Normalization

Normalization encourages the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the everyday world so that they may, to the fullest extent possible, experience life as individuals without disabilities do. The movement began in Sweden during the 1960s when Bengt Nirje's research discovered that individuals with disabilities who lived at home showed fewer developmental delays than those who were institutionalized. In the United States, normalization has brought the integration of regular and special education classrooms, and the development of community integrated living arrangements which, as much as possible, promote residents' independence.

Keywords Disabled; Family Roles; Group Home; Inclusive Education; Least Restrictive Environment; Lifespan Issues; Normalization; Normalization Principles; People First Language; Public Law 94-142; Residential Care; Sheltered Workshops; Social Role Valorization; Societal Views; Supported Work Environment; Vocational Training

Special Education > Normalization

Overview

As a philosophy, normalization is considered an important aspect of special education. Swedish academic Bengt Nirje first coined the word normalization in the late sixties and encouraged its use with individuals with disabilities (Smith & Luckasson, 1995). Normalization promotes that individuals with disabilities should be exposed to and a part of everyday society. Thus, an individual with a disability should experience, just as an individual without a disability, the successes and failures of everyday life. This paper will provide basic information and an understanding of the changes in societal views of disabilities, the beginnings of the normalization movement, concepts of the normalization principle, the spread of normalization, the family's role in normalization, the challenges to the normalization principle, and lifespan issues.

Changes in Societal Views

To some degree, mankind has always recognized the need to provide for individuals with disabilities. However in earlier times, society often chose to ignore the needs of individuals with disabilities. With the spread of Christianity, society began to shift its views and provide for those who were diseased or unable to care for themselves (Beck, 2002; Peterson, 1987). Even though mankind recognized a need for social assistance, early services primarily targeted the basic provision of food, shelter, and clothing for the disabled (Beck, 2002; Cruickshank & Johnson, 1958; Peterson, 1987).

In the middle ages, society continued to provide care and education for individuals with disabilities. In Europe, institutions or residential facilities were established to provide separate living facilities or institutions to serve individuals with disabilities. This trend continued and spread to the United States (Peterson, 1987).

The establishment of residential care facilities in the United States was accepted as a way to provide care for individuals who could not care for themselves (Cruickshank & Johnson, 1958; Peterson, 1987; Smith & Luckasson, 1995). The development and funding of residential schools allowed society to reduce its responsibility for individuals with special needs by providing them training and education. While society recognized a need to provide services, many residential care facilities were built away from town and followed the guidelines established in England (Smith & Luckasson, 1995). Basically, institutions provided limited educational services and basic care (i.e., food, water, and shelther).

Approximately forty years ago, an emerging philosophy of normalization began in Scandinavia (Kebbon, 1997; Smith & Luckasson, 1995). Normalization can be simplified to mean a way to provide children with disabilities the opportunity to be integrated into everyday activities in the school and home environment. Initially, normalization advanced the thought that individuals with mental retardation should live as the rest of society. That is individuals with disabilities should live, work, and be educated as any member of society in his or her community. This principle has spread to include all individuals with disabilities.

In the United States, the principle of normalization was advanced in court cases through civil rights lawsuits and in the passage of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975. The implementation of P.L. 94-142 and its many reauthorizations have focused the public's attention on educating individuals with disabilities in the same manner as the general public. Modifications in public education have influenced changes such as allowing individuals with disabilities to live and experience educational and leisure activities in the same manner as the general public versus living in residential care. This led to the deinstitutionalization of individuals with mental retardation and the emergence of community living arrangements (Powers, 2006).

Prior to the concept of normalization, individuals with disabilities were often viewed as the label that accompanied them. For example, a deaf person or a mentally handicapped person was seen as the disability, not as the individual with a disability. As the idea of normalization spread, advocates began promoting the use of people first language. This language views the individual first and the difference second, as in saying "person who is blind" as opposed to "blind person." The National Easter Seal Society and many other professional and parental organizations promote the use of people first language. The argument for the use of people first language is to advocate that the individual should be considered first and the difference or disability second. By viewing the individual first, people can focus on the individual and his or her unique needs and strengths versus the stereotypic assessments that often accompany a disability label (National Easter Seal Society, n.d.).

Beginnings of the Normalization Movement

Bengt Nirje is credited with proposing the first widely used definition of normalization in the 1960s (Kebbon, 1997; Smith & Luckasson, 1995; Ward, 2005). While working and visiting the developmentally disabled in Sweden, he observed that individuals with significant disabilities who remained at home had fewer developmental delays than individuals with less severe disabilities living in institutions (Nirje, 1969). Thus, he proposed that individuals who had everyday social contacts had more normal outcomes than individuals in segregated environments. Interestingly, he later proposed that normalization was a theory or principle that could be applied, not only to the mentally retarded, to all groups of institutionalized individuals.

