Inep President Manuel Palácios, in a recent interview with the newspaper *Estado de São Paulo*, highlighted important issues regarding the changes to the Enem starting in 2024. He emphasized that the first stage of the exam should assess the mandatory basic general education, as provided for in the National Guidelines for the New National High School Exam, approved by the National Education Council (Opinion CNE/CP No. 5/2022). He also indicated that the second stage of the exam—that is, the assessment related to the educational tracks within the flexible component of the new high school curriculum—should be discussed with state education departments, private schools, and universities.  

The key issue, according to the president of Inep, is that the choice of track should not determine the career path a student intends to pursue in higher education. For example, a student who chooses to specialize in the Humanities may be interested in securing a spot in the Natural Sciences or Mathematics and its technologies. Another student who chooses a technical-vocational track in the health field may be interested in securing a spot in an economics or engineering program, and so on. This is a relevant point that has been the subject of debate among experts, teachers, and administrators in both K-12 and higher education. 

The discussions held at the National Education Council (CNE) throughout 2020 and 2021 regarding the future of the Enem and its alignment with the new high school curriculum involved teachers, administrators, and experts in curriculum and assessment from various institutions across the country. 

There was consensus regarding the first stage of the exam, which focuses on assessing basic general education through an interdisciplinary approach to the four areas of knowledge — Languages and their technologies, Humanities and their technologies, Natural Sciences and Mathematics and their technologies, an essay, and a specific English language test (which, unfortunately, was not accepted by the Ministry of Education’s [MEC] working group).   

On the other hand, there was no consensus on the assessment of academic tracks. According to the CNE, the second stage of assessment for specialized tracks in specific subject areas—which students are free to choose—should consist of subject-specific exams aligned with career paths (health; mathematics and engineering; applied social sciences; and languages and humanities), a trend observed in higher education admissions systems in various countries. 

The final decision, approved by the MEC working group and the state secretaries of education, established a new proposal and four exam options for candidates to choose from: a) Humanities and Languages; b) Humanities and Natural Sciences; c) Humanities and Mathematics; d) Natural Sciences and Mathematics and its Technologies. However, both proposals sought to align the format of the second stage of the Enem with students’ future choices in higher education programs, as required by law.  

The president of Inep raised important questions about the evaluation of academic tracks and expressed the need to discuss the format of the second stage of the Enem, as proposed by the MEC. The exam should evaluate students regardless of the academic track they have followed and their future choices in higher education, with an emphasis on assessing the skills required in a world undergoing profound change. 

There is no doubt that exams should assess skills such as creativity, critical thinking, the ability to argue a case and synthesize reliable information from different sources, and the ability to solve problems collaboratively—skills that are central to the BNCC and underpin all learning pathways and areas of knowledge. 

But it is also true that the competencies in each area—whether integrated or not—are developed based on the knowledge and skills acquired through academic specialization tracks. How would the different tracks be assessed? What would be the assessment format for the tracks that make up the flexible portion of the curricula?  

It is therefore urgent to resume the discussion regarding the design of the second stage of the ENEM or the evaluation of educational pathways, given that the implementation of the new high school curriculum began in 2022 and all schools across the country are eagerly awaiting a decision to guide their thousands of students. 

Now that’s a real challenge. The good news is that the president of Inep and the leaders of the MEC are willing to delve deeper into the discussion and seek a solution—even if only a temporary one—for the new Enem.

About the author:

Did you like this article? Then share it on your social media: