AXIS 1: NORMATIVE PROCEDURES

Axis 1 is represented by the lowest corpus percentage examined by the LACSTS software, comprising 8% of the total speech. C1 analysis is centered on the legal procedure used in formulating, creating, and regulating the program. The six most representative words in C1 were Project (phi = 72), Article (phi = 66), Vigor (phi = 54), Law (phi = 49), Ordinance (phi = 35), and Normative (phi = 34). This set of words highlights the summary rite of the two Houses and is directly related to the constitutionality and pertinence or not of PL and PDL. The LACSTS software highlighted that the most representative part of this Class comprises the following:

Under the terms of this Law, the Student Financing Fund (FIES), of an accounting nature, is established, aimed at granting financing to students regularly enrolled in non-free higher education courses with a positive evaluation in Ministry of Education processes in accordance with specific regulations. (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2011b}, p. 2)

C1 compiled the speeches of parliamentarians regarding project debates. The justifications were presented in the political, social, and educational contexts in which FIES is inserted to emphasize the importance of the matter. The focus was to resolve doubts and objections regarding the proposed matter. The content of the projects under discussion is related, among others, to the settlement of beneficiary debts, the insertion of criteria for vacancy allocation and student selection by private HEI, the movement of resources from the Severance Pay Fund (Fundo de Garantia do Tempo de Serviço - FGTS) for the purpose of paying the outstanding balance regarding the financing, selection processes and financing contracting.

AXIS 2: CONTEXT OF INFLUENCE: MOMENT OF NEGOTIATION BETWEEN PARLIAMENTARIANS

Axis 2 covers only C2, comprising 22% of the examined corpus. This axis marks the negotiation process between parties, with emphasis on PL and MP approvals. According to ^{Gramsci (2014}, p. 24): “The political party is nothing more than its own way of elaborating its category of organic intellectuals”. This results in the importance of the aforementioned axis, which displays a strong relationship with Axis 1, since it also comprises the voting process. This second axis, however, differs from the first, since it highlights the clashes between parties and the government support and opposition groups in view of the relevance of the supplementary credit release matters for FIES and the final regulation deadline for their approval or not.

The six most representative words in C2, namely, Voting (phi = 61), Provisional (phi = 41), Sir (phi = 35), President (phi = 35), Measure (phi = 34), and Matter (phi) = 31), highlight the moment when deputies and senators call attention to the timely voting of matters in process. These comprise negotiations for agreements between parties to be established.

Educational policies represent dispute scenarios. Based on this, tension and clashes between parties are observed, as indicated in the following highlight:

Mrs. and Messrs. Parliamentarians, we insisted yesterday on the possibility of an agreement so that the so-called concentrated effort, aimed at voting on PEC nº 300/08, could have positive effects, and we even negotiated with the Opposition, which agreed to end the discussion of Provisional Measure No. 487 of 2010 yesterday and vote today without obstruction, provided that PEC No. 300/08 were to be voted yesterday. (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2010}, p. 36095)

At the end of the debates, parliamentarians must position themselves concerning the approval, amendment, partial veto or archiving of matters. According to ^{Yang (2015}, p. 330): “Because of the agreements and [of] other activities involved in the development of a policy, the final text of a policy is often significantly different from the initial draft”.

Axis 2 highlights the MP voting process. The speech above highlighted MP No. 487 of 2010, which aimed to amend Law No. 10.260/2001 and provided for substantial FIES changes. This MP became ineffective in October 2010, as it was not voted on in a timely manner. The other highlighted MP were destined to release funds for FIES and were approved, as indicated by this speech:

Today, we must approve supplementary credit at the National Congress session, which allocates resources not only to FIES, but also to Enem. I ask all deputies and senators to be present at this session so that we can approve this supplementary credit, which will honor more than 1 million and 800 thousand contracts. (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2016}, p. 18)

As in Axis 1, the pressure groups worked behind the scenes, and no guest participation in these debates was observed. Over the seven analyzed years (2010-2016), it appears that MEC was not programmed regarding FIES’s budget issue. The resources provided for in the Annual Budget Law (Lei Orçamentária Anual - LOA) fell far short of the executed amounts. Several MP required editing to this end in order to approve supplementary credits to honor the thousands of current valid contracts. On this issue, it should be noted that:

The alleged FIES crisis (from 2015 onwards, strongly reported in the media) brought about new demands from educational groups, including strong action with the Legislative Branch for the approval of supplementary FIES budget credits. (^{Santos Filho, 2016}, p. 216).

During the FIES trajectory, the speeches call attention to the fact that the program has become a highly marketable policy, and that the two Houses are responsible for a large part of this process. Studies assessing public programs are scarce:

Both ex-ante, to define the need to create a new policy, and ex-post, to verify whether such a policy is generating the desired results and to compare its costs and benefits. Actions seem to stem from political pressures and superficial impressions [on the relevance or otherwise of one program to the detriment of another]. (^{Mendes, 2015}, p. 8)

^{Mendes (2015}) cites FIES as an example of this system. Between 2010 and 2014, in only five years, spending increased from R$ 1.2 billion to R$ 13.8 billion. Some of the partner HEI have become real business powers, with stock exchange shares on the rise and high profit margins, stemming from the program’s resources.

AXIS 3: GOVERNANCE ARENA: RELATIONS OF STRENGTH, POWER, LOBBIES, AND CONTRADICTIONS

Axis 3 comprises the largest corpus percentage examined by the LACSTS software, consisting in 70% of the entire analysis, represented by five classes: C3 (24%), C4 (18%), C5 (11%), C6 (9%), and C7 (8%). This axis portrays ^{Gramsci’s (1986}, ²⁰¹⁴) discussion concerning the expanded State, which involves articulations, relations of strength and power, education entrepreneur lobbies, and contradictions in the great FIES governance arena.

C3 consists of the greatest axis discourse representation and indicates that, in 2015, FIES was the subject of debates propagated by the media, by the State (with regard to education), and by society in general. That year was represented by the correlation of mainly commercial forces between political and civil society. As a result of this arm wrestling, students were the ones who missed out the most. Consequently, private higher education financing remains under the prevailing market perspective.

The analysis of C3, whose six most representative words are: Year 2015 (phi = 30), Electoral (phi = 27), Educator (phi = 18), Cuts (phi = 18), Billions (phi = 16), and Government (phi = 15), revealed the presence of several networks of actors with antagonistic perspectives and interests with regard to the FIES program. The LACSTS software marked the most representative part of this Class as follows:

Said the president: Do you want a confession? I’ll tell you where: FIES. We made a mistake. The government made a mistake concerning FIES. Course control was transferred to the private sector. We don’t do that with Prouni, we don’t do that with Enem, we don’t do that with anyone. This is not the private sector’s fault. We did that. Instead of controlling enrollment, the private sector controlled it. That’s what the president said. This is FIES’ synthesis: a billionaire program, carried out without proper planning and without teaching quality guarantees. Universities saw their stocks soar in the Stock Exchange. (^{Senado Federal, 2015a}, p. 193)

Senator Álvaro Dias’ speech points out that the government itself recognized its mistake in conducting the FIES program by leaving control of the program in the hands of the private sector. A lack of planning and quality assurance in teaching was observed. For ^{Burgarelli (2017}, p. 51): “In a rare gesture, in March 2015 the representative acknowledged that she had been wrong with regard to the FIES program, especially concerning the lack of control by the federal government over student enrollments”. The transfer of billionaire resources caused the actions of educational groups listed on the Stock Exchange to skyrocket.

Since the repercussion of the lack of FIES control, a number of changes have been made in order to limit the amount of spent resources, although the private sector has begun pressuring the government with the argument that FIES is an inexpensive program, as the following speech highlights: “This is FIES - I will not go on: this is to show that, if nothing is done, FIES, of all education resources, will represent 5% of the entire education budget in 2016, which is not a huge thing” (^{Senado Federal, 2015c}, p. 665). This speech makes it clear that the watchword is “money”. There is no concern regarding the program’s sustainability (excessive spending) or the precarious quality of the offered education, as herein:

And I would very much like to see a high-level discussion with the government, explaining why education is no longer a priority and why they are cutting not into FIES’ budget, but into dream of thousands of Brazilians who want access to Higher Education. (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2015a}, p. 309)

The discussions around a policy as important as FIES should not be limited to profit opportunities, as observed in the Class speech above. Budgetary and planning issues are essential, as are the dreams and expectations of young people to have access to and complete Higher Education courses, the criteria established for the financing provision, and the issue of household indebtedness and default.

Similarly to C3, C4 focuses on the 2015 scenario. However, it highlights the implications of the financial crisis and the new criteria established for new contracts in the year under discussion. The most important words in C4 comprised Students (phi = 34), Tuition (phi = 23), Registration (phi = 22), New (phi = 22), Renewal (phi = 22), and Year 2015 (phi = 22).

This new reduced contract supply context directly affected students and negatively surprised HEI, who hoped to formalize more contracts than in the previous year (2014). At the end of 2015, a total of 287 thousand contracts were formalized, totaling 39% of the 732 thousand contracts registered in 2014. MEC admitted that the amount assigned to the program was exhausted, as highlighted in the following speech:

The Ministry of Education admits that the budget for new contracts is exhausted. Students who were hoping to obtain funding will now have to drop out of their courses, as they cannot afford it. There are young people who have not paid the first three tuition fees of the year and who have already totaled a university debt of around R$ 9,000. (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2015c}, p. 150)

Many freshman students had to drop out of their courses due to lack of financing or had to hire private loans at high interest rates. Congressperson Atineu Cortês cited the case of a student who was unable to hire FIES and hired the Pravaler educational credit program:

After recurring attempts since February, the 20-year-old student enrolled in the first semester of a Pedagogy course, Carolina Canedo, gave up the benefit and decided to resort to private financing. She pays about R$ 230, half the monthly fee. The rest will be paid after her graduation, in up to 4 years, with inflation correction. Pravaler’s interest, the largest private university credit program in the country, can reach up to 2.19% per month. (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2015c}, p. 143)

With the FIES crisis of 2015, many HEI and financial institutions saw an opportunity for profit and created several private student credit programs. They have also strongly invested in marketing to attract students. Students who were able to renew FIES contracts had one more obstacle: “To make the problem worse, the private institutions that offered the program began, in many cases, to charge joining students higher values and apply tuition increases above normal” (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2015e}, p. 3). Regarding the increase in FIES monthly fees: “Privileged treatment for private-mercantile Higher Education institutions is noted, which were able to freely set tuition fees, without any link to inflation rates for the calculation of the amounts to be paid by financed students” (^{Santos Filho, 2016}, p. 174).

In the beginning of 2015, the MEC limited tuition fee increased to 6.4%, and HEI charging above that percentage were prevented from implementing new contracts. The HEI went to court and won the case, as, according to Law No. 9.870/1999 (^{Brasil, 1999}), the institutions are responsible for applying adjustments, which must be based on the budgetary planning to be carried out during the school year. When the links of the FIES governance network began to weaken or present an “unstable balance” (^{Fairclough, 2001}), the private sector built new alliances in order to maintain its hegemony in the sphere of Higher Education.

Concerning Class 5, the highlighted speeches aimed at Higher Education and Technical and Vocational Education programs implements in Presidents Lula and Dilma governments. The most representative words on this Class, namely Prouni (phi = 42), University (phi = 25), Science without Borders (phi = 24), Access (phi = 22), Quota (phi = 21), and Lula (phi = 20), indicate the social character of the implemented policies, totaling 69 highlighted speeches. Of these, 48 (70%) were by congresspersons and senators belonging to the Workers’ Party (Partido do Trabalhadores - PT). Parliamentarians highlighted the FIES changes in President Lula’s last government (2010 - President Dilma’s election year):

Enem’s universalization is a reality and a sign of federal program democratization access, in the form of the Unified Selection System (Sistema de Seleção Unificada, Sisu), the University for All Program (Programa Universidade para Todos, Prouni), Student Financing (Financiamento Estudantil, FIES), the National Program for Access to Technical Education and Employment (Programa Nacional de Acesso ao Ensino Técnico e Emprego, Pronatec) and the Science without Borders (Ciência sem Fronteiras) program. (^{Senado Federal, 2014c}, p. 194)

The speeches point out that the Lula and Dilma governments moved toward democratizing Higher Education access and that children of the poor have come to occupy academic spaces, with a real possibility of vertical growth, emphasizes deputy Márcio Macêdo (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2014a}, p. 116).

As a public policy, FIES has promoted significant social and educational advances. It has, however, at the same time, led to economic and social losses by giving the market the control of most Brazilian HEI, as well as by indebting young people and their families.

The FIES program produces a resigned consent that naturalizes the inequality of Higher Education access. After all, “the constitutional right is not democratized or guaranteed, since its investment occurs in the expansion of private capital, and not in the massive expansion of the public university, as a true education democratization requires” (^{Vituri, 2014}, p. 146). For the PT government, what matters are the numbers:

An article in the Valor Econômico magazine indicates that 1.6 million poor young people are attending universities through the Prouni and FIES programs, 30% of the total university students in the country! This is a concrete change in the lives of the people. That is why President Lula smiles, why President Dilma smiles. (^{Senado Federal, 2014a}, p. 210)

The way in which the FIES policy was constructed demonstrates that the State is located in a governance network. It is not, therefore, appropriate to consider it as a secondary actor. The State is the central actor, who strategically positions itself in the network of social relations. The State is an apparatus that, depending on its objectives, establishes very close or distant fundamental limits in public-private relations, and the applied decisions define the access conditions to both resources and public sectors. In this arena, some actors are privileged, while others have their rights denied or only partially met.

C6 portrays FIES’ challenges from different perspectives regarding public and private education, according to the most significant speeches and words, as follows; PNE (phi = 40), Quality (phi = 31), Private (phi = 29), Goal (phi = 25), Sector (phi = 21), and Public (phi = 21), compiling 56 speeches. Of these, 12 (21.5%) were said by teacher and student associations representatives, and 12 (21.5%) by congressperson Ivan Valente, from the Socialism and Freedom Party (Partido Socialismo e Liberdade - PSOL).

Associations representing workers in education and students argue that the State should pursue the public interest, in other words, prioritize public education. On the other hand, the commercial society preaches that the State should promote and finance private education. It is no wonder that 88.2% of Brazilian HEI are private and account for 75.4% of students enrolled in Higher Education courses (^{Brasil, 2019}). According to Virgínia Barros, UNE president:

The fundamental thing, from our point of view, is to invert this logic, so that we are able to follow a perspective that most enrollments, in the next 10 years, will be in the public network, as it is the network that, in fact, pursues the teaching, research and extension tripod determined by our own Federal Constitution. (^{Senado Federal, 2013}, p. 1271)

To arrive at the scenario proposed in this speech, it is necessary that the current policies alter their objectives and prioritize public education. C6 highlights how beneficial the FIES program has been to the “financialization of education”, which is represented by mergers and acquisitions between private HEI. Educational networks “have become real diploma factories, without teaching, research and extension activities” (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2013}, p. 36895).

FIES is a financing policy for the democratization of Higher Education access that ends up being guided by public indebtedness. This form of financing

reinforces the Higher Education financialization character, as the public fund is used as a precondition for the expansion of financial capital, considering that the issued securities are negotiable (National Treasury bonds) and may suffer financial speculation. (^{Santos Filho, 2016}, p. 211)

In addition, these bonds contribute significantly to the financial health of partner institutions, as “they are subject to repurchase by the federal government or can be used to offset private-market educational institutions debts with Social Security”, adds ^{Santos Filho (2016}, p. 211). The following speech corroborates the above:

[This] week, we heard about the purchase of Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas by the Laureate group for R$ 1 billion, a new merger and concentration of private schools. A few months ago, the largest private group in the country, called Kroton was created, which bought Anhanguera and Anhembi Morumbi. These are the real FIES and Prouni recipients: foreign companies, foreign private funds, which aim at profit. Those are the beneficiaries. (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2013}, p. 36895)

In the educational arena, publicly traded groups experienced a sharp expansion from 2010 to 2015. Nara Teixeira, a Contee representative, questions, however, the education quality that private HEI offer. According to her, Kroton had a net profit of around R$ 244 million in 2015, indicating that “The counterpart for us, quality, is not only students access to a university, but what kind of university, what kind of education are these students are receiving” (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2015b}, p. 27).

In 2016, the government made vacancies available according to course scores, where, for example, 35% of funding went to courses scoring 5, while only 10% was allocated to newly authorized courses.

The last Class belonging to Axis 3, C7, whose most significant words were Professionals (phi = 47), States (phi = 23), Municipalities (phi = 22), Health (phi = 22), Area (phi = 22), and Market (phi = 18), compiled speeches associated to the defense of the expansion of the FIES debt relief benefit for professionals trained in Public Security, Nursing, and Nutrition, among others.

In 2010, Law No. 12.202, in Article 6B, established that FIES would deduct 1% on a monthly basis of the outstanding balance of students exercising the following professions: public basic education network teachers, with a minimum of 20 work hours a week, and family health team physicians working in areas and regions defined as priorities by the Ministry of Health (^{Brasil, 2010}).

Parliamentarians wished to extend this benefit from the conclusion of an agreement between the Union, States, and Municipalities, in the sense that students (when attending their courses or after their completion) could provide services in their Undergraduate course areas. With this, FIES could be paid with work, making the course compatible with the activity that students would perform during their Graduation, as highlighted in the following speech: “These FIES students could very well, through an agreement signed between the Union and States, provide services not only in public schools across the country, but in hospitals and consumer protection agencies” (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2011a}, p. 9572).

For congressperson Izalci, this measure could help state governments, municipalities and mayors in obtaining better quality standards in public offices. Applying the same line of thought, congressperson Wadson Ribeiro (PCdoB-MG) created Bill No. 2.659/2015 (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2015d}) with the purpose of expanding the reduction of the debit balance through the provision of Unified Health System services for higher education course graduates in the Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, Nutrition, Speech Therapy, Physiotherapy, Psychology, and Occupational Therapy health areas. For this congressperson, the project will foster the democratization of Brazilian Higher Education, as well as contribute to the fulfillment of PNE Goal 12 and increase enrollment rates at this level of education (^{Câmara dos Deputados, 2015d}).

In general, the speeches presented herein demonstrate that the lack of a rigorous FIES evaluation measuring the potential gains and costs of educational policies, “may represent an increase in costs with no social return if federal programs aimed at education are inefficient. In this case, society would be paying more taxes to pay for services that do not give them the expected return” (^{Mendes, 2015}, p. 8). In fact, the speeches presented herein comprise personal or corporate defenses fought in clashes between public and private representatives, whose consequences do not seem to effectively favor Brazilian public education.