ADDRESSING'DI 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.|. 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 Cultura) narratives like “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” and “Kampanerang Kuba” depicy disability as a source of fear and ridicule, Even Philippine history has Tecords of disability through the Apolinario Mabini, who was unable to walk because of a physically impairing condition called poliomyelitis. Clearly, disability cur, 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).Moral / Religious Model Functional / Rehabilitation Model [Medieval Times / Age of iscovery} 1500s - 1600s [Medieval Times / Age of Discovery] 1970s onward '5® to B* Century Early 1900s - 1970s [Copernican / Scientific Revolution} Biomedical Model Figure 2.1. The evolution of models of disability. Social Model 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.16 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, eventuajyy 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 Gog ay an all-powerful being was so strong in man’s consciousness that it affecteg 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, He was blessing the family by giving them a precious gift that only they could care for. The middle ground was to see disability as a test of faith ang an opportunity to redeem oneself through endurance, resilience, and Piety (Niemann 2005 as cited in Retief and Letsosa 2018). Such perspectives are rooted in amoral 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 tha protection is also a primary concern as there is an instinct to protect both persons with disabilities for their vulnerability and the economic and social order which might be disrupted by “deviant members” of society. It is considered the oldest model of disability and is evident in many religious traditions. For instance, biblical scripture would refer to persons with chronic 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 PWD or of a PWD’s family member. Such a belief can then cause not just the PWD’s isolation but also the exclusion of the entire family unit from communal events (Rimmerman 2013 as cited in Retief and Letsosa 2018). On the other hand, for those who view disability as a blessing, disability either becomes one’s ticket to heaven or an opportunity toward character development. In addition, some cultures who 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 Foundations of Special end inclusive Eauacetinndegenerates, and defectives” were built (Jackson 2018). Segregated residential schools and workhouses with dormitories located miles away from town centers were also erected. Although the moral/religious model is not as dominant now as it used to be during the Medieval times, the perspective is still reflected in some places where religion plays a huge influence on daily life. B. The Biomedical/Individual Model Historians and scientists alike consider the Copernican Revolution, that is, the discovery of Nicolaus Copernicus that the center 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.” Olkin (1999 as cited in Retief & Letsosa 2018: 2-3) wrote: “Disability is seen as a medical problem that resides in the individual. It isa 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” (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 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 CHAPTER 2 Addressing Diversity Through the Years 17his or her peers—a practice that is very much ingrained in society to this 4, (see Figure 2.2) THE MEDICAL MODEL OF DISABILITY Figure 2.2. The Medical Model of Disability. Reprinted from Taxi Driver Training Pack, n.d., Retrieved from [Link] 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 o 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 comé 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 th 18 Foundations of Special and inclusive Education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 PWD as having deficits. These deficits then justify the need to undergo rehabilitative intervention such as therapies, counseling, and the like in the aim ofreintegrating the disabled into society. The main difference between the two models is in the concept of habilitation and rehabilitation. The biomedical model often suggests habilitation, which refers to help given to those whose disabilities are congenital or manifested very early in life in order to maximize function. On the other hand, the functional/rehabilitation model refers to the assistance given by professionals to those who have an acquired disability in the hope of gaining back one’s functionality. The biomedical and rehabilitative models, together with the dawn of clinic-based assessments in the 1950s and its proliferation during the 1960s onward, show how much society has placed value on convention, performance, and achievement. Anyone whose performance does not fall within the norm of a population is automatically deemed different and deficient. In living spaces, such persons were shunned by society. In educational settings, such students were advised to transfer schools for a more specialized type of education (Clough in Clough & Corbett 2000). In workplaces, they were segregated or refused opportunities. Either way, both models constantly put 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 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 (sociologicay, model became society's reaction to how the biomedical perspective vieweq disability. In fact, Mike Oliver, a lecturer In the 1980s who coined the tery, “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 Person, as the social model would push for (see Figure 2.3).THE SOCIAL MODEL OF DISABILITY Figure 2.3. The Social Model of Disability. Reprinted from Taxi Driver Training Pack, n.d., Retrieved from [Link] 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, 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22 from the built environment having been created for too narrow a range , people and situations.” E. Rights-Based Model and Twin Track Approach The rights-based model of disability is a framework that bear similarities with the social model. Although most practitioners see the tw as one and the same, Degener (2017 in Retief & Letsosa 2018) argues the, nuances. While the social model reiterates social factors and dynamics thay form our perceptions of disability, the rights-based model “moves beyong explanation, offering a theoretical framework for disability policy thar emphasizes the human dignity of PWDs” (Degener 2017:43). It immediate, recognizes the PWDs' vulnerability and tries to address this by upholding ang safeguarding their identities and rights as human beings. Moreover, While “the social model is mostly critical of public health policies that advocate thy prevention of impairment, the human rights model recognizes the fact thar 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 mode! (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). 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 §° through preschool, which prepares them for a more formal, systematic, and rigorous type of learning. In elementary, secondary, and tertiary school, Foundations of Special and Inclusive Education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 acommunity. 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 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 ‘HAPTER 2 Addressing Diversity Thromeh she Vn. itn24 would have to wonder—how does education address this reality? This 1. becomes the very definition of Special Education. Historically, Special Education has been regarded as “an Attemp, to increase the fairness of universal public education for exceptign,, learners” because there are “those with special difficulties or extraording,, abilities in learning” (Kauffman & Hallahan 2005). Acknowledging learn, differences, the essence of special education lies in its goal to educate , certain population of students, particularly those at the tail ends of a norm statistical distribution of performance (Thomas & Loxley 2001) (see Figyy, 2.4). In other words, special education tries to ensure that those perceived wo 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. Assuch, 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 Foundations of Special and Inclusive Education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). CHAPTER 2 Addressing Diversity Through the Years 25IV. 26 A. Valuing all students and staff equally B. Increasing the participation of students in; and reducing their C. Restructuring the cultures, policies, and practices in schools so that D. Reducing barriers to learning and participation for all students, not E. Learning from attempts to overcome barriers to the access and F. Viewing the difference between students as resources to support G. Acknowledging the right of students to an education in their locality H. Improving schools for staff as well as for students I. Emphazising the role of schools in building community and J. Fostering mutually sustaining relationships between schools and K. Recognizing that inclusion in education is one aspect of inclusion in Inclusion in Education Involves: exclusion from; the cultures, curricula, and communities of loca] schools they respond to the diversity of students in the locality only those with impairments or those who are categorized as ‘having special educational needs’ participation of particular students to make changes for the benefit o students more widely learning, rather than problems to be overcome developing values, as well as in increasing achievement communities society. Figure 2.5. Inclusive Education practices by Booth and Ainscow (2002:3). 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 address the issues of inclusion in education. Inclusive education is not merely call toward educational reform for those with additional needs. It is simply Foundations of Special and inclusive Education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 * RA7277 (1992) - Magna Carta for Disabled Persons o Equal rights and privileges of PWDs on employment, education, health, telecommunications, auxiliary social services, accessibility, political, and civil rights © 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 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 CHAPTER 2 Addressing Diversity Through the Years 27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 o Exemption of VAT on the following sale of goods and services © Inclusion of funeral services * Civil Service Commission MC No. 20, s. 2017 - express lanes for PWDs in all commercial and government establishments * RA 11228 (2019) - Amendment of RA 7277 All PWDs shall be automatically covered by the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) of the PhilHealth and that the PhilHealth shall develop exclusive packages for PWDs that will address their specific health and development needs. eview>