ORIGINAL ARTICLE
GUIMARÃES, Mariuza Aparecida Camillo [1], PAIM, Maria Do Carmo Pinto Fajreldin [2]
GUIMARÃES, Mariuza Aparecida Camillo. PAIM, Maria Do Carmo Pinto Fajreldin. Statements and impacts on the constitution of social practices in Special Education. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento. Year 05, Ed. 10, Vol. 06, pp. 121-135. October 2020. ISSN: 2448-0959, Access link: https://www.nucleodoconhecimento.com.br/education/impacts-on-the-constitution
ABSTRACT
The right to education and public policies for special education in Brazil through the rules in force are the central themes of this article. The objective is to explain the public policies in force in the area of special education, in view of the statements constituting social practices and which are presented in the form of speeches legitimized by means of different norms that indicate the guiding principles for the implementation of social practices in education. Data collection took place through documentary research. The systematization and analysis of the data were based on the Foucaultian framework. From the studies it can be concluded that the statement inclusive education, guiding principle of Brazilian special education, reflects the principles that support public policies in the area and presents itself as a strategy for the realization of the right to education through the schooling process of the target audience of that it deals with, but that goes against the laws and norms in force that establish limits that cannot be transgressed under penalty of exclusion.
Keywords: Statements, right to education, special education, inclusive education, social practices.
1. INTRODUCTION
This article has as its theme the right to education and public policies in force in the area of special education, in view of the constitutive statements of social practices and which are presented in the form of legitimated speeches by means of different norms that indicate the guiding principles for the realization of the social practices in education. It originates from studies and research developed by the authors in Stricto Sensu Graduate Programs. The objective is to explain the public policies in force in the area of special education, in view of the right to education, in particular the National Policy on Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (BRASIL, 2008a), presented[3] by the Ministry of Education in September 2008, which presupposed the institutionalization of a process of total inclusion, recommending that all students, target audience of special education, should be enrolled in ordinary schools with the support of Specialized Educational Assistance (AEE).
The organization and analysis of the data was based on the Foucauldian framework, seeking to understand the statements that make up the laws that normalize social practices, as well as the origins and intentionalities that constitute and legitimize them as discourses of truth. The explanation of these statements and the consequent analysis is necessary since the standard under study intends to establish a policy that hegemonizes and normalizes these subjects and the education processes made available by ordinary schools based on a curriculum and a predetermined time for students. learning processes, as provided for in the general law of education, the Law of Directives and Bases of Education (LDB), Law No. 9394/1996.
Therefore, we sought to rescue the writings of documents, whether theoretical (historical and pedagogical) or normalizing (laws and educational norms in force), by means of documentary research, essentially, not in the sense of just reproducing them, but of seeking the gaps between the post and the omitted, making other meanings of these same artifacts emerge, as Foucault (1926-1984) warns, so that the mistake of trying to understand the real from what is on the surface is not made, as if the norms and the rules were synonymous and that the truth is absolute and unique.
In this line, the analysis seeks through the statements, to find subsidies that allow to give clues to the reader for the understanding of the movements of society and, especially, with regard to those that Michel Foucault calls subjects, understood as those who are excluded from relationships to be able to know in a given social group and who are subjectified by institutionalized truth systems.
The text intends, therefore, to explain how the norms and other guiding documents are constituted in statements, such as the right to education, education for all, inclusive education, among others, that determine the discourses and proposes to dictate the social practices, their understandings and their respective truths.
When it comes to the statement inclusive education, guiding principle of Brazilian special education, it reflects the principles that support public policies in the area and presents itself as a strategy for the realization of the right to education through the schooling process of the target audience it deals with , but that goes against the laws and norms in force that establish limits that cannot be transgressed under penalty of exclusion. This is what the work that is presented in this article is about and whose elements will be described below.
2. THE SPEAKERS AND THE TRUE DISCOURSES
The statements are not just the constitutive ideas of a discourse, on the contrary, the statements are constituted from legitimate speeches, institutionalized as truths that occur in different ways. Next, we will highlight some statements that have historically consolidated themselves, in some moments with more or less emphasis, or even, submerged by other discourses of truth.
Studies carried out based on the historical processes of Western education have given rise to some of these discourses that have consolidated themselves as statements: education for all, the right to education, compulsory education, among others, which are speeches that make up the statement inclusive education. These statements appear in the movements of society in a transient way at certain times, showing the need for these discourses of truth for the maintenance of the relations of power to know, necessary not for inclusion, but for its opposite, exclusion. The statements emerge from the problems faced by society.
The statements presented here emerge at conflicting moments in history, such as the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the 1990s and 2000s, among others, in which the exclusion caused by the political contexts of each era needs answers to economic, educational or governmental crises, hence the statements that try to aggregate social groups around a single idea are born.
In the scenario of Brazilian educational processes, inclusive education appears as a discourse that aims to promote inclusion to those historically excluded groups, however, this is consolidated only within the scope of special education policies, being even treated as a synonym in some of the norms that regulates it.
It was in this scenario of conceptual confusion in the definition of new discourses of truth that the guiding document for special education, called the National Policy for Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (BRASIL, 2008a), produced to society by the Ministry of Education (MEC) was produced in 2008, establishing the concepts of students eligible for special education, conceptions and guidelines for the organization of specialized educational assistance to the person characterized as a person with special educational needs, restricted to students with disabilities, global developmental disorders and high skills / giftedness , differently from the wider public defined in the norms then in force, especially in the National Guidelines of Special Education for Basic Education (BRASIL, 2001a).
The document that presents itself as an intention of public inclusion policy resumes the traditional delimitation of the public of special education, specifying it and omitting it in relation to learning difficulties, learning disorders or other conditions that could lead to losses in the process of schooling, even if it cites en passant specific functional disorders, but without delving into the way special education should work in conjunction with the common school, as indicated.
The National Policy of Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (BRASIL, 2008a), understood in this research as the guiding document, contradicts itself, since at the time it delimits the public object of its determinations, as the field of special education states that it must – consider the dynamics of contexts and people:
It is considered that people change continuously, transforming the context in which they are inserted. This dynamism requires a pedagogical action aimed at changing the situation of exclusion, reinforcing the importance of heterogeneous environments for promoting the learning of all students. (BRASIL, 2008a, p. 9)
These supposed contradictions show the speed with which the speeches of truth are organized, multiplied and modified. In this babel of enunciations, the public power with political and legal legitimation delimits qualified knowledge on the subject. The evidenced understanding is that there are excluded groups, but there are groups that are more excluded than others and that is what we should focus on in principle.
In this case, in special education, it is a matter of establishing “[…] a control that does not affect, therefore, the content of the statements, their conformity, or not with certain truth, but the regularity of the statements”, which is what, in fact, determines the actions developed by the education systems, since they are dependent on those as determined by the movements of the political power, which legitimizes it. (FOUCAULT, 2002a, p. 220)
In the line of legitimation are the rules, such as Decree no. 6571/2008 [i], which basically dealt with Specialized Educational Assistance (AEE) and its financing, highlighting the provisions contained in the FUNDEB Law, Law 11.494 / 2007, creating a normative problem when defining the AEE for education systems, but assigning its offer to public schools, conditioning the attendance to enrollment in public schools in the opposite shift, defining duplicate remuneration of such student in the scope of basic education financing. It can be seen that, in this way, the norm induces an idea that enrollment in the AEE must take place in public schools to the detriment of private schools, constitutionally guaranteed, and in which enrollment does not guarantee the right to AEE.
However, the legitimacy of the AEE for the education system occurs in the intervention of the MEC, by sending the letter SEESP / GAB nº 3.019, of November 26, 2008 (BRAZIL, 2009a) to the National Education Council (CNE) requesting manifestation regarding the AEE. The request resulted in Opinion CNE CEB nº. 13/2009 (BRASIL, 2009a), which defines Operational Guidelines for Specialized Educational Assistance (AEE), instituted through Resolution CNE CEB 04/2009 (BRASIL, 2009b).
The aforementioned Opinion established, among its priorities, the mandatory enrollment of students targeting special education in ordinary schools, which is reflected in the Resolution establishing the guidelines. Resolution CNE CEB 04/2009, is set out in art. 1st
For the implementation of Decree No. 6,571 / 2008, the education systems must enroll students with disabilities, global developmental disorders and high skills / giftedness in common classes of regular education and in Specialized Educational Assistance (AEE) […]. (BRASIL, 2009b, p. 1)
It can be said that what really defines the relationship of being able to know is the condition that deals with the bonding of double enrollment, removing the possibility of choosing between schooling in special schools and the AEE, private ordinary schools and the AEE, omitting in the priorities of the norm the mandatory nature proposed in the aforementioned Opinion, but maintaining the relation of enrollment in public common education to the AEE, establishing through the omitted the social practice that guarantees the so-called inclusion process, understood as access to schooling in public public schools of education systems. teaching.
Foucault (2005, p. 122) makes an understanding that this wealth of norms aims at the exercise of knowledge power, that is, the normalization of these people who comes to a specific space, receives the information and has the rules defined from themselves, since they are subjectified by the speeches of truth disposed in them. In the specific case of the issues under consideration, special education and inclusive education, these appear as an expression of a need for disciplinarization through pedagogy:
[…] Pedagogy was formed from the child’s own adaptations to school tasks, adaptations observed and extracted from his behavior to subsequently become laws of functioning of the institutions and form of power exercised over the child.
The school for all brings in its principle a process of disciplinarization that aims to normalize the subjects so that the speeches of truth are massified and promote subjectivity. There is an inversion as to the right to education, right presupposes a duty, but also a choice and in the logic of the normalization of inclusive education that defines a locus only for the exercise of the right, this is lost and generates a vacuum in the guarantee that this subject of the law, in fact access it.
It is certain that for the effectiveness of these processes it is essential that this teaching is not only adapted to these needs and the conditions of the subjects, but it presupposes financing. In this sense, it is observed in these documents a great concern with the financing of this schooling process, considering that the entrance of students with disabilities, global development disorders and high skills or giftedness in ordinary schools require resources and adaptations that pass, necessarily , through a series of procedures, including the financing process, considering that this service requires a large investment of financial resources, especially considering the duplication of enrollment provided for in the current rules, currently by Decree 7611/2011, which replaced Decree 6571, making the guarantee of FUNDEB resources available to students enrolled in special schools. (BRASIL, 2011)
For all the processes described in the previous paragraphs, it can be said that the movement to strengthen the AEE characterizes an economic struggle and a political struggle, conceived in which the provider State seeks alternatives “[…] with a disciplinary role: that is, , at the same time, selection, homogenization, hierarchization, centralization.” There is a denial of other possible services, including special schools, which historically assumed the task that should be the State’s. (FOUCAULT, 2002a, p. 222)
It is important to say that the special schools, maintained by specialized institutions, have a private, philanthropic, non-profit character and that consolidated and assumed the primacy of systematic initiatives to offer schooling to students, the target audience of special education, having even been the object of of provisions in the laws that govern education since the first law of guidelines and bases of education, Law No. 4,024 / 1961, passing through Law No. 5,692 / 1971, and currently in LDB No. 9394/1996 , which guarantee the financing of such institutions.
The Public Power, except for isolated actions and the definition of policies, has not assumed the education of this public with serious commitments, whose conditions do not allow them to benefit from the school curriculum as it is established, transferring it to non-profit charities, the responsibility of providing school attendance to these groups of students, legitimizing these spaces as the locus of the right to offer schooling, including financial support from the State.
There is an evident desire to establish a real discourse, however, the rules create a lapse of understanding, establish conflicts that cast doubt on intentionalities, it is not known if it is because they are unable to consolidate a policy or if this policy does not meet the relations of knowing power present in governmental movements, preventing social practices that meet the needs of these groups and the institutions that surround them, generating the opposite of their intentionality, exclusion.
Note that, on the one hand, the school is constituted in the form of a curriculum, which must be completed in a certain time, its panopticon is given, its containment and control devices are defined internally and externally, on the other hand, there is a student, with different times, different conditions for the appropriation of this space, whose intentions are already previously defined. Here we have an antagonistic process for which we want to establish equal rules for different objects. In order to achieve what is intended, it is necessary to create a comprehensive discourse, a discourse of truth in which educational inclusion must embrace all subjects without distinction.
This truth discourse is not localized and is consolidated through statements, the main one being the right to education, which is the basis of support for everything that has been presented in this text so far. According to Foucault (2005, p. 120): “The school system is also entirely based on a kind of judicial power. At all times you punish and reward yourself, evaluate yourself, classify yourself, say who is the best, who is the worst ”. This is the environment in which an inclusive education that guarantees rights is sought. Right not only to be, but to be a part. To be a part, it is necessary that the relations are respectful, which is not possible due to the reality of competition when the organization of the space or curriculum is unequal.
The role of education should refer to the process of making knowledge available, but these will always be selected, therefore, stating that there is a particular pedagogical practice that accounts for the inclusion of all differences, is to reproduce the truths of political power without a sense of the consequences of that thought. In this sense, thinking about inclusive education and inclusive school refers to the understanding of the movements of these truth statements that are institutionalized through laws and norms.
Why is it so important that everyone is in school? Why should everyone have access to the same knowledge / content / information? These are basic questions for the discussion of an inclusive education that requires a pedagogical practice so different from that practiced at school. The answers to these questions are situated in the field of knowledge, power, selection and, especially, control, which requires normalization, subjection to statements of truth necessary for the maintenance of political power. (FOUCAULT, 2002a)
Despite the policy of inclusive education and its ‘good’ intentions, centered on the right to education, the social practice resulting from such discourse will end up producing other forms of exclusion, to the extent that it does not comply with the other laws and norms prevailing in education. The contradictions present in these laws and norms, support the thesis that inclusive education policies are real speeches that are temporary.
The governmental power structure itself highlights this temporality since it does not constitute a public policy of the State, but of Government, whose contradictions are explicit in view of the possibility of alteration with each change of government. The intentionality of the discourse does not materialize, it only produces the subjectivities that seem to meet the desire expressed by the public using such a policy.
On the other hand, this same discourse of truth that can make up a reality can also make it emerge and, consequently, be reflected. Even though the expected social practices have not been consolidated, it is still a policy that establishes another view of education and can be configured as a transformational practice that takes the school to rethink its pedagogical practices and reverses them in positive actions, not only for students eligible for special education, but for all those who, under any circumstances, may, eventually, have some difficulty in the learning process, during school life.
The normalizing discourse defined by an institution produces a partial social practice, which reflects a relationship between knowledge and power. In certain circumstances, this practice can hardly be refuted. The National Policy for Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (BRASIL, 2008a) points to desires that constitute the statements that permeate educational relations, present in speeches since the Modern Age: public, free and quality education.
In this context, the unspoken demonstrates the contradiction in the norm itself, which it sections to control, it omits as a form of negation, evidencing what Foucault (2002a) calls “power of normalization”, which, much more than the imposition of certain knowledge, it implies much more subtle relationships of subjection.
The movement around normalizing definitions reflects the exercise of power that is also evidenced in an articulation between literature and norms and it is possible to verify the existence of a distance that lacks reflection. The first shows the contradictions in social organization, which, as a rule, point to the possibility of an inclusive education, almost always treated from an individual or segmented point of view, while the second when proposing inclusion indicates a collective perspective when pointing for the right to education, which by law is collective.
In the face of omissions and presuppositions, pedagogical practices are thought of as tools to solve learning problems, sometimes for the blind student, now for the deaf student, now for the student with mental disability and so on. Education as a whole is not thought, as presupposed in inclusive education, which would be the combination of diversity in the same class.
The researches carried out on the theme show a greater concern with the schooling process than with the specific conditions and needs, as seen in the State of knowledge carried out by Guimarães (2012) in the CAPES database, from 2001 to 2009 , using the descriptors inclusive education and educational inclusion returned 489, of these 31.08 dealing with educational aspects of each specificity, and around 50% of the cases did not refer to the specific public of special education, but to the process of schooling and special education generically. It is an important data for research regarding inclusion processes in the educational field.
Educational rules, when regulating the right to education, establish limits for individual actions, given the understanding that education is a collective act and, normally, do not offer space for considerations on the limits of social organization, treating equality at the same level of the law, while guaranteeing the right would, on the contrary, treat the unequal, unequally
Foucault (1971, p. 1), when starting the discussion about the Order of discourse, uses as a figure of illustration a conversation between the desire of a subject and the regulatory institution of truths:
The desire says: “I, I didn’t want to be forced into this uncertain order of speech; I did not want to have anything to do with him in what is peremptory and decisive; I wanted him to be very close to me as a calm, profound transparency, indefinitely open, and for the others to respond to my expectation, and for the truths, one at a time, to arise; it would be enough just to let myself be carried, in and by him, like a boat adrift, happy.” And the institution replies:” You should not be afraid to start; we are here to make you see that the speech is in the order of the laws; that we have always watched its appearance; that we have granted him a place, which honors him, but which disarms him; and if it has any power, it is from us, and only from us, that receives it.”
