Inclusão escolar: análise de consensos e dissensos entre pesquisadores brasileiros da educação especial

• Ano de defesa: 2018
• Autor(a) principal: Tinôco, Saimonton
• Orientador(a): Mendes, Enicéia Gonçalves
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de São Carlos; Câmpus São Carlos
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação Especial - PPGEEs
• Palavras-chave em Português: Educação especial; Inclusão escolar; Oneesp; Política educacional; Sociogênese do conhecimento
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Special education; School inclusion; Educational politics; Sociogenesis of knowledge
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS HUMANAS::EDUCACAO::TOPICOS ESPECIFICOS DE EDUCACAO
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/12107

It is a consensus among Brazilian researchers in Special Education that the world movement for School Inclusion is a political, cultural, social and pedagogical action, triggered in defense of the right of all students to be together, participating and learning without any kind of negative discrimination. However, the way to operationalize such an understanding is sometimes dubious and, why not to say, contradictory: there is one side that advocates the placement of all students in the common classroom and the total elimination of the model based on a continuum of specialized support services ; the other, considers that the best place would always be the common classroom, although it admits the possibility of support services or even different environments (resource rooms, special classrooms or special schools). Thus, we raise the thesis that there are different understandings about School Inclusion, which imply different educational policies and practices. For this reason, we come to the following research questions: What are the understandings of Brazilian academic scholars in Special Education about School Inclusion? Where do such understandings draw near? And where do they distance themselves? Thus, the present research had as general objective to analyze the understandings of Brazilian academic scholars of Special Education about School Inclusion and as a methodological basis the Collaborative Research. In order to enable data production, we organized a reflexive cycle composed of three collaborative stages (preparation, intervention and systematization), permeated by three reflexive movements (description, information and confrontation), when we used, respectively, the following strategies: virtual poll, virtual focus groups and face-to-face work groups, with the participation of 71 Special Education researchers from the five geographic regions of Brazil. In order to help us in the problematization, we resort to the Sociogenesis of Knowledge, developed by Fleck, which presents us with the concepts of Thought Collective and Thought Style, central elements for the discussion and analysis that we propose. We worked with hybrid data, which generated a mixed analysis, based on simple statistical treatment of the virtual poll and in categorization of the transcripts of the audios of the focus groups, aiming at the reconstruction of reality and the derivation of consensuses and dissents referring to the understanding of School Inclusion. Finally, the data were organized in three empirical categories (attendance, pupil and evaluation), which resulted in the identification of positions (opinion systems) and the raising of arguments (proto-ideas) that compose understandings related to School Inclusion as a scientific fact. The finds pointed out that the Special Education Thought Collective participating in this research has not yet built a Thought Style that expresses univocally the positions regarding the principle of School Inclusion, once the answers have been constructed from the constraints (limits and possibilities) of each context. This demonstrates the need to deepen the debate, to better define the arguments raised and to construct an inclusive educational theory that serves as a reference framework to discuss the results obtained in the Area researches, which it will generates an influential contribution to the design of public policies to beyond the polarity between Full Inclusion and Partial Inclusion.