Inglês (pdf)
Artigo em XML
Tradução automática
Enviar este artigo por email
Permalink
1 Introduction
Persons with disabilities have rarely been the subject of academic research in the past. Students with disabilities, however, have been a matter of concern in recent decades, in several countries, including Brazil, in the midst of discussions about expansion of Access in to Higher Education for specific segments of the population. In particular, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) mention Education for people with disabilities in four of the goals ( UNITED NATIONS, 2015 ). There has been unequivocal progress in expanding Access in to Education, at all levels of Education, for people with disabilities, along with other social groups that suffer discrimination and prejudice, including in school settings. This progress has been achieved through a set of government policies and private actions conducted by international forums. However, to be really effective, these inclusion policies need studies and reliable statistics to understand individual needs and to ensure that people with disabilities are as successful as possible in their academic career. There is a substantial amount of work carried out in the Education of children with disabilities ( BALESCUT; EKLINDH, 2006 ; EVANS, 1995 ; HAYES; BULAT, 2017 ; OECD, 1999 ; PETERS, 2003 ; UNESCO, 2015 ), but there is still a proportionally smaller amount of studies that address Higher Education , even at an international level, possibly because government policies were originally aimed at basic Education and because people with disabilities still arrive in very small numbers so far along their educational path. The first works date from the late 1980s and reflect individual concerns ( HURST, 1998 ; VAN ACKER, 1998 ) or those of international organizations ( EBERSOLD, 2008 ; OECD, 1999 ).
Considering the relevance of inclusion of students with disabilities in the agenda of educational policies, especially in areas where inclusion is still deficient, data from Higher Education censuses (Inep/MEC1 ) are analyzed to raise the profile of students with disabilities and to verify whether policies have, in fact, managed to have some effect on the contingent of students with disabilities in Higher Education over a period of 10 years (2009 to 2019). Disability information has been collected in the Census since 2009, from when it is possible to identify students individually and follow them in the different calendar years. In order to study the impact of the internal policies of Higher Education institutions, this study considered information on Access inibility to infrastructure and programs aimed at this group, data also available in the Census.
2 International principles: Conventions and agreements
The path to the inclusion of people with disabilities in the various countries is marked by important general principles established at world conventions and conferences over the past 30 years. This theoretical, methodological, conceptual, and political framework is closely linked to the history of people with disabilities’s movements in the struggle for their civil rights around the world and in the establishment of a positive social identity as opposed to the model brought by medical science, which is marked by a view of deficiencies characterized as disease or health problem and linked to the notion of tragedy, religious charity and negativity ( MARTIN, 2012 ).
The first major milestone concerning Education was established at the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand, in March 1990 ( UNICEF, 1990 ). Inspired by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 – specifically on the right of all to Education, it is committed to socially excluded or discriminated groups, including those with “the basic learning needs of the disabled2 ” ( UNICEF, 1990 ).
A few years later, in 1994, the World Conference on Special Needs Education ( UNESCO, 1994 ), the second landmark in Salamanca, which, in its preamble, called upon governments “to endorse the approach of inclusive schooling and to support the development of special need Education as an integral part of all educational programmes”. The so-called “The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action” places “special needs Education” on another level, consolidating a change of this area point-of-view in the direction of “inclusive Education”.
The Inter-American Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, known as the Guatemalan Convention (OAS, 1999), expresses on article II the objective of “preventing and eliminating all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities and providing their full integration into society”, committing itself to various measures to achieve this goal.
Soon after, the reconceptualization of disability, contained in the new international classification, adopted in 2001 by the World Health Organization (WHO), played another important role. By conceptualizing deficiency in terms of the interaction between an individual, the limitations and possibilities imposed by his disability and the forms of support offered by the “environment”, the WHO made disability a universal issue ( EBERSOLD, 2008 ).
Thus, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) defines deficiency in a comprehensive way, considering the limitations of activities and restrictions of participation of the individual in society. Disability began to be understood from the negative aspects of interaction between individuals with a health condition (e.g., cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and depression) linked to personal and environmental factors (such as negative attitudes, inAccess inible transportation, difficulty in Access ining public buildings and limited social support) ( WHO, 2018 ).
In 2004, Montreal hosted the Pan-American Health Organization (Paho) and WHO Conference on Intellectual Disability ( LECOMPT; MERCIER, 2007 ), whose focus was on the rights of people with this specific type of disability ( OPAS/OMS, 2004 ).
In commemoration of the 58th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN General Assembly on 13 December 2006 endorsed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006), which entered into force in 2008, after at least 20 ratifications, with the purpose “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity” (Article 1). In 2009, Decree nº 6,949 promulgated the Convention, signed by the Brazilian government in New York, on March 30, 2007.
Currently, the United Nations ( UNITED NATIONS, s.d. ) website provides links which disseminate the laws of each country in favor of the rights of people with disabilities, with emphasis on the fact that the laws contribute to implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to achieve the SDG.
The 2030 agenda for SDG provides a shared plan for peace and prosperity for all people and the entire planet. In 17 objectives of the original UN document, people with disabilities are named in objectives 4 (regarding quality Education) and 10 (reduced inequalities).
Specifically in Brazil, people with disabilities are mentioned in five of the 17 objectives: objectives 4 (quality Education), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 10 (reduced inequalities), 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and 17 (partnerships for the goals).
3 Brazilian legal framework
A bibliography concerning the Brazilian legislation on people with disabilities can be found in Beltrão (2022a) . Historically, individuals identified with “special needs”, “exceptionalities” and all others euphemistic terms used in the past to characterize people with disabilities in their most different modalities, were educated outside school or treated differently through a specialized or “Special Education”, which led to the creation of specific institutions for this purpose, substituting the regular ones. It dates from 1854 the creation of the Institute of Blind Boys (now the Benjamin Constant Institute), and from 1856, that of the Institute of the Deaf Dumb (now called the National Institute of Deaf Education), in Imperial Rio de Janeiro.
Already at the beginning of the Republic, in 1926, the Pestalozzi Institute was founded, aimed at the care of people with mental disabilities. The Association of Parents and Friends of The Exceptional was created in 1954, and in 1961, the first Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education (known as LDB) nº 4,024/61 ( BRASIL, 1961 ), established the right of these people with disabilities to Education, preferably within the general Education system.
After the military government, there was a kind of retreat towards an inclusive educational policy with Law nº 5,692/71 ( BRASIL, 1971 ), which, among the changes it implemented in the law of 1961, again established special treatment for students with physical and mental disabilities, reinforcing the role of special classes and schools. In 1973, the National Center for Special Education was created, being responsible for the management and guidance of the Education of students with disabilities, part of the Ministry of Education (MEC) structure, whose actions were marked by a state welfare service unit. However, some authors acknowledge that during the dictatorial regime, specialized special Education institutions received incentives that enabled their dissemination throughout the national territory, as well as increased their influence over national special Education policies ( BUENO, LEHMKHUL; GOES, 2019 ).
In 1996, a new law of guidelines and bases for national Education, LDB ( BRASIL, 1996 ), was enacted, Law nº 9,394, which in item III of article 4 assures the guarantee of “free specialized educational assistance to students with special needs, preferably in the regular school network”. The new LDB dedicates, for the first time, a specific chapter to Special Education in three articles: 58th, 59th and 60th. Article 58 defines special Education as “the modality of school Education, preferably offered in the regular Education network, for students with special needs”, providing in its first paragraph that, if necessary, the regular school should offer specialized support services to meet the needs characteristics of this clientele. The second paragraph, however, admits the possibility that the educational service is provided in classes, schools or specialized services depending on the specific conditions of the students and whenever it is impossible to integrate it into the common classes of regular Education. The third paragraph establishes that the provision of special Education is a constitutional duty of the State, which must begin in the age group from zero to six years. More recently, Law Law nº 13,632 ( BRASIL, 2018 ) rewords this paragraph, extending the right to special Education “throughout life”. Article 59 deals with teaching-learning processes, establishing that curricula, methods, techniques and other educational resources must meet the special needs of these students, as well as demonstrating concern with the completion of fundamental Education, with the adequate training of teachers, with special Education for the work and with the Access in of these students to the available supplementary social programs. Article 60 reinforces that “the public power will adopt, as a preferential alternative, the expansion of the attendance of students with special needs in the regular public Education network”.
The social inclusion policy of people with disabilities was only guaranteed by the 1988 Constitution ( BRASIL, 2019 ) that, in articles 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211 and 227, dealt with general principles of the right of all to Education.
But it was with the promulgation of Law nº 7,853 of 1989 ( BRASIL, 1989 ), later regulated by Decree nº 3,298 of 1999 ( BRASIL, 1999 ), that support for the integration of people with disabilities received, for the first time, a specific treatment. The next step of legal support came from Law nº 8,213 ( BRASIL, 1991 ) which, by providing for Social Security Benefit Plans, in its art. 93, determined the first quota law for people with disabilities in the labor sphere, aimed at companies with more than 100 employees. Also in 1999, Ordinance nº 1,679 ( BRASIL, 1999 ) of the MEC, later replaced by Ordinance nº 3,284 of 2003 (MEC, 2003), established the Access inibility requirements of people with disability for accreditation, authorization and recognition of Higher Education courses in the country.
Laws nº 10,048 ( BRASIL, 2000a ) and nº 10,098 ( BRASIL, 2000b ), both regulated by Decree nº 5,296 of 2004 ( BRASIL, 2004 ): the former giving priority to the elderly, pregnant women, lactating women, children with disabilities in public transport and offices; and the latter, by establishing general norms and criteria for promoting Access inibility for people with disability or with reduced mobility.
Law nº 10,257 ( BRASIL, 2001 ), known as the City Statute, regulated Articles 182 and 183 of the Constitution, establishing the guidelines of urban policy.
In 2002, Law nº 10,436 ( BRASIL, 2002 ) regulated the Brazilian Sign Language (known as Libras3 ), and Ordinance nº 2,678 of the MEC approved Braille spelling for the Portuguese language, recommending its use throughout the national territory. In 2005, Decree nº 5,626 ( BRASIL, 2005a ) regulated Law nº 10,436 ( BRASIL, 2002 ) and Article 18 of Law nº 10,098 (BRASIL, 2000b).
In 2003, the Federal Prosecutor published a Manual of Inclusive Education, entitled: “Access in of students with disabilities to schools and common classes of the regular network” ( BRASIL, 2003 ).
Law nº 11,096 ( BRASIL, 2005b ), which created Prouni4 – University for All Program – specifically included the “student with disabilities” as target of this scholarship program to expand the Access in to this level of Education.
The Normative Ordinance nº 14 (MEC, 2007) of the MEC instituted the Program “ Incluir ” (Inclusion): Access inibility in Higher Education, with a view to implementing Decree nº 5,296/2004 ( BRASIL, 2004 ), which established general standards and basic criteria for promoting Access inibility to people with disability or people with reduced mobility, and Decree nº 5,626/2005 ( BRASIL, 2005a ), which provided for the use and dissemination of the Libras and established that educational systems should ensure the inclusion of Libras Education in all teacher training courses.
The following year, Secadi5 – Secretariat of Continuing Education, Literacy, Diversity and Inclusion – MEC, instituted the National Policy of Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education.
