WHAT DOES HIS REPORT SAY? WHEN THE DOCUMENT COMES BEFORE THE PERSON

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.5157272624038

• Palavras-chave: ..

• Keywords: ..

• Abstract:

  In the context of school education, particularly with regard to the enrollment and care of students in public special education, there persists a logic that reverses the order of educational rights: the assessment report is considered first, and only then the student to whom that report refers. This practice reveals the power of a rationality that transforms the diagnostic document into a condition for school existence, relegating the student’s uniqueness, experiences, potential, and concrete pedagogical needs to the background. By subordinating access to schooling and the organization of instruction to the presentation and interpretation of the report, the school runs the risk of reducing the student to their clinical classification, turning the right to education into a side effect of the diagnosis rather than an inalienable principle. Such a reversal undermines the inclusive nature of education, as it shifts the focus of pedagogical responsibility from the school institution to the medical field, normalizing exclusionary practices that are legitimized under the technical discourse of disability.
  Although reports are important tools for understanding the needs of students with disabilities, it is a mistake to base all pedagogical planning exclusively on these documents. Reports generally provide a clinical and static view of the student’s condition, often based on assessments conducted outside the school context. This can lead the teacher to have a limited perception of the student, ignoring their experiences, potential, and unique ways of learning that are revealed in the daily classroom setting.
  Furthermore, an excessive focus on the report can contribute to the labeling and stigmatization of the student, reducing their identity to the disability described in the document. Inclusive pedagogical practice must be based on constant observation, dialogue with the student themselves, and concrete learning experiences. Each student responds differently to stimuli, and it is through daily interaction that the teacher can adjust their strategies in a more sensitive and effective manner.  In fact, the report “serves as a marker of the educational process for many students with disabilities” (Fontoura; Sardagna, 2021, p. 03)
  The present text therefore aims to critically analyze the role of the medical report in the school education of public students subject to special education, discussing, on the one hand, the centrality of diagnosis in the processes of access to formal education and, on the other, the pedagogical and symbolic effects, as well as the limitations of the report in the organization of schooling, in guaranteeing the right to education, and in recognizing the student as the center of the educational process.
  Regarding methodological approaches, the study is conceived as exploratory research that adopts a qualitative approach, as it recognizes that the issue under analysis—namely, the centrality of the medical report and its effects on the schooling of students in public special education—requires a critical interpretation of meanings, conceptions, and discourses that permeate educational practices. The procedure adopted is of an analytical-reconstructive nature, guided by the problematization of theoretical categories and the reconstruction/refutation of the arguments that support the primacy of the report to the detriment of the individual.
  To this end, bibliographic research is employed, based on a delimited set of texts selected from the Google Scholar database (https://scholar.google.com/), using a non-probabilistic thematic selection for convenience, considering theoretical relevance, conceptual recurrence, and the significance of the works for the proposed debate.