Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Critical-Discourse-Analysis-Of-Disabi 👈

1. Learning in a Changing World
Convened by the Institute of Education, University of London and Bejiing
Normal University
21-22 November 2014, Institute of Education, University of London
Conference proceeding.
A critical discourse analysis of disability and inclusion: a case-study
from an Italian university.
Francesca Peruzzo
MPHil/PhD student
Institute of Education – Department of Humanities and Social Sciences
An Italian University as a case study: Disability and Italian research.
This research investigates a field that in Italy is still mostly unexplored on a
national basis: the inclusion of disabled students in higher education. A
specific university represents the research context in which a case-study is
being conducted. The institution describes itself as a forward-looking
university, well grounded within the surrounding community, supported by
local disabled organisations, and with substantial funding to invest in
university improvements. The study strives at showing the dynamics occurring
within the Italian academic environment, unfolding a national approach still
embedded within a medical tradition rather than a social perspective, and still
detached from ongoing discourses around inclusion being developed on an
international scale.
Considering the Italian literature on disability and inclusion, other single case
studies have been taken into consideration, in order to inquire into the
individual and specific situation of each student, following the path already
paved by the medical approach which tends to present disability as a personal
issue. Other research has provided single interviews about personal
experiences and has mainly adopted a phenomenological approach, as the

2. study developed by Federazione Italiana per il Superamento dell’Handicap
(FISH, 2011) that used in-depth interviews to investigate the personal
experiences of disabled students in south-Italian universities. Other research
has given evidence on how particular Italian universities have adopted and
implemented Law n. 17/1999, that provides universities with specific
directions in matters of services and provisions for the integration of disabled
students (Maggiolini & Molteni, 2013).
The Italian literature and discussion about inclusion and disability within
higher education calls for a more homogenous approach, informed by greater
awareness and coherence when choosing the lens through which to explore
the disabling environment. The little research that exists tends of being
isolated and free standing rather than emanating from within coherent or
distinctive academic or theoretical traditions of research practice.
There is a need for an overarching framework, that embraces the multi-
disciplinarity of the field and at the same time aims to compensate the lack of
an approach coming from a sociological perspective. As a consequence the
Social Model of Disability, commonly cited and embraced as the counter-
answer to the individualising medical model, has been discussed by
psychologists, pedagogues, lawyers, doctors and therapists, mostly still
coming from a strongly medicalised background and perspective.
The first issue discussed in this paper concerns the connections between the
precursory policy of integrazione scolastica1
and the medical approach to
disability on the one hand and the policy of inclusion and the Social Model of
Disability on the other. Secondly, interconnections between the international
and national conceptions of inclusion will be discussed. My own operational
concept of inclusion will conclude the first part and the specific case-study will
be introduced.
This case-study does not set out to present another individually picked
example to add to those that already exist. The reason of this choice is to
1 With the conception of integrazione scolastica is intended the policy codified by Laws
118/71, 517/77 ‘that led to the widespread national closure of special education schools and
classrooms across Italy in favour of general education class placement and education for
students with the full range of disabilities’ (Giangreco et al., 2013, p. 72)

3. show the still deeply rooted influence of the policy of integrazione within the
Italian higher education system and the hegemony of the medical model in
policy-making processes. Investigating through a sociological lens, and
applying an inclusive framework on policy-making processes, the study aims
to engage with the practical application of a sociological perspective to
inclusion in higher education through a socially modelled framework of
disability.
1. The policy of integrazione scolastica and its deep roots within the
Medical Model of Disability
Interpreting disability through the lens of the medical model means adopting
the threefold definition provided by the International Classification of
Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH), that defines:
Impairment ‘Any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological or
anatomical structure or function’
Disability ‘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’
Handicap ‘A disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an
impairment or disability, that limits or prevents the fulfilment of a role
(depending on age, sex, social and cultural factors) for that individual’.
(Barnes, 2012 p.7)
Additionally known as the individual model of disability, the medical approach
entrenches disability within the person, focussing on bodily ‘abnormality’,
disorder or deficiency (Barnes et al., 1999) and recognising this as the origin
of disability and functional limitation. The bio-psychological situation of
‘normality’ is seen as a state to be achieved, and the disabled person has a
gap to be filled in order to come to belong to that ‘normal’ condition. Drawing

