摘要：O artigo examinou, com base em relatórios de contas, resoluções e ofícios dos Tribunais de Contas do Estado (TCE) e dos Municípios (TCM) de Goiás, os procedimentos que adotam na avaliação das receitas e despesas vinculadas à manutenção e desenvolvimento do ensino (MDE), constatando uma série de imprecisões, equívocos e inconsistências que resultaram e resultam em menos recursos para a educação. O TCE, por exemplo, por vários anos na década de 1990, deixou de incluir na base de cálculo do percentual mínimo vinculado à MDE as transferências federais de impostos assim como errou, ao incluir nessa base, o salário-educação, que é contribuição social, não imposto. Além disso, continuou a aceitar o pagamento dos inativos no cálculo dos 25% pelo menos até 2008, embora resolução sua de 2001 excluísse tal pagamento do conceito de MDE. Também o TCM equivocou-se em sua resolução no 1, de 1998, na contabilização tanto da receita quanto da despesa.
其他摘要：On the basis of reports and resolutions produced by the two Goiás Audit Courts (one in charge of examining the State government accounts and the other in charge of local government accounts), this article examined the procedures adopted to evaluate the revenue and expenditure accounts for the maintenance and promotion of education. A number of inaccuracies, mistakes and inconsistencies were found which have resulted, and continue to result, in less funding available for education. The Audit Court in charge of examining State government accounts, for example, for a number of years in the 1990s, did not take into consideration federal tax transfers to the State in its calculation of the minimum percentage rate linked to education. In addition, the Court also erred by including a payroll-linked contribution to education in the calculation, as this is a social contribution and not a tax. In its calculation of the 25% of revenue to be spent on education, the Court continued to include the payment of retired education personnel as an educational expense at least until 2008, even though a resolution issued by the said Court in 2001 excluded such payment from the legally-defined concept of educational maintenance and promotion. The Audit Court in charge of local government accounts also made a number of mistakes, both in revenue and expenditure, in its 1998 number 1 resolution.
