Neuroeducational Guide for School Inclusion Based on the PPP Analysis of a Montessori School

Maria Rita Mendes Ribeiro Chagas; Lea Veras

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603253

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

The school inclusion of students with disabilities constitutes a guiding principle of Basic Education. The Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP) of a private school in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, was analyzed to identify convergences, gaps, and implications for teaching work related to the inclusion of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the Final Years of Elementary School. The research adopted a qualitative, exploratory approach, with a case study design, using documentary analysis of the PPP, contrasted with the National Common Curricular Base, the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education, and the Brazilian Law of Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. The results indicated conceptual and normative alignment between the PPP and official regulations regarding school inclusion and valuing diversity. However, gaps were identified in the operationalization of curricular adaptation, learning organization, and systematization of guidelines for teaching work. It was found that the document did not specify systematized instruments to support the implementation of the guidelines. These findings supported the proposal of a neuroeducational guide, intended for the formative and practical support of the institution’s teachers, with the potential for adaptation to other contexts, aiming to strengthen inclusive pedagogical practices.

Keywords: Special Education; Inclusive education; Neuroeducation; Teaching practice.

1. Introduction

The school inclusion of students with disabilities has been a central theme in both public policies and academic production, consolidating itself as an ethical, social, and pedagogical principle fundamental to Basic Education. Brazilian normative documents, such as the National Common Curricular Base (BNCC), the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (LDB), and the Brazilian Law of Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (LBI), ensure the right of all students to education, encompassing access, permanence, participation, and learning. Such regulations promote a conception of inclusive school, valuing equity, diversity, and the integral development of individuals (Mantoan, 2015; UNESCO, 2019).

However, the existence of a robust legal framework does not, in itself, guarantee the effective implementation of inclusion in daily school life. Research in the area indicates a persistent gap between normative prescriptions and the pedagogical practices developed in schools, especially regarding the support of students with disabilities in regular education (Santos, 2025; Carvalho; Lopes, 2020). In this context, the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP) emerges as one of the guiding documents for institutional organization and practices, expressing the conceptions, values, objectives, and principles that guide educational work.

Although the PPP does not have the function of exhaustively contemplating all pedagogical guidelines, its analysis can reveal how the institution formalizes principles and guidelines for inclusion. A PPP truly committed to inclusion must go beyond generic statements, being built from a diagnosis of the school reality and guided by concrete pedagogical actions and strategies (Mantoan, 2015). However, in various contexts, the PPP remains at a predominantly declarative level, showing weaknesses in the detailing of procedures and in the explicitation of guidelines for teaching work with students who present specific educational needs (Barros et al., 2017; Santos, 2025).

This difficulty in operationalizing inclusion directly impacts the teacher’s work, as they are the main agent responsible for translating inclusive principles into concrete practices, often without adequate training, institutional, and methodological support. Teachers frequently recognize the importance of inclusion but report insecurity regarding curriculum adaptation, pedagogical routine organization, and the assessment of students with differentiated learning paths, especially in the Final Years of Elementary School (Santos, 2025; Pereira; Guimarães, 2019; Brasil, 2018). For students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), educational neuroscience highlights the need for pedagogical strategies that consider their cognitive and emotional particularities, demanding specific knowledge and consistent institutional support from the teacher (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011).

Given this scenario, the documentary analysis of the PPP of a private school in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, is justified, confronting it with the guidelines of the BNCC, LDB, and LBI, in order to identify normative convergences, pedagogical gaps, and implications for teaching work related to the inclusion of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The objective of this research was to analyze the school’s PPP, in light of the BNCC, LDB, and LBI, with the aim of identifying normative convergences, pedagogical gaps, and implications for teaching work related to the inclusion of students with ASD and ADHD, grounding the proposition of a neuroeducational guide for teachers of the Final Years of Elementary School, focused on practical and formative support for inclusive pedagogical actions.

2. Material and Methods

The research adopted a qualitative, exploratory approach, with a case study design, having as its central object the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP) of a private school located in the city of Porto Alegre, in Rio Grande do Sul. The choice for the qualitative approach was justified by the nature of the object of study, which sought to understand meanings, conceptions, and orientations present in institutional documents, aspects not amenable to quantification (Sampieri et al., 2013).

Regarding the objectives, the investigation was characterized as exploratory research aiming to broaden familiarity with the problem, especially concerning the understanding of how the PPP addresses the inclusion of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and how the document aligns with official guidelines (Prodanov; Freitas, 2013).

The case study design allowed for an in-depth analysis of a single instrument, the institution’s PPP, with the purpose of understanding the manifestations of legal and pedagogical guidelines on inclusion in a concrete guiding document. It was an instrumental case study, which did not seek generalizations, but a detailed understanding of a specific reality, aiming to support the proposition of improvements in the pedagogical practices of the analyzed institution (Miguel, 2007).

Data collection was carried out through documentary research. The primary source was the school’s PPP, and the reference normative documents used were the National Common Curricular Base (BNCC), the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (LDB), and the Brazilian Law of Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (LBI).

The documentary analysis was outlined based on the assumptions of content analysis, as proposed by Gil (2002), and structured into three main stages. The first stage corresponded to pre-analysis, a moment when the selection of documents to be examined, the initial reading of the material, and the formulation of reading hypotheses that guided the investigation were carried out.

In the second stage, called material exploration, the units of analysis were defined and the thematic categories that allowed data organization were constructed. The third stage referred to the treatment, inference, and interpretation of the data, a phase in which the contents extracted from the PPP were confronted with the guidelines of the official documents.

This confrontation made it possible to identify convergences and gaps related to the inclusion of students with ASD and ADHD. To complement this analysis, analysis sheets were developed, organized from a continuous movement of reading, interpretation, and systematization of data, according to the qualitative analysis procedure described by Gil (2002).

Document analysis was understood as a starting point for identifying formalized aspects within the institutional context that might require greater attention in the scope of pedagogical organization. By its very nature, this procedure allowed for the analysis of what is formalized in the selected documents, without the aim of exhausting the understanding of the needs experienced in daily school life.

The findings from the analysis of the PPP do not allow, in isolation, to affirm to what extent the inclusive practices foreseen or expected are effectively carried out by the institution. This evaluation would require the articulation of different sources and investigation procedures, such as observation of pedagogical practices, analysis of other institutional documents, and listening to the professionals involved.

The identified gaps were considered indicators for the elaboration of the educational product. The adequacy of this product to the institution’s reality may be further deepened from other research procedures and its practical application.

The methodological approaches described also underpinned the elaboration of the final research product, a neuroeducational guide for teachers of the Final Years of Elementary School. The construction of this material occurred in an articulated manner with the results of the documentary analysis, being guided by the gaps identified in the PPP and by the requirements present in the normative documents analyzed.

The development of the guide followed three main stages. The first stage consisted of defining the thematic axes of the guide, elaborated from the analytical categories constructed during the documentary analysis, especially those related to the difficulties in operationalizing inclusion in the context of teaching practice.

The second stage involved articulating these axes with foundations of learning neuroscience, considering theoretical contributions regarding attention, memory, executive functions, motivation, environment organization, and emotional regulation, in order to ground the proposed pedagogical guidelines.

The third stage corresponded to the elaboration of didactic guidelines and pedagogical strategies, organized with a focus on applicability. The aim was to translate the legal and theoretical principles of inclusion into concrete practices of planning, organization of teaching, learning assessment, and management of diversity in the classroom.

The guide was structured into six thematic axes, each organized from an identified pedagogical problem, followed by theoretical grounding and the proposition of strategies applicable to the context of the Final Years of Elementary School. This structure sought to articulate conceptual rigor and pedagogical applicability.

The initial distribution of the guide will be directed to the teachers of the Final Years of Elementary School of the analyzed institution and to the pedagogical team. The material will be made available in digital format, facilitating access for consultation during the planning and organization of school activities.

The presentation of the material to the school team may be accompanied by guidelines on its purpose and on the possibility of using the axes according to the demands identified by the teachers themselves and by the pedagogical team. The use of the guide should be flexible.

3. Results and Discussion

The results and discussion presented in this section derive from an in-depth analysis of the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP) of a medium-sized private school in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, which adopts a pedagogical proposal inspired by the Montessori method. The emphasis on autonomy, respect for individual pace, and student-centeredness, characteristics of the method, have contributed to the increase in the number of students who are the target audience for Special Education, including those with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), especially in the Final Years of Elementary School. This scenario, although aligned with the principles of inclusive education, revealed significant challenges in pedagogical organization and teacher performance.

The investigation was motivated by the finding that, despite the discursive alignment of the PPP with inclusive educational regulations, the school’s daily routine presents pedagogical demands that are not found in detailed support within the institutional document. The study therefore sought to examine how the PPP dialogues with the guidelines of the National Common Curricular Base (BNCC), the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education (LDB), and the Brazilian Law of Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities (LBI), and to what extent it offers practical subsidies to teachers for the effective implementation of inclusion. The reading hypotheses that guided the analysis indicated normative and theoretical convergence, but also the persistence of operational gaps, especially in curricular adaptation, learning organization, and support for teaching students with ASD and ADHD.

The methodology employed involved reading and identifying relevant excerpts in the selected documents, organized into analysis sheets to compare the PPP with official regulations. This process allowed for the identification of convergences, gaps, and aspects directly related to the demands of teaching work. Document analysis, as a starting point, revealed formalized aspects in the institutional context that could require greater attention in pedagogical organization, without, however, exhausting the understanding of the needs experienced in daily school life.

Regarding the convergences between the official documents and the school’s PPP, the results indicated a robust conceptual and normative alignment in relation to the conception of school inclusion. It was verified that the BNCC, the LDB, and the LBI affirm education as a fundamental right for all students, a principle that the institution’s PPP also incorporates, by recognizing that all students must be included in the school’s objectives, methodologies, planning, and evaluation processes. This conceptual convergence underscores the idea that inclusion should be a structuring element and not a peripheral one of the institutional educational project.

The analyzed documents also converged in the valorization of diversity, equity, and respect for differences, considered indispensable principles for the organization of teaching and the guarantee of the right to learn. The BNCC and LDB emphasize the pluralism of pedagogical approaches, respect for singularities, and the guarantee of conditions for access, permanence, and learning, while the LBI reinforces equal opportunities and the elimination of barriers. The PPP, in turn, incorporates these values by affirming respect for the individual characteristics of students, the promotion of relationships based on trust and welcoming, and the valorization of differences in the school environment. Although the institutional document does not detail the pedagogical means for the implementation of these principles, the coherence is explicit at the conceptual and normative level.

Regarding the institutional organization for inclusion, a structural alignment was identified between the School’s Pedagogical Project (PPP) and the requirements of educational legislation. The school’s document records the existence of Specialized Educational Support (AEE), in line with the determinations of the LDB and LBI on educational support for students with disabilities, global developmental disorders, and high abilities. The PPP also mentions the presence of specialized professionals and assistants with training in the area, indicating compliance with the legal requirement to provide qualified human resources for inclusive educational support.

Additionally, the PPP highlights institutional projects focused on the development of socioemotional skills, involving students, teachers, staff, and families. This aspect dialogues with the BNCC, which recognizes the importance of socioemotional dimensions in the educational process. These elements reveal that the school has a support structure for inclusion aligned with current legal determinations. However, despite this formally described organization, the forms of pedagogical articulation between these institutional resources and the daily work of the regular classroom teacher remain little explicit in the document.

Considering these findings, it is perceived that, although the PPP presents conceptual alignment with the principles of school inclusion, its formulation is predominantly declarative and evaluative. In other words, the document affirms principles, values, intentions, and commitments, but does not detail how they will be effectively put into practice. While official documents advance in the explicitation of responsibilities, rights, and requirements related to the organization of inclusive education, the PPP is largely limited to the affirmation of general principles, without detailing the necessary means for their implementation in the school routine.

In comparison, the PPP reaffirms values such as respect for differences, promotion of autonomy, appreciation of singularities, and guarantee of quality education for all students. However, the document does not clarify how these principles translate into concrete pedagogical practices. Unlike the BNCC, which presents more direct guidelines regarding methodological diversification, differentiated paces, and learning support strategies, and the LDB and LBI, which establish normative requirements related to curricular adaptation and the organization of AEE, the institutional document does not detail procedures, criteria, or strategies for the implementation of these actions in the classroom.

The absence of explicit guidelines in the PPP regarding curricular adaptation, flexibility in assessment processes, and the management of diversity in the regular classroom context was observed. Although the document mentions differentiated student support and respect for individual paces, these statements are not accompanied by indications on how the teacher should proceed when faced with different learning profiles, nor on how to plan, execute, and evaluate inclusive pedagogical practices. This gap is significant, as literature indicates that the distance between normative principles and their effective implementation in pedagogical practice often generates teacher insecurity (Santos, 2025).

When confronting the PPP with the legal requirements expressed in the LDB and LBI, a mismatch was identified between what is normatively required and what is detailed in the institutional document. Educational legislation clearly establishes the obligation of reasonable adaptations, specific curricula, methods, and resources, as well as the articulation between regular education and AEE. However, the PPP does not describe how these requirements materialize in the school’s daily routine, nor does it present guidelines on the articulation between regular classroom teachers, AEE professionals, and other available institutional resources.

No protocols for action and referral, criteria for pedagogical decision-making, or methodological guidelines were identified in the document to assist the teacher in operationalizing inclusion in the classroom context. The absence of these elements suggests that, although the school has an institutional structure for inclusive educational support, the PPP does not explicitly provide sufficiently systematized pedagogical support to guide inclusive teaching practices. Document analysis alone does not allow us to determine the extent to which this support occurs through other channels in the institutional daily routine, but it points to a gap to be investigated.

Regarding the implications of the findings for teaching work, the centrality of the teacher as a fundamental agent for the effective implementation of school inclusion was evidenced. The normative documents analyzed, especially the BNCC, attribute to the teacher the role of concretizing the curriculum in action, by highlighting the need for selecting diversified methodologies, adapting didactic-pedagogical strategies, considering differentiated learning paces, and promoting inclusive practices that ensure the right to learning for all students. The LDB and LBI reinforce this centrality by establishing the obligation of curricula, methods, techniques, and educational resources adequate to the needs of students with disabilities, global developmental disorders, and other learning profiles.

However, when confronting these demands with the content of the school’s PPP, it was observed that, although it recognizes the importance of the teacher, continuing education, and attention to students’ singularities, the document does not present systematized pedagogical guidelines to assist the teacher in operationalizing inclusion in the classroom. Absent, for example, are indications on how to adapt curricular activities and content, how to organize routines and attention strategies, how to conduct evaluative processes considering differentiated learning paths, how to articulate pedagogical work with AEE, and how to deal, specifically in the Final Years of Elementary School, with students with ASD and ADHD.

These results indicate that the PPP does not offer practical, clear, and systematized guidelines to support teaching practice in the face of the diversity demands present in the classroom. This gap does not refer to the absence of principles or institutional recognition, but to the lack of pedagogical instruments explicitly stated in the PPP that translate legal and normative guidelines into viable and contextualized actions. The documentary analysis, therefore, highlights a gap of a pedagogical and formative nature, and not strictly institutional, since the PPP presents elements compatible with legal requirements, but does not sufficiently systematize the pedagogical support mechanisms intended for inclusive teaching practice.

It is in this space that the need for a neuroeducational guide arises, conceived as a training material capable of responding to the operational gaps of the PPP, the demands of the LDB and LBI, the general guidelines of the BNCC, and, above all, the challenges faced by teachers in the classroom. The proposal for a material that enables the translation of the legal and pedagogical principles of inclusion into strategies for planning, teaching organization, learning assessment, and pedagogical management of diversity is justified for the improvement of inclusive pedagogical practice in the analyzed institution.

The proposal stems from the understanding that the effective implementation of school inclusion depends, to a large extent, on the organization of teaching that is sensitive to the diversity of learning styles present in the group. In this sense, the guide seeks to offer pedagogical references that assist teachers in planning activities, structuring routines, conducting assessment processes, and managing heterogeneous learning situations, especially in classes that include students with ASD and ADHD. In addition to dialogue with Brazilian educational guidelines, the material is also based on contributions from the neuroscience of learning, an area that has expanded the understanding of the cognitive processes involved in attention, memory, executive functions, and emotional regulation.

Attention, executive functions and organization of learning

In the Final Years of Elementary School, it is observed that students frequently present difficulties related to maintaining attention, organizing school tasks, planning activities, and impulse control. These difficulties become even more evident in classes that include students with ASD and ADHD, directly impacting their participation, autonomy, and academic performance. The analysis of the PPP showed that, although the document recognizes the importance of respecting different learning paces and promoting the integral development of students, there are no explicit pedagogical guidelines on how the teacher can organize teaching to meet these demands. This scenario reinforces the recurring difficulty in inclusive education, which is the gap between normative principles and their effective implementation in pedagogical practice, generating teacher insecurity and favoring the adoption of unsystematic strategies (Santos, 2025).

From the neuroscience perspective, executive functions correspond to a set of cognitive skills responsible for planning, organizing, monitoring, and regulating behavior, being fundamental for school learning. It is these functions that allow the student to establish goals, organize task steps, maintain attentional focus, and review their own actions when facing difficulties (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011). Attention, in turn, constitutes the gateway to learning, as only information that receives attentional focus is effectively processed and registered by the brain. When the student cannot sustain attention, there is direct impairment in knowledge construction, regardless of the quality of the content presented (Amaral; Guerra, 2020).

In the case of ADHD, there is evidence of dysfunctions related to attention and executive functions, associated with impulsivity, difficulty in planning, and low capacity to maintain focus on tasks that require prolonged cognitive effort (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011). In students with ASD, on the other hand, difficulties related to cognitive flexibility, information organization, and adaptation to routine changes may be observed, which interferes with participation in activities that require information integration and sequential planning (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011). These elements indicate that different forms of cognitive functioning require different forms of teaching organization.

In practice, this means that difficulties with attention and planning should not be interpreted as disinterest or lack of commitment, but as signs that the student needs greater pedagogical mediation. The organization of learning, in this sense, becomes a central responsibility of the teacher, who needs to structure the conditions for all students to access and participate in the proposed activities. This understanding is aligned with educational guidelines that point to the need for inclusive pedagogical practices, capable of exploring students’ potentialities through flexible and diversified methodologies (Brasil, 2010). At the same time, it reinforces the idea that inclusion is achieved by creating effective learning conditions, respecting the singularities of the students (Mantoan, 2015).

In this context, organizing teaching implies making tasks more comprehensible, predictable, and accessible. This can be achieved, for example, by dividing complex activities into smaller steps, clearly stating objectives, avoiding information overload, and offering support in managing time and school demands. This organization refers to the teacher’s intentional mediation of how the student should start, develop, and complete a task. It is about making the learning path visible, indicating the order of steps and which strategies can be used throughout the process.

By structuring the activities in this way, the professor reduces the cognitive load involved in organizing the task and allows the student to direct their mental resources to understanding the content, rather than just trying to figure out what needs to be done. Furthermore, by anticipating steps, establishing routines, and making expectations explicit, a more predictable environment is created, which especially benefits students who have difficulties with executive functions, contributing to greater engagement, autonomy, and persistence in the activity (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011; Amaral; Guerra, 2020). It is also relevant to alternate moments of exposition with practical activities, use visual resources to support comprehension, and establish structured routines that allow the student to anticipate what will be done.

The teacher’s mediation, especially at the beginning of tasks, is a decisive factor for engagement, as is continuous monitoring throughout the activity, with interventions that help organize thinking and maintain focus, such as revisiting instructions, using guiding questions that help the student understand what needs to be done, clarifying the next steps of the task, and redirecting attention when necessary. These interventions function as temporary supports, guiding the student during the execution of the activity and fostering the construction of greater autonomy in carrying out tasks, and are in line with the need for methodological diversification and adaptation of pedagogical practices, pointed out as fundamental for addressing diversity in the school context (Santos, 2025).

In a concrete situation in the Final Years, such as the proposal for the production of a dissertation in Portuguese Language, the organization of the activity can be decisive for the student’s success. Instead of directly requesting the production of the complete text, the teacher can structure the process in stages, starting with brainstorming ideas, followed by organizing these ideas into an outline, and then progressively writing the paragraphs. By explicating each stage, visually recording the guidelines, and monitoring the development of the activity, the teacher favors not only the understanding of the task but also the development of students’ executive functions. This type of organization contributes to making learning more accessible, promoting active participation and progressive knowledge construction, valuing engagement and cooperation as central elements of the educational process (UNESCO, 2019).

Pedagogical planning and inclusive curricular adaptation

The analysis of the PPP also evidenced the absence of systematized pedagogical guidelines on how to plan teaching in inclusive contexts, especially regarding curricular adaptation. The document recognizes the importance of respecting different learning paces and attending to students’ singularities, but does not explicitly state how these principles should be incorporated into pedagogical planning. This gap becomes particularly relevant in classes that include students with ASD, ADHD, and other learning profiles, as the absence of clear guidelines tends to shift the responsibility to the teacher to, in isolation, construct strategies for dealing with classroom heterogeneity. This scenario reinforces what the literature points to as one of the main challenges of inclusive education: the gap between normative principles and their effective implementation in pedagogical practice, often associated with teacher insecurity and the lack of systematization of pedagogical actions (Santos, 2025).

In this context, planning assumes a central role in the effective implementation of inclusion, as it is where objectives, strategies, resources, and forms of evaluation are defined. Planning committed to inclusion must consider, from its conception, the diversity present in the classroom and cannot be based on a homogeneous logic. Educational guidelines indicate that it is up to the school and the teacher to organize pedagogical practices that enable the participation of all students, through flexible, diversified, and accessible methodologies (Brazil, 2010). This implies understanding planning as an intentional process of organizing learning conditions.

Curricular adaptation, in this sense, is integrated into pedagogical planning and should not be understood as a subsequent or parallel action. It involves anticipating, at the planning stage, possible barriers to learning and proposing strategies that broaden access to knowledge. This perspective aligns with the concept of inclusive education, which values differences as a constitutive part of the educational process and not as an exception to be treated in isolation (Mantoan, 2015). By planning considering diversity, the teacher reduces the need for emergency interventions and promotes the construction of more consistent and equitable practices.

From the neuroscience perspective, this approach is supported by the understanding that students present different ways of processing information, mobilizing attention, organizing thought, and consolidating learning. These differences require teaching to be structured in a way that offers multiple possibilities for accessing content and engaging in activities. When planning does not consider this diversity, there is a higher probability of excluding students who do not fit a single teaching model, especially those with difficulties related to executive functions, attention, and emotional regulation (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011; Amaral; Guerra, 2020).

Thus, inclusive planning implies diversifying, beyond activities, the ways content is presented, the resources used, the timeframes for completion, and the possibilities for student participation. This may involve anticipating different levels of complexity for the same task, using visual resources and graphic organizers, alternating between individual and collaborative activities, as well as proposing strategies that foster student autonomy and leadership, such as research tasks and flipped classroom activities (Amaral; Guerra, 2020). By structuring planning in this way, the teacher expands learning possibilities and creates more equitable conditions for participation.

Furthermore, inclusive planning requires articulation with other school professionals, especially with Specialized Educational Support (AEE). The literature highlights that AEE should act in a complementary and collaborative manner to regular teaching, contributing to the identification of needs, the organization of pedagogical resources, and the guidance of teaching practices. However, this articulation does not always materialize in daily school life, either due to lack of time for joint planning or the absence of institutional guidelines that favor this dialogue (Santos, 2025). In this sense, incorporating moments of collaborative planning can contribute to making pedagogical practices more consistent and aligned with student demands.

In a concrete situation in the Final Years of Elementary School, such as planning a didactic sequence, the teacher can foresee different ways of approaching the topic, including oral explanations, visual resources, experimental activities, and investigative proposals. At the same time, they can organize the activities in progressive levels of complexity, starting with more guided and concrete proposals and gradually advancing to more autonomous and abstract tasks, offer support for task organization, such as outlines, scripts, examples, and step-by-step instructions, and foresee different ways of recording learning, allowing students to express what they have learned through written productions, oral presentations, or visual records. By planning in this way, the teacher, in addition to anticipating possible difficulties, expands students’ participation opportunities, promoting more accessible, meaningful, and coherent teaching in line with the principles of inclusive education (UNESCO, 2019).

Pedagogical strategies for heterogeneous classes

In the school project, there is a recognition of diversity as an educational principle, but the pedagogical strategies guiding teachers’ work in heterogeneous classes are not explicit. This absence is significant in the Final Years of Elementary School, a stage where cognitive, organizational, and curricular demands intensify, while differences among students in terms of work pace, interests, learning styles, and autonomy levels widen. Considering these issues, the lack of systematized guidance can lead to the predominance of homogeneous practices, centered solely on content exposition by teachers, which do not encompass the diversity present in the classroom and hinder the effective participation of all students. Therefore, it is necessary to construct pedagogical strategies that recognize heterogeneity as a constitutive element of the educational process and not as an obstacle to be overcome (Santos, 2025).

For inclusive education, working with heterogeneous classes implies reorganizing the logic of teaching, shifting from a model centered on uniformity to a perspective that values the potential of diversity. To this end, it must be understood that students do not learn in the same way or at the same pace, making it necessary to create conditions for different learning paths to coexist in the same educational environment. This understanding aligns with the concept of quality teaching that prioritizes cooperation, interaction, and the collective construction of knowledge, in which differences among students are mobilized as a resource for learning (Mantoan, 2015; UNESCO, 2019).

The neuroscience of learning contributes to this discussion by showing that learning is an active process, which depends on the student’s cognitive, emotional, and social engagement. Pedagogical strategies that promote participation, interaction, and meaning tend to be more effective than passive practices, centered on listening and reproducing information. Furthermore, studies indicate that learning is favored when the student can establish connections between the content and their experiences, interests, and prior knowledge, which requires the teacher to be able to diversify approaches and create learning situations that make sense for different student profiles (Amaral; Guerra, 2020).

In this sense, the adoption of diversified pedagogical strategies becomes fundamental for working with heterogeneous classes. This involves, for example, the use of active methodologies, which place the student at the center of the learning process, promoting investigation, problem-solving, knowledge production, and peer interaction. Such strategies favor engagement and the development of cognitive and socio-emotional skills, such as autonomy, collaboration, critical thinking, and self-regulation. At the same time, they enable students to participate in different ways, according to their potential, expanding learning opportunities, especially when peer work is valued, considering the collective construction of knowledge and the exchange of expertise (Amaral; Guerra, 2020).

Furthermore, collaborative learning as a pedagogical strategy is particularly relevant. Evidence indicates that student interaction can enhance learning, as it fosters knowledge exchange, joint meaning-making, and the development of social skills. When intentionally organized, group activities can help students with different performance levels and learning styles support each other, overcoming participation barriers and expanding access to content (UNESCO, 2019). This perspective reinforces the idea that students themselves constitute a powerful pedagogical resource that can be mobilized by the teacher in the construction of more inclusive learning environments.

Furthermore, working with heterogeneous classes requires proposing open and flexible activities that allow for different ways of solving and levels of deepening. Instead of unique tasks with standardized answers, the teacher can propose problem-solving situations, projects, or investigative activities that allow for multiple learning strategies and paths. This type of approach favors student protagonism and allows each student to participate according to their possibilities, while maintaining a connection with the proposed learning objectives.

Placing in perspective a work possibility with the Final Years of Elementary School, such as the study of a historical theme, the teacher can organize learning through an investigative proposal in which students, in groups, explore different aspects of the content, using various sources, such as texts, images, videos, and historical documents. While some groups may produce more elaborate written texts, others may present conceptual maps, dramatizations, or visual productions. By structuring the proposal in this way, the teacher favors the participation of all students, values different forms of expression, and promotes a more dynamic, interactive, and inclusive learning environment, in which diversity is recognized as a central element of the educational process (Mantoan, 2015; UNESCO, 2019).

Flexibilization of assessment and valorization of learning pathways

Specific guidelines regarding assessment processes in inclusive contexts are not explicit in the PPP, especially concerning the flexibility of assessment and the consideration of students’ different learning paths. Although the document mentions the importance of respecting singularities and promoting integral development, it does not translate these guidelines into concrete assessment practices. This gap is concerning when considering heterogeneous classes, where the adoption of uniform criteria and standardized instruments can compromise the participation and expression of learning by students with different ways of learning. Such a scenario reinforces the need to rethink assessment as an integral part of the pedagogical process, and not as an isolated moment of result verification (Santos, 2025).

This change in perspective understands assessment as a continuous, formative, and guiding process of learning, which considers the student’s journey, their strategies, progress, and difficulties, and not just the final result. This approach is aligned with educational guidelines that point to the need for adaptation of assessment methods, instruments, and criteria, in order to guarantee equitable conditions for participation and learning (Brazil, 2010). Thus, assessing implies monitoring the student’s development over time, recognizing that different trajectories can lead to the construction of knowledge.

From the neuroscience perspective, learning is the result of complex processes involving attention, memory, motivation, and emotion, being influenced by individual and contextual factors (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011). This means that the student’s performance in an evaluative situation cannot be interpreted in isolation, without considering the conditions under which learning occurred. Furthermore, the way assessment is conducted can directly impact student engagement and motivation, favoring or hindering knowledge consolidation (Amaral; Guerra, 2020). Therefore, assessment practices focused exclusively on error or comparison tend to generate anxiety and demotivation, while approaches that value process and progress contribute to strengthening self-confidence and the continuity of learning.

In this sense, making assessment more flexible mobilizes the expansion of ways to monitor and record learning, in addition to diversifying assessment instruments and strategies. This may involve the use of different assessment modalities, such as written productions, oral presentations, visual records, self-assessment, and practical activities, allowing students to express what they have learned through different languages. By diversifying the instruments, the teacher increases the possibilities for participation and reduces the barriers that could prevent certain students from demonstrating their knowledge.

Furthermore, flexibility requires the review of evaluative criteria, so as to consider the student’s starting point and their development throughout the process. This means that it must be recognized that individual progress is a central element in the construction of knowledge without reducing expectations or compromising learning objectives. This aligns with the conception of teaching that values the development of students’ potential and the construction of meaningful learning, in an environment that favors experimentation, participation, and cooperation (Mantoan, 2015).

Another relevant approach is the incorporation of self-assessment and reflection practices on learning. By encouraging the student to analyze their own journey, identify difficulties, and recognize progress, the professor contributes to the development of metacognitive and self-regulation skills, understood as the ability to plan, monitor, and adjust one’s own behavior and learning strategies, fundamental for lifelong learning (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011). The literature indicates that the creation of a more reflective and formative evaluative culture favors student engagement and autonomy, by shifting the focus of assessment from judgment to assessment as a learning process (Amaral; Guerra, 2020).

In the Final Years of Elementary School, using the assessment in the Portuguese Language subject as an example, the teacher can combine different assessment instruments, such as written production, participation in discussions, learning journal entries, and revision activities. By considering these different elements, it is possible to obtain a broader view of the student’s learning process. Furthermore, by offering qualitative feedback, which indicates progress and areas for development, the teacher contributes to the assessment fulfilling its formative function, promoting the continuity of learning. This favors the construction of a more inclusive environment, in which students’ trajectories are recognized and valued, and in which assessment constitutes a tool for supporting development, rather than exclusion (Mantoan, 2015; UNESCO, 2019).

Organization of routines and environments conducive to learning

The analysis of the PPP showed that there are no detailed pedagogical guidelines on the organization of school routines and learning environments, a relevant aspect in contexts involving students with ASD, ADHD, and other learning profiles. For these students, predictability, time structuring, and space organization are decisive factors for participation and engagement in activities, and the lack of instruction can lead to the construction of unsystematic practices, based on improvisation, which hinders the creation of stable and accessible learning conditions (Santos, 2025).

Regarding inclusive education, the organization of the environment and routines is not a secondary aspect, but a structuring element of the pedagogical process. In other words, predictable, organized, and intentionally planned environments contribute to reducing barriers to learning, favoring the participation of all students. Thus, it is possible to develop students’ potential, recognizing that learning occurs more effectively in contexts that promote safety, belonging, and accessibility (Mantoan, 2015; UNESCO, 2019).

Neuroscience of learning demonstrates, reinforcing this understanding, that the environment exerts direct influence on the cognitive and emotional processes involved in learning. Factors such as spatial organization, excess or absence of stimuli, noise, lighting, and predictability of activities can favor or hinder students’ attention, memory, and emotional regulation. Disorganized or highly stimulating environments tend to make it difficult to maintain focus, especially for students with attentional difficulties, while structured contexts contribute to behavioral stabilization and engagement in tasks (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011; Amaral; Guerra, 2020).

In view of this, the organization of school routines is essential in building an environment conducive to learning. That is, by establishing predictable sequences of activities, making explicit what will be done during the class, and anticipating routine changes, anxiety is reduced and students’ adaptation to school demands is favored. This predictability is particularly important for students with ASD, who frequently need routine maintenance and have difficulties with unexpected changes, but it also benefits the entire class by providing greater clarity about how the class works (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011).

The organization of the classroom’s physical space, in turn, should be designed to foster student interaction, concentration, and participation. Arrangements that allow for peer exchange, collaborative work, and mobility can contribute to building a dynamic and inclusive environment. At the same time, it is important to avoid overloading visual and auditory stimuli, which can cause distraction and hinder concentration, because the quality of the physical environment is directly related to students’ attention span and engagement, requiring a balance between stimulation and organization (Amaral; Guerra, 2020).

Furthermore, regarding the integration between movement, social interaction, and learning, evidence indicates that activities involving the body, active participation, and interaction among students tend to favor learning by mobilizing different cognitive and emotional systems. Therefore, the organization of the environment should provide, in addition to moments of individual work, opportunities for circulation, collaboration, and active participation, which contribute to the construction of more meaningful learning experiences (Amaral; Guerra, 2020).

In a Mathematics class for the Final Years of Elementary School, for example, the teacher can start by explaining the sequence of activities that will be developed, using visual resources to present the class routine. Throughout the period, they can alternate moments of explanation, group problem-solving, and individual activities, organizing time in a balanced way. The classroom layout can be adjusted to favor collaborative work, with desks arranged in small groups, and the necessary materials can be placed in an accessible location for students. By structuring the class in this way, the teacher creates a more predictable, organized, and accessible environment that favors the participation, concentration, and learning of all students (UNESCO, 2019).

Articulation between regular classroom teacher, AEE and school team

Despite having Specialized Educational Support (AEE) and qualified professionals to support inclusion, the analysis of the school’s PPP showed that there is no detail on how the pedagogical articulation occurs between these services and the work of the regular classroom teacher. This absence of guidelines becomes significant, as it can lead to the fragmentation of pedagogical practices, where the support for students who are the target audience of Special Education occurs in parallel, without effective integration with the teaching developed in the classroom. This reinforces one of the difficulties pointed out in the literature: inclusion tends to weaken when there is no communication and shared planning between the different professionals involved, resulting in disjointed and ineffective actions (Santos, 2025).

Inclusion, from the perspective of educational policies, presupposes the joint action of school professionals, with AEE (Specialized Educational Support) being understood as a complementary service and not a substitute for regular teaching. The norms indicate that it is the responsibility of the regular classroom teacher and the AEE teacher to establish constant dialogue, with the objective of identifying needs, planning strategies, and organizing resources that favor student participation and learning. This articulation is fundamental so that specialized support is not configured as an isolated space, but as an integral part of the educational process (Brasil, 2010).

Furthermore, the perspective of inclusive education reinforces that the responsibility for students’ learning should be shared by the entire school team, and not attributed exclusively to a single professional. In this sense, collaborative work among teachers, pedagogical coordination, support staff, and families constitutes a central element for building more consistent and effective practices. The exchange of experiences, joint reflection on the difficulties encountered, and the collective construction of pedagogical strategies favor the development of solutions more suited to the real demands of the classroom (Mantoan, 2015).

The neuroscience of learning also contributes to this discussion by highlighting that the cognitive and emotional development of students is influenced by multiple factors, which go beyond the individual actions of the teacher. Students with ASD, ADHD, and other learning profiles require frequent interventions, involving different knowledge fields, making the articulation between school, family, and specialized professionals fundamental. This integrated action allows for a broader understanding of the student’s needs and favors the construction of more adequate and effective pedagogical strategies (Cosenza; Guerra, 2011).

In this context, the articulation between school professionals implies the creation of spaces and moments for joint planning, information exchange, and pedagogical decision-making. This can occur through periodic meetings, shared records on student development, and the definition of common action strategies. By establishing this communication, it becomes possible to align objectives, avoid contradictions in interventions, and ensure greater coherence in monitoring the student throughout the learning process.

Furthermore, collaborative action contributes to reducing the workload of the regular classroom teacher, who often finds themselves responsible for meeting complex demands without the necessary support. When there is dialogue and cooperation among professionals, teaching becomes more sustainable, and pedagogical practices tend to be more consistent and less based on improvisation. This perspective aligns with the idea that inclusion is not an individual task, but a collective commitment of the school institution (Santos, 2025).

In the context of supporting a student with ASD in the Final Years of Elementary School, the articulation between the regular classroom teacher and the AEE (Specialized Educational Support) can materialize in the joint construction of strategies for organizing activities, adapting materials, and defining forms of participation in the classroom. While the regular classroom teacher leads the teaching of curricular content, the AEE contributes with guidance on visual resources, routine structuring, and mediation strategies. By maintaining this dialogue, both professionals expand the student’s learning possibilities and favor their participation in the classroom context. This integrated action contributes to the construction of a more inclusive environment, in which pedagogical actions are articulated, coherent, and oriented towards the development of all students (UNESCO, 2019).

Educational product dissemination strategy

The initial dissemination of the neuroeducational guide will be carried out within the scope of the analyzed institution, with teachers of the Final Years of Elementary School and the pedagogical team as the priority audience. The material may be made available in digital format, facilitating its access for consultation during the planning and organization of school activities, and may also be presented to the team at a time dedicated to its contextualization and discussion. The use of the guide should be flexible, allowing teachers to select the axes and strategies most relevant to the characteristics of their classes. The pedagogical team may monitor the use of the material and gather teachers’ perceptions about its applicability, favoring its subsequent improvement. In this way, dissemination includes its insertion into the pedagogical routine and the possibility of revision based on usage experiences. Although its initial application is linked to the analyzed institution, the guide’s structure allows its axes and strategies to be adapted to other school contexts, provided that institutional characteristics, class profiles, and identified needs in each reality are considered. This possibility points to a potential for product adaptation through adjustments and evaluation of its relevance in different educational contexts.

In summary, the analysis of the school’s Political-Pedagogical Project revealed a conceptual and normative alignment with the principles of inclusive education, recognizing the diversity and the right to learn of all students. However, significant gaps were identified in the operationalization of these principles, especially in curricular adaptation, learning organization, and the systematization of guidelines for teaching students with ASD and ADHD. These findings supported the proposal of a neuroeducational guide, structured in six thematic axes and based on the neuroscience of learning, which aims to offer practical and formative support to teachers, translating legal and theoretical guidelines into concrete pedagogical strategies to strengthen inclusive practices in the institution.

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed the Political-Pedagogical Project (PPP) of a private school, in light of the National Common Curricular Base, the Law of Directives and Bases of National Education, and the Brazilian Law of Inclusion for Persons with Disabilities, seeking to identify normative convergences, pedagogical gaps, and implications for teaching work related to the inclusion of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the Final Years of Elementary School. A robust conceptual and normative alignment was found between the PPP and the official guidelines regarding the concept of school inclusion and the valorization of diversity. However, significant gaps were identified in the operationalization of curricular adaptation, the organization of learning, and the systematization of guidelines for teaching work. It was observed that the institutional document did not explicitly detail sufficiently systematized instruments to support the implementation of normative guidelines by the teacher in the daily classroom, evidencing a predominantly declarative and valorative formulation.

Based on these findings, which pointed to the centrality of the teacher in the effective implementation of inclusion and the absence of systematized pedagogical support in the PPP, the proposition of a neuroeducational guide was substantiated. This material, structured in six thematic axes and based on contributions from the neuroscience of learning, aims to offer practical and formative support to the institution’s teachers, translating legal and theoretical principles into concrete pedagogical strategies to strengthen inclusive practices. It is recognized that the study was limited to the documentary analysis of a specific context, not allowing for the generalization of results or the qualification of the effectiveness of inclusive practices in their entirety. It is suggested that future research incorporate the input of teachers, the monitoring of the guide’s use, and the analysis of its applicability in other school contexts, aiming at the improvement of the material and the identification of strategies adaptable to diverse educational realities.

Bibliographic References

Amaral, A. L.; Guerra, L. B. 2020. Neurociência e Educação: olhando para o futuro da aprendizagem. SESI, Brasília, DF, Brasil.

Barros, A.B.; Silva, S.M.M.; Costa, M.P.R. 2017. Dificuldades no processo de inclusão escolar: percepções de professores e de alunos com deficiência visual em escolas públicas. Boletim Acadêmico Paulista de Psicologia 35(88): 145-163.

Brasil. 2015. Lei nº 13.146, de 6 de julho de 2015. Institui a Lei Brasileira de Inclusão da Pessoa com Deficiência (Estatuto da Pessoa com Deficiência). Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 7 jul. 2015. Seção 1, p. 2-11.

Brasil. 2018. Base Nacional Comum Curricular. Ministério da Educação, Brasília, DF, Brasil. Disponível em: http://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/images/BNCC_EI_EF_110518_versaofinal_site.pdf . Acesso em: 1 dez. 2025.

Carvalho, J.S.; Lopes, I. 2020. Educação inclusiva: reflexões sobre avanços e desafios. Revista Científica Educação 4(7): 825-834.

Cosenza, R.M.; Guerra, L.B. 2011. Neurociência e educação: como o cérebro aprende. Artmed, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Gil, A.C. 2002. Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa. 4ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Mantoan, M.T.E. 2015. Inclusão escolar: o que é? por quê? como fazer?. Summus Editorial Ltda., São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Miguel, P.A.C. 2007. Estudo de caso na engenharia de produção: estruturação e recomendações para sua condução. Production 17(1): 216-229.

Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura [UNESCO]. 2019. Manual para garantir inclusão e equidade na educação. Brasília, UNESCO, 47 p. Disponível em: <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370508>. Acesso em: 23 jan. 2026.

Pereira, C.A.R.; Guimarães, S. 2019. A educação especial na formação de professores: um estudo sobre cursos de licenciatura em pedagogia. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial 25(4): s.p.

Prodanov, C.C.; Freitas, E.C. de. 2013. Metodologia do Trabalho Científico: Métodos e Técnicas da Pesquisa e do Trabalho Acadêmico. 2ed. Feevale, Novo Hamburgo, RS, Brasil.

Sampieri, R.H.; Callado, C.F.; Lucio, M.P.B. 2013. Metodologia de Pesquisa. 5ed. Penso, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Santos, D. 2025. Desafios enfrentados pelos professores na implementação da educação inclusiva nas escolas públicas. Revista Tópicos 3(27): s.p.

Article originating from a Final Coursework on Neuroscience and Learning in Education

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