Letramento no ensino fundamental de nove anos no Brasil: ações legais e pedagógicas previstas nos documentos oficiais Nine-year elementary school in Brazil: legal and pedagogical actions in official documents

Letramento é um conceito que vem sendo amplamente abordado em estudos relacionados à leitura e à escrita. A necessidade de o letramento escolar propiciar aos sujeitos um domínio da língua materna que se estenda para além da própria escola é uma das principais questões presentes nas discussões realizadas em torno do tema no Brasil (SOARES, 2004, 2010a; TERZI, 1995; KLEIMAN, 1995; CERUTTI-RIZZATTI, 2009, 2012). O objetivo deste trabalho é possibilitar uma discussão a respeito da política de ampliação do ensino fundamental de nove anos e verificar as ações educacionais previstas em termos de leitura e escrita dentro desse novo cenário educacional. Assim, quanto aos aspectos teóricos e metodológicos, o trabalho pauta-se nos novos estudos do letramento (STREET, 1984, 2010; HEATH, 1983; BARTON; HAMILTON, 2000) e propõe uma análise de dados documentais a respeito da implantação do ensino fundamental de nove anos. Em termos de resultados, os dados evidenciam que a iniciativa de aumentar o tempo de escolaridade do aluno brasileiro é importante, mas que, infelizmente, ainda não se estabeleceu um caminho claro do que a escola deve fazer nesse ano a mais de escolaridade. Os documentos mencionam um trabalho efetivo com o letramento como prática social, mas não deixam claro que a alfabetização é uma parte mais ampla do processo de letramento e que a escola precisa abordar as relações fonêmico-grafêmica e grafêmico-fonêmica na alfabetização (CERUTTI-RIZZATTI, 2009) para garantir um efetivo trabalho do uso social da escrita. Além disso, evidencia-se nos documentos o pouco conhecimento a respeito da cultura escrita de nossos alunos.<br>Social literacy is a concept that has been widely addressed in studies related to reading and writing. The need for ‘students' literacy in native languages that exceeds standard school curricula is a major issue for literacy discourses in Brazil (SOARES, 2004, 2010a; TERZI, 1995; KLEIMAN, 1995; CERUTTI-RIZZATTI, 2009, 2012). Thus, this study attempts to facilitate a discussion of the politics related to increasing the number of elementary school years to nine, and verify the implications of literacy education in this new educational scenario. The theory and methodology of this study are based on Social Literacy New Studies (STREET, 1984, 2010; HEATH, 1983; BARTON; HAMILTON, 2000) and propose an analysis of documented data concerning the introduction of the nine-year elementary school. The data of the results reveal that the initiative to increase Brazilian students' education is important, but beyond increased schooling, it does not establish a clear strategy that schools should implement at this grade level. The documents describe treating literacy as a social practice, but do not specify that literacy is a part of the broader social literacy. Therefore, the schools need to identify the relationship between phonemic-graphemes and graphemes-phonemic in literacy (CERUTTI-RIZZATTI, 2009) to create an effective strategy for the social practice of writing. Further, the documents reveal our students' insufficient knowledge about the culture of writing

The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC

International audienc

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable