ADDRESSING DIVERSITY THROUGH THE YEARS: SPECIAL AND
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter shall allow you to look at Special Needs and Inclusive Education
from historical and philosophical context. 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 expectation.
Below are the key points to summarize this chapter.
Everyone has a right to education. Having a disability should not be an excuse
for being deprived 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 being
accepted of individual differences.
For a nation to be truly inclusive, one must start from a human perspective of
disability and a transformative mindset in inclusion. Thus the success of
inclusive education starts with an appreciation and acceptance of diversity,
reinforced by a supportive and genuinely inclusive mind-set among our
general education teachers.
COMPETENCIES
This chapter aims for you to develop the following competencies:
1. the ability to create a safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive learning
environment for students with additional needs;
2. the ability to use your knowledge of general and specialized curricula to
individualize learning for students with additional need; and
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 present of persons who are blind and crippled who needed to be healed.
Cultural narrative like ‘’The Hunchback of Notre Dame’’ and ‘’Kampanerang Kuba’’
depict disability as a source of fear and ridiculed.
Even Philippine History has records of disability through the Apolinario Mabini, who
was UNable to walk because of a physical impairing condition called poliomyelitis.
Clearly, disability cuts across countries, cultures, and timeline. 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 (PWD) 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 Ages of Enlightenment in the
1700’s, these were common practices highly accepted by society. Such practices,
which are now considered discriminatory and violating of human rights, were evident
in all aspects of community: living spaces, health care, education, and work.
For instance, there was a time when the status of PWD 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 needed 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 treated as subhumans devoid of any rights (Kisanji 1999, Wolfgangberger
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.
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 ‘’explanation 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,’’ (8) they can provide insight on how prejudices
and discriminations occur. This last statement , in particular, has proven to be very
powerful in helping see how, to a certain extent, society is unconsciously led to
respond to disability.
1. 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 1800’s, 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 that
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
that 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
disabilities as either a blessing or 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 illness like leprosy unclean, while those considered demonically possessed
may 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.
For the most part, the core response to this model was the establishing of segregated
institutions where PWD could be kept. In the United States, United Kingdom, and
Australia, asylums for the ‘’mentally ill, retardants, 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
the Medieval times, the perspective is still reflected in some places where religion
plays a huge influence on daily life.
2. 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 field of science, philosophy, theology, and education.
Most evident was its contribution to scientific and technological advancement.
What was not as apparent was how it paved the way for people to also shift mind-sets
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 and Letsosa
2018: 2-3) wrote:
‘’Disability is seen as a medical problem that resides in the individual. It is
defect in or failure of a bodily system and as such, is inherently abnormal and
pathological. The goals of intervention are cure, amelioration of the physical
condition to the greatest extent possible, and rehabilitation (i.e., the adjustment of the
person with 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 spend time in the role of patient or learner being helped by trained
professionals’’ (p. 26).
Whereas the 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.
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 this day.
It was during the 15th century when more schools for PWDs started to emerge
in Europe. These first special schools were built by private philanthropic institutions.
Although they initially catered to those with sensory impairments such as deafness
and blindness, other school 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 for students – a clear sign that the biomedical
model sees PWDs as different from majority.
3. 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) (Nationa 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 in 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.
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 PWDs 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).
4. The Social Model
What we need to understand about models and frameworks is that they
have a strong yet subtle way of influencing a person’s belief, behavior, and values
system. 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 became 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 difference. PWDs are seen as disabled not because
they are not 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 which 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 roller blades. 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
contract, 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 take
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 foot
bridge to help people get to the top easily without having to climb up the stairs.
Although there are facilities in the Foot bridge to get her from one side of the highway
to the other, she wonders how she could get to the foot bridge from her house. Public
transportation, unfortunately, is not accessible from 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).
The World Health Organization (1980) differentiates between disability and
impairment. Impairment is seen as ''any loss or abnormality of 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.
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.
5. Rights-based Model and Twin Track Approach
The right – based model of disability is a framework that bears similarities
with the social model. 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 factors directly involve in such a model: (1) the government as
duty-bearers, (2) the child as the right-holders, (3) the parents not only not only as
duty-bearers but also as representative of the child, (4) the teachers, both as rights-
holders and duty-bearers (Van den Brule-Balescut and 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 opinion 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 program in case additional support is needed (Chassy & Josa 2018).