Decree nº 7,234 ( BRASIL, 2010 ), provided for the National Program of Student Assistance (Pnaes6 ), aiming to expand the conditions of permanence of young people in federal public Higher Education, working for public Higher Education as Prouni worked for private Education.
In 2011, two decrees were issued favoring people with disabilities: nº 7,611 ( BRASIL, 2011a ), on special Education and specialized educational care, and nº 7,612 BRASIL, 2011b ), which instituted the National Plan for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the Plan living without limit.
In 2012, three more laws of interest to the population with disabilities were sanctioned: Law nº 12,587 ( BRASIL, 2012a ), which instituted the guidelines of the National Urban Mobility Policy; Law nº 12,711 ( BRASIL, 2012b ), which dealt with admission to federal universities and federal post-secondary non-tertiary technical Education institutions, known as the Quota Law, which, in 2016, was amended by Law nº 13,409 ( BRASIL, 2016 ) to include admission quotas for people with disabilities; and Law nº 12,764 ( BRASIL, 2012c ), which instituted the National Policy for the Protection of the Rights of People with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Secadi/Sesu/MEC launched in 2013 a guide document of the Program “ Incluir ”: Access inibility in Higher Education, aimed at guiding the institutionalization of Access inibility policy in federal institutions of Higher Education – Ifes.
In 2015, Law nº 13,146 ( BRASIL, 2015 ) or Statute of Persons with Disabilities, the Brazilian Law for the Inclusion of People with Disabilities, was sanctioned. Among other impacts on the lives of people with disabilities, this Law had the role of revoking Articles 3 and 4 of the Brazilian Civil Code, which included among those unable to personally perform acts of civil life people with mental disabilities. Also in that year, the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT7 NBR 9050 (3rd edition) –, issued a technical standard on the adequacy of buildings, equipment and urban furniture to people with disabilities, a standard created in 1983, and which underwent two subsequent revisions, being updated in 1994 and 2004.
Reflecting the impacts that governments impose on the direction of public policies, on September 30, 2020, the Brazilian President signed a new Decree, nº 10,502 ( BRASIL, 2020a ), which instituted the National Policy of Special Education: Equitable, Inclusive and with Lifelong Learning. Considered a setback in the inclusive policies consolidated in the last 30 years in Brazil, by providing for the creation of classes and special Education schools, the decree was suspended by Supreme Court (STF8 ) Minister Dias Toffoli, on December 1, in response to Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI9 ) nº 6,590 (STF, 2020), filed by the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB). On December 21, 2020, the Plenary of the Supreme Court, after meeting to assess the merits of the action, maintained, by a majority of votes, the injunction that suspended the president’s decree, understanding that it could “underpin public policies that weaken the imperative of the inclusion of students with disabilities, global developmental disorders and high skills or gifted in the regular school network” (STF, 2020, pp. 3-4).
4 Brazilian experience
In Brazil, as demonstrated in the previous section, legislation on inclusive policies in tertiary Education is recent. The difficulties of inclusion of students with disabilities in tertiary Education have been the target of research aimed at democratizing Access in and permanence of these students. Since 2003, by Ordinance nº 3,284 of the MEC (2003), universities have been evaluated in relation to the inclusive actions implemented, considering criteria for authorization and recognition of courses.
In a search on the theme of inclusion of students with disabilities in Brazilian Higher Education, conducted on the Internet between March 2017 and August 2022, on search sites as Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Google and Google Scholar through keywords as students with disability in Higher Education; inclusive Education in tertiary Education, 51 documents were selected, including articles, dissertations and academic theses. Similarly to the international panorama on the subject, Brazilian studies on Access inibility in tertiary Education can be divided into two large groups (noting a significant increase in the number of empirical studies once the conceptual and legal bases were consolidated): those in which concepts and legislation are discussed and those in which qualitative and quantitative studies are presented concerning the people with disabilities inclusion in tertiary Education ( BELTRÃO, K., 2022b ). Studies of the first group, in general, present the advances in terms of legal guarantees to the rights of people with disabilities in all spheres of social life, while the second group of studies, in general, show how reality is far from the legal framework.
4.1 Disability in the census of tertiary Education in Brazil
Data on tertiary Education in the country have existed since 1908 with the publication in 1916 of the first Statistical Yearbook in Brazil, but the Census of Tertiary Education, itself, emerged only in 1997, together with Inep. In 2000, the Integrated System of Educational Information (SIEd10 ) was created, comprising, among others, the information of the Census of Tertiary Education. On the same date, the first Census that collected information on the number of students “with special needs” took place. In 2007 the electronic system e-MEC became the official register of the accredited institutions of Higher Education and the courses authorized and recognized by MEC ( INEP, 2020a ). Data are colected through several modules. This work uses data from the Student Module, the Course Module and the Institution Module ( INEP, 2020b ).
Based on data from the Census of Tertiary Education, this text presents a time series analysis of the number of new admissions with disabilities per year and their characteristics, compared to those without disabilities11 , from 2009 to 2019, seeking to monitor the possible impacts of the legislation - first encouraging inclusion and Access inibility policies to the policy of quotas for people with disabilities - on the increase of people with disabilities in tertiary Education. It is important to emphasize that, in order to comply with the Brazilian General Data Protection Law, approved in 2019, Inep discontinued from 2020 on the publication of microdata per student, witch allowed the tabulations presented in this study. Therefore, the most recent available data refers to 2019, and the institution even removed the microdata used in this text from the page.
4.2 Database
To Access in the characteristics of the new admissions, we investigated the variables of students and institution/course available in the Census of Tertiary Education database, namely: type of disability (blind; vision impairment; deaf; hard of hearing; deaf-blind; physical; multiple or intellectual/mental), gender, age, enrollment situation at the end of the year (enrolled, graduating, leave of absence, transferred, dropout), admission by reservation of vacancies (quota), receiving scholarship/student financing, administrative category of the institution (public or private) and academic organization ( universidade, faculdade, centro universitário, instituto federal de educação e tecnologia 12 ) of the institution, tertiary Education degree (bachelor’s degrees on Education, others bachelor’s degrees, short-cycle tertiary Education), assistive technologies offered by the course. It is important to emphasize that the information related to the course and the IES (Higher Education Institutions) are provided by the institutions themselves and not by the students.
4.3 Evolution of young people with disabilities in Higher Education courses
The number of students entering in Higher Education grew from almost 2 million to more than 3.6 million between 2009 and 2019, but the number of students with disabilities, even though it has more than doubled in the same period, in percentage terms suffered a small oscillation, remaining at the level between 0.32% and 0.49% of the total number of students (see Table 1 ).
Table 1 Students with and without disabilities in Higher Education (total and %) by year of admission – Brazil (2009 – 2019)
| Disability | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| without disability | 1938766 | 2167033 | 2329421 | 2726491 | 2719094 | 3080209 | 2887388 | 2942695 | 3182759 | 3398944 | 3585986 |
| with disability | 7300 | 7382 | 7525 | 10150 | 10181 | 10349 | 11307 | 11755 | 13459 | 16861 | 17167 |
| Total | 1946066 | 2174415 | 2336946 | 2736641 | 2729275 | 3090558 | 2898695 | 2954450 | 3196218 | 3415805 | 3603153 |
| % with disability | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.48 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019)
The evolution of the new admissions, according to sex and disability (see Table 2 ), showed that, although the female contingent was higher in relation to the number of male students, for the student body as a whole, among those with disabilities, the male contingent was higher, exception only in 2009.
Table 2 Students with and without disabilities in Higher Education by sex, according to year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Total with disability | Males (M) | Females (F) | Sex ratio (M/F) | Total without disability | Males (M) | Females (F) | Sex ratio (M/F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 7,300 | 3,573 | 3,727 | 95.9 | 1,938,766 | 857,772 | 1,080,994 | 79.4 |
| 2010 | 7,382 | 3,921 | 3,461 | 113.3 | 2,167,033 | 954,462 | 1,212,571 | 78.7 |
| 2011 | 7,525 | 3,889 | 3,636 | 107.0 | 2,329,421 | 1,029,119 | 1,300,302 | 79.1 |
| 2012 | 10,150 | 5,171 | 4,979 | 103.9 | 2,726,491 | 1,194,949 | 1,531,542 | 78.0 |
| 2013 | 10,181 | 5,259 | 4,922 | 106.8 | 2,719,094 | 1,192,626 | 1,526,468 | 78.1 |
| 2014 | 10,349 | 5,384 | 4,965 | 108.4 | 3,080,209 | 1,353,662 | 1,726,547 | 78.4 |
| 2015 | 11,307 | 5,885 | 5,422 | 108.5 | 2,887,388 | 1,291,443 | 1,595,945 | 80.9 |
| 2016 | 11,755 | 6,083 | 5,672 | 107.2 | 2,942,695 | 1,308,421 | 1,634,274 | 80.1 |
| 2017 | 13,459 | 7,175 | 6,284 | 114.2 | 3,182,759 | 1,419,846 | 1,762,913 | 80.5 |
| 2018 | 16,861 | 8,882 | 7,979 | 111.3 | 3,398,944 | 1,487,522 | 1,911,422 | 77.8 |
| 2019 | 17,167 | 8,991 | 8,176 | 110.0 | 3,585,986 | 1,535,943 | 2,050,043 | 74.9 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
Regarding the evolution of the averageage age of the new admissions, male students, as a rule, were older than female students, and those with disabilities, older than those without disabilities in about two years (see Table 3 ). The trajectories of the average ages were increasing in all combinations of sex and disability, indicating the inclusion of an older contingent in Higher Education, with an acceleration from 2016 on.
Table 3 Mean age (in years) of students with and without disabilities in Higher Education, by year – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Disability condition and sex | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without disability | |||||||||||
| Male | 26 | 26.1 | 26.1 | 26.1 | 26 | 26.3 | 26.1 | 26.2 | 26.6 | 27 | 27.3 |
| Female | 25.9 | 26 | 26 | 25.9 | 25.7 | 26 | 25.9 | 26 | 26.3 | 27 | 27.4 |
| With disability | |||||||||||
| Male | 27.7 | 28.1 | 28.8 | 28.2 | 28.2 | 28.8 | 28.9 | 28.4 | 28.8 | 29.4 | 29.3 |
| Female | 27.1 | 28.2 | 28.2 | 27.5 | 27.4 | 28.2 | 28.8 | 28.4 | 28.6 | 29.1 | 29.3 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
Regarding the type of disability declared during the period, the largest number of students with disability were those with physical disabilities, followed by those with vision impairment, both increasing in time (see Table 4 and Table 5 ). New admissions with hard of hearing students had a stable trajectory and came in third place from 2012 on.
