BALANCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION ON THE NATIONAL POLICY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION (2010-2020)ABSTRACT:
Since the publication of the National Policy on Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education (PNEEPEI) in 2008, there has been an expansion of the public sector regarding the provision of educational services to students targeted for Special Education (PAEE), based on the need to establish inclusive educational systems. In this sense, the locus of Special Education should be the Specialized Education Service offered in regular schools, intensifying the investment of public resources in the implementation of these spaces. However, in 2017, a series of discussions began with the aim of promoting the revision and updating of PNEEPEI, on the grounds that researchers and research groups pointed out several criticisms regarding the so-called inclusive education policy. The draft with the update proposal released in 2018 established the possibility of offering educational services to PAEE students in special classes and schools, historically managed by private-assistance institutions in the country. Thus, based on the realization of a balance of the scientific production published by researchers in the area between the years 2010 and 2020, we seek to identify the main criticisms, positive and negative, conferred to PNEEPEI that can justify the need for the update proposed by the Ministry of Education (MEC). To this end, we used the descriptors "national policy" and "special education" in the search portals of CAPES Periodicals, Scielo and Google Academic, being then selected and analyzed 20 papers that indicated contemplating the objective of this article. From the analysis, it was identified that, in the scientific literature, the negative criticisms were partially incorporated into the new text of the policy released in September 2020, while the positive criticisms regarding PNEEPEI were ignored in the new document.
Keywords: Special Education; National Policy for Special Education; Inclusive Education
RESUMO:
A partir da publicação da Política Nacional de Educação Especial na Perspectiva da Educação Inclusiva (PNEEPEI) no ano de 2008, verificou-se a expansão do setor público no que se refere à oferta de serviços educacionais aos alunos público-alvo da Educação Especial (PAEE), baseando-se na necessidade do estabelecimento de sistemas educacionais inclusivos. Nesse sentido, o lócus da oferta da Educação Especial deveria ser o Atendimento Educacional Especializado oferecido nas escolas regulares, intensificando o investimento de recursos públicos na implementação desses espaços. Porém, no ano de 2017, iniciou-se uma série de discussões com o objetivo de promover a revisão e atualização da PNEEPEI, sob o argumento de que pesquisadores e grupos de pesquisa apontavam diversas críticas com relação à chamada política de educação inclusiva. A minuta com a proposta de atualização divulgada em 2018 estabelecia a possibilidade da oferta de serviços educacionais aos alunos PAEE em classes e escolas especiais, historicamente gerenciadas por instituições privado-assistenciais no País. Destarte, com base na realização de um balanço da produção científica publicado por pesquisadores da área entre os anos de 2010 e 2020, busca-se identificar as principais críticas, positivas e negativas, conferidas à PNEEPEI que possam justificar a necessidade da atualização proposta pelo Ministério da Educação (MEC). Para tal, foram utilizados os descritores “política nacional” e “educação especial” nos portais de busca de Periódicos da CAPES, no portal Scielo e no Google Acadêmico, sendo então selecionados e analisados 20 trabalhos que indicavam contemplar o objetivo aventado pelo presente artigo. A partir das análises realizadas, identificou-se que, na literatura científica, as críticas negativas foram parcialmente incorporadas ao novo texto da política divulgado em setembro de 2020, ao mesmo tempo que as críticas positivas com relação à PNEEPEI foram ignoradas no novo documento.
Palavras-chave: Educação Especial; Política Nacional de Educação Especial; Educação Inclusiva
RESUMEN:
Con la publicación de la Política Nacional de Educación Especial en la Perspectiva de la Educación Inclusiva (PNEEPEI), en 2008, se produjo una expansión del sector público de prestación de servicios educativos a los estudiantes destinatarios de Educación Especial (PAEE), a partir del argumento de la necesidad de establecer sistemas educativos inclusivos. En consecuencia, el locus de la oferta de Educación Especial debe ser el Servicio Educativo Especializado que se ofrece en las escuelas regulares, intensificando la inversión de recursos públicos para la implementación de estos espacios. Sin embargo, en 2017 se inició una serie de discusiones con el objetivo de promover la revisión y actualización del PNEEPEI, con el argumento de que investigadores y grupos de investigación habían realizado varias críticas a la llamada “política de educación inclusiva”. La propuesta de actualización presentada en 2018 estableció la posibilidad de ofrecer servicios educativos a los estudiantes PAEE en clases especiales y escuelas históricamente gestionadas por instituciones de bienestar privadas en el país. Así, a partir de la realización de un balance de la producción científica publicada entre los años 2010 y 2020, buscamos identificar las principales críticas, positivas y negativas, efectuadas al PNEEPEI que puedan justificar la necesidad de la actualización que plantea el Ministerio de Educación (MEC). Para ello, se utilizaron los descriptores "política nacional" y "educación especial" en los portales de búsqueda de Revistas de CAPES, el portal Scielo y Google Scholar, y se seleccionaron y analizaron 20 trabajos que contemplaban el objetivo propuesto por este artículo. A partir de los análisis realizados en la literatura científica, se identificó que las críticas negativas se incorporaron parcialmente al nuevo texto de política difundido en septiembre de 2020, mientras que las críticas positivas al PNEEPEI fueron ignoradas en el nuevo documento.
Palabras clave: Educación Especial; Política Nacional de Educación Especial; Educación Inclusiva
INTRODUCTION
In Brazil, historically, inclusive social and educational policies were initially developed in a focused way, by delegating to private institutions the role, even if partially, of fulfilling them. However, this picture has changed, especially during the Workers' Party (PT) administration (2003-2016), as inclusion has become one of the main goals of Brazilian educational policies. The social-liberal project4, in force during the PT administration, endorsed the articulation between the social and economic spheres, especially from the discourse on the need to establish social inclusion, in which access to education was a strategic element. Specifically, about Special Education, mistakenly associated almost exclusively with inclusive education policies, it should be noted that it came to be disputed by different correlations of forces in society regarding the responsibility for providing services5 to students targeted by this modality.
In the discursive plan, although the State was presented as the protagonist in the mechanisms that sought to expand citizenship, there was a wide participation of private organizations in the provision of educational services, including services for Special Education, when the possibility of establishing agreements between the State and private non-profit institutions was created to provide educational "services" for this modality. However, in 2008, the National Policy on Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education (PNEEPEI) was launched, considered to be one of the main references in the field of Special Education in Brazil.
This document aims to ensure the school inclusion of students targeted for Special Education (PAEE), based on the orientation that the education systems should ensure access to regular school, with participation, learning, and continuity in higher levels of education, as well as ensure the transversality of the Special Education modality, which should be offered from early childhood education to higher education. They are described as PAEE the students with disabilities, who present long-term impairments of physical, mental, intellectual or sensory nature; those with global development disorders that present qualitative alterations in reciprocal social interactions and communication; and students with high abilities/super qualities, who demonstrate high potential in the intellectual, academic, leadership, psychomotricity and/or arts areas (BRASIL, 2008).
The PNEEPEI expressly announced a blunt criticism in relation to the organization of schools and special classes, which functioned mostly through private welfare entities, under the discourse of the need for the establishment of inclusive educational systems. Therefore, the PNEEPEI defended a proposal that opposed the segregation of the target students of this modality in these spaces. However, the establishment of public-private partnerships and the possibility of offering specialized services in segregated classes/schools in the field of Special Education were again strongly promoted, especially after the conclusion of the impeachment process of President Dilma Rousseff.
In this context, since 2017, discussions about the need to update the PNEEPEI have emerged. Although several Special Education researchers have denounced the limits and problems arising from PNEEPEI, a relative consensus was built that the locus of care for students targeted by this modality should occur in regular education classes in school institutions. The criticism of how the PNEEPEI was implemented, especially the restriction of the Special Education modality in the provision of Specialized Education - AEE - in Multifunctional Resource Rooms - SRM - in regular schools, has been used as an argument to legitimize the need for updating the policy.
The AEE is described in the PNEEPEI as a service whose purpose is to identify, develop and organize pedagogical and accessibility resources in order to eliminate barriers to the full participation of students according to their specific needs. In this context, the activities developed in the AEE would be different from those performed in the regular classroom, i.e., they could not replace schooling in regular schools, being, then, supplementary and/or complementary to the student's education (BRASIL, 2008). As a way to support the organization and provision of the AEE to the PAEE students enrolled in regular classes of regular education, the SRMs are constituted as physical spaces that provide computer equipment, furniture, educational materials and accessibility, in order to ensure to these students conditions of access, participation and learning (BRASIL, 2010).
The term AEE appears in Brazilian legislation linked to the idea that students with special educational needs should be schooled preferably in ordinary schools, using the support of specialized educational services, because, according to Mendes (2019), the exclusive schooling of these subjects in ordinary classes would be insufficient to meet the differentiated educational needs of these students. Studies developed by the National Observatory for Special Education (ONEESP) indicated that the conception of AEE described in the PNEEPEI needed to be overcome, since it presented itself as a
1) Support service based exclusively on the AEE offered in SRM that has become the locus of accommodation of the difference in school and still focuses the disability in the student and his care, causing little or no impact on the common class or school that needs to change to offer quality education for all and not only for the PAEE; 2) Besides being a conservative measure, as it maintains the status quo of the public school with its low quality indicators, the adoption of this service, as a one-size-fits-all model, did not satisfactorily respond to the educational needs of the set of PAEE students; and 3) Policy of a remedial nature by prioritizing intervening in the mandatory schooling range (currently defined from four to 17 years old), neglecting the possibility of intervening preventively with early education programs, essential for the PAEE (MENDES, 2019, p. 14).
The same author states that, through these surveys, it was also possible to identify that the legal provisions could not always be implemented in practice, because the municipalities had different stories of organization of support services to school inclusion with the provision of multiple specialized services6. Thus, it also highlights that, through the research conducted by the Observatory, it was found the existence of diverse movements of each municipality regarding the standardization of the school inclusion policy with the provision of AEE through SRMs (MENDES, 2019).
In this context, the tension about the responsibility for the provision of educational services to students with special needs is heightened, especially since the Brazilian School Census identified a continuous and significant increase in the enrollment of students with special needs in regular schools. Consequently, there was a gradual decrease in enrollments in special classes, in specialized institutions and in private schools (MENDES, 2019), emerging the debate about the
the definition of the role of specialized institutions in inclusive education public policies, from more radical proposals that defend their extinction to prevent school segregation, to more conciliatory ones that defend their reconfiguration as a support service to inclusive schooling, to more conservative ones that bet on their maintenance (MENDES, 2019, p. 6-7).
Considering that, in the year 2018, the proposal to revise and update the PNEEPEI emerged under the main argument of the need to expand specialized educational services to PAEE students, the present work seeks to investigate the scientific academic productions published in the period 2010-2020 in journals and books that had PNEEPEI as an object of analysis. The goal of building this balance of production is anchored in the need to understand how researchers in the area analyze this policy and, to some extent, considering that the selected papers represent part of the published production, the possible influences that such productions had on the definition of the new National Policy for Special Education: Equitable, Inclusive and with Lifelong Learning, released on September 30, 2020. Seeking to achieve this goal, first the methodological procedures used in the work will be presented, with the purpose of describing the path used in conducting the balance of production, regarding the search and selection of material. Subsequently, based on the selected and analyzed texts, the categories created for the description of the main points presented by the authors regarding the PNEEPEI will be indicated.
METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
The methodological framework adopted in this study falls within the perspective of the quantitative-qualitative approach, because it uses both the technique of quantification in the stage of selection of materials that will be analyzed and the qualitative treatment of the approaches that the authors of the selected works presented with respect to the analysis of PNEEPEI. Minayo and Sanches (1993) describe quantitative studies as those that have more objective characteristics of quantification of the phenomena, while qualitative studies have a focus on the social and the understanding of subjectivity. It is in this sense that the authors point out the possibility of using a combination of the two approaches, since, "from the methodological point of view, there is no contradiction, as well as no continuity, between quantitative and qualitative research. Both are different in nature. Thus, the quantitative study can generate questions to be explored qualitatively, and vice versa" (MINAYO; SANCHES, 1993, p. 247). Thus, the analysis of the data collected for the development of this study allowed the realization of a quantitative-qualitative balance of scientific papers that deal specifically with the PNEEPEI.
The option for the balance of scientific production as a methodological procedure is justified because it allows the researcher to understand, based on published works, to what extent this theme has been researched, as well as in which media they are presented. It also makes it possible to identify if there is a concentration of publications on the theme in certain journals or if the works are developed by authors linked to the same Higher Education Institution (HEI). Therefore, this item will present the results of the balance of the productions published in periodicals and books, and will be organized in two parts: first, the search and selection process of the papers will be presented, with the methodological description of the steps that were developed to reach the research that was later analyzed; in the second part, a brief profile will be presented, detailing the quantitative data collected in relation to the papers that were selected for analysis.
Pintassilgo and Beato (2017, p. 48) point out that production balances are "an exercise of absolute necessity for any field of research that aspires to a status of scientificity," being, then, a fundamental activity to evaluate the quality of the works, as well as to outline future paths of research. In this sense, the balance of production can still be considered a relevant initial procedure in the scientific research process, collaborating with the familiarization and selection of productions that can subsidize, in the future, new researches. Therefore, this methodological option allows researchers to obtain knowledge about the scientific productions that are disseminated in academia about a particular problem that is being investigated (MOCHEUTI, 2017).
It is noteworthy that the methodological path followed in the development of this balance of production is anchored on two levels of research: initially, an exploratory research was conducted, which, according to Gil (2008), is executed with the purpose of providing an overview, of approximate type, about a certain fact, being, generally, the first stage of a broader investigation; and the second level is what Gil (2008) points out as descriptive research, which, from its objectives, ends up providing a new view on the researched problem, thus approaching exploratory research. It should be noted that the "exploratory" nature of this work is related to the process of searching and surveying existing research that focused on the analysis of the National Policy on Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education (PNEEPEI) between the years 2010 and 2020. Next, we will describe the information collected in the papers fully analyzed and that are related to the problem being investigated.
Search process and selection of papers
In order to identify studies that proposed the National Policy on Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education (PNEEPEI) as an object of analysis, the Periodical Portal of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), the periodical portal of the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and the Google Academic search portal were initially listed. The search was conducted in the three platforms on September 8, 2020 with the use of the descriptors "national policy" and "special education" to select the papers that would be further analyzed. The choice of these descriptors is based on the need to identify the works that covered exactly the analysis of PNEEPEI. Therefore, it was assumed that the use of the terms previously mentioned would necessarily contemplate the academic productions exclusively focused on the analysis of this policy. This initial theoretical and methodological approach led this study to the following research question: how has the PNEEPEI been appropriated in the academic production in the field of special education and what are the possible influences that the works produced in this field have exerted on the definition of the proposal for updating and reviewing this policy?
As a timeframe, the search was limited to the years 2010 to 2020. It should be noted that, due to the characteristics of each portal, it was necessary to modify the search process, although it was possible to use the same descriptors in all portals.
First, the CAPES periodicals portal was consulted, using the following advanced search filters: the exact terms "national policy" and "special education" should be searched in "any" index, i.e., they could appear in the title, abstract and/or in the body of the text. The temporal frame was delimited to the last ten years, and it was opted to search only for articles, in any language. After this delimitation, 153 articles were found, 14 of which were selected, and 135 were discarded. In a second step, at the SciELO portal - advanced search mode - the exact terms "national policy" and "special education" were described, which could also be located in all indexes, i.e., the search for the terms could happen in the name of the journal, title and/or abstracts of the papers. The search in this portal resulted in 20 articles found, 9 selected and 11 discarded.
As a third step, the use of the same descriptors in Google Scholar resulted in a quantitative of 16,100 papers in the first search attempt. In order to promote a cut in the search, in the second attempt the term "national policy on special education" was used, presenting 11,900 papers. Because this number is still significantly large, and due to the impossibility of analyzing all of these findings, we opted to search for studies with the exact terms "national policy" and "special education," obligatorily in the title. This selection generated 53 results, 10 of which were selected and 43 were discarded. Thus, a total of 226 studies were found, 33 selected and 189 discarded, as shown in the following table:
In the selection stage of the papers that would be further analyzed, we chose the criterion of evaluating the titles, abstracts and keywords of the articles that were identified in order to verify which ones included, even partially, the analysis of PNEEPEI/2008. However, a significant number of articles cited the mentioned policy in the title and/or abstract, but did not perform its analysis, and these works were discarded. Thus, in this selection stage, the articles that announced in some way the PNEEPEI/2008, but did not analyze it properly, were disregarded. The chart below shows the number of papers that were eliminated, considering their year of publication, and it can be identified the predominance of articles that were published and that somehow mentioned the PNEEPEI in the years 2016, 2018 and 2019.
As criteria for discarding, we disregarded the studies that mentioned the policy to address specific disabilities/disorders; those that proposed the study of the implementation of PNEEPEI/2008 from local contexts, without conducting a proper analysis of the mentioned policy; those that cited the policy, but did not specifically discuss the Special Education modality; those that mentioned the PNEEPEI/2008 to analyze specific themes such as teacher training, policies, programs, and services aimed at the target audience of Special Education, Specialized Education Care, among other debates. Course conclusion papers, theses, and dissertations that were found in Google Scholar were also disregarded. As the articles were being evaluated, based on the title and abstract, a table was created in order to quantify the articles that were being discarded and which themes they addressed in their central core, as can be seen in Table 2:
From these data, a table was created with the articles that indicated contributing to the main objective of this work, i.e., to analyze the PNEEPEI, even if they fit the discard criteria previously presented. During this step, it could be noticed that some works were repeated in the portals analyzed; therefore, it was identified that the initially presented quantity of 33 selected works ended up repeatedly quantifying the articles present in more than one portal. Therefore, it was decided to prepare a table with the main data pertinent to the works, demonstrating in which portals such articles could be located, as a way to eliminate the repetitions found in this process, as will be shown below:
It is important to highlight that the selected articles represent a sample of the works that were developed with the objective of analyzing this policy, because, due to the need to establish the search descriptors, the results were possibly limited. Therefore, by using this cut, it would not be possible to know the totality of productions on this theme. Thus, at the end of the selection process, 20 scientific articles were chosen to be fully analyzed as a way to extract as much information as possible about the productions carried out between 2010 and 2020 that had PNEEPEI/2008 as the object of investigation.
