Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 276–287 | Cite as

A collaborative, collegial and more cohesive approach to supporting educational reform for inclusion in Hong Kong

Article and Report


Together with the many advantages incurred by educational reform there are concomitantly a number of challenges that have to be addressed. In the field of special education there have probably been more changes in the past decade than in any other area of education. In 2006, Hong Kong is undoubtedly at the cusp of major changes which continue to reflect the paradigm shifts occurring internationally. One area of concern for all is the issue of support for learners with special needs. It is clear that as more learners with disabilities are included in regular classes support services are moving relatively quickly from a withdrawal one-on-one intervention model that is no longer viable, to increasingly providing support in class by co-teaching, or even redesigning support so that it is aimed at the teacher rather than the child. Additionally, support services are becoming more sophisticated as parents demand greater attention to the specific needs of their child and as they expect educational systems to provide the most up to date practices. For every child with a special need there are many stakeholders who seek to provide some form of support. This can become quite overwhelming, staccato in its implementation, and demanding in the extreme, thus resulting in a disjointed unworkable approach. This paper will consider how support can be redesigned to provide a more collaborative, collegial and cohesive approach that is manageable within the current transformations that are occurring in Hong Kong.

Key words

special education educational reform support inclusion disability stakeholder 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ainscow, M. (2002). Using research to encourage the development of inclusive practices. In M. Ainscow, & P. Farrell (Eds.),Making special education inclusive, 25–37. London: David Fulton Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J. H. (2004). Normalizing difference in inclusive teaching.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 525–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J. III., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity.The Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruder, M. B. (1997). The effectiveness of specific educational / developmental curricula for children with established disabilities. In M. Guralnick (Ed.),The effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 523–548). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  5. Cambourne, B., Ferry, B., & Kiggins, J. (2003). The knowledge building community odyssey: Reflections on the journey.Change: Transformations in Education, 6(2), 57–66.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, C. W. M., Chang, R. M. L., Westwood P., & Yeun, M. (2002). Teaching adaptively: How easy is it in practice? A perspective from Hong Kong.Asia-Pacific Educational Researcher, 11(1), 27–58.Google Scholar
  7. Consortium of Whole Schooling. (2004). Consortium of whole schooling.International Journal of Whole Schooling, 1, 44.Google Scholar
  8. Crais, E. R., Boone, H. A., Harrison, M., Freund, P., Downing, K., & West, T. (2004). Interdisciplinary personnel preparation.Infants & Young Children, 17(1), 82–92.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, N. (2002). The path to inclusive education for Hong Kong: A personal reflection.Hong Kong Special Education Forum, 5(1), 30–45.Google Scholar
  10. Deppeler, J., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2005). Improving inclusive practices in secondary schools: Moving from specialist support to supporting learning communities.Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29 (2), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., & Oliveira, B. (2004). A systematic examination of school improvement activities that include special education.Remedial and Special Education, 25(2), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Education & Manpower Bureau (2005).A study on the effectiveness of special schools. Hong Kong SAR: Author.Google Scholar
  13. Forlin, C. (in press). Inclusive educational practices: A way forward for Hong Kong.Chinese Education & Society.Google Scholar
  14. Forlin, C. (2007). Classroom diversity: Towards a whole school approach. In S. N. Phillipson (Ed.), Learning diversity in the Chinese classroom: Contexts and practice for students with special needs (pp. 95–123. Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Forlin, C. (2006).Realising inclusive education through educational and societal reform. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  16. Forlin, C. (2006a). Inclusive education in Australia ten years after Salamanca.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(3), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forlin, C. (Guest Editor, 2005). Moving onwards and upwards: Inclusive education in secondary schools.Australasian Journal of Special Education,29(2), 87–92.Google Scholar
  18. Forlin, C. (2005a). Sustaining inclusive practices in primary school communities. In C. Newell (Ed.),Disability in Education: Context, Curriculum and Culture (pp.13–21). Australia: Australian College of Educators.Google Scholar
  19. Forlin, C. (2004). Promoting inclusivity in Western Australian schools.International Journal of Inclusive Education.8, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers.Educational Research, 43(3), 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forlin, C., & Bamford, G. (2005). Sustaining an inclusive approach to schooling in a middle school location.Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29 (2), 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (in press).The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability,Development & Education. Google Scholar
