Higher Education in Brazil: Challenges and Options
December 17, 2001
Human Development Department
Latin America and the Caribbean Region
The World Bank
Preface
The Government of Brazil is analyzing options for improving and
restructuring higher education over the next two to three decades.
At the request of the Minister for Education, Mr. Paulo Renato,
the Bank undertook an assessment of the state of higher education
and made recommendations on how its purpose, structure, scope, funding
and governance could evolve to better meet the needs of the country.
The assessment consisted of four phases.
In phase one, analytical work between Minister Paulo Renato, members
of the National Education Council, rectors, federal higher education
officials, and World Bank staff led to the identification of the
major issues facing Brazilian higher education. The following issues
were identified: i) increasing coverage, ii) enhancing managerial
autonomy and providing incentives for efficiency at the institutional
level; iii) the changing role of the Federal Government; iv) improving
quality of instruction, and v) identifying and garnering support
from stakeholders.
In phase two, several expert policy analysts were commissioned
to produce a series of background papers which served as the basis
for discussion at a policy workshop held in December 1998 in Lansdowne,
Virginia. Six of the background papers, in their entirety, comprise
the contents of Part II(1)
of this study.
A three-day Policy Workshop, from December 10-12, 1998 in Lansdowne,
Virginia, was the third phase of the assessment. The workshop brought
together a delegation, led by the Minister of Education, of selected
high-level Brazilian policy makers, a panel of international policy
experts, and Bank staff. The main objective of participants was
to launch a dialogue for fundamental and long-term change, based
on a balanced and realistic assessment of where Brazilian higher
education should be heading.
Phase four was the production of Part I of an earlier version of
this study, "Higher Education in Brazil: Challenges and Options",
which discusses the ways in which Brazil might address the main
issues identified and prepare the higher education sector for the
21st century. The first section of Part I describes the system.
The second section provides an economic perspective by examining
the issues of external efficiency, internal efficiency, and equity
with reference to possible developments in student aid and other
measures to promote wider access to higher education. The third
and final section contains policy recommendations. It should be
noted that these are recommendations and not confirmed government
policies.
Acknowledgments
The Task Team consisted of Lauritz Holm-Nielsen, Task Team Leader;
Michael Crawford, Co-Task Team Leader; Birgit Zischke, Consultant;
and Samia Benbouzid, Team Assistant. The World Bank would like to
acknowledge the contributions made to this sector report by the
participants who attended the December 10-12, 1998 policy workshop
in Lansdowne, Virginia. As a result of the lively interchange of
ideas, this report and the subsequent dialogue on reform of the
sector were invaluably strengthened. Special thanks are due to the
President of the World Bank Mr. James D. Wolfensohn for his participation
- via video-link - and to the on site participants:
Brazilian Delegation - Paulo Renato de Souza, Minister of Education;
Vilmar Faria, Special Advisor for Social Affairs, Office of the
President of the Republic of Brazil; Abílio Baeta Neves,
Secretary of Higher Education; Maria Helena Guimarães de
Castro, President, National Institute of Educational Policy; Heloisa
Vilhena de Araújo, Chief International Advisor, Ministry
of Education; Luiz Curi, Director of the Department of Higher Education
Policy; Gilda Gouvea, Special Advisor, Ministry of Education; Éfrem
Maranhão, President of the National Council on Education;
José Ivonildo do Rego, President of the National Association
of Directors of Federal Universities; Roberto Lobo, Rector of the
University of Mogi das Cruzes; Francisco Sá Barreto, Rector
of the Federal University of Minas Gerais; and Roberto Bezerra,
Rector of the Federal University of Ceará;
Consultants to the World Bank - Eunice Durham, University of São
Paulo; Elaine El-Khawas, University of California, Los Angeles;
Arthur Hauptman, Council of Aid to Education; Bruce Johnstone, State
University of New York at Buffalo; David Plank, Michigan State University;
Simon Schwartzman, Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics;
Claude Thelot, Court of Accounts, France; Quentin Thompson, Price
Waterhouse Coopers; Alan Wagner, Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD);
World Bank Staff - Donald Winkler, Lead Specialist for Human Development,
LCSHD; Patricio Millan, Country Sector Leader, LCC5F; William Experton,
Education Economist, LCSHD; Robin Horn, Education Economist, LCSHD;
Chris Parel, Country Officer, LCC5A; William Saint, AFTH3; Jamil
Salmi, Lead Specialist for Education, LCSHD; Madalena dos Santos,
General Educator,LCSHD;
Observers - Carlos Marquis, Director, Fund for Quality Improvement
in Education (FOMEC), Argentina; Maureen McLaughlin, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy, US Dept. of Education; Laurence Wolff, Consultant,
Inter-American Development Bank;
Assistants to the Task Team - Jonathan Tin; Adriana M.G.M. Weisman;
Marie Groennegaard Christensen.
Peer Reviewers - José Joaquim Brunner, Commission for Quality
in Higher Education, Chile; Claudio de Moura Castro, Inter-American
Development Bank; Peter Moock, The World Bank, EASHD; David Plank,
Graduate School of Education, Michigan State University; William
Saint, The World Bank, AFTH3.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABMES Associação Brasileira de Mantenedoras do Ensino
Superior
ABRUC Associação Brasileira das Universidades Comunitárias
ANDIFES Associação Nacional de Instituições
Federais de Ensino Superior
ANUPES Associação das Universidades Particulares
CAPES Coordenadoria de Aperfeiçomento de Pessoal de Ensino
Superior
CAUT Committee for the Advancement of Undergraduate Teaching
CEF Caixa Econômica Federal
CES Censo de Ensino Superior
CFE Federal Council of Education
CIHE Council for Industry and Higher Education
CNE Conselho Nacional de Educação/National Education
Council
CPGE Cours Préparatoires aux Grandes Ecoles
CQAEHE Centre for Quality Assurance and Evaluation of Higher Education
CRUB Conselho de Reitores das Universidades Brasileiras
ENC/Provão Exame Nacional dos Cursos/ National Exam of Courses
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GRE Graduate Record Examination
GSP Graduate Standards Project
HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England
HEI Higher Education Institutions
IALS International Adult Literacy Survey
IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística
INEP Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais
IUT Instituts Universitaires de Technologies
LDB Lei de Diretrizes e Bases de Educação/The National
Law of Education
MEC Ministério da Educação e do Esporto
MS Minimum Wage Salaries (Monthly)
OAB Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil
OECD Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
PAIUB Program of Institutional Evaluation of Brazilian Universities
PCE Programas de Crédito Educativo
PME Pesquisa Mensal de Emprego/Monthly Labor Market Data
PNAD Pesquisa Nacional de Amostra de Domicílios
PROEDE Programa de Estudos e Documentação Educação
e Sociedade
PUC Pontífica Universidade Católica
QAA Quality Assurance Agency
RJU Regime Jurídico Único
SBPC Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência
SESU Secretaria de Ensino Superior/National Council for Education
SREB Southern Regional Education Board
STS Sections de Techniciens Supérieurs
UNB National University of Brazil
UNESCO UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
Currency Equivalents
Currency Unit = Real, R$ 1.78 = US$ 1.00 (Exchange Rate Effective:
June 30, 1999)
Fiscal
Year Academic
Year (AY) Weights
and Measures
January 1 - December 31 March
- December Metric
system
Executive Summary
Brazil has put significant resources into developing its higher
education system over the past three decades. As a result, a system
has evolved in which some institutions have achieved recognizable
excellence in teaching and research, while, more generally, the
majority of institutions have struggled to provide relevant, quality
education at reasonable cost. Looked at in isolation, certain parts
of the system are sound and productive. Taken as a whole, the system
still has a number of large challenges to overcome.
About 15% of the age cohort is enrolled in higher education. This
is quite low compared to other countries in the region (Argentina
36%; Chile 32%; Uruguay 30%; Venezuela, R.B. 29% [World Development
Indicators 2001]) and to the OECD country average of 52% (OECD,
2001). Simply doubling the number of spaces offered, however, will
not double the rate of coverage, because a demographic bulge of
young Brazilians is reaching university age. Over the past 15 years,
growth in private provision of higher education was roughly equal
to the moderate growth of the university-age cohort, but now large
absolute increases in enrollments would be needed simply to maintain
the current rate of coverage. In addition, graduation rates from
secondary schools are rising sharply and more older, working Brazilians
are seeking tertiary degrees. In short, a larger percentage of a
growing number of Brazilians are demanding higher education, and
the system cannot keep pace with this demand under existing conditions.