Profile of the selected studies
From the analysis of the data presented in the previous table, it is possible to state that most of the works were published in the years 2018 and 2019, totaling nine articles, that is, 45% of the titles that were selected, as shown in the following graph:
This data shows that most of the papers found were published after the ten-year period of the PNEEPEI. It should be noted that in 2018, some journals prepared dossiers celebrating the decade of the policy, and this fact may have contributed to the increase in the number of productions that focused on this subject in this period. As a way to quantify the predominance of papers produced, considering the institutions to which the authors are linked, the graph below was developed:
There is a predominance of works produced by authors linked to the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and the University of São Paulo (USP). By conducting a balance of the production of theses and dissertations on Special and Inclusive Education developed in graduate programs in Education in Brazil, Silva (2018) could identify that 11 programs concentrate 49.3% of productions linked to this theme in the country. Some of these programs7, in accordance with the emphasis made earlier, are linked to UFSCAR, UFRGS, USP, UNESP, UFSM. The author also states that, with the exception of UNESP, the Education programs linked to the aforementioned institutions are part of what Silva (2018, p. 610) pointed out as the "pioneers" in the development of research on Special Education, highlighting them as "the main training centers and developers of dissertations and theses in the area is due, among other reasons, to the fact that these programs have within them AC8 and/or LR9 focused on research in Special Education”. However, the same author drew attention to the fact that in the period between 1999 and 2016, the consolidation of research in the field of special education occurs in some institutions outside the South-Southeast region, such as UFBA, UFRN, UFMA, UFAM, UCB, UEPA, UFGD, UFC, and UFPB (2018, p. 610). However, despite Silva identifying the expansion and relevance in the academic production of Education programs located in areas other than the traditional South-Southeast axis, Chart 1 still confirms the concentration, in relation to the works that aim to analyze the PNPPEI, of scientific journals in the field of special education in these regions, such as the journals Cadernos de Pesquisa (Reseatch Notebooks), Educação e Pesquisa (Education and Research), Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial (Special Education Brazilian Magazine) and Revista de Política e Gestão Educacional (Educational Policy and Management Magazine) (Southeast region) and Educação e Realidade (Education and Reality) (South region).
It is noteworthy that the previous chart also points out the prevalence of articles that were produced by authors linked to institutions located in the Southeast and South regions of Brazil, respectively. This fact is in line with data indicating the predominance of Higher Education Institutions (HEI) located in the Southeast region, a phenomenon described by Ristoff (2008, p. 43) as "Southeastification of higher education", demonstrating the existence of great regional imbalance in the organization of HEI in the country. About this fact, it is worth noting that, in an analysis of the data presented in the Statistical Synopses of Higher Education - Graduation, released by the National Institute of Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (INEP), in the year 2018, 2,537 HEIs were recognized, among public and private throughout the national territory, and the Southeast region alone is responsible for the concentration of 1,126 HEIs, that is, approximately 44% of the institutions in the entire country (BRASIL, 2018a).
This same phenomenon can be found considering the concentration of journals in the Southeastern Brazilian region, as pointed out by the Brazilian Directory of Periodicals in Education of the Forum of Editors of Periodicals in the Education Area (FEPAE), organized by the National Association of Graduate Studies and Research in Education (ANPEd). Aiming to give visibility to journals in the area of Education, the Directory (2018) disclosed that in 2018 there were 153 open access journals related to the educational theme in Brazil, distributed as follows:
It is possible to observe that "Educação & Realidade", "Educação e Pesquisa", and "Revista de Política e Gestão Educacional" concentrate most of the papers that were selected for analysis in the present study. It is worth mentioning that, among the selected articles, ten were published in journals located in the Southeastern region; seven in the Southern region; one in the Center-Western region; one in the Northern region; and one in the Northeastern region - ratifying the "Southeastification" concept previously mentioned.
Based on these notes, we seek to understand in the analyzed productions the criticism, positive and / or negative, directed to PNEEPEI as a way to try to unveil if such notes had repercussions on the reformulation of that policy, considering that on September 30, 2020 was published the Decree 10.502/20, which established the new National Policy on Special Education: Equitable, Inclusive and Lifelong Learning (BRASIL, 2020a).
THE NATIONAL POLICY ON SPECIAL EDUCATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION (PNEEPEI) IN THE BRAZILIAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION
In January 2008, the Special Education Secretary - SEESP - presented the National Policy on Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education - PNEEPEI -, which determined as its main guideline the construction of inclusive education systems, in which it guaranteed the right of all to education, determining the objectives to ensure
the access, participation and learning of students with disabilities, global developmental disorders and high abilities/super ability in regular schools, guiding the education systems to promote responses to special educational needs (BRASIL, 2008, s.p.).
This excerpt shows that the enrollment of this target audience should be held in regular schools, because, "from the references for the construction of inclusive education systems, the organization of special schools and classes begins to be rethought, implying a structural and cultural change of the school so that all students have their specificities met" (BRASIL, 2008, s.p.). Garcia (2017, p. 47) drew attention to the fact that the substitutive function of special education in relation to regular education was abolished in that policy, since the "idea itself, discursively worked as segregation, was banished from the politically correct scope of the proposal," thus articulating the compulsory enrollment in regular school to the ideological banner of inclusion.
The proposal to update the PNEEPEI was presented on April 16, 2018, in a meeting attended by representatives of the MEC, the National Education Council (CNE), and private welfare institutions that historically offer services to the target audience of Special Education (PAEE). Such project began to be debated by some sectors of society, such as scientific associations, professionals in the area, students and various social movements (SILVA; MACHADO; SILVA, 2019). Also in the year 2018, a document was made available for public consultation with the proposal to update the PNEEPEI, which suggested that the changes processed in education in recent years required actions that responded to the new social reality, backed by dialogue with society.
Nevertheless, according to Silva, Machado and Silva (2019), several institutions expressed their discontent with the authoritarian and antidemocratic means with which the MEC presented and forwarded the proposal to update the policy. Considering that the criticisms conferred by academic productions have been used as instruments in the process of reformulation of the PNEEPEI, it stands out the need to understand, according to the sample of selected works, the positions of the authors who discoursed in the period 2010-2020 on the aforementioned policy.
Initially, the selected texts were read in full in order to establish categories of analysis based on the discussions presented. It is worth noting that, although all the texts were read in full, as a methodological strategy assumed in conducting the balance of production, we chose to use only the excerpts of the works that referred specifically to PNEEPEI, and disregarded the debates that cited Special Education, but had no relationship with the policy mentioned. The analyzed texts were grouped into five categories developed below.
Categorization of the Target Audience for Special Education
After the analysis of all the papers, three were selected that converged in relation to the specific discussion on the categorization of the target audience of Special Education (PAEE), expressed in the PNEEPEI. In this category, Nabuco (2010) and Silva and Angelucci (2018) highlighted that the policy reinforces the medical-psychological character historically present in Special Education policies in Brazil, highlighting the perpetuation of the displacement of political and institutional issues to individual aspects. However, contrary to the previously cited works, Ullrich (2019) highlights that, through the critique of the medical-psychological rhetoric, the PNEEPEI sought to adopt a social perspective with the adherence to the inclusive discourse.
With the theoretical foundations of psychoanalysis, Nabuco (2010) states that, when analyzing the policy, it was possible to identify what he called by "psychopathology of inclusion", highlighting that Brazil is one of the rare countries that continues to use the expression "Special Education". Because of this, he believes it is not possible to conceive education as inclusive based on a policy that maintains an expression that produces the fabrication of the category of stigmatized deviants. Also aiming to problematize the maintenance of the expression "Special Education", Ullrich (2019) questions whether it would be possible to sustain a theoretical position that defends the proposal to insert Special Education and inclusive education in a situation of coexistence, considering that, in many moments, such conceptions have been considered opposites in the educational debate. Still on this aspect, and in line with the author previously mentioned, Nabuco (2010, p. 67) states that such orientations are built "from opposing paradigms, from distinct conceptual categories whose objective effects define a plurality of institutions and practices".
Nabuco (2010) further emphasizes that the categorizations of the PAEE mentioned in the policy are reductionist and emphasize the boundaries between the normal and the pathological, contributing to the PNEEPEI assuming its symbolic place of regulating the insurmountable differences of the subjects by proposing a classification of observable behaviors. In the same direction, Silva and Angelucci (2018) indicated that it was possible to observe the permanence of the medicalizing10 logic in the PNEEPEI, mainly by the existence of terminologies "borrowed from the health field" and, therefore, considered inadequate to define aspects related to the schooling process. Thus, the authors point out the need for education to "produce ways of understanding the students and their teaching-learning processes outside the pathology/normality axis, radically affirming human diversity as the principle, means and end of the educational work" (SILVA; ANGELUCCI, 2018, p. 683).
Although Silva and Angelucci (2018) and Ullrich (2019) agree that PNEEPEI represents an important advance for ensuring the access of students with functional differences to regular school and specialized services, it is identified that, while Ullrich (2019) argues that PNEEPEI hopes to overcome the logic of the clinical-therapeutic model, making the school become protagonist in overcoming exclusion, the authors highlight that the policy is the product of the correlation of forces marked by the medicalizing logic, revealed expressly in the definition of the PAEE from diagnostic categories originating from the health field, in a biomedical perspective (SILVA; ANGELUCCI, 2018).
Ullrich (2019) concludes that PNEEPEI can be understood as a criticism, even if biased, to the very project in which such educational modality has its roots, disregarding the existing tension between the concept of inclusion and its relationship with the idea of exclusion, thus expressing itself in clear ambiguity. Similarly, Nabuco (2010) also indicates that, historically, the Special Education modality rests on social contradictions of categories, citing as an example the notions of disability and maladjustment, as well as the institutions and their specific publics. In this sense, the author also states that the debates around Special Education and Inclusive Education are part of a contemporary psychopathology by implying value judgments and behavior management (NABUCO, 2010).
The PNEEPEI and deaf education
For this category, four papers were delimited: Lodi (2013); Silva and Assênsio (2014); Rodrigues and Rampelotto (2015); and Silveira and Costa (2016). All papers deal with the proposal of deaf education and bilingual education expressed in the PNEEPEI. However, while Lodi (2013) and Silveira and Costa (2016) discussed this issue from the realization of documentary analysis itself, Silva and Assênsio (2014) and Rodrigues and Rampelotto (2015) sought to problematize such proposal from the movements that were initiated with the dissemination of the policy. It should be noted that, by proposing the mandatory enrollment of PAEE students in regular school, the PNEEPEI indicated that teaching in specialized institutions should be rethought, under the argument of the need for the constitution of an inclusive education system in Brazil.
Thus, in order to analyze the guidelines, set out in the PNEEPEI for the inclusion of deaf students in regular education and unveil the different meanings of bilingual education and inclusion expressed in the document, Lodi (2013) and Silveira and Costa (2016) pointed out that deaf education is constituted as a specific field of knowledge, distancing itself from Special Education (LODI, 2013). Therefore, it would be necessary to create a set of strategies that "enable the recognition of its specificity both linguistic and cultural, that is, the recognition of the deaf culture and the Sign Language proper of this community" (SILVEIRA; COSTA, 2016, p. 132).
Specifically, about the proposal for deaf education in the analyzed policy, Lodi (2013) indicates that PNEEPEI reduced bilingual education to the presence of two languages within the school, making it impossible for each one to assume its place of relevance for the groups that use them, thus maintaining the hegemony of Portuguese in educational processes. About this discussion, Silveira and Costa (2016, p. 133) argue that the teaching of the deaf should happen primarily in Libras as their first language, since this proposal "is characterized as a fundamental element for the improvement of knowledge and recognition of the Brazilian Sign Language in linguistic and cultural aspects, as well as promotes the construction of deaf identity.
Silveira and Costa (2016) recognize some advances in the PNEEPEI with respect to deaf education, citing, as an example, the appointment of Bilingual Education; the indication of the action of the Libras interpreter; and the training of the AEE teacher in a bilingual perspective. However, the authors also identified weaknesses in relation to the low theoretical and methodological discussion about the proposal of bilingualism present in the analyzed document. Lodi (2013) indicates that the way PNEEPEI was structured "limits the transformation proposed for deaf education only in the discursive level and restricts inclusion to the school, making it impossible to expand this concept to all social spheres" (LODI, 2013, p. 49), preventing the establishment of dialogues with Brazilian deaf communities.
Based on an ethnographic research, Silva and Assênsio (2014) described the national political mobilization in favor of bilingual schools for the deaf, pointing out that such a movement arose by criticizing the PNEEPEI, understood as the kickoff for the closure of special schools, which generated tensions between advocates of inclusive education and the maintenance of special schools for the deaf. Also, in order to understand the struggle for the recognition of deaf education, Rodrigues and Rampelotto (2015) analyzed the movements of deaf people to maintain the operation of schools for this specific audience and the conflicts inherent in the process of inclusive education, referenced in the PNEEPEI.
Silva and Assênsio (2014) focused their analysis on the so-called Deaf Movement in Favor of Deaf Education and Culture, which organized, in September 2011, a series of actions in defense of bilingual schools, being present in 24 national capitals and in Brasilia. The Blue September movement, as it became known, was pointed out by the authors as an opportunity to connect the National Federation of Education and Integration of the Deaf - FENEIS - to parents of deaf children/youth, professionals of special schools for the deaf, researchers in the area and sign language interpreters at a national level. Rodrigues and Rampelotto (2015) built their work from the analysis of the experience of the first bilingual school founded in the city of Santa Maria/RS. The authors pointed out that deaf education, before the PNEEPEI, was represented by special classes; however, after the disclosure of the inclusive proposal, the school under analysis went through a constant process of demobilization, mainly due to the guidelines set out in that policy, since Special Education is now obligatorily linked to regular education.
It is identified that Silva and Assênsio (2014) did not position themselves in relation to the guidelines proposed in the PNEEPEI on deaf education, focusing on describing only facts that occurred during the implementation of actions linked to the Blue September movement. As pointed out by the authors, this movement was a key event to understand how political mobilization related to deafness established relationships with the State. It is noteworthy that, in the events monitored, it was found the unanimity of speeches against the closure of special schools, as indicated in the PNEEPEI, which reflected even in the maintenance of municipal schools of Special Education in the municipality of São Paulo, which were then transformed into municipal schools of bilingual education for the deaf (SILVA; ASSÊNSIO, 2014).
Although they do not seek to analyze a national movement as the authors previously mentioned, based on their analysis, and from a local experience, Rodrigues and Rampelotto (2015) point out that the struggle for recognition of the deaf goes through the search for recognition of their identities and cultures. According to the experiences described in the school analyzed, the authors showed that there are, in addition to a linguistic difference, cultural distinctions between bilingual schools and regular schools, indicating, therefore, that the struggle of the deaf after the PNEEPEI focused on the search to ensure the right to offer the necessary communication conditions for this community (RODRIGUES; RAMPELOTTO, 2015).
The inclusive discourse in PNEEPEI
For this category, four papers were selected from the following authors: Kassar (2011); Machado and Pan (2012); Garbini (2012); Neves, Rahme and Ferreira (2019). The chosen articles were categorized based on the discussion around the inclusive discourse expressed in the PNEEPEI and the centrality of Specialized Educational Assistance (AEE) in this proposal.
The AEE proposal expressed in the above policy, which should be offered primarily in Multifunctional Resource Rooms (SRM), is pointed out by all authors of this category as a justification for the construction of an "inclusive education system", considering that, from the PNEEPEI, the PAEE students should be enrolled in regular education, accompanied, when necessary, by AEE. The constitution of an inclusive education system is anchored in the discourse of equal rights and opportunities for all (MACHADO; PAN, 2012), from the proposition of practices guided by equality and difference as inseparable values and able to promote the overcoming of the logic of exclusion (NEVES; RAHME; FERREIRA, 2019). Such discourse, as pointed out by Garbini (2012), gains prominence especially from the 1990s, along with a series of convincing actions and investments that legitimize inclusion, through the constitution of the ideas of respect, tolerance and diversity, without considering a broader discussion about differences.
The authors point out that, when arguing about the need to combat discriminatory processes, opposing to separate educational practices, the PNEEPEI disregards the historical and social constitution of institutions that acted precisely "in the vacuum left by the Brazilian State" (MACHADO; PAN, 2012, p. 287). It also disregards that such institutions, considered prior to the policy as key actors of Special Education, would have the local conditions to offer AEE in a complementary or supplementary character to regular education (KASSAR, 2011).
Therefore, by assuming the model of "total inclusion" through the "insertion of all, regardless of differences, in the common class of the school near their residence and the total elimination of the model of service provision" (MENDES11, 2006 apud MACHADO; PAN, 2012, p. 278), the Brazilian State should also assume responsibility for the modality historically under almost exclusive responsibility of private and philanthropic institutions. Consequently, the State should also bear the expenses required for Special Education services in the country, opting, however, for a low-cost option, through preference in the regular education network (MACHADO; PAN, 2012).
Such positioning is reinforced by other authors of the papers included in this categorization, when they state that the establishment of a single pathway for PAEE12 students indicates that economic concerns were determinant in the adoption of a policy aimed at cutting spending, as apparently happened with the PNEEPEI (KASSAR, 2011). In this sense, the inclusive discourse is effective with the "aim of favoring a neoliberal logic, putting all subjects in the market circuits" (GARBINI, 2012, p. 26), by characterizing the process of inclusion of PAEE students as a legitimized and unquestionable issue. Garbini (2012, p. 30) also points out that this was an inherent action to the neoliberal rationality that "places all subjects in consumption and participation games, duly mapped and scanned by a mesh of power that governs and controls each and every one".
Still with regard to the "total inclusion" proposal, the authors highlighted that such a guideline "silenced" the voice of the beneficiaries of Special Education in the country regarding the best educational practice that would meet its goals (MACHADO; PAN, 2012), at the risk of causing, especially, the deconstruction of their identity. Specifically on this point, Machado and Pan (2012) and Neves, Rahme and Ferreira (2019) agree that, at the same time that PNEEPEI seeks the re-signification of the meanings attributed to disability, by proposing an ethical reflection in the search for improvement in the conditions of this portion of the population, it has treated the issue of identity with its erasure and not with its affirmation. According to these authors, "if equality of opportunity should be ensured by the right to difference, this difference must be recognized, not erased" (MACHADO; PAN, 2012, p. 289); therefore, the guidelines proposed in the policy run the risk of "erasing the identity and producing indifference, capable of configuring as a new form of segregation" (NEVES; RAHME; FERREIRA, 2019, p. 11).
