The World Health Organization - WHO (2021) considers deafness as a disabling hearing loss and estimates that approximately 466 million people have this disability. However, for the deaf themselves, the idea of deafness cannot remain just a hearing loss and authors like Tabery (2014) also reinforce this and combat the abnormalizing characteristics of deafness as ‘hearing loss’. By 2050, the estimated number of deaf will be higher than 900 million. The deaf understand the world mainly through visual experiences (Quadros, 2004) and have a particular language and culture. Sign Language is the natural language of the deaf community, their native language (Freitas, 2018). If they can use their own language, their cognitive development will equal that of listeners (Gomes, 2010). In Portugal, deaf people use Portuguese Sign Language (LGP) and in Brazil, Brazilian Sign Language (LIBRAS).

In this regard, bilingualism arises, which means considering Sign Language as the deaf's mother language and Portuguese, in the written form, as a second language also called L2 in Brazil.  Bilingualism allows deaf people to access their native language from childhood, providing better cognitive, social, academic and linguistic development (Freitas, 2018, 2019). As the deaf are integrated into two different cultures - the deaf and the hearing - bilingualism must also include the notion of biculturalism, thus providing the deaf children with the same psycholinguistic possibilities offered to the hearing children, facilitating a bicultural identity (Freitas, 2018). Skliar (1998) states that bilingualism reflects an increase in the metacognitive and metalinguistic abilities of deaf people, facilitating learning and leading to better school performance. However, the principles of bilingualism in daily practice must not become just the inclusion of LGP/LIBRAS in the classroom where an interpreter translates Portuguese for the deaf, nor an ordinary translation of the pedagogical content into sign language, without this content even being designed to fulfill the deaf student specificities (Fernandes, 2003). The exchange of experiences is an elementary step in the teaching and learning process; consequently, the lack of interaction compromises this process, thus socialization (Vygotsky, 1991).

Through their respective legislation, Portugal and Brazil instituted Bilingual Education for Deaf Students. In Portugal, the Decree Law nº 3/2008 of January 7th presented guidelines for bilingual education and established Reference Schools for the Bilingual Education of Deaf Students (EREBAS). In Brazil, the guarantee of deaf people's access to bilingual education is made by Decree nº 5.626 of December 22nd, 2005 (BRASIL, 2005), which also refers to LIBRAS and makes federal educational institutions responsible for bilingual education in Brazil. Two Brazilian federal institutions currently offer this education model, one in the north and the other in the south of Brazil.

This research reflects on the model of bilingual education implemented in Brazil and Portugal at bilingual schools. Hence, this work sought to contribute to the discussion regarding the education of the deaf, addressing how it happens, the differences between legislation and daily school practices, and which of these are better for putting forward the teaching and learning process of deaf students.  Understanding the differences between sign languages, such as Brazilian and Portuguese sign language, is crucial to bridge the communication gap between deaf and hearing individuals, promoting greater understanding and inclusion, thus promoting effective communication and inclusivity (Woll et al., 2001). The comparison between Brazilian and Portuguese bilingual schools allows an overview of their differences and similarities, thus making it possible to identify practices that can be implemented or improved regarding bilingual education in both countries. By recognizing and valuing the importance of sign language, we can work towards creating a more inclusive and accessible society for all.

Data were collected through semi-structured and face-to-face interviews with four teachers of deaf students and four specialists in special education. The interviews took place between October 2022 and January 2023 in two bilingual schools in Portugal and one in Brazil. The interviews followed a script composed of 11 questions, divided into the following topics: a) General profile of the interviewee (relationship with deaf people, whether he is deaf, whether he is bilingual, levels of education in which he works with deaf people, among others); b) Deaf student learning (difficulties, challenges, characteristics, effectiveness, among others) and c) Sign language and sign writing. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for data analysis. The data analysis was carried out through content analysis by thematic categories. The researchers performed the base analysis following the three stages proposed by Bardin (2009): a) Pre-analysis - the material to be analyzed (the transcripts) was read and reread; b) Exploration of the material: consisting of coding operations. Researchers selected text units according to their frequency and themes that emerged from the transcripts; c) Treatment of results and interpretation – the categorization itself, categories were defined from the themes that appeared most in the transcripts, dividing them according to their similarities and differences and regrouping those with common characteristics. This study´s categories emerged: families, bilingual teachers, sign language, didactic material, oralism and signwriting.

There is a focus on supporting families at the EREBAS, in Portugal. In Brazil, instead, there is a lack of family involvement. In both countries, many deaf students' teachers of subjects such as history, mathematics, etc., do not have additional training. Therefore, it is imperative to invest in training and creating spaces where deaf and hearing professionals can exchange experiences, ideas and pedagogical practices. This could facilitate the practice of the bilingual model and ensure educational opportunities and possibilities for deaf students The Brazilian school focuses on LIBRAS to the detriment of Portuguese L2 (written form); they understand deaf people are included in deaf culture and use LIBRAS, so hearing people around them should learn this language and culture. At the EREBAS, it is understood that the two languages must go together - the deaf must learn in LGP and have a lot of contact with Portuguese L2, using strategies such as oralism and lip reading for bicultural insertion. One of the interviewees mentioned that it is fictional to think of a world where everyone will know Sign Language.The more tools deaf people have access to, the better their development and inclusion will be. In bilingual schools, the Brazilian and Portuguese view of signwriting is different. At Brazilian schools, it is a way of optimizing the education process of deaf people.In Portuguese EREBAS schools, this written language is not valued because it is a third language to be learned, which can bring more confusion than benefits. All respondents believe teaching with more visual material is better for deaf people, however, it was noticed in Portugal a lack of didactic and support material in LGP; some EREBAS educators even use Brazilian materials in LIBRAS, so it is crucial to invest in the creation of didactic material in LGP.

Bardin, L. (2009). Análise de conteúdo. Edições 70. 2009. Brasil. (2005). Decreto n° 5.626 de 22 de dezembro de 2005. Regulamenta a Lei nº 10.436, de 24 de abril de 2002, que dispõe sobre a Língua Brasileira de Sinais - Libras, e o art. 18 da Lei nº 10.098, de 19 de dezembro de 2000. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2005/decreto/d5626.htm Decreto-Lei nº 3/2008, de 7 de Janeiro (DR nº 4, I Série – A). Fernandes, E. (2003). Linguagem e Surdez. Artmed. Freitas, L. (2018). O Ensino da Língua Gestual Portuguesa como L2 no contexto bilingue das EREBAS. Investigar em Educação, 2(7), 107-120. Freitas, L. M. (2019). O Ensino de Segunda Língua com Foco no Professor – História oral de professores Surdos de Língua de Sinais Brasileira. Revista Portuguesa de Investigação Educacional, 19 (1), 121-140. Gomes, M. C. (2010). O panorama actual da educação de Surdos: Na senda de uma educação bilingue. Exera, 10(3), 59-74. WHO (2021). World report on hearing. World Health Organization. Pedroso, K. & Coelho, O. (2018). A Educação Bilingue numa EREBAS: Diversidade Cultural e acesso ao Currículo dos alunos Surdos - Estudo de caso. Porto: Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação. https://repositorioaberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/125865/2/381710.pdf Quadros, R. M. de. (2004). Educação de surdos: efeitos de modalidade e práticas pedagógicas. Mendes, E. G.; Almeida, M. A. & Williams, L. C. A. (Eds.), Temas em educação especial: avanços recentes (pp. 55-60). Editora da UFSCar. Skliar, C. (1998). Os estudos surdos em educação: Problematizando a normalidade. In C. Skliar (Ed.), A surdez: Um olhar sobre as diferenças (pp. 7-32). Editora Mediação. Vygotsky, L. S. (1991). A formação social da mente. Martins Fontes. Woll, B., Sutton-Spence, R., & Elton, F. (2001). Multilingualism: The global approach to sign languages. The sociolinguistics of sign languages, 8, 32.