Training of School Managers for Inclusion: Challenges and Perspectives in Public Education Networks

Edgleicy Praxedes Silva; Tatiana Giselle Guimarães Lopes

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602846

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

School inclusion constitutes a central principle of contemporary educational policies, directly linked to the guarantee of the right to education. The study aimed to analyze how the continuing education of school managers for inclusion is conceived in normative and institutional documents, considering its limits and possibilities in public education networks. The research was characterized as qualitative, of a descriptive-analytical nature, and used documentary analysis as the main procedure. The corpus was composed of educational legislations, national guidelines, institutional indicators, and, more recently, Decrees nº 12.686/2025 and nº 12.773/2025, which updated the debate on inclusive education in Brazil. The results showed that, although inclusion is consolidated in the normative plan, challenges related to the continuing education of school managers persisted, which still presented itself in a fragmented, discontinuous, and poorly articulated manner with the real demands of schools. An expansion of responsibilities attributed to school management was also observed, without the corresponding guarantee of adequate institutional conditions. It was concluded that the effective implementation of inclusion depends on the articulation between structured training policies, working conditions, and institutional support, with the continuing education of managers being a strategic element for the construction of inclusive practices.

Keywords: Inclusive education; Continuing education; School management; Inclusion; Public policies.

1. Introduction

School inclusion constitutes a central principle of contemporary educational policies, being directly linked to the guarantee of the right to education. In the Brazilian context, this debate gained visibility from the redemocratization process, when education began to be recognized as a social right, as established in the Federal Constitution (Brazil, 1988). Since then, there has been a progressive movement to consolidate public policies aimed at guaranteeing access, permanence, participation, and learning for all students, especially those who make up the target audience for Special Education.

The Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education (LDBEN – Law nº 9.394) reaffirms Special Education as a transversal modality and guides its offer preferably within the regular education system, strengthening the inclusive paradigm (Brasil, 1996). Subsequently, the National Policy of Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (PNEEPEI) of 2008 expanded this understanding by shifting the comprehension of disability from an individual perspective to a social approach, highlighting that the barriers present in the school environment are determining factors for exclusion processes (Brasil, 2008). More recently, Decrees nº 12.686/2025 and nº 12.773/2025 reinforce the Brazilian State’s commitment to inclusive education, updating guidelines and expanding the scope of policies (Brasil, 2025).

In this historical trajectory, school inclusion comes to be understood not only as a right, but as a complex process that demands profound transformations in the organization of educational institutions. Such transformations involve pedagogical, curricular, structural, and, above all, organizational dimensions, highlighting the strategic role of school management. According to Libâneo (2013), the organization and management of pedagogical work are decisive dimensions for the quality of teaching and for the creation of effective learning conditions.

However, despite the relevance attributed to the manager and the normative advancement, it is observed that specific continuing education for inclusion is still insufficient and, in many cases, fragmented. Data from the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (INEP, 2024) indicate that, although most managers have a higher education degree, participation in qualified and systematic continuing education does not yet reach all professionals. The Brazilian Yearbook of Basic Education reveals growth in the percentage of managers who participated in some continuing education, but this progress does not eliminate the persistence of regional inequalities and limitations regarding the quality, periodicity, and relevance of the training offered (Todos pela Educação, 2025).

This gap between the demands of inclusive policy and the training conditions offered to managers for its implementation is a challenge. According to Tardif (2014), the exercise of educational functions is based on professional knowledge produced in the intertwining of training, experience, and work context. Nóvoa (2017) highlights that professional training should constitute a space for critical reflection and meaning-making about work, overcoming prescriptive models. However, training can be limited to normative and generalist guidelines, not addressing fundamental issues for inclusion. Furthermore, there is an expansion of responsibilities attributed to school management, without the corresponding guarantee of adequate institutional conditions, which can generate overload and limit pedagogical leadership capacity (Pletsch, 2014).

In view of this scenario, it becomes fundamental to deepen the debate on the necessary conditions for the effective implementation of inclusive educational policies, reaffirming the importance of formative and institutional practices committed to equity, the right to learn, and the participation of all students. This study therefore seeks to broaden the understanding of the role of school management in building more inclusive educational contexts, highlighting the need for public policies that articulate training, institutional support, and concrete conditions for action. Thus, the present work aimed to analyze how the continuing education of school managers for inclusion is conceived in normative and institutional documents, considering its limits and possibilities in public education networks.

2. Material and Methods

This research was characterized as a qualitative study with a descriptive-analytical approach. This methodological choice was made to allow an in-depth understanding of the concepts, guidelines, and orientations that permeate the continuing education of school managers in the context of inclusive education. The qualitative approach is suitable for investigating complex phenomena in their natural environment, seeking to interpret the meanings attributed by documents and policies (Gil, 2008).

The central procedure adopted for data collection was documentary analysis. This strategy was selected for its ability to explore materials that have not received prior analytical treatment or that can be reworked according to the study’s objectives. Documents are permanent records that offer insights into historical, institutional, and normative processes, being particularly relevant for investigations in the field of educational policies (Marconi and Lakatos, 2003).

The documentary corpus was composed of a set of normative, guiding, and institutional documents. The selection of these materials considered their relevance for understanding the structuring of guidelines for school inclusion and, specifically, for the continuing education of managers. Documents of national, state, and municipal scope were included, covering legislation, plans, programs, and educational indicators.

Among the analyzed documents were the Federal Constitution of 1988 (Brazil, 1988), the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (Law No. 9.394/1996) (Brazil, 1996), and the National Education Plan (PNE) (Law No. 13.005/2014) (Brazil, 2014). Also incorporated were the National Policy for Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (Brazil, 2008), School Census reports, and continuing education documents from public education networks.

Additionally, Decrees nº 12.686/2025 and nº 12.773/2025 (Brasil, 2025) were integrated, which update the guidelines for inclusive education in the country. The criteria for selecting the documents covered their relevance to the theme of inclusion, their normative scope, and their potential contribution to understanding the training of school managers in the context of inclusive education.

The analysis of the collected data was performed based on the content analysis technique, as proposed by Bardin (2016). This method allowed for the identification of thematic categories based on the recurrences, meanings, and absences present in the documentary corpus, systematically organizing the material for interpretation.

The analysis process was structured in three main stages: pre-analysis, material exploration, and treatment of results with interpretation. From the floating reading, coding, and thematic grouping, five analytical categories were defined. These categories guided the interpretation of the data and were related to the concepts of inclusion, the school manager’s competencies, continuing education guidelines, and the conditions for implementing policies.

The registration units corresponded to the elements identified in the documents, while the analysis indicators guided the interpretation of the data. This process aimed to understand how the continuing education of school managers for inclusion is conceived within the scope of educational policies, without presenting empirical findings or analytical conclusions in this section.

3. Results and Discussion

The results of the documentary analysis showed that school inclusion is widely consolidated in the Brazilian normative framework, being reaffirmed by several legal and institutional documents over the last decades. This consolidation reflects a progressive commitment to the right to education for all, as established since the Federal Constitution of 1988, which legitimizes inclusion as a social right and holds the State responsible for guaranteeing educational conditions. The Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (Law No. 9,394/1996) reinforces the inclusion of Special Education in common schooling, demanding institutional reorganization, although without detailing specific mechanisms for professional training.

The National Education Plan (Law nº 13.005/2014) established goals and strategies for professional training, school management, and inclusion, focusing on improving quality and equity. This document recognizes continuing education as a structuring axis, but its implementation depends on adequate execution and funding, creating space for regional inequalities. The National Policy for Special Education in the Perspective of Inclusive Education (Brazil, 2008) marked a significant advance by emphasizing the elimination of barriers and institutional reorganization, shifting the understanding of disability to a social perspective and assigning a strategic role to school management.

More recently, Decrees nº 12.686/2025 and nº 12.773/2025 updated the guidelines for inclusive education in Brazil, reinforcing the centrality of school management and the need for intersectoral articulation and continuous training for policy implementation (Brazil, 2025). These provisions expand the responsibilities of school management but, according to the analysis, do not sufficiently specify the necessary structural and training conditions. Thus, a normative advance is observed which, although important, maintains gaps regarding operationalization and effective institutional support.

The guiding documents and regulations of the Ministry of Education (MEC) indicate that inclusion requires articulation between school management, Specialized Educational Attendance (AEE), and curriculum, pointing to the strategic role of the manager in eliminating barriers. However, these guidelines tend to be generalist and often hold the school responsible without guaranteeing adequate material and technical support. This tendency to assign responsibility without due institutional support is a critical point identified in the research, which compromises the effectiveness of inclusive actions.

Institutional data, such as the School Census reports (INEP, 2024), provide indicators on enrollments, manager profiles, training, and supply conditions, supporting the diagnosis. Although the Brazilian Yearbook of Basic Education (Todos pela Educação, 2025) points to an increase in the percentage of managers who participated in some continuing education, from 39.8% in 2019 to 59.7% in 2024, weaknesses persist regarding the quality, periodicity, and relevance of the training offered, in addition to regional and structural inequalities.

The continuing education plans and programs of the Secretariats of Education, at state and municipal levels, highlight training strategies, periodicity, and political priorities for the training of managers. However, the training offer varies by network and presents discontinuity, indicating dependence on political and budgetary cycles. This reinforces the absence of a permanent policy articulated to school practice, which weakens the construction of consistent and contextualized professional knowledge, as discussed by Tardif (2014).

The guiding materials on inclusive management, in turn, reinforce the manager’s role as a pedagogical articulator and promoter of collaborative work and support networks. However, the analysis reveals a distance between these guidelines and the real conditions of managers’ performance, which include time, staff, and infrastructure. This gap between the normative ideal and practical reality is one of the main challenges for the effective implementation of school inclusion in public education networks.

Conceptions of school inclusion in the documents

The analysis of the conceptions of inclusive education present in the documents revealed a predominance of the inclusive paradigm, which understands education as a universal right, guaranteeing access, permanence, participation, and learning for all. The Federal Constitution of 1988 (Brazil, 1988) and the LDB (Brazil, 1996) establish this legal basis, while the PNEEPEI (Brazil, 2008) deepens the understanding by shifting the focus from disability to a social perspective, concentrating on the elimination of barriers. Decrees nº 12.686/2025 and nº 12.773/2025 (Brazil, 2025) reinforce this conception, reaffirming the commitment to inclusive education in regular schooling and the need for articulation between policies and practices. However, this conception, although consolidated discursively, lacks sufficient detail regarding its operationalization in the daily school routine.

Competencies and attributions of the school manager in inclusion

The research identified that the documents attribute a multifaceted role to the school manager in the implementation of inclusion. They must act as an articulator of pedagogical work, a mediator between policies and practices, responsible for institutional organization, and a promoter of accessibility conditions. There is a strong emphasis on the need for pedagogical leadership, articulation with Specialized Educational Support (AEE), and the promotion of collaborative practices. The most recent decrees broaden this perspective, reinforcing the responsibility of educational networks and school units in implementing inclusion. However, the analysis showed that this breadth of attributions is not accompanied by structured training policies that support the development of these competencies, generating a mismatch between the expectation and the managers’ capacity to act.

Continuing education for managers: guidelines and weaknesses

The continuing education of school managers is recognized as essential in the analyzed documents for the effective implementation of inclusion. However, this training is often presented in a generic, poorly detailed manner, without definition of continuity and disconnected from the school context. Data from the School Census (INEP, 2024) indicate an increase in participation in training, but weaknesses persist regarding quality and articulation with practice. The analysis of Decrees nº 12.686/2025 and nº 12.773/2025 (Brasil, 2025) reinforces this trend, recognizing the importance of training but without clear mechanisms for its implementation, such as funding, workload, and monitoring. This condition suggests that continuing education is not yet configured as a structuring public policy, compromising the professional development of managers.

Institutional conditions for the implementation of inclusion

The research revealed that institutional conditions are crucial for the effective implementation of school inclusion. The documents highlight the importance of material resources, physical and pedagogical accessibility, specialized teams, and articulation with AEE (Specialized Educational Support). However, the analysis showed that these conditions are not always present equitably in public education networks. There is a strong inequality between networks and institutions, which directly impacts the capacity to implement inclusive policies. While some schools have structured institutional support, others face significant limitations. Recent decrees reinforce the need for these conditions but do not guarantee their concrete implementation, evidencing a gap between regulation and practical reality.

Management accountability and policy contradictions

An emerging category of analysis refers to the process of school management accountability. The documents assign to the school and the manager the responsibility for the implementation of inclusion, highlighting their role in guaranteeing the right to education. However, this accountability is not accompanied by proportional institutional support, such as compatible material, human, and training resources. This contradiction in educational policies, which expand managers’ responsibilities without ensuring the necessary conditions for the exercise of these functions, can generate professional overload and difficulties in implementing policies, as Pletsch (2014) points out regarding the need for institutional support for inclusive policies.

Integrative Synthesis of Findings

The analysis of categories allowed us to understand that the continuing education of school managers for inclusion is inserted in a scenario marked by normative advances and structural fragilities. Inclusion is consolidated in the discursive and legal plan, and the school manager is recognized as a central agent for its effectiveness. However, continuing education, although valued, is presented as poorly structured, generic, and disconnected from the school context, depending on temporary policies and budgetary availability, which compromises its continuity and effectiveness, as highlighted by Tardif (2014).

The institutional conditions for the implementation of inclusion are unequal among public education networks, with significant gaps in material resources, accessibility, specialized teams, and articulation with AEE (Atendimento Educacional Especializado – Specialized Educational Support). This disparity generates distinct implementation scenarios, where some schools advance with support, while others remain stagnant. Furthermore, a contradiction in educational policies was identified: school management is held responsible for the implementation of inclusion but does not receive proportional and adequate institutional support, which can lead to professional overload and limit pedagogical leadership capacity, as Nóvoa (2017) and Libâneo (2013) highlight regarding the importance of concrete conditions for professional development.

In summary, the results show a mismatch between the normative advancement of inclusive policies and the materiality of the institutional conditions necessary for their implementation. The continuous training of school managers, although recognized as strategic, still occurs in a fragmented and discontinuous manner, poorly articulated with the real demands of schools. The effective implementation of school inclusion, therefore, is not limited to access and enrollment, but depends on the transformation of participation and learning conditions within the school, requiring consistent public policies that articulate structured training, technical support, resources, and institutional time, as Mantoan (2003) and Pletsch (2014) argue about the need for institutional support and reorganization of practices and cultures.

4. Conclusion

The present study aimed to analyze how the continuing education of school managers for inclusion is conceived in normative and institutional documents, considering its limits and possibilities in public education networks. It was found that, although school inclusion is widely consolidated at the normative and discursive level, significant challenges related to the continuing education of managers persisted. It was observed that this training still presented itself in a fragmented, discontinuous, and poorly articulated manner with the real demands of schools, often depending on temporary policies and budgetary availability. Furthermore, an expansion of responsibilities attributed to school management for the effective implementation of inclusion was identified, without the corresponding guarantee of adequate institutional conditions, such as material resources, technical support, and institutional time. This mismatch between normative advancement and the materiality of implementation conditions emerged as a critical point, impacting the effectiveness of inclusive practices.

The main contribution of this work lies in deepening the debate on the necessary conditions for the effective implementation of inclusive educational policies, highlighting the strategic role of school management in building more equitable educational contexts. However, the research revealed that continuing education is not yet configured as a structuring public policy, which limits the professional development of managers and their pedagogical leadership capacity. Institutional inequalities between public education networks were also identified as a limitation, directly impacting the possibilities for implementing inclusion. For future studies, it is suggested to investigate the effectiveness of continuing education models that are systematic, contextualized, and integrated with robust institutional support. The consolidation of inclusive education, therefore, depends on the articulation between consistent public policies, structured continuing education, and the strengthening of institutional conditions in public schools.

Bibliographic References

BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. Edições 70, São Paulo, SP, 2011.

BRASIL, Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 1988. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2025.

BRASIL, Lei nº 13.005, de 25 de junho de 2014. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 2014. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br. Acesso em: 15 out. 2025.

BRASIL, Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 1996. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br. Acesso em: 15 dez. 2025.

BRASIL, Política nacional de educação especial na perspectiva da educação inclusiva. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Educação, 2008. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/mec/pt-br/media/secadi/politicaseducacaoespecial.pdf. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2025.

BRASIL. Decreto nº 12.686, de 20 de outubro de 2025. Institui a Política Nacional de Educação Especial Inclusiva e a Rede Nacional de Educação Especial Inclusiva. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 2025a. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/. Acesso em: 16 jan. 2026.

BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira [INEP]. Censo escolar da educação básica: resultados e indicadores. Brasília, DF: INEP, 2024.

GIL, A.C. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6ed. São Paulo, SP: Atlas, 2008.

LIBÂNEO, J. C. Organização e gestão da escola: teoria e prática. 6ed. Goiânia, GO: Alternativa, 2013.

MANTOAN, M. T. E. Inclusão escolar: o que é? por quê? como fazer? São Paulo, SP: Moderna, 2003.

MARCONI, M. A.; LAKATOS, E. M. Fundamentos de metodologia científica. 5ed. São Paulo, SP: Atlas, 2003.

NÓVOA, A. Firmar a posição como professor, afirmar a profissão docente. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 1106-1133, 2017.

PLETSCH, M. D. Educação especial e inclusão escolar: políticas, práticas curriculares e processos de ensino e aprendizagem. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: EdUERJ, 2014.

TARDIF, M. Saberes docentes e formação profissional. 17ed. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2014.

ALL FOR EDUCATION. Brazilian Yearbook of Basic Education. São Paulo, SP: Todos Pela Educação, 2025.

Article originating from the Course Conclusion Work of the Specialization in School Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform