FOUNDATION OF SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

CHAPTER I
UNDERSTANDING DIVERSITY

In this chapter, you will obtain a better understanding of what diversity is. Using Lodens’s Wheel of diversity,
the various aspects that make one person different from the other will enable to discuss how each aspect
contributes to each one’s identity, beliefs, practices, and behavior. You will also gain an understanding of why
is it important to recognize disability as part of diversity. You will about how diversity, as a positive component,
contributes to progress and productivity. It is important that we recognize and accept diversity. This means
accepting, respecting and tolerating each other’s differences. It means awareness of laws, policies, systems that
upholds one’s individuality and uniqueness. This would mean a more peaceful and humane world.

Objectives:

At the end of the chapter, you will be able to:

• Discuss the meaning and significance of diversity

• Demonstrate the use of Loden’s Wheel of Diversity; and
• Support diversity as a positive component of relationship

l. DEFINITION:
Diversity- is from the Latin word divertene, which means to turn away, separate, oppose (latin Dictionary, n.d.)
- is “the state or quality of being different of varied; a variety or assortment; a point of difference; the
inclusion of people of different races, genders, religions, etc. in a group; the relation that holds between
two entities when and only when they are not identical; property of being numerically distinct” (Collins
Dictionary).

In the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO) Guide on Ensuring
Inclusion and Equity in Education (2017), diversity is defined as “people’s difference which may relate to their race,
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, mental and physical ability, class and immigration status.”
(UNESCO 2017)
Diversity is an issue we have to face and conquer. Presently, people recognize and consider the differences
of each person as important. We all live in a global village that brings about changing demographics both in the work
force and education. As our communities become more diverse, it is imperative that we make an effort to
understand the different dimensions of diversity, which is not just all about accepting, understanding and tolerating
one’s uniqueness or differences. Accepting and celebrating the uniqueness of each individual will allow for
respecting different experiences and qualities of individuals to solve problems and innovate.
Collaboration and communication are skills that are needed to develop and succeed. It is therefore
important that we understand our differences and master how these could be used to harness tolerance,
cooperation and unity that will lead to productivity.

ll. LODEN’S DIVERSITY WHEEL

In 1990, Marilyn Loden and Judy Rosener developed a framework for thinking about the different
dimensions of diversity within individuals and institutions. Depicted as concentric circles, this “Diversity Wheel” can
be used in many different ways to encourage thinking about values, beliefs, and dimensions of identity for people
and organizations. Their goal was to capacitate people to make their voices heard by pointing to their diversity and
its impact on the person, their rights, and their freedom (Lou and Dean 1991). Loden recognized the demand for an
instrument that would help people better understand how group-based differences influence people’s social
identities. Dissatisfaction, distrust, and competition would ensure when the different dimensions of diversity are not
given recognition. Loden and Rosener’s extensive research led them to maximizing the workforce of a people
managing diversities as assets to develop productive working relationships. In her book, Loden states “I think
diversity discussion are really about understanding our social identities, acknowledging what is important and
learning to integrate into society so no sub-group feels excluded or one down” (Loden and Rosener 1991).
The diversity Wheel pointed to the significance of our social characters and the ways in which people
develop their identity when they are able to establish a connection with a specific group of people. The wheel
consists of the primary or core and secondary dimensions of diversity. The categories put forward the effect of these
differences on a person’s beliefs, expectations and life experiences. The dimensions are the components that
comprise the whole person.
The primary or core dimension are in the inner circle. These are the characteristics we are born with or
established by significant experiences we had or people we interacted with. These are considered to be distinctly
persuasive in establishing who we are- our principles, our sense of self, our image, our perceptions, and how we
think about others. These core dimensions or attributes are in place or established and are the least likely to change.
These core elements are age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/ qualities, race, income, sexual orientation, class
and spiritual belief.
The secondary dimensions are in the outer circle. These characteristics are also part of our social identity,
but they can change or be discarded as our life experiences impact us. They are influenced by the people we
encounter; places we go to live and experience we go through. The second dimension is composed of demographical
location, marital status, religious beliefs, parental status, education, work exigence, military experience, first
language, family status and work and communication styles.
Together, the core or primary dimensions and the secondary dimensions notably affect our prior
experiences, viewpoints, principles, giving as an exclusive mind-set of the world around us, making each one of us
distinct individual.

LODEN AND ROSENER’S DIVERSITY WHEEL

Loden presents four principles for managing our own behavior in a global context and interacting successfully with
people globally. “The four principles are respect, inclusion, cooperation and responsibility or RICR” (Loden 1996). She
defines each principle as “respect: treating others the way they wish to be treated; inclusion: making certain
everyone on the team is truly part of the team’s decision-making process; cooperation: actively helping others
succeed rather competing or attempting to one-up someone; responsibility: managing personal behavior to
maintain a diversity-positive environment and questioning inappropriate behavior when it occurs.”

By using the Diversity Wheel, one can consider how different aspects, for example, spiritual belief and
cultural differences, may form other people’s identities and perspectives in the world. Knowing all these should give
each one an open and more accepting stance on a variety of opinions and differences in behavior. The attitude a
person should, therefore, take is one of tolerance and cooperation in coming together to work for a common goal
or objective. The kind of world we live in will be determined by the efforts we make to bridge diversity and come
together and to contribute what he/she can for the betterment of the world.

III. ABILITY (AND DISABILITY) AS DIMENSION OF DIVERSITY

Diversity covers the limitless domains of an individual’s unique characteristics, experience, and capabilities.
Diversity encompasses respect and tolerance of differences that enables a celebration of uniqueness.
According to Collins English Dictionary, ability refers to the possession of the qualities required to do something,
necessary skill or competence or power. Disability on the other hand, is defined by the World Health Organization
(WHO n.d.) as the umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions, referring to the
negative aspects of interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual
factors (environmental and personal factors). This definition underscores that disability is not only a health issue,
but also an issue that affects a person’s state in life and the environment he/she is in. A person’s self-identity and
his/ her perspectives of the world around him/ her are affected by both ability and disability. The American
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) “defines a person with disability as a person who has a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more major life activity. This includes people who have a record of such an
impairment, even if they do not currently have a disability. It also includes individuals who do not have a disability
but are regarded as having a disability.”
Disabilities may affect one’s senses or one’s mobility; they may be static or progressive, congenital or
acquired, formal (affecting the shape of the body) or functional, visible or invisible. “(Couser 2005).
A person’s disability makes him/her a unique individual who, is at times, shunned from places and activities.
They have to be acknowledged to be part of the spectrum of diversity. They have to be recognized as human beings
who should not be discriminated against, but rather understood, accepted and tolerated. They have to be accorder
their rights, Disabilities have to be seen as a natural part of life and a natural part of diversity. People with disabilities
have to perceived and accepted as people with distinct abilities. They have to identify themselves as having
disabilities so that the world can accept them and create avenues for them to live.

IV. THE DILEMA OF DIVERSITY

In this age of fast paced development where diversity plays a unique role, there are still challenges that
confront a lot of people who have been identified as “different”. Discrimination issues around race, gender, age, and
intellect still abound in spite of charters, laws and policies that uphold diversity.
In some workplaces, women and people of color are still discriminated against and not given position and
management or administration. People of a certain race are stereotyped to be of specific character. A number of
times, Muslims have been taken aside in immigration and interrogated. Non-married and same sex couples are still
not accepted in some parts of the world. In some schools, children with special needs are shunned with the reason
that they are not ready for school yet or are not suited for the school. Children from indigenous groups have to go
through an educational system that does not consider their ethnic background, needs, and values. Though there is
still much effort to be put in so that diversity is accepted, respected, and tolerated, there has been progress in a lot
of areas. On more workplaces, there are systems and processes put into place to intentionally promote diversity.
Diverse ways of thinking and doings things bring in creativity and productivity. Innovative thinking and collaboration
are encouraged when different people work to come up with solutions to problems or challenges. In schools,
diversity is the best way to teach what it means to be tolerant and respectful of each other’s differences. In
government, the acknowledgment that diversity is an integral component of community equates to laws and policies
being passed to look out for the welfare of people of diverse cultures and backgrounds. Diversity, therefore, is an
integral component of life and living.

