in English - Handicap International

Integration is associated with the biological paradigm, while inclusion is directly linked to a human rights and social development
approach. The following table compares INTEGRATION and INCLUSION, illustrating the main characteristics of both models.
INCLUSION
Inclusion: Total and unconditional insertion (for example,
the insertion of children with disabilities into regular
schools).
Inclusion: Demands the complete transformation of
systems.
Inclusion: Changes that benefit all people.
Inclusion: Not defined only by the presence of people
with or without disabilities in the same environment,
but rather by adaptations to the environment to make
room for diversity.
Inclusion: Safeguards the rights of ALL people, whether
or not they have disabilities.
Inclusion: Brings “excluded” groups into different systems,
and simultaneously transforms these systems so
that they provide quality services to EVERYBODY.
Inclusion: The adjective “inclusive” is used when seeking
quality for ALL people, whether or not they have
disabilities.
Inclusion: Based on the understanding that we are ALL
different, and that the concepts of “special,” “normal”
and “exceptional” do not exist.
INTEGRATION
Integration: Partial or conditional insertion (for example,
children with disabilities “are trained” in special
schools or classes to be able to partially integrate into
regular schools or classrooms).
Integration: Seeks concessions or more flexibility from
different systems.
Integration: People with disabilities adapt to already
existing models, and these are only adjusted.
Integration: The simple presence of people with and
without disabilities in the same environment tends to
be sufficient for using the adjective “integrative.”
Integration: Safeguards the rights of people with disabilities.
Integration: Inserts “the excluded people who can prove
that they are apt” into groups (for example, quota
systems).
Integration: The adjective “integrative” is used when
quality is sought in structures that only attend to
people with disabilities (considered apt) in schools,
workplaces, etc.
Integration: Motivates people with disabilities to adapt
to dominant models, without valuing diversity (for
example, genuine forms of communication such as
sign language).
Adapted from Claudia Werneck, Manual do Midia Legal, WVA Editora, 2003.
2. Shaking things up and changing them
When we examine the three models, we realize that all three co-exist in our societies, which can lead to differences
when actions are being developed and can generate disagreements. We are living in a time of transition between
previous models and the human rights model. As with any change in our societies, the one linked to disabilities is so important
that it shakes things up, like the tremors after an earthquake. Let’s look at the ways the three models are present
in our countries:
16