Table 4 Students with disabilities in Higher Education, by type of disability, according to year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Blind | Vision impairment | Deaf | Hard of hearing | Deaf/ blind | Physical disability | Multiple disability | Intellectual/mental disability | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 1,059 | 2,051 | 574 | 2,065 | 37 | 1,356 | 114 | 144 | 7,400 |
| 2010 | 1,352 | 1,930 | 925 | 880 | 69 | 2,085 | 91 | 140 | 7,472 |
| 2011 | 1,760 | 1,571 | 492 | 1,430 | 54 | 2,129 | 297 | 183 | 7,916 |
| 2012 | 1,943 | 2,338 | 614 | 2,202 | 22 | 2,644 | 164 | 292 | 10,219 |
| 2013 | 2,004 | 2,209 | 599 | 2,154 | 74 | 3,027 | 83 | 220 | 10,370 |
| 2014 | 674 | 2,756 | 761 | 1,439 | 39 | 4,058 | 247 | 549 | 10,523 |
| 2015 | 644 | 3,023 | 669 | 1,667 | 38 | 4,763 | 207 | 580 | 11,591 |
| 2016 | 723 | 3,545 | 621 | 1,629 | 24 | 4,425 | 256 | 700 | 11,923 |
| 2017 | 715 | 3,719 | 939 | 1,751 | 61 | 5,339 | 202 | 982 | 13,708 |
| 2018 | 935 | 4,847 | 918 | 2,259 | 60 | 6,602 | 333 | 1,604 | 17,558 |
| 2019 | 949 | 4,752 | 966 | 2,368 | 72 | 6,101 | 347 | 1,993 | 17,548 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
Table 5 Distribuition (%) of students with disabilities in Higher Education, by type of disability, according to year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Blind | Vision impairment | Deaf | Hard of hearing | Deaf/ blind | Physical disability | Multiple disability | Intellectual/mental disability | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 14.3 | 27.7 | 7.8 | 27.9 | 0.5 | 18.3 | 1.5 | 1.9 | 100.0 |
| 2010 | 18.1 | 25.8 | 12.4 | 11.8 | 0.9 | 27.9 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 100.0 |
| 2011 | 22.2 | 19.8 | 6.2 | 18.1 | 0.7 | 26.9 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 100.0 |
| 2012 | 19.0 | 22.9 | 6.0 | 21.5 | 0.2 | 25.9 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 100.0 |
| 2013 | 19.3 | 21.3 | 5.8 | 20.8 | 0.7 | 29.2 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 100.0 |
| 2014 | 6.4 | 26.2 | 7.2 | 13.7 | 0.4 | 38.6 | 2.3 | 5.2 | 100.0 |
| 2015 | 5.6 | 26.1 | 5.8 | 14.4 | 0.3 | 41.1 | 1.8 | 5.0 | 100.0 |
| 2016 | 6.1 | 29.7 | 5.2 | 13.7 | 0.2 | 37.1 | 2.1 | 5.9 | 100.0 |
| 2017 | 5.2 | 27.1 | 6.9 | 12.8 | 0.4 | 38.9 | 1.5 | 7.2 | 100.0 |
| 2018 | 5.3 | 27.6 | 5.2 | 12.9 | 0.3 | 37.6 | 1.9 | 9.1 | 100.0 |
| 2019 | 5.4 | 27.1 | 5.5 | 13.5 | 0.4 | 34.8 | 2.0 | 11.4 | 100.0 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of young people with disabilities in tertiary Education showed that there was a discontinuity in the 2011/12 and 2017/18 intervals and that the quota more than doubled between 2009 and 2019, as already mentioned, an average growth rate of 9.0% p.y. Students with physical disabilities not only constituted the largest contingent, but also those with the second highest average growth rate in the period: 16.2% p.y. The highest growth rate occurred in the contingent of intellectual/mental disability (30.1%), but because the starting point was small: 144 students.
The distribution of students with disability by December of each calendar year (see Table 7 ), showed that, relatively, a higher proportion of incoming without disabilities (see Table 6 ) appeared in the categories dropout and leave of absence . On the other hand, the proportion of those with disabilities was higher among those who continued the course at the end of the year ( enrolled ). The other categories were residual at the end of the year of admission. In more recent years, there is a higher proportion of students who are on leave of absence and a lower proportion of students enrolled in the course both among those with disabilities and those without disabilities.
Table 7 Distribution (%) of end-of-year status of students with disability entries in Higher Education – Brazil (2009–2019)
| End-of-year status | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enrolled | 86.2 | 79.0 | 76.1 | 78.8 | 80.3 | 78.9 | 76.8 | 77.8 | 80.4 | 78.7 | 78.7 |
| Leave of absence | 5.1 | 5.4 | 6.4 | 6.4 | 5.8 | 7.7 | 7.2 | 6.6 | 5.6 | 6.4 | 5.3 |
| Dropout | 8.2 | 14.4 | 16.4 | 14.1 | 12.7 | 12.4 | 14.8 | 14.4 | 12.9 | 13.9 | 14.8 |
| Transferred to another course in the same institution | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Graduating | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
Table 6 Distribution (%) of end-of-year status of students without disability entries in Higher Education – Brazil (2009–2019)
| End-of-year status | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enrolled | 83.7 | 79.2 | 79.1 | 78.5 | 81.0 | 78.0 | 77.3 | 74.6 | 76.3 | 74.6 | 75.5 |
| Leave of absence | 5.8 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 6.3 | 5.6 | 7.2 | 7.7 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.3 |
| Dropout | 9.5 | 13.3 | 13.6 | 14.1 | 12.3 | 13.8 | 13.9 | 17.2 | 16.0 | 17.5 | 16.9 |
| Transferred to another course in the same institution | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Graduating | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of the proportion of new admissions by admission criteria (quotas by race, disability, social) considering disability (see Table 8 ), pointed out that the proportion of students with disability was consistently higher, and the difference increased over time. The proportion increased among students with disability, reaching 23.4% in 2018, and was reasonably stable among students without disabilities, reaching a maximum of 5.1% in 2016.