CHAPTER 2
ADDRESSING DIVERSITY THROUGH THE YEARS: SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

This chapter aims to develop the following competencies:

• ability to create safe, inclusive and culturally responsive learning environment for students with additional
needs
• ability to use your knowledge of general and specialized curricula to individualize learning for students with
additional needs; and
 • the ability to demonstrate reflective thinking and professional self-direction.

l. 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
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 to almost to 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 the society. Such practices, which are now considered
discriminatory and violating of human rights, were evident in all aspects of community: living spaces, healthcare,
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 Innocence or eternal children who could do no wrong (Wolfensberger 1972).
At worst, they were killed or treated as subhuman devoid of any rights (Kisanji 1999, Wolfensberger, 1972).

Society 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 belief and values system.
As such, it is important that we examine historical highlights to appreciate man’s perspectives on disability. (see
Figure 2.1)

Moral / Religious Model Functional /

Rehabilitation Model

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

Discovery] Discovery]

1500s - 1600s 1970s onward

5th to 8th Century Early 1900s - 1970s

[Copernican / Scientific [Post Modern Times]

Revolution]
Socio Model
Rights-Based Model
Biomedical Model Twin-Track Approach

Figure 2.1 The evolution of models of disability

 Smart study in 2004 (as cited in Retief and Letsosa, 2018) emphasize that models of disability are
important as they serve several purposes:

(1) they provide definition s of disability,

(2) they offer “explanations of casual 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 of 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 of the Western Roman Empire fell, and ended
toward 1800s, eventually ushering in the Renaissance age and Age of Discovery. This period see 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 the 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 needed to be
atoned, and on the other extreme, He was blessing the family by giving them a precious gift that only could only care
for. The middle ground was to see the 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 notion 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 it 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 Letsosa02018) 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 from 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 may 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 this model was the establishing of segregated institution where PWDs
could be kept. In the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, asylum for the “mentally ill, retardates,
degenerates and defectives” were built (Jackson 2018). Segregate residential schools and workhouses with
dormitories located miles away from town centers were also erected.

Although the moral / religious model is not as dominant as now as it used to be during the Medieval Times, the
perspective is still reflected some places where religious plays a huge influence on daily life.

B. The Biomedical / Individual Model

Historians and scientists alike consider the Copernican Revolution, that is, the discovery of Nicolaus Copernicus
that the center of the universe was the sun and not the Earth, is one of the most controversial yet significant
discoveries of all time. It was revolutionary and bold because it dared to contradict the Bible as well as then-
considered fundamental truths. But it was a breakthrough that triggered major changes in the field 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 of 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 a defect in or a 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”
(p.26).

Whereas a moral/ religious perspective sees disability as something permanent, the biomedical (medical) model
considers disability as a “glitch” the PWD is born into, which needs assessment and fixing. While Oliver (1990) refers
to the model as the individual model, Nankervis 2006 as cited in Jackson, 2018, p.3 describes it to 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 2.2)

Figure 2.2 The Medical Model of Disability

Source: http://www.ddsg.org.uk/taxi/medical-model.gif

It was during the 15th century where more schools for PWDs started to emerge in Europe. These first special
schools were built private philanthropic institutions. Although they initially catered only to those with sensory
impairments such as deafness and blindness into their student roster. Interestingly, the curriculum for such
educational institutions was different from that of a public school (Kisanji 1999). In special schools, the main focus
was on building the vocational skills- a clear sign that the biomedical model sees PWDs as different from the majority.
The idea of institutionalizing or bringing the PWDs to asylums or hospitals for custodial care when they have become
too difficult to mage also reach 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 aspect 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 comeback disabled physically, neurologically
or mentally. It was then that people started to realize that not all disabilities are inborn. Physical and Occupational
Therapies soon become a prevalent mode of rehabilitation for much of the service-related injuries the soldiers
sustained (Shaik and Shemjaz 2014) (National Rehabilitation Information Center. 2018),
The functional / rehabilitation model is quite similar to the biomedical model and 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 acquitted disability in the hope of gaining back one’s functionality.
The biomedical and rehabilitative models, together with the dawn of clinic-based assessments in 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 population is automatically deemed
different and deficient. In living spaces, such as persons were shunned by the society. In educational settings, such
as students were advised to transfer schools for a more specialized type of education (Clough in Clough & Corbett
2000). In workplaces, they were segregated and refused opportunities. Either way, both models constantly put the
PWD at a disadvantage. They become easy targets for pity or recipients of charitable work. Moreover, both promote
an expert client type of relationship between the “non-disabled and 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, behaviors and values systems. For example, a Filipino born and raised in the United
States who came to the Philippines would most likely act as 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 with a particular culture can strongly influence a person’s way of life.
Clough (Clough & Corbett 2000) points out that the social (sociological) model becomes the 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 writing 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 a person with disability which limits my mobility means that I do
not move about in a (so-called) normal way. But what is a normal way to cover a mile…? Some people would walk.
Some people would ride on a bicycle or bus or in a taxi or in 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 construct, where standards
and limitations that society places on specific groups of people are what disable a person. With this perspective,
everything from government to laws to education to employment opportunities to access to communal facilities
take on 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 footbridge 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 Maras, 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 2.3The Social Model of Disability

Source: http://www.ddsg.org.uk/taxi/social-model.html.
Copyright 2003 by Democracy Disability and Security Group

The World Health Organization (1980) differentiates between disability and impairment. Impairment is seen as
“any loss or abnormality of a psychological or anatomical structure or function” while disability refers to “any
restrictions or lack (resulting from an impairment) or ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range
considered normal from a human being”. Most people seem to confuse the two terms, most of the them 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 occurrences so
as to disable anyone. Kaplan (2000) agrees that if disability were to be seen as something natural or 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 of 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 a stronger person came along, to realize 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 the lack of signs that could be read from a distance at my university forced people with mobility impairments
to expend a lot of energy unnecessarily, searching for rooms and offices. Although I have encountered this difficulty
myself on days when walking was exhausting me, I interpreted it automatically, as a problem arising from my illness
(as I did with the door), rather than a problem arising from a 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 social model. Although most
practitioners see the two as one and the same, Degener (2017 in Retief and Letsosa 2018) argues their nuances.
While the social model reiterates social factors and dynamics that form our perceptions of disability, the right-based
model “moves beyond explanation, offering a theoretical framework for disability policy that emphasizes 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 regulated prevention policy may be regarded as an instance of human rights protection for PDWs”
(Degener 2017:52)
A right-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 therefore all must have access to
it. There are four key actors directly involved in such a model:
(1) the government t as duty-bearers,
(2) the child as the rights-holder,
(3) the parents not only duty-bearers but also as representatives of the child, and
(4) the teachers, both rights-holders and duty-bearers (van de Brule-Balescut & Sankull 2005).
At best, lobbyist and practitioners now promote a twin track approach, which combines the social model and
the rights-based model. A marrying of the two perspectives allows for holistic changes to occur, with the option of
promoting individual needs whenever necessary. For instance, in education”, this would mean allowing a PWD to
join the mainstream, yet be given opportunities for disability-specific programs in case additional support is needed
(Chassy & Josa 2018.

II. WHAT IS SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION

“The action or process of teaching someone especially in school, college or university,”- by Merriam-Webster
Online. 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, in secondary, and in 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 choose to be beyond tertiary
education and pursue higher academic degrees. Although there are countless schools and universities, the education
stays the same for everyone because the goal remains the same.
“The real goal of education is becoming a good person and becoming a more capable person than when you
started – (Prensky 2014)
“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lightning of a fire” – (William Butler Yeats)
Either way, the importance of lifelong learning cannot be emphasized enough. Education plays an important role in
a human’s personal and social development, given than man is an individual and a social being; one cannot simply
think of the human person outside the context of a community. Through the pillars of education that the
International Commission on Education for the 21st Century, 1996 as cited in Delors, 1996. Espouses, we are thought
that education has to address four aspects of learning:
-Learning in order to know
-Learning in order to do
-Learning so we could live harmoniously with others and
-Learning in order to be
Additionally, for the 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 would always be
those performing closely with each other – what statisticians and educators call the average population- that 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 skills. 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 a highly exceptional
people. Either way. The fact remains: teaching strategies that normally 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 this, one eventually
would have to wonder- how does education address reality? This then become 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 difference, the essence of special education lies in its
goal to educate a certain population of students, particularly those at the tail ends od 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 different way.

The Normal Curve

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, simple 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 types of
learners. This accessibility is the essence of inclusive education.

III. WHY INCLUSION?

Inclusive education - an educational practice that places students with disabilities in the general education
classroom along with the typically developing children under the supervision and guidance of a general education
teacher (Del Corro-Tiangco2014).

- takes root in special needs education and is anchored on a 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, person with disabilities, and education. In
as early as 1948, there have been 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 a 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 Equalization of Opportunities for the Persons with Disabilities (1993)
was created that set the rules that each child’s right to education was affirmed. It was also in this directive the
importance of providing education in integrated and general school settings was first specified. Then,
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.
The Guidelines for Inclusion (2005) published by UNESCO enumerates four key elements:
(1) that inclusion is a progress, 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 put “particular emphasis on learners who may be at risk of marginalization, exclusion or
underachievement”, 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; 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 to 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 the students as resources to
support learning, rather than problems to overcome
G. Acknowledging the rights of students to an education in their
locality
H. Improving schools for staff as well as 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.

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

IV. THE 2030 AGENDA

The goal of inclusion is for every fabric of society to embrace diversity. It is for this reason that all these treaties
state the need for paradigm shifts to address the issues of inclusion in education. Inclusive education is not merely
a call toward educational reform from 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).

SDGs - are considered roadmaps or blue prints that were developed by the United Nations to ensure a better
and sustainable future for everyone.

- Consist of 17 global goals set by the UN 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” (UN
 General Assembly). Therefore, the need to remove all barriers to inclusion by addressing all forms of
exclusion and marginalization is of utmost experience.

Philippine Laws for PWDs (Pangalangan & Litong, 2014)

• BP 344 (1983) – Accessibility Law

• RA7277 (1992) – Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
o Equal rights and privileges of PWDs on employment, education, health,
telecommunication, auxilliary social services, accessibility, political, and civil
rights
o Penalties for violations 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 Institutions in the Philippines (2004)
• RA 9442 (2207) – Amendment of RA 7277 (Privileges to PWDs)
o 20 % discount privileges to PWDs
o Change name from “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 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 Reveal “for PWDs
• RA 10524 (2013) – Amendment of RA 7277 (Expanding the Positions Reserved for PWDs)
o 1% of all government agencies, offices, corps shall be recurved for PWDs
o Private companies with over100 employees are encouraged to reserve 1% for
PWDs
• RA 10754 (2016) – An Act Expanding the Benefits and Privileges of PWDs
o Exemption to VAT on the following of goods and services
o 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
All PWDs shall be automatically be covered by the National Health Insurance program
(NHIP) of PhilHealth and that PhilHealth shall develop exclusive packages for PWDs that
will address their specific health and development needs.