CHAPTER 2

ADDRESSING DIVERSITY THROUGH

THE YEARS:
Introduction

This chapter shall allow you to look at Special Needs and Inclusive Education
from historical and philosophical contexts. The first step to becoming an effective
Special Needs and/or Inclusive teacher lies not in one's skill to teach strategically,
but in one's willingness and commitment to respect individual differences. As seen in
the previous chapter, diversity is a natural part of every environment and must be
perceived as a given rather than an exception.

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

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

excuse for being deprived access to schools; neither should poverty, religion,
nor race.

 Inclusive education is an inevitable direction to take and must be properly

understood, appreciated, and prepared for within the context of society being
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.

Competencies

This chapter aims for you to develop the following competencies:

1. the ability to create a safe, inclusive, and culturally responsive learning

environment for students with additional needs;

2. the ability to use your knowledge of general and specialized curricula to

individualize learning for students with additional needs; and

3. the ability to demonstrate reflective thinking and professional self-direction.

I. MODELS OF DISABILITY

The concept of disability has been existent for ages. The Bible chronicles the
presence of persons who are blind and crippled who needed to be healed. Cultural
narratives like "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and "Kampanerang Kuba" deplet
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
definition of disability, (2) they offer “explanation of causal and responsibility
attributions” (3) they are based on “perceived needs”, (4) they inform policy, (5) they
are not “value-neutral” (6) they define the academic disciplines that focus on
disability, (7) they “shape the self-identity of PWDS”, 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 Mode

The Medieval age is said to have started from AD 476 the year the Western
Roman Empire fell, and ended, toward the early 1800’s, eventually ushering in the
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 PWD’s at the time. Parents
who bore children with disabilities where seen from within the spectrum where on
one end, God was punishing them for a sin that needed to be atoned, and the other
extreme, He was blessing the family by giving them a precious gift that only they
could care for. The middle ground was to see disability as a test faith and 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 person with disabilities for their
vulnerability and the economic and social order which might be disrupted by “deviant
members” of society. It is considered the oldest model of disability and is evident in
any religious traditions. For instance, biblical scripture would refer to persons with
chronic illness like leprosy as unclean, while those considered demonically
possessed may actually have mental illness (McClure 2007 as cited in Retief and
Letsosa 2018) or seizure disorders. In one strand of moral religious model, disability
is equated with a sin, evilness, or spiritual ineptness of either the PWD or of a PWD’s
family member. Such as belief can family unit from communal events (Rimmerman
2013 as cite in Retief and Letsosa 2018). On the other hand, for those who view
disability as a blessing, disability either becomes ones ticket to heaven or an
opportunity toward character development.

In addition, some cultures that 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 other, thereby “granting him or her ‘special abilities
to perceive, reflect, transcend, be spiritual” (Olkin 1999 as cited in Reties and
Letsosa 2018).

For most part, the core response to this model was the establishing of
segregated institutions where PWD could be kept. In the United States, United
Kingdom, and Australia for the “mentally ill, retardates, degenerates, and defectives”
were built (Jakson 2018). Segregated residential schools and workhouses with
dormitories located miles away from town centers were also erected.

Although the moral/religious models is not as dominant now as it used to be

during the Medieval times, the perspective is still reflected in some places where
religion plays a huge influence on daily life.
B. The Biomedical/Individual Model

Historians and scientists alike consider the Copernican Revolution, that is, the
discovery of Nicolaus Copernicus that the center of the universe as 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 biomedical
(medical) mode. Here, PWDs are seen as persons who are ill and meant to be
treated or “made more normal.” Olkin (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 greater extent possible, and rehabilitation (I.e., the adjustment of the
person with the advisability 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 be
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

THE MEDICAL MODEL OF DISABILITY

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 function/rehabilitation model is quite similar to the biomedical model in

that it sees the PWD as having deficits. These deficits the justify the need to undergo
rehabilitative such as therapies, counseling, and the like in the aim of reintegrating
the disabled into society. The main difference between the two models is in the
concept of habilitation and rehabilitation. The biomedical model often suggests
habilitation, which refers to help given to those whose disabilities are congenital or
manifested very early in life in order to maximize function. On the other hand, the
functional/rehabilitation model refers to the assistance given by professionals to
those who have an acquired disability in the hope of gaining 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 & Corbett 2000). In
workplaces, they were segregated or refused opportunities. Either way, both models
constantly put the PWD at disadvantage. They become easy targets for pity or
recipients of charitable works. 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 come to
the Philippines would most likely act more American than Filipino, not because he
resists his roots but because of his exposure to Americans, not Filipinos. He may not
have been raised this way intentionally but constant interaction with others of a
particular culture can strongly influence a person’s way of life.

Clough (Clough & Corbett 2000) points out that the social (Sociological) model
became society's reaction to how the biomedical perspective viewed disability. In
fact, Mike Oliver, a lecturer in the 1980s who coined the term "social model" and is
considered one of its main proponents, wrote a position paper directly reacting
against how the medical field has been reinforcing a disabling view of PWDs.
According to the sociological response, disability occurs as a result of society’s lack
of understanding of individual 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 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 laws to education to employment opportunities to access to communal
facilities take on a different meaning. For instance, Mara, a person with paraplegia (a
condition that causes impaired functioning of the legs) who uses a motorized
wheelchair, should be able to go around on her own. The mayor in her town put up
an elevator by the foot bridge to help people get to the top easily without having to
climb up the stairs. Although there are facilities in the foot bridge to get her from one
side of the highway to the other, she wonders how she could get to the foot bridge
from her house. Public transportation, unfortunately, is not accessible from her
home. And even if it were, none of the transports would be able to take a wheelchair.
Jana, on the other hand, also has paraplegia but lives in a neighboring town as
Mara's where the local government provides shuttles for those with physical
disabilities. She has a wheelchair herself, though it is not motorized. Despite this,
Jana is able to go around by herself because her town provides continuous access
from one point to the next. This example shows that what is truly disabling is not the
physical condition the way the medical model would adhere to, but the lack of
opportunities and restrictions given to a person, as the social model would push for
(see Figure 2.3).

The Social Model of Disability

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, 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 difficulty 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).

II. WHAT IS SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION?

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 subject 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 social being; one simply cannot think of the human person
outside the context of a community. It is presumably because of education that the
world now faces problems such as poverty, oppression, and war. Yet, it is also
through education that all these problems are expected to be addressed (Delors
1996). Through the pillars of education that the International Commission on
Education for the 21st Century, 1996 as cited in Delors, 1996. Espouses, we are
taught that education has to address four aspects of learning: Learning in order to
know, learning in order to do learning so we can live harmoniously with others, and
learning in order to be. Additionally, for the goals of education to be realized,
education itself has to be available and accessible to all

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 dictate and holds as true. This is what Clough refers to as “pathology of
difference” (Clough & Corbett 2000). A normal distribution shown 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 far as much, and as well as most. With
scenarios like these, one eventually would have to wonder --- how does education
address this reality? This then becomes the very definition of Special Education.

Historically, Special Education has been regarded as an “attempt to

increase the fairness of universal public education for exceptional learners” because
there are “those with special difficulties or extraordinary abilities in learning”
(Kauffman & Hallahan 2005). Acknowledging learner differences, the essence of
special education lies in its goal to educate a certain population of students,
particularly those at the tail ends of a normal statistical distribution of performance
(Thomas & Loxley 2001) (see Figure 2.4). In other words, special education tries to
ensure that those perceived to have difficulties learning will be taught, albeit in a
different way.
 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, simply asking people to take on a more sociological standpoint expected to
shift paradigms. Moreover, it is questionable if we can even reach 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.

III. 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 (EFA), which stated that all children must have access to complete,
free, and compulsory primary education.
 Soon after, the UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for
Persons with Disabilities (1993) was created. It is in this standard set of rules that
each child's right to education was affirmed. It is also in this directive that the
importance of providing education in integrated and general school 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 mind: Inclusion.

The Guidelines for Inclusion (2005) published by UNESCO enumerates four

key elements: (1) that inclusion is a process, that is, "a never-ending search to find
better ways to respond to diversity." (2) that inclusion involves a preventive
dimension, specifically in identifying and removing potential barriers to this process
through collecting, collating, and evaluating information" for improving policy and
practice, (3) that inclusion is all about the "presence, participation, and achievement"
or learning outcomes 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 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.

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 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

 Equal rights and privileges of PWDs on employment, education, health,

telecommunications, auxiliary social services, accessibility, political, and
ciViI rights
 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 (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 Adiministrative Order No 001, 2008 - Guidelines on the Issuance of PWD

ID Cards relative to RA 9422

 RA 10070 (2010)-Amendment of RA 7277 (Implementation of Programs and

Services for PWDS in every province. city and municipality -PDAO Law)

 RA 10386 (20013)- 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 PWD)

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

PWDS

 Private companies with over 100 employees are couraged 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, 2017 - express lanes for PWDs it all
commercial and government establishments

 RA 11228 (2019) - Amendment of RA 7277

All PWDS shall be automatically covered by the National Health Insurance

Program (NHIF) of the PhilHealth and that the PhilHealth shall develop exclusive
packages for PWDs that will address their specific health and development needs.

REFERENCES

Chassy, C. & Josa, J. (2018). “Approaching Disability: Social and 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
neighbourhood scale? Laws, 7(1),10; https://doi.org/10.3390/ laws 7010010

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:// digital
commons.law.umarylan.edu/jhclp/vol3/iss2/5

Kauffan, 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 bass 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 if Disability.” Proceedings of

the Joint Workshop of the Living Options and 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.

Pagalangan, R. & Litong, G., eds. (2014). A manual for PWD rights advocates,
Access to justice of persons with disabilities in the Philippines, Vol. I.

Pagalangan, 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. II.

Prensky, M. (2014). “The Goal of Education is Becoming.” Education Week.

V33, n30. 36 & 40. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/06/30prensky_ep.h33.html.

Retief, M. & Letsosa, R (2018) “Model of disability: a brief overview.” HTS

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

Shaik, A.R. and Shemjaz, A.M. (2014). “The rise of physical therapy: a history I
footstep.” Arch Med Health Sci; 2:257-60.

Thomas, G. and Loxely, 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 Nation 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/11.01. 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 Impairments,

Disabilities and Handicaps: A Manual Classification Relating to the
Consequences of Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization. Published in
accordance with resolution WHA 29.35 of the29th World Health Assembly, May
1976.