The beginning of the normalization movement in the United States started when Nirje was invited by Wolf Wolfensberger to collaborate on projects involving residential care. Wolfensberger was an academician who heavily influenced disability policies and practices in the United States (Sherrill, 2003). He extended Nirje's principle of normalization and developed the principle of social role valorization (Sherrill, 2003), in which the wounds of social devaluation of the handicapped is defended with valued social roles for all people.

Nirje (1969) outlined his principle as a way to make normal life conditions for the mentally retarded depending on his or her unique needs and strengths. Of course, this will not make an individual have normal intelligence. The goal is of normalization is to allow the individual with disabilities to experience daily life as do individuals without disabilities. This includes being able to make choices, express wishes and desires, and the right to self-determination.

The Concepts of Normalization

Nirje (1969) defined the normalization principle as "making available to the mentally retarded patterns and conditions of everyday life which are as close as possible to the norms and patterns of the mainstream of society" (p. 181). According to Renzaglia, Karvonen, Drasgow, and Stoxen (2003), Nirje's normalization principle suggests:

• People with disabilities ought to have lives that are similar to the lives of people without disabilities. Thus, the principle is rooted in the concept of equality.

• People with disabilities ought to have the opportunity to create and pursue good lives that are related to their own personal situations. Thus, the principle is rooted in the concept of quality of life.

• People with disabilities ought to be valued and have the same rights as people without disabilities. Thus, the principle is grounded in the concept of human rights (p. 141).

Generally it is acknowledged that the concept of inclusive education and practice originated from the principle of normalization. Inclusive education philosophically proposes to include versus exclude individuals with disabilities. However, the key principle of inclusive education should be that the education of individuals with disabilities should not be synonymous with a place but a practice of providing individualized instruction and equal access to everyday activities (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995).

Normalization in the Schools

Mainstreaming is a term that developed in the 1970s. The term means to educate children with disabilities with children without disabilities in the same classroom setting. This was one of the first movements to place children with disabilities outside of self-contained classrooms.

Over the years the use of the term mainstreaming or inclusion is often confused and synonymously used with the term least restrictive environment (LRE). Federal laws use the term LRE but not mainstreaming or inclusion. LRE should be viewed as a continuum of service delivery options in the school environment. Mainstreaming or inclusion is a term used to mean that individuals with disabilities will be included in environments with individuals who do not have disabilities.

Lerner (1981) stated that the widespread idea of normalization occurred due to:

• The move away from providing isolated or segregated services for individuals with disabilities. Currently in the United States, all children or individuals have a right to a free appropriate public education. This includes the right to be educated in the regular classroom and to participate in activities, as do other individuals. Society currently accepts that isolation permits stereotypes to continue to exist as isolation can have detrimental effects on the self-esteem or self-image of the individual. Isolation also places limits on an individual's potential and reinforces the stereotype.

• Legislation and litigation in enforcing the rights of free appropriate public education for all individuals regardless of ability has greatly influenced service delivery. The most significant influence on legislation was the civil rights movement in the United States particularly in terms of public schools. Brown vs. Board of Education led to the implementation of federal legislation in 1975 to educate all individuals regardless of ability. Thus, it could be implied that federal legislation supports the principle of normalization. The concept of normalization continues to be shaped through research and class action lawsuits.

• Service delivery has moved from isolation to integrating services into the community. In education, classes have moved from isolated classes on a school campus to integration of the regular and special education classroom. In terms of residential care, services have moved from isolated facilities to integration of services and living arrangements into the community. Changing the viewpoint of individual differences has allowed everyone to become better equipped to handle individual differences.

• The types of services available have changed through the idea of normalization. By accepting the principle of normalization, schools and other service providers can decrease the costs of dual education systems. For instance, the schools or service providers have an increased opportunity to develop or use resources more effectively by using everyday activities to become learning environments.

Additionally, as stated earlier, the spread of normalization promoted the use of people first language. The thought behind the use of this language is to view the individual first and the difference second. For example, if one was to say a blind person; then the focus is on the disability not the person. With the use of people first language, one would say an individual or person who is blind. Thus, the focus is on the person, not the difference. Adopting this mindset allows an individual's unique needs and strengths to be the focus as opposed to the label and its stereotypes.

The Family's Role in Normalization

The family's role in promoting normalization for individuals cannot be left to chance. In order to continue to advance this principle into the school and community environment it is critical that families become advocates for the individual as well as the family. For instance, as a family or society it is much easier to excuse inappropriate behaviors in individuals with disabilities rather than address them.

