Governance and School Management in Higher Education: the Role of the Institutional Attorney

Josiane de Lourdes Pinto; Flávia Baccin Fiorante-Inforsato

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603072

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

Given the growing complexity of regulatory and evaluation processes in Brazilian higher education, the performance of the Institutional Attorney (PI) in Higher Education Institutions (IES) was analyzed, articulating their function with school management, especially in the scope of planning, governance, and institutional quality. The study aimed to analyze the performance of the Institutional Attorney as a strategic agent in the educational management of Higher Education Institutions belonging to the same private educational group, located in the North, Northeast, South, and Southeast regions of Brazil, identifying their attributions, challenges, and contributions to governance and institutional quality. A qualitative, descriptive approach was adopted, with the application of a semi-structured questionnaire to 37 Institutional Attorneys, of whom 17 responded. Data analysis was performed through Content Analysis, with the identification of thematic categories. The results highlighted the PI as an articulating link between regulation, evaluation, and planning, contributing to the integration of institutional processes. However, their performance was conditioned by factors such as accumulation of functions, limited autonomy, and absence of structured continuing education. Based on the findings, a strategic-systemic performance model was proposed, structured in four axes: governance, regulation, planning, and evaluation, which highlighted their role in institutional mediation and integration. It was concluded that strengthening this function depends on its effective insertion into decision-making processes and the adoption of evidence-based school management practices.

Keywords: Institutional evaluation; Strategic planning; Institutional quality; Educational regulation; Decision-making.

1. Introduction

The Brazilian higher education system has undergone intense structural transformations in recent decades. This period was characterized by an expressive expansion of the private sector, the strengthening of state regulation, and the institutionalization of quality assessment policies. This movement was driven, above all, by the creation of the National System for the Assessment of Higher Education (SINAES), established by Law nº 10.861/2004 (Brasil, 2004). SINAES was configured as a central milestone by establishing quality standards articulated to the different dimensions of institutional management (Dias Sobrinho, 2003).

Studies on the topic indicate that the accelerated expansion of private higher education has brought new challenges for the management of institutions, requiring more robust structures for governance, planning, and control (Sguissardi, 2008; Catani; Oliveira, 2002). In this scenario, educational management assumes a complex and multidimensional character, involving the articulation between pedagogical, administrative, and financial dimensions, guided by practices of a democratic and participatory nature (Lück, 2017; Libâneo, 2004). Thus, school management in higher education goes beyond the administrative dimension, configuring itself as a strategic process guided by evidence and by the articulation between institutional evaluation and decision-making. Educational governance emerges as a structuring element of this process, organizing decisions, aligning institutional strategies, and ensuring the effectiveness of educational policies, especially when articulated with the Institutional Development Plan (PDI) and mechanisms for evaluation and control (Atvars et al., 2024; Baena et al., 2025).

It is within this context that the role of the Institutional Attorney (PI) is inserted, formally established by Ordinance No. 46/2005 and regulated by Normative Ordinance MEC No. 23/2010, with responsibilities related to technical mediation between Higher Education Institutions (IES) and the federal regulatory system. Decree No. 9.235/2017 reinforced the centrality of this function, subsequently updated by Decree No. 12.456/2025. On an operational level, the PI acts in the management of academic-institutional information, in the monitoring of accreditation and course recognition processes, and in the interaction with systems such as e-MEC, the Census of Higher Education, and the National Student Performance Exam (ENADE). The indicators resulting from these processes, such as the Preliminary Course Concept (CPC), the Course Concept (CC), and the General Course Index (IGC), directly influence the evaluation of institutional quality and the public image of IES (Lopes, 2025). Recent studies highlight that regulatory compliance and the quality of data reported to the MEC depend, to a large extent, on the technical performance and articulation capacity of the PI within the institutions (Baena et al., 2025).

Despite this relevance, the role of PI is still often understood in a restricted way, associated with compliance with regulatory requirements and operational activities. This reduced view limits the recognition of the strategic potential of this function in institutional governance. When effectively integrated into management processes, PI can act as an articulator between regulation, planning, and evaluation, favoring data-based decision-making and institutional alignment (Amaral; Leite, 2013). However, the absence of a structured training path and systematic capacity-building policies contributes to the development of skills occurring predominantly empirically (Medeiros, 2015). The literature on governance in HEIs indicates that the professionalization of institutional mediation functions is a necessary condition for strengthening organizational quality and the sustainability of evaluation processes (Atvars et al., 2024). Therefore, there is a significant gap in research regarding the understanding of PI as a strategic agent in educational governance, especially at the interface between regulation, evaluation, and school management.

This gap justifies and motivates the realization of this study, which aims to analyze the performance of the Institutional Attorney as a strategic agent in the educational management of Higher Education Institutions belonging to the same private educational group, located in the North, Northeast, South, and Southeast regions of Brazil, identifying their attributions, challenges, and contributions to governance and institutional quality.

2. Material and Methods

The present study adopted a qualitative methodological approach, with characteristics of descriptive and exploratory research. It was configured as a multiple case study, seeking to understand the performance of the Institutional Prosecutor in the context of Higher Education Institutions, as well as the articulation of this function with the processes of academic governance and regulation. The descriptive nature of the research, as outlined by Gil (2019), proved adequate for systematizing and analyzing the characteristics, practices, and perceptions associated with the exercise of the function, without the intention of intervening in the investigated reality.

The choice for the qualitative approach was based on the need to analyze the organizational phenomenon in its practical institutional manifestation. Dynamics, tensions, and meanings attributed by the subjects involved were considered. Complementarily, the approach sought the interpretive understanding of the meanings attributed by the participants to their professional experiences, according to Flick (2009), who highlights the relevance of this approach for grasping perceptions and meanings constructed by individuals.

In this sense, the research aimed to understand the meanings attributed by Institutional Prosecutors to their practices, challenges, and responsibilities, allowing for an interpretive analysis of their performance in academic regulation and management. The study was structured in three main stages, which included a literature review, document analysis, and empirical data collection, followed by data analysis.

The first stage consisted of a comprehensive literature review. A survey and analysis of academic literature pertinent to educational management, governance in Higher Education Institutions, and the role of the Institutional Attorney were carried out. This review provided the theoretical foundation necessary for understanding the phenomenon investigated.

In parallel with the literature review, a documentary analysis was conducted. Legislation, ordinances, and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education (MEC) were examined, with special attention to Law No. 10.861/2004, which established SINAES, and to Normative Ordinance MEC No. 23/2010, which formalizes the function of PI. Technical notes, evaluation reports, and other higher education regulatory instruments were also considered.

The empirical stage comprised data collection through the application of online questionnaires. The participants were Institutional Attorneys acting in private Higher Education Institutions belonging to the same private educational group, located in the North, Northeast, South, and Southeast regions of Brazil. 37 Institutional Attorneys were invited, of whom 17 responded to the instrument, resulting in a response rate of 46%.

The sampling used was by convenience, justified by the accessibility to the participants and the homogeneity of the profile of these professionals, who share similar attributions and institutional contexts. The data collection instrument was sent electronically, which ensured practicality, reach, and time savings during the collection process.

The semi-structured questionnaire was organized into six thematic blocks. These blocks addressed the participants’ training profile, the structure of action and autonomy, evaluative and regulatory processes, institutional articulation, challenges and needs, and the strategic perception of the Institutional Prosecutor’s role.

Ethical considerations were rigorously observed. Data collection was carried out after the work was submitted to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), through Plataforma Brasil, and obtained approval under CAAE number 93153225.5.0000.9927. Participants’ confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed, and data were stored securely, being deleted from the online environment after download to a researcher’s personal electronic device. The Consent agreement (TCLE) was obtained in duplicate, one for the participant and one for the researcher.

The analysis of the data obtained through the questionnaires was carried out using the Content Analysis technique, according to the methodology proposed by Bardin (2016) and its contemporary interpretation presented by Ferreira and Valle (2025). The analytical procedure was divided into three main stages to organize and interpret the collected material.

The first stage consisted of the pre-analysis and floating reading of the corpus, allowing an initial immersion in the data. Next, the material was explored and coded into units of meaning. The third stage involved the treatment of results, inference, and interpretation, culminating in the construction of thematic categories emerging from the patterns identified in the responses.

The closed-ended questions of the questionnaire were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics, while the open-ended questions were subjected to content analysis, with the identification of units of record and selection of representative excerpts. The triangulation between quantitative data, qualitative data, and the theoretical framework contributed to strengthening the analytical and interpretive consistency of the results, allowing for an integrative understanding of the Institutional Prosecutor’s performance.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the Institutional Attorney’s (PI) performance in Higher Education Institutions (IES) revealed a complex scenario, characterized by a multifaceted role that transcends the merely operational aspect, positioning them as a strategic agent in educational management. The results obtained from applying questionnaires to 17 Institutional Attorneys from a private educational group allowed for the identification of their attributions, the challenges faced, and their contributions to institutional governance and quality. The research showed that, although the PI is recognized for their articulation and mediation capabilities, their full performance is often limited by structural and organizational factors, such as the accumulation of functions and restricted autonomy, aspects that will be detailed below.

Formative Profile

The educational profile of the Institutional Attorneys participating in the study demonstrated notable academic diversity, with a predominance of degrees in Law, Letters/Linguistics, Accounting Sciences, and Pedagogy, each representing 12% to 18% of the respondents. Other areas, such as Psychology, Social Sciences, Nutrition, Administration, Psychopedagogy, and Knowledge Dissemination, were also observed, indicating the transversal and multidisciplinary nature required by the role. This variety of backgrounds suggests that the PI’s performance demands a broad set of competencies, ranging from normative reading and interpretation to a systemic vision and the capacity for institutional articulation, as aligned with the literature addressing governance in HEIs as a multidimensional process (Atvars et al., 2024).

Although they recognized the contribution of their academic backgrounds to the performance of their duties, participants indicated that the complexity of the position is not fully encompassed by their initial training. This perception reinforces the need for structured continuing education processes, a crucial point already highlighted by Medeiros (2015). The absence of a specific training path for PI implies that competence development occurs, to a large extent, empirically and contextually, which can generate vulnerabilities for both professionals and institutions. This dynamic of continuous learning within the institutional environment is also pointed out by Dias Sobrinho (2010) when discussing strategic and cross-cutting functions in higher education.

Accumulation of functions and autonomy

A significant finding of the research was the accumulation of multiple functions by Institutional Prosecutors. It was found that 76% of respondents (13 out of 17) held other responsibilities besides the PI position, while only 24% (4 respondents) were exclusively dedicated to the function. Among the most frequently accumulated activities, the Coordination of the Internal Evaluation Committee (CPA), teaching, the Provost’s Office for Research and Extension, Facilities Coordination, Legal Focal Point and Ombudsman’s Office, and Institutional Census Taker stand out. This accumulation, although it may indicate technical recognition, often results in functional overload, limiting the strategic dedication necessary for the PI role.

The fragmentation of workload was explicitly mentioned by one of the participants, who reported dedicating only 20 hours per week to the PI role, highlighting a central challenge in reconciling institutional demands with time availability. This reality, where overlapping roles are common, can be interpreted from the perspective of cost rationalization in private HEIs, as analyzed by Dourado (2011). Such a broader organizational model suggests that the limitations in the PI’s performance do not stem solely from internal factors, but from an institutional structure that, at times, restricts the strategic potential of the function.