Table 8 Students with and without disability by admission criteria, according to the year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Students without disabilitity | Students with disability | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Total | Quotas | Total | Quotas | |||||
|
|
|
|||||||
| No | Yes | % | No | Yes | % | |||
| 2009 | 1,946,066 | 1,911,184 | 34,882 | 1.8 | 7,300 | 7,025 | 275 | 3.8 |
| 2010 | 2,174,415 | 2,122,767 | 51,648 | 2.4 | 7,382 | 6,997 | 385 | 5.2 |
| 2011 | 2,336,946 | 2,283,137 | 53,809 | 2.3 | 7,525 | 7,050 | 475 | 6.3 |
| 2012 | 2,736,641 | 2,671,339 | 65,302 | 2.4 | 10,150 | 9,628 | 522 | 5.1 |
| 2013 | 2,729,275 | 2,639,721 | 89,554 | 3.3 | 10,181 | 9,421 | 760 | 7.5 |
| 2014 | 3,090,558 | 2,972,270 | 118,288 | 3.8 | 10,349 | 9,206 | 1,143 | 11.0 |
| 2015 | 2,898,695 | 2,754,963 | 143,732 | 5.0 | 11,307 | 9,963 | 1,344 | 11.9 |
| 2016 | 2,954,450 | 2,804,166 | 150,284 | 5.1 | 11,755 | 10,176 | 1,579 | 13.4 |
| 2017 | 3,196,218 | 3,041,778 | 154,440 | 4.8 | 13,459 | 11,246 | 2,213 | 16.4 |
| 2018 | 3,415,805 | 3,270,223 | 145,582 | 4.3 | 16,861 | 12,914 | 3,947 | 23.4 |
| 2019 | 3,603,153 | 3,449,783 | 153,370 | 4.3 | 17,167 | 13,442 | 3,725 | 21.7 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of the proportion of students with scholarship/financing, according to the disability condition (see Table 9 ), revealed a situation different from that observed in the quota situation: students with disability presented lower proportion receiving scholarship/financing in all the years of the period. However, the difference between the proportions of new admissions with and without disability was not significant, and the growth trend was observed in both groups.
Table 9 Admissions of students with and without disability by scholarship/funding, according to the year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Students without disabilitity | Students with disability | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Total | Scholarship/funding | Total | Scholarship/funding | |||||
|
|
|
|||||||
| No | Yes | % | No | Yes | % | |||
| 2009 | 1,946,066 | 1,622,054 | 324,012 | 16.6 | 7,300 | 6,442 | 858 | 11.8 |
| 2010 | 2,174,415 | 1,779,369 | 395,046 | 18.2 | 7,382 | 6,302 | 1,080 | 14.6 |
| 2011 | 2,336,946 | 1,827,513 | 509,433 | 21.8 | 7,525 | 6,486 | 1,039 | 13.8 |
| 2012 | 2,736,641 | 2,051,874 | 684,767 | 25.0 | 10,150 | 8,387 | 1,763 | 17.4 |
| 2013 | 2,729,275 | 1,913,424 | 815,851 | 29.9 | 10,181 | 7,841 | 2,340 | 23.0 |
| 2014 | 3,090,558 | 2,056,711 | 1,033,847 | 33.5 | 10,349 | 7,138 | 3,211 | 31.0 |
| 2015 | 2,898,695 | 1,928,441 | 970,254 | 33.5 | 11,307 | 7,729 | 3,578 | 31.6 |
| 2016 | 2,954,450 | 2,027,742 | 926,708 | 31.4 | 11,755 | 8,422 | 3,333 | 28.4 |
| 2017 | 3,196,218 | 2,143,710 | 1,052,508 | 32.9 | 13,459 | 9,149 | 4,310 | 32.0 |
| 2018 | 3,415,805 | 2,209,919 | 1,205,886 | 35.3 | 16,861 | 11,799 | 5,062 | 30.0 |
| 2019 | 3,603,153 | 2,237,626 | 1,365,527 | 37.9 | 17,167 | 12,252 | 4,915 | 28.6 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of the proportion of admisions of new students with disabilities, according to the institution’s administrative category (see Table 10 ), revealed that the proportion of these students in public institutions was higher than the proportion of them in private ones, and the difference between these two proportions increased over time, possibly due to Law nº 13,409 of 2016 ( BRASIL, 2016 ), which guaranteed quotas for people with disability in federal institutions. In other words, the proportion of new admissions in public institutions increased among students with disability and was rather stable in private institutions, which points to a more frequent choice of these students by public institutions, which may help explain the lower proportion of scholarship/funding found among them.
Table 10 Students with disability in Higher Education (total %) by administrative category, according to the year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Administrative Category | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Total | Public | Private | |
| 2009 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.36 |
| 2010 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.31 |
| 2011 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.32 |
| 2012 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.35 |
| 2013 | 0.37 | 0.51 | 0.34 |
| 2014 | 0.34 | 0.57 | 0.29 |
| 2015 | 0.39 | 0.59 | 0.35 |
| 2016 | 0.40 | 0.67 | 0.34 |
| 2017 | 0.42 | 0.77 | 0.35 |
| 2018 | 0.50 | 1.15 | 0.37 |
| 2019 | 0.48 | 1.04 | 0.38 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of the proportion of students with disability, according to the type of institutions’s academic organization (see Table 11 ), showed that the only proportions that seemed stagnant between 2009 and 2019 were those of Faculdades . The others presented increasing values in the period, but the proportion of students with disabilities appeared with greater strength in Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia .
Table 11 Students with disability in Higher Education (total %) by academic organization, according to the year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year | Academic Organization (*) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Universidade | Centro Universitário | Faculdade | Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia | |
| 2009 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.50 | 1.77 |
| 2010 | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.27 |
| 2011 | 0.37 | 0.27 | 0.26 | 0.39 |
| 2012 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.22 | 0.39 |
| 2013 | 0.51 | 0.27 | 0.19 | 0.44 |
| 2014 | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.18 | 0.60 |
| 2015 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.64 |
| 2016 | 0.51 | 0.31 | 0.21 | 0.74 |
| 2017 | 0.48 | 0.42 | 0.23 | 1.09 |
| 2018 | 0.56 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 1.52 |
| 2019 | 0.49 | 0.45 | 0.35 | 1.66 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
*see footnote 12 for the categories considered.
Considering the evolution of the proportion of students with disability, according to tertiary Educations degree (see Table 12 ), the values of bachelor’s degrees of Education and others bachelor’s degrees showed increasing trends. The proportion in short-cycle courses was basically stable in the most recent period.
Table 12 Students with disability in Higher Education (total %) by tertiary Education degree, according to the year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Terciary Education Degree | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Others bachelor’s degrees | Bachelor’s degrees in education | Short-cycle tertiary education | |
| 2009 | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.42 |
| 2010 | 0.31 | 0.38 | 0.40 |
| 2011 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.45 |
| 2012 | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.48 |
| 2013 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.45 |
| 2014 | 0.32 | 0.39 | 0.34 |
| 2015 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.43 |
| 2016 | 0.36 | 0.47 | 0.44 |
| 2017 | 0.37 | 0.56 | 0.42 |
| 2018 | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.45 |
| 2019 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.47 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
Considering the teaching mode (see Table 13 ), it was possible to notice that the proportion of students with disability in face-to-face courses showed an increasing trend, while the proportion of those who entered distance courses seemed reasonably constant. However, it should be considered that the growth rate of students in distance learning courses was much higher than the rate of admissions in conventional courses.
Table 13 Students with disability in Higher Education (total %) by teaching mode, according to the year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Teaching Mode | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Conventional | Distance | |
| 2009 | 0.38 | 0.34 |
| 2010 | 0.33 | 0.37 |
| 2011 | 0.30 | 0.41 |
| 2012 | 0.37 | 0.39 |
| 2013 | 0.37 | 0.39 |
| 2014 | 0.34 | 0.33 |
| 2015 | 0.38 | 0.43 |
| 2016 | 0.39 | 0.43 |
| 2017 | 0.42 | 0.42 |
| 2018 | 0.57 | 0.38 |
| 2019 | 0.57 | 0.36 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of the proportion of students with disability, according to the assistive technologies offered by the course (see Table 14 ), revealed that the proportion of courses without these technologies was more erratic, possibly due to the smaller number in this situation. Both proportions appear to be growing over time. As it will be seen below, the offer of assistive technologies for the courses has been increasing over time.
Table 14 Students with disability in Higher Education (total %) by course assistive technologies, according to year of admission – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Year of admission | Course assistive technologies | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Yes | No | |
| 2009 | 0.18 | 0.45 |
| 2010 | 0.30 | 0.35 |
| 2011 | 0.16 | 0.34 |
| 2012 | 0.53 | 0.35 |
| 2013 | 0.36 | 0.37 |
| 2014 | 0.26 | 0.34 |
| 2015 | 0.26 | 0.40 |
| 2016 | 0.32 | 0.40 |
| 2017 | 0.62 | 0.41 |
| 2018 | 0.66 | 0.49 |
| 2019 | 0.61 | 0.47 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of the proportion of admissions with Access in to the different types of assistive technologies offered by the course showed that the proportion has been increasing for all types (see Table 15 ), but the discipline of Libras was the most frequently offered. The only drop was in the proportion of institutions without any of the conditions: values fell from 29.1% to 3.2%.
Table 15 Admission in Higher Education (total %) by year, according to course assistive technologies – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Assistive Technologies | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None of the options | 29.1 | 16.4 | 12.4 | 11.0 | 8.3 | 5.4 | 6.0 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 3.2 |
| High relief adaptation of graphics, engravings and illustrations | 10.6 | 0.0 | 33.9 | 30.3 | 21.3 | 32.0 | 32.7 | 28.2 | 29.0 | 29.7 | 36.2 |
| Audio material | 33.6 | 36.5 | 43.7 | 49.4 | 39.2 | 48.2 | 50.9 | 40.9 | 60.1 | 48.1 | 56.1 |
| Braille material | 29.1 | 30.0 | 27.8 | 26.1 | 35.6 | 37.4 | 40.3 | 35.8 | 40.9 | 36.4 | 35.9 |
| Material with enlarged characters | 37.3 | 0.0 | 40.6 | 40.8 | 46.0 | 56.4 | 52.6 | 46.5 | 48.0 | 47.2 | 69.9 |
| Provides an interpreter guide | 20.7 | 27.8 | 54.3 | 60.5 | 32.4 | 36.7 | 40.9 | 34.1 | 51.7 | 50.3 | 52.6 |
| Has material in sign language | 31.6 | 42.1 | 10.2 | 8.2 | 41.0 | 44.6 | 44.4 | 54.0 | 38.9 | 50.9 | 55.7 |
| Subject of sign language | 57.4 | 72.1 | 67.0 | 70.5 | 76.4 | 77.9 | 77.3 | 80.4 | 80.4 | 86.0 | 88.2 |
| Offers voice synthesis system | 29.2 | 37.2 | 48.5 | 43.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Provides sign language translator and interpreter | 48.7 | 53.6 | 57.3 | 57.3 | 59.0 | 64.5 | 65.9 | 57.1 | 73.5 | 75.3 | 81.6 |
| Accessible digital teaching material | - | 45.9 | 44.6 | 53.9 | 49.0 | 57.4 | 55.5 | 64.4 | 66.6 | 71.9 | 74.9 |
| Educational material in accessible printed format | - | 47.6 | 66.2 | 67.6 | 42.1 | 54.7 | 54.7 | 62.8 | 63.6 | 64.2 | 68.3 |
| Communication accessibility features | - | - | - | - | 50.9 | 47.3 | 58.3 | 66.8 | 69.0 | 75.2 | 77.6 |
| Accessible computer resources | - | - | - | - | 61.9 | 63.9 | 65.5 | 75.1 | 74.2 | 78.0 | 79.9 |
| At least one of the conditions | 70.9 | 83.6 | 87.6 | 89.0 | 91.7 | 94.6 | 94.0 | 95.5 | 95.5 | 96.2 | 96.8 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of the proportion of students with disability, according to Access in to different types of assistive technologies (see Table 16 ), showed that increasing proportions would imply a trend of reference for that type of Access inibility condition. It is difficult to discern the types with increasing trends, but these were: provides sign translator and interpreter, Access inible computer resources, material with enlarged characters and subject of sign language .