4. attention to the need for care and focussing on the condition of dependence
that describes an individual with limited functions, scholars from disability
studies refer to a ‘personal tragedy’ approach (Oliver, 1986, 1990; Barnes,
1999).
The influence of the Medical Model on social policies has been crucial in order
to deliver policies designed to help disabled people to cope with their disability
(Barnes et al., 1999). Taking the educational context into account, the policy
of integrazione scolastica reflects the depriving condition of disabled students.
During 1970s, Italy became the avantgarde in terms of the integration of
disabled students and opening the doors of mainstream classrooms (Law
517/1977). That radical change was informed by a medical model of disability
focussed on a desire to respond to each disabled student’s need, in order to
adapt the personal condition of each individual to a pre-set environment.
Disabled students were to be welcomed within a non-disabled community,
implying that the disabled student had the status of a visitor, with only
conditional access to classroom (Mitchell, 2010). The Law also consolidated
the role of a specialised support teacher ‘assigned to support one or more
general education classrooms where students with certified disabilities are
present’ (Giangreco et al., 2011). The idea of a dedicated specialist
supporting a student’s studies was intended to be a method for helping
disabled students to reach a standardised class level. Law n.17/1999, relating
to the regulation of higher education, replicated the same approach,
institutionalising the figure of the university support tutor. A specialised
support service was established in order to help the students keep up with
other students and to achieve success in their exams. The method of
assessment can be changed and adapted if it does not fit the disabled
student’s abilities, upon agreement with the specialised tutor, institutionalising
a strongly individualised treatment. Moreover, Law n. 17/1999 made
compulsory the promotion of the Delegate of Dean for Disability for each
department of any Italian university, who remains responsible for coordinating,
monitoring and supporting specific actions required for the integration of
disabled students.
This policy assumes that the student needs to adapt and make adjustments to
the social context. It ‘requires change on the part of the disabled student, who

5. is provided with additional resources to fit in with the existing structure or
alternatively, to follow a different learning pathway within the mainstream…
this conservative interpretation of integrazione leaves mainstream schools
and contexts unchanged… and operates within a framework of compensation
and normalization of disability’ (D’Alessio, 2009b, p.58, cited in D’Alessio
2013, p.). According to this perspective, differences are not valued but evened
out; and rather than embracing a viewpoint that enhances the diverse human
condition is preferred an approach that standardises students’ abilities.
The presence of disability tutors can also represent a hindrance for the
academic and teaching body, as it discourages questioning and discussing
about teaching methods if tutors fail to reach every student.
The evidence of a top-down approach is certified by the requirements of
university entrance established by law, as the student is asked to provide a
national certificate, called ‘Certificazione di handicap’ attesting to the grade
and the typology of disability. The crucial part of this policy is that ‘to claim
legal protection or state benefits, disabled students must locate themselves
within such a definition, thus implying a degree of acquiescence’ (Riddell,
2005 p.18). In addition to this requirement, a specific financial allowance for
disabled students is regulated by Legislative Decree n. 68/2012 that waives
tuition fees for the entire university course for students who can certify their
invalidity equal to or greater than 66% (according to the national rankings and
certified by the district medical commission, as stated by Framework Law
104/1992). In particular, the concept of invalidity implies legal and medical
considerations as Law 118/1971 Art. 2(2) defines ‘civil invalids as all citizens
affected by congenital or acquired deficits, also degenerative, comprising the
psychic irregulars […] or persons with mental deficiency […] suffering from a
permanent reduction of the ability to work not less than one third […]’. Thus,
on one hand the student is given a percentage of disability by the local
medical district; on the other hand, the expert identifies a student’s needs and
how these should be met.
The medical model is still playing a crucial part in shaping university policies
as shown by the compensatory approach adopted by the Italian higher
education system. The policy of integrazione scolastica has represented a
milestone in matter of educational policies; Italy was integrating disabled

6. students while other countries were not even questioning the nature of
differentiated classes. Despite its formerly innovative nature, the policy can
result in an extremely expensive approach to education for all, especially
economically speaking. Perceiving those resources as ‘supplementary’,
especially in a time of economic crisis (D’Alessio, 2013), may result in them
becoming the target of financial cuts turning and thus an impediment to
achieving mainstreamed education.
2. Identifying the Social Model of Disability and the concept of
inclusion.
The micro-dimension of social inclusion, which legislation finds difficult to
regulate, springs from the inclusive perspective that argues that disabled
people should not be identified with their deficit. Since its outset, disabled
activists from the disability movement and academics gravitating around
them, have stressed this crucial point stating that
‘…it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is
something imposed on top of our impairments by the way we are
unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society.
Disabled people are therefore an oppressed group in society. To
understand this, it is necessary to grasp the distinction between the
physical impairment and the social situation, called ‘disability’, of people
with such impairment’ (Oliver, 1996 p.22).
This extract is taken from the Fundamental Principles of Disability (UPIAS,
1976), the publication from which the Social Model stems. The stress lies on
two different strands, firstly the role played by society, with its values, norms
and beliefs, with its organisation, institutions and architecture in constructing
disability. Secondly, it identified a political strategy, making disabled people’s
voices louder and strengthening their identity as an oppressed social group.
Where society does not answer to the needs of all its members equally, not
respecting their physical shape and differing intellects, disablement arises
(Drake, 1999). This social approach turned attention from physical

7. impairments and mental deficits to social processes of inclusion or exclusion
of disabled individuals. This implied a totally different approach to the lived
realities of disabled people: ‘rather than pursuing a strategy of cure and
rehabilitation, it is better to pursue a strategy of social transformation’
(Shakespeare, 2006). In 1991, Michael Oliver first conceived the phrase
‘Social Model of Disability’, arguing that the ‘model has no explanatory power,
but instead directs us to theorise disability and concomitant phenomena such
as ‘impairment’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘activism” (Goodley, 2001 p.118). As a
consequence, this perspective triggered and influenced the successive
reformulation of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities
and Handicaps (WHO, 1980): the International Classification of Functioning,
Disability and Health (WHO, 2001). The new classification is acknowledged
as an innovative approach to the research into disability, embracing all its
dimensions, from a body level to activity limitations and societal level
restrictions of participation.
The contest over the various meanings and approaches to disability, informs
and conditions the approach to policy-making processes. The binary policy
viewpoint to mainstream schooling is illustrated by the two theoretical
guidelines of integrazione scolastica and inclusion. The first one is still
entrenched in a medical and individualising model of disability, trying to
compensate personal deficit with additional resources and external help. The
second one is rooted within a social model, which presents disability as a form
of social oppression that marginalises people who are not aligned with a
standardised concept of ability. If inclusive approaches are based on non-
deficit notions of difference (Medeghini et al., 2009), focusing on the removal
of a range of barriers and acknowledging diversity as enriching (Canevaro,
2007), integrazione aims at responding to the specific individual need,
addressing the single case and adapting it to the existing system.
As shown by the literature (Canevaro, 2007, Canevaro & Ianes, 2001,
D’Alessio 2011, 2013; Medeghini 2007, 2008, Maggiolini & Molteni 2013), the
paradigm of integrazione still dominates the Italian policy-making approach to
education. There are a range of reasons for this, primarily due to the binding
legislation that carries discriminatory terminology (Law 517/1977; Law

8. 104/1992) resulting in an imprecise use of the terms inclusion and
integrazione, which are often used as synonyms (D’Alessio, 2013). This
medicalised approach reflects the state of ambivalence that characterises the
work of the university in matters of inclusion. As definitions are unclear and
the realisation of a mainstream students’ inclusion remains an aspiration,
policy-makers still mainly focus on answering specific and individual problems
rather than acting upon the surrounding social context. Among others (FISH,
2011, Begeny & Martens, 2007), the evidence of a vague and misconceived
approach to inclusion, is shown in the research of Molteni and Maggiolini
(2013) who show how the concept of inclusion is still written alongside
‘progressive adjustment’ and ‘competent professionals to answer their
questions and solve problems’ (ivi, p. 257).
3.1 The international influence
This uncertainty on terminology might be also attributed to a merging of terms
and interpretations drawn from international legislation, declarations and
conventions. On a European and international scale many efforts are being
made to homogenise the interpretation of the concept of inclusion, due to its
breadth of possible meanings. Even though the literature (Dyson et al. 2002,
2004; Mitchell, 2005, 2009, 2010) tends to highlight that on a national scale
the meaning has often been narrowed down, comprising just students
categorised as ‘having special educational needs’ (Ainscow, Booth and
Dyson, 2006; see also Salamanca Statement, 1994); at an international level
the tendency is coming to embrace the recognition that ‘learners have diverse
abilities and interests, and that they come from diverse ethnic and social
backgrounds’ (Mitchell, 2009). Ainscow in his speech during the 48th
UNESCO International Conference on Education in Geneva (2008) titled
‘Inclusive Education: the way of the future’, highlights the actual situation:
‘In some countries, inclusion is still thought of as an approach to serving
children with disabilities within general education settings.
Internationally, however, it is increasingly seen more broadly as a reform
that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners. It presumes

9. that the aim of inclusive education is to eliminate social exclusion that is
a consequence of attitudes and responses to diversity in race, social
class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability. As such, it starts from the
belief that education is a basic human right and the foundation for a
more just society’.
A major role is being played by the United Nations, underlining the human
right nature of the concept and stressing the importance of ensuring ‘the full
and equal access to health, education, and educational services by children
with disabilities and children with special needs’ (Statement by Heads of
State, UN, 2002). However, some among the most influential documents
leading to inclusion and specifically within the educational sphere maintain ‘a
degree of ambiguity regarding the intentions of […] the meaning of inclusion’
(Mitchell, 2011, p.126). Taking the Standard Rules on the equalisation of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993) as an example, its twenty-
two rules are firmly based on the social model of disability (Mittler, 2002),
underlying the acknowledgement and agreement with an inclusive
perspective. Concerning education, rule six underlines that ‘States should
recognize the principle of equal primary, secondary and tertiary educational
opportunities for children, youth and adults with disabilities, in integrated
settings. They should ensure that the education of persons with disabilities is
an integral part of the educational system’ (UN, 1993, p.23). Despite stressing
the importance of an equal education, integration still constitutes the main
semantic field throughout the document, displaying a not clear distinction in
meaning and practices between what the terms integration and inclusion
imply.
The Salamanca Statement (1994) has been widely recognised for its leading
position within the development of inclusive education. From the beginning, it
highlights the unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs of
every child and specifies that educational programmes should consider the
wide diversity of these characteristics and needs (p. viii). Reading further, it
takes the regular schools with an inclusive orientation as ‘the most effective

10. means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming
communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all’
(p.ix). However, it still sticks with the term ‘special educational needs’ as
referring to ‘all those children and youth whose needs arise from disabilities or
learning difficulties’ adding that the hoped context is the one within which
‘those with special needs can achieve the fullest educational progress and
social integration’. Moreover, it leaves a door open for separated classes, as
stated at p. ix, that countries may ‘adapt as a matter of law or policy the
principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless
there are compelling reasons for doing it otherwise’ (UN, 1994). These
documents are meant to be umbrellas for terminology and guidelines for each
country in order to adopt, develop and implement inclusive policies. A
misleading blueprint can turn into ineffective or inconsistent policies and
practices because it does not set a clear pathway to follow in order to obtain
specific results.
The Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities (2006) represented a
milestone in affirming the fundamental rights of people with disabilities, as well
as a motive in furthering inclusive policies. The Convention describes
disability as ‘an evolving concept… that… results from the interaction between
persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that
hinders their full and effective participation on an equal basis with others’
(Art.1, p. 4). The interpretation of disability presented in the Convention has
been subject to criticism (Stein, 2008; Congressional Research Service,
2013), as it does not provide an accurate definition of the concept. Referring
to Article 24, concerning the regulation of the educational field, the idea of full
inclusion stumbles on a specific point. Even though the document highlights
the importance of taking ‘appropriate measures to employ teachers, including
teachers with disabilities, who are qualified in sign language and/or Braille,
and to train professionals and staff who work at all levels of education’
(Art.24(4), p.17); the Convention reserves a space for the legitimacy of
‘effective individualized support measures’ provided in ‘environments that
maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full
inclusion’ (Art. 24(3e), p. 17). Regarding regulation within higher education,
the Convention specifies that an inclusive education system is to be ensured

11. at all levels (Art.24(1), p. 16) including in the academic field. Directly referring
to Higher Education, the Convention looks at the entrance and the attendance
recommending no discrimination and an equal basis with others. In order to
accomplish this aim, ‘States Parties shall ensure that reasonable
accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities’ (Art.24(5), p.18).
The document released after the UNESCO International Conference on
Education held in Geneva in 2008, represents a last significant piece of
evidence. The Conference developed an umbrella-definition of inclusion,
working on different aspects of the concept, organising workshops and
collecting perspectives and approaches through contributions of ministries of
education and keynotes speakers on the topic. The different contributions to
the discussion showed the extent to which the concept is globally widespread
but nationally understood. At the very beginning it is defined as ‘an ongoing
process aimed at offering quality education for all while respecting diversity
and the different needs and abilities, characteristics and learning expectations
of the students and communities, eliminating all forms of discrimination’ (ivi,
p.19). Social inequality and poverty levels are described as the two priorities
to be addressed in order to favour the implementation of inclusive education
policies. The document reveals the diversity of acknowledgements of the
concept by the different countries. In his speech, the Swiss Minister of
Education referred to a law that: ‘has just been adopted on the integration of
handicapped children and young people with special needs’, revealing the
degree to which obsolescent terms remain fixed within public discourse. The
French Minister, on his part, claimed inclusive education as a factor that
‘increases individuals’ competencies, contributes to a rise in living standards
and facilitates openness to the global economy’, underling the economistic
lens through which he was seeing the concept. These circumstances raise the
issue on what solution is actually more useful to strive at, having to choose
between either a single and overarching definition of inclusion and different
perspectives to embrace it, according to the context under examination.
3.2 Drawing my own idea of inclusion.