Regarding the level of autonomy, the results indicated a predominance of intermediate levels. The majority of respondents, 59%, classified their autonomy as medium, while 35% considered it high. Only 6% (1 respondent) reported low autonomy. This panorama suggests that, although the role of the PI has achieved a certain degree of consolidation in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), there are still structural limitations that prevent its full integration into governance and decision-making processes. Restricted autonomy may compromise the PI’s ability to act proactively in mediating between regulation, planning, and evaluation, an essential role for institutional quality (Amaral; Leite, 2013).

Institutional articulation and evaluation processes

The research revealed that the Institutional Prosecutor plays a central role in evaluative processes, acting in documentary organization, in dialogue with regulatory systems, and in institutional preparation for external evaluations. The PIs’ perception of their internal articulation with management, course coordinations, the Internal Evaluation Committee (CPA), and administrative sectors was largely positive. Almost all respondents, 94%, rated their articulation as satisfactory or excellent, with 47% assigning a score of 5 and another 47% a score of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5. This result indicates that, despite challenges, the PIs perceive good integration in their internal relationships.

However, content analysis of the open-ended responses identified recurring challenges in the evaluation processes, grouped into four main subcategories. The first challenge is institutional alignment and engagement, where one of the PIs highlighted the difficulty in synchronizing all sectors and coordinators. The second refers to the culture of record-keeping, with one respondent pointing out the lack of awareness about the importance of recording pedagogical and administrative routines, despite the intense work carried out by the HEI. This gap in organizational culture can compromise the reliability of data reported to regulatory bodies.

The third challenge, mentioned by 8 of the 17 respondents, is deadline management and information reliability, a critical aspect given the regulatory nature of the function. Accuracy and timeliness in data delivery are fundamental for institutional compliance. Finally, the instability and obsolescence of regulatory systems, such as e-MEC, ENADE, and CENSUP, were cited as central challenges, especially as deadlines approach. These difficulties highlight that the PI’s performance requires not only technical mastery but also leadership, communication, and institutional articulation skills to overcome operational and cultural barriers (Baena et al., 2025).

Strategic recognition and institutional limits

Despite 82% of respondents (14 out of 17) stating that their role is strategically recognized within institutional management, qualitative responses revealed a tension between formal recognition and the effective incorporation of the function into decision-making processes. Two PIs, for example, responded negatively to the question, indicating that declared recognition does not always translate into real leadership. One of the participants illustrated this contradiction by reporting having conducted a course recognition process almost single-handedly, performing about 90% of the work, but the public credits were directed to the course coordination, with no mention of the PI.

Another Institutional Prosecutor deepened this critical perception, stating that, in practice, the PI is seen as a technical-administrative position, whose analyses and considerations on the regulatory daily life are rarely considered in institutional decisions. This situation, according to him, compromises the strategic purpose of the function itself. This perspective dialogues with Sguissardi’s (2008; 2015) distinction between regulatory quality and effective quality, suggesting that the excessive focus on indicators can reduce the PI’s performance to mere compliance practices, distancing it from a more substantive contribution to educational quality, as also pointed out by Chaves (2010) when discussing regulatory compliance mechanisms.

However, a respondent with over 20 years of experience in the role observed a positive evolution in recognition over time, indicating that PIs are today more visible and recognized by managers. This perception suggests a gradual movement towards broader recognition, driven by the increasing complexity of regulation and the need for a figure who can articulate external demands with the internal capabilities of the HEI. The centrality of institutional data, largely managed by the PI, is crucial for educational management decision-making, as Lopes (2025) highlights, reinforcing the strategic potential of the function.

Need for training and improvement of performance

The research also investigated what could improve or facilitate the work of Institutional Prosecutors, and the results pointed to three main areas. The most selected option was “Training and Capacity Building”, with 47% of mentions, followed by “Systems”, with 29%, and “Institutional Recognition”, with 24%. This demand for training and capacity building is consistent with the qualitative responses about the main challenges, which included the constant updating of regulatory norms, intersectoral articulation, the valuation of the function by managers, and the operational problems of the MEC systems.