Table 16 Admission of students with disability in Higher Education (total %) by year, according to course assistive technologies – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Assistive Technologies | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None of the options | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.16 | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.38 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.75 |
| High relief adaptation of graphics, engravings and illustrations | 0.20 | - | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.46 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.45 | 0.49 |
| Audio material | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 0.59 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.47 | 0.50 |
| Braille material | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.47 | 0.52 | 0.52 |
| Material with enlarged characters | 0.46 | - | 0.43 | 0.41 | 0.55 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.49 |
| Provides an interpreter guide | 0.61 | 0.33 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.60 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.48 |
| Has material in sign language | 0.80 | 0.44 | 0.28 | 0.39 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.51 |
| Subject of sign language | 0.45 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.47 |
| Offers voice synthesis system | 0.48 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 0.29 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Provides sign language translator and interpreter | 0.53 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.47 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.48 |
| Accessible digital teaching material | - | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.47 | 0.46 |
| Educational material in accessible printed format | - | - | - | - | 0.57 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.43 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.49 |
| Communication accessibility features | - | - | - | - | 0.49 | 0.39 | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 0.46 |
| Accessible computer resources | - | - | - | - | 0.46 | 0.36 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.45 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The evolution of the proportion of students with disability in relation to the total number of new admissions, according to degree and major of the course, showed that the total presented an increasing trend (see Table 17 ). Some areas stood out in certain periods: Business Administration & Management (2 years), between 2012 and 2017; and Law (undergraduate) between 2011 and 2013.
Table 17 Admission in Higher Education (total %) by year according to degree and major – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Course degreee and area | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % in total areas | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.48 |
| Administration and Management | 0.37 | 0.24 | 0.30 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.33 |
| Law (undergraduate) | 0.35 | 0.28 | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| Teacher Education, Subject-Specific | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.40 |
| Education | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.58 | 0.59 |
| Business Administration & Management (2 years) | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.31 | 0.44 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.53 | 0.62 | 0.51 | 0.35 |
| Accounting | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.51 |
| Nursing | 0.36 | 0.27 | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.44 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.34 |
| Career & Technical Education | 0.58 | 0.23 | 0.32 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.34 | 0.33 |
| Engineering | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.41 | 0.28 | 0.48 | 0.72 | 0.64 |
| Therapy & Rehabilitation | 0.44 | 0.32 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.44 | 0.59 |
| Others | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.59 | 0.56 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
The proportion of students with disability in selected areas in relation to the total number of students with disability in Higher Education, by year of admission, showed that the highest allocation of students with disability was in the area of Administration and Management and in the area of Law (undergraduate). But as it can be seen from the previous table, these were also the preferred areas of choice of the students in general, even if they show a fall in the last years of the period, as shown in Table 18 .
Table 18 Admission in Higher Education (collum %) by year according to degree and major – Brazil (2009–2019)
| Course degreee and area | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOTAL | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Administration and Management | 13.1 | 12.5 | 12.1 | 11.9 | 10.8 | 10.0 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 10.8 |
| Law (undergraduate) | 9.6 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 10.4 | 9.9 | 10.0 | 9.4 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 8.9 | 9.3 |
| Teacher Education, Subject-Specific | 8.6 | 8.9 | 8.8 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 8.4 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 8.4 |
| Education | 8.4 | 8.9 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 8.6 | 8.3 | 8.1 | 7.4 |
| Business Administration & Management (2 years) | 7.6 | 8.1 | 7.9 | 7.3 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 7.9 | 7.4 | 7.2 |
| Accounting | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 7.0 | 7.1 |
| Nursing | 3.7 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| Career & Technical Education | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 |
| Engineering | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 2.8 |
| Therapy & Rehabilitation | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| Others | 37.3 | 37.2 | 37.4 | 37.5 | 38.5 | 38.4 | 38.8 | 37.3 | 37.4 | 36.5 | 36.6 |
Source: Authors’ own calculations with data from the Higher Education Census (INEP, 2009 to 2019)
5 Final considerations
The analisis of the characteristics of students with different disabilities who entered tertiary Education between 2009 and 2019 showed that the contingent more than doubled, with an average growth rate of 9.0% p.y. It is still a small proportion of the number of students, though, ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%. This growth trend shows that the inclusion process, at this level of Education, is at the incept, even if supported by the Brazilian legal apparatus that has walked pari passu with international conventions and agreements.
Students with disability showed a different set of characteristics than that of the other students’ with respect to gender, average age and choice of course/area. The guarantee of Access inibility conditions (offering some type of assistive technology and/or technical help), obviously, seems to attract more students with disability to courses/institutions.