The rules on special education that have emerged since the 1990s in Brazil are similar to the dialogue between desire and the institution. A government says “I wish it were so”; the institution says ‘don’t worry, write whatever you want’, but social practices will happen according to local needs, establishing relations of knowledge power that will circulate endlessly around the desire to be achieved, making public policy an eternal one search.
In line with the desire to reach an inclusive education, Opinion CNE CEB 17/2001 (BRASIL, 2001b) addresses concepts that demonstrate its caution regarding the definition of a concept on the subject it deals with. It provides, for example, that inclusion, in the case of students with more severe conditions of disability, which prevents the benefit of common schooling, may be attended in special classes or in special schools, as an alternative to access systematized knowledge. This is a comfortable speech that did not generate much controversy, it just conformed to a situation in fact. Besides having the force of law, it fulfilled the desire of those who need this service.
On the other hand, the National Policy on Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (BRASIL, 2008a), in the impetus to accelerate the desire, definitively establishes that inclusive education is the assumption that should govern the organization of the school. The unsaid about the special class and the special school in a Policy of this dimension already shows the clashes and the use of institutional knowledge to force a conception that should guide the school, whose norms indicate that it must be democratic, participative and of quality. .
This discourse brings conflicting situations and generates several debates when aiming for new social practices, but that consolidates itself, in the measure, that the subjection consists, generally, involuntary submission, to the consolidated speeches through laws and norms that designate the relations knowledge power legitimated in society. The legitimate discourse tries to establish an accommodation in society, even though social practices are distanced from what is intended. (FOUCAULT, 2002b)
Foucault (2002b), when discussing the relations of knowledge power in the eighteenth century, emphasizing medical knowledge and the judiciary, as segments that intertwine when it is necessary to establish a new truth, affirms that this intertwining between various institutions, in this case , the educational organization and the financing of education, indispensable for the consolidation of the discourse, seem adequate to explain how the discourse of inclusive education was constituted and how it became the collective truth.
Research with teachers indicates that, even understanding the difficulties of working with such different people, they accept them and seek to work in the best way, considering that it is necessary that their rights are guaranteed. (CORDEIRO, 2003). In this context, normalization has the role of regulating this right and, underlying it, there is a consolidation movement understood as the best by those who produce it.
The consolidation of these truths goes through debates and clashes, which are necessary, since one idea needs to overlap the other and these processes are gradually constructed and accepted as true; transformed into norms, decide the social practices that are accepted and accepted as collective, with eventual questions that do not advance, as there are other devices that permeate policies and that submit society to its established dictates as truth.
Resistances demonstrate the need for transgression, which according to Foucault (1988) establishes new truth statements, which can be seen in movements involving special education. In this process, it should be noted that the resistance around the determinations of an unrestricted inclusive education continued and found an echo in the political power that published in November 2011, Decree nº. 7611/2011 (BRASIL, 2011), which revoked Decree no. 6571/2008 (BRASIL, 2008b), already cited in this text, corroborating all the demands of organized movements for the defense of people with disabilities.
The aforementioned Decree recognizes the different services of special education, including special classes and special schools, when Art. enrollments in the regular school system, in common classes or in special classes of regular schools, and in special or specialized schools. (BRASIL, 2007b, p. 5)
This admission reverses the assumptions that permeated the National Policy on Special Education in the perspective of inclusive education (2008), despite maintaining the enrollment of the target public of special education in public public schools as a principle, it highlights that they should occur “[…] Preferably in the regular school system ”. (Decree nº.7611 / 2011, Art. 1º, Inc. VII), (BRASIL, 2011b), as seen in LDB nº. 9394/1996 (BRASIL, 1996) and in the rules of the National Council of Education in force.
The contradictions observed and pointed out in this work in relation to the current rules, among them, the LDB and the Law that approves FUNDEB (BRASIL, 2007a) and the rules of the National Education Council, Opinion CNE CEB nº. 17/2001, CNE CEB Resolution no. 2/2001, among others, are resolved in Decree nº.7611 / 2011 (BRASIL, 2011a), which takes over all the determinations previously established reestablishing old and new truths, which are interconnected as an inclusive education policy, but which admits that beyond of the common public school, inclusion can also take place in private and even segregated spaces, although not expressly stated.
Despite the conceptual confusions and the coexistence between all models, the discourse of inclusive education centered on the statement of equality loses strength and the integration understood as the access of people with disabilities in environments closest to those considered to be normal overlaps with the discourse of truth of inclusion.
The devices are constituted in networks, networks that are established in the interlocution of several elements: the social practices, the relations established based on a knowledge legitimized by the political power, the discourses that derive from it and that are constituted in norms and, consequently, in rules , but essentially in the form in which these knowledges are constituted and distributed, finally normalized.
The statements constituted by guiding truths of social practices: education for all, equality, solidarity, fraternity, gratuity, democratization of education, inclusive education, disseminated in moments of history, not by chance, eventually and not continuously, are strategies for maintaining the devices regulators of relations know power. It is in this field that the discourse of inclusive education is located, as well as, the laws and norms that legitimize it.
3. A FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The constitution of inclusion policies, as can be seen in the text, took place through various participation mechanisms, considering the institutions that constitute the democracy that governs Western societies: participation of organized civil society, discussion in the National Congress, in the National Council of Education, among other movements, both in defense and resistance, in the face of the constitution of the discourse.
The initial proposal aimed at an immediate extinction of the services of social organizations, through special schools, however, popular pressures and debates held at different levels made some changes necessary, including with regard to financing, the principle of which was modified in the replacement of Decree no. 6571/2008 by Decree nº 6711/2011.
The National Policy on Special Education from the perspective of Inclusive Education (2008), despite the changes suffered during its collective elaboration in the years 2007 and 2008, shows that there was a substantial change in the understanding of the discourses that permeate the legal provisions, the most important and that the common school is the rule and the special school is the exception, therefore, temporary.
This change in conception implies a new thinking of the special education itself and intends to take the school to review its postures. It is true that the research developed still points to the need for the constitution of subjectivation processes, through specific training, which leads educators to understand the need for a look at diversity that means different methods, times and organizations in Brazilian education for all who are in it, regardless of their conditions, therefore, a new school culture.
This discourse of a new school culture, with other attitudes, other methodologies, other resources, is not new, since they are already arranged in several theories that support education and that permeate Brazilian legal provisions since the 1930s, however, when institutionalized by the Central Education Agency in the country, the Ministry of Education, normalized and intertwined with political power, is a condition for expected social practices.
This article deals with a specific period from 2001 to approximately 2014, it does not intend to make history of the present, but the researchers, authors of this, are committed to the theme and warn that, especially after 2016 when there was a rupture of the power created due to the impeachment, by the National Congress, of the president elected in 2014, other changes in the area of special education were carried out and should be the object of analysis regarding the impacts on the right to education provided for in the Brazilian Magna Carta and other norms.
However, it is emphasized that the enunciations of the right to education, education for all, inclusive education, central to this text, continue to permeate Brazilian public policies, since Brazil is not an isolated entity from the social order that guides world governmentality and independent of the government that manages the State, at any time, these are the guidelines for normalization. The mandatory education advocated in the Federal Constitution is one of the strategies for maintaining education for all, which can only be consolidated if it is inclusive. On the other hand, the insertion of all subjects in the same space, with the same curricula and methodologies, can only produce exclusion. Contradiction as a rule.
4. REFERENCES
BRASIL. Diretrizes Nacionais para a Educação Especial na Educação Básica/Parecer CNE CEB nº 17/ 2001. Disponível em: http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13251%3Aparecer-ceb-2001&catid=323%3Aorgaos-vinculados&Itemid=866. Acesso em: 05 mai. 2011.
______. Lei Nº 11.494, de 20 de junho de 2007. Regulamenta o Fundo de Manutenção e Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica e de Valorização dos Profissionais da Educação – FUNDEB, de que trata o art. 60 do Ato das Disposições Constitucionais Transitórias; altera a Lei no 10.195, de 14 de fevereiro de 2001; revoga dispositivos das Leis nos 9.424, de 24 de dezembro de 1996, 10.880, de 9 de junho de 2004, e 10.845, de 5 de março de 2004; e dá outras providências. 2007a Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/Lei/L11494.htm, acesso em 10.03.2012
______. Decreto no 6.253, de 13 de novembro de 2007. Dispõe sobre o Fundo de Manutenção e Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica e de Valorização dos Profissionais da Educação – FUNDEB, regulamenta a Lei no 11.494, de 20 de junho de 2007, e dá outras providências. Disponível em: www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007…/2007/Decreto/D6253.htm. Acesso em 10.03.2012. 2007b
______. Política Nacional de Educação Especial na Perspectiva da Educação Inclusiva. 2008a. Disponível em: http://portal.mec.gov.br/seesp/arquivos/pdf/politica.pdf. Acesso em: 05 mai. 2011.
______. Lei n. 9394 de 1996, Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (LDB), Brasília, DF, 1996. Disponível no site www.presidencia.gov.br. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2019.
______. Decreto 6571/2008b. Dispõe sobre o Atendimento Educacional Especializado. Disponível em: www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_…2010/2008/Decreto/D6571.htm,
______. Parecer CNE CEB 13/2009a. Estabelece Diretrizes Operacionais para o atendimento educacional especializado na Educação Básica, modalidade Educação Especial.
______. Resolução CNE CEB 04/2009b. Institui Diretrizes Operacionais para o Atendimento Educacional Especializado na Educação Básica, modalidade Educação Especial.
______. Decreto 7611/2011, dispõe sobre a educação especial, o atendimento educacional especializado e dá outras providências. Disponível em: www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2011…/Decreto/D7611.htm acesso em 10 de mar. de 2012
CORDEIRO, Celso da Cunha. A Educação Inclusiva na Perspectiva dos Professores: a ponta do iceberg. 2003. 000 f. Tese (Doutorado) – Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Educação, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educaç1ão, São Paulo.
FOUCAULT, M. História da sexualidade I: A vontade de Saber, tradução de Maria Thereza da Costa Albuquerque e J. A. Guilhon Albuquerque. Rio de Janeiro, Edições Graal, 1988.
______. Em defesa da sociedade: Curso do Collége de France (1975/1976) Trad. Maria Ermantina Galvão. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. 2002a.
______. A Verdade e as Formas Jurídicas. (Trad. Roberto Cabral de Melo Machado e Eduardo Jardim Morais, Supervisão final do texto Lea Porto de Abreu Novaes…et al. L. –Rio de Janeiro: NAU Editora, 2005.
______. Os Anormais: Curso no Collége deFrance (1974-1975); Trad. Eduardo Brandão. – São Paulo: Martins Fontes. 2002b.
______. (L’Ordre du discours, Leçon inaugurale ao Collège de France prononcée le 2 décembre 1970, Éditions Gallimard, Paris, 1971.) Trad. de Edmundo Cordeiro com a ajuda para a parte inicial do António Bento. Disponível em: http://vsites.unb.br/fe/tef/filoesco/foucault/ordem.pdf. Acesso em: 03 jun. 2011.
GUIMARÃES, Mariuza Aparecida Camillo. (2012) Dispositivos Normalizadores da Educação Inclusiva: os Enunciados dos Conselhos de Educação. Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul/ Centro de Ciências Humanas e Sociais/ Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação. Curso de Doutorado. [Tese]. Campo Grande/MS. UNESCO.
Declaração de Salamanca: sobre Princípios, Política e Práticas na Área das Necessidades Educativas Especiais. Disponível em: <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001393/139394por.pdf>. Acesso em: 11 out. 2011.
VEIGA NETO, A. Foucault & a Educação. 2. ed. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, 2004.
APPENDIX – FOOTNOTE REFERENCE
3. The term ‘presentation’ means that this document does not have a homologation ordinance as is customary in the Ministry of Education, it was only presented in a meeting with the presence of authorities, legitimized by public exposure and by Decree 6571/2008, later replaced by Decree 7611/2011.
[1] Doctorate in Education, Master in Education, Lato Sensu Post-Graduation in Special Education, Undergraduate Pedagogy.
[2] Master in Education, Pedagogy.
Submitted: July, 2020.
Approved: October, 2020.