The high demand for training and capacity building highlights a structural gap in the Brazilian higher education system, where there is no systematic training program for Institutional Prosecutors, as already observed by Medeiros (2015). This perception is reinforced by the difficulty in reconciling the normative complexity of higher education with the agility required by the institutional context. The improvement of systems, in turn, reflects the need for more efficient and less obsolete tools to manage regulatory information, minimizing operational challenges and optimizing the time of the IPs.

Institutional recognition, although less voted than training and systems, remains an important factor for improving the performance of PI, reinforcing the tension between discursive recognition and the effective integration of the function in decision-making processes. The triangulation between empirical data and the theoretical framework confirms that these limitations are not punctual, but structural in nature, indicating the need for institutional interventions to strengthen the PI function, expanding its autonomy, appreciation, and implementing systematic continuing education policies.

The Perception of IP as a strategic agent

The data revealed that all 17 respondents recognize the Institutional Prosecutor as a strategic part of institutional planning. This perception is shared by IPs from different profiles and contexts, who highlight the function’s ability to anticipate regulatory risks, articulate transversal information, and support evidence-based decision-making. This view aligns with Lopes’ (2025) analysis, which emphasizes the centrality of institutional data, largely managed by the IP, for educational management. However, this strategic perception contrasts with the identified structural challenges, indicating that discursive recognition has not yet fully translated into institutional conditions for the full exercise of the function.

Based on this analysis and its articulation with the theoretical framework, a strategic-systemic action model was proposed for the Institutional Prosecutor, structured in four interdependent axes: Governance, Regulation, Planning, and Evaluation. This model starts from the premise that the PI should not be seen merely as a technical-operational agent, but as a central element in institutional articulation, capable of integrating information, anticipating risks, and supporting decision-making. The textual representation of this model highlights that these dimensions do not operate in isolation, but in a systemic and interdependent manner, reinforcing the transversal nature of the PI’s function.

In the Governance axis, the PI’s performance is materialized in the mediation between the various institutional sectors and in active participation in councils and committees, contributing to strategic alignment and the effectiveness of educational policies (Atvars et al., 2024; Baena et al., 2025). In the Regulation field, its primary function is normative monitoring and risk prevention, ensuring institutional compliance with the Ministry of Education’s requirements. Regarding Planning, the PI integrates regulatory data with institutional strategy, providing crucial information for the elaboration and review of the Institutional Development Plan (PDI).

Finally, on the Evaluation axis, the Institutional Prosecutor plays a fundamental role in supporting self-assessment and preparing for MEC visits, inducing a culture of quality and improving internal and external evaluation processes. This proposed model contributes to an expanded understanding of the PI as a strategic agent at the interface between regulation, evaluation, and school management, overcoming the view of a merely operational role. The integration between governance, regulation, planning, and evaluation, mediated by the PI, is essential for the sustainability and quality of higher education, consolidating its position as a strategic articulator.

In summary, the research confirmed that the Institutional Prosecutor is an articulating link between regulation, evaluation, and planning, with significant potential to integrate institutional processes and support evidence-based decision-making. However, the full effectiveness of this function is conditioned by challenges such as the accumulation of functions, limited autonomy, and the absence of structured continuing education. The strengthening of the PI depends on its effective insertion into decision-making processes and the adoption of evidence-based school management practices, according to the proposed strategic-systemic model, which highlights its role in institutional mediation and integration for governance and the quality of higher education.

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed the performance of the Institutional Attorney as a strategic agent in the educational management of private higher education institutions, seeking to identify their responsibilities, challenges, and contributions to governance and institutional quality. It was found that the Institutional Attorney plays a multifaceted role, acting as a connecting link between regulation, evaluation, and planning, with significant potential to integrate institutional processes and support evidence-based decision-making. However, their full effectiveness was conditioned by structural and organizational factors, such as the accumulation of multiple functions, limited autonomy, and the absence of structured continuous training, aspects that directly impact their involvement in decision-making processes. It was observed that, although the role is recognized as strategic by a large portion of respondents, this perception does not always translate into effective leadership in institutional decisions.

