ACCIONES DE MÉXICO Y EL MANDATO DEL CDB EN TEMAS

2.3.1 Medical and social models

Andrews, Fourie and Watson (in Watermeyer et al. 2006:245) and Soudien and Baxen (in Watermeyer et al. 2006:154-155) contend that in early medical definitions, disability was equated with deficiency and an agreed upon image of the ideal subject was lacking. Hence this model advocated special treatment and management of people with disabilities reducing them to objects of pity, charity and special education programmes which denied them opportunities to access ordinary school curriculum and equality in society (Dudley-Marling & Gurn 2010:4). Swain (in Swain et al. 2004:54) uses the terms “tragedy model” and the “dominant individual model” when relating the bad experiences of people with disabilities as minorities in the western countries when served under the medical model. Andrews, Fourie and Watson (in Watermeyer et al. 2006:245) also state that viewing disability as such prompted the social model activists to seek to change public awareness by defining disability as a result of society’s unwillingness or inability to accommodate the needs of all citizens, both those with disabilities and those considered to be without a disabilty. In other words, the social model views disability as an external factor that is detached from the person with a disability, while the medical model views disability as an internal factor that is within the person with a disability. From a social model view, Bury in Watson (2008:57) summarizes disability as what a disabled society decides to call those seen to deviate from socially constructed norms. He also highlights that tenets of the model recognize the dangers of an over-socialised view and that impairment and disability are closely related but distinct. However, some still hold on to the social view and campaigns are still ongoing in African Newsletters (Dube 2010:13; Mkozho 2010:17; Phiri 2010:4-5; Ramphisa 2008:5). Although seemingly in great conflict, the two models (medical and social models of disability) are important in understanding the construction of ID and the other models seem to have developed from them.

2.3.2 Socio-cultural paradigm: Vygotsky

Based upon the work of Vygotsky cited in Engelbrecht and Green (2009:199); Cesar and Santos (2006:333-346) and Alfassi et al. (2009:292-293), Vygotsky highlighted the development of cognitive practices and the role of mediation in determining the zone of potential development. Vygotsky also emphasized the importance of motivation and socio-emotional development to deal with the characteristics pertaining to social barriers, low expectations and social exclusion. In brief, Vygotsky perceived learning as a communicative process and advocated the socio-cultural paradigm for instruction and remediation. This paradigm viewed ID as a social construction more than an inherent characteristic that is not normal, meaning it was just a kind of diversity that has to do with societal issues. Vygotsky’s thinking influenced modern emphasis on adaptive and

necessary supports to help persons with ID to enter fully into adult life (Engelbrecht & Green 2009:199).

2.3.3 Theory of school learning: Bloom

A theory of school learning that deals with student characteristics, instruction and learning outcomes described by Bloom is also pertinent to this study of finding the extent to which national curriculum adaptation can promote inclusive education of the learners with a MID. In the theory, the learning outcomes are level and type of achievement, the rate of achievement and the affective characteristics of the learner in relation to the learning task and self. The three interdependent variables which are central to this theory of school learning are:

• The extent to which the student has already learned the basic prerequisites of the learning to be accomplished (that is the cognitive entry behaviours).

• The extent to which the student is (or can be) motivated to engage in the learning process (that is the affective entry characteristics).

• The extent to which the instruction to be given is appropriate to the learner (quality of instruction and the extent to which cues, practice and reinforcement of the learning are appropriate to needs of the learner) (Bloom 1976:10-11).

Bloom further stated that smaller individual differences in learning are to be preferred to larger individual differences in learning (Bloom 1976:13) hence this statement may imply grouping children according to medical model era and disregard of IE. However, insightfully, Bloom also strongly cautioned that attempts to make changes in the home and the larger social environment related to education and learning were likely to take decades before the effects would be felt in the schools (Bloom 1976:17). This has proven to be true in the sense that it validates why IE has been referred to as a long project (Warnock & Norwich 2010:100) and also why the Minister of Education in South Africa decided on a twenty-year time frame (2001 to 2021) to implement IE (Links 2009:10). The de-merits of the theory, from the researcher’s analysis of the above statements, are that Bloom seemed to think that teachers and learners existed in a vacuum and ignored the other main actors in education such as the role played by the positive or negative attitudes of people with power to control others in society. He also seemed to acknowledge diversity but preferred discriminatory practice of dealing with diversity showing lack of concepts of inclusivity, equality and rights; therefore, his cognitive development theory should be complemented by another modern and inclusive practice such as the Cognitive Education: INCLUES. This type of education is about activating a child’s basic skills that are involved in learning basic academic skills as well as social, motor, artistic and emotional adaptive learning to develop the child’s capacity to learn how to learn and find the clues of learning (INCLUES leaflet 2006).

2.3.4 Post-modern perspective

Thomas and Loxley (2007:3) cite a number of other viewpoints of disability in education. Pertinent to this study is the post-modern perspective which holds that there is no discreet class of people who are disabled; rather the mere existence of excluded groups force people to categorize. The categorizing encourages a particular mind-set about a group, while in reality the groups in question are crosscutting, fluid and shifting. This viewpoint concurs with sentiments about ID highlighted in Special Olympics (2007:10) which state that ID encompasses overlapping groups of considerable diversity, sharing a core set of features related to impaired cognitive function. It is also contended that ID is so contextually bound that the exercise of classifying one as having or not having ID will always be subject to challenge for all but the most profoundly impaired. While the names of other common disabilities, such as deaf or blind, have not changed, terminology for ID has been changing quite a lot. These changes could confirm that construction of ID is not well grounded as asserted by Special Olympics (op cit). The next section highlights some terms used for ID.