MODULE II: 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.

How then do we proceed from here? 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 an able 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. Events tend to shape
one’s beliefs and values system. A such, it is important that we examine historical
highlights to appreciate man’s perspectives on disability (see figure 2.1)

12

Moral / Religious Model Functional / Rehabilitation

Model

[Medieval Times / Age of [Medieval Times / Age of

Discovery] Discovery]

1500 – 1600 1970s onward

5 th to 8th Century Early 1900 – 1970s

[Coppernican / Scientific [Post-Modern Times]

Revolution]

Social Model
Rights-Based Model
Biomedical Model Twin-Track Approach
 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.

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 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.

In addition, some cultures who ascribed to a moral/religious model of

disability may also lean toward a type of mystical narrative. Their belief is that
disabilities may impair some senses 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 establishing
of segregated institutions where PWD 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 the 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 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. While Oliver (1990) refers
to the model as the individual model, Nankervis, 2006 as person’s level 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 than those with disabilities, and that they have a primary responsibility
over 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 this day (see figure 2.2).
 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 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. The
idea of institutionalizing or bringing PWDs to asylums or hospitals for custodial
care when they have become 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, 1990).

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 War World 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.

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 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).

D. 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 toot 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).
 Figure 2.3. The Social 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.

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. 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: 375) relates: ''

‘’The cultural habit of regarding the condition of the person, not the built
environment or the social organization of activities, as the source the problem,
runs deep. For example, it took roe 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 accessible problem, not only for me, but for
others as well. And I did 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
roams 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 (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 right – based model of disability is a framework that bears
similarities with the social model. Although most practitioners see the two as one
at the same, Degener (2017 in Retief and Letsosa 2018) argues their nuances.
While the social model reiterates social factors and dynamics that form our
perception of disability, the right – based model ‘’moves beyond explanation,
offering a theoretical framework for disability policy that emphasizes the human
dignity of PWDs’’ (Degener 2017: 43). It immediately recognizes PWDs
vulnerability and tries to address this by upholding and safeguarding their
identities and rights as human beings. 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 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).
II. WHAT IS SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION?
Merriam – Webster Online (n.d.) define education as ‘’ the action or
process of teaching someone especially in school, college, and 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 moral 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 of schools and
universities in every country, the education process pretty much stays the same
for everyone because the goal remains the as well.

According to Prensky (2014), ‘’ the real goal of education is becoming –

becoming a ‘good person’ a becoming a more capable person than when you
started.’’ William Butler Yeats, in the meantime, have said that ‘’education is not
the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire’’ (Littky & Grabelle 2014). 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 man is both an individual and a social being; one simply cannot think of the
human person outside the context of a community. It is presumably because of
education that the world now faces problems such as 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 21st century, 1996, as cited in Delors, 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.
 It its 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 always be those who fail 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 address 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.
 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 notion-building is quality
education accessible to all types of learners. This accessible is the essence of
inclusive education.

III. WHY INCLUSIVE?

Inclusive education is an education 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 as 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 world
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 Standard 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 setting was
first specified. This 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 ground breaking directives eventually formed the education for

other initiatives: the World Forum Framework for Action and the Millennium
Summit of the United Nations, both of which happened in 2000; the EFA Flagship
on the Right to Education for PWD 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 for 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).
 Inclusion in Education Involves:
A. Valuing all students and staff equally
B. Increasing the participation of students, and reducing their exclusion
from,- the cultures, curricula, and communities of local school
C. Restructuring the cultures, policies, and practices in schools so that
they respond to the diversity of students in the locality
D. Reducing barriers to learn and participation for all students, not only
those with impairments or those who are categorized as ‘’having
special educational needs’’
E. Learning from attempts to overcome barriers to the access and
participation of particular students to make changes for the benefits of
students more widely
F. Viewing difference between students as resources to support learning,
rather than problems to be overcome
G. Acknowledging the right of students to an educational in their locality
H. Improving schools for staffs as well as for students
I. Emphasizing the role of schools in building community and developing
values, as well as in increasing achievement
J. Fostering mutually sustain relationships between schools and
communities
K. Recognizing that inclusion in education is one aspect of inclusion in
society.

Figure 2.5. Inclusive education practices by Booth & Ainscow (2002:3)

IV. THE 2030 AGENDA

The goal of inclusion is for every fabric of society to embrace diversity.
It is also for this reason that all these treaties state the need for a paradigm shift
to address the issue of inclusion in education. Inclusive education is not merely a
call toward education 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, hwever, 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 utmost important.

‘’ Philippine Laws for PWDs’’ (Pangalangan & Litong, 2014)

 BP 344 (1983) – Accessible Law

 RA 7277 (1992) – Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
o Equal rights and privileges of PWDs on employment, education,
health, telecommunications, auxiliary social services,
accessibility, political and civil rights
o Penalties for violation of law
 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 Institution in the Philippines (2004)
 RA 9442 (2007) – Amendment of RA 7277 (Privileges to PWDs)
o 20% discount privileges to PWDs
o Change name to ‘’Magna Carta for Disabled Persons’’ to ‘’Magna
Carta for PWDs’’
o Added a clause on deliverance from public ridicule and
vilification
 NCDA Administrative Order No. 001, s. 2008 – Guidelines on the
Issuance of PWD ID cards relative to RA9442
 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
 Proclamation No. 688, S. 2013 – Declaring the Period of 2013 –
Citizens
2022 as the Philippine Decade of ‘’Make The Right Real’’ for PWDs