The research aims are examined through the lens of the Policy Cycle (PC), drawing on the thematic analysis of both documents and interviews. The decision to present and interpret the data simultaneously—structuring the results and corresponding discussion within a single section—follows the reflexive approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2021b), and is further supported by other scholars (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Yin, 2018).
Contexts of influence and text production
The analysis of the contexts of influence and text production provided valuable insights into how curricular flexibility, facilitated by the MLA, and the participation of the educational community, through the MSTIE, emerge as key themes and subthemes underpinning the inclusive education policy process. Actually, several inter/national organizations (UN, 1948, 1993; UNESCO, 1990, 2000, 2017; Conselho Nacional da Educação [CNE], 2014; National Association of Special Education Teachers [ANDEE], 2015) stress the need to fight inequalities related to access to education, participation and learning outcomes, which implies ensuring that individual and social circumstances do not constitute an obstacle to realizing one’s educational potential (Field et al., 2007).
In this context, the conceptualization of more flexible curricular pathways (UN, 1993; UNESCO, 2017; UNESCO, 1994, 2015; OECD, 2006) and the increased autonomy granted to schools to implement them through the decentralization of decision-making powers and responsibilities (UNESCO, 1994; Comissão das Comunidades Europeias [CEC], 2006; OECD, 2014) have been recognized as strategies to enhance the inclusivity of education systems. Reflecting this perspective, UNESCO recommended the development of national action plans to significantly boost investment in education (UNESCO, 2000, Article 45), while the Comissão das Comunidades Europeias [CEC] (2006) advocated for greater school autonomy in defining curriculum content and in decisions concerning access to, and management of, human resources and budgets. This view of empowering schools to manage their own resources was later echoed by the WHO and WB (2011), UN (2015), Conselho da União Europeia [CEU] (2017), who emphasized the need for increased resource allocation to schools to ensure that, although learning paths may differ, all students can access high-quality education. However, diverging from this approach, the RJEI stipulates that MSAIs must be implemented using the resources already available within each school (Article 6, No. 2), and through cooperation agreements with local authorities and other community institutions (Article 19). Consequently, the quality of educational responses to diverse student needs and abilities depends both on the resources available at each school and on the partnerships established with community organizations (Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education [CSIE], 2002; European Agency for Special Needs Inclusive Education [EASNIE], 2017, 2022; UNESCO, 2021).
Although the RJEI does allow for the exceptional allocation of “additional” resources for students whose curricula include MS and/or MA, such requests must be formally submitted and justified by the school headmaster to the Ministry of Education, which holds the authority to approve or reject them (Articles 9, Nos. 4 and 5; Article 10, Nos. 7 and 8). This centralization of decision-making and the emphasis on school centrality advocated by transnational organizations and echoed in national policy texts appears to undermine the autonomy of school leadership in making the curriculum more flexible. For instance: “The recognition of the decisive role of schools and teachers in students’ educational processes leads the Ministry of Education to adopt a subsidiary role” (Preamble, DL 55/2018); and “Curriculum management must be flexible and contextualized, recognizing that educational autonomy is only fully realized when it extends to curriculum decisions” (Preamble, Order No. 5907/2017). In 2019, parent/guardian associations such as MPAI, PeR, and ABM raised concerns about the insufficiency of resources in schools to ensure meaningful curricular pathways for all students. MPAI (2019) proposed revising the RJEI, specifically Article 9, No. 5, to mandate that substantiated requests from school leaders for additional resources be automatically met by the Ministry. They also suggested amending Article 1, No. 2, to include “hiring all necessary professionals and providing all pedagogical resources tailored to the needs of children and students” as part of the decree’s scope. These proposals, however, were not adopted in Law 116/2019 and remain absent from the current version of the RJEI.
The participation of the educational community is recommended (UNESCO, 1994, 2015; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2009; OECD, 2012) for the design of better personalized educational responses, namely through partnerships between schools and local political leaders and with other institutions in the community and greater collaboration between schools and families. In Portugal, the importance of fostering strong connections with the community (e.g., through collaboration with local authorities and partnerships with community institutions and business entities) has been increasingly emphasized in legal frameworks (e.g., Order 147-B/ME/96; Law 31/2002). These developments are gradually reshaping schools into more pluralistic organizations, involving a broader range of actors in educational processes and reinforcing the relationship between schools, local governance, and the private sector. They also reflect a trend toward greater decentralization in the management of resources. In this regard, the Conselho Nacional da Educação [CNE] (2014), in its Recommendation issued at the request of the Assembly of the Republic (Deliberation No. 2-PL/2014), advocated that “educational response mechanisms and strategies should be developed in the school and with the school (…) by establishing partnerships with community institutions,” thereby supporting the view that solutions should be locally grounded and territory-based.
Conversely, the involvement of parents and guardians received only limited recognition in earlier legal texts, such as the LBSE (DL 46/86). However, their role has been progressively strengthened in various subsequent regulations, particularly following the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). The WHO and WB (2011) also underscored the need to increase family participation in education as a means to promote more inclusive school practices. The RJEI (DL 54/2018) reinforced this trajectory by formally recognizing the rights and responsibilities of parents/guardians to “actively participate and cooperate in all matters related to their child’s education, as well as to access all information in the student’s individual file, particularly concerning measures for learning support and inclusion” (Portugal, 2018). In support of this participatory model, the DGE (2018) issued a Practice Support Manual aimed at assisting the educational community—especially parents/guardians—in implementing the new inclusive education framework. In the original version of the RJEI, participation in MSTIE (Multidisciplinary Support Teams for Inclusive Education) meetings was considered a right of parents/guardians (Article 4, No. 2, point a), DL 54/2018); however, they were not recognized as formal members of the MSTIE (see Article 12, ibid.). This limited involvement led to calls for greater parental empowerment from associations such as MPAI (2019), PeR (2019), and ABM (2019). In response, MPAI (2019) demanded that parents/guardians be formally included as members of the MSTIE, with the right to contribute to the drafting and evaluation of both the RTP (Response to Intervention Plan) and the PIT (Individual Transition Plan), and to request their revision. These demands were ultimately reflected in the amendments introduced by Law 116/2019, now part of the current version of the RJEI. Additionally, PeR (2019) advocated for the inclusion of parents/guardians in the monitoring and evaluation teams established under Order No. 9726/2018, which are responsible for overseeing the implementation of the RJEI.
Although parents’/guardians’ associations played a relevant role in the parliamentary debate surrounding Law 116/2019 — particularly by advocating for increased resources and more formal involvement in decision-making — not all of their proposals were incorporated into the final legislation. Overall, the analysis of the contexts of influence and text production reveals that international organizations — such as the UN, UNESCO and the OECD — exerted a predominant influence on the inclusive education agenda adopted in Portugal. Their recommendations are consistently echoed in national legal texts, particularly with regard to curricular flexibility, the diversification of learning pathways, and the promotion of community participation. In contrast, the influence of national actors (e.g., parents’ associations and the DGE) was more visible in the later stages of the policy process, notably during parliamentary scrutiny and the development of implementation guidelines.
Context of practice
The analysis of the context of practice, through the thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with parents, allowed for a more in-depth understanding of whether and how curricular flexibility and the participation of the educational community translate into more equitable and inclusive practices, compared to previous legislation.
Guardians’ and parents’ perceptions of the changes introduced by the RJEI vary in relation to several aspects: the quality of the educational responses aimed at addressing the diverse needs, potential, interests, and expectations of their children; the degree of their involvement in the identification of MSAI; and the role of the local community particularly in the implementation and effectiveness of partnerships in mobilizing MSAI.
The EEA001, EEB001, and EEA003 shared the perception that the RJEI has promoted more inclusive school practices, namely increasing the participation of EEs in discussions and decisions about their learners’ school trajectory, through the MSTIE, and the selection of more appropriate educational responses to students’ needs, through the MLA. Nevertheless, EEB001 and EEA003 showed that the operationalization of MA and MS, respectively, was undertaken without adequate resources, which resulted in unequal learning opportunities for all students whose curriculum is developed without the need for these measures. Below, we mobilize statements from these three EEs that allow us to infer this analysis.
EEA001
I could be asked, informed and even consulted (…) but my opinion didn’t have (before the RJEI) the weight that it has now, I now also feel that I decide as happened for example in the choice of the location of the work-based training, they listened to my suggestion, the possibility was debated and I made the contact myself.
I don’t think this success would have been possible without this team (MSTIE) and this new model (MSAI). Firstly, because the more people are involved in this process, the more people realize the difficulties. Because the meetings discuss the difficulties and the strategies, what needs to be done. Before, it wasn’t like that, it was just one teacher who was aware of the situation.
(…) today (anonymized) frequents a normal class, so he has the adapted curriculum but he’s in a class. (…) if it was still according to the previous decree-law, he’d always be in a special classroom, subject to support only by those teachers. (…) And the fact that he’s been given a special education course is very important. (…) And the fact that he was placed in a normal class enabled him to retain more knowledge, according to his abilities, of course, respecting his limitations, but there was content that he was able to retain, others that he wasn’t able to retain, but if he hadn’t been there, he wouldn’t have retained anything. (…) Even more important than the content he learnt was the fact that he was in normal circumstances, socializing, feeling that he belonged there, feeling normal, feeling that he was like the others, that he was in the same class as the others, that he had friends, that there were crushes, relationships, all of that.
EEB001
Now, since the change in the law, I see that there’s even greater care for me to also plan together with the team (the MSTIE) and when proposals are made they’re really proposals to be discussed, nothing is decided. (…) Now at these (MSTIE) meetings we all talk, we’re all there, all the teachers who take part in the PEI too. And since I’m there too, everything is built together, there’s no longer any question of me agreeing with what’s being done because I’m doing it too. These aspects have certainly been improved.
Because although it continues (as in DL 3/2008) with an adapted curriculum, now with these measures (MSAI) it has other possibilities, there are subjects, for example, that it can follow with the class and that will one day appear on its certificate, before it only went to the class for physical education practically, (anonymized) it didn’t have friends in the class, now it does. It wasn’t even really a curriculum, it was just functional learning but nothing academic, now it’s very different. (…) In the programme (PEI), in addition to the subjects with the class, there’s a part of the curriculum that’s developed with subjects (substitute learning) that aren’t with the class but there are other students there. These subjects (substitute learning) (…) it’s just that they’re not continuous and that’s a shame. One year you have one, the next year you have another, there’s no continuity. I was learning Spanish and then there wasn’t any the following year. Because the schools aren’t given teachers to do this (develop substitute learning), so from year to year the subjects available for these students will depend on the teachers that each school has with a reduced timetable. (…) This is unfair. From the moment a curriculum is defined for these students, the school should have the autonomy to have teachers to ensure it, just as it has to for the other students, but it doesn’t. The school asks (the ME) to make a decision. The school asks (the ME) and the answer is that they have to manage with the resources they have.
EEA003
(…) the fact that now (after the RJEI) it’s a team (…) I think that makes a difference (…) there was a discussion of the case in an extended team, including the school management and us parents, in which (…) it was decided together what the best solutions would be (…)
I think the big change that’s really visible in the school is that he’s no longer “the Special Education student” but “every teacher’s student.” In other words, he left the classroom and went to the Special Education teacher (…). Whereas now it’s different, isn’t it? Now it’s the Special Education teacher who’s behind all the other teachers and they’re the ones who have to implement the measures. (…) for (anonymized) it was great because he hated leaving the classroom to go to Special Education. He hated being different. And so, in social terms, for the kids, I think it’s an asset.
In terms of resources, over these 12 years at the school, for a child with special educational needs, what I can say is that of the resources given to the group at ministerial level, they’ve managed to optimize them. (…) So I believe they’ve done the best they could with what they had. But the resources were insufficient.
(…) the big impediment (anonymized) has to do with the fact that he can’t acquire reading and writing. (…) that’s what makes it impossible for him to progress further. (…) What happened was that when he had to read books, initially, in the early years (…) which were small books, I was the one who read the book to him. (…) there are no resources in the audio school for them to be able to learn. (…) When the books began to be other larger works, the teachers stopped asking him to read them. In other words, they opted for the perhaps simpler path, or the accessible path. which was “you don’t do that part” and “you’re not assessed in that area.”
The experience shared by EEB003 identifies elements that point to excluding school practices. In short, this EE reported not having received any clarification about the RJEI or the existence of the MSTIE, not having had a voice in the discussion process about the MSAI, having difficulty accessing information about their child’s educational process, and stating that the resources for mobilizing the measures had diminished. The accounts below are examples of these statements.
EEA003
I think I even learnt about the change (to the DL) on the internet. I never heard about it at school level. (…) So it’s like this, I don’t even know if this school has it (the MSTIE) implemented because I’ve never heard of it. I don’t even know what it is. Multidisciplinary team is what?’ (…)
So, as far as I know, the person who decides things (the MSAI) is the special education teacher with the head teacher (…) If I don’t ask, I don’t have any information at all. (…) I can’t understand it, so I don’t really see any changes. I could almost say it was for the worse, couldn’t I?
(…) there’s practically no more special education support (…) there’s no more (support), I’ve even had to hire support outside the school (anonymized).
In the experiences shared by EEA004, EEB004, and EEB002, inclusive school practices are recognized in terms of acknowledging learners’ needs; however, challenges persist in defining curricular responses (such as substitute learning) that are appropriately tailored to their individual profiles. According to these guardians/parents, their perspectives have consistently been considered both before and after the implementation of the RJEI. Nevertheless, they note that PEI, when developed based solely on the resources available within the school, fail to provide learning opportunities that fully support the learners in reaching their maximum developmental potential. Below, we present selected statements that substantiate this interpretation:
EEB004
My opinion is worth the same as it was before (the RJEI) (…) the school has always been open to this, to listening to us and finally to thinking together, as a team, with all those involved (…) But this is not then reflected in an adequate curriculum for (anonymized) to develop more skills and exploit the abilities he has, neither before nor now, because the school only has the teachers who are allocated to the classes, because they are allocated according to a certain number of students. When the school asks for teachers from areas other than special education for these students, they are denied by the Ministry of Education. That’s why I don’t see a change from what used to be done to what is now done. There has been a change in the law, but in order to change practices it’s not enough for the school to want to, the Ministry has to allow it.
EEA004
(…) it (the involvement of the guardian) was already done without the multidisciplinary team. (…) In the end we have very nice reports, but in practice, for the student, it (the analysis of the situation by the various players) was already done without the multidisciplinary team.
(…) the teacher had (…) extra support classes that were included in her timetable as a permanent teacher at the school. (…) I was amazed when I asked why (…) a new Spanish teacher had been appointed and why my son had lost that hour (…). And the answer I got from the school principal was “legally we can only request the number of hours the teacher has with the class.” (…) So now my son’s classes and those of his classmates who should have this support are not part of the teacher’s timetable? What is to be done about it? The Ministry doesn’t authorize the school to hire these hours, it only authorizes the hours with a class. (…) For the Ministry, it’s no longer a teaching hour, it must be, I don’t know, someone in that Santa Casa, they must think that the teacher at that time is joking. (…) Maybe someone thinks that you can work without human resources.
The Ministry’s response is “use the resources you have.” “(…) In other words, fairness here is about giving everyone what they need, but according to the resources the school has. (…) And it’s frustrating to see a board of directors concerned, committed, to see people giving reasons and asking for resources and being denied. The Ministry’s response is “use the resources you have.” So, if the school doesn’t have them, it has to ask. Where is the school’s autonomy? (…) Maybe someone thinks you can work without human resources.” That’s another question to ask: where is the school’s autonomy?
EEB002
Regardless of the child’s limitations, I don’t think sticking cutlery inside a paper parcel at eight in the morning is motivating for anyone. (…) This was the PIT. It was the work of preparing the packets of cutlery for the canteen. (…) Then I insisted a lot that it was important for him to go out into the community and work on inclusion (…) And that’s it, and the school didn’t have the means to do it, so that’s the feedback they gave us: they didn’t have the resources to do it. In fact, he always needed someone to accompany him so that the task could be carried out with some success. (…) And the school tried to find other answers within the school space, but it wasn’t anything relevant.
I made several proposals, I made several suggestions, the school studied them and then made the decisions it had to make. (…) Were my proposals put into practice? No. (…) I think the school tries, but the school works with the resources it has, so I think this is a question that goes beyond each school. It’s a political issue. And since it’s a political issue, it depends on central decisions. And those central decisions look at numbers, they don’t look at people. It’s my child, not theirs. And so, there’s no approximation to the reality of families and the real need. If you ask me, do you think that would have made a difference to your son’s development? I think it would have made all the difference to my son’s development.
In fact, a very critical point in our school career was that from a certain point onward, (…) the operational assistant who accompanied him from one activity to another was taken away. She was taken away and moved to another school to deal with other special education pupils and my son was on his own without this support. And at the time, it was quite a delicate moment, because he’d had a foot operation and was in a wheelchair. So he was often forgotten in the corridor.
The EEA002 didn’t highlight any changes resulting from the RJEI. In his view, he has always felt (before and after the MSTIE) part of the team who discusses and makes decisions about his child’s school trajectory and considers that the measures mobilized have always been the most appropriate.
EEA002
I didn’t see any difference, honestly no, I didn’t think there was any kind of change (…) there was a meeting to say that there was going to be a transition, that the law was going to change, that the decree-law instead of being called the 2008 decree-law was going to be 54, yes. (…) but we’ve always been part of that team.
(…) We all get together, I’m called by the head teacher, the special education teacher, the technicians, which is the therapists, the psychologist, to see and assess (anonymized) (…)’s progress, to see what improvements have been made, to see what can be done better for him, to see if he’s really (…) progressed, if he hasn’t, if (…) he’s regressed in some way, what can be done, there it is, a team. And it’s all done, there have always been meetings along these lines, and when the need arises, we meet and talk and debate (…).
Among the factors pointed out by guardians/parents as facilitating the development of adequate educational responses to the diversity of students’ needs, the structure and functioning of the MSTIE stands out. As other studies have highlighted, interdisciplinary teams made up of various educational actors - including professionals from different areas of specialization - can support a more rigorous analysis of the student’s school situation and more appropriate planning of measures and strategies (Franco, 2023; Ainscow et al., 2006; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education [EASNIE], 2021). For participants EEA001, EEB001 and EEA003, the diverse composition of the team and its collaborative approach enabled a more accurate identification of barriers to learning and the definition of more appropriate educational strategies. These guardians also noted that their direct involvement in MSTIE meetings led to a better alignment between the measures implemented and their learners’ specific needs. This finding is consistent with international research showing that the active participation of families is a key factor in developing inclusive educational practices (Barr and Saltmarsh, 2014; UNESCO, 2020).
In addition, the MLA’s three-level system of measures was identified as an innovation contributing to the personalization of educational responses. Participants such as EEB001 and EEA001 pointed out that the implementation of selective or additional measures allowed for curricular adaptations more closely aligned with the students’ characteristics, thus promoting more meaningful learning experiences and greater integration within mainstream classrooms. These advances were recognized as a positive development compared to the practices in place before the RJEI. The idea that flexible curricula support more equitable education systems is supported by various international studies (Field et al., 2007; UNESCO, 2017), which argue that differentiated educational responses are essential for addressing diverse student needs.
Regarding factors that hinder or prevent educational responses that support an inclusive and equitable school path, most guardians/parents (EEB001, EEB002, EA003, EB003, EEA004, EEB004) pointed to the constraints schools face in accessing human and material resources, especially in adapting the national curriculum or designing AS. Among the five guardians/parents whose learners follow a curriculum with MA, four (EEB001, EEB002, EEA004, EEB004) reported that AS were often discontinued due to a lack of resources. This discontinuity limits students’ progress in acquiring knowledge and reaching their full developmental potential. These guardians argued that the resources available to schools for the development of AS are generally those already allocated to the running of classes and are therefore not enough to guarantee the construction of a personalized curriculum as required by the application of ACS/AS.
The analysis of the interviews revealed a diversity of parents’ perspectives, with some participants perceiving clear improvements in the way their learners’ educational trajectories were managed, highlighting their effective inclusion in decision-making processes through the MSTIE and the provision of more appropriate educational responses under the MLA. At the same time, others reported that their participation remained limited or merely formal, and pointed to the persistent lack of resources as a barrier to effective change. These perceptions appear to result from context-specific dynamics within each school cluster, which is consistent with the findings of a previous study (Carvalho and Veiga, 2024) highlighting the central role of the MSTIE in the interpretation, translation and the enactment of inclusive education policy in each school context. The contrasting experiences reported by guardians highlighted the tensions between the intentions expressed in legal texts and their actual enactment in schools. These tensions are reflected in the way schools respond to contextual constraints and can be understood, following Ball’s policy cycle, as effects emerging within the context of practice. In particular, the extent of parental involvement in decision-making, the appropriateness of the support measures implemented, and the discontinuity of pedagogical responses due to resource shortages all illustrate how the enactment of the new legal framework has both enabled and limited meaningful change.
Furthermore, even when SC justify the need for additional resources to the Ministry of Education, the requests are often denied, preventing the effective implementation of the necessary MSAI. This echo concerns raised by the WHO and WB (2011) who note that the success of inclusive education policies depends on the availability of adequate resources and support systems within schools. Similar findings are reported by Rodrigues et al. (2024), who identify the lack of human and material resources as key obstacles to the implementation of inclusive practices.
By focusing exclusively on the perspectives of guardians and parents and drawing on a small, non-representative sample, this study is limited in scope. However, it provides valuable insights into how inclusive education policy is interpreted and recontextualized within individual school contexts. While the findings cannot be generalized to all school clusters in Portugal, they offer a deeper understanding of the tensions between legal frameworks and institutional practices. The voices of guardians and parents illuminate how inclusion is experienced by families and how schools implement the key principles of the current legal framework under constrained conditions. These perspectives carry both analytical and political significance: analytically, they reveal the gaps between policy intentions and practice; politically, they highlight the urgent need to strengthen family participation and ensure that schools are adequately resourced to guarantee all students’ right to quality education.