Capability Approach to Disability
\nBeyond the Dilemma of Difference:
\nThe Capability Approach to Disability
\nand Special Educational Needs
\nLORELLA TERZI
\nIn her recent pamphlet Special Educational Needs: a new look
\n(2005) Mary Warnock has called for a radical review of
\nspecial needs education and a substantial reconsideration
\nof the assumptions upon which the current educational
\nframework is based. The latter, she maintains, is hindered by a
\ncontradiction between the intention to treat all learners as the
\nsame and that of responding adequately to the needs arising
\nfrom their individual differences. The tension highlighted
\nby Warnock, which is central to the debate in special and
\ninclusive education, is also referred to as the \u2018dilemma of
\ndifference\u2019. This consists in the seemingly unavoidable choice
\nbetween, on the one hand, identifying children\u2019s differences in
\norder to provide for them differentially, with the risk of
\nlabelling and dividing, and, on the other, accentuating the
\n\u2018sameness\u2019 and offering common provision, with the risk of
\nnot making available what is relevant to, and needed by,
\nindividual children. In this paper, I argue that the capability
\napproach developed by Amartya Sen provides an innovative
\nand important perspective for re-examining the dilemma of
\ndifference in significant ways. In particular, I maintain that
\nreconceptualising disability and special needs through the
\ncapability approach makes possible the overcoming of the
\ntension at the core of the dilemma of difference, whilst at the
\nsame time inscribing the debate within an ethical, normative
\nframework based upon justice and equality.
\nINTRODUCTION
\nThe publication in 1978 of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the
\nEducation of Handicapped Children and Young People, known as the
\nWarnock Report (DES, 1978), marked a watershed in the educational
\nprovision for disabled learners in the UK, whilst at the same time
\nestablishing a new fundamental framework for special education. The
\nJournal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005
\nr The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing,
\n9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
\nReport importantly highlighted the commonality of educational aims for
\nall children, irrespective of their abilities or disabilities, and introduced the
\nconcept of \u2018special educational needs\u2019 in order to identify learners who
\nexperience difficulties at any time during their schooling. Further, it
\nrecognised disabled learners\u2019 entitlement to be educated in mainstream
\nschools, providing their needs could be met with additional support, thus
\nopening the way to the idea of inclusion (Riddell, 2002, p. 6; Warnock,
\n2005, p. 18).
\nRecently, and more than thirty years after the publication of the Report
\nand the enactment of its recommendations through the 1981 Education
\nAct,1 Baroness Mary Warnock, the then chair of the Committee, has called
\nfor a radical review of special needs education. In her pamphlet Special
\nEducational Needs: A New Look Warnock argues for a substantial
\nreconsideration of the assumptions upon which the current educational
\nframework is based. The latter, she maintains, is hindered by a contradiction between the intention to treat all learners the same and that of
\nresponding adequately to the needs arising from their individual differences (Warnock, 2005, p. 11).
\nThe tension highlighted by Warnock is indeed central to the debate
\nin special and inclusive education, where it is also referred to as the
\n\u2018dilemma of difference\u2019. The dilemma of difference consists in the
\nseemingly unavoidable choice between, on the one hand, identifying
\nchildren\u2019s differences in order to provide for them differentially, with
\nthe risk of labelling and dividing, and, on the other hand, accentuating
\n\u2018sameness\u2019 and offering common provision, with the risk of not making
\navailable what is relevant to, and needed by, individual children (see
\nDyson, 2001; Lunt, 2002; Norwich, 1993, 1994). Subsumed in the
\ndilemma are two interrelated aspects: a theoretical dimension, concerned
\nwith issues of conceptualisation and definition, and a political one, which
\nrefers to questions of provision in order to meet the equal entitlements of
\nall children to education.
\nConceptualising differences among children, and in particular differences related to disability and special needs, is a complex educational
\nproblem. What counts as disability and special needs, and how this relates
\nto learning difficulties, is not only still much debated in education but also
\nthe subject of contrasting and often opposed views. The debate is
\ncharacterised, on the one hand, by positions that see disability and special
\nneeds as caused by individual limitations and deficits, and, on the other, by
\npositions that see disability and special needs as caused by the limitations
\nand deficits of the schooling systems in accommodating the diversity of
\nchildren. A further crucial aspect of this debate concerns the use, in
\ngeneral terms, of classificatory systems for educational purposes and the
\nuse, more specifically, of classification in relation to disabled students.
\nThe debate on this issue tends to be polarised between, on the one side,
\nperspectives that endorse the use of categories and classification systems
\nseen as necessary to ensure differential and appropriate educational
\nprovision, and, on the other side, perspectives that critically highlight the
\npossible discriminatory and oppressive use of these systems.
\n444 L. Terzi
\nr The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 2005.
\nIn this paper, I suggest a possible, initial answer to Warnock\u2019s call for a
\nreconsideration of the framework informing special and inclusive
\neducation. More specifically, I argue that a philosophical framework,
\nbased on the capability approach as developed by Amartya Sen, provides
\nan interesting perspective for re-examining the dilemma of difference
\nin significant ways. The capability approach is a normative framework
\nfor assessing inequality. It claims that social arrangements should be
\nevaluated in the space of capability, that is, in the space of the real
\nfreedoms people have to promote and achieve their own wellbeing.
\nConsiderations of human diversity in terms of the interrelation between
\nindividual, social and circumstantial factors are central in the Assessment of
\npeople\u2019s capabilities and, therefore, ultimately, of their wellbeing.
\nHow can the capability approach address the tensions at the core of
\nthe dilemma of difference? I maintain that this approach provides an
\ninnovative theoretical and normative framework for re-examining disability and special needs. In particular, reconceptualising disability and
\nspecial needs through the capability approach allows the overcoming of
\nthe duality inherent in current understandings, whilst at the same time
\ninscribing the debate within an ethical, normative framework substantially
\naimed at justice and equality. Thus, the capability approach allows the
\ntheorisation of a unified framework that sees the interplay of the
\ntheoretical level of defining disability and special needs in education with
\nthe political level of determining a just educational entitlement.
\nThe paper is divided into three sections. The first section is a critical
\nsummary of current perspectives on disability and special educational
\nneeds. It briefly highlights how the juxtaposition of individual and social
\nelements as causes of learning difficulties leads to definitions that do not
\ncapture the complexity of disability and special needs. This results in
\npartial and theoretically limited educational perspectives. The second
\nsection outlines elements of the capability approach. It highlights how this
\napproach allows for an understanding of disability as the interrelation of
\nindividual and circumstantial elements, thus overcoming the duality of
\ncurrent perspectives. The final section of the paper reconceptualises
\ndisability and special educational needs through the capability approach
\nand shows how this approach provides new and fruitful answers to the
\ndefinitional part of the dilemma of difference, whilst keeping firmly in
\nsight the equal educational entitlement of disabled learners as a matter of
\njustice.
\n1. CONCEPTUALISING DIFFERENCES IN EDUCATION:
\nDISABILITY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS
\nEducational approaches to definitions and causes of disability and special
\nneeds, however much they may contrast, can all be substantially subsumed
\nunder different understandings of the relation between children\u2019s diversity
\nand the school system. The theoretical core of the contention lies not only
\nin the definition of children\u2019s diversity with respect to school but also, and
\nBeyond the Dilemma of Difference 445
\nr The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 2005.
\nmore specifically, in the factors causing the difficulties experienced by
\nsome children either throughout or at any time during their school career.
\nAs I mentioned earlier, the debate is characterised, on the one hand, by
\nperspectives that causally relate children\u2019s difficulties to their individual
\ncharacteristics, often seen as individual limitations and deficits. These
\nperspectives suggest the adoption of medical categories of disability and
\nconcepts of learning difficulties. On the other hand, other positions,
\nmainly in sociology of education, locate the causes of children\u2019s learning
\ndifficulties within schooling institutions characterised by their inability to
\nmeet the diversity of children\u2019s learning. While opposing the adoption of
\nany form of category or classification of children\u2019s differences, seen as
\ninherently discriminatory, these positions promote instead \u2018the recognition
\nand appreciation of all aspects of diversity in education\u2019 (Barton, 2003,
\np. 15).
\nI maintain that the duality between individual and social elements, an
\nartificial causal opposition, leads to limited and unsatisfactory conceptualisations of disability and special needs. More specifically, I argue that
\nperspectives emphasising individual limitations end up overshadowing the
\nrole played by the design of schooling institutions in determining learning
\ndifficulties. Conversely, perspectives that identify schooling factors as
\ncauses of learning difficulties tend to overlook elements related to
\nindividual characteristics. Let me proceed to substantiate these claims.
\nPerspectives that explain children\u2019s learning difficulties as causally
\nlinked to their personal features adopt concepts of disability as related to
\nindividual impairments. Here the distinction between impairment, seen as
\na physiological disorder or limitation, and the related disability, in terms
\nof restriction of activity, is fundamental. These perspectives rely on the
\nuse of classificatory systems mainly based on medical or psychological
\ncategories\u2014for example, \u2018sensory impairments\u2019 or \u2018intellectual difficulties\u2019. Categories are seen as part of the \u2018attempts to understand learners\u2019
\nindividual characteristics\u2019 (MacKay, 2002, p. 160) and to provide the
\nspecialist support assumed as fundamental to their education. Proponents
\nof these views criticise perspectives based on the social model of
\ndisability\u2014the model supported by disabled people\u2019s organisations\u2014for
\nfailing to analyse the complexity of disability and for simplifying it under
\nthe \u2018neat umbrella of disability\u2019 as socially constructed (MacKay, 2002,
\np. 160). For instance, MacKay expresses concern about the fact \u2018that many
\ncohorts of experienced teachers . . . have been taught that impaired hearing
\nis not a barrier to learning, because real barriers have to be construed
\nsocially\u2019 (ibid.). Whilst agreeing with some terms of this critique of the
\nsocial model of disability,2 I maintain that these perspectives present
\nlimits in their understanding of children\u2019s difficulties. Impaired hearing,
\nto return to the example mentioned, can certainly become in itself a barrier
\nto learning, and hence a disability, when teaching is not provided to
\naccommodate children with hearing impairment. If teaching were conducted in diverse ways, for instance by specific methods of facilitating
\nlanguage development (see, for instance, Gregory, 2005), then hearing
\nimpairment would remain an impairment, but would probably not become
\n446 L. Terzi
\nr The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 2005.
\na disability, thus not resulting in a barrier to learning. As I shall explain
\nin more detail later on, a disability is relational both to impairments
\nand to the design of educational arrangements. In particular, impairments
\nbecome disabilities\u2014that is, functional limitations\u2014in certain educational
\narrangements but not in others. Consequently, a disability implies impairment, but the opposite does not hold in all cases. This distinction is subtle
\nbut worth making. Ultimately, what this example shows is how categorybased positions end up emphasising the \u2018individual\u2019 aspect of the relation
\nbetween children\u2019s difficulties and school, thus seriously overlooking the
\nrelevance of the schooling factor in determining learning difficulties and,
\ntherefore, failing to express the complexity of determining what kind of
\ndifference is to count as a learning disability.
