Talita Prada

STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION, FUNDING AND POLITICAL CONSERVATISM

Talita Prada

Introduction

It is urgent to reflect on student support to promote academic permanence and development as these are inseparably entwined from basic right through to higher education. We start from the approach that student support is a right that should be universalised and articulated with other social structures and policies that are complementary to ensure permanence at school and academic development. This requires public funding to meet student needs, respecting their differences, necessities and singularities.

Our analysis traverses the Brazilian fiscal austerity, as it is impossible to envisage equal conditions of permanence and access disconnected from the economic crisis that affects social policies and increases inequalities in the national panorama. This taxation policy generates inequalities and is used to attenuate market inequalities, with Constitutional Amendment 95 being a means of perpetuation that relegates social policies to the level of privatisation and philanthropy (FAGNANI, 2018). Austerity is an ideological form of intervening in reality and justifying the cuts to social expenditure in essential public services for the working class. It exempts the State from implementing social policies free of charge and opens the door to strengthening market forces in the most diverse areas such as health and education. Yet, as a counterpoint, it does not attack the true causes of the economic crisis (BLYTH, 2017).

Thus, our goal is to analyse the federal funding of the National Student Support Programme (Pnaes) for Vocational, Scientific and Technological Education (EPCT) from 2010 to 2020 in order to investigate the financial inflection in the programme’s planning and implementation following the emergence of the Brazilian economic and financial crisis, evincing the programme model enabled by this funding.

We argue that the intensification of the austerity as an economic policy and the funding cuts in education policies reverberated across the Pnaes, precluding the implementation of the programme as a social right in EPCT due to its increasingly restrictive and selective trend. This, in turn, hindered the achievement of the proposed goals of securing the permanence of low-income students at these institutions.

Our methodological procedure follows a mixed documental research approach. We examined the programme rules established by the 41 EPCT institutions, the matrices of the National Council for the Federal Network of Vocational, Scientific and Technological Education Institutions (Conif) from 2010 to 2020, the Conif matrix methodologies (2017 – 2020) and the databases of the Transparência Brasileira website (2014 – 2020) and of the Integrated Budget and Planning System (2010 – 2020), endeavouring to obtain the whole picture. The qualitative data review was based on the analysis of discourses and the quantitative aspect consisted of regression analysis using panel data. It should be stressed that all the figures were corrected according to the General Price Index– Internal Availability (IGP-DI) of September 2021 in order to update the real values intended for student support.

Daily struggles, student support, EPCT and funding

Vocational, Scientific and Technological Education (EPCT) has a centenary-old history in Brazil. Despite this, the period of strongest expansion of units took place after 2003, when the 142 units in 2002 increased to 644 in 2016, distributed countrywide (BRAZIL, 2016). We could thus refer to three periods: a) from the creation of EPCT in 1909 to 2002 with a gently slow-moving expansion; b) the

122

accelerated expansion between 2003 and 2016 during the “petista” (Workers’ Party - PT) governments; and, c) the stagnation of the expansion process of 2016-2021, under conservative governments.

From 2003, under Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, of the Workers’ Party (PT), Brazil witnessed a new drive towards social policy and policies of access to goods and services (SILVA, 2002), featuring EPCT expansion. This led to an increase in the number of vacancies in secondary and higher education. In the second government, the permanence of black and indigenous students from school up to university gained prominence in the government programme (SILVA, 2006) and the expansion policy enabled the approval of the PNAES.

The half-open door to student support

EPCT offered 10,878 different courses (from basic to doctorate level) with 1,507,476 enrolments and with the offer of 898,787 vacancies in 2020. Its students, primarily non-white (54.56%), black (11.04%), mixed (43.03%) and indigenous (0.49%) with income up to one and half times the minimum wage per capita, and 67.8% (BRAZIL, 2021) are PNAES target groups which also implies academic provenance from state schools.

The programme directs resources to meet the needs of students of face-to-face education, distance education and full boarding-schools (CONIF, 2018). However, 73.1% of institutions state that their target group consists of students of face-to-face education, 31.7% of distance education, and 24.3% do not specify their mode of school attendance. In 2.4% of institutions, the participation of distance education students is limited to visits and participation in events, revealing that despite the resources, this target group is precluded and made universally accountable for student permanence at school and academic development. Postgraduate students were mentioned in 39% of the institutions, with 36.58% placing them under rules that prevent them from participate in these programmes. The above demonstrates that these students are viewed in an excluding manner and depend on the availability of grants from other programmes supporting research.

123

Graph 1: Target group stated in the student support rules

Target Group

Presencial

EaD

Semi-presencial

Todos os níveis e modalidades de ensino

Regularmente matriculados

Formação Inicial e Continuada - FIC (+ de 160 h)

Não inclui FIC

Proeja

Pós-graduação

Não inclui pós-graduação

Candidantos e egressos

0 1

2

1

1 5

7 7 9

10 13

15

20 30

30

Source: EPCT, 2021. Author’s own systematisation.

Graph 1 presents the diversity of the programme’s target group and reveals the institutional diff erences in the coverage of student support. On the one hand, there is a tendency to provide support, and on the other hand there are particularities such as the coverage of postgraduate students, applicants of selective processes and egresses, demonstrating more standardised concepts, some explicitly stated, others presumed and others not stated, some more encompassing others more restricted.

PNAES underfunding and slashed funding: between cuts and more cuts

Student support has never been an area of concern or incidence of signifi cant public expenditure and enforcement strategies by public power. Before the approval of the Pnaes, student support was occasional, residual and largely provided in exchange for work. Th is scenario changed with the approval of the Pnaes that aims to democratise conditions of permanence; mitigate the eff ects of social and regional inequalities in permanence and completion; reduce

124

retention and drop-out rates; and contribute to fostering social inclusion through education (BRAZIL, 2010).

Despite the regulations concerning institutional specificities (BRAZIL, 2010), the programme’s restricted budget does not enable this due to insufficient financial, human and infrastructure resources. The financial resources are 99% allocated to defrayal. Capital resources are allocated to infrastructure according to the pre-approved institutional projects. This precludes the implementation of student support beyond financial aid on campus that do not have infrastructure to provide food, student accommodation, childcare or other facilities. Thus, the programme is primarily implemented via transfer of financial resources directly to the student, in a selective manner.

Graph 2 presents the budget growth between 2010 and 2016 in a shifting context of expansion and cuts. The allocation of student support funds based on the approval of the PNAES experienced enormous growth compared to the previous budget implementation. Average annual growth up to 2007 stood around two million. EPCT approval for students made growth soar to peaks that were only subject to budget cuts in 2016, bringing the percentage variation down to levels prior to 2010.

Graph 2 – Budgeted x implemented funds in Pnaes

R$900,000,000.00 R$800,000,000.00 R$700,000,000.00

R$600,000,000.00 R$500,000,000.00 R$400,000,000.00 R$300,000,000.00

R$200,000,000.00 R$100,000,000.00 R$-

Budgeted Funds x Implemented Funds

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Orçado Executado

Source: Conif; Mec. Author’s own systematisation, 2021.

125

The implemented percentages in 2017, 2019 and 2020 were lower than in 2008 when there was growth of 2.11% in relation to 2007. The percentage variations in relation to the previous year were -0.67% in 2017, 4.32% in 2018, - 2.30% in 2019 and -19.14% in 2020. During that period, the budget declined by 17.79% while the number of enrolments increased by 66.71%.

Added to this, the picture offers indications that these resources did not allow funding all the students with the programme profile and/or did not meet their needs for permanence. This situation tends to worsen as a downward trend in funds and an upward movement in enrolments are simultaneously underway. Although the progressive increase in public expenditure related to student support up to 2016 led to the attainment of a threshold that had never been reached before at the institution, it did not actually meet the demand for student support, as student needs are considered in the available budget but expenditure is not established according to demand, thus weakening the programme.