In order for stereotypes and the true inclusion of all, parents, professionals, and community members must develop an understanding of the term normalization. Thus, normalization can mean:

• Expecting appropriate behavior;

• Socializing with peers and within the community;

• Exposing the individual to life activities in the same way any child is exposed;

• Providing education to individuals in public or inclusive school environments;

• Participating in everyday activities and programs;

• Developing independence and responsibility for actions;

• Setting goals for the lifespan and not using the disability as an excuse for not achieving; and

• Considering the family's role of allowing autonomy for the individual in adulthood.

Family members must understand the negative outcomes for individuals with disabilities who do not have consistent exposure to normalization in everyday life. When not exposed to everyday life, individuals with disabilities can:

• Become dependent in having needs met and avoid responsibility;

• Exhibit stereotypic behaviors of the disability;

• Become complacent with learning and performing below their levels of capability;

• Fail to form social networks or communication strategies to participate in community living; and,

• Become dependent on others for lifelong care.

Just as negative consequences exist for the individual with a disability, negative experiences can occur for the parents or siblings. Failure by the parents to adapt normalization strategies can facilitate a breakdown in the promotion of normalization. For instance, parents can enable or rescue an individual by not requiring them to do for themselves. As a result, parents often increase stress, anger, and/or hostility levels by focusing all energies on the individual who is disabled versus the spouse or other children. In addition, parents can experience feelings of guilt for not being able to "fix" the individual or not being able to give equal amounts of attention to other family members.

Siblings often have a number of issues to deal with on an emotional level as well. Siblings can internalize feelings of not being good enough; develop maladaptive roles; and, suppress feelings. The internalization of feelings, positive or negative, can affect self-esteem and social skills development in the sibling. To combat these negative consequences, parents and siblings can implement coping strategies such as:

• Developing a realistic picture of the disability;

• Accepting natural and logical consequences for behaviors or actions;

• Setting limits on the needs and information accepted from within and outside of the family unit;

• Being an advocate for all individuals within the family;

• Including all family members in community activities;

• Pursuing independent activities such as spending time alone or with other family members or friends;

• Allowing open discussions of feelings; and,

• Allowing everyone to succeed and fail in attempts to experience life.

Lifespan Issues

Only providing normal environments and experiences to children would be neglectful if society does not extend these views to adulthood. Powers (2006) reported that the next civil rights movement would take place for individuals who are in long-term care for various reasons. As long-term care is a placement option for individuals, regardless of disability, the concept of normalization may change how these individuals are allowed to remain autonomous.

Over the last few decades, efforts have been made to create community living arrangements to integrate disabled adults and children into society and keep them from being placed in institutions. For example, vocational, supported work environments, sheltered workshops, and recreational activities such as Special Olympics allow individuals with disabilities to experience having a job and/or participating in organized leisure activities. However, these services are dependent on and require a network of support systems from a number of community agencies in order to be successful.

In order to provide adequate living arrangements, family or foster homes, group homes, apartments, and other community residential facilities have been developed. Keeping an individual with special needs at home works well if coping skills and strategies are in place. Another option is allowing foster homes to replace group homes. Group homes usually consist of caretakers and six to twelve other individuals with disabilities living a home setting. Apartments are also a living option for individuals with disabilities. In this instance, the individual lives alone or with a roommate and someone are assigned to periodically check on the individual(s). To be successful, any of these living arrangements rely on community acceptance and neighbor support.

Viewpoints

Challenges to the Normalization Principles

Sherrill (2003), states that the normalization principle is being challenged by many of its advocates, including Wolfensberger. Sherrill further reports that in 2000, Wolfensberger recommended that the concept of normalization be replaced with the concept of valorization. As stated earlier, Wolfensberger was the American academician who introduced Nirje's philosophy to the United States.

Wolfensberger's Social Role Valorization (SRV) principle evolved from the principle of normalization. In comparison to normalization principles, the SRV premise is to increase the social roles of individuals with disabilities by promoting value, respect, and dignity versus only providing access to normal daily activities such as school, work, and leisure activities (Wolfensberger, 2000).

According to Sherrill (2003), advocates of SRV feel that,

• No segment of the population should be established as better than the others and, thus, as the criterion against which others are compared, and

• Goals for each human being should be individualized as potential personal bests (or ecologically, person-environment bests) based on comprehensive ecological assessment (p. 56).

Conclusions

Normalization as a principle has advanced society's views of educating individuals with disabilities. It gained notice as a way to promote everyday life activities in individuals who were placed in residential care. Historically, residential schools provided services to attend to the basic needs of individuals with special needs. The principle that to learn how to function in society is to be a part of everyday society greatly influenced public education in the United States. In the United States, the passage of Public Law 94-142 was greatly influenced by the principle of normalization.

Formalized education and services is a relatively new field for individuals with disabilities. The principle of normalization will remain a dynamic catalyst for making complex decisions by offering and increasing services for individuals with disabilities. As public educational policy continues to be altered, so will the attitudes and beliefs of educators, in both special and regular education, and families regarding normalization. Educators, families, and policy makers should continue to shift focus from a "one-size fits all" educational or support practice and think in terms of effectively meeting the unique needs of all children and adults with disabilities. In meeting the needs of all these children and adults, it is critical for educators and service providers to recognize that decisions will impact each individual differently, regardless of ability. However, the need exists for all professionals, regular and special education, to remain focused on providing individualized educational and living opportunities based on the unique needs of the individual while successfully meeting the needs of the entire group.

Additionally, research is needed to develop appropriate educational and vocational options for individuals with disabilities. Research needs to expand how to maximally use the resources and services currently available and how to assimilate individuals with disabilities into society. For individuals with disabilities to become active citizens of society, research should continue to address effective school or community practices not only from birth to early adulthood but throughout the lifespan. The perception of individuals with disabilities will continue to be shaped by the views of society. The discussion, implementation, and challenges to the principles of normalization will continue to advance how society perceives the disabled.

Terms & Concepts

Group Home: A group home is a home where individuals with disabilities live in the community or in a residential facility. Often times the home has been adapted to accommodate the various needs of its residents.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): The least restrictive environment is commonly defined as educating individuals with disabilities with their peers to the maximum extent possible in the regular classroom or extracurricular environment.

Normalization: Normalization is a principle to make life and living conditions for individuals with disabilities as typical as possible to the non-disabled.

People First language: The principle behind this type of language is to view the individual first and the difference second. For example, if one was to say a blind person, then the focus is on the disability not the person. With the use of people first language, one would say an individual or person who is blind. Thus, the focus is on the person, not the difference.

Public Law 94-142: In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act Public Law 94-142 (P.L. 94-142) was established to provide free appropriate public education to individuals with disabilities. P.L. 94-142 has undergone reauthorizations by Congress and is currently referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004).

Residential Care: Residential care is based upon the concept of the boarding school. Typically, the facility provides room, board, and educational services to the individuals residing there.

Sheltered Workshops: Sheltered workshops are part of the vocational process which evaluates the ability of the individual to work in terms of ability and work tolerance.

Supported Work Environment: A supported work environment is a place where people with disabilities can work and learn skills necessary for employment in the community.

Vocational Training: Vocational training is designed to provide job skills that are non-academic and related to a trade or occupation.

Bibliography

Beck, S. (2002). Middle East and Africa to 1875 . Goleta, CA: World Peach Communications.

Caruso, G. A., & Osburn, J. A. (2011). The origins of 'best practices' in the principle of normalization and social role valorization. Journal of Policy & Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 8, 191-196. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65278897&site=ehost-live

Cruickshank, W. & Johnson, G. (Eds.)(1958). Education of exceptional children and youth. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kauffman, J. & Hallahan, D. (1995). Toward a comprehensive delivery system for special education. In Kauffman & Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp.157-191). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Publishing.

Kebbon, L. (1997). Nordic contributions to disability policies. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41 , 120-125. Retrieved August 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17439985&site=ehost-live

National Easter Seal Society. (undated). Portraying people with disabilities in the media. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ntl_disability_media

Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In R. Kugel & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 179-195). Washington, DC: President's Commission on Mental Retardation.

Peterson, N. (1987). Early intervention for handicapped and at-risk children: An introduction to early childhood special education. Denver: Love Publishing Co.

Powers, L., Sowers, J. & Singer, G. (2006). A cross-disability analysis of person- directed, long-term services. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17 , 66-76. Retrieved August 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21955790&site=ehost-live

Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E., and Stoxen, C. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18 , 140-142. Retrieved August 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10697545&site=ehost-live

Sherrill, C. (2003). Normalization or valorization: Which should be our aim? Palaestra, 19 , 56-58.

Smith D. & Luckason, R. (1995). Introduction to special education: Teaching in an age of challenge. (2nd ed.). Boson: Allyn and Bacon.

Titchkosky, T. (2012). The ends of the body as pedagogic possibility. Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 34(3/4), 82-93. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77270243&site=ehost-live

Ward, M. (2005). An historical perspective of self-determination in special education: Accomplishments and challenges. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30 , 108-112.

Wolfensberger, W. (2000). A brief overview of social role valorization. Mental Retardation, 38, 1-15.

Suggested Reading

National Easter Seal Society. (n. d.). Portraying people with disabilities in the media. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ntl_disability_media

Kauffman & Hallahan (Eds.). (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon . Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Publishing.

Peck, Odom, & Bricker, (Eds). (1992). Integrating Young Children with Disabilities into Community Programs: Ecological Perspectives on Research and Implementation . Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Ward, M. (2005). An historical perspective of self-determination in special education: Accomplishments and challenges. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30 , 108-112.