Cost per student in public institutions, roughly R$14,000 per year
in the federal system(2),
is on par with OECD country averages while quality is not. Rigidities
in funding and regulation create strong disincentives for cost-efficiency
or quality. Public universities have been funded on the basis of
input. Federal policy toward higher education, until recently, did
not attempt to control costs or correlate funding to productivity.
Other legislation and regulations, outside the control or influence
of MEC, created built-in cost increases that did not improve the
access, quality, or relevance of the education. University rectors
have traditionally concerned themselves more with obtaining resources
from the federal government than with managing the resources effectively
within their institutions.
With a few notable exceptions, the quality of instruction and the
relevance of the curriculum are below desirable standards. Historically,
the Brazilian system - like those of continental Europe - is oriented
to provide professional training rather than general or interdisciplinary
education. Holders of a first university degree (graduação)
are licensed to practice their profession by virtue of their diplomas.
Such systems have been successful, productive, and of high quality
under a variety of conditions. However, in Brazil, thanks largely
to restrictive labor market regulation, the influence of professional
associations in setting the curricula and the numbers of courses/places
have served to limit the supply of professional labor, rather than
to satisfy the demands of the labor market. Furthermore, in the
Brazilian public system, a lack of coherence in research, teaching,
and career advancement policies in public institutions has often
led to a concentration of professors doing specialized research
at the expense of undergraduate teaching. By contrast, many private
institutions are driven by profit, and therefore do not undertake
any research or pay salaries necessary to attract and retain high-quality
professors.
The public system, which includes many, but not all of the country's
finest institutions, provides higher quality education than the
private sector, charges no tuition, and limits the number of places.
Competition for admittance is fierce, and wealthy students do best
because they can afford elite private high schools and special preparation
courses for the entrance exams. Estimates on enrollment by income
quintile show that two thirds of students are from the highest income
quintile, while only about 5% are from the two lowest. It is a generally
recognized problem that students from lower and lower middle class
backgrounds have greater difficulty gaining entrance to the free,
public system. If these individuals study at all, they are more
likely to be in the private system, where they must pay tuition.
Some financial assistance is available from the government and the
institutions themselves, but it does not sufficiently address the
needs of the students in the system, and much less the potential
students who are excluded due to inability to pay.
In 1996, seventy-eight percent of higher education institutions
(which represented 74% of total enrollment) were in the South and
Southeast regions of the country. The highest quality institutions
are also mainly concentrated in these regions. In cities like São
Paulo, there are currently more offered places than enrolled students.
In most of the rest of the country, the situation is the opposite.
The Government of Brazil has a three-pronged strategy for improving
higher education: (i) to change the legal framework for the sector;
(ii) to change to a performance-based funding system that supports
MEC's policy goals of improved access, quality, and efficiency;
and (iii) to improve capacity for evaluating quality of instruction
and performance of institutions. To date, substantial progress has
been made in points (i) and (iii), and planning for (ii) is underway.
(i) The Legal Framework. Prior to 1994, higher education institutions
were not allowed to define curricula or personnel policies. They
could not hire or fire academic, technical, or administrative staff,
set salaries, open new courses of study, decide the number of places
they would offer, or transfer budget resources among expenditure
categories. The Government's National Education Law (Law 9.394/1996)
created a new category of institutions, the "university centers",
which enjoy most of the same legal privileges as universities, have
greater autonomy over curricula and enrollments, and have a mandate
to concentrate on undergraduate teaching instead of research. The
law also allows universities to define their own personnel policies,
to hire and fire staff directly, and to manage budgets according
to the needs of the institution, rather than centralized bureaucratic
mandates. The law also creates the framework for a national evaluation
system, through which the federal government can monitor and guarantee
the quality of higher education. Other legislative changes have
allowed for the creation of new, shorter courses which are similar
in some respects to the community college degree programs of the
US, and two-year professional Master's degrees for areas of high
demand, like business administration and economics. The new legislation
also permits much greater autonomy for institutions to determine
the type and amounts of education they offer. The previous, restrictive
"minimum curriculum" for each course or career is no longer
legally mandated. Institutions are now only required to follow broad
curriculum guidelines(3).