12. Within the wide range of different and related perspectives on inclusive
education and social inclusion, it is necessary to take a position in choosing
which is the most effective within my own project. As Clough and Corbett
(2000) underline, inclusion cannot be regarded as a ‘single movement’, as it is
constituted of beliefs, local struggles, and many forms of practice. Inclusion is
a process (Ainscow, 2008), concerned with removing barriers, both physical
and cultural, in order to allow for the full participation and achievement of all
students.
Within the field of Higher Education, the concept of inclusion acquires different
connotations. Due to the optional enrolment, and to the voluntary attendance
regimes for lectures, the inclusion of marginalised or excluded groups of
learners assumes a political shade. This viewpoint is well supported by a
sociological perspective, which sees special educational needs as the results
of social processes. The core ideas of a sociological lens, as underpinned by
Clough and Corbett (2000), are related to the ‘vested interests of
professionals and … institutional reproduction of disadvantage’ and moreover,
‘whose interests are served by a “special” education’ (ivi, p.16). To investigate
these leads, the deconstruction and critique of the relations, interests and
structures lying within and behind the system of higher education and
government is needed.
The main concern arises from the way that the conceptualisation of social
inclusion varies between institutions, especially because ‘categories appear,
change and disappear because of the goals pursued and the decision made
by people who control the special education process’ (Tomlinson, 1982, p.22).
For this reason, from the perspective of a disabled student (Riddell et al.,
2005), a disabled identity can engage politically or strategically with other
facets that complete the individual’s identity, for example, gender, social class
or ethnicity which produce a radically different perception of what inclusion
means to those managing the institution. As Len Barton (2001, p.286)
suggests, ‘an emancipatory meaning of difference is one of the goals of a
movement concerned with social justice’. From the institutional point of view,
this perspective can be engaged by linking policies of inclusive education with
more general social policies and treating them as matter of social justice.

13. Inclusive practices in education can play a decisive role in the realisation of
changes towards an inclusive society, and one of the key messages from the
2008 Geneva Conference effectively underlines it:
‘Public policy on inclusive education should go hand in hand with
policies on social services, culture, language, health etc. inclusion is not
confined only to education. It should cut across other policies’.
(UNESCO International Conference on Education, Geneva, 2008)
Within disability studies, this was a crucial point that has already been
mentioned. Oliver, back in 1988, had mentioned the tight connection between
educational policy and wider social policies. Inclusive education is embedded
in a major movement that views social inclusion as the ultimate achievement.
This becomes a matter of human universal rights, taking the Salamanca
Statement’s (1994) words referring to inclusive schools, ‘their establishment is
a crucial step in helping to change discriminatory attitudes, in creating
welcoming communities and in developing an inclusive society’ (ivi, p.7).
Much in agreement with Tomlinson (2000), ‘the way forward is to link people
who are excluded with a human rights agenda’ (ivi, p.133).
In order to engage with the Italian higher education situation in relation to
inclusive policies affecting disabled students, I will provide an example from a
policy that regulates provision for disabled students at a specific Italian
university. I will show how the medical model still leads the policy-making
process, delivering policies and practices deeply rooted within the concept of
integrazione rather than inclusion.
Evidence from an Italian university policy: The Charta of Services for
Students with Disabilities and Special Needs.
Italian higher education institutions are mostly funded by the national
government. Even though part of the financial support comes from students’
enrolment, taxation and funds from private sector, the most consistent source

14. is delivered from the ‘Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca’
(MIUR). These circumstances strongly influence the policy-making processes
and general guidelines of Italian universities, that link their objectives and
future attainments to the directives outlined at a national level in order to
continue to benefit from public funding. Although the curricula can be set
according to the different university educational areas and subjects, the
university strategic plan strives to accomplish national policies and politics.
The specific university that has been chosen as context of the case-study
(S.U. onwards)2
is a medium-size institution with approximately 16,000
students and 600 scholars and researchers. Divided into three campuses, it
comprises ten departments and several research centres. Characterised by a
particular historical background, the Province within which the university is
located, benefits from autonomy in taxation as codified by Laws (D.P.R. n.
670/1972; n. 42/2009; regional laws n. 27/2010; n. 18/2011; n. 1/2014).
According to the legislation, the provincial administration is given a
determined period of time to arrange with the S.U. a financial plan in order to
regulate the university objectives and schedule. If the university and the
Province do not come to an agreement in the given time-span, they will
automatically refer to the national policy plan. Even if the Province enjoys
major autonomy in managing internal funding, it is still led in its general
guidelines, in terms of attainments and aims, by directives set at a national
level.
The S.U. describes itself as a dynamic and ambitious institution, with
distinctive traits given not only by its autonomous status, but also by the
contribution and interaction of the local community. Even though it has been
recently established (1962), within a few decades it has been able to reach
the highest grades in both national and international rankings, according to its
prolific research production and high levels of students’ satisfaction. In its
triennial strategic plan (2013-2016), the S.U. dedicates a paragraph on social
responsibility and the inclusive features of its academic community, specifying
a commitment to ‘incorporating’ (literal translation) the principles of social
2 The institution that forms the basis for this research has been anonymised. In order to be
consistent in protecting the identities of specific individuals I have used the position within the
institution rather than a name to identify individuals. This anonymisation is made clear to all
participants before the beginning of an interview.