\nSimilar considerations apply to the concept of special educational needs,
\nas this was adopted in the UK following the Warnock Report (DES, 1978)
\nand the 1981 Education Act (see above). Whilst aiming at emphasising the
\nrelational aspect of learning difficulties, and bringing the theory and
\npractice of special education beyond the use of categories, the concept of
\nspecial educational needs not only remains inscribed in a \u2018within-child
\nmodel\u2019, but also substantially introduces a new category, that of special
\nneeds. This category still presents special needs as essential to the
\nindividual child and de facto separates children with special needs from
\nothers (Norwich, 1993, p. 45). Furthermore, the concept of special educational needs appears theoretically unspecified and practically
\nunworkable. This leads, on the one hand, to a conceptual proliferations of
\nneeds\u2014for instance, in ideas of exceptional needs, defined as \u2018arising
\nfrom characteristics shared by some, e.g. visual impairment, high musical
\nability\u2019 (Norwich, 1996, p. 34), or notions of \u2018individual needs\u2019 (Ainscow,
\n1989), related to the full and irreducible diversity of individuals. On
\nthe other hand, the unspecified nature of the concept leads to the
\nreintroduction of the medical and psychological categories it aimed
\nto abolish, like \u2018sensory impairment\u2019 or \u2018emotional and behavioural
\ndifficulties\u2019. Ultimately, therefore, the notion of special needs remains
\nconceptually a \u2018within-child model\u2019 and fails to capture the complexity of
\ndisability.
\nLet us now consider those perspectives that identify the learning
\ndifficulties experienced by some children as related to the limitations of
\nthe schooling systems in meeting their diversity. These perspectives hold
\nthe view that it is indeed how schools deal with the issue of difference that
\ndetermines the correlation between diversity and difficulties. In this sense,
\ndisabilities and special needs are considered wholly socially constructed,
\nthus neither inherent nor essential to the child.
\nFor some educationalists (for example, Tony Booth, Alan Dyson)
\ndifficulties and needs are caused by the inflexibility of the school system
\nand by its inability to meet the diversity of children. It is, therefore, the
\nlimitation of schooling that causes special educational needs. Brahm
\nNorwich notes that, although on this view difficulties are seen as arising
\nfrom the relation between the diversity of children and the school system,
\ncritical attention is specifically directed only to the limitations of the
\nBeyond the Dilemma of Difference 447
\nr The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 2005.
\nschool rather than to a comprehensive understanding of how this relation
\ntakes place. In this sense, for instance, Dyson comments: \u2018Special needs
\nare not the needs that arise in a child with disabilities with regard to a
\nsystem that is fixed. Rather they are needs that arise between the child and
\nthe educational system as a whole when the system fails to adapt itself to
\nthe characteristics of the child\u2019 (Dyson, cited in Norwich, 1993, p. 50). As
\nNorwich has rightly pointed out, there seems to be an inconsistency in
\narguing for an interaction between child and school, and then asserting
\nonly the limitations on the part of the school (Norwich, 1993, p. 50).
\nSome sociologists of education influenced by the social model of
\ndisability maintain that disability and special needs in education are
\nsocially constructed in the sense of being the products of disabling barriers
\nand of exclusionary and oppressive educational processes (see Armstrong,
\nBarnes, Barton, Corbett, Oliver, Tomlinson). They see disabilities and
\ndifficulties as caused by institutional practices, which marginalise and
\ndiscriminate through the use of labelling procedures and disabling
\ncategories and methods. These positions criticise the use of categories
\nof disability for their arbitrary, socially situated and discriminatory use.
\nThe use of categories is seen as aimed at separating and, until recently,
\nsegregating children on the basis of their presumed \u2018abnormality\u2019, and as
\nlabelling and devaluing disabled children and children with special needs.
\nConsequently, and in line with the social model of disability, according to
\nproponents of this perspective, \u2018difference is not a euphemism for defect,
\nfor abnormality, for a problem to be worked out through technical and
\nassimilationist education policies. Diversity is a social fact\u2019 (Armstrong
\nand Barton, 2000, p. 34). Differences and diversity, therefore, instead of
\nconstituting a \u2018dilemma\u2019, have to be promoted and celebrated.
\nI argue that this position, while highlighting possible limits of medical
\nand social practices of categorisation, nevertheless involves relevant
\ntheoretical problems. First, stating that difficulties and disability in
\neducation are socially constructed betrays obvious and exaggerated
\nassumptions regarding socialisation and significantly overlooks the
\nindividual factors related to impairments. To resume the example
\nmentioned above, a hearing impairment has to be recognised and
\nacknowledged if provision is to be made in order to avoid educational
\nbarriers. Hence, simply stating that individual differences have to be
\ncelebrated does not seem to be a sufficient basis upon which to determine
\nthe ends of educating the child, and even less so when the aim is the
\nenactment of equal educational entitlements. This becomes more evident
\nin the case of severely disabled children or children with multiple
\ndisabilities. Second, the abandonment of any use of categories and
\nclassifications of disability and special needs in favour of a generic
\ncelebration of differences is in itself a problematic and, to a certain extent,
\ncounterproductive position. How can policies be designed to celebrate
\ndifferences, and specifically differences related to impairment and
\ndisability, in the absence of any specification of the concept of difference?
\nUltimately, therefore, educational perspectives that advocate the abandonment of categories of disability and special needs and assert that they are
\n448 L. Terzi
\nr The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 2005.
\nsolely socially constructed seriously overlook the relevance of individual
\nfactors and the importance of the relation between the latter and the design
\nof schooling systems in determining learning difficulties.
\nLet us now recap the main elements of the educational debate on
\ndisability and special needs addressed so far. Positions in education can be
\nidentified in terms of the contrast between, on the one hand, asserting that
\ndifficulties are caused by factors essential to the individual child and, on
\nthe other, maintaining that they are caused by the limitations of schools
\nand by institutional barriers. As we have seen, the opposition between
\nindividual and social elements presents consistent theoretical limits, which
\nare mainly related to the assumptions of unilateral causality and of a fixed
\ndichotomy that are made. According to Norwich, \u2018Individual difficulty
\nversus the organizational inflexibility is a false causal opposition. The
\nsocial and the individ<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Capability Approach to Disability Beyond the Dilemma of Difference: The Capability Approach to Disability and Special Educational Needs LORELLA TERZI In her recent pamphlet Special\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7316,7318,7317,7315,7319,7321],"tags":[642,618,8825,576,116,631,19,643,473,633,630,628,450,597,594,626,635,574,622,624,620,621,619,623,617,625,627,634,629,632,644,645,42,66],"class_list":["post-112890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-best-dissertation-writers-uk","category-british-dissertation-writers","category-dissertation-help-online","category-dissertation-writing-services-uk","category-help-with-dissertation-writing","category-uk-dissertation-help","tag-apps-that-write-essays-for-you-free","tag-assignment-writing-services-in-usa","tag-bes","tag-best-dissertation-writing-services","tag-best-essay-writing-service","tag-best-paper-writing-services","tag-best-research-paper-writing-services-in-usa","tag-best-website-to-write-my-essay","tag-cheap-essay-writing-service","tag-cheap-research-paper-writing-service","tag-college-paper-writing-service","tag-dissertation-help-online","tag-dissertation-writing-services","tag-dissertation-writing-services-illegal","tag-dissertation-writing-services-near-me","tag-dissertation-writing-services-usa","tag-essay-writing-service","tag-free-dissertation-writing-services","tag-homework-essay-writer","tag-homework-essay-writer-free","tag-homework-help-global","tag-homework-help-services","tag-homework-help-usa","tag-homework-writing-help","tag-homework-writing-service","tag-legit-research-paper-writing-services","tag-legitimate-dissertation-writing-services","tag-research-paper-writer-online-free","tag-research-paper-writing-services-online","tag-research-paper-writing-websites","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-cheap","tag-write-my-essay-for-me-tik-tok","tag-write-my-essay-free","tag-write-my-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112890","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}