Políticas públicas e ações institucionais de acessibilidade nas IES: um estudo comparado entre Brasil e Portugal

Abstract

This study is part of the Research Line State, Policies, and Education Management of the Graduate Program in Education at the Federal University of Uberlândia and investigates two Higher Education Institutions: the Federal University of Uberlândia (UFU, Brazil) and the University Institute of Lisbon (Iscte, Portugal). The research has as purpose to understand whether and how accessibility guidelines and principles are implemented within these institutional contexts, considering the challenges, progress, limitations, and gaps in promoting inclusive higher education. It’s a comparative study associated with the Policy Cycle Approach (Ball, 1994; Ball, Maguire & Braun, 2016), grounded in Michael Apple’s Critical Theory (2001; 2003) and articulated with the socio-historical perspective of Comparative Education (Nóvoa, 2009; 2017). The study was conducted in three stages: (1) bibliographical research and document analysis on international political and economic influences on the formulation of inclusion policies in Higher Education in Brazil and Portugal; (2) documentary analysis of the Brazilian Law on the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (Law No. 13.146/2015) and Portugal’s Decree-Law No. 54/2018; (3) examination of the actions of institutional accessibility centers—the UFU Accessibility Center and Iscte’s Support Office for Students with Special Needs (SAS/GNEE). The results indicate that, although both institutions have advanced in formalizing actions aimed at promoting accessibility, significant barriers remain in daily university life, particularly related to fragmented institutional action and the challenges of ensuring full accessibility and student permanence. It was further observed that policies are often unevenly translated into institutional practices, revealing tensions between normative proposals and their effective implementation, as discussed in policy enactment theory (Ball et al., 2016). The findings allow us to conclude that efforts of the Accessibility Center and the Support Office are essential but insufficient when not connected to a broader and sustained institutional commitment to social justice.