Special educational needs versus barriers to learning and participation: conceptual treatment, social implications, and educational consequences of choosing one framework over the other

Abstract

The terminología used to describe learners who require additional educational support is far from neutral: it encodes epistemological assumptions, distributes moral responsibility, and shapes institutional responses. This conceptual article systematically contrasts Two dominant frameworks - Special Educational Needs (SEN), rooted in the medical/deficit model of disability, and Barriers to Learning and Participation (BLP), grounded in the social and human-rights model- across ten analytical dimensions including locus of problem, teacher’s role, diagnostic function, stigma risk, policy alignment, and view of diversity. Drawing on a documentary review of key international frameworks (UNESCO Salamanca Statement, 1994; UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006; UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report, 2020; Index for Inclusion, Booth & Ainscow, 2002) and recent Scopus-indexed empirical literature (2018-2025), the article argues that the conceptual shift from SEN to BLP is not merely terminological but represents a paradigmático transformation with mensurable consequences for classroom practice, teacher identity, resource allocation, and social justice. Evidence suggests that SEN frameworks tend to locate the problem within individual learners, reinforcing deficit narratives, diagnostic gatekeeping, and segregated provision, while BLP frameworks redirect attention toward the educational environment, school culture, and systemic structures, aligning with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and whole-school improvement. The article concludes with ten evidence-based pedagogical implications for teacher education programs and school policy, applicable across Latin American and global early childhood and primary education contexts.