INTRODUCTION

The guidelines for inclusion and accessibility are recent social transformations (^{Cantorani and Pilatti, 2015}; ^{Diniz, 2007}; ^{Figueira, 2008}; ^{UPIAS, 1975}, ¹⁹⁸¹; ^{UPIAS and Alliance, 1997}). An important milestone for this transformation movement was the emergence in the 1960s, in the United Kingdom, of a social model to debate disabilities. This theoretical review about disabilities was born as a reaction to biomedical approaches (^{Cantorani and Pilatti, 2015}; ^{GMCDP, 2010}; ^{UPIAS, 1975}, ¹⁹⁸¹; ^{UPIAS e Alliance, 1997}).

The biomedical model of disability focused on the disability, the disease, or the bodily “abnormality”, emphasizing the disability or functional limitation (^{Bampi, Guilhem and Alves, 2010}; ^{Cantorani and Pilatti, 2015}; ^{Medeiros and Diniz, 2004}; ^{Oliver, 1997}; ^{UPIAS, 1981}).

On the other hand, the social model of disability assumes that the disability is not entirely on the subjects or their physical limitation, but on the combination of limitations imposed by the body - as a result of some type of loss or decreased functionality - and a social organization that is not sensible to body diversity (^{Cantorani and Pilatti, 2015}; ^{Medeiros and Diniz, 2004}; ^{Oliver, 1997}; ^{UPIAS, 1975}, ¹⁹⁸¹).

This approach to disability stimulated changes and reformulations of concepts, guidelines, and legislation (^{Cantorani and Pilatti, 2015}), leading, nowadays, to guarantees to the people with disabilities (PWD) (^{Brasil, 1989}), and also following the general principles established by the United Nations (UN) at the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, held in 2006, of which Brazil is a State party and signatory (^{Brasil, 2008}, ²⁰⁰⁹; ^{ONU, 2006}, ²⁰⁰⁷).

Inclusion is the act of creating the conditions for PWD to naturally interact in all situations of social life. Socially, inclusion represents the development toward equal rights among the individuals that form a society. It is about extending, to everyone, the right to integrate and participate in all dimensions of social environments, without any type of discrimination or prejudice. Laws are then implemented to guarantee these conditions (^{Brasil, 2006}, ²⁰⁰⁷, ^2013c, ^2013b, ^2017a; ^{ONU, 2006}), regardless of physical conditions, education, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, among other aspects. In the school context, it is the idea that everyone has the right to have access to the educational system, with no segregation or discrimination based on physical and/or psychological conditions, or due to gender, religion, ethnicity, social class.

Accessibility, on its turn, is a concept related to the scenario of promoting inclusion. In its magnitude, compared to the social evolution reached, it has multiple dimensions, such as attitudinal, architectural, methodological, programmatic, instrumental, transport, communication, and digital accessibilities (^{Cantorani and Pilatti, 2015}).

A great development in this scenario to guarantee the rights of PWD was established by law no. 13.409, of December 28th, 2016, regarding the reservation of places in the technical courses of high school and higher education in the Federal Education Institutions (Instituições Federais de Ensino - IFEs) (^{Brasil, 2016}), which characterizes the modernization of the legal scope toward the assurance of this population. With its approval, some adequations were imposed to the IFEs regarding the accessibility and inclusion of PWD.

Accessibility and inclusion in Brazilian higher education are relatively new themes. Even more recent is the obligation of quotas for PWD. The issue is: How is this process taking place? In other words: Accessibility and inclusion are, in fact, being implemented? Are IFEs promoting the accessibility and inclusion of these people? In what ways, to what costs, and with what support?

In general, the theme has been establishing itself as an object of research in the academy. However, in a study carried out - described below -, the number of studies on the theme is still small and, there is not, to date, a research considering law no. 13.409.

In a survey on publications related to the theme - through bibliometrics, using the terms “accessibility”, “inclusion”, “higher education”, “Brazil”, “Brazilian”, “people with disabilities”, “PWD”, and its possible combinations - 45 publications were found.

In the SciELO platform, 39 published studies were found with themes related to accessibility and/or inclusion in higher education. Within this theme, the studies focused on different specificities: teacher training to attend students with disabilities in higher education (^{Reis, Eufrásio and Bazon, 2010}); the right to inclusion in higher education (^{Araujo, 2017}); inclusion specifically of students with visual disabilities (^{Fernandes and Costa, 2015}; ^{Regiani and Mól, 2013}); inclusion and accessibility specifically of students with hearing disabilities (^{Bisol et al., 2010}; ^{Fernandes and Moreira, 2017}; ^{Martins and Napolitano, 2017}; ^{Mesquita, 2018}); inclusion in higher education (^{Almeida and Ernica, 2015}; ^{Calheiros and Fumes, 2016}; ^{Facci, Silva and Souza, 2018}; ^{Nozu, Bruno and Cabral, 2018}; ^{Oliveira, Gonçalvez and Oliveira, 2016}; ^{Poker, Valentim and Garla, 2018}); normalization, access legitimacy, participation, and formation (^{Cabral and Melo, 2017}); accessibility in higher education (^{Silva and Ferreira, 2017}); permanence of students with disabilities (^{Maciel and Anache, 2017}); admission and permanence (^{Castro and Almeida, 2014}; ^{Moreira, Bolsanello and Seger, 2011}); accessibility and permeance (^{Garcia, Bacarin and Leonardo, 2018}); centers of accessibility in the universities (^{Ciantelli andLeite, 2016}; ^{Ciantelli, Leite and Nuernberg, 2017}; ^{Melo and Araújo, 2018}); attention to diversity in higher education (^{Martos-García and Valencia-Peris, 2016}); mapping of students in special education (^{Lourenço and Battistella, 2018}); survey on the number of PWD enrolled in higher education (^{Duarte et al., 2013}); participation of students with disabilities in higher education (^{Gesser and Nuernberg, 2017}); meanings of inclusion through students’ perspectives (^{Almeida and Ferreira, 2018}); satisfaction evaluation of students with disabilities (^{Guerreiro, Almeida and Silva Filho, 2014}; ^{Saeta, Popadiuk and Teixeira, 2003}); architectural barriers (^{Lamônica et al., 2008}); policies of inclusive formation (^{Pereira, Santos and Silva, 2011}); scientific production on inclusive education (^{Oliveira et al., 2016}); scientific production on inclusion in higher education (^{Pletsch and Leite, 2017}); access public policies (^{Martins, Leite and Lacerda, 2015}); Programa Incluir (^{Nogueira and Oliver, 2018}; ^{Siqueira and Santana, 2010}); evaluation of accessibility in higher education courses by National Institute of Educational Studies and Research “Anísio Teixeira” (Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais “Anísio Teixeira” - INEP) (^{Cantorani and Pilatti, 2015}); inclusion panorama Brazil/Portugal (^{Pereira and Albuquerque, 2017})

On the indexing base Web of Science, there are 6 published articles on the theme. Among them, the specificities were: accessibility in the spaces of higher education public institutions (^{Pereira, Machado and Carneiro, 2013}); affirmative actions toward accessibility and inclusion in higher education (^{Napolitano, Leite and Martins, 2016}); the perception of students with disabilities on the accessibility of higher education (^{Silva and Martins, 2016}); social attitudes to promote inclusion in higher education (^{Omote, 2016}); inclusion of deaf students in higher education (^{Santana, 2016}); inclusion at Universidade do Amazonas (^{Fernandes, 2016})

Among the articles, only three studies focused on higher education public policies of access to PWDs. However, these do not address law no. 13.409/2016, which is recent and responsible for changing the way IFEs offer their reserved vacancies to this population.

Based on the incipient attention to the themes of accessibility and inclusion of PWDs in higher education and the originality of the theme, this study aims to analyze the process of adequation that took place in a Federal Higher Education Institute (Instituição Federal de Ensino Superior - IFES) to law no. 13.409/2016.

ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION IN HIGHER EDUCATION FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS: NORMATIVE AND LEGAL ASPECTS

The adequation of Higher Education Institution (Instituição de Ensino Superior - IES) to the process of inclusion and accessibility started to be demanded by the Ministry of Education (Ministério da Educação - MEC) due to obligations established in documents regarding the rights of PWDs (^{Brasil, 2006}, ²⁰⁰⁷, ^2013a, ^2013c; ^{ONU, 1948}, ²⁰⁰⁷).

The obligation is especially established in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (^{ONU, 2006}), ratified in Brazil through decrees no. 186/2008 (^{Brasil, 2008}) and no. 6.949/2009 (^{Brasil, 2009}) and the National Policy of Special Education in the Inclusive Education Perspective (^{Brasil, 2007}).

MEC, faced by the goal of full participation and inclusion established in Brazil (^{Brasil, 2008}, ²⁰⁰⁹), starts to manage mechanisms to achieve such commitment (^{Brasil, 2007}). The public policy defines that to guarantee the access, permanence, and participation of students in higher education, there should be planning and organization of resources and services to promote accessibility in architecture, communications, information systems, didactic and pedagogical materials (^{Brasil, 2007}).

Also considering decree no. 5.296/2004 (^{Brasil, 2004}), MEC establishes that the architectural accessibility in the IES should happen in all spaces, so that students, other members of the academic community, and society as a whole, have guaranteed their rights to come and go with safety and autonomy. It also establishes that the fulfillment of the norm should take place regardless of the number of students with disabilities (^{Brasil, 2013c}). However, about the accessibility conditions to communication and pedagogical material, MEC establishes that these should be put into action when there is a demand for such resources and services. MEC also highlights that the IES are responsible for such adequations and availability of those services and resources in all academic and administrative activities (^{Brasil, 2013a}, ^2013c).

Circular letter no. 152/2013 (^{Brasil, 2013a}) imposes an urgency to such adequations. This document reinforces the need “of MEC” to comply with the legal decisions delivered due to legal actions on the theme. Together with the letter, MEC forwarded the document Orientações para a promoção da acessibilidade e permanência, na educação superior, de estudantes com surdez na educação superior (Guidelines to promote accessibility and permanence in higher education of deaf students in higher education) (^{Brasil, 2013a}, p. 12).

In tune with the adequation imposition of IES to guarantee inclusion and accessibility, MEC, since INEP, through the Evaluation Board of Higher Education (Diretoria de Avaliação da Educação Superior - DAES), responsible to implement the National Higher Education Assessment System (Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior -SINAES), created a guiding document for the commissions responsible for in loco assessments entitled Referenciais de acessibilidade na educação superior e a avaliação in loco do Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior (SINAES) (Guidelines of accessibility in higher education and in loco assessment of National Higher Education Assessment System). The document aims to provide support to evaluators’ actions on issues pertinent to the accessibility of students with special educational needs and distinct assistance in different levels (^{Brasil, 2013b}).

In general lines, the guiding document was structured to support the Instrumento de avaliação de cursos de graduação presencial e a distância (Instrument of assessment of - presential and online undergraduate courses), of 2012, which subsidized the authorization acts of the courses - authorization, recognition, and renewal of recognition - for technical courses, teaching and bachelor degrees, online or presential. The current version of the assessment tools is from 2017: Instrumento de avaliação de cursos de graduação presencial e a distância: autorização (Assessment tool of undergraduate courses presential and online: authorization) (^{Brasil, 2017b}); Instrumento de avaliação de cursos de graduação presencial e a distância: reconhecimento e renovação de reconhecimento (Assessment tool of undergraduate courses presential and online: recognition, and renewal of recognition) (^{Brasil, 2017a}).

The guideline document added to the assessment tool of courses the support to specifically evaluate accessibility. Such support was structured in two tables of reference: “Spectrum of Accessibility”; and “ Accessibility in the current assessment tool” (^{Brasil, 2013b}, p. 37-44).

On the table “Spectrum of Accessibility” the aim was to inform on the vastness of the accessibility concept, showing that it is not restricted to physical and architectural aspects, but rather a set of dimensions: attitudinal accessibility (which refers to prejudices, stigmas, stereotypes, and discriminations); architectural accessibility (also known as physical); methodological accessibility (also known as pedagogical); programmatic accessibility (which refers to the sensibilization towards the elimination of barriers and guidelines on public policies); instrumental accessibility (referring to study instruments and tools); transport accessibility (regarding not only vehicles, but also bus stops, parking, sidewalks); communication accessibility (regarding interpersonal communication, written and virtual); digital accessibility (availability of communication, of physical access, adequate equipment and programs, content and presentation of information in alternative formats) (^{Brasil, 2013b}, p. 37-39).

The table “Accessibility in the current assessment tool” presents analysis criteria toward the verification of the adequacy of IES. The examination of this adequacy is distributed in two of the three dimensions which compose the Instrumento de avaliação de cursos de graduação presencial e a distância: dimension 1 (pedagogical-didactical organization) and dimension 3 (infrastructure). Regarding dimension 2 (faculty and tutors), ni accessibility analysis criteria were added (^{Brasil, 2013b}).

The indicative of analysis on the existence of accessibility in such dimension continue in the assessment tools of 2017 (^{Brasil, 2017a}, ^2017b). In those, the reference term to be analyzed is “accessibility”. The definition given is the same as law no. 13.146, of July 6^th, 2015 (^{Brasil, 2015}):

Possibility and condition to use, with safety and autonomy, spaces, furniture, urban equipment, buildings, transports, information, and communication, including their systems and technologies, as well as other services and facilities open to the public, for public use or private collective use, in urban and rural areas, for people with disabilities or reduced mobility.

To the IFEs, since 2017, with the sanction of law no. 13.409/2016, which changed law no. 12.711, of August 29th, 2012, on the reservation of places for PWDs in technical courses of high school and higher education and legally imposing the guarantee of a percentage of places for PWDs - the concern with issues involving accessibility increased. This attention is due to two aspects in this scenario: the first regards the need of adequation to guarantee accessibility, which became an obligation highlighted on the tools to access the courses; the second arises with the creation of this law, which offers the guarantee that the number of students with disabilities will increase in the IFEs

According to article 3 of this law,

In each higher education federal institute, the vacancies regarding article 1 of this Law will be occupied, by course and shift, by those self-declared black, brown,¹ Indigenous, and people with disabilities, under the terms of the law, proportionally to the total number of vacancies, at least the same to the respective proportion of blacks, browns, Indigenous, and people with disabilities in the population of the Federal unit in which the institute is established, according to the last census of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE). (^{Brasil, 2016})

According to article 5 of the same law,

In each higher education federal institute of technical high school, the vacancies referred in article 4 of this Law will be occupied, by course and shift, by those self-declared black, brown, Indigenous and people with disabilities, under the terms of the law in proportion to the total number of vacancies at least equal to the respective proportion of blacks, browns, Indigenous, and people with disabilities in the population of the Federal unit in which the institute is established, according to the last IBGE census. (^{Brasil, 2016})

With law no. 13.409/2016, PWD are included in the program of quotas of IFEs. Originally the Law of Quotas (law no. 12.711) determined that the IFEs should reserve a minimum of 50% of vacancies, per course and shift, for students who had studied their whole high school in public schools. Within this quota, 50% of vacancies (25% of the total number of vacancies) should be reserved for students from families whose income was equal or lower than 1.5 minimum wages per capita. However, the quotas need to be occupied, in the original law, according to the proportion of people self-declared black, brown, and Indigenous in the population of each federation unit (States or the Federal District) in which the institution is established. Therefore, the new law adds PWD to this quota, which is also guided by the proportionality of the population, which is measured, as well as the others, by the last the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE) census.

Considering that law no. 13.409/2016 came into force on the date of its publication, December 28^th, 2016, this meant that IFEs should adapt themselves to the law already in the school year of 2017. Operationally, this would be very difficult at the beginning of the 1^st semester of 2017, considering that the admission process for that year had already been done when the law was published. For IFEs with semesterly admissions, there was still the possibility of adequation starting in the middle of 2017.

METHODOLOGY

This study is qualitative and focuses on a single case. The case analyzed was of an IFES in the South of Brazil. The Institute has over 2,000 professors and 30 thousand students, with headquarters in the capital of the state and campi in the countryside. Student admission takes place completely by the Unified Admission System (Sistema de Seleção Unificado - SISU). In the institute, two entries for admissions are offered annually, approximately 9 thousand places, characterized as one of the first federal institutions which reserved vacancies for PWDs in compliance with law no. 13.409/2016.

Following the steps recommended by ^{Yin (2015}), the case study was carried out in three steps: planning, data collection, and case analysis.

The planning included:

The document survey was initially established by Brazilian laws related to inclusion and accessibility. These series of laws allowed us to understand the responsibilities and obligations of IFEs toward the theme and to draw the initial outlines to structure the interviews. In addition, the documents related to the preparation of the researched Institute for the admission processes in which law no. 13.409/2016 was enforced were also raised. These documents helped to understand the complexity of such service and finalize the structure of the interviews.

Semi-structured interviews, which could change depending on the conversation with the interviewees, questioned issues related to: the perspective of the managers of the Institute on PWDs’ inclusion; the position of the institute on the public policies towards the access of PWDs; law no. 13.409/2016 and its impacts to IFEs.

Two managers of the Institute were interviewed, once each, who were selected following the criterium of a direct relationship with the discussed theme and their decision power about it. The interviews were enough considering its reach, in terms of understanding, and saturation of information (^{Thiry-Cherques, 2009}). In the results and discussion section, to guarantee their anonymity, the interviewees were coded as I1 and I2, “I” for interviewee and the numbers 1 and 2 to distinguish them. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed. The written version was presented to the interviewees, giving them the possibility to change the content. After making the corrections asked, creating the final version of the document produced by the interviews, the interviewees’ signatures were requested according to the ethical rules of academic research.

The analytical procedure used was that of content analysis, which within the logic-semantic field followed the steps recommended by ^{Bardin (2011}). According to Bardin’s analysis model, the following steps were adopted: the selection of parts of the interviews and documents in units of registry (words, phrases, paragraphs) grouping them thematically into initial, intermediate, and final categories; out of the 33 initial categories, 16 intermediate ones were created and from those, we had three final categories:

This last one was used to treat the results, inference, and interpretation of valid and significant data on the expected goal.

The approach and methodological instrument used followed the ethical procedures established for the scientific research in human sciences (^{Santos, 2011}).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

OPERATIONALIZATION OF LAW NO. 13.409, DECEMBER 28^TH, 2016, IN THE INSTITUTE RESEARCHED

Following law no. 13.409/2016, the researched IFES projected, still in 2017, the availability of vacancies, per course and shift, a percentage of people self-declared black, brown, Indigenous, and PWDs. This percentage was, based on the law, at least equal to the same proportion of blacks, browns, Indigenous, and PWDs in the population of the Federative unit the Institute is established (Figure 1). The reference for the percentage is the last census of IBGE.

Source: based on law no. 13.409/2016 and data from ^{IBGE (2012}).

Figure 1 - Percentage of quotas law no. 13.409/2016 and ^{IBGE (2012}). 

In the state of the researched institution, according to the Census 2010 (^{IBGE, 2012}), the number of PWD with at least one of the disabilities investigated was 2,283,022, corresponding to 21.86% of the population in the state. This number is close to the rest of the entire Federation (23.9%). The proportion of people self-declared brown was 25.1%, black 3.2%, and Indigenous 0.25%. Altogether, the group of those self-declared black, brown, and indigenous (BBI) adds up to 28.55%.

Based on the numbers of ^{IBGE (2012}), the reservation of vacancies should observe these percentages, considering the quota students without proof of income and income under 1.5 minimum wage per capita: black (3.2%); brown (25.1%); indigenous (0.25%); PWDs (21.86%). The sum of the four quotas is 50.41%. For the proposal of vacancies, the numbers are rounded up to the highest values. 49.59% of the quotas are left for those not self-declared as BBI. In practical terms, the value ends up being lower due to rounding.

In a numerical projection, considering a class of 44 students - most classes in the researched IFES have this average of students -, we have the following numbers of quota students (Table 1).

In the call for the entrance exam 2017/2, the researched IFES offered 4,306 vacancies, of which 2,153 were allocated to quota holders. Of those, 587 were offered to PWD. The perception of managers in relation to the imposition is that “it is not up to the institution to question the law, it has to follow it” (I1, 2018). To I2 (2018), the duty of the State is to be responsible for the quality of people’s development and to prepare them for the job market. Therefore, this “makes public universities a conductive environment to do so, in which we can respect and see human diversity” (I2, 2018). Beyond legality, both interviewees highlighted the law as a necessary measure.

Even though, since 2008, there was already a national policy for special education in the perspective of inclusive education, established in decree no. 186/2008 (^{Brasil, 2008}), it was since 2013, with the introduction of a new evaluation instrument, that the demands from INEP were more effective. Accessibility, which was basically evaluated in terms of physical structure, started to be assessed more widely. This was a measure adopted by MEC faced by the goal to fully establish participation and inclusion in Brazil (^{Brasil, 2008}, ²⁰⁰⁹)

I1 (2018) points out that law no. 13.409/2016 gave more materiality to inclusion and, added to the obligation of accessibility in the assessment tools of INEP, the IFEs perceived they were obliged to follow these obligations, but were having difficulties to do so.

As described by I2 (2018), MEC specified the number of vacancies for the admission of PWD to the IFEs, which according to him, became an important mechanism to enforce inclusion in Brazil.

However, as expressed by I1 (2018), it is contradictory that the federal government creates the laws but does not give the IFEs the conditions to comply with them. Continuing with this thought, this interviewee inferred that the budgets of IFEs to invest were reduced to insignificant amounts in the last years. He also reported that the previous conditions to follow the law, in different measures, were at most incipient; and that the hiring of new personnel to attend the demands imposed is forbidden, and that in the few breaches in law, the burden of hiring is up to the universities, which already survive with reduced budgets.

According to I1 (2018), on several opportunities, the analyzed institute and, in some situations, also MEC, was legally notified and the demanded by control bodies for not following the legislation. The interviewee also emphasizes that the most emblematic case was that of a student with autism: in order to carry out National High School Exam (Exame Nacional do Ensino Médio - ENEM), the student needed the monitoring of three caretakers; approved in the institute, they could see, on the one hand, that the institutions did not have the minimum conditions to attend the student’s needs, and, on the other, that what was demanded by the student’s family was far beyond reasonable. After over a year, the situation persisted with palliative and unsatisfactory solutions to both parts. For I1 (2018), “inclusion has never taken place in this case and in many others”.

The measures taken by MEC to reach the target of participation and inclusion appear to be effective regarding the legal structure. However, more attention is needed in this scenario, especially the support to the IFEs and the actualization of accessibility in its multiple dimensions: attitudinal, architectural, methodological, programmatic, instrumental, transport, communication, digital, and, consequently, the establishment of inclusion per se. As there is a significant distance between admission and permanence (^{Cabral and Melo, 2017}; ^{Cantorani and Pilatti, 2015}; ^{Martins and Napolitano, 2017}; ^{Omote, 2016}).

FINAL REMARKS

The present study analyzed the process of adequation of an IFES to law no. 13.409/2016. It was found that the Institute analyzed did not present the adequate conditions to meet the demand implied when the law was established. We could perceive that the Institute adopted certain measures to attend the different specific and diverse needs imposed by reality. However, the structure for this service depends on resources from the federal government, which financially maintains the IFEs. However, it has not provided adequate resources to enforce the legislation that the government itself has sanctioned. The burden, in this case, has been almost entirely on the universities.

In order to reach these conclusions, the content analysis of a documental corpus was operationalized, for which three categories were established:

In the category Operationalization of law no. 13.409, of December 28 ^th , 2016, in the analyzed institute, it was evidenced that in the call 2007/2^nd semester, the analyzed IFES offered 587 places for PWDs. In the managers’ perspective, this was positive from the point of view of effecting the entry of students with disabilities in Brazilian universities. However, they highlighted the contradiction of creating a law such as this and not creating the conditions for IFEs to enforce it, putting at doubt/risk inclusion itself.

Regarding the Difficulties to implement the new policies, a lack of structural, didactic, pedagogical and personnel structure was reported on the campi of IFES. In the first call with a specific offering for PWDs, in the second half of 2017, even though there was a small demand (only 10% of the offered vacancies were used), they could perceive the inability to answer satisfactorily the demands of the law, unveiling the lack of structure to attend a particular, unpredictable, and temporal demand.

A great part of the problem is the lack of qualified personnel hired specifically for the necessary service, a scenario related to the non-hiring of this personnel and the lack of flexibility to do so. The flexibility came with decree no. 9.507/2018 and ordinance no. 443/2018. However, it was not possible to develop it as the financial responsibilities for those simplified contracts were up to the IFEs, which would hinder their operation.

As an answer to the new legislation, it was found that the Institute has been looking for ways to adequately meet the demands of law no. 13.409/2016, to guarantee not only the enforcement of the law, but also the permanence of students with disabilities.

What was shown in this study is the sad caricature of Brazilian higher education. Law no. 13.409/2016 is fair and necessary. What should be more widely discussed is the need to create the conditions for its actualization by the federal government. The bill, that is, the financial responsibility was forwarded to the IFEs. And what is shown is that they will find it difficult to bear these costs; risking the suppression of other needs. What should be a guarantee of inclusion, in a perverse way, may be creating a scenario of exclusion, by constructing an environment in which difference is highlighted and difficulty is potentialized. The legal scope is coherent and efficient in considering the target of full participation and inclusion established in Brazil. On the other hand, the governmental budgetary organization does not anticipate the necessary support for the IFEs to reach the expected levels of accessibility and inclusion.

The main limitation of this is study is that it analyzes a single case, making it impossible to generalize the results. It is also important to highlight as a limitation the fact that the Institute studied does not offer courses in the health area, which have a practical relation to the demands produced in the process of inclusion, intensified after law no. 13.409/2016. About this scenario, it is assumed that it is feasible to interpret the existence of health courses directly related to this demand could minimize the difficulties found in the case studied. Therefore, to better understand this object, we need similar studies in other institutions.