The construction process and unfoldings of PNEEPEI
For the development of this category, five works developed by: Harlos, Denari, and Orlando (2014); Santos and Baptista (2014); Correia and Baptista (2018); Baptista (2019); and Silva, Souza, and Faleiro (2018). The process of building PNEEPEI was described by Correia and Baptista (2018) and Silva, Souza, and Faleiro (2018), highlighting that the initial temporal milestone was the year 2006, more specifically when Brazil became a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved by the United Nations (UN). This issue was especially detailed by Correia and Baptista (2018) when they pointed out that, by adhering to the precepts of the Convention, Brazil assumed a series of commitments linked to the educational field. The guidelines contained in this international document began to influence the conceptions of education and public policies aimed at people with disabilities in Brazil through the
inclusive" approach, based on the belief expressed by its advocates that equal opportunities can only be achieved when people with disabilities are incorporated, under equal conditions, in all economic, social, and cultural spheres of their respective societies (CORREIA; BAPTISTA, 2018, p. 720).
The elaboration process of PNEEPEI occurred immediately after the Convention, being cited by the authors that, in the year 2007, a working group was organized designated by the MEC to develop a synthesis document that was a product of debates among managers and researchers of Special Education, with the purpose of announcing the guidelines that would be directed to the modality (CORREIA; BAPTISTA, 2018). As a result of these discussions, three main strands emerged: some representatives indicated that the policy would favor the construction of a differentiated Special Education model, by proposing educational inclusion as a right for all; others considered the legitimization of the end of special schools that came to be considered "villains" in relation to the inclusive process; and, still, there were those who evaluated such process as a certain lack of commitment from the government with such public, since the students would be transferred to regular school without them having the conditions and the necessary support for such reality (SILVA; SOUZA; FALEIRO, 2018).
Silva, Souza, and Faleiro (2018, p. 736) further stated that participated in this process "not people who added knowledge of the area, but those who would defend the interests of groups that occupied political power" (SILVA; SOUZA; FALEIRO, 2018, p. 736). The results of the debates that took place in this context, including through assemblies, were taken to the National Education Council (CNE), which produced a text and forwarded it to the MEC in January 2008. The result of this was the publication of PNEEPEI as a guiding text, without the ministerial signature and without the publication of a decree, which determined that the policy did not have a regulatory/standardizing character (SILVA; SOUZA; FALEIRO, 2018).
Regarding the developments of PNEEPEI, Harlos, Denari and Orlando (2014), Santos and Baptista (2014) and Baptista (2019) initially highlighted the historical development of the modality in the country until the institutionalization of "inclusion" as the perspective adopted in PNEEPEI. Santos and Baptista (2014) state that the inclusive perspective delimited in the PNEEPEI has been conferring other designs to the Special Education modality, considering, mainly, that, clearly and unequivocally, the schooling space for children with disabilities would be in common education, thus reaffirming its complementary and supplementary dimension.
With the disclosure of the policy, Baptista (2019) points out that it is possible to identify noticeable effects on the enrollment rates of PAEE students, who began to attend in greater numbers, progressively, the common education classes, while enrollment in special classes or schools was considerably reduced. According to the author, the main advance of PNEEPEI was the removal of the conditions of exception to the inclusion process, which allowed, in previous norms, that the AEE could complement or replace the common education (BAPTISTA, 2019). Harlos, Denari and Orlando (2014) also agree that the organizational and conceptual structure of Special Education from PNEEPEI presents advances in relation to the structures that preceded it, mainly on the perspective of total inclusion and the opposition to specialized education and substitutive to regular education. The same authors, however, also highlighted some criticisms.
The authors highlighted as negative points the delimitation of a certain target audience by PNEEPEI, neglecting other segments that could demand AEE; the restriction of training requirements related to teachers and the expansion of their functions; the delimitation of SRMs as a space differentiated from those intended for so-called "normal" students, preserving the antinomy between Special Education and regular education; the opposition to the clinical model, while proposing proposals typical of this model, such as the provision of differentiated space and specialized professionals (HARLOS; DENARI; ORLANDO, 2014). Santos and Baptista (2014) also agree that, although it is possible to identify advances towards ensuring the right to access and permanence in regular and public schools for students who are the target of this modality, these advances are still partial, considering the disparities of actions and regional inequalities in the country (SANTOS; BAPTISTA, 2014).
The Proposal to Update the PNEEPEI
The last category includes works that were specifically published in the last two years and that mention the updating process of the PNEEPEI, released in the year 2018 by the then Secretariat of Continuing Education, Literacy, Diversity and Inclusion - SECADI -, linked to the MEC. The selected papers that address this theme were developed by Manzini (2018), Shimite and Silva (2019), Kassar, Rebelo, and Oliveira (2019), and Senna, Santos, and Lemos (2020).
All these works highlight, as one of the main points addressed in the proposal, the mention of the return of the substitutive character of Special Education, by indicating the possibility of this modality being offered in spaces other than the regular school, as previously indicated in the PNEEPEI. The adoption of the PNEEPEI and its model of care that privileged the common/regular public-school locus and encouraged the enrollment of PAEE students in this space contributed to the expansion of investments for the implementation of AEE in public schools. This indicated, therefore, the expansion of public care at the expense of private care, strengthening the "channeling of public resources to the public school" (KASSAR; REBELO; OLIVEIRA, 2019, p. 14). However, as highlighted by Senna, Santos, and Lemos, the existence of PNEEPEI is permeated by clashes, as there are those who
fight for education in special classes and schools, defending that for certain disabilities this is the only solution, while there are those who fight for a process of inclusion of all in regular classrooms, despite the existing difficulties in the organization of this modality throughout the country (SENNA; SANTOS; LEMOS, 2020, p. 312).
In this context, different actors enter the scene, so that "sometimes the pressure from specialized organizations is more audible, sometimes the movement in favor of the full participation of people with disabilities in non-specialized institutions is strengthened" (KASSAR; REBELO; OLIVEIRA, 2019, p. 5). In this scenario, in the year 2018, the proposal to update the PNEEPEI was presented with the argument of the "need to effect inclusion through full accessibility, both to resources for learning and for the elimination of physical barriers" (BRASIL, 2018b 13 apud SHIMITE; SILVA, 2019, p. 9), considering the need to offer different spaces, inside and/or outside the regular school, for different services linked to Special Education.
From this scenario, it is possible to identify two categories that articulate in different ways in these Special Education clashes: the allocation of public resources and the place of care for PAEE students. Shimite and Silva (2019) state that the document that presented the updating proposal emerged accompanied by criticism of the inclusive process proposed by PNEEPEI. This means that, as pointed out by Kassar, Rebelo, and Oliveira (2019), the criticism made by researchers that the modality had been restricted to AEE exclusively in SRM started to be used as an argument for changes in the PNEEPEI document, generating mobilizations from different groups in the country.
About the document that proposed the update, Shimite and Silva (2019) highlight that it is possible to verify a search for financial incentive from the State to private institutions, by directing to philanthropy and consultancies in inclusive education the responsibility for the constitution of "equitable, inclusive and lifelong Special Education" (BRASIL, 2018b apud SHIMITE; SILVA, 2019, p. 17), going against what was proposed by the previous policy. In line with this statement, Manzini (2018) suggests that the financial support allocated to institutions, via the outsourcing of AEE services by the State, shows that public schools can become even more fragile.
Thus, this proposed "update" was pointed out by Senna, Santos and Lemos (2020) as a step backwards, mainly from three main points: the possibility of returning to Special Education a substitutive role for regular school, as a parallel system; the involvement of the family and the student in the decision-making process, allowing different interpretations, which may legitimize the deprivation of participation and learning in regular education; and finally, the removal of the term "from the perspective of inclusive education" from the name of the policy. Added to this discussion is the fact that this proposed update has not been permeated by wide debates and discussions in society in general, being then characterized as a "non-democratic decision-making process on the subject, not making, therefore, a process that can be legitimized by society" (SENNA; SANTOS; LEMOS, 2020, p. 319).
In this sense, the works analyzed in this category conclude that it would be a great regression to return to specialized and philanthropic institutions the care of the PAEE outside the public school (MANZINI, 2018), since such a proposal does not aim to promote the development of its target audience or specific groups, by privileging political and philanthropic groups over investments in public education (SHIMITE; SILVA, 2019). Thus, still according to the analyzed works, such proposals are presented as a setback for the field of inclusion in education, considering, mainly, the absence of dialogue and participation of society in its elaboration, characterizing, in this way, more as an imposed reform than a proposed update (SENNA; SANTOS; LEMOS, 2020).
Already Kassar, Rebelo and Oliveira (2019) conclude that the disclosure of the proposed update of PNEEPEI has further sharpened the clashes on the locus of care for these subjects, because it has been centered, superficially, on the issues: "against or for inclusion; against or for special schools; inclusive education or Special Education" (KASSAR; REBELO; OLIVEIRA, 2019, p. 14), being evidenced by the authors that such disputes led to the constitution of a polarity that has not contributed to the maturation of proposals and projects that aim to contemplate the specificities of these students.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
On September 30, 2020, Decree 10.502/20 was published, establishing the new National Policy for Special Education: Equitable, Inclusive and Lifelong Learning (BRASIL, 2020a), establishing a series of changes in the National Policy for Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education (BRASIL, 2008). As a way to identify the criticisms made by Brazilian authors regarding the PNEEPEI and to understand the main points that were considered in the process of updating this policy, 20 papers published between the years 2010 and 2020 were selected and fully analyzed. After the analysis of the texts, five categories were built: Categorization of the target audience of Special Education; PNEEPEI and deaf education; Inclusive discourse in PNEEPEI; Construction process and developments of PNEEPEI; and, finally, Proposal for updating the PNEEPEI. As a way of understanding the possible influence of criticism conferred by the listed authors to PNEEPEI in its updating process, some notes highlighted in this work will be resumed in order to make comparisons with the new normative instrument.
Regarding the first category, despite considering the progress that the 2008 policy provided to ensure the access of students with functional differences to regular school and specialized care, the main criticisms identified are the strengthening of PNEEPEI to the medical-pedagogical character in the categorization of students targeted for Special Education (PAEE) and the maintenance of this nomenclature, considered by the authors as opposed to the inclusive perspective. From the analysis of the Decree, it could be noticed that the categorization of the PAEE remained unchanged, considering the predecessor policy, as well as the expression "Special Education" attached to the name of the policy. However, in opposition to the 2008 policy, the new decree established new adjectives to the National Policy of Special Education (PNEE), by adding the terms "Equitable, Inclusive and with Lifelong Learning", remaining, according to the analyzed texts, the duality between the modality of Special Education and the inclusive proposal (BRASIL, 2020a).
In the second category, some actors stressed that deaf education is constituted as a specific field of knowledge and, in this sense, it distances itself from the Special Education proposal expressed in the PNEEPEI by reducing bilingual education to the presence of two languages within the school. Thus, despite contemplating bilingual education in the discursive plan, the authors pointed out that the proposal to close the special schools for this public generated a series of mobilizations in favor of specialized institutions. Such criticism was contemplated in the new PNEE, by establishing, as possible services, bilingual classes and schools, indicating that proposals should be prepared to define strategies both for implementation and for strengthening existing institutions (BRASIL, 2020a).
The third category highlights the centrality of Specialized Education Services (AEE) in the PNEEPEI, as justification for building an "inclusive education system". Although some authors understand this justification positively, because this proposal is anchored in the discourse of equal rights and opportunities, as a way to promote the overcoming of the logic of exclusion, the 2008 policy disregarded the historical trajectory of specialized institutions in offering services to the PAEE. The selected authors also indicate that by assuming the concept of "total inclusion", Special Education became centralized to a single possibility of AEE, disregarding other options of choice for beneficiaries of the modality. In this sense, the new PNEE changed this perspective of "total inclusion" by highlighting as one of its principles the decision of the family or the student as to the most appropriate educational alternative, removing the mandatory nature of the enrollment of PAEE students in regular school (BRASIL, 2020a).
In the fourth category, the authors were able to identify advances regarding the quantitative enrollment of students with special needs in regular schools, compared to the period before the PNEEPEI. Thus, by defining that the schooling space for these students should be in regular schools, reaffirming Special Education as a complementary/supplementary modality, the authors highlight that the 2008 policy would represent an advance in relation to previously existing ones, by opposing specialized education and substituting Special Education. The new PNEE establishes, as services and resources, physical spaces for the provision of Special Education outside regular schools, allowing the modality to be offered in segregated and specialized spaces (BRASIL, 2020a).
The last category highlighted as the main criticism of the authors the proposal to return to the substitutive character of Special Education by providing services related to the modality outside the regular environment. By favoring the expansion of public services to the detriment of private ones, the PNEEPEI has accentuated clashes between different groups that defend opposing positions in relation to the locus of care for students with special needs. The authors also pointed out that the proposed update provided for public-private partnerships to offer Special Education, going against the PNEEPEI proposal. However, the new policy, unlike the draft presented in 2018, did not explicitly indicate the realization of these partnerships with institutions, usually philanthropic/assistance institutions, which have historically offered this type of specialized care in the country. With the argument that many authors criticized the provision of a single form of care in the modality of Special Education, in the new policy 17 possibilities of services were indicated, without citing, however, how these would be implemented specifically and whether they would operate under the responsibility of the State or through public-private partnerships (BRASIL, 2020a).
Some authors also pointed out that the criticisms made by researchers in the field about the PNEEPEI were used as justification for a proposal to update the policy. These authors, however, denounce the arbitrariness in which this process was conducted, disregarding the indications made by researchers and their research groups when new guidelines were proposed without there actually being articulation and dialogue with academia. It should be noted that after the release of the new policy, a series of manifestations against the decree were formulated, under the argument that the guidelines indicated in the document go against international guidelines that deal with the education of students with special needs, of which Brazil is a signatory.
Special Education researchers and research groups from several institutions14 have positioned themselves against the decree, reinforcing that such normative was undemocratic and arbitrary, encouraging many parliamentarians to constitute Legislative Decree Projects15 in order to stop the Decree 10.502/20, which instituted the new policy. On the other hand, there are manifestations in favor of the decree16, mostly by entities linked to private, philanthropic and assistance institutions that offer specialized services. This balance of production made it possible to identify that the main criticisms of the researchers about the PNEEPEI were contemplated by means of the modifications circumscribed in the new policy, as an example, the centrality of the AEE as the only option for PAEE students and greater emphasis on bilingual education. However, advances were disregarded, such as the concept that Special Education is a complementary/supplementary modality, since, in the new document, it was indicated that this modality can be offered in a substitutive way to regular education.
It is considered that the texts expressed in the policies evidence "discordant voices, in dispute" (SHIROMA; CAMPOS; GARCIA, 2005, p. 431) and that these disputes are not only conceptual, since they are impregnated with the political conditions and intentions that marked their production, thus expressing divergent interests. In this sense, it is understood that the new policy reflects clashes between those who defend inclusive education and the AEE in regular school and those who want to maintain special schools and classes to offer Special Education in segregated spaces. Therefore, new research should be developed to identify which projects are in dispute within the process of updating the PNEEPEI, as well as the real objectives announced and/or implicit in the updated version of the policy.
We conclude that, although we recognize the limitations imposed by the objectivity required in the treatment of information in this article and by the option of conducting searches of works in specific databases, we recommend the continuity and development of new studies of this nature, especially given the challenges presented to researchers in Special Education regarding the new guidelines linked in Decree No. 10.502/20. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers who are interested in developing a balance of productions related to the topic of Special Education seek, in addition to the databases used, other sources, national and/or international17, that may present works, quantitatively and qualitatively different from those analyzed, in the search for expanding the debates related to the topic briefly discussed in this article.
References
-
ANPED, Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Educação; ABPEE, Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Educação Especial. Nota de repúdio ao Decreto N.º 10.502 Disponível em: Disponível em: https://anped.org.br/sites/default/files/images/nota_repudio_anped_abnpee_ee_decreto_n.o_10.502_final.docx.pdf Acesso em:22 out. 2020.
» https://anped.org.br/sites/default/files/images/nota_repudio_anped_abnpee_ee_decreto_n.o_10.502_final.docx.pdf -
BAPTISTA, Claudio Roberto. Política pública, Educação Especial e escolarização no Brasil. Educ. Pesqui, São Paulo, v. 45, e217423, 2019. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1517-97022019000100407⟨=pt Acesso em:19 set. 2020.
» https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1517-97022019000100407⟨=pt -
BRASIL. Decreto nº 10.502, de 30 de setembro de 2020 Institui a Política Nacional de Educação Especial: Equitativa, Inclusiva e com Aprendizado ao Longo da Vida. Brasília, 2020. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2020/decreto/D10502.htm Acesso em: 16 out. 2020.
» http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2020/decreto/D10502.htm -
BRASIL. Política Nacional de Educação Especial na Perspectiva da Educação Inclusiva Brasília: MEC/SEESP, 2008. Disponível em:Disponível em:http://portal.mec.gov.br/seesp/arquivos/pdf/politica.pdf Acesso em:18 set. 2020.
» http://portal.mec.gov.br/seesp/arquivos/pdf/politica.pdf -
BRASIL. Manual de Orientação: Programa de Implantação de Sala de Recursos Multifuncionais Brasília: MEC/SEESP. Disponível em:Disponível em:http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=9936-manual-orientacao-programa-implantacao-salas-recursos-multifuncionais&category_slug=fevereiro-2012-pdf&Itemid=30192 Acesso em: 21 fev. 2021.
» http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=9936-manual-orientacao-programa-implantacao-salas-recursos-multifuncionais&category_slug=fevereiro-2012-pdf&Itemid=30192 -
BRASIL. Projeto de Decreto Legislativo nº 427/20 Câmara dos Deputados. Brasília, 2020b. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra;jsessionid=EFE117849DACD0A40D16F928A1FC5917.proposicoesWebExterno2?codteor=1933710&filename=PDL+427/2020 Acesso em:21 out. 2020.
» https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra;jsessionid=EFE117849DACD0A40D16F928A1FC5917.proposicoesWebExterno2?codteor=1933710&filename=PDL+427/2020 -
BRASIL. Projeto de Decreto Legislativo nº 429/20 Câmara dos Deputados. Brasília, 2020c. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1933747&filename=PDL+429/2020 Acesso em: 20 out. 2020.
