Portugal has been prodigal in the construction of the ideation and practice of inclusive education through the enactment of educational policies aimed at ensuring conditions for quality education for all students. As in other countries, Portugal followed a path that began with a similar understanding between special education and inclusive education, with a focus on responding to individual education for students with disabilities (Loreman et al., 2014). The broader understanding of inclusive education has been vehemently defended in the last decade, in particular with the international statements advocating for the commitment to an inclusive school that embraces diversity, with classroom teaching and learning environments for all children, regardless of socioeconomic background, gender, race, colour, disability, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation (OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2015). This evolution requires the school to create environments where each student at educational risk has the appropriate response to the specificity of their academic and social needs. It was in this context that Decree-Law no. 54/2018 enacted defining that an inclusive school is “where each and every one of the students, regardless of their personal and social situation, find answers that enable them to acquire a level of education and training that facilitates their full social inclusion” (Article 1).

The Decree-Law no.54/2018 replaced the Decree-law no.3/2008 which lasted 10 years and which main measures were the conversion of traditional special education schools into “Resource Centers for Inclusion” providing specialized support to students with disabilities in regular schools, and; the consideration of students’ functioning profiles as the basis of decision-making about their eligibility for the provision of special education services. Over the years of the Decree-Law no. 3/2008 implementation, available research and consultation of practitioners and academics revealed that it was often difficult to make decisions about students' eligibility, due to the scarce and poorly structured supports and services available at schools for non-eligible students (e.g., CNE, 2015).

Aimed at implementing a continuum of supports, the Decree-Law no. 54/2018 proposes the use of the universal design for learning and the multilevel approach to access the curriculum, as a way of providing a preventive pedagogical response to all students. The multilevel approach comprises the implementation of three levels of measures, selected accordingly to students’ support needs: universal measures, targeted to all students “to promote participation and improved learning” (Art. 8); selective measures, targeted to students whose learning supports were not addressed by universal measures (Art. 9), and; additional measures “to respond to intense and persistent communication, interaction, cognitive or learning difficulties that require specialized resources of support to learning and inclusion” (Art. 10).

As with similar approaches already implemented in other countries – “Multi-tier Model System of Supports” (e.g., Ekstam et al., 2014; Sugai et al., 2016) and Response-to- Intervention model (e.g., Berkeley et al., 2020; Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009), the multilevel approach advocated in Decree-Law no. 54/2018 places the focus on “interventions of a universal nature, aimed at all and under everyone’s responsibility”, through early identification of risk factors and intervening in a “proactive and preventive” logic (Manual de Apoio à Prática, 2018, p. 19). In this system, universal measures are highlighted because they are a level of support that was not previously contemplated in Decree-Law No. 3/2008. This study aims to give voice to teachers from all levels of education concerning the process of implementing universal measures of support. 

The study surveyed a sample of 118 public school teachers, through an online questionnaire. Most respondents were women, with 50 or more years of age, and 16 to 30 years of service. The sample was composed of teachers from all educational levels, from primary to secondary school. A questionnaire was developed based on the principles of the DL 54/2018 and consisted of two parts: sociodemographic and characterizing questions; and questions on the universal measures of support. In the first part of the questionnaire, teachers answered sociodemographic questions, their school functions, number of students in their group, satisfaction degree with students’ learning and degree of knowledge concerning the DL 54/2018. The second part of the questionnaire was comprised of 47 items, organized according to the four dimensions of the universal measures: a) Identification of factors, both in the family context and individual factors, that can promote or hinder students’ development and progress; b) Strategies for pedagogical differentiation; c) Implementation of the Universal Design for Learning; d) Curricular accommodations. Teachers rated each item in relation to Desirability, Feasibility, Frequency and To Whom. The questionnaire went through a series of improvement and piloting phases before being administered. In addition, the questionnaire was registered on the Directorate-General for Education website and authorizations were gathered from this governmental organism and from participating school boards. The questionnaire was published utilizing the Lime Survey software and its results were analyzed through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software - SPSS.

This study intended to evaluate the degree to which the professionals consider universal measures desirable and feasible, the frequency of implementation and with which students they are being implemented. Results suggested that the implementation of universal measures is globally desired. However, results also suggest a mismatch between the importance teachers give to using these measures and the conditions to do so. In addition, measures related to the Universal Design for Learning are the ones teachers consider as more desirable and feasible, being also the ones that are used more frequently, with more students. Teachers’ years of experience seemed to be the factor with more impact - teachers with more years of experience in teaching considered these measures as less feasible, implementing them less and to a lower number of students. It is possible that more experienced teachers have more consolidated practices and may be more reluctant to applying new ones. Also, global satisfaction with students’ learning seemed to be associated with a more frequent implementation of the universal measures, a view of these measures as more feasible and a higher implementation with students. Results suggest that teachers implementing universal measures are mostly those who have already applied them before the publication of the new decree-law. Most importantly, an effective use of these measures seems to imply a series of conditions, such as time, human and material resources and specific training. Results will be discussed in the light of necessary conditions to implement new policies in education.

Berkeley, S., Scanlon, D., Bailey, T. R., Sutton, J. C., & Sacco, D. M. (2020). A Snapshot of RTI Implementation a Decade Later: New Picture, Same Story. Journal of learning disabilities, 53(5), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420915867. Conselho Nacional de Educação (CNE). (2015). Estado da Educação 2015. Doi: https://www.cnedu.pt/content/noticias/CNE/Estado_da_Educacao_2015_versao_digital.pdf Decreto-Lei n.o 54/2018 de 6 de julho. Diário da República n.o 129/2018 - Série I. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação DGE. (2018). Para uma Educação Inclusiva - Manual de Apoio à Prática. Obtido em 9 de Setembro de 2018, de http://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/EEspecial/manual_de_apoio_a_pratica.pdf. Ekstam, Ulrika & Linnanmäki, Karin & Aunio, Pirjo. (2014). Educational support for low-performing students in mathematics: the three-tier support model in Finnish lower secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 10.1080/08856257.2014.964578. Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and Remediating Academic Difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x. Loreman, T., Forlin, C., Chambers, D., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. (2014). Conceptualising and Measuring Inclusive Education. In C. Forlin & T. Loreman (eds.), Measuring Inclusive Education. International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, 3, 3-17). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620140000003015. OECD. (2018). Education Policy Outlook 2018: Putting Students Learning at the Centre. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301528. Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., Freeman, J. & La Salle, T. (2016). Capacity development and multi-tiered systems of support: Guiding principles. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40, 80-98, 10.1017/jse.2016.11 UNESCO. (2015). The 2015 Global Monitoring Report – Education for All 2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges. Paris, France: UNESCO.