educación está expresado en su proyecto de Gobernanza de Sistemas Educacionales Complejos (GSEC) que busca combinar la identificación de mejores prácticas de organización de sistemas con narrativas específicas de equidad y calidad basadas en las mediciones que crean una "robusta base de evidencias" para la política. Este artículo analiza el contenido y la dirección del GSEC, considera su reanudación en la política en Escocia, especialmente como reflejado a raíz del informe de la OCDE 2015 sobre mejoras de la educación en ese país y de los resultados del PISA 2016. El texto discute el contenido de las recomendaciones, especialmente en relación con los conceptos clave de conocimiento, redes y narrativas, y sus intentos de traducción a la política, y concluye identificando tensiones en el marco del proyecto de gobernanza de la propia OCDE.A busca da OCDE por um novo conjunto de prescrições para governança da educação está expresso em seu projeto de Governança de Sistemas Educacionais Complexos (GSEC) que procura combinar a identificação de melhores práticas de organização de sistemas com narrativas especificas de equidade e qualidade baseadas em mensurações que criam uma “robusta base de evidencias” para a política. Este artigo analisa o conteúdo e a direção do  GSEC, considera sua retomada na política na Escócia, especialmente como refletido no rescaldo do relatório da OECD 2015 sobre melhoramentos da educação naquele país e dos resultados do PISA 2016. O texto discute o conteúdo das recomendações, especialmente como relacionam com os conceitos chave de conhecimento, redes e narrativas, e suas tentativas de tradução para a política, e conclui identificando tensões no interior do projeto de governança da própria OCDE

Governing beyond PISA:knowledge, networks and narratives

OECD’s search for a new set of prescriptions for governing education is expressed in their Governing Complex Education Systems project (GCES), which seeks to combine identification of best practices in system organisation, with specific narratives of equity and quality supported by metrics that create a “robust evidence base” for policy. This paper analyses the content and direction of GCES, considers its take up in policy in Scotland, especially as reflected in the aftermath of the 2015 OECD report on improving education there, and of the 2016 PISA results. The paper discusses the content of the recommendations, especially as they relate to the key concepts of knowledge, networks and narratives, and their attempted translation into policy, and concludes by identifying tensions within OECD’s governing project.La búsqueda de la OCDE por un nuevo conjunto de prescripciones para gobernanza de la educación está expresado en su proyecto de Gobernanza de Sistemas Educacionales Complejos (GSEC) que busca combinar la identificación de mejores prácticas de organización de sistemas con narrativas específicas de equidad y calidad basadas en las mediciones que crean una "robusta base de evidencias" para la política. Este artículo analiza el contenido y la dirección del GSEC, considera su reanudación en la política en Escocia, especialmente como reflejado a raíz del informe de la OCDE 2015 sobre mejoras de la educación en ese país y de los resultados del PISA 2016. El texto discute el contenido de las recomendaciones, especialmente en relación con los conceptos clave de conocimiento, redes y narrativas, y sus intentos de traducción a la política, y concluye identificando tensiones en el marco del proyecto de gobernanza de la propia OCDE.A busca da OCDE por um novo conjunto de prescrições para governança da educação está expresso em seu projeto de Governança de Sistemas Educacionais Complexos (GSEC) que procura combinar a identificação de melhores práticas de organização de sistemas com narrativas especificas de equidade e qualidade baseadas em mensurações que criam uma “robusta base de evidencias” para a política. Este artigo analisa o conteúdo e a direção do  GSEC, considera sua retomada na política na Escócia, especialmente como refletido no rescaldo do relatório da OECD 2015 sobre melhoramentos da educação naquele país e dos resultados do PISA 2016. O texto discute o conteúdo das recomendações, especialmente como relacionam com os conceitos chave de conhecimento, redes e narrativas, e suas tentativas de tradução para a política, e conclui identificando tensões no interior do projeto de governança da própria OCDE

A História da Alimentação: balizas historiográficas

Os M. pretenderam traçar um quadro da História da Alimentação, não como um novo ramo epistemológico da disciplina, mas como um campo em desenvolvimento de práticas e atividades especializadas, incluindo pesquisa, formação, publicações, associações, encontros acadêmicos, etc. Um breve relato das condições em que tal campo se assentou faz-se preceder de um panorama dos estudos de alimentação e temas correia tos, em geral, segundo cinco abardagens Ia biológica, a econômica, a social, a cultural e a filosófica!, assim como da identificação das contribuições mais relevantes da Antropologia, Arqueologia, Sociologia e Geografia. A fim de comentar a multiforme e volumosa bibliografia histórica, foi ela organizada segundo critérios morfológicos. A seguir, alguns tópicos importantes mereceram tratamento à parte: a fome, o alimento e o domínio religioso, as descobertas européias e a difusão mundial de alimentos, gosto e gastronomia. O artigo se encerra com um rápido balanço crítico da historiografia brasileira sobre o tema

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

The Governance of Schooling : Comparative Studies of Devolved Management

221 p . ; 21 cm

The same but different? Post-devolution regulation and control in education in Scotland and England

When 'New Labour' came to power in the United Kingdom in 1997, one of their first major initiatives was to establish new devolved political institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Drawing upon developments in education in Scotland and England, this article explores some aspects of 'regulation', 'autonomy' and 'control' in the post-devolution context. The purpose of the article is to assess the ways in which New Public Management have influenced education policy in the two countries. Aspects of the governance of education are examined in the two national contexts. The 'modernisation' of the teaching profession is examined as a particular case, as well as more general aspects of governance. A number of similarities and differences in the two countries are identified. The themes that best demonstrate these similarities and differences are privatisation, performativity and the policy process. The conclusion seeks to identify the extent to which developments in either or both countries can be attributed to the global neo-liberal agenda