INCLUSIVE SCHOOL: an initiative shared by parents, students and school staff

Abstract

Inclusive school has as its motto the full and shared participation of all subjects in the educational process. In this sense, this study aimed to investigate what parents, students and school staff think about the inclusive school theme. The study was carried out in an Elementary School-Cycle I, in the interior of São Paulo, with 179 parents, 204 students and 16 members of the school staff. The data collection involved the application of the "Index for Inclusion" questionnaires, consisting of three dimensions: cultures, policies and practices. The results show a view both of the school staff and of the students and parents more directed to the physical structure of the school, and most of them show satisfaction with regard to human resources and classes. In this sense, there is still a restricted focus on the inclusive process, and a more effective work is necessary with the students, the parents/guardians and the school staff.

Keywords:
Education; inclusion; indicators

Resumo

A escola inclusiva tem como mote a participação plena e compartilhada de todos os sujeitos no processo educacional. Nesse sentido, este estudo teve como objetivo investigar o que pensam os pais, alunos e equipe escolar sobre a temática da escola inclusiva. O estudo foi realizado em uma escola de Ensino Fundamental-Ciclo I, do interior paulista, tendo como participantes 179 pais, 204 alunos e 16 integrantes da equipe escolar. A coleta de dados envolveu a aplicação dos questionários do "Index para Inclusão”, constituído de três dimensões: culturas, políticas e práticas. Os resultados demonstram um olhar tanto da equipe escolar, quanto dos alunos e pais mais direcionados a estrutura física da escola, sendo que, a maioria mostra satisfação em relação aos recursos humanos e as aulas. Neste sentido, observa-se um olhar ainda restrito quanto ao processo inclusivo, sendo necessário um trabalho mais efetivo junto aos alunos, aos pais/responsáveis e equipe escolar.

Palavras-chave:
Educação; inclusão; indicadores

Resumen

La escuela inclusiva tiene como lema la participación plena y compartida de todos los sujetos en el proceso educacional. En ese sentido, este estudio tuvo como objetivo investigar lo que piensan los padres, alumnos y equipo escolar sobre la temática de la escuela inclusiva. Se realizó el estudio en una escuela de Enseñanza Primaria -Ciclo I, del interior paulista y tuvo como participantes 179 padres, 204 alumnos y 16 integrantes del equipo escolar. La recolecta de datos involucró la aplicación de los cuestionarios del "Índex para Inclusión”, constituido de tres dimensiones: culturas, políticas y prácticas. Los resultados demuestran una mirada del equipo escolar y de los alumnos y padres más direccionados a la estructura física de la escuela, siendo que, la mayor parte muestra satisfacción en relación a los recursos humanos y a las clases. En este sentido, se observa una mirada aún restricta cuanto al proceso inclusivo, siendo necesario un trabajo más efectivo junto a los alumnos, a los padres/responsables y equipo escolar.

Palabras clave:
Educación; onclusión; indicadores

Introduction

The inclusion paradigm is increasingly present in Brazilian public policies, especially in social sectors such as health, education, culture, sport, work, care and leisure. Specifically in education is a guaranteed right, based on the Brazilian Federal Constitution (Brazil, 1988) and Law 9,394/1996 (Brazil, 1996), which establishes the Guidelines and Bases of National Education - LDB, being intensified by Legislative Decree No. 186/2008 (2008).

The international documents set as a fundamental principle for inclusive education the learning of all children so that they can be together, meeting the diversity and respecting the needs of the students. "Within inclusive schools, children with special educational needs should receive whatever extra support they may need to ensure effective education ..." (UNESCO, 1994, p. 61).

Thus, it is necessary to think and plan actions for the school to develop inclusive practices in its daily life, implying changes in the school context in both structural and attitudinal aspects. Likewise, a theoretical and practical support will contribute to relationships that can have new meaning, giving the school a democratic education in which relations are equal and the rights of all guaranteed with equity (Santos, 2003).

According to Booth and Ainscow (2012), an inclusive school favors the social relationship between students and, equally, greater involvement in educational processes. The primary role of Inclusive Education does not yet dispense us from a society without exclusions, as they are inherent, that is, one cannot exist without the other. "If exclusions always exist, inclusion can never be seen as an end in itself. Inclusion is always a process" (Santos & Paulino, 2006, p. 12).

Therefore, the theme of inclusive education implies the process of recognition of equality of value (Booth, 1981; Santos, Silva, Correia Pinto, & Lima, 2018), rights among peers and awareness of the attitudinal dimension in the school environment and development of the inclusive policies and practices, which are/have been closely related to an inclusive culture. When we think of “inclusive cultures,” we mean changes in society, raising questions about inclusive cultures in the school involving students, parents, the school staff, as well as the school community.

Seeking to provide an overview of how school communities can work with a more inclusive approach to education, Carrington, Bourke and Dharan (2012) used the “Index for Inclusion”. In a project developed in Australia and New Zealand where they observed how much this paper is useful for challenging thinking about school development, as well as for provoking reflection in students, school staff, and parents about the inclusion and importance of a fairer society through changes in the school context. Implementing inclusive actions that provide innovation and educational transformation for teachers and the entire school staff is necessary in order to propose practices in educational institutions of an education system that allow individual expressions of culture and favor the development of inclusion (Macmaster, 2015); Mesa & Garcia, 2015; Santiago, Costa, Galvão, & Santos, 2013).

In Brazil, the "Index for Inclusion" has worked for almost two decades, in association with international research groups; it has built a solid scientific base production concerning the material, proving its effectiveness in different Brazilian realities. It is possible, precisely because it is of a proposal whose structural flexibility allows its adaptation to a diversity of contexts, generating, in turn, cultural construction, political and transformative practices towards educational inclusion.

The national studies, using the "Index for Inclusion", cover various topics such as understanding how the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities and global developmental disorders has been carried out, as well as the daily life of a student with visual disabilities that attends the common class and the prejudices and attitudes towards the student within the school (Gomes, 2014; Oliva, 2011; Santos, 2015). The studies that point to experiences of formation and discussion about the cultures, policies and evaluation practices present in the speeches of teachers of Multifunctional Resource Rooms (MRRs), from the “Index for Inclusion” (Senna & Motta, 2014), as in Costa (2015) questioned the effective inclusion promoted by the Specialized Educational Service (SES) offered by MRRs, in order to guarantee the constitutional right to the insertion, participation and permanence of this target public in the school environment of the so-called regular schools in the city of Rio de Janeiro.

In her doctoral thesis, Lago (2014) concluded that the Index is a fruitful instrument to assist schools in a review process and has enormous potential to stimulate the ability to promote inclusion in education by encouraging the participation of all involved in the teaching-learning process. However, the author noted the complexity of an environment full of contradictions, but containing the openness needed to continue transformation. Similarly, Filgueiras (2014) proposed to verify how educators working in distance education (DE) perceive themselves in the profession, whether socially included or excluded, based on the dimensions of the “Index for Inclusion”. The results pointed to the presence of uneasiness among teachers, reinforcing the hypothesis this is another factor, which hinders teachers from promoting inclusion in their professional practice.

In the studies cited, there is no categorical presentation of the thoughts of parents, students and school staff about inclusive education, in this sense, this article becomes relevant to bring information that elucidates their considerations, in order to collaborate in the future planning of the pedagogical processes, such as in continuing teacher education courses.

Thus, this study aimed to verify what parents, students and school staff think about school and inclusive education.

Method

This study is based on a qualitative research approach, which consists of detailed descriptions of situations in order to understand the research subjects on their own terms (Goldenberg, 1997). The research was conducted after approval by the Research Ethics Committee of the Paulista State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho" - UNESP/Bauru (Opinion No. 1,164,427) with the consent of the Faculty Head and participants, by having the latter ones signing the Parents’ and Teachers’ Informed Consent Form (ICF) and the Students' Free and Informed Consent Form (SFICF).

Participants

The study included 16 school staff members, 179 parents and 204 students from a state elementary school of the first cycle of a city in the interior of the state of São Paulo. The 204 students were divided into 11 classes, from the 1st to the 5th grade, 44 (21.57%) from the first grade, 39 (19.11%) from the second grade, 41 (20%) from the third grade, 53 (26 %) of the fourth year and 27 (13.23%) of the fifth year. The school staff had 16 members, aged between 26 and 59 years, working in the State’s Schools Network between 4 and 26 years, in which 12 graduated in Pedagogy, two in the Magisterium, one in Physical Education and one in Pedagogy and one in Psychology, and three working in the Management areas, ten in the Literacy area, one in Physical Education and one Mediator teacher.

Instruments

The questionnaires of the “Index for Inclusion” document were used (Booth & Ainscow, 2012), prioritizing the analysis of the results of the open questions. This instrument consists of three dimensions: cultures, policies and practices that are divided into two sections each, forming a planning structure. Its use in studies enables a detailed review process of the school and its relationship with the community and its surroundings, encompassing teachers, staff, managers, parents/guardians and children, aspirations for inclusive development with what has already known by the school and impelling a more thorough investigative procedure. It is based on the principles of “… barriers to learning and participation, resources to support learning and participation and support for diversity” (Booth & Ainscow, 2012, p. 13).

For the school staff we used the Index Questionnaire One, which comprises three correlated dimensions: a) creating inclusive cultures; b) producing inclusive policies; and c) developing inclusive practices. The first dimension is divided into indicators "building the community" with 11 questions and "establishing inclusive values" with 10 questions. The second dimension is divided into the "developing school for all" indicators with 13 questions and "organizing support for diversity" with nine questions. The third dimension comprises the indicators "building curriculum for all" with 13 questions and "orchestrating learning”, with14 questions. The respondent is to mark one of the 3 alternatives: “agree”, “partially agree” and “disagree”, plus two open-ended questions asking the “three things I like most about school” and the “three things I most wanted them to change ".

To observe the qualitative data of parents, we used Questionnaire Two of the “Index for Inclusion”, which according to their authors "... can be used as an invitation to parents to dialogue in more detail about barriers and resources at school.” (Booth & Ainscow, 2012, p. 64). Questionnaire Two under the title "My Child's School" aims to stimulate reflections on the Index values ​​for the nature of the school. It consists of 56 questions to indicate, through the alternatives “agree”, “partly agree” and “disagree”, plus two open-ended questions asking the "three things I like best about school" and the "three things I most wanted them to change ".

For the students, we used QuestionnairesThree and Four of the “Index for Inclusion”, which according to its authors "... consultations with children and youth can reveal barriers to learning and resources to overcome that had not yet been considered" (Booth & Ainscow, 2012, p.48). Questionnaire Three is suitable for older children, entitled "My School". It covers 63 questions to indicate by means of the “agree”, “partly agree” and “disagree” alternatives, and two open-ended questions asking the “three things I like best about school "and the" three things I most want to change ".

Questionnaire four is intended for younger children, with the same title "My School", has 24 questions that are adapted with symbols of happy, indifferent and sad "faces" to meet the particularity of children who are not yet literate, and two open questions with the same topics. The statements were based on the values principles of the Index for Inclusion.

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection was conducted separately, prioritizing the school staff first, then the students and finally the parents. In principle, the first contact was made with the school staff, with the purpose of encouraging the study of the document and subsequently the application of the “Index for Inclusion” questionnaires, being held during the Collective Pedagogical Work Class (CPWC) schedule with the direction’s consent.

For the students, the questionnaire was applied on a day previously scheduled by the school direction during the class period, with an average duration of 35 minutes, in the morning and afternoon shifts. These proceedings counted on the help of the head teacher and the first author of this study. The questionnaire for parents was sent by the students along with an explanatory letter, requesting the completion and return on a previously stipulated date.

After the application of the research instruments, the collected data were organized, tabulated and analyzed, in a quantitative way, establishing the participants' profile and frequency of answers, and then analyzing the open questions, using the analysis technique of the content of Bardin (2011), which is characterized as a descriptive study.

Content analysis makes it possible to give relevance to the comments, considering the words used and their meanings, the environment in which the ideas were placed, the frequency, the dimension of the comments and the specificity of the answers. This is a particularity among several ways of interpreting the contents of a text, since it can contain explicit or hidden meanings.

All data compatible with this technique were analyzed and grouped into categories according to similarity or recurrence, pertinence and relevance of the answers. The categories were established a posteriori, due to the importance of their construction based on the content present in the participants' responses.

Results and discussion

The aim of this study was to verify what parents, students and school staff think about school and inclusive education. The tables below will show separately the results for the three main categories, namely, school staff, parents and students, respectively.

It is noteworthy that the first categories were elaborated from the first reading of the collected data, constituting initial categories. After this pre-analysis, it was refined by thematic similarity into final categories that represent the synthesis of the meanings identified during the analysis of the data from the initial categories, as shown below.

Initial and final categories for school staff

It is important to clarify that in describing the results of the school staff the term "teachers" will be used, as these were the majority of respondents.

In Table 1 the initial and final categories of the question "the three things I like best about school" are presented. The initial categories represent the first impressions about the educational reality studied, which resulted from the coding process of the open questions answered in the questionnaire. Each category consists of school staff records and also has the support of the theoretical framework based on the document “Index for Inclusion”.

In the final categories, most teachers point out that what they like most about school refers to the school staff (n = 23), which, returning to the initial categories, is made up of teachers, coordinator, co-workers and management. Thus, we infer that the relationship between peers is very relevant for teachers, providing a pleasant working environment. Santiago et al. (2013) and Freschi and Freschi (2013) found similar results in their studies, highlighting the importance of a pleasant working climate for school inclusion.

Another most cited category was the “meal” (n = 8), as the teachers reported that they enjoy this food during the break time, since the legislation released this possibility through Law Project 457/2015, added to article 4th of Law No. 11.947/2009 as single paragraph and whose purpose is to extend the school lunch program to education professionals. In the third category, the teachers pointed out the “students” (n = 4), which brings some disappointment, since they should be the main focus for the teachers.

Table 1
Initial and final categories - the three things I like most about this school, answered by the teachers.

	Initial categories	Recurrence (N)		Final categories	N	%
1	Teachers	10	1	School staff	23	57,5
2	Coordinator	9
3	Co-workers	3
4	School Management	1
5	Lunch	8	2	Meal	8	20
6	Students	4	3	Students	4	10
	Total	35			35	87.50

Table 2 presents the initial and final categories of the question "the three things I most wanted to change" answered by teachers. Out of the three things teachers would like to change in school, the category with most answers concerns "physical space"(N = 24) which includes lighting, classroom maintenance, physical structure - indoor and outdoor, and cleanliness, as cited in the initial categories. Thus, we can observe that despite the accessibility reform in the school, with the installation of ramps and an elevator, many other aspects still need to be reorganized for a satisfactory functioning of the physical space. These data are confirmed by Booth and Ainscow (2012, p. 24) when they point out that “The schools that thrive on inclusion need to address the maintenance of the natural physical environment within and beyond their walls.”

The category “interpersonal relationship” (n = 10) was the second most indicative of change, followed by “family participation” (n = 1). In the first, it can be observed that the school staff is not satisfied with the form of management, being the initial category "direction" the most cited. Thus, these data differ from the study by Aquario, Ghedin and Urli (2015) who emphasized that the participation and synergy of teachers, technical and management professionals seek a common goal for an inclusive school. About "family participation", it is revealed that in this community, parents participate, unless the teachers did not emphasize it. In that case if the parents really participate, it is refuting, for example, data from the study of other teachers who pointed out that family low participation was a major problem (Capellini & Rodrigues, 2009).

Table 2
Initial and final categories - the three things I most wanted to change, answered by teachers.

	Initial categories	Recurrence (N)		Final categories	N	%
1	Lighting	8	1	Physical space	24	66,66
2	Classroom maintenance	7
3	Physical structure (indoor and outdoor)	5
4	Cleanliness	4
5	School Management	5	2	Interpersonal relationship	10	27,78
6	Relationship among teachers, school management and staff	2
7	Some professionals’ attitudes	2
8	Participatory management	1
9	Family’s participation	1	3	Family’s participation	1	2,78
	Total	35			35	97.92

Initial and final Parent Categories

Table 3 presents the initial and final categories of the question "the three things I like most about this school" answered by parents. Most parents answered that among the three things they like most about school, the first is the “school staff” (n = 114), the second is the “classes” (n = 80) and the third is the “interpersonal relationship” between school, students and parents ”(n = 54).

Table 3
Initial and final categories - the three things I like most about this school, answered by parents (P)

	Initial categories	Recurrence (N)		Final categories	N	%
1	Coordinator	1	1	School staff	114	28,08
2	Managers	16
3	Employees	25
4	Teachers	72
5	Teaching	33	2	Classes	80	19,7
6	Physical Education class	15
7	Classes (general)	8
8	Math class	6
9	Homework	6
10	Art class	4
11	Reinforcement class	4
12	Religion class	2
13	Portuguese class	2
14	Atention	14	3	Interpersonal relationship among school staff, students and parents	54	13,3
15	Respect	14
16	Releationship and communication between school/family	11
17	Discipline	7
18	Parent-teacher conference	4
19	Care	2
20	Commitment	1
21	Patience	1
	Total	248			248	61.08

It is noteworthy that some parents expressed a satisfaction with the teaching given, as presented in the speech of F8. In general, it is not common for parents to demonstrate clarity of the teacher's role in the teaching dimension (didactic) as an essential element in the students' learning process. This theme should be more valued and investigated, as highlighted by Mattos (2012) and Maluf and Bardelli (2013), since school and family usually attribute the failure to the student himself. However, often the problem is not learning but "teaching".

Likewise, they demonstrated satisfaction with the development of the classes and the approximations between family and school, which can be seen in the following reports:

“I like teachers who are attentive and always let us know about our children” (F127, 2nd A).

“I like the teaching that is excellent and the commitment of the teachers and the mediator” (F8, 4º C).

“I like the respect for children and commitment to classes” (F176, 1st A).

“Unfortunately everything is to be desired, but I admit the efforts of people and management to make everything better. Thank you for giving people the opportunity as parents to give their opinions” (F84, 2nd B).

Table 4 presents the initial and final categories of the question "the three things I most wanted to change" answered by parents. We observed that despite the accessibility reform, most parents (n = 83) are either dissatisfied or would like physical structure improved, especially in relation to toilets and classrooms.

As the second highest scoring category, parents reported that they would like to see “learning-friendly environments and resources” improved(n = 68), especially the library and broadening of sports.

Regarding the category “interpersonal relationship between school, students and parents” (n = 43), there are 15 notes in which parents showed that they would like to improve interpersonal relationships, however, 15 reported that they were satisfied, thus showing, a discrepancy of opinion among respondents.

Table 4
Initial and Final Categories - The three things I most wanted to change, answered by parents (P)

	Initial categories	Recurrence (N)		Final categories	N	%
1	Toilet	24	1	Physical structure	83	28,52
2	Classroom	16
3	School yard	11
4	Court/parking lot	11
5	Sorrounding area	7
6	Computing classroom/video	7
7	Stairs	5
8	Cafeteria	2
9	Library	15	2	Favorable learning enviroment/resources	68	23,37
10	More sports	11
11	More extracurricular activities/games	14
12	To have music class	7
13	School outings	6
14	To have science labs	4
15	To have english/theater/dance class	8
16	More material resources	4
17	Interpersonal relationship(students, teachers and employees)	15	3	Interpersonal relationship among school staff, students and parents	43	14,78
18	They are satisfied	15
19	Parent-teacher conference	4
20	Communication and support between school and the community	4
21	Discrimination/ bullying	3
22	Respect	2
	Total	194			194	66.67

In Table 4, regarding the physical structure, the parents were dissatisfied, because despite the school having gone through an accessibility reform financed by the state government with the installation of ramps and an elevator, the conservation of the spaces was compromised, specifically in relation to the toilets, which was reported as one of the items mostly complained about.

They also reported that they would like students to have more extracurricular activities such as school outings, dance classes, judo, among others, and a portion of parents were uncomfortable in interpersonal relationships among students, teachers, staff and family. Below are some reports:

“It will be necessary a psychologist at school and there should be more sports options for the children” (F132, 2nd A).

“I wish they change the fans in the classroom, fix the walls and clean the toilets better” (F78, 3A).

“I wish they, are aware of the data that parents provide at the meeting about their children” (F138, 2nd A).

“I wish they change the library, to have music classes (choir, instrumental) and research labs” (F102, 5º B).

“They should not put building materials in the toilet” (F113, 5º B).

The reports presented explain that parents discreetly respond according to their children's point of view regarding school become it an important thing, therefore, to have a closer and more accurate investigation of the inclusive policies, cultures and practices addressed in the “Index for Inclusion”.

It is important to highlight the role of the family, especially the parents in the education of their children, establishing a partnership with the school. According to Cia, Borges and Christovam (2016) these two systems exert influence on the child, requiring the sharing of decisions and actions aimed at the development and learning of the student.

Initial and Final Student Categories

Table 5 presents the initial and final categories of the question "the three things I like most about this school" answered by students. We note that most students point out that what they like most about school is "classes" (n = 223), the “physical structure” (n = 140) and “playful or group activities” (n = 108).

Table 5
Final and initial categories - the three things I like most about this school, answered by students

	Initial categories	Recurrence (N)		Final categories	N	%
1	Physical education class	85	1	Classes	223	32,27
2	Math class	34
3	Computing class	34
4	Classes(general)	29
5	Art class	26
6	Portuguese class	9
7	Science class	5
8	Geography class	1
9	Court	72	2	Physical structure	140	20,26
10	School yard	38
11	Classroom	14
12	Elevador	7
13	School	7
14	Second floor watercooler	1
15	Resource room	1
16	Break	48	3	Playful or group activities	108	15,62
17	Tale time	19
18	Play	16
19	Play bingo	8
20	Play soccer	5
21	Group activities	4
22	Domino	4
23	Games	3
24	Dance	1
	Total	471			471	68.15

We note that the students have a satisfactory relationship with their teachers, agents of educational activities, which confirms that reading the document “Index for Inclusion” helped the teachers and all school staff to have a favorable feedback regarding the teaching and learning process.

As for the physical structure, we observed that the accessibility reform contributed to the students’ satisfaction with the installation of ramps and an elevator.

“I love to go to the elevator and play on the court” (A70, 4th year B).

“I can't wait to go to class and play in the courtyard” (A52, 4th grade A).

Table 6 presents the initial and final categories of the question "the three things I most wanted to change" answered by the students. Regarding what students would like to see changed in school, the three most significant categories were the "physical structure” (n = 155) and “maintenance” (n = 114), both of the rooms and toilets as well as the material resources (chairs, door, fan, cabinet, desks, etc.) The third category students would like changed in school refers to “learning-friendly environments/resources” (n = 93).

We found that, even with the reform, the students showed discontent regarding the care of the environment, this is due to the fact that the reform generated some upset, especially in the toilets.

Table 6
Initial and Final Categories - The three things I most wanted to change, answered by students

	Initial categories	Recurrence (N)		Final categories	N	%
1	Toilet	66	1	Physical structure	155	27,19
2	Court	46
3	Playground	11
4	Stairs	9
5	Classrooms	8
6	School yard	8
7	Elevador	4
8	Gate	3
9	Chairs, doors, fan, lockers, tables, curtains	67	2	Maintenance	114	20
10	Rooms paiting	31
11	Rooms maintenance	11
12	Bush(inside and around the school)	4
13	Cleanliness	1
14	Library	45	3	Favorable learning enviroment/resources	93	16,31
15	To have game room	32
16	Books	9
17	Vegetable garden	3
18	Science lab	2
19	To have dance class	2
	Total	362			362	63,50

Regarding the school physical structure and maintenance, students showed dissatisfaction, as can be observed in the following reports:

“They need to fix the broken things in the room, fix the fans and the locks” (A52, 2nd A).

“I wanted them to renovate the bathrooms and do the talent show” (A146, 5º B).

“I wanted the toilet and windows to be improved” (A23, 1º B)

Thus, we observed that the results synthetically brought the students' point of view regarding the school. However, further development will be necessary regarding the development of more inclusive policies, cultures and practices addressed in the “Index for Inclusion” focusing on students, and, according to Carrington, Bourke and Dharan (2012), Mesa and García (2015) and Senna and Motta (2014) state, the development of the inclusive school will be necessary, enabling the reflection and participation of students in promoting inclusion.

What do the responses of teachers, parents, and students have in common? Everyone would like changes to the physical space. The architecture and organization of school buildings can facilitate or hinder the realization of the inclusive process, imposing barriers to accessibility. Almeida, Fernandes, Albuquerque, Motad and Camargos (2015) evaluated the physical spaces of 14 schools, verifying the areas of access, circulation and furniture, toilets and parking lots. The results showed that none of the schools surveyed was prepared to perform school inclusion with regard to accessibility.

Like Nunes, Saia and Tavares (2016), we consider it is important to have a broader look at promoting school inclusion, involving students, parents, teachers and the entire school community. The authors point out that public policies directed to inclusive education are not really effective, because most of the people involved, ie: teachers, families and students, have no voice in decision making.

Final considerations

The aim of this study was to analyze what parents, students and school staff think about inclusive school, using part of the document "Index for Inclusion" as a basis for the investigation. The results show a view of the school staff, students and parents more focused on the need for an adequate physical structure for the school to be more inclusive, taking into consideration only the physical accessibility. In relation to human resources and classes, most were satisfied.

Thus, we consider that the objectives were achieved with respect to the survey of the proposed considerations, bringing relevant data that favor the expansion of discussions and implementation of actions, aiming to support the process of advancement for inclusive education. The scientific community lacks new studies that give voice to those involved in inclusive education, taking into account not only school staff, but also parents and students.

Referências

• Almeida, K. M.; Fernandes, V. R. L.; Albuquerque, K. A.; Motad, G. A.; Camargos, A. C. R. (2015). O espaço físico como barreira à inclusão escolar. Cadernos de Terapia Ocupacional, 23(1), 75-84.
• Aquario, D.; Ghedin, E.; Urli, G. (2015). Projeto Avaliação Inclusiva: a pesquisa em uma escola secundária. Italian Journal of Special Education for Inclusion, 3(1).
• Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70.
• Booth, T. (1981). Demystifying Integration. In: Swann, W. (Org.),The Practice of Special Education(pp. 255-268). Guilford: Basil Blackwell Press Ltd.
• Booth, T.; Ainscow, M. (2012). Index para a Inclusão: desenvolvendo a aprendizagem e a participação na escola (Santos, M. P. & Esteves, J. B., Trad.). Rio de Janeiro: Laboratório de Pesquisa, estudos e Apoio à Participação e à Diversidade em Educação, LaPEADE. (Trabalho original publicado em 2011).
• Brasil (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 Brasília, DF. Senado Federal: Centro Gráfico.
• Capellini, V. L. M. F.; Rodrigues, O. M. P. R. (2009). Concepções de professores acerca dos fatores que dificultam o processo da educação inclusiva.Educação,32 (3).
• Carrington, S. B.; Bourke, R.; Dharan, V. (2012).Using the index for inclusion to develop inclusive school communities. In Carrington, S. B.; MacArthur, J. (Orgs.), Teaching in inclusive school communities John Wiley & Sons Inc., Brisbane, QLD, pp. 341-366.
• Cia, F.; Borges, L.; Christovam, A. C. C. (2016). Relação família e escola na educação infantil de crianças público alvo da educação especial: possibilidades e desafios. In Carneiro, R. U. C.; Dall’acqua, M. J. C.; Caramori, P. M. (Orgs.), Educação Especial e Inclusiva: mudança para a escola e sociedade (pp. 79-112). Jundiaí: Paco editorial.
• Costa, E. S. (2015). A Inclusão do Alunado do Atendimento Educacional Especializado no Município do Rio de Janeiro Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
• Decreto nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro 1996 (1996, 20 de dezembro). Estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional. Brasília, DF.
• Decreto nº 6.571 de 17 de setembro de 2008 (2008, 17 de setembro). Dispõe sobre o atendimento educacional especializado, regulamenta o parágrafo único do art. 60 da Lei n. 9.394/96 e acrescenta dispositivo ao Decreto n. 6.253/2007. Brasília, DF .
• Filgueiras, E. M. M. F. C. (2014). Reconhecimento social dos educadores do ensino superior à distância: possibilidades, dificuldades e dilemas Tese de doutorado, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
• Freschi, E. M.; Freschi, M. (2013) Relações interpessoais: a construção do espaço artesanal no ambiente escolar. Revista de Educação do Ideau 8(18), 1-13
• Gomes, J. C. (2014). Implicações da inclusão escolar de alunos com deficiência intelectual e transtornos globais do desenvolvimento na prática docente Dissertação de mestrado. Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
• Goldenberg, M. (1997). A arte de pesquisar: como fazer pesquisa qualitativa em ciências sociais Rio de Janeiro: Record.
• Lago, M. (2014). Index para a Inclusão: Uma possibilidade de Intervenção Institucional Tese de doutorado, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
• Lei nº 457 de 25 de fevereiro de 2015 (2015, 25 de fevereiro). Estabelece por finalidade estender o programa de merenda escolar aos profissionais da educação, acrescentado como parágrafo único ao art. 4º da Lei nº 11.947/2009. Brasília, DF .
• Maluf, M. R.; Bardelli, C. (2013). As causas do fracasso escolar na perspectiva de professoras e alunos de uma escola de primeiro grau. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 7(03), 263-271.
• Mattos, S. M. N. (2012). Inclusão/exclusão escolar e afetividade: repensando o fracasso escolar das crianças de classes populares.Educar em Revista, (44), 217-233.
• McMaster, C. (2015). Inclusion in New Zealand: The Potential and Possibilities of Sustainable Inclusive Change Through Utilising a Framework for Whole School Development.New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(2), 239-253.
• Mesa, M. S.; García, A. I. (2015). Adaptation of Index for Inclusion to the field of higher education: Preliminary study.Intangible Capital,11(3), 508-545.
• Nunes, S. S.; Saia, A. L.; Tavares, R. E. (2016). Educação Inclusiva: Entre a História, os Preconceitos, a Escola e a Família. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 22(4),1106-1119.
• Oliva, D. V. (2011). A educação de pessoas com deficiência visual: inclusão escolar e preconceito Tese de doutorado, Instituto de Psicologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
• Santiago, M. C.; Costa, E. S.; Galvão, S. V.; Santos, M. P. (2013). Inclusão no Sistema Educacional: desafios para a gestão escolar. Anais do 6º Congresso Brasileiro Multidisciplinar de Educação Especial/ VIII Encontro da Associação Brasileira de Pesquisadores em Educação Especial, Londrina, PR, Brasil.
• Santos, M. P. (2003). O Papel do ensino superior na proposta de uma educação inclusiva.Revista Movimento - Revista da Faculdade de Educação da Universidade Federal Fluminense, UFF, 7, 78-91.
• Santos, M. P. (2015). As Contribuições do index para a inclusão na formação continuada de professores.Revista diálogos e perspectivas em educação especial, 2(1).
• Santos, M. P.; Silva, M. R. P. S. V.; Correia Pinto, R. M. S.; Lima, C. B. (2017). Desenvolvendo o Index para Inclusão no contexto brasileiro: experiências de reflexão/ação sobre processos de inclusão e exclusão em Educação. Percurso Acadêmico, 7(14).
• Santos, M. P.; Paulino, M. M. (2006).Inclusão em educação: culturas, políticas e práticas Cortez.
• Senna, M.; Motta, E. R. (2014). O “Index para Inclusão” na formação continuada dos professores de salas de recursos multifuncionais. Revista do CFCH, Revista do CFCH, 1,1-5,
• UNESCO (1994). Declaração de Salamanca: linha de ação sobre necessidades educativas especiais Brasília, DF.

• This paper was translated from Portuguese by Ana Maria Pereira Dionísio

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  04 Nov 2019
• Date of issue
  2019

History

• Received
  20 Feb 2018
• Accepted
  07 Aug 2018