Do we use the Individualized Educational Plan in the Secretaria de Educação do Distrito Federal?

Abstract

This text presents a documentary analysis of the main forms of the Secretariat of State for Education of the Federal District (SEEDF) related to the pedagogical monitoring of Special Education students in regular classrooms. The documents analyzed include the Educational Assessment and Intervention Report, the Case Study, the Specialized Educational Service Plan, and the Curricular Adjustments Form. These were compared with each other and with the Case Study and the Individualized Educational Plan (PEI), present in two versions of the Specific Guidelines for the Assistance of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder, of the National Education Council. In the SEEDF, the absence of a document with the name PEI, widely cited in legislation, can generate conflicts, such as the lack of understanding that we have a document with the same purpose, the Curricular Adjustments Form, especially in conjunction with the other documents. The SEEDF was assertive in avoiding associations with terms that, historically, were closely aligned with the medical model of disability. However, this situation may also impact national research that is unaware of the particularities of SEEDF, leading to the disregard of our pedagogical work from an inclusive perspective. More than changing nomenclature or creating new documents, it is essential to evaluate the objective conditions of pedagogical work, such as the computerization of student data. Inclusion requires less bureaucratic processes and strategies that promote a broad understanding of Special Education students, in addition to a dynamic dialogue between the professionals involved.