Table 1. PNAES value per capita 2020

Implemented value R$590,962,543.58

Number of students

1,504,476 Students with PNAES profile 67.8% of total students or 1,020,035 Annual value per capita (implemented value / students) – average 10 academic months R$579.35 Monthly value per capita R$57.93 Daily value per capita (average of 20 academic days) R$2.89

Source: BRAZIL, 2021. Author’s own systematisation, 2021.

Thus, if all the students with PNAES profile were placed, the average income per capital allocated to each would be R$2.89 per day, considering 20 academic days. This value is insufficient for any student support action, whether for meals, transport, accommodation,

126

childcare or any other facility, demonstrating that the resources allocated to Pnaes are insufficient to meet student needs demand. In other words, despite the regulations suggesting a prioritisation and non-restriction to caring for students with the required profile and/or state school provenance, even with selection, it is not possible to ensure that the actions will be delivered to all students who are eligible for the programme, because the transferred amounts have fallen in line with the budget cuts. Although the rules seek to adjust for regional particularities, they cannot be honoured with these budgetary restrictions, increasing the programme’s residual and selective nature.

Opening Pandora’s box: PNAES funding sources

Information about PNAES budget sources is not presented in 97.6% of the rulings, hindering access to this information and social control. Despite this concealment, in ten years, 95% of the funds came from source 100, ordinary funds of primary origin, or not financial, of the National Treasury and related to the current financial year intended for free allocation to social policies, bodies and spheres of federal, state or municipal government.

In 2010, source 100 funds corresponded to 78% of total funds; a figure that increased to 94% in 2011 and 96% in 2012. From 2013 to 2019, these funds stood at more than 99%, but fell to 59.6% in 2020. It was only in 2010 that own funds (source 250) reached 20% of the total. In 2011 and 2012, the sum of these funds came to approximately 6% and 4% of the total amount. The approval of the programme with federal funds, the reduction of funds with the end of the expansion and budget cuts in other institutional areas implied that the use of own funds declined.

Despite the institutional efforts to provide student support with its own funds, these funds essentially stem from revenue raised from rentals and selective processes, implying financial restrictions. Fund-raising to maintain institutional activities is becoming unsustainable, which hinders the education strengthening process,

127

as the social function of these institutions should not be directed towards the market and entrepreneurism. Hence, federal resources are fundamental for this funding.

From 2020, source 144 is the second largest with budget allocation, contributing to 40% of the annual total. This occurred because 40% of Pnaes funding was submitted to the golden rule in the public budget. The golden rule is enforced when the federal government exceeds the amount of capital expenditure in conducting credit operations and, therefore, requires authorisation from the legislative government, by absolute majority, for a supplementary budget. This measure prohibits financial inflows arising from debt – credit operations – for the payment of current expenditure such as staff wages, welfare benefits, interest on debt, and charges and costs related to the public machine (BRAZIL, 201-). This practice remained in the Pnaes budget of 2010, covering the entire EPCT and other policies, negatively affecting the academic community, due to the difficulty of planning and the uncertainties of this budget division.

Source 144 arises from the issue of public National Treasury public securities, related to the year in course, and are the result of the austerity policies that had most impact on the PNAES budget, brought in by the budget planning of the Bolsonaro government. Of financial origin, this source supplements the funds budgeted in the Annual Organic Law that declined from R$757,399,413.17 in 2019, to R$421,031,391.59 in 2020, preventing impacts of the cuts in student support on the academic community from further limiting the programme. Source 144 supplements the funds by R$282,193,147.59, which amounted to the total of R$703,224,539.18 in 2020 (BRAZIL, 2019). This funding was only higher than that up to 2013, although the number of enrolments of 2020 (1,504,476) was more than double that of 2013 (702,958), demonstrating the disproportion between the growth of enrolment and the reduction of resources.

This is the trend for the next few years, as funds for the four-year period (2020 – 2023) stand at R$1,085,865,445.00. By removing the

128

funds corresponding to 2020 that have already been implemented, the average funds for the following years is R$262,906,224,33, in other words, a true setback for student support in a context that is increasingly more complex on a daily basis. In the words of Ferguson (2013, p.84) “while a system is flourishing, reforms may be granted; when, however, the system is in crisis, then the dominant class will do its utmost to regain everything that was relinquished in the reforms undergone in previous periods”.

Between universalisation and selectivity based on income or merit

The PNAES and its diversity of actions, criteria and methodologies of selection are defined by institutions through regulations (BRAZIL, 2010) that establish type, offer, values, duration and other aspects. These regulations are open to interpretation, forms of implementation and sometimes kindle disputes over resources (PRADA; SURDINE, 2018) that are, in themselves, insufficient. Based on these regulations, we classify this Pnae’s actions along three lines:

• Selective programmes (students with income per capita up to one and a half the minimum wage); • Universal programmes (all students); • Merit-based programmes (students selected due to academic achievement).

The income profile programmes basically transfer income for student expenses related to food, photocopying and printing, educational material, accommodation and other items (Figure 1). Another form of selection is meritocracy, a living component at 85.3% of the institutions materialising programmes that are considered universal, but where student are screened according to grades and particular behavioural standards, which is why they are classified as

129

merit-based, such as income transfer for research, outreach, sports, monitoring, participation in events, student exchanges and others.

Figure 1: Student support actions implemented in EPCT

The universal programmes are offered at 87.8% of institutions by providers with projects and programmes divided into:

1. Uninterrupted actions promoting health, teaching and psychosocial support, support to students with special education needs and food. 2. Projects fostering culture, sports and leisure, digital inclusion, diversity, citizenship or teaching, research and outreach.

These projects use financial resources to acquire materials and pay students who are jointly accountable for the activities and follow-up of the project. Here, a differentiation is made between the two student categories: worker students/ scholarship holders and the students benefiting from these actions, revealing one of the forms of inequality that affects the programme’s students.

130

3. Technical visits carried out by teachers with specific classes whose content is related to the teaching project of the course.

This action was placed under the regulations from 2015, following the onset of the budget cuts. On the one hand, this reflects the shrinkage of resources, and on the other hand that, although the lower funding did not initially affect the

PNAES, it did affect student support via the institutional reorganisation of actions.

We highlight that some of these student support actions were suspended with the pandemic, due to the inability to enforce their implementation, with the reallocation of resources to other actions, thus adapting their coverage. Additional support was regulated in 2020 for acquisition of equipment, internet access and to support students with special education needs.

This need stemmed from the shift from face-to-face teaching to remote teaching, and due to previous rules, regulated digital inclusion in a universal manner (19.5% – eight institutions) at laboratories, institutional equipment, data and learning networks. Nonetheless, digital inclusion needs to be provided at home, with equipment – mobile phones, tablets or computers – connected to the internet. Without these prerequisite, it will be impossible to restore academic activities.

Conclusions

Drawing conclusions about this work is part of a reflection conceived over the last four years, where we identified the underfunding of the PNAES since its inception, with an upward trend of its resources until 2015 that enabled some of the low-income students to remain at school. Despite this, new underfunding started to be imposed in 2016, with the entrenchment of fiscal austerity policies and political conservatism, designing a more residual, restricted and selective programme for the extremely poor.

131

We conclude that the underfunding and funding cuts of the programme stems from a conservative and meritocratic ideal rooted in the belief that student support should be limited to students that may even be poor, but who must have strong academic achievements. This de-legitimises student support as a right, and weakens and questions its results.

With the cuts, permanence within the education system tapers for the extremely poor implicated in individual effort for success, requiring satisfactory academic development regardless of the social conditions differentiating these students, demonstrating a limited and limiting perspective of student support. The social, institutional and developmental reality of students appear disconnected and students are individually held accountable for their academic development.

The reverse side of this picture requires resources for the adequate funding of education, student support and its institutions as a legal right, articulated with different social agents and policies. Moreover, the fostering of monitoring and assessment research to theorise veiled aspects could strengthen and legitimise student support as a right and instrument for academic development. So, student support is part of combating school leaving and years repeated, albeit not the only one.

References

BLYTH, M. Austeridade: a história de uma ideia perigosa. Tradução de Freitas e Silva. São Paulo: Autonomia Literária, 2017. 400

BRAZIL. Law 11.892 of 29 December 2008. Institutes the Federal Network of Vocational, Scientific and Technological Education, creates the Federal Vocational, Scientific and Technological Education Institutes, and lays down other provisions. Brasília, 2008. Available at: < http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ ato20072010/2008/lei/l11892.htm >. Accessed: 20 september 2013.

132

BRAZIL. Decree 7.234 of 19 July 2010. Provides for the National Student Support Programme. Brasília, 2010. Available at: < http:// www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2010/Decreto/ D7234.htm > Accessed: 20 november 2013.

BRAZIL. Ministry of Education. Expansão da Rede Federal. Brasília, 2016. Available at: < http://redefederal.mec.gov.br/ expansao-da-rede-federal >. Accessed: 14 july 2016.

BRAZIL. Ministry of the Economy, Federal Budget Secretariat. Orçamentos da União. Exercício financeiro 2020: projeto de lei orçamentária. Brasília, 2019. 6v. em 8. Available at: < http://www. planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Projetos/PLN/2019/Anexo/MSG39519-Volume%20%20II.pdf > Acesso em: 7november 2019.

BRAZIL. Ministry of Economy. Tesouro Nacional Transparente. Painel da Regra de Ouro. Brasília, [201-]. Available at: < https://www.tesourotransparente.gov.br/visualizacao/painel-daregra-de-ouro#:~:text=Denomina%2Dse%20Regra%20de%20 Ouro,financeiras%20e%20amortiza%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20 da%20d%C3%ADvida) >. Accessed: 15 une 2021.

BRAZIL. Vocational and Technological Education Secretariat. Ministry of Education. Nilo Peçanha Platform 2021 (baseline year 2020). Brasília, 2021. Available at: < http://plataformanilopecanha. mec.gov.br/2021.html > Accessed: 30 october 2021.

CONSELHO NACIONAL DAS INSTITUIÇÕES DA REDE FEDERAL DE EDUCAÇÃO PROFISSIONAL, CIENTÍFICA E TECNOLÓGICA – CONIF. Metodologia da matriz

orçamentária da Rede de Ensino Profissional e Tecnológico de

2019. Brasília, 2018.

FAGNANI, E. Austeridade e Seguridade: a destruição do marco civilizatório brasileiro. In: ROSSI, P.; DWECK, E.; OLIVEIRA, A.

133

L. M. de. Economia para poucos. Impactos sociais da austeridade e alternativas para o Brasil. São Paulo: Autonomia Literária, 2018, p. 57-82.

FERGUSON, I. Austeridade no Reino Unido: o fim do estado de bem-estar social? Argumentum, Vitória (ES), v. 5, n. 2, p. 65-88, jul./ dec. 2013.

PRADA, T.; SURDINE, M. C. da C. A assistência estudantil nos Institutos Federais de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia. Ser Social. Educação e Lutas Sociais no Brasil. Brasília, v. 20, n. 43, julho a dezembro de 2018. Available at: < http://periodicos.unb.br/index. php/SER_Social/article/view/18860/17575 > Accessed: 26 july 2019.

SILVA, L. I. L. Programa de Governo 2002: Um Brasil para Todos – coligação Lula Presidente. 2002. Available at: < https:// fpabramo.org.br/csbh/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/04/14programagoverno.pdf >. Accessed: 18 september 2019.

SILVA, L. I. L. Programa de Governo 2007/ 2010: Lula de novo com a força do Povo – coligação a força do Povo. 2006. Available at: < https://fpabramo.org.br/csbh/wp-content/uploads/ sites/3/2017/04/Programa_de_governo_2007-2010.pdf >. Accessed: 18 september 2019.

134