Why did Decree 12,686/2025 cause so much controversy?

On 21 October 2025, Brazil's federal government published Decreto nº 12.686/2025, which creates the new National Inclusive Special Education Policy and the matching National Inclusive Special Education Network. The stated goal was to strengthen school inclusion for students with disabilities, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and giftedness, guaranteeing their right to education “free of discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity”. The decree, however, quickly set off wide debate and controversy. Parts of the special education field, families, specialists and associations disagree about its legal, pedagogical, political and practical effects. Below we go through the main points of the discussion, recognizing what the measure moves forward and pointing out the challenges, and we get to why the new policy became so controversial.

Legal aspects

From a legal standpoint, the decree brought changes in how the right to inclusive education is read. Brazil's Federal Constitution and the LDB (the national education act) guarantee specialized educational support preferably within the mainstream school system (in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is part of Brazilian law). The new decree reaffirms Brazil's commitment to inclusive education, explicitly citing constitutional principles, the 2009 international convention and the 2015 LBI (Brazil's disability rights law). In practice, it gives priority to enrolling students served by special education in mainstream classes in the regular school, offering the necessary support across every level of education. That emphasis on universal enrollment in the mainstream system was read by some as a shift from preference to obligation. Organizations such as Apae Brasil argue that the decree “turns the priority for the mainstream system into an obligation in fact”, going against the letter of the LDB, which provides for inclusion in mainstream classes as “preferential”, not compulsory. From the point of view of these organizations, standardizing the educational offer by decree may harm families' right to choose and even clash with laws currently in force.

Another central point is the role of the medical report. Historically, many school systems required a diagnosis or a laudo (medical report) to identify a student as served by special education and to release specialized support. The new decree bans that requirement, establishing that access to AEE (specialized educational support, in Brazil) will not be conditioned on presenting a diagnosis, a medical report or a clinical statement. In other words, no student can be blocked from receiving specialized educational support for lack of a medical report. Legally, this removes a barrier that was seen as discriminatory, aligning with the social model of disability, which focuses on the student's educational needs rather than on a clinical label. “Waiving the medical report for access to specialized support” was celebrated by inclusive educators as the removal of a historic obstacle. Critics, however, fear that the absence of formal criteria may create uncertainty: without clear technical parameters, who decides which students need AEE? That regulatory gap raises questions about possible diverging readings across school systems. The government answered that details will be clarified in later regulations, and that it is open to suggestions from associations to improve the text.

Finally, there is discussion about where the decree stands in relation to higher courts and treaties. The new text revoked earlier rules (such as Decreto 7.611/2011, the framework for inclusion policy in the past decade) and replaced the 2020 policy, which had been suspended by the Supreme Federal Court for rolling back inclusion. Worth remembering: in 2020, Decreto 10.502/2020 (under the previous administration) proposed a policy emphasizing special classes and special schools, and was blocked by the Supreme Federal Court for violating the “imperative of inclusion” in mainstream schools. Now, in 2025, it is the reverse: a decree that strengthens broad inclusion faces objections of a different nature. Members of congress such as representative Luísa Canziani (PSD-PR) and senator Flávio Arns (PSB-PR) filed legislative decree bills to suspend the effects of Decree 12,686/2025, claiming that it goes beyond the regulatory power of the executive branch and should have been debated as a bill in congress. Canziani argues that the new rules create obligations without guaranteeing, in law, minimum conditions of pedagogical and therapeutic follow-up for students compulsorily transferred to the mainstream system. These clashes show that, although the decree rests on international human rights commitments (the UN Convention) and on national inclusive legislation, there is controversy about the legal form in which it was issued and about how it squares with the LDB and with the separation of powers. In short, in the legal field the controversy turns on: how far the right to full inclusion goes, whether that inclusion can be imposed by decree, whether there is a conflict with laws in force and whether dropping the medical report and the other changes fit the Constitution and the treaties, points that will probably be clarified in legislative debate and, if necessary, in court over the coming months.

Pedagogical points and the inclusion debate

On the pedagogical side, the decree touched a sensitive debate: inclusive education in the mainstream school versus teaching in specialized settings. The new policy states plainly that “the student's place is in the mainstream class”, meaning special education has to run across every level and stage, complementing schooling in the mainstream system. That reinforces the view that the mainstream school, with the right adaptations and support, is the preferred learning environment for students with disabilities, ASD or giftedness, in line with principles of diversity and non-discrimination. The decree also expressly puts students with ASD on the same footing as people with disabilities for the purposes of education policy, guaranteeing them the same right to inclusion. This direction reflects a contemporary inclusive perspective, backed by special education specialists: the idea that being alongside typical peers brings academic and social benefits both to students with disabilities and to everyone else, building empathy, reducing ableism and improving learning for all. It is no accident that the text lists among its principles “promoting equity and valuing human diversity” and “fighting ableism” in schools.

On the other hand, the change opened discussions about the role of specialized schools and classes that historically serve students with more significant disabilities. In Brazil, specialized institutions such as the APAEs (parents and friends of people with disabilities associations) and other special schools serve hundreds of thousands of students with intellectual or multiple disabilities or autism spectrum disorder. These institutions have accumulated decades of experience, multidisciplinary teams (therapists, specialists) and small groups, and are seen by many families as suitable settings for certain students who struggled with inclusion in the mainstream system. Against that background, the decree caused unease: would there be room for special schools to keep existing? The final wording says there is, but on new terms. It was established that specialized educational support (AEE), the main service of special education, must be offered preferably in mainstream schools, but may take place, on an “exceptional” basis, in specialized public centers or in non-profit partner institutions (such as the APAEs themselves). In other words, the APAEs will not be shut down by the decree. They do, however, start acting as complementary partners, offering AEE outside regular class hours, and they have to meet requirements set by education councils to be accredited and authorized to operate in that role. The central focus of the policy is to bring the student into the mainstream class and use specialized centers as additional support, rather than keeping the student all day in a segregated setting.

This shift of pedagogical paradigm produced different reactions among educators. Advocates of inclusive education celebrate what they see as the consolidation of a genuinely inclusive model: the decree “seeks to universalize enrollment in basic education (ages 4 to 17) for students served by special education, in mainstream classes of the regular system”, guaranteeing that no student will be excluded from shared school life. They argue that inclusion, when done well, improves socialization, self-esteem and even academic performance for students with disabilities, besides teaching other children about respect for difference. “This decree is an important reinforcement so that students with disabilities study in mainstream classes”, said the educator and activist Ivan Baron, adding that the policy strengthens the necessary supports (teacher training, accessibility, resource rooms) to make that inclusion work in practice. This optimistic view also stresses that the mainstream system, with adequate support, can indeed handle complex cases, provided it receives resources and training, which is what the decree promises by setting out cooperation between the federal government, states and municipalities and investment in assistive technology and continuing training.

On the other side, professionals connected to special schools and some families voiced concern. They fear that, in practice, many mainstream schools are not prepared to receive students with high educational needs. Indeed, educators and families warn that, without adequate structure, enough support staff and specific training, inclusion risks “becoming merely formal , without guaranteeing real conditions for learning” for the student with a disability. That is, the student could be physically present in the mainstream class but, without effective support, end up isolated and without pedagogical progress (a phenomenon known as token inclusion or partial integration). There is also a fear of losing freedom of choice: “for many, the decree may limit families' freedom to choose between mainstream schools and specialized institutions such as the APAEs”, as specialized coverage reported. This point speaks to the experience of families who found in special schools a refuge after failed attempts at inclusion. The possibility of having to move compulsorily to the mainstream school caused apprehension, even with the government clarifying that there will be no immediate compulsory transfer and that students already served by APAEs can keep receiving specialized services there, as long as it is coordinated with the mainstream school. In short, pedagogically the decree reopened the discussion about how to balance inclusion and quality: on one side, the conviction that inclusive teaching, with the right support, is the path to a fairer society; on the other, the argument that some students need highly individualized and continuous support, and that forcing a single route may end up “excluding the very people who need intensive support the most”.

A crucial pedagogical component of the new policy is the redefinition of specialized educational support (AEE). The decree clarifies that AEE is a “pedagogical activity that complements or supplements schooling”, meaning it complements mainstream teaching (for students with disabilities and ASD) or supplements it (for students with giftedness), but does not replace the mainstream class. In that sense, it became explicit that enrollment in AEE neither replaces nor waives enrollment in the regular classroom. In practice, this requires the student to be enrolled twice: in the regular class for their grade and in AEE, which usually happens outside regular class hours. The Specialized Educational Support Plan (PAEE), also regulated by the decree, is the individual pedagogical instrument that guides adaptations in the mainstream classroom and interventions in AEE. Continuously updated, the PAEE derives from a case study of the student and serves to align teachers, family and support staff around personalized educational goals. This coordination between what happens in the regular classroom and in specialized support is an important pedagogical innovation. It means that AEE has to be part of the school's pedagogical project, with family participation, guaranteeing that learning carries over between the two settings. Specialists praised this direction, because previously the resource room teacher (AEE) often worked in isolation, without talking to the classroom teacher, which weakened the interventions. “The decree gave a better definition of the role of the specialized support teacher and of support staff, which will help schools and families”, said Ivan Baron, noting that creating a national inclusive education network can make sure all of this “does not stay only on paper”. In sum, pedagogically the decree gets it right by emphasizing inclusion in mainstream classes with AEE support, but sets the challenge of making that inclusion actually work, which requires changing practice, collaboration between teachers, investment in training and availability of adapted teaching resources.

Political and institutional reactions

Publishing the decree provoked immediate reactions from various political and institutional actors in education. In the parliamentary arena and among representative associations, well-marked positions formed. On one side, organizations such as Apae Brasil publicly rejected the measure and sought legislative support to reverse it. The day after publication, Apae Nacional announced support for a legislative decree bill (PDL 845/2025) in the Senate, authored by senator Flávio Arns, aimed at suspending the effects of the decree. Flávio Arns, who besides being a politician is known for his long record of work in the disability field, argued that the policy, as issued, weakens the role of specialized institutions without fully guaranteeing the structure for inclusion in the mainstream system. That Senate bill came with a similar initiative in the Chamber of Deputies: representative Luísa Canziani (PSD-PR) filed PDL 858/2025 to suspend the decree on the same grounds. Canziani stated that the decree “strips schools and specialized institutions of the fundamental role they play... promoting compulsory transfer [of students] to mainstream education, without ensuring minimum criteria of pedagogical and therapeutic follow-up”. For her and other critics in the legislature, full inclusion has to be built with planning and support, not by decree alone, and the executive branch would have overstepped its authority by regulating such a sensitive matter without broader dialogue. This political movement shows that influential groups were trying to slow down or adjust the policy even before it was implemented, fearing negative consequences for the institutions they represent.

On the other side, the federal government and allies in the human rights field defended the decree strongly. The Ministry of Education (MEC) denied any “rollback” in policy. On the contrary, it stated that the proposal aims to consolidate an inclusive education system, providing monitoring, accessibility and support to teachers and students. In a statement, MEC stressed that AEE will continue to exist, only redirected preferably to mainstream schools, and that no essential service will be discontinued, since partner specialized centers can keep offering complementary support. Government members underlined that the new policy corrects distortions and reinforces international commitments, aligning Brazil with the UN Convention and with contemporary inclusive practice. The executive branch also signaled openness to dialogue: it said the decree will still go through detailed regulation, a stage in which procedures will be spelled out, and that it is open to suggested adjustments from the representative associations involved. In other words, MEC tried to reassure the specialized networks that they would take part in building the complementary rules, as a strategy to reduce resistance.

Among specialists and organizations in the education field, reactions also varied, although in general organizations dedicated to inclusive education supported the initiative. Instituto Rodrigo Mendes, a national reference in inclusion, came out in favor of the decree on its channels, on the grounds that it guarantees the right to inclusive education and revokes earlier frameworks less aligned with inclusion (the institute went as far as calling the new policy an “important milestone” and stressed how important it is to implement it well). The NGO Todos Pela Educação, which traditionally argues for evidence in education, also praised parts of the decree, especially removing barriers to access and the emphasis on teacher training (while calling for attention to the necessary infrastructure, a position similar to that of other organizations). Beyond that, activists with disabilities and inclusive educators publicly celebrated the decree. The educator Ivan Baron, who is a person with a disability and works in the field, said the text “creates a framework that gathers and organizes the initiatives in the area, to fight discrimination and school dropout” among this group. He pointed out that the policy “shows that MEC is putting into practice the investment in multifunctional resource rooms and in teacher training”, both fundamental to real inclusion. In interviews, one point stood out positively: the decree introduces the figure of the school support professional with defined duties (assisting the student with mobility, personal care, feeding and communication, as set out in the PAEE) and requires minimum training for these support workers. In the view of many pro-inclusion specialists, the decree “gets the principles right” by reaffirming the inclusive school as the norm, and the controversy around it makes clear the need to follow implementation closely so that its goals materialize.

Within state and municipal school systems, positions varied with local reality. Systems that had already been running robust inclusive policies, for example large state capitals that have invested for years in resource rooms, training and inclusion, tended to receive the decree as positive legal reinforcement that gives legal certainty to work already under way. By contrast, systems that rely heavily on partner institutions (as happens in some southern and southeastern states, where APAEs are traditionally integrated into the public system) voiced greater concern about the transition. States such as Santa Catarina and Paraná, which have hundreds of APAEs working in partnership with government, saw local leaders question what happens to those agreements. Representatives of education departments stressed how important it is for MEC to provide clear guidelines and financial support to adapt the policy to regional realities. Some smaller municipal systems fear they do not have enough qualified professionals to immediately take on all specialized support inside mainstream schools. In that sense, there was a call for training and resources: organizations such as Undime (the union of municipal education leaders) signaled that they will support the philosophy of the decree, as long as there is funding for building adaptations, purchase of assistive technology equipment and in-service teacher training. Regional differences were also evident in political speech: while in the south and southeast many members of congress took up the cause of the APAEs, in other regions the central discussion was about dropout and exclusion. It was noted, for instance, that in the north and northeast there are still children with disabilities outside mainstream school, and that the decree could help “universalize access” if implemented with investment. In short, the political controversy played out institutionally as a tug of war between, on one side, defenders of specialized models coexisting with the inclusive one and, on the other, those who saw the decree as the consolidation of historically ignored rights. The outcome will depend on dialogue between government and associations: as this article closed, the bills trying to block the policy had not yet been voted on, and MEC was organizing meetings with associations to build the regulation collaboratively. What became clear, though, is that any change in special education stirs passions and interests, and requires careful negotiation to find a balance between including as much as possible and guaranteeing adequate support for each student.

Technical analysis: effects on schools and practical implementation

Beyond the legal, philosophical and political questions, there is consensus that the success (or failure) of the decree will be decided in practice, inside schools. Three technical aspects of the new policy stand out for their direct influence on daily school life: the minimum training requirement for professionals, dropping the medical report as a criterion for support, and connecting AEE with the mainstream classroom. Each one represents important progress, but each also brings significant operational challenges.

1. Minimum training for professionals: The decree established that AEE teachers must have initial teaching qualification and, preferably, a specialization in inclusive special education, with a minimum additional load of 80 hours. In the same way, it defined that the school support professional, the assistant who helps the student with mobility, personal care and communication, must have completed secondary education and specific training of at least 80 hours. This standardization is seen as a gain in quality: in many places, monitors and assistants were hired without any specific qualification; now there is a national training floor. With better qualified professionals, the expectation is better support for these students and more backing for classroom teachers. Nevertheless, immediate challenges appear. First, quantity: it will be necessary to train or hire thousands of teachers and support workers to meet the growing demand of included students. Municipalities report difficulty finding enough specialized teachers, especially inland. MEC said it will provide technical and financial support for continuing teacher training, in cooperation with states and municipalities. Even so, the short term is worrying: specialists point out that the 80 hours foreseen may be insufficient given the complexity of some cases. A student with multiple disabilities, for example, may require knowledge of alternative communication, assistive technology, behavior management and more, which a short course hardly covers. So the argument is that this training load should be treated as an initial minimum, followed by deeper continuing training. Beyond that, mainstream classroom teachers also need training in inclusive education, since they are directly responsible for teaching in diverse classes, and the decree points to special education running across everything, meaning every teacher has to be prepared for diversity in the classroom. Implementation will therefore require a major effort of large-scale training, or the policy risks failing for lack of qualified staff. On the other hand, if done well, this investment in training can raise the level of inclusive education in Brazil, professionalizing the field and valuing specialized skills inside the mainstream school.

1. Minimum training for professionals: The decree established that AEE teachers must have initial teaching qualification and, preferably, a specialization in inclusive special education, with a minimum additional load of 80 hours. In the same way, it defined that the school support professional, the assistant who helps the student with mobility, personal care and communication, must have completed secondary education and specific training of at least 80 hours. This standardization is seen as a gain in quality: in many places, monitors and assistants were hired without any specific qualification; now there is a national training floor. With better qualified professionals, the expectation is better support for these students and more backing for classroom teachers. Nevertheless, immediate challenges appear. First, quantity: it will be necessary to train or hire thousands of teachers and support workers to meet the growing demand of included students. Municipalities report difficulty finding enough specialized teachers, especially inland. MEC said it will provide technical and financial support for continuing teacher training, in cooperation with states and municipalities. Even so, the short term is worrying: specialists point out that the 80 hours foreseen may be insufficient given the complexity of some cases. A student with multiple disabilities, for example, may require knowledge of alternative communication, assistive technology, behavior management and more, which a short course hardly covers. So the argument is that this training load should be treated as an initial minimum, followed by deeper continuing training. Beyond that, mainstream classroom teachers also need training in inclusive education, since they are directly responsible for teaching in diverse classes, and the decree points to special education running across everything, meaning every teacher has to be prepared for diversity in the classroom. Implementation will therefore require a major effort of large-scale training, or the policy risks failing for lack of qualified staff. On the other hand, if done well, this investment in training can raise the level of inclusive education in Brazil, professionalizing the field and valuing specialized skills inside the mainstream school.
2. Dropping the medical report as a requirement: As mentioned, the decree bans schools from conditioning AEE or a support professional on the presentation of a medical report or diagnosis. This change has important practical effects. Technically, it gains speed and reach: from now on, the pedagogical assessment alone indicating that the student has some special educational need is enough for them to be entitled to specialized support. That removes bureaucratic delays: before, families spent months or years in public health queues to obtain a report of ASD or intellectual disability, for example, a period in which the child was frequently left without support at school. Not anymore: the school has to provide the necessary educational resources regardless of a report, “without requiring a statement from a health professional”. Technically, this strengthens the leading role of educational assessment (teachers and the school's multi-professional team) in identifying student needs, in line with the idea that disability shows up in the barriers to learning that need to be removed. Nevertheless, a challenge of criteria also appears: how do you guarantee fairness in identifying who receives AEE or support, without a formal diagnosis? It is necessary to avoid both undue exclusions (students who would need help but do not get it because the school did not notice) and indiscriminate provision (students with no real need taking support places). The answer points to carefully writing the PAEE and using specialized educational assessments. The National Inclusive Special Education Network, created by the decree, should help with this by sharing assessment protocols and good practice. Beyond that, the coordination across sectors that is encouraged, with education talking to health and social services, can help schools obtain technical guidance on more complex cases even without a formal report. In short, removing the report is technically a double-edged sword: on one hand, it removes a barrier to access and widens who is served (think of students with learning disorders such as dyslexia or ADHD, who often had no report and were left without support, and who can now be served); on the other, it requires better preparation of school teams to assess special educational needs accurately. With training and the right tools, this change can make the system more inclusive and more proactive, but without them it may create initial confusion until new protocols settle in.
3. Connecting AEE with the mainstream classroom and the curriculum: How effective inclusion is depends on how mainstream teaching and specialized support connect. The decree gave clear instructions that AEE has to be part of the school's pedagogical project and aligned with the classroom teacher's work. That is, no AEE running as a “parallel school” with no communication with the mainstream class. In practice, this requires time and joint planning: AEE teachers need to talk periodically with the student's classroom teachers, to exchange information, plan adaptations and follow progress in each curriculum area. It also requires systematic records, which is why the PAEE matters as a living document holding the strategies, accessibility resources and goals set for the student. Putting this coordination in place will face challenges such as: securing shared planning time between professionals (many schools have teachers on a single shift, which makes meetings hard), overcoming possible resistance from classroom teachers who were not trained in this collaborative culture, and providing materials and assistive technology so the planned adaptations are feasible. The decree explicitly cites guaranteeing accessibility and developing assistive technology as a principle of the policy, which suggests investment in this area. One controversial point is the determination that AEE happen preferably outside regular class hours. That means the student attends their regular class and, in another shift (before or after), goes to the resource room or specialized center for the extra support. This split of shifts is designed not to pull the student out of the mainstream class (they take part in the full regular timetable with their classmates). Some schools and families, however, point to difficulties: in rural areas, for example, school transport rarely covers two trips a day; low-income families may not manage to take the child to school twice; students can get worn out by a double day. Alternatives such as offering AEE during some periods within school hours can be considered in certain contexts, as long as they do not clash with essential subjects, an issue to be settled locally while keeping the spirit of not segregating the student from everyday life with their class.

Technically, connecting AEE also involves working as a network. The decree created a structure of national governance for inclusive education, bringing together the federal government, states, the Federal District and municipalities. This national network should, among other functions, “strengthen technical support services and the production of accessible materials; improve indicators and the monitoring of inclusive education; and produce and spread knowledge about inclusive educational practice”. The intent is that good inclusive teaching practice is identified and replicated. A practical example: encouraging the co-teaching model, in which the AEE teacher sometimes works inside the mainstream classroom alongside the classroom teacher, benefiting not only the student served by special education but the whole class. In some parts of the country this already happens successfully, and the idea is that the network spreads experiences like it. From the school's point of view, doing this coordination well can transform the school culture, encouraging collaboration and pedagogical innovation. Done badly, though, AEE risks being isolated (a “resource” few people use) or, at the other extreme, overloading students and teachers with disconnected activities. The systematic follow-up promised by MEC, including monitoring school attendance of students who receive the continuous cash benefit (BPC), in partnership with health and social services, will be fundamental to spot implementation failures early and correct them.

In sum, the technical analysis indicates that the decree brings excellent intentions and modern guidelines, but its implementation will require efficient management and extra support for schools. The main expected effects in the school environment include: more qualified professionals present helping with inclusion (if the training actually happens), students coming in who were previously left out of special support for lack of a report or because they were at home or out of school, and a change in pedagogical routine to take in individualized planning and collaborative work. “The central point of the controversy is how to guarantee inclusion with quality”, one technical analysis sums up: on one side, implementing the priority of the mainstream system as the axis of inclusion; on the other, preserving and strengthening specialized services for those who require continuous support. Everything will depend on how the role of special schools is redesigned in practice, how resources (financial and human) are allocated and how results are followed. The decree, while it “gets the principles right, fails on the essential: the ‘how’, the ‘when’ and the ‘how much’”, in the words of an independent analyst. That gap will have to be filled with regulation, training and support tools, without which the best intentions risk never leaving the page.

Challenges and solutions for implementation, the Vínculoo® perspective

Given the technical and practical challenges above, the question arises: how do you actually implement the inclusion the decree proposes, with quality and efficiency? Experience shows that it will take innovative and collaborative solutions that combine public policy, professional training and the use of new educational technology. In that context, Vínculoo®, a digital platform built for inclusive special education, offers a positive example of how existing tools can support implementing the decree on the front line (the classroom), helping to clear some of the practical obstacles.

Vínculoo® is an educational solution based on artificial intelligence created in Brazil specifically to follow students with disabilities, ASD, learning disorders and other specific educational needs. Its platform helps schools and teachers on several fronts aligned with what the new decree demands. For instance, one of the difficulties raised is the paperwork and the time it takes to write individualized plans (PAEE) and curriculum adaptations, especially for teachers who serve several students with different needs. Vínculoo® addresses that by simplifying the educational management process for these students. According to Rafael Anselmo, the platform's founder, “Vínculoo® technology, based on AI, simplifies the process of managing students with disabilities, making the curriculum more flexible, adapting activities and bringing the school into compliance with Brazilian law”. In other words, the platform makes personalized teaching easier, suggesting adapted goals and activities in a few clicks and saving the teacher time on the administrative side. That answers a common complaint from AEE educators: too much time on paperwork and reports, too little with the student. With intelligent support, the teacher can focus on what matters, the learning, instead of getting lost in forms, speeding up the creation of the PAEE, the PEI (Individualized Education Plan) or the PDI, simply and quickly.

Beyond making planning faster, Vínculoo® contributes directly to training and pedagogical support for teachers, another critical pillar of the decree. The platform includes continuing training modules and practical guidance built into the educator's daily work. As announced, it “offers training for teachers and adapts the class lesson plan to create specific strategies for each student with a disability, building personalized teaching”. That means that, when using the tool, the teacher is not alone: the solution itself suggests how to adapt a class activity for a blind student, or which resources to use with a non-speaking autistic student, for example. This kind of intelligent mentoring helps fill training gaps and gives the teacher more confidence to include the student effectively, keeping inclusion from being merely nominal. It is worth remembering that the decree highlighted producing and spreading knowledge about inclusive practice as a goal of the national network, which is exactly the sort of work that platforms like Vínculoo® can amplify, spreading strategies that work and standardizing good practice.

Another important benefit is in monitoring each student's progress. Since the decree requires individualized and continuous follow-up (PAEE updates, indicators of progress), Vínculoo® technology fits well: it allows the school to organize the student's pedagogical data, update progress against goals and gather learning records in one accessible profile. That makes it easier to make decisions based on real evidence, adjusting the intervention as needed. In practice, this feature answers the decree's call to improve indicators and monitoring of inclusive education, because it generates valuable information for the school team, for education departments and for families, reducing the “uncertainty” about how each student is developing.

The Vínculoo® experience also illustrates how private and social initiatives can support public policy. The platform was recognized internationally, named one of the most innovative educational solutions in Latin America in 2025, for its potential to transform inclusion with technology. Born from the experience of a father who struggled to include his son with Down syndrome at school, Vínculoo® shows how innovation can fill gaps in the system: “besides making the curriculum more flexible and adapting activities, [the platform] brings the school into compliance with Brazilian law”, its creator stresses. That means tools like this are already aligned with national rules (such as the BNCC and the National Special Education Policy from an inclusive perspective) and can help schools meet the requirements of Decree 12,686/2025 more effectively. For example, a school that adopts the Vínculoo® platform will easily be able to write the PAEE for every student with a disability, check that they are all enrolled in AEE (avoiding irregularities), keep records for accountability and, above all, guarantee that curriculum adaptations actually happen instead of staying in the talk.

In sum, the Vínculoo® perspective is that affordable solutions already exist to make the inclusive policy the decree proposes workable, getting around the operational challenges. Technology does not, of course, replace public investment or political will, but it can amplify results. The Vínculoo® case shows that, with creativity and focus, it is possible to bring artificial intelligence together with the work of educators to create an inclusive school that is more efficient, more human and compliant with the law. It is an encouraging example of how Brazilian schools can equip themselves for the new era of inclusive education: with better trained professionals, support from intelligent platforms and partnerships with specialized institutions, meeting the spirit of the decree.

Conclusion

The new inclusive special education decree caused controversy by touching entrenched structures while pointing to a necessary change of paradigm. From the legal angle, it brought certainty to inclusive rights, but it set off debate about how laws are read and about the powers of the executive branch. In the pedagogical field, it reaffirmed inclusion in the mainstream school as the ideal, setting off discussion about whether specialized teaching stays and about how to guarantee quality learning for everyone. Politically, it divided opinion between those worried about the continuity of special institutions and those committed to a fully inclusive agenda, all of them, however, with the same intent of defending the best interest of students with disabilities. Technically and practically, the decree represents symbolic progress, but it sets major challenges of implementation: teacher training, adapting schools, individual follow-up of students and allocation of resources.

The progress the new policy signals has to be recognized. Ending the requirement of a medical report, defining professional roles, guaranteeing individualized pedagogical plans and creating a national support network are measures that remove barriers and give the system better structure. This progress puts Brazil in line with modern principles of inclusion and with the international commitments it has taken on. On the other hand, the practical challenges cannot be underestimated: without investment and preparation, the proposed inclusion risks staying on paper or creating frustration. As educators rightly pointed out, enrolling in the mainstream school is not enough, it is necessary to guarantee real conditions for teaching and learning, case by case. The controversy around the decree, then, has a positive side: it made the critical points visible. The wide debate it generated moved society and government to look for answers, avoiding both rollbacks (such as a return to indiscriminate segregation) and excesses (such as pushing vulnerable students into inclusion without support).

The road ahead will probably involve agreement and balance. Fine adjustments to the text could clarify how the different forms of provision coexist, guaranteeing that no effective service is lost while inclusion moves forward. The regulation, built collaboratively, should detail questions of funding, of support for the APAEs and other institutions, and of periodic assessment of the quality of inclusive support. In schools, innovative initiatives and good practice, such as the use of educational technology (Vínculoo® being one example) and collaborative methods, will be valuable allies in making the policy work. If every actor keeps the focus on the student's right and works together, Decree 12,686/2025 can indeed mark a positive turn in Brazilian special education, reconciling inclusion and pedagogical excellence. Ultimately, the great controversy it raised reflects how important and how sensitive the subject is; and the hope is that this discussion produces agreement and concrete action so that every student, with or without a disability, is guaranteed not just a place in school, but an education that is high quality and genuinely inclusive.

References:

• Ministério da Educação, “Governo institui a Política Nacional de Educação Especial Inclusiva”. Published 21/10/2025.
• Paulinho da Silva (SC), “APAEs e AMAs vão fechar? A verdade sobre o Decreto 12.686”. Explanation published 22/10/2025.
• Comunicação IBEE, “Decreto federal de educação inclusiva provoca reação de entidades…”. Analysis published 27/10/2025.
• Agência Brasil, “Decreto institui nova Política Nacional de Educação Especial Inclusiva”. News item of 21/10/2025.
• Folha de Londrina, “Luísa Canziani tenta sustar decreto que pode acabar com as Apaes”. Report of 23/10/2025.
• Jornal TopNews, “Novo decreto sobre educação especial gera polêmica e apreensão”. Published 27/10/2025.
• Observatório 3º Setor, “Solução de IA para educação especial ... é eleita uma das mais inovadoras”. Note of 20/10/2025 about the Vínculoo® platform.