Implementation of the changes that these laws make possible has
been slowed because of existing contravening legislation, and by
resistance to autonomy and inertia within universities themselves.
Presently, all university employees are civil servants, contracted
under the Unified Legal Regime (Regime Juridico Unico: RJU). The
RJU employees are virtually impossible to fire - regardless of job
performance - and their salaries are collectively negotiated. However,
reform of the Brazilian public service will greatly narrow the jobs
that can be defined as RJU, so that only positions like ambassadorships,
or similar career public service positions, will qualify. New employees
of public higher education institutions will no longer qualify for
RJU status. Rather, they will be contracted by the institutions
themselves under terms that the institutions determine. It should
be noted that the two employment regimes will co-exist for a period,
until all RJU employees leave through attrition or retirement, or
voluntarily transfer to the new system.
(ii) Changes to the Funding System for Higher Education. The Government,
in granting institutions greater autonomy, requires that institutions
be accountable to their stakeholders. To ensure autonomy with accountability
the Government of Brazil is making two fundamental changes to the
way it funds higher education. For the federal institutions, it
would provide block grants, on the basis of performance contracts.
The allocation for each institution would be derived using a simple,
transparent formula. The formula would reward the "behavioral
changes" and improved productivity that would lead to MEC's
policy goals of greater access, quality, and efficiency. For the
private system, it would provide loans targeted to students who
could not otherwise afford to pay tuition. Students will be able
to use their loans only at private institutions, which have demonstrated
that they produce students proficient in their subject areas as
shown by data collected from recent Provão outcomes.
(iii) Improved Evaluation of Performance. An integral part of MEC's
strategy is to transform its role from that of a funder of inputs
to that of a guarantor of a minimal standard of quality for output.
A main instrument for this is its evaluation and accreditation system.
Brazil has a long and successful experience with evaluation and
accreditation of graduate courses by CAPES. In this system, courses
are graded by several criteria, and those that do not meet minimum
quality standards after a probationary period are denied public
funding and lose their accreditation. The CAPES system has been
recently revised to increase the relevance and quality criteria.
MECs undergraduate accreditation system has grown out of the CAPES
experience and will further ensure that with autonomy comes accountability.
Currently, MEC has four mechanisms for the evaluation of undergraduate
education, which together provide increased information to potential
students about the quality of the education offered:
- Re-accreditation. Under the national education law, courses are
now required to undergo periodic re-accreditation (every three years).
SESU provides input to the National Council for Education Committee
for Higher Education, which recommends renewal, suspension or accreditation
for each course. MEC may impose conditional re-accreditation where
warranted.
- The Provão. The National Exam of Courses or Provão
tests the achievement of all graduating students in the 13 most
widely followed career courses (administration, law, engineering,
medicine, etc.). Students are only required to take the exam, they
are not judged on their individual performance. The average score
of student's from each institution, however, is published as a proxy
indicator of the quality of instruction in that course. The Provão
has been given annually since 1996, and each year it has added new
courses. It has already had an impact in two ways. First, it has
help to create a culture of performance evaluation within universities.
Student and faculty initially resisted this type of measurement,
but that resistance has decreased with time. Second, it has changed
public perceptions about the quality of institutions. Some well-funded
public universities have seen their prestige diminish because of
low scores. Private universities that score well are seeing their
applications increase, while low scoring schools are finding it
more difficult to attract students.
- Institutional Evaluation. In 1997, MEC/SESU began its Program
of Institutional Evaluation of Brazilian Universities (PAIUB). Under
the program, committees of peers are selected by SESU to make site
visits to higher education institutions to evaluate the qualifications
of the staff, the organization of instruction and the curricula,
and the adequacy of the support infrastructure (libraries, laboratories,
etc.) for the courses offered. Courses are given a "grade"
for each category, and the results are published. In its first year
of operation, 810 courses were evaluated.
- The Higher Education Census. The National Institute for Education
Research (INEP) has been conducting a nation-wide survey of higher
education institutions for the past several decades. The survey
collects data on several aspects of the higher education system.
As part of its strategy, MEC has been building political support
for this reform among key stakeholders. It continues to hold frequent
consultations with legislators, university administration officials,
representatives of faculty and students, and other agencies and
levels of government with responsibilities related to higher education.
