Abstract
Since the Declaration of Salamanca in 1994, many countries, including China, have been moving toward a more inclusive approach to schooling. This column discusses the history, status quo, and future directions of Chinese inclusive education. It also examines facilitators, barriers, and challenges in the development and implementation of Chinese inclusive education and provides corresponding recommendations.
Two national movements, Compulsory Education and Learning in Regular Classrooms (LRC), serve as important anchors for understanding the development of inclusive education in China. The Compulsory Education Law (CEL), passed in 1986 mandated that all children beginning at age 6 receive 9 years of free public education regardless of their “gender, race, ethnicity, family socio-economic status, or religious beliefs” (National People’s Congress, 1986, p. 1). However, the word disability is not included in this list defining all children.
Historically, children with disabilities in China had not been granted educational rights (Chen, 1996; McCabe, 2003). While attendance was possible through specialized schools, this was a reality primarily for children with mild/moderate learning needs (e.g., learning disabilities, visual or hearing impairments). Even for these children specialized schools were not always an option, especially in rural, underdeveloped areas that did not have or could not afford such schools/programs. In recognition of the limited availability of specialized schools, the LRC initiative was launched. It is important to note that LRC was intended not to promote inclusion but rather to provide guidance for addressing educational services for children with disabilities with limited access to specialized schools (Chen, 1996, 1997; McCabe, 2003).
Although the initial idea of LRC did not directly address inclusive education, its later development was heavily influenced by the global trends in the late 1980s (Deng & Harris, 2008; Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2004). The reauthorization of both the CEL in 2006 (National People’s Congress, 2006) and the Law on the Protection of Disabled Persons (National People’s Congress, 2008) explicitly included LRC and accepting children with disabilities in regular schools. Children with mild/moderate disabilities (e.g., sensory impairments, learning disabilities, emotional behavioral disorders) were the initial beneficiaries of these efforts. Access to and participation in general education, however, continued to vary by geographic area, disability severity, resources, availability of professionals, and other factors (Hu, Wang, & Xiao, 2012; Wang and Michaels, 2010). In rural areas of China where over 80% of children with disabilities reside, for example, compulsory education is not a reality for even those without disabilities (Deng, 2008; Deng & Zhu, 2007). The Disability National Census (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2007) found that only 63% of children with disabilities were receiving compulsory education. Of those 63%, only 54% were receiving their education in general education settings (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2016a).
Current Initiatives Related to Inclusive Education
In 2014, to further the cause of compulsory education for all children and LRC for children with disabilities in particular, the MOE released the Special Education Improvement Act (SEIA). Following the approval of this act, a number of nation- and province-wide policies were established, including the “Guidelines for Resource Rooms in Regular Schools” policy document (MOE, 2016b). In the following sections, these initiatives are further described with a focus on how they have served as both facilitators and barriers to inclusive education in China.
Facilitating Factors
The efforts to expand compulsory education also accelerated inclusive education by reemphasizing that all students, including those with disabilities, are entitled to education. For example, the SEIA states that “by 2016, at least 90% of students with visual impairments, hearing impairments, and intellectual disabilities should receive compulsory education. Educational opportunities for students with other disabilities should significantly increase” (MOE, 2014, p. 1). To achieve this goal, the MOE provided specific recommendations, including building a continuum of services, supporting students with disabilities across grade levels, ensuring all students are prepared in both academic and vocational areas, and integrating educational and medical supports (MOE, 2014). Through these efforts policy makers not only increased the emphasis on education equality and equity but also set the stage for inclusive education as the ultimate goal of special education. “The overall goal of this act is to comprehensively promote inclusive education to ensure that all students with disabilities receive an appropriate education” (MOE, 2014, p. 1).
To achieve this goal, the “Guidelines for Resource Rooms in Regular Schools” policy document (MOE, 2016b) instruct regional and local education agencies to build their capacity for inclusion. In the document, any school with more than five students with disabilities was mandated to have at least one resource room. Resource rooms were to have not only comprehensive assessment tools, learning materials, and therapeutic equipment, but also specialized teachers certified by the MOE. The wording of these guidelines again reflects the expectation that inclusive education is a service rather than a placement and that to ensure successful inclusion a variety of resources including administrative supports, facilities, equipment, and staff are needed (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2004).
Impeding Factors
These same initiatives (e.g., CEL, LRC) noted as facilitators have also hindered the development of inclusive education. A primary threat to achieving the outcomes of inclusion is that public schools are not mandated to educate students with disabilities (Wang and Michaels, 2010). Hence, even though government policy documents (e.g., MOE, 2014) promote compulsory and inclusive education for students with disabilities, schools are not obligated to do so, nor are they penalized when they deny services.
The reauthorized CEL in 2016 states, “Regular schools should accept students with disabilities who are capable of receiving general education and provide supports to their learning and rehabilitation” (National People’s Congress, 2006, p. 3). However, no regulations have provided guidelines for determining who are capable of receiving general education. The lack of specific guidance has led to what has been referred to as “conditionality” of inclusive education implementation (Slee, 1996). That is, local schools have control over determining a student’s access to and participation in general education based on their judgments of appropriateness, capability, and available resources. The result is that often students living in communities in which services are available in more restrictive settings (i.e., special education classrooms or schools) will be placed in these settings. Students without access to specialized programs are frequently home schooled by their families or do not receive any formal education (Wu & Wang, 2016).
Another barrier encountered in promoting inclusive education is the continuing trend of establishing more segregated specialized schools in all regions of China. This expansion may be partly attributed to a policy document, “Outline of the National Plan for Medium and Long-Term Education Reform and Development” (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 2010), stating the expectation that by 2020, cities and counties with a population of 300,000 or more should have at least one special education school. In theory, students with disabilities would have more access to public education if more specialized schools were built. In practice, however, students with disabilities may be denied access to general education and inclusive options because of the existence of specialized schools and the interpretation that these schools are the default placements for students with disabilities (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou, 2011; Liu & Zhang, 2017). Thus, in summary, China over the past two to three decades has experienced significant efforts to address compulsory education for all and LRC for children with disabilities. Nonetheless, implementation has both facilitated and hindered inclusive education development.
Moving Forward
In the following sections, five major challenges that continue to act as barriers to realization of inclusive education are addressed. First, there is a dearth of research around the efficacy of Chinese inclusive education. Since the Salamanca Statement (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 1994), inclusive education has become an international agenda widely adopted by many countries (ElZein, 2009; Reupert, Deppeler, & Sharma, 2015; Wong, Poon, Kaur, & Ng, 2015). However, research that investigated the efficacy of inclusive education has primarily been conducted in the Western world (Ferguson, 2008). Whether or not it can be applied to Chinese society and culture is yet to be known.
Second, currently no law mandates that public schools are responsible for the education of all children with disabilities, which reinforces the conditionality of inclusive education based on disability severity, availability of resources, and other factors (Hu et al., 2012; Slee, 1996; Wang & Michaels, 2010). Even when students with disabilities are included in regular schools, inclusive education is more a placement than a provision of services as no accountability system is in place to monitor or evaluate the supports that schools provide (McCabe, 2003).
Third, the Chinese public school system currently has many features that may serve as barriers to implementation of inclusive education, including inflexible class structure, large class size, and teachers’ lack of experiences and preparation for supporting students with learning challenges (Deng, Wang, Guan, & Wang, 2017). In the majority of Chinese schools, groups of students go to the same classroom every day, and it is the teachers who move from classroom to classroom. That is, teachers are assigned instructional duties for a specific content/subject and then rotate between classrooms to provide instruction to groups of students on their assigned content domain (e.g., math, science). To maximize the efficiency, some schools adopt a tracking system thus placing students into homogenous groups. Students with more diverse needs including those with disabilities may be placed in “general” schools but would be tracked into homogenous groups of other students with similar learning needs. Many schools also have a very high student-teacher ratio (i.e., from 30:1 to 60:1; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012). With such large numbers, teachers have little time or opportunity to individualize instructions for students with disabilities (Yu, Su, & Liu, 2011). In addition, because teachers are prepared to work with large classes, they often have limited experiences providing individualized support and services (Hua & Li, 2006).
Fourth, the current approach to teacher preparation has created some additional barriers. As noted earlier, teachers across all grade levels are subject-based, meaning that they receive higher education in one subject or content domain and are certified to teach in that subject matter. Typically teachers complete the majority of their coursework in their subject department (e.g., mathematics department) rather than a school of education. These same preservice teachers then take one or two pedagogy classes but typically no courses in special education. As a result, teachers tend to be highly specialized in the subject matter, but know little about pedagogy, let alone working with students with disabilities (Yu et al., 2011).
A final barrier for implementation of inclusion relates to the way in which families’ roles in their children’s education have been traditionally conceived. Research and professional practice evidence from other countries have demonstrated the critical role needed and afforded to families of individuals with disabilities particularly in advocating for educational rights (Garrick-Duhaney & Salend, 2000). Although research has shown that some Chinese families highly value teacher authority and thus tend to be less involved (Wang & Michaels, 2010), other research has reported that families want to be involved but are often discouraged to do so by teachers and schools (An, Wang, Wang, & Horn, 2017).
Recommendations for Moving Forward
The current status of Chinese inclusive education is highly contextualized in and affected by the Chinese culture, movements, and initiatives. To move forward, China can look to the five barriers described in the previous section and consider how they can be modified and adapted to serve as a tool.
Learning from international theories and practices
While inclusive education in many ways is first a belief about the rights of all children, its successful implementation depends on an array of effective strategies. As other countries have moved toward implementation, a substantial set of evidence-based practices (EBP) has emerged. However, the idea of EBP is an unfamiliar concept for many Chinese special education researchers. The use of an evidence-based decision-making process has not been established to study and understand the efficacy of international EBP in China or to create Chinese EBP for inclusive education (B. Wang & Xiao, 2013). Therefore, an evidenced-based decision making process is needed to increase the level of high quality research. This process may include understanding the social constructivism of disability, carefully examining the feasibility and adaptability of EBPs that are successfully used in other countries, systematically reviewing Chinese inclusive education practices, and conducting high quality research to examine the effectiveness of practices.
Prioritizing inclusive education
Chinese public schools are encouraged but not mandated to educate all students with disabilities, which is a major threat to the development of inclusive education (Xie, Wang, & Li, 2016). To change the status quo the central government must decide whether inclusive education is compulsory and should general schools be mandated to educate all students. If public schools are mandated to educate only those who are capable (National People’s Congress, 2006), laws and regulations must develop clear and concise definitions, criteria, and procedures for eligibility determination.
Creating a robust service system
As noted earlier, Chinese public schools have system level features that serve as barriers to inclusive education. Hence policy makers and schools must directly address how in a realistic and feasible manner they can overcome these barriers. To start, schools should support systematic and sustainable collaboration among general education, special education, rehabilitation centers, higher education, local federations for individuals with disabilities, and families (Tong, Gu, Zhou, & Mi, 2017). These collaborative efforts should include a focus on establishing policies that support family involvement as an entitlement (Slee, 1996) and support teachers in abandoning the current gatekeeper role to help open the door for family involvement. Second, higher education also has responsibilities to ensure that general education teachers receive appropriate preparation in how to individualize instruction and support students with disabilities (Deng, Pan, & Guan, 2015). Finally, public schools and other institutions should work together to provide ongoing and sustained development opportunities for current educators as they support students with disabilities and their families.
In summary, after nearly 40 years of having policies on compulsory education and LRC in place, the provision of inclusive education is possible in China. However, while these policies open the possibilities, there remain barriers and challenges that must be overcome. Through a historical lens, this article described the facilitators as well as the barriers with the aim of pinpointing the holes and providing recommendations for avenues to overcome the barriers.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.