How then do we move forward?

Here are essential guiding principles:

Everyone has a right to education. Disability must never be a reason for denying
someone access to learning. The same is true for poverty, religion, or race—none of
these should be barriers to schooling.
Inclusive education is the way forward. It must be clearly understood, deeply
appreciated, and carefully prepared for, with society embracing individual differences.
True inclusivity begins with humanity. A humane perspective on disability and a
transformative mindset on inclusion are the foundations of an inclusive nation.
The success of inclusive education starts with the appreciation and acceptance of
diversity, supported by a genuinely inclusive mindset among our general education
teachers.
By the end of this chapter, you should be able
to develop the following competencies:
The ability to create a safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive
learning environment for students with additional needs.
The ability to use your knowledge of both general and specialized
curricula to individualize learning for students with additional
needs.
The ability to demonstrate reflective thinking and professional self-
direction in teaching practice.
I. MODELS OF DISABILITY
The concept of disability has existed for centuries. The Bible itself records the presence
of people who were blind or crippled, seeking healing. Cultural narratives such as The
Hunchback of Notre Dame and Kampanerang Kuba portrayed disability as something
feared or ridiculed. Even in Philippine history, Apolinario Mabini—known as the “Brains
of the Revolution”—lived with a physical impairment caused by poliomyelitis.

Disability, therefore, cuts across countries, cultures, and timelines. Unfortunately, human
nature has often reacted negatively toward anything perceived as “different” or “out of
the ordinary.” Persons with disabilities (PWDs) have long experienced resistance,
prejudice, and mistreatment simply because they were unfamiliar to the majority.
I. MODELS OF DISABILITY
Historically, societies formed similar patterns in their treatment of disability. The first to be
noticed were those with visible physical impairments, followed by individuals with less
apparent developmental conditions who behaved differently. Once labeled as “deviants,” they
were often subjected to segregation, exclusion, isolation, and, in some cases, outright cruelty.

Before the Age of Enlightenment in the 1700s, such practices were considered normal and
acceptable. Discrimination was evident in all aspects of community life—housing, health care,
education, and employment.

In earlier times, PWDs were sometimes regarded as threats to the “purity” of the human race
(Kisanji, 1999). They could be feared as menaces or reduced to objects of pity, entertainment,
or ridicule. At best, they were idealized as “Holy Innocents” who could do no wrong
(Wolfensberger, 1972). At worst, they were killed or treated as less than human, denied any
rights or dignity.
I. MODELS OF DISABILITY
Sociology teaches us that human behavior must always be examined within its
cultural, historical, and social contexts. The way people think or act toward others
often reflects the events and circumstances surrounding their community at a
particular time.

Beliefs and value systems are not formed in isolation—they are shaped by history.
Therefore, understanding the historical treatment of PWDs allows us to better
appreciate how perspectives on disability have evolved, and why society must move
toward genuine respect, equality, and inclusion. (see figure 2.1)
I. MODELS OF DISABILITY
I. MODELS OF DISABILITY
Smart’s study in 2004 (as cited in Retief & Letsosa, 2018) highlights the
importance of models of disability, noting that they serve several key purposes:
[Link] definitions of disability.
[Link] explanations of causal and responsibility attributions.
[Link] based on perceived needs.
[Link] policy decisions.
[Link] not value-neutral, reflecting underlying beliefs and biases.
[Link] academic disciplines that focus on disability.
[Link] the self-identity of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs).
[Link] insight into how prejudice and discrimination occur.
A. THE MORAL/RELIGIOUS MODEL
The Medieval Age, spanning from AD 476 to the early 1800s, was a period when
the Church held immense influence in Europe. The belief in God as an all-powerful
being shaped how society viewed and treated persons with disabilities (PWDs).
Children born with disabilities were seen along a spectrum of interpretations:
At one extreme, a punishment from God for sins needing atonement.
At the other, a blessing from God, entrusted to the family’s special care.
In between, disability was a test of faith—an opportunity to show endurance,
resilience, and piety (Niemann, 2005).
This reflects the moral/religious model of disability, where disability is either a
blessing or a curse, often tied to charity, caretaking, and protection.
A. THE MORAL/RELIGIOUS MODEL
The moral/religious model is considered the oldest model of disability, present in
many religious traditions. Examples include:
Biblical scriptures referring to those with leprosy as “unclean.”
Individuals labeled as demonically possessed who may have had mental
illnesses or seizure disorders (McClure, 2007).
In one interpretation, disability is linked to sin or moral failing—either of the PWD or
their family—leading to social isolation for the individual and, sometimes, their entire
family.
Conversely, viewing disability as a blessing could lead to beliefs that it:
Ensures spiritual reward or “ticket to heaven.”
Develops moral strength and character.
Grants “special abilities” in perception, reflection, or spirituality (Olkin, 1999).
A. THE MORAL/RELIGIOUS MODEL
Historically, this model often resulted in segregation:
Asylums for the “mentally ill, retardates, degenerates, and defectives” in the US,
UK, and Australia (Jackson, 2018).
Segregated residential schools and workhouses, often far from towns.
While the moral/religious model is less dominant today, it still exists in societies
where religion strongly influences daily life. It remains a reminder of how deeply
cultural and spiritual beliefs can shape our treatment of PWDs—sometimes with
compassion, but also with exclusion.
B. THE BIOMEDICAL/INDIVIDUAL MODEL
The Copernican Revolution—Nicolaus Copernicus’ discovery that the sun, not the
Earth, is the center of the universe—was groundbreaking. It challenged the Bible and
long-held beliefs, opening the way for scientific and technological advancements.
Less visible, but equally significant, was how this shift encouraged people to move
from a religious perspective to an evidence-based model of disability—the
biomedical (medical) model.
In this view, Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) are seen as:
Individuals who are ill or have a bodily defect.
In need of treatment, cure, or rehabilitation.
“Patients” or “learners” receiving help from trained professionals (Olkin, 1999).
B. THE BIOMEDICAL/INDIVIDUAL MODEL
The biomedical model contrasts with the moral/religious model by seeing disability
not as permanent, but as a “glitch” that requires assessment and fixing.
Key characteristics:
Focuses on a normative standard—comparing the PWD’s condition to what is
“normal” (Nankervis, 2006).
Views PWDs as having problems that need correction.
Reinforces the idea that able-bodied individuals are superior and bear primary
responsibility for the disabled.
Interventions aim to help the PWD catch up with peers—an approach still
common in society today.
While this model has advanced rehabilitation and medical support, it has also
perpetuated hierarchical thinking between the “abled” and “disabled.”
B. THE BIOMEDICAL/INDIVIDUAL MODEL
B. THE BIOMEDICAL/INDIVIDUAL MODEL
By the 15th century, more schools for PWDs began to appear in Europe—initially
built by private philanthropic institutions.
The earliest schools served students with sensory impairments such as deafness
and blindness.
Over time, they expanded to include other disability types.
Their curriculum differed from that of public schools, focusing mainly on
vocational skills—reflecting the biomedical model’s view of PWDs as “different”
from the majority (Kisanji, 1999).
B. THE BIOMEDICAL/INDIVIDUAL MODEL
The biomedical model also fueled the institutionalization of PWDs:
Placement in asylums or hospitals for custodial care became common when
individuals were considered “too difficult to manage.”
This period marked the peak of segregating PWDs from mainstream society
(Jackson, 2018; Pritchard, 1960; Bender, 1970).
While these institutions often provided care and training, they also reinforced the
separation of PWDs from the community, limiting opportunities for integration and
equality.
C. THE FUNCTIONAL/REHABILITATIONAL MODEL
Scientific advancements from the time of Copernicus up to the early 1900s
transformed many aspects of life, including warfare.
During World War I, communities saw healthy soldiers return with physical,
neurological, or mental disabilities. This led to the realization that not all disabilities
are inborn.
Physical and Occupational Therapies emerged as key rehabilitation methods for
service-related injuries (Shaik & Shemjaz, 2014; National Rehabilitation
Information Center, 2018).
The functional/rehabilitation model views PWDs as having deficits that require
therapies, counseling, and interventions to reintegrate them into society.
C. THE FUNCTIONAL/REHABILITATIONAL MODEL
The difference between the biomedical and functional/rehabilitation models lies in:
Habilitation (biomedical model): Support for congenital or early-onset
disabilities to maximize function.
Rehabilitation (functional model): Assistance for acquired disabilities with the
goal of regaining lost functionality.
From the 1950s onward, clinic-based assessments reinforced society’s focus on
convention, performance, and achievement. Those who did not meet population
“norms” were often:
Shunned in communities.
Advised to transfer to special schools.
Segregated or denied work opportunities.
C. THE FUNCTIONAL/REHABILITATIONAL MODEL
While these models aimed to help, they also placed PWDs at a disadvantage:
Encouraged pity or dependence on charity.
Promoted an expert-client relationship where the PWD was automatically seen
as inferior.
At best, this allowed experts to improve a client’s condition.
At worst, it undermined dignity—removing the PWD’s ability to make even simple,
everyday decisions (Jean, 2012).
These patterns highlight the need for a shift toward approaches that respect
autonomy and empower individuals rather than reinforcing dependency.
D. THE SOCIAL MODEL
Models and frameworks subtly influence our beliefs, behaviors, and values—
much like cultural immersion shapes identity.
Developed as a reaction to the biomedical model (Clough & Corbett, 2000).
Mike Oliver (1980s) coined the term social model—arguing that the medical
field reinforced a disabling view of PWDs.
Core belief: PWDs are not disabled by their impairments, but by society’s
insistence that they are deficient.
D. THE SOCIAL MODEL
Challenging “Normal” (Pfeiffer, in Kaplan 2000)
“What is the normal way to travel a mile?”
Walk, ride a bike, take a bus, drive a car, skateboard, rollerblade, or
use a wheelchair.
There is no single ‘normal’—only different ways of doing the same task.
D. THE SOCIAL MODEL
Disability as a Social Construct
Society’s standards and limitations—not the impairment itself—disable people.
Access to education, employment, laws, and facilities must be inclusive.

Example:
Mara (motorized wheelchair) can use a footbridge elevator—but can’t reach it
due to inaccessible transportation.
Jana (manual wheelchair) has accessible public shuttles and continuous
pathways—can travel independently.
D. THE SOCIAL MODEL
D. THE SOCIAL MODEL
Impairment vs. Disability – WHO (1980)
Impairment: Loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or
anatomical structure/function.
Disability: Restriction or lack (from an impairment) in performing an
activity within the “normal” range.
Common confusion: People often treat them as identical.
D. THE SOCIAL MODEL
Social Model Perspective
Impairment = a normal part of life; should not cause disruption.
Society should plan for impairments in advance to prevent disabling
barriers.
Kaplan (2000): Seeing disability as natural changes how we design
systems and environments.
D. THE SOCIAL MODEL
Wendell’s Insight (1996)
Problem is often misattributed to the person’s condition instead of the
environment.
Examples:
→
Heavy building door seen as personal weakness, not an
accessibility flaw.
→
Poor signage at university seen as personal mobility issue, not
design oversight.
Root issue: Environments are built for a narrow range of people and
situations.
AND
E. RIGHTS-BASED MODEL AND TWIN TRACK APPROACH
RIGHTS-BASED MODEL
Moves beyond explanation of disability, offering a framework for
policy rooted in human dignity.
Recognizes the vulnerability of persons with disabilities (PWDs) and
safeguards their rights as human beings.
Unlike the social model, it accepts that properly formulated
prevention policies can be considered human rights protection.
E. RIGHTS-BASED MODEL AND TWIN TRACK APPROACH
RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH IN EDUCATION
Education is a basic human right, and every learner must have access
to it.
A rights-based approach ensures that all efforts focus on realizing
each learner’s right to education.
Key actors include the government, child, parents, and teachers, who
share responsibilities in upholding this right.
E. RIGHTS-BASED MODEL AND TWIN TRACK APPROACH
TWIN TRACK APPROACH
Combines the social model and the rights-based model for holistic
change.
Promotes inclusion in mainstream systems while also providing
disability-specific support when needed.
In education, this means learners with disabilities can join regular
classes but still receive specialized assistance when necessary.
WHAT IS EDUCATION?
Education is the process of teaching and learning that begins at home
and continues through school and higher studies. Its ultimate goal is
personal and social development, shaping individuals to become
capable and responsible members of society. Thinkers emphasize that
education is not just about knowledge but about becoming a better
person and lifelong learning for building communities and addressing
global challenges.
WHY SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION?
While education envisions equal access for all, learners differ in aptitude,
skills, and pace. Some excel beyond the average, while others struggle
due to medical, developmental, or neurological conditions. Traditional
teaching strategies often fail to meet the needs of learners at these
extremes, creating the need for an approach that ensures fairness,
adaptability, and genuine learning opportunities for all.
ESSENCE OF SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION
Special Needs Education recognizes learner diversity and ensures that
exceptional students, whether gifted or those with learning difficulties –
receive appropriate support. It seeks to increase fairness in public
education by adjusting teaching methods and embracing inclusivity. Its
ultimate vision is to make quality education accessible to all learners,
upholding the principle that education is for everyone.
 INCLUSION IN EDUCATION INVOLVES
Valuing all students and staff equally Viewing the difference between students as
Increasing the participation of students in; and resources to support learning, rather than
reducing their exclusion from; the cultures, problems to be overcome
curricula, and communities of local schools G. Acknowledging the right of students to an
Restructuring the cultures, policies, and education in their locality
practices in schools so that they respond to the H. Improving schools for staff as well as for
diversity of students in the locality students
Reducing barriers to learning and participation I. Emphazising the role of schools in building
for all students, not only those with community and developing values, as well as in
impairments or those who are categorized as increasing achievement
'having special educational needs' J. Fostering mutually sustaining relationships
Learning from attempts to overcome barriers between schools and communities K.
to the access and participation of particular Recognizing that inclusion in education is one
students to make changes for the benefit of aspect of inclusion in society.
students more widely
"PHILIPPINE LAWS FOR PWDS" (PANGALANGAN & LITONG, 2014)

BP 344 (1983)-Accessibility Law

RA 7277 (1992) - Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
Administrative Order 35 (2002) - National Disability Prevention and
Rehabilitation (NPDR Week) every 3rd week of July
Guidelines in the Admission of Students with Disabilities in Higher
Education and Post-Secondary Institutions in the Philippines (2004)
RA 9442 (2007) - Amendment of RA 7277 (Privileges to PWDs) 20%
discount privileges to PWDs Change name from "Magna Carta for
Disabled Persons" to "Magna Carta for PWDs" Added a clause on
deliverance from public ridicule and vilification
"PHILIPPINE LAWS FOR PWDS" (PANGALANGAN & LITONG, 2014)
NCDA Administrative Order No. 001, s. 2008 - Guidelines on the Issuance of PWD ID Cards
relative to RA 9442
RA 10070 (2010) - Amendment of RA 7277 (Implementation of Programs and Services for
PWDs in every province, city, and municipality - PDAO Law)
RA 10366 (2013)-Accessible Polling Places for PWDs and Senior Citizens
Proclamation No. 688, S. 2013-Declaring the Period of 2013-2022 as the Philippine Decade
of "Make the Right Real" for PWDs
RA 10524 (2013) - Amendment of RA 7277 (Expanding the Positions Reserved for PWDs)
RA 10754 (2016) - An Act Expanding the Benefits and Privileges of PWDs
Exemption of VAT on the following sale of goods and services
Inclusion of funeral services
Civil Service Commission MC No. 20, s. 2017-express lanes for PWDs in all commercial and
government establishments
RA 11228 (2019) - Amendment of RA 7277