There is definitely no such thing as “one-size-fits-all” inclusion—neither in the world nor in Brazil. But let’s talk about Brazil. So far, Brazil has already done a good part (which does not mean it has done everything) of its homework regarding “ ” inclusion: it has established a minimum policy for assistance and protection of people with disabilities; drafted, approved, and enacted laws at various levels that protect and uphold the basic rights of people with disabilities; furthermore, it has secured funding for both medical care and medications through the SUS—though the latter still requires adjustments and further investment.

No one can deny that Opinion No. 50, issued by the National Education Council, provided a framework for the process of educational inclusion in schools—something that, until recently, did not exist. However, it is time to review the entire policy surrounding Brazil’s approach to inclusion. It is already obsolete. It needs to be revised.

The first point is financial. There are important studies that demonstrate the distinct nature of policies and investments in the area of autism, for example, compared to other disabilities. It is worth noting here that, within the public system, this area is linked to mental health treatments provided by the CAPS centers located throughout Brazil. 

In the case of CAPS, they are expected to address all mental health needs, including those related to autism. However, these institutions complain that the bulk of investment is being directed solely toward ASD, while other areas of mental health lack resources and are being neglected. The statistics on this issue are alarming.

The second point is that, in the National Congress alone, between 2023 and 2024, the number of bills related to autism surpasses those in other areas—by staggering margins as well. In other words, on the one hand, this is seen as a positive development, resulting from public pressure. On the other hand, it shows that the National Congress is not addressing all of the country’s needs, but only those that currently receive the most media attention. At the state and municipal levels, no studies have been published yet, but given the situation at the federal level, the same is presumed to be true.

See also:

• The 3 Pillars of Early Childhood Education in 2025
• Reggio Emilia: A School That Embodies the Principles of Education and Social Work
• Schools need to adapt to the new climate reality

The third point concerns health insurance plans, which are already showing signs of being overwhelmed by these medical services. There is an unprecedented surge in litigation surrounding this issue. Parents are filing lawsuits all over Brazil to secure care here and there. This practice shows that something isn’t right—if parents pay for health insurance to ensure their children receive care, why do those same parents still have to resort to the courts to obtain that care? The disconnect between what is needed and what is being offered is clear, and something must be done urgently.

And finally, there are the differences in this vast country, Brazil. It’s no longer feasible to talk about a single approach to inclusion for a country of continental dimensions. It’s no use having laws that guarantee therapeutic care and specialized schools for students with disabilities if, at the local level—where these children actually live—there are no professionals or services available. 

There is no way to ensure that an occupational therapist, a psychologist, and a speech-language pathologist are available in every corner of Brazil to meet these needs effectively if there is no national policy on training and incentives for these fields and professionals. 

Today, we talk about inclusion as if every school in Brazil had specialized teachers, teaching assistants, resource rooms, and appropriate materials. We must not forget that in many parts of Brazil, there aren’t even any schools. There are no materials. There are no such professionals, but there are students with disabilities. So, what can we do? 

Unifying rhetoric only hinders and sets back a process that could be multifaceted and rich, but which is being reduced to three or four therapies that “claim” to be the right ones and backed by scientific evidence, when, in fact, there are endless possibilities for providing dignified care to children and young people with disabilities. 

But to understand this, we need to spark new discussions on the topic. Inclusion is multiplicity. Inclusion is diversity. Inclusion is difference. Inclusion is answers—in the plural. There is no singular in the process of inclusion. Only the plural serves us at this moment.

About the author:

Share on social media: