This work aims, based on the combination of the topic-problematic and inductive method, and under Harbele's plural and open perspective, to analyze the decisions of the TJTO, notifiedto its Full Court between 2016 and 2018, which defer the demands of early entrance to college, identifying its relationship with the relevant legal and pedagogical norms and cognitive developmental psychology. By results, the existence of a consequential relationship between the judicial decisions and the dimensions listed was identified. It was demonstrated that the constitutional norm, in its principiology, instigates the valuation of the student's role, the flexibility of the educational process, in addition to pointing out, from the progress and the necessary verification of capacity, that the effectiveness of the right to Education comes from na individualized analysis of each case. Conjugated these conclusions with the Piagetian perspective about the precedence of development to learning, besides the uncertainty of the very subjective nature of cognitive science about the end of the maturation process, it must be concluded for the authorization of an early conclusion of basic studies and the progression to higher education. Under the prism of the infraconstitutional legislator, and from a merely normative perspective, the advancement of studies is generally guaranteed through the verification of learning, whose notion reveals consonance with the conceptof capacity, to which the concept of union between competences (formal knowledge) and skills is attributed. (socioemotional), bringing, however, doubts about the reason for maintaining the art. 44, II, of LDB, after so many reforms, including when analyzing the §3 of art. 44, which implies that the approval of the entrance exam is sufficient to prove the aforementioned capacity. Thus, due to deference to the autonomy of the educational institution, competent to verify this learning, the results showed thatthe interpretative conduct must come from regulation of the CEE-TO, competent to deliberate and standardize the issue, observing, however, the prohibition against setback and the spirit of the constitutional and directive of education norms. The Judiciary, whose allegation of mere control of legality would only supplant the necessary protagonism after state action, should judge by proof of the due acquisition of the necessary skills, considering that, at least, passing the entrance exam has already proved the competencies. Finally, as proposals to solve bottlenecks identified from the aporia, the TJTO was offered a project to harmonize its dominant jurisprudence, objectively materialized in the form of three summary statements, whose relevance, in addition to the opening of a summary repertory in the court, would make it possible to discourage litigation for those who did not fulfill the requirements of the advance. Still, in view of the interdisciplinary nature of the phenomenon, a Technical Cooperation Agreement was suggested, to be signed between TJTO and SEDUC, in favor of NAT with psychopedagogical competence, to give support to the judge in specific cases involving the judicialization of Education, considering the uniqueness of these petitioner, now learners. Finally, with the study pointing to state omission, which legitimizes the role of the Judiciary by social control, and in favor of the effectiveness of the law, regulatory guidelines were suggested to the CEE-TO, due to the fact that the defended normative implies the dialogic construction of this, family, school and community.
|