  23. Forlin, C., & Lian, J. (in press).Reforms, Inclusion & Teacher Education: Towards a New Era of Special Education in Asia-Pacific Regions. Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes?Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001). Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differences between paraprofessional service delivery models.The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogan, T. (2005). Modifications for students with learning disabilities in inclusive settings.Kappa Delta Pi Record.41(3), 118–123.Google Scholar
  27. Konur, O. (2006). Participation of children with dyslexia in compulsory education: Current public policy issues.Dyslexia (John Wiley), 12(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leung, J. P., & Ho, C. L. (2001). Disuptive classroom behaviour perceived by Hong Kong primary school teachers.Educational Research Journal, 16(2), 223–237.Google Scholar
  29. Loreman, T., Deppeler, J. M., & Harvey, D. H. P. (2005).Inclusive education: A practical guide to supporting diversity in the classroom. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  30. Meijer, C. J. W., Pijl, S. J., & Waslander, S. (1999). Special education funding and integration: Cases from Europe. In T. B. Parrish, J. G. Chambers, & C. Guarino (Eds.),Funding special education. Nineteenth annual yearbook of the American Education Finance Association (pp. 63–85). California: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, P. S., & Stayton, V. D. (1998). Blended interdisciplinary teacher preparation in early education and intervention: A national study.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18(1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pearce, M., & Forlin, C. (2005). Challenges and potential solutions for enabling inclusion in secondary schools.Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29 (2), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pearson, V., Lo, E., Chui, E., & Wong, D. (2003). A heart to learn and care? Teachers’ responses toward special needs children in mainstream schools in Hong Kong.Disability & Society, 18(4), 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peters, S., Johnstone, C., & Ferguson, P. (2005). A disability rights in education model for evaluating inclusive education.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson, M. (2004). Towards whole schools: Building a movement for dialogue and action in the 21st Century.International Journal of Whole Schooling, 1, 4–7.Google Scholar
  36. Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2004). To integrate or not to integrate: Systemic dilemmas in Hong Kong.The Journal of Special Education, 37(4), 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prelock, P. A., Beatson, J., Bitner, B., Broder, C., & Ducker, A. (2003). Interdisciplinary assessment of young children with autism spectrum disorder.Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 34(3), 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rapport, M. K., McWilliam, R. A., & Smith, B. J. (2004). Practices across disciplines in early intervention.Infants and Young Children, 17(1), 32–44.Google Scholar
  39. Recchia, S. L., & Lee, Y. (2004). At the crossroads: Overcoming concerns to envision possibilities for toddlers in inclusive child care.Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(2), 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandall, S., McLean, M. E., & Smith, B. J. (2000).DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. USA: Sopris West & DEC.Google Scholar
  41. Shapiro, D. R., & Sayers, L. K. (2003). Who does what on the interdisciplinary team: Regarding physical education for students with disabilities?Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(6), 32–38.Google Scholar
  42. Stubbs, S. (1997).The rights of children with disabilities. Manchester: Enabling Education Network. Available from Scholar
  43. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Grading for success.Educational Leadership, 58(6), 12–15.Google Scholar
  44. Wallace, T., Anderson, A. R., Bartholomay, T., & Hupp, S. (2002). An ecobehavioral examination of high school classrooms that include students with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 68(3), 345–359.Google Scholar
  45. Wong, D. K. P. (2002). Struggling in the mainstream: The case of Hong Kong.International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 49(1), 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wragg, E. C., Haynes, G. S., Wragg, C. M., & Chamberlain, R. P. (2000).Failing Teachers? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Yeun, M., Westwood P., & Wong, G. (2004). Meeting the needs of students with specific learning difficulties in the mainstream education system: Data from primary school teachers in Hong Kong.The International Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 67–76.Google Scholar
  48. Zaretsky, L. (2005). From practice to theory: Inclusive models require inclusive theories.American Secondary Education, 33(3), 65–86.Google Scholar
  49. Zuna, N., Turnbull, R., & Brown, F. (2004). “Imagine all the people, sharing…“ or a (not so) modest proposal made on the eve of IDEA reauthorization.Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(3), 210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology Counselling & Learning NeedsHong Kong Institute of EducationTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations