2.1 TYPE OF RESEARCH

This research was configured as exploratory-descriptive qualitative. The qualitative nature ‘[...] applies to the study of history, relationships, representations, beliefs, perceptions [...], qualitative approaches are better suited to investigations of delimited and focused groups and segments’ (^{Minayo, 2014}, p. 57). The exploratory aspect sought more familiarity with the problem, making it more explicit; and the descriptive aspect aimed at describing the characteristics of a given population or phenomenon (^{Gil, 2009}).

2.2 PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH SCENARIO

The research participants were ten school psychologists who worked in three regular private schools in the city of Teresina, Piauí, Brazil. The inclusion criteria of the participants were: a) a minimum of one year as a school psychologist in Basic Education; and

b) professional performance in inclusive private regular school. The criterion for choosing the research scenario, in turn, was the greater number of school psychologists working in the private teaching network compared to the public network of Teresina.

2.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

The research, in accordance with Resolution No. 466/12 of the National Health Council/Ministry of Health, had a letter of agreement from the schools and had its project submitted and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Federal University of Piauí (UFPI), CAAE no 51004515.8.0000.5209. Data were collected individually through semi-structured interviews, according to the participants’ availability. Thus, over a period of two months, it became necessary to visit the schools locus of the research for data collection. The Free and Informed Consent Form, a document that contained information about the study, was presented to the participants of the study and, upon acceptance, two copies of this document were signed, so that one was kept with the participant and the other with the researchers.

2.4 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

The data analysis method used was content analysis, which is divided into three phases: a) pre-analysis; b) exploitation of the material; and c) treatment of results, inference and interpretation (^{Bardin, 2011}). Thus, the speeches of the research participants, in the specific case of school psychologists, were recorded with consent, transcribed, read and reread exhaustively. After this procedure, they were divided into registration units, which corresponded to elements obtained with the analysis of the message. The registration units were grouped according to the thematic, thus giving rise to the categories of data analysis.

3.1 INCLUSIVE DEMANDS ADDRESSED TO THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

The teachers addressed demands arising from school inclusion to the school psychologists participating in this research. Educational actors are challenged to respond to the daily demands of school life related to coexistence and learning from diversity (^{Matos & Mendes, 2014}) and the technical support of other professionals is pointed out as an enabler of school inclusion (^{Sant’Ana, 2005}). The school psychologist is also a professional who offers technical support to teachers. The main demand stemming from inclusion addressed by teachers to school psychologists, referred to the behavioral management of the target public of Special Education in the classroom, as observed in the following statement:

It is usually the management, we had a student [...] who was more classic autism and was with his head down during the whole class, those who did not know him thought he was sleeping, and some teachers, for example, came to me and said: ‘I don’t know what to do with this student because he spends his whole class with his head down’. So you say: ‘OK, he’s with his head down, but he’s listening to everything that’s going on there, he doesn’t take notes, but he listens to everything and his way of learning is that’. Then they feel more at ease [...] (P7).

This demand is related to the concern of how the public-targeted students of Special Education are inserted in the regular class, since the absence of effective support to the teacher contributes to the creation of exclusive conditions within the classroom itself. The absence of curricular and methodological changes is also a contributor to the exclusion condition in the classroom (A. A. ^{Antunes, 2017}; ^{Góes, 2013}). In this perspective, another demand cited by the school psychologists was the academic demand, exemplified in the following statements:

[...] how to approach certain contents [...], the tests, the evaluations, the activities, the teachers come to us to know how, what to consider of that response, that activity, that student. We also sit down to do some of this evaluation (P5).

[...] as each child is a specific case, even professionals who have experience with special children have difficulties that are pertinent, then there is a child who verbalizes, the other doesn’t, there are children who have well developed attention, others have low attention. They bring these situations, and then, together, we study the case [...]: ‘what are you going to do so that the content that you are giving reaches that child?’. Together we seek alternatives [...] (P8).

These reports suggest that the academic demands addressed to school psychologists emphasize both the methodological teaching strategy and the adaptive dimension of the curriculum, contents and evaluation system. All of these aspects are focused on the student’s learning process, which is related to that pointed out by ^{Santos, Menezes, Borba, Ramos, & Costa (2017)}.

School psychologist P1 mentioned how the challenge of a single teacher is to manage a classroom with a high number of students:

There is only the teacher, sixth grade has no teaching assistant, it is the teacher and that’s it [...] he has to deal with a classroom with thirty, forty students and give special attention to this student who has greater difficulty. Because sometimes it is not only the student who has the diagnosis, sometimes there is the student who has no diagnosis and who has difficulty in understanding [...]. Then, he has to work hard to be able to deal with all cases (P1).

School psychologists P4 and P9 recognized family management as a demand, as explained below:

[...] they bring complaints from families, even with regard to the difficulty of dealing with the child, with the adolescent, it is in this sense (P4).

[...] and, secondly, deal with the family [...] (P9).

The analysis of the data presented in this category allowed us to verify that the main demands of the inclusion addressed to the school psychologists by the teachers were related to the management in the classroom: behavioral, academic or both. Family management was also mentioned, but in an incipient way by two school psychologists. The demands of classroom management were pointed out by psychologists E1, E2 and E3, even among those who work at different levels of education: Childhood Education, Elementary and Middle School and High School. Family management, mentioned less frequently, was also a demand addressed to psychologists from different schools.

3.2 ACTIVITIES DEVELOPED BY THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST ALONG WITH TEACHERS

All the school psychologists participating in the research reported that they worked with teachers in relation to Inclusive Education. This action was mainly related to listening, individual and/or group orientation, classroom and project interventions. The individual orientations were mainly related to the academic demands as well as the behavioral demands and family management. P8 exemplified an individual orientation from a perspective of jointly defining strategies, unlike the others, such as P3, who exemplified a more directive orientation:

[...] I bring some material, for example, that worked out in a classroom, I call another teacher from another classroom and I say: ‘Look, go to that classroom and take a look there, see how the routine is, how the resource that we did in the classroom is and check if it can be done for another child’. I show, for example, to the Kindergarten, who are very small children, a box of stimuli, so I give this suggestion and I help to assemble, and then I see the job, if it is working, the goal is that we are always very close (P3).

[...] I don’t usually say ‘you have to do this’, I sit down with the teacher and ‘let’s think, structure how you’re going to do your class, what you are going to do so that content you’re giving reaches that child’, and together we seek alternatives, and this practice is very efficient because the teacher learns to know that student [...]. We are always attentive to this moment, welcoming this professional, listening, trying to give a direction, give an alternative situation so that he can cure his difficulties (P8).

In this perspective, collaboration with teachers through knowledge of Psychology that is useful to them in the reflective performance of their roles is indicated as an attribution of the school psychologist (^{CFP, 1992}). The individual guidance activity encompasses this approach. The group orientation addressed to the teacher was also another activity developed by the school psychologists as a way of acting according to the demands, both in the preventive and resolutive perspective:

[...] at the beginning of the school year, we have a practice called ‘profile transfer’, the service is to meet the teachers and pass the entire profile of the class that he/she will teach. We talk about those students who performed well, those who need to move forward, those who have specificities, what the specificities are, what strategies worked and did not work. At the beginning of the school year, the teacher receives the class and is aware of all these characteristics, and we do this with all classes (P6).

[...] at the beginning of the school year, we give the teachers a profile of the classes. The first activity of the year was: to meet on Saturday, that is the day of their meeting, and then I’m going to transfer that profile, both general of the class, how the rhythm of the group is, this group talks too much, this one is quieter, this one the teacher needs to demand more. Another thing: performance, who are the students who need better attention and the students who have a special need [...]. You talk about the characteristics, and the strategy to be used with that student [...] (P7).

[...] when I realize that a specific difficulty of the teacher is something that can add value to other teachers, we also take this as a case study, so we take the situations and we take in collective meetings so the teachers can also see how that particular situation was resolved (P8).

The group orientation was reported by three school psychologists. This practice occurs in collective meetings both from a preventive perspective, such as the objective practice of transferring the class profile, mentioned by P6 and P7, E2 psychologists; from a preventive and resolutive double perspective, such as the case study practice mentioned by P8, E3 psychologist, in which a real case is studied by the group and the intervention strategy used is presented. From this perspective, the previous statements refer both to the promotion of group activities (^{Cassins et al., 2007}) and to preventive and/or resolutive activities in the practice of the school psychologist (^{Cassins et al., 2007}; ^{CFP, 1992}).

The attribution of verbal guidance by the participants involved a notion that the individual orientation has a resolutive approach and the group orientation has a resolutive and preventive approach. Orientation, individual and group, aimed at the teacher is considered as an attribution of the school psychologist in literature (^{Cassins et al., 2007}; ^{Martínez, 2010}).

School psychologists also pointed to direct intervention in the classroom as a response to the demands received:

[...] we talk about the issue of economy of notepads, stars, then we make a classboard and specify the activities and each activity has score points, then they will do it, sing the anthem correctly and then they are going to get stars, and there is the name of all the students and it works very well in Early Childhood Education. [...]. All this is shown to the student and the class does not realize it, everyone gets points in the end, then, every ten stars, they get a star in their diary [...] (P2).

[...] one of the proposals within my theory is the model, so I always try to go to the classroom to see what they are talking about. In case I am present I give the model of how they should do it, what the proposal would be like, then I intervene, I work with the child so they can see it [...] (P3).

My work was direct, in the classroom itself; often it is no use saying: ‘Teacher, you don’t have to hold his hand, you will only hold his wrist because he does not have well-developed motor skills, you do not need to hold the hand because you will influence the autonomy, the child has to use the strength’. If I say so to the teacher, many times he will not know how to do it. So I go there and spend one or two mornings with him guiding how he’s going to do it, and then we change places, the teacher comes here and I watch and command [...] (P9).

Direct interventions in the classroom responded mainly to behavioral and academic demands. Among the strategies mentioned, there was the presentation of the model (P3 and P9) and the economy of notepads (P2), techniques of behavioral basis.

In addition to the objective actuations through the demands coming from inclusion, shown in the previous category, the psychologists reported acting through projects, which can be verified below:

The projects are focused on three levels. For example, I have a project with the students and there is a theme that I see that is an important theme to be worked on with the family, every two months. I have the meeting with the family, so I work with the family on something that I worked on with the students. Every two months, I also have a meeting with the teachers, it’s a planning meeting, but the beginning of the meeting is usually with me, so I discuss something I discussed with the students and that it’s important to work with them [...]. There is also the bullying project, which we work on with students, parents and teachers in relation to this (P1).

The Psychology Council’s proposal in the area of school is to work with the entire community. So, when we had the implementation of the service, we tried to divide it by areas and, within those areas, the projects appeared. [...] the other project is oriented towards teachers [...], so it ends up being a project with the teachers, that is of continuous education. We give lectures, workshops, participate in planning and then enter into this project with teachers, but focusing on the student. [...] the inclusion project permeates everything, so it will work with the graduated teachers. ... the lectures, meetings, materials, books or chapters of books, papers, which I am always giving to them, training on Saturdays, planning, and always available, finding strategies (P3).

School psychologists P1 and P3 talked about school projects involving the three levels: family, students, and teachers. Specifically, in the case of P3, there is reference to more than one project involving the teaching staff. The projects developed by the psychologists with the teachers were based on a preventive perspective of professional activity and involved mainly the training of teachers. However, the previous statements make it possible to verify projects developed in a more structured way, as mentioned by P3, often having greater time and different methodologies. And projects developed in a less structured way, usually occurring in a specific way during meetings, as mentioned by P1. In the case of P3, it can be observed that in the training of teachers carried out in projects, different methodologies were used, such as workshops, lectures, dynamics, experiences, case study and discussion, texts and materials, for example. In addition to the training of teachers, school psychologist P1 referred to a project that involves bullying and that also included the teaching staff.

Conducting collective work with a preventive focus, such as teacher training, is an attribution of the school psychologist as also described in research and in documents that guide the area (M. A. M. ^{Antunes, 2008}; ^{Braz-Aquino, Ferreira, & Cavalcante, 2016}; ^{CFP, 1992}, ²⁰¹³; ^{Cassins et al., 2007}; ^{Martínez, 2010}; ^{Souza et al., 2011}). The implementation of projects in the practice of school psychologists is a preventive action. P3 also refers to her performance with guidance from the Psychology Council and, when mentioning that the continuing education of teachers also focuses on the student, refers to the aspect pointed out by the governing body of the profession (^{CFP, 2013}) that the work developed within a segment should focus on the collectivity.

The analysis of the data obtained in this category allowed us to describe the activities developed by the school psychologists with the teachers in relation to Inclusive Education, to respond to the demands from the inclusion that are addressed by the teachers, as well as projects carried out in a preventive way, involving mainly the teacher training.

3.3 Results of the school psychologist’s activities along with teachers

The results that school psychologists observe in their work with teachers in relation to Inclusive Education will be addressed in this category. All the participants of the research identified benefits from this action, the main ones being those that referred to the evolution of the student who is target public of Special Education; the teacher’s understanding and awareness of the student’s specificity; the greater use of strategies, such as the adaptation of tests and activities; the security and autonomy of the teacher in the development of activities with the student; the reduction of demands during the school year; and positive feedback received by teachers. The following statements exemplify some benefits:

[...] I think that from the time that we started up until now I’ve noticed a decrease in demand, because before they came all the time and, today, I think they already manage to do some things with autonomy. I think this is a positive point, as it was once a very intense demand from them and it is now diminishing. I also think that in the development itself, in the advancement of some children, it is possible to perceive that it has been working [...] (P3).

I identify benefits, because if we did not identify them, it would be difficult to realize how the work is going. This week, for example, I had a very positive feedback from a teacher from Middle School, who is from a class I observe, seventh grade, the class was resistant to the teacher, so they did not do the activities, they got low marks in the test and they did not care [...]. I’ve been observing other classes, and she said, ‘Now I’m doing these strategies, it’s working, they’re responding better, they’re more motivated’, that is, you notice that your way of seeing things changes the way the teacher sees things. She did not have this perception that it was her methodology, because the fault was the students’ who are resistant, naughty; she understood, and the class was changing and their relationship changed as well (P10).

In her statement, P10 presents a critical reflection about the student’s blame for school failure instead of a redefinition of strategies on the part of the teacher, which is related to what literature says about the first actions of the school psychologist and resulted in the pathologization and the individualization of the educational process (M. A. M. ^{Antunes, 2008}; ^{Petroni & Souza, 2017}). In the same perspective, it is considered that an inclusive educational model must reach representations around the disability, the social function of the school, the teaching-learning process, the curriculum, the organization of the pedagogical work, and so on (^{Santos, 2011}).

The attributions of the school psychologist with teachers towards Inclusive Education were perceived in a beneficial way for both the student and the teacher and for the School Psychology Service itself.