The main contribution of this work lies in the proposition of a strategic-systemic performance model for the Institutional Prosecutor, structured in four interdependent axes: Governance, Regulation, Planning, and Evaluation. This model broadens the understanding of the role beyond a merely operational performance, conceiving the PI as a central agent in higher education governance and in the production of institutional intelligence. The research, however, had the limitation of having been conducted in a single private educational group, which restricts the generalization of the findings to other institutional contexts. It is suggested that future studies broaden the scope to different institutional realities and investigate the effects of continuing education programs on the effectiveness of the Institutional Prosecutor’s performance.

Bibliographic References

Amaral, G. S.; Leite, L. S. 2013. Atuação do pesquisador/procurador educacional institucional no ensino superior: um estudo avaliativo. Revista Meta: Avaliação 5(13): 46–68.

Atvars, T. D. Z.; Serafim, M. P.; Silva, А. М. А. С. 2024. Interrelacionamento entre governança, gestão estratégica e planejamento estratégico em instituições de ensino superior: relato de experiência da UNICAMP. Revista Internacional de Educação Superior 11: e025041.

Baena, C. R.; Naves, M. L.; Melo Júnior, J. S. 2025. Governança e regulação no ensino superior privado: o papel articulador do Procurador Institucional. Revista Brasileira de Política e Administração da Educação 41(1): 45–63.

Bardin, L. 2016. Análise de conteúdo. 70. ed. Edições 70, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Brasil. 2004. Lei nº 10.861, de 14 de abril de 2004. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior (SINAES). Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 15 abr. 2004. Seção 1, p. 3.

Catani, A. M.; Oliveira, J. F. 2002. Educação superior no Brasil: reestruturação e metamorfose das universidades públicas. Vozes, Petrópolis, RJ, Brasil.

Chaves, V. L. J. 2010. Expansão da privatização/mercantilização do ensino superior brasileiro: a formação dos oligopólios. Educação & Sociedade 31(111): 481–500.

Dias Sobrinho, J. 2003. Avaliação: políticas educacionais e avaliação da educação superior. Cortez, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Dias Sobrinho, J. 2010. Avaliação da educação superior: avanços e riscos. EccoS – Revista Científica 10(especial): 67–93.

Dourado, L. F. 2011. Políticas e gestão da educação superior no Brasil: múltiplas regulações e controle. Revista Brasileira de Política e Administração da Educação 27(1): 53–65.

Ferreira, L. J.; Valle Dalla, R. P. 2025. Análise de conteúdo na perspectiva de Bardin: contribuições e limitações para a pesquisa qualitativa em educação. Educação em Revista 41.

Flick, U. 2009. Introdução à pesquisa qualitativa. 3ed. Artmed, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Gil, A. C. 2019. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 7ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Libâneo, J. C. 2004. Organização e gestão da escola: teoria e prática. 5. ed. Alternativa, Goiânia, GO, Brasil.

Lopes, G. C. D. 2025. Avaliação institucional e gestão escolar: o papel dos dados na tomada de decisão. Observatório de la Economía Latinoamericana 23(1).

Lück, H. 2017. Gestão educacional: uma questão paradigmática. 10. ed. Vozes, Petrópolis, RJ, Brasil.

Medeiros, I. 2015. Procurador institucional: um papel estratégico para instituições de educação superior. Revista Projeção e Docência 6(2): 38–46.

Sguissardi, V. 2008. Modelo de expansão da educação superior no Brasil: predomínio privado/mercantil e desafios para a regulação e a formação universitária. Educação & Sociedade 29(105): 991–1022.

Sguissardi, V. 2015. Educação superior no Brasil: democratização ou massificação mercantil? Educação & Sociedade 36(133): 867–889.

Article originating from the Course Conclusion Work of the Specialization in School Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform