Module 2

ADDRESSING DIVERSITY
THROUGH THE YEARS: SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

What Is This Module About?

This module shall allow to look at Special Needs and Inclusive Education from historical
and philosophical contexts. The first to become 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 module, diversity is a natural part of every
environment and must be perceived as a given rather than exception.

How then do we proceed from here? Below are key points to summarize this module.

 Everyone has a right to education. Having a disability should not be excused 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
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 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.

What Competencies Will You Learn from This Module?

This module 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 needs; and
3. The ability to demonstrate reflective thinking and professional self-direction.

The module is divided into 4 lessons:

Lesson 1- Models of Disability

 The Moral/Religious Model

 The Biomedical/Individual Model
 Functional/Rehabilitation Model
 The Social Model
 The Right-Based Model

Lesson 2 – What is Special Needs Education

 Why Inclusion
 The 2030 Agenda

Lesson 3 - Historical and Socio-cultural Foundations of Special and Inclusive

Education

Lesson 4 - Legal Foundations of Special and Inclusive Education

1
LESSON 1 - 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. Clearly, 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 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 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 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, 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).

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, 1--1e 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

2
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 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 PW D 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 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 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 the
Medieval times, the perspective is still reflected in some places where religion plays a huge
influence on daily life.

B. The Biomedical/lndividual 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 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." 01kin (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
intervention are 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 spend time in the role of patient or learner being helped by
trained professionals".

Whereas a moral/religious perspective sees disability as something permanent, the

biomedical (medical) model considers disability as a "glitch" the PW D '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 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 to this day (see Figure 2.1).

3
Figure 2.1. The Medical Model of Disability. Reprinted from Taxi Driver Training Pack, n.d., Retrieved from
http://www.ddsg.org.uk/taxi/medical-model. 18 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 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 students—a
clear sign that the biomedical model sees PWDs as different from the 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, 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 PW D as having deficits. These deficits then justify the need to undergo rehabilitative
intervention such as therapies, counseling, and the like in the aim of reintegratingthe 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 PW D 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 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 became
society's reaction to how the biomedical perspective viewed disability. In fact, Mike Oliver, a

4
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 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 ofthe 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 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
2.2).

Figure 2.2. 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 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,

5
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 diffculty 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
Retief & Letsosa 2018) argues their nuances. While the social model reiterates social factors
and dynamics that form our perceptions of disability, the rights-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 the 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 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).

LESSON 2 - WHAT IS SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION?

What is Special Education?

Special Education is individually planned, systematically implemented, and carefully

evaluated instruction to help exceptional children achieve the greatest possible personal self-
sufficiency and success in present and future environments (Heward, 2003).

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 of 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— becoming a

'good person' and 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 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 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

6
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 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 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 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). In other words, special education tries to
ensure that those perceived to have difficulties learning will be taught, albeit in a different way.

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.

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 world declaration of Education for All (EPA), 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 settings 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 foundation for other initiatives:
the World Education 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 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 raind:

7
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).

Inclusion in Education Involves:

A. Valuing all students and staff equally

B. Increasing the participation of students in; and reducing their exclusion from; the cultures,
curricula, and communities of local schools

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 learning 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 benefit of students more widely

F. Viewing the difference between students as resources to support learning, rather than
problems to be overcome

G. Acknowledging the right of students to an education in their locality

H. Improving schools for staff 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 sustaining relationships between schools and communities

K. Recognizing that inclusion in education is one aspect of inclusion in society.

LESSON 3 – HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE

EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

Fred Atkinson, General Superintendent of Education (1902):

• Reported to the Secretary of Public Instruction that deaf and blind children were found in
a census of school-aged children in Manila and nearby provinces.
• Proposed that deaf and blind children be enrolled in schools like the other children
David Barrows (1907), worked for the establishment of the Insular School for the Deaf and the
Blind in Manila. At present, the Philippine School for the Deaf is located on Harrison
Street, Pasay City
1926 - Philippine Association for the Deaf was founded

1927 – The government established Welfareville Chlldren’s Village in Mandaluyong

1945 – The National Orthopedic Hospital opened the School for the Crippled Children
1949 – Quezon City Science High School was inaugurated for gifted students.
Philippine Foundation for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled was organized.

8
1950-1975 - A time when the private sector started supporting the government’s program for
Filipinos with disabilities.
1953 – Elsie Gaches Village was established to take care of abandoned, orphaned and youth
with physical and mental disabilities.
1954 – First week of August was declared as Sight Saving Week
1957 – The Bureau of Public Schools (BPS) of the Department of Education and Culture (DEC)
created the Special Education Section of the Special Subjects and Services Division.
The program includes:

 Legislation
 Teacher Training
 Census of exceptional children
 Integration of children with disabilities in regular classes
 Rehabilitation of residential and special schools
 Material production
1962

 Manila Youth Reception Center (MYRC) was opened for the socially-maladjusted and
emotionally-disturbed. DEC issued Circular No. 11 series 1962 “Qualifications of Special
Education Teachers”.
 Experimental integration of blind children at the Jose Rizal Elementary School (Pasay)
 St. Joseph of Cupertino School for the Mentally Retarded was founded.
1963

 Teacher scholar training for blind children started at PNU Philippine Printing House for
the Blind was established (UNICEF & CARE Philippines)
 Manila Science High School for gifted students was established.
1965

 Training program for school administrators on the organization, administration and

supervision of special education classes.
1967 – BPS organized the National Committee on Special Education. General Letter No. 213:
Regulating the size of special classes for maximum effectiveness.
1968 – Republic Act 5250: An Act establishing a ten-year training program for teachers of
special and exceptional children in the Philippines.
1969 – Classes for socially-maladjusted children were held at MYRC.
Jose Fabella Memorial School was divided into five units:
1. Philippine Training School for Boys (Tanay)
2. Philippine Training School for Girls (Alabang)
3. Reception and Child Study Center (Manila)
4. Elsie Gaches Village (Alabang)
5. Nayon ng Kabataan (Pasay)

1970 – RA No. 5250: Teacher training program for children with behavioral problem started at
UP
The School for the Deaf and Blind was reorganized into two separate residential schools.
1973 – UNESCO and Philippine Association for the retarded: First Asian Conference on Mental
Retardation was held in Manila
1975 –

 Silahis Concept of Special Education was implemented.

 Special Subjects and Services Division was abolished
1979

 Caritas Medico Pedagogical Institution for the Mentally Retarded was organized.
 Jagna Special Education Center in the Division of Bohol was organized.

9
1980 School for the Crippled Children at Southern Island Hospital in Cebu City
was established.
1981 UN: International Year of Disabled Persons
1982 Batas Pambansa Bilang 344-Accessibility Law: “An Act to Enhance the Mobility of
Disabled Persons by requiring cars, buildings, institutions, establishments and public
utilities to install facilities and other devices”.

1987 Autism Society of the Philippines was organized.

1996 The first week of January was declared as Autism Consciousness Week
1997 – DECS Order No. 26: Institutionalization of Special Education Program in all schools
1998 – Palarong Pinoy Para sa May K was held at Philsport Complex
1999 –

 DECS Order No. 104: “Exemption of the Physically-Handicapped from Taking the
National Achievement Test (NEAT) and the National Secondary Aptitude Test (NSAT)
 DECS Order No. 108: Strengthening of Special Education Program for the Gifted in
Public School System
 DECS Order NO. 448: Search for the 1999 Most Outstanding Special Education Teacher
for Gifted
 Memorandum No. 457: National Photo Contest on Disability
2000s

 DECS Order No. 11: Recognized Special Education Centers in the Philippines
 Memorandum NO. 24: Fourth International Noise Awareness Day
 Every fourth week of November: National Observance of the Week of Gifted and
Talented.

IV. LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

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 issues 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 utmost importance.

PHILIPPINE LAWS FOR PWDS (Pangalangan & Litong, 2014)

 BP 344 (1983) - Accessibility Law

 RA 7277 (1992) — Magna Carta for Disabled Persons for Equal rights and privileges of
PWDs on employment, education, health, telecommunications, auxiliary social
services, accessibility, political, and civil rights

 Penalties for violations of law

 Administrative Order 35 (2002) — National Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation

(NPDR Week) every 3rd week of July

10
  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

 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)

 1% of all government agencies, offices, corps shall be reserved for PWDs

 Private companies with over 100 employees are encouraged to reserve at least
1% 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

 R.A 11228 (2019) - Amendment of RA 7277

All PWDs shall be automatically covered by the National 1--Health Insurance Program
(NHIP) of the PhilHealth and that the PhilHeaIth shall develop exclusive packages for PWDs that
will address their specific health and development needs.

Review
Let us check if you are able to understand the key concepts central to developing the
competencies stated at the start of this chapter. On your own, answer the following questions by
using what you have learned from the chapter. When you are ready, discuss your answers with
a partner.

1. What are the different models of disability? How would each one define disability?

2. How are impairments different from disabilities?

3. What is special needs education? 1--10w different is it from inclusive education?

4. Which international treatises are directly involved in the pursuit of inclusive education?

Reflect
1. How important are models of disability? 1--10w can they affect students and the different
stakeholders of special needs and inclusive education?

2. Is it possible for medical practitioners to embrace a social perspective of disability? How can
they marry two seemingly opposing concepts?

11
3. Special needs education is said to address the extreme ends of a normal distribution.
However, who determines the cut-off for either end? To keep a narrow range at the tail ends
would mean less number of students might be in need of Special Education programs and more
"low average students" might be in danger of academic failure, bullying, or dropping out. To
make the tail ends range wider, however, would mean more students will be segregated,
therefore negating the very idea of inclusion. Discuss your thoughts on how such a dilemma
could be resolved.

4. How can paradigm shift from a medical standpoint to a social perspective happen?

5. Study the case of Manuel and Julian below. Answer the question that follows.

MANUEL AND JULIAN

Manuel was born in 1925 in a small barangay in Manila. He was the third of four
children. As a baby, he displayed extreme behaviors. He would be silent for most of the day but
when he started crying, he could last for hours. 1--1e learned to walk at fourteen months and by
the time he was three, his parents sensed that he might have some developmental concerns. He
exhibited delays in speech and seemed to have difficulty with comprehension as well. Relatives
thought he was deaf. But a visiting pediatrician from the United States who saw Manuel at ten
years old said he might have some form of mental retardation based on his brief assessment
and his observations.

Manuel eventually did learn to talk but could not express himself beyond short
sentences. His understanding of the things around him are simplistic and he is assisted in most
of his chores at home. Manuel grew up not being able to go to school. He was ridiculed for most
of his life because of the way he would speak and behave. There were also rumors of his family
being cursed by a nuno sa punso, his mother being a victim of kulam, and of him being pinaglihi
sa asong ulol because whenever Manuel got frustrated, he would scratch his ears until they
bled, and then he would cry loudly and howl endlessly. At eighteen, his daily contribution at
home was to gather soiled clothes, throw the trash, and to set the table.

Julian, on the other hand, was born in 2001. Like Manuel, he manifested extreme
behaviors as an infant and language delays as a toddler. At a year and a half, his pediatrician
identified several red flags. Julian was referred to a developmental specialist, who suspected
him to have intellectual disability (what used to be known as mental retardation) and immediately
advised him to go through occupational therapy (OT). By two years old, he was receiving once a
week OT sessions and early intervention in a special education (SPED) school. He remained in
the SPED school for four years following an individualized program created specifically for his
needs. He eventually learned to talk in short sentences though he would tend to mispronounce
words. Recommendations to undergo speech therapy also followed.

At six, he was recommended to enroll in a small school where the student-teacher ratio
was only at 5:1. All of his classmates were typically developing and his teacher, Teacher Jan,
who was SPED-trained, always made sure he would be able to participate in class activities.
reacher Jan realized that shortening some of the instructions and lessening some of the items in
Julian's paper helped him to focus on his work more. Julian also started to gain confidence in
himself and gained friends. His vocabulary eventually grew and both his receptive and
expressive language skills improved.

Julian's diagnosis of intellectual disability was confirmed at eleven years old. Despite him
gaining success during his preparatory and first two years in elementary, the reality of having an
intellectual disability eventually started to weigh him down. Julian was not able to go beyond
third grade but now at eighteen, he is enrolled in a transition class where his functional skills are
being maximized. His current school sees the possibility of him being employed in a small café
given the abilities he was able to develop throughout the years.

Drawing from lessons you have learned from the previous chapters as well as this,
what factors do you think led to Manuel and Julian's different experiences and life trajectories?

Practice
1. Plot the historical timeline of how the models of disability evolved.

2. Make a framework for special needs education and inclusive education.

12
3. Create an infographic showcasing the differences among the different models of disability.

REFERENCES
Chassy, C. & Josa, J. (2018). "Approaching Disability: Social & Rights-based Models. Retrieved
from https://www.edu-links.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.

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-therapy-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. & Pol'y 352. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jhclp/v013/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." Proceedings 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." Proceedingsof 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 effective remedy.
Access to justice of persons with disabilities in the Philippines, Vol. Il.

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 Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies 74(1), a4738. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.4102/hts.v74i1.4738

13
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/II.OI. 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. Rights-based approach to education programming." Proceedings of the 6th Ad
Hoc Committee Session, UN HQ, New York. 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.

World Health Organization. (1980). International Classification of lmpairments, 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 29th World
Health Assembly, May 1976.

14