Thanks for the info and the link.  The 'normalization principle' means 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. This principle should be applied to all the retarded, regardless whether mildly or profoundly retarded, or whether living in the homes of their parents or in group homes with other retarded.'

In Malaysia, we refer to these special people as OKU (orang kurang upaya).  Here the 3 of them get their degree.

Dear @Miranda, I agree with your remarks. Do you maybe know how the process of normalization was implemented ? Thank you very much for comment. 

Dear Beata, here, scholarships are provided for the disabled to continue studying in community colleges, polytechnics, and 20 public varsities.  I will place the link to the Ministry of Education, that encourages disabled to avail themselves to lifelong education. 

http://www.moe.gov.my/v/bantuan-kewangan-oku

Dear Beata, please read the link for info on what is being done for children with disabilities (OKU) and their families.  Many material benefits are provided.

'yes, OKU card it given to mentally retarded people, physically disabled, children with learning disability and so on. Medical fees are free as my daughter was admitted for a day to check her sleep apnea & we were suppose to pay a deposit of RM250.00 but when i showed them the card every thing was free.

I have heard about the utility bills, especially telephone bill, it seem the monthly rental will be RM1.00 instead of RM26.00 as being charged now.'

http://psgmalaysia.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/oku-card/

Dear @Miranda, I just learned that in your language OKU means something important me. I will remember. Thank you again. 

My observation is that the concept of "normalization" is STILL a relatively foreign concept because we are still  advocating for rights for persons with disabilities in Canada!  As a cause of an aging population portions of services and accessibility are now being addressed with the aim of full implementation by 2025, via the (Accessibility of ONtarions with Disability Act) AODA....another political aim is to reduce the wait list time for service for children with developmental disabilities within the next 2 years.  It makes you reflect that disability is NOT a new phenomenon, rather present from the beginning of time.  Why are we still discussing it? Among many reasons due to socio-political construct of disability wherein the SRV theory comes in to evidence how we should/can support ALL individuals -regardless of ability- to be contributing, valued members/citizens of our communities.  The notion of 'normalization' is a falsehood because to an individual whatever your capabilities are THAT in of itself is 'normal'....there is no "other" way of life....hope this piece makes sense.  Here's an example:  for those who're twins, if someone says, " it must be so cool to be a twin...?" The 'twin' knows no other way...it is normal for them to be in a sibling relationship as is because that is their lived journey.  I think the Principles of. Normalization is a sign of the era of time to invoke reflection in the community to encourage openness and continued or new opportunity for all to be included, needed, wanted, and valued.

In Ontario people with Developmental Disability (Intellectual Disability) co-morbid with psychiatric disorders (Dual Diagnosis) are expected to access mainstream psychiatry services. One philosophical reason for that is "normalization". I wonder whether the mainstream services are equipped with the requisite skills to deal with the Dual Diagnosis Would people like to share their experience on that?

My experience is in the services system of people with IDD (intellectual and developmental disabilities).  Here (in the US)it was the impetus to help people move from the institution to the community.  That was a good thing.  It was a physical normalization in that it was not normal to live hundreds of miles away from your family, with others you did not know just because they shared similiar intellectual conditions.  In that aspect I think normalization was a very positive thing and it had a direct impact on the lives of people with IDD.  Once they were in the community normalization was still a goal as physical integration was accomplished on a macro level but on a micro level (relationships and social roles) normalization is still a struggle.  The business world and the general population still view them as incapable and of lesser value.  They still struggle with employment and social integration. 

I absolutely agree that the normalization principle was a giant step forward when it emerged in contrast to a total focus on exclusion and separate services. Having said that, the difficulty is often with the "as close as possible" part since it is often difficult to determine how close we can get to normal means and normal outcomes. There is also a question about whether normal is always a good thing. For example, in some communities young adults often engage in criminal and antisocial acts. I don't think we want to assist people with disabilities to participate in these norms. So, in my opinion, as a principle it is great, but it needs to be applied with some common sense and sometimes that is not so easy to do.

Dear Beata

I am writing my master thesis in history. The subject being the political wish of integration of pupils with special education needs in the danish public schools from 1937-1960's. This to discuss how the political wish has changed in our time, from integration to inclusion.

 As I understand mr. Nirje, his understanding or rather interpretation of normalization of people with disabilities is partly an answer to that of mr. N. E. Bank-Mikkelsen in 1959. N. E. Bank-Mikkelsen was a world famous Danish chief of the Danish State Institution of Mentally Ill. He is called the farther of the normalization principle by the japanese author Hanamura, Haruki in her book from 1998. Bank-Mikkelsen principle was that he thought The normalization principle is in all its simplicity, to give the moronic normal life, ie an equal footing with other citizens in terms of rights and obligations.

The Danish interpretation of normalization is based on rights. And here Nirje comes in with his view and his interpretation from 1969. The one you refer to. I understand Nirjes goal with his interpretation of normalization that it was ”to make everyday patterns and living conditions in daily life, which is so near norms and patterns in the rest of society, available for the mentally disabled. "For Nirje the goal was to create conditions that developed people with disabilities, where they have access to the same experiences as others. To give them a normal rhythm of life, daily rhythm, annual rhythm. at the same time he would that they should be able to do the normal age-appropriate experiences. The right to grow up in safe environments. They were supposed to meet ordinary normal respect from other people. Thus he develops Mikkelsen's rights perspective.

But Mikkelsen felt that his view on normalization was widely misunderstood of many who believed that mentally retarded and handicapped should be normal, and that this didn’t mean to be treated normally. According to Mikkelsen rights included the right to live a normal life, get education and spouses, etc. on a par with ordinary people. As I see it Nirje and Mikkelsens view on the subject isn’t that different from each other, but they are writen differently and therefore interpreted differently as well. Both the views on the normalization principle must be seen in relation to the developement of the welfare state from the 1950’s and onwards, as part of a certain Nordic tradtion.

The interpretation of the normalization principle in the US and more widely in the english speaking parts of the western world was developed by Wolfenberger in the late 60’s from a studytrip he made to Denmark. He saw it important to give people with disabilities or special needs socially worshipped roles to ensure acceptence and appreciation of people with special needs and there place and role in society. This to reduce stigmatisation.

I think the theoretical interpretations of the normalization principle are good, but they require the ability for people to think ”out of the box” so to say. I think we speculate to much around the fact of theory to practice in reality. We seem to not remember on what basic principles these thoughts are based. I do not think they are entirely based on the rightbased principles developed after and as a concequence of the WW 2, but more broadly one certainly became aware of the needs of rights for all including people with disabilities in 1959 by the UN rights of the child. I do believe they also a founded in the values of christianity – especially the saying: treat others as you wish to be treated your self.

A law of inclusion was passed in Denmark in april 2012 which stated that the Danish public school from 2012-2015 shall include 10.000 pupils with s SEN. Law for the purpouse of inclusion is very important but also our ability to think inclusion as being here already.We need t ask our selves the question "what is it to be normal ?" and why  have we through time given people with SEN or disabled in general these labels?

We have given people and give people labels in order to understand. The questions are how and why to understand as one does and always be open to change the concept of today. To do so begins with one self and I firmly believe one cannot entirely  judge the book by its color.    

I would be delighted, dear @Frederik to read your entire Master Thesis after final exams. Seems interesting to me. Thank you for comprehensive and multidimensional answer. I noticed for years that, N. Bank-Mikkelsen was kind marginalised as an author of prinziple of nornalization developed later by B. Nirje. I also would agree about influences of christianity on general scientific thought about prinziple. Good luck while writing  and the research !

Dear Bata

 Thank you very much. I shall see to getting it translated when possible. Yes N. E. Bank-Mikkelsen was marginalized. I understand it was because he only stated the normalization principle in terms of mere a mere right for people with handicap. Professionals apparently misunderstood the intentions. Therefor he had to explain what his original idea with the principle was. So he published this around 1971 - short after Nirje formulated his view on the matter. And I know they knew each other well.    

Thank you very much. Likewise to you. Happy New Year as well

Kind regards

Frederik