» https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1933747&filename=PDL+429/2020 -
BRASIL. Projeto de Decreto Legislativo nº 437/20 Senado Federal. Brasília, 2020d. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=8896006&ts=1601939352001&disposition=inline Acesso em: 17 out. 2020.
» https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=8896006&ts=1601939352001&disposition=inline -
BRASIL. Sinopses Estatísticas da Educação Superior - Graduação Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. Brasília, 2018. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/sinopses-estatisticas-da-educacao-superior Acesso em: 19 set. 2020.
» http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/sinopses-estatisticas-da-educacao-superior -
CASTELO, Rodrigo. O social-liberalismo: uma ideologia neoliberal para a “questão social” no século XXI Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ/ESS, 2011. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://www.unirio.br/cchs/ess/Members/rodrigo.castelo/artigos/tese-o-social-liberalismo-1/at_download/file Acesso em:25 out. 2020.
» http://www.unirio.br/cchs/ess/Members/rodrigo.castelo/artigos/tese-o-social-liberalismo-1/at_download/file -
COLLARES, Cecília A. L.; MOYSÉS, Maria Aparecida Affonso. A transformação do espaço pedagógico em espaço clínico (a patologização da educação). Série Ideias, São Paulo, n. 23, FDE, p. 25-31, 1994. Disponível em:Disponível em:http://www.crmariocovas.sp.gov.br/pdf/ideias_23_p025-031_c.pdf Acesso em:17 set. 2020.
» http://www.crmariocovas.sp.gov.br/pdf/ideias_23_p025-031_c.pdf -
CORREIA, Gilvane Belem; BAPTISTA, Claudio Roberto. Política Nacional de Educação Especial na perspectiva da educação inclusiva de 2008: quais origens e quais trajetórias? RPGE - Revista on line de Política e Gestão Educacional, Araraquara, v. 22, n. esp. 2, p. 716-731, dez. 2018. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/rpge/article/view/11905 Acesso em: 22 set. 2020.
» https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/rpge/article/view/11905 -
DIRETÓRIO NACIONAL DE PERIÓDICOS EM EDUCAÇÃO. Página inicial - Regiões. Gildenir Carolino Santos; Jade Carmine Riciopo; Isabela Doraci C. Machado Xavier (Orgs.). Campinas: BCCL/UNICAMP, 2018. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://sites.google.com/g.unicamp.br/diretorioeduc/p%C3%A1gina-inicial Acesso em:16 set. 2020.
» https://sites.google.com/g.unicamp.br/diretorioeduc/p%C3%A1gina-inicial -
FENAPAES. Federação Nacional das Associações de Pais e Amigos dos Excepcionais. Posicionamento sobre a Política Nacional de Educação Especial Disponível em: Disponível em: http://apaebrasil.org.br/comunicacao/fenapaes-divulga-posicionamento-sobre-a-politica-nacional-de-educacao-especial Acesso em:17 out. 2020.
» http://apaebrasil.org.br/comunicacao/fenapaes-divulga-posicionamento-sobre-a-politica-nacional-de-educacao-especial -
FENEIS. Federação Nacional de Educação e Integração dos Surdos. Nota de apoio e esclarecimento sobre o decreto da Política Nacional de Educação Especial Disponível em:Disponível em:https://www.instagram.com/p/CGOA7R0Jn_3/ Acesso em: 29 out. 2020.
» https://www.instagram.com/p/CGOA7R0Jn_3/ -
GARBINI, Fernanda Zanette. A in/exclusão e a formação docente: uma discussão a partir dos estudos foucaultianos. Revista Espaço Acadêmico, n. 134, Ano XII, jul. 2012. Disponível em:Disponível em:http://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/EspacoAcademico/article/view/17699/9442 Acesso em:8 set. 2020.
» http://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/EspacoAcademico/article/view/17699/9442 - GARCIA, Rosalba Maria Cardoso. Disputas conservadoras na política de Educação Especial na perspectiva inclusiva. In: GARCIA, Rosalba Maria Cardoso(Org.). Políticas de Educação Especial no Brasil no início do século XXI. Florianópolis: UFSC/CED/NUP, 2017.
- GIL, Antonio Carlos. Métodos e Técnicas de Pesquisa Social 6. ed.São Paulo: Atlas, 2008.
-
HARLOS, Franco Ezequiel. DENARI, Fátima Elisabeth; ORLANDO, Rosimeire Maria. Análise da estrutura organizacional e conceitual da Educação Especial brasileira (2008-2013). Rev. Bras. Ed. Esp, Marília, v. 20, n. 4, p. 497-512, out./dez. 2014. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-65382014000400003 Acesso em: 12 set. 2020.
» https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-65382014000400003 -
KASSAR, Mônica de Carvalho Magalhães. Educação especial na perspectiva da educação inclusiva: desafios da implantação de uma política nacional. Educar em Revista, Curitiba, n. 41, p. 61-79, jul./set. 2011. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-40602011000300005 Acesso em:14 set. 2020.
» https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-40602011000300005 - KASSAR, Mônica de Carvalho Magalhães; REBELO, Andressa Santos; OLIVEIRA, Regina Tereza Cestari de. Embates e disputas na política nacional de Educação Especial brasileira. Revista Educ. Pesqui, São Paulo, v. 45, 2019.
-
LODI, Ana Claudia Balieiro. Educação bilíngue para surdos e inclusão segundo a Política Nacional de Educação Especial e o Decreto nº 5.626/05. Educ. Pesqui, São Paulo, v. 39, n. 1, p. 49-63, jan./mar. 2013. Disponível em:https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1517-97022013000100004 Acesso em: 15 set. 2020.
» https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1517-97022013000100004 -
MACHADO, Jardel Pelissari; PAN, Miriam Aparecida Graciano de Souza. Do Nada ao Tudo: políticas públicas e a educação especial brasileira. Educ. Real, Porto Alegre, v. 37, n. 1, p. 273-294, jan./abr. 2012. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://seer.ufrgs.br/educacaoerealidade/article/view/16130/16048 Acesso em:11 set. 2020.
» https://seer.ufrgs.br/educacaoerealidade/article/view/16130/16048 -
MANTOAN, Maria Teresa Eglér. Manifesto do LEPED em repúdio ao desmonte da Política Nacional de Educação Especial na perspectiva da educação inclusiva (PNEEPEI/) 2008 Laboratório de Estudos e Pesquisa em Ensino e Diferença da Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://inclusaoja.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/leped-carta-convocacao.pdf Acesso em:24 out. 2020.
» https://inclusaoja.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/leped-carta-convocacao.pdf - MANZINI, Eduardo José. Política de Educação Especial: considerações sobre público-alvo, formação de professores e financiamento. RPGE - Revista on line de Política e Gestão Educacional, Araraquara, v. 22, n. esp. 2, p. 810-824, dez. 2018. Disponível em: https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/rpge/article/view/11914/7797. Acesso em:9 set. 2020.
- MENDES, Enicéia Gonçalves. A Política de Educação Inclusiva e o Futuro das Instituições Especializadas no Brasil. Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, v. 27, n. 22, 2019. Disponível em:https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/download/3167/2217. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2021.
-
MINAYO, Maria Cecília. S.; SANCHES, Odécio. Quantitativo-Qualitativo: Oposição ou Complementaridade? Cad. Saúde Públ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 9, n. 3, p. 239-262, jul./set. 1993. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://www.scielo.br/pdf/csp/v9n3/02.pdf Acesso em: 14 fev. 2021.
» https://www.scielo.br/pdf/csp/v9n3/02.pdf -
MOCHEUTI, Karina Nonato. Balanço de produção sobre aprendizagem cooperativa e educação superior. In: REUNIÃO NACIONAL DA ANPED, 38., 2017, São Luís. Anais [...]. São Luís: UFMA, 2017. Disponível em:Disponível em:http://38reuniao.anped.org.br/sites/default/files/resources/programacao/poster_38anped_2017_GT11_520.pdf Acesso em:16 fev. 2021.
» http://38reuniao.anped.org.br/sites/default/files/resources/programacao/poster_38anped_2017_GT11_520.pdf -
NABUCO, Maria Eugênia. Práticas institucionais e inclusão escolar. Cadernos de Pesquisa, v. 40, n. 139, p. 63-74, jan./abr. 2010. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-15742010000100004 Acesso em: 14 set. 2020.
» https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-15742010000100004 - NEVES, Libéria Rodrigues; RAHME, Mônica Maria Farid; FERREIRA, Carla Mercês da Rocha Jatobá. Política de Educação Especial e os desafios de uma Perspectiva Inclusiva. Educação & Realidade, Porto Alegre, v. 44, n. 1, e84853, 2019. Disponível em: https://seer.ufrgs.br/educacaoerealidade/article/view/84853. Acesso em:16 set. 2020.
-
PINTASSILGO, Joaquim; BEATO, Carlos. Balanço da produção recente no campo da História das Disciplinas Escolares: o exemplo das teses de doutoramento (Portugal, 2005-2015). Cadernos de História da Educação, v. 16, n. 1, p. 45-63, 27 abr. 2017. Disponível em:Disponível em:http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/che/article/view/38238 Acesso em: 15 fev. 2021.
» http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/che/article/view/38238 -
RISTOFF, Dilvo. Educação superior no Brasil: 10 anos pós-LDB: da expansão à democratização. In: BITTAR, Mariluce; OLIVEIRA, João F. de; MOROSINI, M. Marília (Orgs.). Educação Superior no Brasil: 10 anos pós LDB. Brasília: INEP, 2008, p. 39-50. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://portal.inep.gov.br/informacao-da-publicacao/-/asset_publisher/6JYIsGMAMkW1/document/id/492421 Acesso em: 23 set. 2020.
» http://portal.inep.gov.br/informacao-da-publicacao/-/asset_publisher/6JYIsGMAMkW1/document/id/492421 -
RODRIGUES, Eliane de Oliveira; RAMPELOTTO, Elisane Maria. Gestão democrática e luta por reconhecimento na educação de surdos. Rev. Gest. Aval. Educ, Santa Maria, v. 3, n. 5, jan./jun. 2014. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://periodicos.ufsm.br/index.php/regae/article/view/13425/pdf Acesso em:27 set. 2020.
» https://periodicos.ufsm.br/index.php/regae/article/view/13425/pdf -
SANTOS, Kátia Silva; BAPTISTA, Claudio Roberto. Novos ‘referenciais’ cognitivos e normativos para a Política Nacional de Educação Especial no Brasil. Práxis Educacional, Vitória da Conquista, v. 10, n. 16, p. 15-33, jan./jun. 2014. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236650507.pdf Acesso em:29 set. 2020.
» https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236650507.pdf -
SENNA, Manoella; SANTOS, Mônica Pereira dos; LEMOS, Lidiane Moraes Buechen. A participação da sociedade e o caso da Política Nacional de Educação Especial na Perspectiva da Educação Inclusiva: refletindo sobre a formação de professores. Revista Aleph ., n. 34, jul. 2020. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://periodicos.uff.br/revistaleph/article/view/41437/25233 Acesso em: 14 set. 2020.
» https://periodicos.uff.br/revistaleph/article/view/41437/25233 -
SHIMITE, Amabriane da Silva Oliveira; SILVA, Nilson Rogério da. A proposta de atualização da Política Nacional de Educação Especial em relação à inclusão de alunos com deficiência no Ensino superior. Educação, Psicologia e Interfaces, v. 3, Dossiê Inclusão e Diversidade, p. 8-22, 2019. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://educacaoepsicologia.emnuvens.com.br/edupsi/article/view/191 Acesso em: 16 set. 2020.
» https://educacaoepsicologia.emnuvens.com.br/edupsi/article/view/191 -
SHIROMA, Eneida O.; CAMPOS, Roselane F.; GARCIA, Rosalba M. C. Decifrar textos para compreender a política: subsídios teórico-metodológicos para análise de documentos. In: Revista Perspectiva, Florianópolis: NUP; UFSC, v. 23, p. 427-446, 2005. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/perspectiva/article/view/9769 Acesso em: 7 jan. 2020.
» https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/perspectiva/article/view/9769 -
SILVA, Régis Henrique dos Reis. Balanço das dissertações e teses em educação especial e educação inclusiva desenvolvidas nos programas de pós-graduação em educação no Brasil. Rev. Bras. Ed. Esp, Marília, v. 24, n. 4, p. 601-618, out./dez. 2018. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1413-65382018000400601&lng=pt&nrm=iso Acesso em:15 fev. 2021.
» https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1413-65382018000400601&lng=pt&nrm=iso - SILVA, César Augusto de Assis; ASSÊNSIO, Cibele Barbalho. Setembro Azul: mobilização política nacional a favor das escolas bilíngues para surdos. Ponto Urbe [Online], n. 9, p. 01-10. 2011. Disponível em: https:// https://journals.openedition.org/pontourbe/1966?lang=en. Acesso em: 27 set. 2020.
-
SILVA, Kelly Cristina dos Santos; ANGELUCCI, Carla Biancha. A lógica medicalizante nas políticas públicas de educação. Revista Educação Especial, Santa Maria, v. 31, n. 62, p. 683-696, jul./set. 2018. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://periodicos.ufsm.br/educacaoespecial/article/view/29132 Acesso em:29 set. 2020.
» https://periodicos.ufsm.br/educacaoespecial/article/view/29132 - SILVA, Lázara Cristina da; SOUZA, Vilma Aparecida de; FALEIRO, Wender. Uma década da Política Nacional de Educação Especial na Perspectiva da Educação Inclusiva: do ideal ao possível. RPGE - Revista on line de Política e Gestão Educacional, Araraquara, v. 22, n. esp. 2, p. 732-747, dez. 2018. Disponível em:https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/rpge/article/view/11906. Acesso em:19 set. 2020.
-
SILVA, Régis Henrique dos Reis; MACHADO, Robson; SILVA, Ribamar Nogueira da. Golpe de 2016 e a educação no Brasil: implicações nas políticas de educação especial na perspectiva da educação inclusiva. Revista HISTEDBR On-line, Campinas, v. 19, p. 1-23, 2019. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/histedbr/article/view/8655755 Acesso em: 7 jan. 2020
» https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/histedbr/article/view/8655755 -
SILVEIRA, Andréa Pereira; COSTA, Chayenne Amã Perez Santos da. Política Nacional de Educação Especial na Perspectiva da educação inclusiva: diretrizes para alunos surdos. In: LOBATO, Huber Kline Guedes; SILVA, Lucival Fabio Rodrigues da; FIGUEIREDO, Daiane Pinheiro(Orgs.). Diálogos sobre inclusão escolar e ensino aprendizagem da Libras e Língua Portuguesa como segunda língua para surdos Belém: UFPA, 2016, p. 129-138. Disponível em:Disponível em:https://livroaberto.ufpa.br/jspui/bitstream/prefix/519/1/Livro_DialogosInclusaoEscolar.pdf#page=129 Acesso em: 26 set. 2020.
» https://livroaberto.ufpa.br/jspui/bitstream/prefix/519/1/Livro_DialogosInclusaoEscolar.pdf#page=129 -
ULLRICH, Wladimir Brasil. Política de Educação Especial: sobre ambivalência, tensão e indeterminação. Educação & Realidade, Porto Alegre, v. 44, n. 1, e84860, 2019. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://seer.ufrgs.br/educacaoerealidade/article/view/84860 Acesso em: 24 set. 2020.
» https://seer.ufrgs.br/educacaoerealidade/article/view/84860
-
4
"In political terms, social liberalism, guided by the concept of social equity, advocates the promotion of equal opportunities among individuals through education. Education, previously a form of human emancipation, becomes, according to this perspective, entirely subordinated to the skill requirements necessary for the commodity production processes commanded by capital" (CASTELO, 2011, p. 261).
-
5
In an analysis of the discourses disseminated by international organizations, Garcia (2017, p. 22) identified that "education is affirmed as a 'service', in offensive to the defense of this and other social rights, through the understanding that it can be offered by the private sectors of society through a management contract established with the State."
-
6
Mendes (2019, p. 15) highlights that: models based on various services were found, such as support/reinforcement rooms, special classes, collaboration between specialized and common education teachers, itinerant services, help from support professionals and, only more recently, the models of preferential support in SRM, as recommended by the MEC.
-
7
Silva (2018) highlighted that works linked to the topic of Special and Inclusive Education are concentrated at UFSCAR, UERJ; UFRGS; USP; UNESP/Mar; UFES; UFSM; Unicamp; UFBA; Unimep and UFRN.
-
8
Area of concentration.
-
9
Line of research.
-
10
Collares and Moysés (2010) presented medicalization as an artificial transformation of issues that were not within the scope of medicine into medical problems. The same authors argued that, in this context, collective issues are taken as individual, and social and political problems as biological.
-
11
MENDES, Enicéia G. A radicalization of the debate on school inclusion in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Educação (Brazilian Education Magazine), Rio de Janeiro, vol. 11, no. 33. 387-405, December 2006.
-
12
Enrollment in regular classrooms and the support of specialized educational assistance to complement or supplement schooling.
-
13
Draft of the National Policy on Special Education: equitable, inclusive, and lifelong. MEC/SECADI. Brasília, 2018.
-
14
LEPED's manifesto in repudiation of the dismantling of the National Policy on Special Education from the perspective of inclusive education (PNEEPEI/2008) (MANTOAN, 2020); Note of repudiation of Decree No. 10.502 (ANPED; ABPEE, 2020).
-
15
Legislative Decree Bill 427/20 (BRASIL, 2020b); Legislative Decree Bill 429/20 (BRASIL, 2020c); Legislative Decree Bill 437/20 (BRASIL, 2020d).
-
16
Note of support and clarification on the decree of the National Policy for Special Education (FENEIS, 2020); Positioning on the National Policy for Special Education (FENAPAES, 2020).
-
17
The website of USP's Faculty of Education presents a list of free and paid access Portals and Databases. Available at: http://www4.fe.usp.br/biblioteca/capacitacao-usuarios/guias-bases-de-dadosfeusp. Access on: 24 feb. 2021.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
06 Dec 2021 -
Date of issue
2021
History
-
Received
20 Nov 2020 -
Accepted
07 July 2021
Source: Prepared by the author based on the papers found in the Capes, Google Scholar, and SciELO portals.
Source: Prepared by the author based on the papers found in the Capes, Google Scholar, and SciELO portals.
Source: Prepared by the author based on papers found in the Capes, Google Scholar and SciELO portals.
Source: Prepared by the author based on the papers found in the Capes, Google Scholar and SciELO portals.