The World Bank has been an active partner in this strategy since
June 1998. Innovative ESW for the sector was undertaken during the
first half of FY99. The culmination of these activities was a policy
workshop (December 10-12, 1998 in Lansdowne, Va.,) at which Minister
Paulo Renato and a delegation of Brazilian higher education policy
makers worked for three days with a team of top international experts
and Bank staff to define a vision for Brazilian higher education
into the 21st century. The event was in response to a request made
in the second quarter of 1998 for technical assistance. In the months
prior to the workshop, background assessments were conducted by
the Bank team and a series of policy papers were commissioned from
relevant experts. This work brought into focus the main issues that
Brazil must address to achieve the progress it seeks in the sector.
These issues formed the basis for discussion and became the core
of the consensus on directions for policy that Minister Renato articulated
at the conclusion of the workshop.
Clearly, many important changes are underway within the system.
The challenge is to focus attention on those that will promote the
greatest progress in equitable access, quality, relevance, and efficiency.
With this in mind, it is recommended that MEC take the following
steps. First, with respect to access: (a) the trend towards diversification
through new instruments, such as sequential courses, and new institutional
definitions (such as university centers) should continue; (b) the
amount of targeted financial assistance for poor students should
be increased; and (c) five and ten year enrollment increase targets
should be identified, and progress toward improved coverage should
be monitored closely. Additionally, the Government of Brazil has
several policy options for increasing access to tertiary education
that it may consider in the future. These include: i) increasing
government and private funding of public institutions; in light
of the current economic situation in Brazil, and the government's
relatively high spending for higher education, it is unlikely that
a large infusion of public funds for higher education is forthcoming.
However, the addition of private resources could lead to an increased
supply of places to the extent that the additional resources are
used to educate and train students rather than to pay for administrative
costs or research; ii) reducing costs per student at public institutions
could be achieved in any number of ways and is best dealt with at
the institutional level; and iii) charging tuition at public universities.
This option is being used increasingly around the world as a means
to maintain or increase institutional budgets. When combined with
well thought out student aid schemes, this could have a positive
impact on equity access. Further discussion of possible strategies
to expand access in Brazilian tertiary education can be found in
Part II, Annex Six.
With respect to quality, it will be important to ensure that the
Provão, which has achieved major success in a short time,
remains a flexible tool. The Provão should change with the
changing needs of curriculum development, and ways of measuring
the new competencies that are being included in the new curricula
should be constructed. Also, institutions should more actively promote
internal quality assurance mechanisms, in recognition that ultimately,
responsibility for quality lies within, and cannot be mandated from
outside. Relevance will improve with the new, more flexible course
guidelines that have been developed, but should be further enhanced
by new administrative mechanisms (e.g., transfer of credits, broader
recognition of work outside the defined discipline). A dialogue
on institutional relevance should be underway, in which the role
of regional and local connections is considered, as is the institutional
vocation regarding questions such as teaching versus research.
Last, efficiency should be augmented, mostly through autonomy of
administrative decision-making under proper incentives. Reform of
the existing civil service legislation is, without a doubt, a key
aspect of this issue. But other critical components will include
providing more fungible funding (by means of block grants), providing
a greater flexibility for institution to generate resources, and
strengthening longer-term strategic management within the institutions.
1
Portuguese versions are available through the World Bank regional
office in Brasilia. The papers may also be accessed, both in English
and Portuguese, on the Worldwide Web at www.worldbank.org.
2
Brazilian higher education is largely a non-tradable service, the
cost of which is not significantly affected by the price of higher
education in other countries. Therefore, stating the costs in terms
of other, more stable currencies can be misleading because of fluctuations
in Brazil's exchange rate. When the Real was "overvalued",
the costs appeared exorbitant. After the recent devaluation, a comparison
in dollar terms would falsely show a 40% cost decrease from 1998
to 1999. Costs are best measured by comparison to domestic prices
(such as percentage of average starting salary of a graduate, or
the cost of a car, a home, or some other basket of goods). Such
a comparison shows that the cost of public higher education is at
least as great as in OECD countries.
3
The new guidelines have been developed through a consultative process
with the academic community. They place a much greater emphasis
on defining the knowledge and competencies that a graduate should
possess, and much less on prescribing a mandatory, detailed curriculum
for each discipline.
|