lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Lesson 2 Addressing Diversity Through THE Years

Bachelor of Secondary Education (Dr. Emilio B. Espinosa Sr. Memorial State College of
Agriculture and Technology)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])
 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Lesson 2 ADDRESSING DIVERSITY THROUGH

THE YEARS: SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
Introduction
This lesson shall allow you to look at Special Needs and Inclusive Education from
historical and philosophical contexts. The first step to becoming an effective Special
Needs and/or Inclusive teacher lies not in one’s skill to teach strategically, but in
one’s willingness and commitment to respect individual differences. As seen in the
previous chapter, diversity is a natural part of every environment and must be
perceived as a given rather than an exception.
How then do we proceed from here? Below are key points to summarize this lesson.

Everyone has a right to education. Having a disability should not be an excuse

for being deprived of access to schools: neither should poverty, religion, nor
race.




Inclusive education is an inevitable direction to take and must be properly

understood, appreciated, and prepared for within the context of society is
accepting of individual differences.




For a nation to be truly inclusive, one must start from a humane perspective
of disability and a transformative mindset on inclusion. Thus, the access to
inclusive education starts with an appreciation and acceptance of diversity,
reinforced by a supportive and genuinely inclusive mindset among our
general education teachers.

Competencies
This lesson aims for you to develop the following competencies:
1. The ability to create a safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive learning
environment for the student with additional needs;
2. The ability to use your knowledge of general and specialized curricula to
individualize learning for students with additional needs; and

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

3. The ability to demonstrate reflective thinking and professional self-direction.

I. MODELS OF DISABILITY
The concept of disability has been existent for ages. The Bible chronicles the
presence of persons who are blind and crippled who needed to be healed.
Cultural narratives like “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” and “Kampanerang
Kuba” depict disability as a source of fear and ridicule. Even Philippine history has
records of disability through the Apolinario Mabini, who was unable to walk
because of a physically impairing condition called poliomyelitis. Disability cuts
across countries, cultures, and timelines. But perhaps it is part of human nature
to react negatively to anything perceived as different or out of the ordinary.
There is often resistance, especially when people are met with situations that
they are unfamiliar with. Persons with disabilities (PWDs) are not exempted from
this type of treatment.
How PWDs were once treated is not something any nation would be proud of.
Historically, people formed opinions and reactions toward disability in a similar
pattern. It was consistent for almost every country: society first took notice of
those with physical disabilities because they immediately stood out, then they
noticed those with less apparent developmental conditions because they acted
differently. As soon as the “deviants” were “identified”

segregation, exclusion, isolation, and other forms of violence and cruelty

followed. Prior to the age of Enlightenment in the 1700s, these were common
practices highly accepted by society. Such practices, which are now considered
discriminatory and violating human rights, were evident in all aspects of the
community: living spaces, health care, education, and work.
For instance, there was a time when the status of PWDs was in question. In
earlier times, PWDs were seen as social threats capable of contaminating an
otherwise pure human species (Kisanji 1999). Therefore, as much as communities
need to be protected from them, PWDs also had to be protected from society.
Some people saw them as menaces, while others treated them as objects of
dread, pity, entertainment, or ridicule. At best, they were put on a pedestal and
perceived as Holy Innocents or eternal children who could do no wrong
(Wolfensberger 1972). At worst, they were killed or threatened or sub humans
devoid of any rights (Kisanji 1999, Wolfensberger 1972).
Sociology reminds us that human behavior must always be studied in relation to
cultural, historical, and socio-structural contexts. In fact, the best way to
understand why people think or act the way they do is by looking at what was
happening to their community at a certain point in time. Events tend to shape
one’s beliefs and values system. As such, it is important that we examine
historical highlights to appreciate man’s perspectives on disability (see Figure
2.1).

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Figure 2.1. The evolution of models of disability

Smart’s study in 2004 (as cited in Retief and Letsosa, 2018) emphasizes that models
of disability are important as they serve several purposes: (1) they provide definitions
of disability, (2) they offer “explanations of causal and responsibility attributions”, (3)
they are based on “perceived needs,” (4) they inform policy, (5) they are not “value-
neutral,” (6) they define the academic disciplines that focus on disability, (7) they
“shape the self-identity of PWDs,” and (8) they can provide insight on how prejudices
and discriminations occur. This last statement, in particular, has proven to be very
powerful in helping us see how, to a certain extent, society is unconsciously led to
respond to disability.

A. The Moral/Religious Model

The Medieval age is said to have started from AD 476, the year the Western Roman
Empire fell, and ended toward the early 1800s, eventually ushering in the
Renaissance age and Age of Discovery. This period saw the church as one of the most
influential figures in Europe. The idea of God as an all-powerful being was so strong
in man’s consciousness that it affected the way society treated PWDs at the time.
Parents who bore children with disabilities were seen from within a spectrum where
on one end, God was punishing them for a sin that needed to be atoned, and at the
other extreme, He was blessing the family by giving them a precious gift that only
they could care for. The middle ground was to see disability as a test of faith and an
opportunity to redeem oneself through endurance, resilience, and piety (Niemann
2005 as cited in Retief and Letsosa 2018).
Such perspectives are rooted in a moral or religious model of disability, which sees
disability as either a blessing or a curse. It is characterized by notions of charity and
caretaking. However, Jackson (2018) adds that protection is also a primary concern as
there is an instinct to protect both persons with disabilities for their vulnerability and
the economic and social order which might be disrupted by “deviant members” of
society. It is considered the oldest model of disability and is evident in many religious
traditions. For instance, biblical scripture would refer to persons with chronic
illnesses like leprosy as unclean, while those considered demonically possessed may

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

actually have had mental illnesses (McClure 2007 as cited in Retief and Letsosa 2018)
or seizure disorders. In one strand of the moral/religious model, disability is equated
with the sin, evilness, or spiritual ineptness of either the PWD or of a PWD’s family
member. Such a belief can then cause not just the PWD’s isolation but also the
exclusion of the entire family unit from communal events (Rimmerman 2013 as cited
in Retief and Letsosa 2018). On the other hand, for those who view disability as a
blessing, disability either becomes one’s ticket to heaven or an opportunity toward
character development.
In addition, some cultures who ascribe to a moral/religious model of disability may
also lean toward a type of mystical narrative. Their belief is that disabilities may
impair some sense yet heighten others, thereby” granting him or her ‘special abilities
to perceive, reflect, transcend, be spiritual” (Olkin 1999 as cited in Retief and Letsosa
2018).
For the most part, the core response to this model was the establishment of
segregated institutions where PWDs could be kept. In the United States, United
Kingdom, and Australia, asylums for the “mentally ill, retardates, degenerates, and
defectives” were built (Jackson 2018). Segregated residential schools and
workhouses with dormitories located miles away from town centers were also
erected.
Although the moral/religious model is not as dominant now as it used to be during
Medieval times, the perspective is still reflected in some places where religion plays a
huge influence on daily life.
B. The Biomedical/Individual Model
Historians and scientists alike consider the Copernican Revolution, that is, the
discovery of Nicolaus Copernicus that the center of the universe was the sun and not
the earth, is one of the most controversial yet significant discoveries of all time. It
was revolutionary and bold because it dared to contradict the Bible as well as then-
considered fundamental truths. But it was a breakthrough that triggered major
changes in the fields of science, philosophy, theology, and education. Most evident
was its contribution to scientific and technological advancements. What was not as
apparent was how it paved the way for people to also shift mindsets from a religious

perspective to a more evidence-based model of disability called the biomedical

(medical) model. Here, PWDs are seen as persons who are ill and meant to be
treated or “made more normal.” Olkin (1999 as cited in Retief & Letsosa 2018: 2-3)
wrote:
“Disability is seen as a medical problem that resides in the individual. It is a defect in
or failure of a bodily system and as such, is inherently abnormal and pathological.
The goals of the intervention are the cure, amelioration of the physical condition to
the greatest extent possible, and rehabilitation (i.e., the adjustment of the person
with the disability to the condition and to the environment). Persons with disabilities
are expected to avail themselves of the variety of services offered to them and to

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

spend time in the role of patient or learner being helped by trained professionals”
(p.26).
Whereas a moral/religious perspective sees disability as something permanent, the
biomedical (medical) model considers disability as a “glitch” the PWD is born into,
which needs assessment and fixing. While Oliver (1990) refers to the model as the
individual model, Nankervis, 2006 as cited in Jackson, 2018, p.3 describes it to be a
normative model based on a person’s levels of deficiency “compared to a normative
state” (Jackson 2018). Such a perspective pushes forth the idea that PWDs have
problems. It also reinforces the notion that those “without disabilities” (i.e., the able-
bodied or typically developing) are superior to those with disabilities, and that they
have primary responsibility for the welfare of the disabled. Most interventions are
thus devoted to making sure that the PWD catches up with his or her peers-a
practice that is very much ingrained in society to this day (see Figure 2.2).
THE MEDICAL MODEL OF DISABILITY

Figure 2.2. The Medical Model of Disability. Reprinted from Taxi Driver
Training Pack, n.d., Retrieved from http://www.ddsg.org.uk/taxi/medical-model.
Html. copyright 2003 by Democracy Disability and Society Group.
It was during the 5 century when more schools for PWDs started to emerge
th

in Europe. These first special schools were built by private philanthropic institutions.
Although they initially catered only to those with sensory impairments such as
deafness and blindness, other schools soon started accepting other disability types
into their student roster. Interestingly, the curriculum for such educational
institutions was different from that of public schools (Kisanji 1999). In special schools,
the main focus was on building the vocational skills of student-a clear sign that the
biomedical model sees PWDs as different from the majority. The idea if

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

institutionalizing or bringing PWDs to asylums or hospitals for custodial care when

they have too difficult to manage also reached its peak with the reinforcement of the
biomedical model (Jackson, 2018; Pritchard, 1960 and Bender, 1970 as cited in
Kisanji, 1999)

C. The Functional/Rehabilitation Model

The scientific breakthroughs experienced from the time of Copernicus up until the
early 1900s brought about changes in all aspects of life, including warfare and the
concept of power. When World War I happened, communities witnessed perfectly
healthy people leave to serve the country only to come back disabled physically,
neurologically, or mentally. It was then that people started to realize that not all
disabilities are inborn. Physical and Occupational Therapies soon became prevalent
modes of rehabilitation for much of the service-related injuries the soldiers sustained
(Shaik & Shemjaz 2014) (National Rehabilitation Information Center, 2018).
The Functional/rehabilitation model is quite similar to the biomedical model in that
it sees the PWD as having deficits. These deficits then justify the need to undergo
rehabilitative intervention such as therapies, counseling, and the like with the aim of
reintegrating the disabled into society. The main difference between the two models
is in the concept of habilitation and rehabilitation. The biomedical model often
suggests habilitation, which refers to help given to those whose disabilities are
congenital or manifested very early in life in order to maximize function. On the
other hand, the functional/rehabilitation model refers to the assistance given by
professionals to those who have an acquired disability in the hope of gaining back
one’s functionality.
The biomedical and rehabilitative models, together with the dawn of clinic-based
assessments in the 1950s and its proliferation during the 1960s onward, show how
much society has placed value on convention, performance, and achievement.
Anyone whose performance does not fall within the norm of a population is
automatically deemed different and deficient. In living spaces, such persons were
shunned by society. In educational settings, such students were advised to transfer
schools for a more specialized type of education (Clough in clough & Corbett 2000).
In workplaces, they were segregated or refused opportunities. Either way, both
models constantly put the PWD at a disadvantage. They become easy targets for pity
or recipients of charitable work. Moreover, both promote an expert-client type of
relationship between the “non-disabled” and the “disabled,” Where the PWD is
automatically perceived as inferior. At the very least, this relational exchange benefits
the client as the expert can help improve his or her state. However, at the extreme,
this collaboration “undermines the client’s dignity by removing the ability to
participate in the simplest, everyday decisions affecting his or her life” (Jean 2012).
D. The social Model

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

What we need to understand about models and frameworks is that they have a
strong yet subtle way of influencing a person’s beliefs, behaviors, and values systems.
For example, a Filipino born and raised in the United States who comes to the
Philippines would most likely act more American than Filipino, not because he resists
his roots but because of his exposure to Americans, not Filipinos. He may not have
been raised this way intentionally but constant interaction with others of a particular
culture can strongly influence a person’s way of life.
Clough (Clough & Corbett 2000) points out that the social (sociological) model
becomes society’s reaction to how the biomedical perspective viewed disability. In
fact, Mike Oliver, a lecturer in the 1980s who coined the term “social model” and is
considered one of its main proponents, wrote a position paper directly reacting
against how the medical field has been reinforcing a disabling view of PWDs.
According to the sociological response, disability occurs as a result of society’s lack of
understanding of individual differences. PWDs are seen as disabled not because they
are deficient but because society “insists” they are deficient and disadvantaged.
Norms, after all, are determined by society. Professor David Pfeiffer challenges the
concept of norms:

“It depends upon the concept of normal. That is, being a person with a
disability that limits my mobility means that I do not move about in a (so-called)
normal way. But what is the normal way to cover a mile…? Some people would walk.
Some people would ride a bicycle or a bus or in a taxi or their own car. Others would
use a skateboard or in-line rollerblades. Some people use wheelchairs. There is, I
argue, no normal way to travel a mile.” (Kaplan 2000: 355).
The underlying principle of the social model of disability is that disability is a social
construct, where standards and limitations that society places on specific groups of
people are what disable a person. With this perspective, everything from
government laws to education to employment opportunities to access to communal
facilities takes on a different meaning. For instance, Mara, a person with paraplegia
(a condition that causes impaired functioning of the legs) who uses a motorized
wheelchair, should be able to go around on her own. The mayor in her town put up
an elevator by the footbridge to help people get to the top easily without having to
climb up the stairs. Although there are facilities in the footbridge to get her from one
side of the highway to the other, she wonders how she could get to the footbridge
from her house. Public transportation, unfortunately, is not accessible for her home.
And even if it were, none of the transports would be able to take a wheelchair. Jana,
on the other hand, also has paraplegia but lives in a neighboring town as Mara’s,
where the local government provides shuttles for those with physical disabilities. She
has a wheelchair herself, though it is not motorized. Despite this, Jana is able to go
around by herself because her town provides continuous access from one point to
the next. This example shows that what is truly disabling is not the physical condition
the way the medical model would adhere to, but the lack of opportunities and
restrictions given to a person, as the social model would push for (see Figure 2.3).

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Figure 2.3. The Social Model of Disability. Reprinted from Taxi Driver Training Pack,
n.d., Retrieved from http://www.ddsg.org.uk/taxi/social-model.html. Copyright 2003
by Democracy Disability and Society Group.

The World Health Organization (1980) differentiates between disability and

impairment. Impairment is seen as “any loss or abnormality of a psychological or
anatomical structure or function” while disability refers to “any restriction or lack
(resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or
within the range considered normal for a human being”. Most people seem to
confuse the two terms, most of the time equating them to each other. The social
model, however, reiterates that impairment should be seen as a normal aspect of
life, and when it happens, it should not cause a stir. Instead, society must plan in
anticipation of possible impairment occurrences so as not to disable anyone. Kaplan
(2000) agrees that if disability were to be seen as something natural and expected, it
could change the way we design our systems and our environments. Wendell (1996)
as cited in Kaplan 2000: 356) relates:
“The cultural habit of regarding the condition of the person, not the built
environment or the social organization of activities, as the source of the problem,
runs deep. For example, it took me several years of struggling with the heavy door to
my building, sometimes having to wait until a person stronger came along, to realize
that the door was an accessibility problem, not only for me but for others as well.
And I did not notice, until one of my students pointed it out, that the lack of signs
that could be read from a distance at my university forced people with mobility
impairments to expend a lot of energy unnecessarily, searching for rooms and
offices. Although I have encountered this difficulty myself on days when walking was
exhausting to me, I interpreted it, automatically, as a problem arising from my illness
(as I did with the door), rather than as a problem arising from the built environment
having been created for too narrow a range of people and situations.”
E. Rights-Based Model and Twin Track Approach
The rights-based model of disability is a framework that bears similarities with the
social model. Although most practitioners see the two as one and the same, Degener
(2017 in the Retief & Letsosa 2018) argues their nuances. While the social model
reiterates social factors and dynamics that form our perceptions of disability, the

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

rights-based model “moves beyond explanation, offering a theoretical framework for

a disability policy that emphasizes the human dignity of PWDs” (Degener 2017:43). It
immediately recognizes the PWDs’ vulnerability and tries to address this by
upholding and safeguarding their identities and rights as a human being. Moreover,
while “the social model is mostly critical of public health policies that advocate the
prevention of impairment, the human rights model recognizes the fact that properly
formulated prevention policy may be regarded as an instance of human rights
protection for PWDs” (Degener 2017: 52)
A rights-based approach to education ensures that all energies are devoted to the
realization of each learner’s right to education. It is built on the principle that
education is a basic human right and therefore all must have access to it. There are
four key actors directly involved in such a model: (1) the government as duty-bearers,
(2) the child as the rights-holder, (3) the parents not only as duty-bearers but also as
representatives of the child, and (4) the teachers, both as rights-holders and duty-
bearers (Van den Brule-Balescut & Sandkull 2005).
At best, lobbyists and practitioners now promote a twin-track approach, which
combines the social model and the rights-based model. A marrying of the two
perspectives allows for holistic changes to occur, with the option of promoting
individual needs whenever necessary. For instance, in education, this would mean
allowing a PWD to join the mainstream, yet be given opportunities for disability-
specific programs in case additional support is needed (Chassy & Josa 2018)

II. WHAT IS SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION?

Merriam-Webster Online (n.d.) defines education as “the action or process of
teaching someone especially in a school, college or university”. People typically go
through this teaching-learning process following a particular sequence. First, they are
educated at home by their parents; then they go through preschool, which prepares
them for a more formal, systematic, and rigorous type of learning. In elementary,
secondary, and tertiary school, people attempt to understand the world through
various subjects and different types of knowledge through typically singular teaching
strategies. Most graduates become part of the workforce while others choose to go
beyond tertiary education and pursue higher academic degrees. Although there are
countless schools and universities in every country, the education process pretty
much stays the same for everyone because the goal remains the same as well.
According to Prensky (2014), “the real goal of education is becoming a ‘good person’
and becoming a more capable person than when you started.” William Butler Yeats,
in the meantime, has said that “education is not filling with a pail, but the lighting of
a fire” (Littky & Grabelle 2004). Either way, the importance of lifelong learning cannot
be emphasized enough. Education plays a fundamental role in a human’s personal
and social development, given that the man is both an individual and a social being;
one simply cannot think of the human outside the context of a community. It is
presumably because of education that the world now faces problems such as

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

poverty, oppression, and war. Yet, it is also through education that all these problems
are expected to be addressed (Delors 1996). Through the pillars of education that the
International Commission on Education for the 21 Century, 1996 as cited in Delors,
st

1996. Espouses, we are taught that education has to address four aspects of learning:
Learning in order to know, learning in order to do, learning so we can live
harmoniously with others, and learning in order to be. Additionally, for the goals of
education to be realized, education itself has to be available and accessible to all.
In this totality, the vision of education for humanity is noble and appropriate.
However, for any given population, statistical data shows that people possess
different aptitude and skill levels depending on standards or expectations that
society ultimately dictates and holds as true. This is what Clough refers to as a
“pathology of difference” (Clough & Corbett 2000). A normal distribution showing
student performance would illustrate that there will always be those performing
closely with each other-what statisticians and educators call the average population-
but there will also always be those who fall at the tail ends of the curve. Those at the
extremes would either possess exceptionally high capabilities or extremely low skill
levels. Sometimes, this is because of a medical, developmental, or neurological
disability that a learner has. Other times, it is because they just happen to be among
highly exceptional people. Either way, the fact remains: teaching strategies that
normally work with the average population will not work the same with those at the
extremes. The students would not be able to learn as fast, as much, and as well as
most. With scenarios like these, one eventually would have to wonder-how does
education addresses this reality? This then becomes the very definition of Special
Education.
Historically, Special Education has been regarded as “an attempt to increase the
fairness of universal public education for exceptional learners” because there are
“those with special difficulties or extraordinary abilities in learning” (Kauffman &
Hallahan 2005). Acknowledging learner differences, the essence of special education
lies in its goal to educate a certain population of students, particularly those at the
tail ends of a normal statistical distribution of performance (Thomas & Loxley 2001)
(see Figure 2.4). In other words, special education tries to ensure that those
perceived to have difficulties learning will be taught, albeit in a different way.

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Figure 2.4. The normal distribution of intelligence

Not everyone reacts to learner diversity the same way. Unfortunately, the default
framework societies seem to operate on remains to be the medical model. As such,
simply asking people to take on a more sociological standpoint appears much more
difficult than it seems. It is unclear as to how society is expected to shift paradigms.
Moreover, it is questionable if we can even reach that point given the discomfort and
resistance others have shown against the social model. It has long been regarded
that the key to nation-building is quality education accessible to all types of learners.
This accessibility is the essence of inclusive education.
III. WHY INCLUSION?
Inclusive education is an educational practice that places students with disabilities
in the general education classroom along with typically developing children under
the supervision and guidance of a general education teacher (Del Corro-tiangco
2014). It takes root in special needs education and is anchored on the philosophy
that every child has an inherent right to be educated equally with his peers, no
matter how different he or she may appear to society.
The global arena has been consistently vocal in its stand on children, persons with
disabilities, and education. In as early as 1948, there have already been worldwide
declarations on children and their right to be educated (Universal Declaration of
Human Rights 1948: United Nations Convention on the rights of the child 1989). In
1990, many countries banded together for the word declaration of education for All
(EFA), which stated that all children must have access to complete, free, and
compulsory primary education.
Soon after, the UN Started Rules on the Equalization of opportunities for persons
with Disabilities (1993) was created. It is in this standard set of rules that each child’s
right to education was affirmed. It is also in this directive that the importance of
providing education in integrated and general school settings was first specified. This

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

mandate was immediately followed by the landmark policy on special education, The
Salamanca Statement, and Framework for Action on special needs education (1994),
which reiterated that schools should accommodate all children, including the
disabled, the gifted, and the marginalized.

These groundbreaking directives eventually formed the foundation for other

initiatives: The World Education Forum Framework for Action and the Millennium
Summit of the United Nation, both of which happened in 2000; the EFA Flagship on
the Right to Education for PWDs in 2001; the UN Disability Convention in 2005; the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006; and the Education
2030 framework for Action following the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
All of these were created with the same goal in mind: Inclusion.
The guidelines for Inclusion (2005) published by UNESCO enumerates four key
elements: (1) that inclusion is a process, that is, “a never-ending search to find better
ways to respond to diversity,” (2) that inclusion involves a preventive dimension,
specifically in identifying and removing potential barriers to this process through
“collecting, collating, and evaluating information” for improving policy and practice,
(3) that inclusion is all about the “presence, participation, and achievement” or
learning outcomes of all types of students; and (4) that inclusion puts “particular
emphasis on learners who may be at risk of marginalization, exclusion, or
underachievement,” and therefore, they must be consistently monitored and
represented in the inclusive process. Figure 2.5 enumerates factors that are distinctly
inclusive (Booth and Ainscow 2002).

Figure 2.5. Inclusive Education practices by Booth and Ainscow (2002:3).

IV. THE 2030 AGENDA

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

The goal of inclusion is for every fabric of society to embrace diversity. It is for this
reason that all these treatises state the need for a paradigm shift to address the issue
of inclusion in education. Inclusive education is not merely a call toward educational
reform for those with additional needs. It is simply a call to improve the quality of
education for all learners, because “every learner matters and matters equally”
(UNESCO 2017:12, 2005). This is also reflected in the current framework being
followed for the implementation of inclusive practices, which is the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).

The SDGs are considered road maps or blueprints that were developed by the United
Nations to ensure a better and sustainable future for everyone. It consists of 17
global goals set by the United Nations for the year 2030, each addressing one specific
area of development. Of particular interest to the global education community,
however, is SDG 4: “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote
lifelong learning opportunities for all” (United Nations General Assembly). Therefore,
the need to remove all barriers to inclusion by addressing all forms of exclusion and
marginalization is of importance.

REFERENCES
Chassy, C. & Josa, J. (2018). “Approaching Disability: Social & Rights-based Models.
Retrieved from https://www.edu-link.org/learning/approaching-disability-social-
rights-based-models
Clough, P. & Corbett, J. (2000). Theories of Inclusive Education. A students’ Guide.
Bonhill Street, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Del Corro-tiangco (2014). “General and Special Education Teachers.” Education

Quarterly. Retrieved, from
http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/edq/article/viewFile/4471/4048.
Delors, J. (1996). Education: The Necessary Utopia. Learning: The Treasure Within. A
Report to the UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-
first Century. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing
De Torres, M. S. (2008). “One Hundred Years of Special Education in the Philippines,
1907-2007.” (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of the Philippines, Diliman,
Quezon City.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/education
https://naricspotlight.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/occupational-theraphy-a-brief-
history/
Jackson, M. A. (2018). Models of disability and human rights: informing the
improvement of built environment accessibility for people with disability at
neighborhood scale? Laws, 7(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws7010010
Jean, P. (2012). “Exploring models of disabilities!” Retrieved from
https://androgena.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/exploring-models-of-disabilities/
Kaplan, D. (2000). “The definition of disability: Perspective of the disability
community.” 3 J. Health Care L. & Poly 352. Retrieved from
htpp://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jhclp/vol3/iss2/5
Kauffman, J.M. & Hallahan, D.P. (2005). Special Education. What It Is and Why We
Need It. Pearson Education, Inc: Boston, Massachusetts.
Kisanji, J. (1999). “Historical and theoretical basis of inclusive education.” Proceeding
of the Workshop on Inclusive Education in Namibia: The Challenge for Teacher
Education. Rossing Foundation, Khomasdal, Windhoek, Namibia.
Littky, D.& Grabelle, S. (2004). “Big Picture.” Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/104438/chapters/The-Real-Goals-of-
Education.aspx
Oliver, M. (1990). “The Individual and Social Models of Disability.” Proceedings of the
Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the Royal
College of Physicians on people With Established Locomotor Disabilities in Hospitals.
Retrieved from http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/Oliver-in-soc-dis.pdf.
Pangalangan, R. & Litong, G., eds. (2014). A manual for PWD rights advocates. Access
to justice of persons with disabilities in the Philippines, Vol. I.
Pangalangan, R. & Litong, G., eds. (2014). The state duty to fulfill and provide an
effective remedy. Access to justice of persons with disabilities in the Philippines, Vol.
II.

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|28160259

Prensky, M. (2014). “The Goal of Education is Becoming.” Education Week, v33, n30.
36 & 40. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/06/30prensky_ep.h33.html.
Retief, M. & Letsosa, R (2018). “Models of disability: a brief overview.” HTS
Theologies Studies/Theological Studies 74(1), a4738. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i1.4738
Shaik, A.R. and Shemjaz, A.M. (2014) “The rise of physical therapy: a history in
footsteps.” Arch Med Health Sci; 2:257-60.
Thomas, G. and Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing
Inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.
UN General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for Sustainable
Development, (2015). A/RES/70/1. Retrieved from
https://www.sustainabledevelopment.org
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2005). Guidelines
for inclusion: ensuring access to education for all. Paris, France: UNESCO.
UN World Health Organization (WHO). (2011). World Report on Disability: Summary,
WHO/NMH/VIP/11.01. Retrieved from
https://www.refworld.org/docid/50854a322.html
Van den Brule-Balescut, J. & Sandkull, O. (2005). “Putting the convention into
practice: ensuring education for all. The rights-based approach to education
programming.” Proceeding of the 6 Ad Hoc Committee Session, UN HQ, New YORK.
th

Retrieved from https://slideplayer.com/slide/5883978/

Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: The principle of normalization in human
services. Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
WorldHealthOrganization. (1980). InternationalClassificationofImpairmaents,
Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences
of Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization. Published in accordance with
resolution WHA 29.35 of the 29 World Health Assembly, May 1976.
th

Downloaded by Mario Jr Granada ([email protected])