15. responsibility, environmental sustainability, equality, inclusion and diversity.
The promotion of the wellbeing of the whole academic community is
underlined, by intervening in organisational culture through formative and
awareness raising initiatives, and specifying the creation of a context which is
respectful and mindful of differences. Among the actions to accomplish this
objective, the S.U. highlights the maintenance of a balance in the composition
of the students body, the promotion of equal opportunities to students and
(where possible) to the academic body’ (Strategic Plan, 2013 p. 31), and the
assurance that ‘people with who face difficulties’ can get access to
appropriate services and facilities’ (ivi, p.31).
In order to assess the efficacy of these aims, the S.U. sets forth some
indicators among which two are closely related to the subject of this study: the
promotion of formative courses on equal opportunities and on enhancement
of differences in study courses, and a Charta of services for Students with
Disability and Special Needs which, within the indicators, it is shortened in ‘for
the Disabled’.
To specifically draw attention to the implementation of policies and practices
relating to disability, the ‘Charta of Services for Students with Disability and
Special Needs’ (issued with Regional Decree on 13th
of March 2014) has
been analysed. I argue that it is still strongly rooted in a Medical Model
perspective. The policy content has been examined according to five main
topics:
1. Medicalised documentation, certification and evaluation of disability.
2. Individualising and preventive practices.
3. Power relations made explicit by top-down decisions and evaluations
without involving the disabled person in the decision-making process.
4. Disability as a welfare competence.
5. Assistentialism and material compensation.
With the initial statement, the S.U. locates its position on disability within the
national legislation perspective,

16. ‘promoting the insertion and integration of students with disabilities and
special needs in every aspect of university life, according to the national
law n. 104/1992: ‘Framework Law for assistance, social integration and
rights of handicapped persons’ and its integration and modifications
(referring in particular to law n. 17/1999), and to the national law n.
170/2010: ‘Acknowledgment of dyslexia, dysgraphia, dysorthographia
and dyscalculia’. (ivi, art. 1, p. 1)
Since the beginning of the document, two truisms of the policy of integrazione
have been clear, firstly the interchangeability with the terms inclusion and
integrazione as a direct consequence of a specific language and perspective
inherited from previous legislation. The S.U. therefore anchors its aims in the
integration of disabled students to national legislation, referring to national
parameters in defining both disability and the status of being disabled,
besides maintaining an autonomously driven management in policy-making
processes. According to the national Law 17/1999, the S.U. relies on the
‘Certificazione di handicap’ (equivalent to the English ‘Statement of Special
Educational Needs’) in order to classify students as disabled and provide
them with specific facilities and provision. The Disability Service is the
reference centre that facilitates knowledge and services to which certified
disabled students are entitled:
‘All disabled students and students with special needs can benefit from
services supplied by the Disability Service, as a condition of a
certification of disability and regular enrolment on a formative course at
the Athenaeum’. (p.1)
Moreover,
‘the relief from paying tuition fees for the entire university course,
according to current legislation, is granted, regardless of the family
economic situation, to students with an invalidity equal to or greater than
66%’. (p.2)

17. The student is asked to provide certification of his/her particular disability in
order to benefit from the university facilities. After the existence of a disability
has been proved, the student is entitled to specific services and provision
tailored to the problems identified and ‘deployed accordingly to the available
resources’ (P.2). The availability of provision depends closely on available
funding, grounding its roots in welfare expenditure, shedding a light on the
expensive nature of the policy. Moreover, the compensative feature of
disability services leads to individualising and preventative practices. This is
explicitly underlined when referring to learning disabilities, as the student is
given the opportunity to
‘contact the learning disability counter to request four meetings in order
to monitor the study over the year, and to ask for support in requesting
compensative and dispensatory measures for his/her specific case’.
(p.3)
The chosen style of language points out the individual treatment deployed for
each student, which becomes a ‘case’ to be assessed and integrated within
the university.
Once the student’s difficulty has been identified,
‘the student is invited to contact the Delegate for Disability of the specific
Department/Centre, who will be the mediator between the student and
the lecturers in agreeing the necessary measures of adjustment’ [during
classes or exams]. (P.4)
This condition gives rise to another important issue concerning student
agency and power relations. The student is not directly in contact with
lecturers in order to explain his/her specific requirements. The normal lesson
routine can be adapted only if a university authority intercedes for that to
happened. Disabled students are being undermined as for any decision they,
in matters of personal study, they are redirected to the Delegate for Disability
who will identify

18. ‘possible solutions, for instance, different modalities to pass the exams,
the organisation of individualised study agendas, mediation and
communication with academic lectures and arrangement of
individualised study support.’ (P.3)
Throughout the entire document, considering disabled students’ voices is not
taken into account, thus preventing the student from intervening in person
during a decision process that refers to their specific situation. Moreover, a
state of dependence on external evaluating institutions and internal caring
personnel disempowers disabled students from controlling their own study
career. This picture opens up a series of further questions that can primarily
be addressed by a system focussing more on the actual students’ need rather
than by one that ensures efficient facilities only if asked with a consider
amount of time in advance.
Even though the ‘Charta of Services for Students with Disabilities and Special
Needs’ is classified as an indicator of the ‘Social Responsibility and the
Inclusive feature of the academic community’, the inclusiveness of the policy
is not mentioned in any part of it.
Conclusion
The debate around inclusive education on an international level is more fervid
than ever. This is shown by the increasing attention paid to it at many
conferences and discussions, which view inclusive education as a human
right directly related to social inclusion. Regarding the Italian situation, it
deserves interrogation of the extent to which it is engaging with the debate
moving forward and with the position that intents to hold on it.
The influence of the medical model in constructing disability, and the tangled
and inflexible legislation that regulates disability within educational settings,
constitute a hindrance to developing more inclusive policies and practices.
A crucial point remains that the concept of inclusion cannot be completely
acknowledged and adopted before a clear understanding of the Social Model
of Disability is developed. Since 1990, when Michael Oliver formulated the
first comprehensive Social Model of Disability, it has evolved over the years,

19. taking different directions and adapting its standpoints to diverse subjects and
social concerns. On a wider scale, taking into consideration the tight
connection between inclusion, disability and social right, the Social Model of
Disability is a straightforward approach in describing human inequality.
Barnes (2012) sets forth the situation through Morris’s thoughts affirming that
‘It separates out (disabling barriers) from impairment (not being able to
walk or see or having difficulty learning)’... Because the social model
separates out disabling barriers and impairments, it enables us to focus
on exactly what it is which denies us our human and civil rights and what
action needs to be taken’ (Morris, 2000 p. 1-3 cited in Barnes, (2012)
p.17)
In the meantime, referring particularly to the Italian case, a more in-depth
analysis of the (disabling) situation within the university is required. Taking
into consideration Len Barton’s thinking,
‘this involves challenging definitions and assumptions that legitimate and
maintain relations and conditions that marginalise and exclude, replacing
them with definitions which engender inclusion, dignity and solidarity’.
(2001, p.286)
The first step in doing that is to take into consideration the disabled students’
voices, giving them the position to effectively take part of policy-making
process. The advocacy for rights of disabled students is a concern that
requires a conscious focus on, especially to greater influence policy-making
processes on economic and social deprivations that disabled people
encounter during their academic (and not) life. Much in agreement with
Michailakis (1997)
‘A human rights approach implies legal reasoning. ... The human rights
approach implies, thus, among other things, the creation of a legislation
which shall give persons with disabilities and their organisations the
lever to ensure that there is effective advocacy for their rights. ... Implicit

20. in any application of the human rights’ strategy is structural
transformation, involving redistribution of economic and political power’.
(Lang, R., (2001) p.17)
Further research will then read inclusion not only as a sharing and egalitarian
experience but also as a process of assignation of power.
References
Ainscow, M.; Booth, T.; Dyson, A. (2006). Inclusion and the standard
agenda: negotiating policy pressures in England.; International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 10, (4-5), July-September 2006, 295-308.
Ainscow, M. (2008). Speech given at the conference Inclusive Education:
Theway of the Future. International Conference on Education 48th session.
FinalReport. Annex Xb. Retrievable online:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_ICE/I
CE_FINAL_REPORT_eng.pdf.
Barnes, C. (2012). ‘The Social Model of Disability: Valuable or Irrelevant?’ in
Watson, N. Roulstone, A. and Thomas C. (2012): The Routledge Handbook of
Disability Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 12-29.
Barnes, C., Merger, G., and Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring Disability. A
sociological introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Barton, L. (ed.)(2001). Disability, Politics & the Struggle for Change.
London: David Fulton Publishers.
Begeny, J. C., Martens, B. K, (2007). Inclusionary Education in Italy: A
Literature Review and Call for More Empirical Research, Remedial and
Special Education – Year 2007, Vol. 28, Num. 80, Hammill Institute on
Disabilities and SAGE. http://rse.sagepub.com/content/28/2/80. Last
accessed 12th September 2014.

21. Blanchfield, L., Brougher, C., DeBergh, James V., (2013). The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Issues in the
U.S. Ratification Debate. Congressional Research Service retrievable online
at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42749.pdf. (Last accessed 26th September
2014).
Canevaro, A., (Ed.). (2007). L’integrazione Scolastica degli Alunni con
Disabilità. Trento: Erickson.
Canevaro, A., Ianes D., (Eds.). (2001). Buone prassi di integrazione
scolastica. 20 realizzazioni efficaci. Trento: Erickson.
Clough, P.; Corbett, J. (2000). Theories of Inclusive Education: A Student’s
guide. London: Sage.
D’Alessio, S. (2009b). L’intégration scolaire en Italie. Quelques réflexions
pour le développement de l’éducation inclusive. La nouvelle revue de
l’adaptation et de la scolarisation. INS HEA Revue, Edition Spécial,
2009/2010, Suresnes, France (pp. 35-65).
D’Alessio, S., (2011). Inclusive Education in Italy: a Critical Analysis of the
Policy of Integrazione Scolastica. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense
Publishers.
D’Alessio S., (2013). Inclusive Education in Italy: a reply to Giangreco,
Doyle and Suter (2012), Life Span and Disability, 15, (1), 95-120.
Drake, F. R. (1999). Understanding disability policies. London: Macmillan
Press LTD.
Dyson, A., Howes, A. & Roberts, B. (2004). What do we really know about
inclusive schools? A systematic review of the research evidence, in: D.
Mitchell (Ed.), Special educational needs and inclusive education: major
themes in education. (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Federazione Italiana Per il Superamento dell’Handicap, (2011); I giovani
con disabilità e il mondo universitario nelle Regioni del Sud: Analisi dell’offerta
e della domanda di servizi per il diritto allo studio. Online publication:
Electronic source available online at:
http://www.fishonlus.it/files/2012/05/ricerca-universita.pdf. (Last accessed:
11th of September 2014).
Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C. (2012). Demographic and
personnel service delivery data: Implications for including students with

22. disabilities in Italian schools, Life Span and Disability, 15 (1), 97-123.
Goodley, D., (2004); Who is Disabled? Exploring the Scope of the Social
Model of Disability in Swain J. et al. (2004); Disabling Barriers – Enabling
Environments. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Lang, R., (2001). The Development of a Critique of the Social Model of
Disability, Overseas Development group, University of East Anglia, retrievable
online at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lc-ccr/lccstaff/raymond-
lang/DEVELOPMMENT_AND_CRITIQUE_OF_THE_SOCIAL_MODEL_OF_
D.pdf. (Last accessed on 21st
of September 2014).
Maggiolini, S., Molteni, P. (2013); University and Disability: An Italian
Experience of Inclusion, Journal of postsecondary Education and disability,
AHEAD –2013, Volume 26, No 3, pp. 249 – 262.
Medeghini , R. (2006); Dalla qualità dell’integrazione all’inclusione. Analisi
degli integratori di qualità per l’inclusione. Brescia: Vannini.
Medeghini, R., Valtellina E. (2006). Quale disabilità? Culture, modelli e
processi di inclusione. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Medeghini, R. (2008). Dall’integrazione all’Inclusione. In Onger G. (ed.),
Trent’anni di integrazione. Ieri, oggi, domani. Brescia: Vannini Editrice.
Mitchell, D. (Ed.), 2005. Contextualizing Inclusive Education. Evaluating old
and new international perspectives. London and New York: Routledge
Mitchell, D. (2009); Education for Respect and Understanding.
Commonwealth Education Partnership p. 55-57, retrievable online at
http://www.cedol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/55-57-20091.pdf. (Last
accessed 25th September 2014).
Mitchell, D. (2010). Education that fits: Review of international trends in the
education of students with special educational needs. Retrievable online from:
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/special_education/educatio -
that-fits-review-of-international-trends-in-the-education-of-students-with-
special-educational-needs/executive-summary (Last access March 28th,
2013).
Mittler, P., (2005). The global context of inclusive education: The role of the
United Nations. In Mitchell, D. (Ed.), 2005. Contextualizing Inclusive
Education. Evaluating old and new international perspectives. London and
New York: Routledge.

23. Oliver, M. (1988). The social and political context of educational policy: the
case of special needs, in L. Barton (ed.) The politics of Special Educational
Needs, London: Falmer Press.
Oliver, M., (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Oliver, M., (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice.
Houndsmills/Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave.
Riddell, S.; Tinklin, T.; Wilson A., (2005). Disabled Students in Higher
Education: perspectives on widening access and changing policy. London:
Routledge.
Shakespeare, T., (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. London/New York:
Routledge.
Stein, M.; Lord, J.E. (2008). Future Prospects for the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Gerard Quinn &
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, (eds) ‘The UN Convention on the rights of Persons
with Disabilities: European and Scandinavian Perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swain, J., French, S., Barnes, C., Thomas, C., (Ed.) (2004). Disabling
Barriers – Enabling Environments. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE
Publications.
Tomlinson, S. (1982). A Sociology of Special Education, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tomlinson, S. (2000) in Clough P. and Corbett J. (Ed.). Theories of
Inclusive Education: A Student’s Guide. London: Sage.
United Nations, (1993). Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations.
United Nations (2002). A world fit for children. New York: United Nations
and UNICEF.
United Nations, (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. New York: United Nations.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (1994).
The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization/International Bureau of Education, (2008). Conclusions and

24. recommendations of the 48th
session of the International Conference on
Education. (ED/BIE/CONFINTED 48/5). Geneva:UNESCO/IBE.
UPIAS, (1976). Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: UPIAS.
WHO, (1980). International Classification of Impairment, Disability and
Handicap. Geneva: WHO.
WHO, (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and
Health. Geneva: WHO.