National special education policy: Scope review protocol

This article presents the protocol for a Scoping Review on the National Special Education Policy through Decree No. 10,502, dated September 30, 2020, which establishes the creation of the National Policy on Special Education: Equitable, Inclusive, and Lifelong Learning, with legal tensions. The aim is to examine the development, scope, and clear understanding of publications in research, seeking answers in the literature about the content of publications in the field of National Special Education Policy from 2020 onwards. This is a qualitative study of a Scoping Review, following the methodology of the Manual for Evidence Synthesis by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy will be used to define the research question and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search and database selection strategy will be developed with the guidance of a specialist in digital search strategy and will include multiple databases such as Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), National Library of Medicine (PubMed), SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SCIELO), and Google Scholar. Descriptors and synonyms will be used according to the Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS) and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). This protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) under the DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HJD3C. It is expected that this protocol will contribute to the findings regarding the national policy of Special Education in Brazil.


Introduction
In Brazil, through Decree No. 10,502, dated September 30, 2020, the creation of the National Policy on Special Education: Equitable, Inclusive, and Lifelong Learning was established (Brasil, 2020).This decree authorizes educational systems to adopt measures regarding the flexibility of education to provide alternative options such as special schools, special classes, and bilingual schools.Preceding this decree, from 2008 to 2018, the National Policy on Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education was in effect, which redefined the concept of disability and the inclusion of students in regular classes, aligning Brazil with international guidelines on the right to education (Baptista, 2019).However, the rights of people with disabilities have been a topic of national and international debate since the 1990s (Pletsch & Leite, 2017).
In this context, many barriers have hindered and continue to hinder the quality and efficiency of education for people with disabilities, whether in basic education or higher education.Through Decree No. 11,370 of January 1, 2023, the Decree establishing the creation of the National Policy on Special Education: Equitable, Inclusive, and Lifelong Learning was revoked (Brasil, 2023), and no replacement policy has been instituted as of the present moment.The situation indicates a significant challenge for public policies aimed at Special Education (Glat, 2018).The issue becomes even more complex when addressing individuals facing social inequalities and limitations in their daily activities due to chronic illnesses or disabilities (Boccolin et al., 2017).Furthermore, according to the data, the regulation of services for this student population often falls within higher education, which does not always guarantee the legitimization of their rights (Cabral & Melo, 2017).
When discussing educational rights, conflicts in legal contexts are observed, not only in Brazil but also in other countries such as Portugal, Medellin in Colombia, where students with disabilities require quality and dignified education (Pereira & Albuquerque, 2017;Zapata, 2019).The issue of inclusive education for people with disabilities in public higher education is also a challenge in Uruguay (Gómez & Fernández, 2018).In Costa Rica, the rights of students with disabilities are often overlooked (Morera, 2018).In Romania, for primary and secondary education institutions, there are not many studies addressing the factors that determine favorable inclusion of students in higher education institutions (Stăiculescu, Dincă & Gheba, 2022).It is evident that providing education for all while considering the specific needs of such a diverse audience is not an easy task (Borges & Campos, 2018).In this landscape of challenges, it is possible to observe that social distance from individuals with special needs continues into adulthood (Firat & Koyuncu, 2022).The motto of the global self-advocacy movement, "Nothing About Us, Without Us," is still not fully implemented in the formulation of programs aimed at this population (Glat & Estef, 2021).In the field of rights, a demand only arises when the complainant encounters the recipient of their request, often stemming from the non-fulfillment of something previously offered (Pedott & Angelucci, 2020).Therefore, changes in public policies generate conflicts due to the alteration of the status quo and the competition for resource allocation, as new ideas and questions emerge (Rosa & Lima, 2022).
In Brazil, within a relatively short period of time, significant changes have impacted and continue to impact the educational system, influenced by International Organizations in Special Education policies (Borges & Torres, 2020).In this case, the shifts in ideological currents of opposing thoughts could explain the inconsistency in sudden changes in legislation, making concrete actions for the student population in need of legal support challenging.Given the current conditions of a challenging global economic, social, and political landscape, Brazil lacks clear and objective publications on a National Special Education Policy (Demchenko et al., 2022).In this regard, according to (Sá et al., 2019), one should not only look at decrees and laws but also at how these policies have been developed and what has been done to ensure their effective implementation.To do so, one must reflect on experiences not only to assess the degree of effectiveness in their implementation but also to draw lessons for improvement and correction along their trajectories (Gediel et al, .2019).
In the context of the literature, there have been few publications on educational policy related to Special Education Modality since 2020.Therefore, this Scoping Review protocol investigates the limited publications on the National Policy on Equitable, Inclusive, and Lifelong Learning in Special Education in Brazil, focusing on the Special Education Modality from 2020 onwards.It also explores the divergent ideas and government actions that directly impact the feasibility of measures to be taken at various levels for the special needs student population.The definition of a national special education policy is scattered across systematic review literature, differing in its conceptual structure and not explicitly identified through a Scoping Review strategy.
In our review, we aim to raise awareness of this emerging paradigm in the context of the National Special Education Policy: Equitable, Inclusive, and Lifelong Learning.Given the current efforts at conceptualization, the review will focus on recent publications.To the best of our knowledge, no previous review has provided a comprehensive understanding of the topic of the NATIONAL SPECIAL EDUCATION POLICY OF 2020 IN BRAZIL.This initial literature review will be important in determining which interventions are considered impactful.However, despite the National Policy not being in force, it remains readily available and scattered, yet not united under the same conceptual model.A preliminary search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBI Evidence Synthesis, and MEDLINE was conducted, and no current or ongoing scoping reviews were found or identified on the topic.
The objective of this protocol is to examine the development, scope, and clear understanding of publications in research, seeking answers in the literature about the content of publications in the field of the National Policy on Equitable, Inclusive, and Lifelong Learning in Special Education from 2020 onwards.To do so, a Scoping Review approach was chosen to identify the evidence processes in this type of academic literature.Previous studies have shown a focus on systematic reviews, with the prevailing emphasis on the National Policy on Special Education from the Perspective of Inclusive Education from 2008, while only a rare minority cite the National Policy on Equitable, Inclusive, and Lifelong Learning in Special Education from 2020 and the Incheon Declaration.The variability of the policies obscures the concepts, as well as a clear definition, resulting in knowledge gaps in the existing literature due to the process of establishing documents for public policies having undergone variations, disagreements, and inconsistencies in guiding institutions and public bodies responsible for actions concerning students in this educational modality.This fact affects the quality of evidence published in the literature, which is predominantly conducted in academic settings, posing challenges for research.

Kinds of study
This is a qualitative study of a Scoping Review, a literature review that will be conducted following the methodology outlined in the Manual for Evidence Synthesis by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) from August 2020, in accordance with the proposed framework (Peters et al., 2020).The protocol has been developed following the recommended steps outlined in the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines.

Procedures
This research will follow the recommended steps for conducting a Scoping Review, as outlined in the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines.These steps include: Identifying the research question and defining the descriptors; searching for relevant studies in databases; reading and selecting the material to be reviewed; extracting and analyzing the data from selected studies; preparing and presenting the results of the review; submitting the manuscript for peer review and presenting the key findings following the framework proposed by Peters et al. (2020).The protocol has been developed and subsequently registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform under the DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HJD3C.

Guiding question and inclusion criteria
For the conduct of this scoping review, questions will be formulated based on the object of the review and aligned with the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) mnemonic, along with the following keywords: P -People with disabilities; C -School Inclusion; C1 -Special Education; C2 -Public Policy, provided that it includes Public Policy (C-2) related to people with disabilities.For the search and selection of studies, the following "question" was established: What is the content of publications on the National Policy on Special Education in 2020 conducted in Brazil?

Search strategy and selection of databases
The search and selection strategy for databases was defined by a library assistant in collaboration with the authors.In the search strategy, 337 documents were found in the following databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); National Library of Medicine (PubMed); SCOPUS; and the Web of Science platform.

Eligibility criteria:
These studies will include documents in English, Portuguese and Spanish from the last 5 years (2017 to 2022), available in the following databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS); National Library of Medicine (PubMed); SCOPUS and the Web of Science platform.

Conclusion criteria
Incomplete articles, duplicate documents, publications of opinions, consensuses, retractions, editorials, websites and advertisements published in the media, event summaries, event annals, printed and online books, documents in press, gray literature, documentary videos will be excluded from this study.

Data extraction
The full texts of the eligible publications will be retrieved and reviewed by two reviewers who will confirm their relevance and extract data of interest related to the review's objectives.They will use an instrument specifically designed for this purpose (as specified in Table 3).
It's important to note that the instrument is preliminary and subject to modification.Additional data may be included as deemed relevant during the reading of the publications.This flexible approach allows for the refinement of the data extraction process to ensure that all pertinent information is captured during the review.OR "Social Policy" OR "Policies, Social" OR "Policy, Social" OR "Social Policies".
For the combination of descriptors, the Boolean terms were considered: AND, OR and NOT.
After carrying out the search, they should include: research carried out in English, Spanish and Portuguese, with a quantitative and qualitative approach, primary studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and/or meta-syntheses, books and guidelines, published in indexed sources, that answer the question established.Include articles in different languages; not include publications of opinions, consensuses, retractions, editorials, websites and advertisements published in the media.
The Data extraction form can be seen in Table 3 below.Source: Authors.

Results and Discussion
The results will be presented in a described and systematized way, with data, and compiled to serve as a contribution and subsidies for actions to strengthen public policies on the modality of teaching special education in Brazil.

Conclusion
It can be concluded that the objective of the current scoping review protocol was achieved through its own elaboration, as it collaborated in the organization of necessary procedures for the future production of a scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Manual for Synthesis of Evidence Institute (JBI).However, this study does not end in itself, but opens the way for other future studies with other protocols that collaborate with the execution of literature reviews, with consistent methodologies, above all, in relation to the theme of The National Policy of Special Education in Brazil.

Table 1 -
Subjects and synonyms used in the structuring of the search strategy.The search strategy can be seen in Databases used in Table2below.

Table 2 -
Databases used for the search.
Thus, it was used for Population (P): "Persons with Disability" OR "Physical Disability" OR "Physical Disability" OR "Physical Disability" OR "Physical Limitation" OR "Person with Physical Disability" OR "Person with Disability" OR "Person with Disability" OR "Person with Physical Disability " OR "Person with Physical Limitation" OR "Person with Special Needs" OR "People with Physical Disability" OR "People with Disabilities" OR "People with Physical Disabilities" OR "People with Disadvantages" OR "People with Disabilities" OR "People with Disabilities" with Physical Disability" OR "Persons with Disabilities" OR "Persons with Physical Limitations" OR "Persons with Physical Limitations" OR "Persons with Special Needs" OR "Persons with Special Needs" OR "Disabled Persons" OR "Person, Disabled" OR "Persons, Social" OR "Population Policy" OR "Policies, Population" OR "Policy, Population" OR "Population Policies" Disabled" OR "Handicapped" OR "People with Disabilities" OR "Disabilities, People with" OR "People with Disability" OR "Persons with Disabilities" OR "Disabilities, Persons with" OR "Disability, Persons with" OR " Persons with Disability" OR "Physically Handicapped" OR "Handicapped, Physically" OR "Physically Disabled" OR "Disabled, Physically" OR "Physically Challenged"; Concept (C): "School Inclusion" OR "Inclusion (Education)" OR "Educational Inclusion" OR 'Inclusion in Education" OR "Educational Integration" OR "School Integration" OR "Integration, Education" OR "Equal Opportunity" OR "Population Control Policy" OR "Immigration Policy" OR "Demographic Policy" OR "Migration Policy" OR "Population Policy" OR "Social Policy" OR "Public Policies" OR "Social Protection" "Public Policy" OR "Policies, Public" OR "Policy, Public" OR 'Public Policies " OR "Migration Policy" OR "Migration Policies" OR "Policies, Migration" OR "Policy, Migration" OR "Affirmative Action" OR "Action, Affirmative" OR "Social Protection" OR "Protection,