ilities, the challenge is to give people with disabilities chance to prove their worth as equally important human beings (http://www.open.ac.uk/inclusiveteaching/pages/legal-and-professional-requirements/reasonable-adjustments.php).
People with disabilities are being portrayed and seen as helpless people, to be pitied and cared for. Many people are often times embarrassed about disability and have come up with words to describe it. People with disabilities are often being described with words that are derogatory like mongoloid, cripple, deaf and dumb, or retarded. These words are rude and focus on the disability instead of focusing on the person. There are acceptable words that can be used to refer people with disability. Acceptable alternatives are ‘person with mobility impairment’, ‘person with down syndrome’, person with hearing and speech disability, and ‘person with intellectual disability’ (http://www.equity.uts.edu.au/policy/language/ablist.html). “Language both reflect and shape social reality” (http://www.equity.uts.edu.au/policy/language/index.html). It is therefore of utmost importance how the language reflect how disabilities are perceived and understood.
For decades governments have been trying to promote equality for all citizens. Discrimination is utterly discouraged and efforts have been made to foster unity and equality. In trying to achieve this noble goal, policies were made to protect the right of every individual regardless of gender, color, and ethnic backgrounds. The same is true with people who have disabilities. But looking at these people’s needs are sometimes more complex than it seems. In the present educational system ‘inclusion’ is the prevalent code of practice.
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 amended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) to make it unlawful for education providers to discriminate against disabled pupils, students and adult learners; and to make sure disabled