“…Despite this, the findings of the present study contradict several studies having radical [negative] views on both special education and inclusive education in China and doubting the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing parallel system (i.e., having both special education and inclusive education, albeit, the present study presented possible evidence of the existence of not only two forms of provision but four methods: inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion) (Deng & Zhu, 2016; Fu et al, 2019; Su et al, 2018; Xu et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Of relevance to this study is the study on the legislation levels in China regarding inclusive education, illustrated in Figure 1 as described in (Fu et al, 2019). Figure 1.Legislation levels for special and inclusive education in China.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, Fu et al (2019) found that barriers hindering the development of inclusive education include: a competitive exam-based school system, large class size (≥45), economic development and more investment, three modes of the education system (i.e., LRC, mainstreaming and home), and paucity of inclusive education in senior middle school (i.e., high school). Furthermore, to develop inclusive education, the authors proposed: improving legislation for inclusive education in general, providing detailed laws and policies, identifying the responsible agencies and roles of each concerning special education and inclusive education, involving the community in legislation processes, repealing laws that are not consistent with the CRPD convention, for instance, the law which states opening special education schools in counties with a population of more than 300,000 as this encouraged the segregation and decreases inclusion expansion.…”
This study presents a comprehensive analysis of Inclusive Education in China, using a quadripartite system that synthesises the most recent policy documents concerning inclusion and segregation. The study addresses four research questions that focus on the status, merits and shortcomings of existing policies, implementation, and opportunities for improvement. The study adapts the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE) framework for assessing and ensuring quality inclusive education provision. Primary policy documents analysed include the National Plan 2010–2020, Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China 2010–2020, Law on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities, and Reports and documents from the China Disabled Persons’ Federation (CDPF). Tabulation and visualisation of data and findings are based on the Country Policy Review and Analysis, which includes 12 measures for assessment and implications, and the Prevent-Intervene-Compensate model provided by EASNIE. The study offers detailed findings and descriptions of inclusive education in China, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses, while providing implications and actions for improving the quality of inclusive education in the country. The study concludes that while China has unique forms of provision for inclusive education, there are still areas that require improvement to ensure better outcomes for all learners.
“…Despite this, the findings of the present study contradict several studies having radical [negative] views on both special education and inclusive education in China and doubting the efficiency and effectiveness of the existing parallel system (i.e., having both special education and inclusive education, albeit, the present study presented possible evidence of the existence of not only two forms of provision but four methods: inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion) (Deng & Zhu, 2016; Fu et al, 2019; Su et al, 2018; Xu et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Of relevance to this study is the study on the legislation levels in China regarding inclusive education, illustrated in Figure 1 as described in (Fu et al, 2019). Figure 1.Legislation levels for special and inclusive education in China.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, Fu et al (2019) found that barriers hindering the development of inclusive education include: a competitive exam-based school system, large class size (≥45), economic development and more investment, three modes of the education system (i.e., LRC, mainstreaming and home), and paucity of inclusive education in senior middle school (i.e., high school). Furthermore, to develop inclusive education, the authors proposed: improving legislation for inclusive education in general, providing detailed laws and policies, identifying the responsible agencies and roles of each concerning special education and inclusive education, involving the community in legislation processes, repealing laws that are not consistent with the CRPD convention, for instance, the law which states opening special education schools in counties with a population of more than 300,000 as this encouraged the segregation and decreases inclusion expansion.…”
This study presents a comprehensive analysis of Inclusive Education in China, using a quadripartite system that synthesises the most recent policy documents concerning inclusion and segregation. The study addresses four research questions that focus on the status, merits and shortcomings of existing policies, implementation, and opportunities for improvement. The study adapts the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE) framework for assessing and ensuring quality inclusive education provision. Primary policy documents analysed include the National Plan 2010–2020, Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China 2010–2020, Law on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities, and Reports and documents from the China Disabled Persons’ Federation (CDPF). Tabulation and visualisation of data and findings are based on the Country Policy Review and Analysis, which includes 12 measures for assessment and implications, and the Prevent-Intervene-Compensate model provided by EASNIE. The study offers detailed findings and descriptions of inclusive education in China, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses, while providing implications and actions for improving the quality of inclusive education in the country. The study concludes that while China has unique forms of provision for inclusive education, there are still areas that require improvement to ensure better outcomes for all learners.
“…Overall, inclusive education not only has several advantages but also faces several challenges, especially when compared to other rival special education strategies, such as mainstreaming, LRC and segregation and exclusion (Fu, Chen, and Zhen, 2019). Thus, we proposed the following two questions: (1) How are people with special educational needs in China defined, conceptualised and perceived by stakeholders?…”
Section: Special Education Development In Chinamentioning
Conceptualising and defining special education determine what services will be provided for learners with special educational needs (SENs). The focus of our study was two questions: (1) how are people with SENs in China defined, conceptualised and perceived by stakeholders, and (2) how does society in China view special education? This was accomplished by conducting a qualitative study using in‐depth interviews with nine Chinese stakeholders, including administrators, practitioners and academics. The findings revealed that China uses the traditional, social and medical models in the same manner as the rest of the world when conceptualising, defining and providing special education services. However, there are several additional context‐related differences, such as the provision of special education in four different ways (i.e., inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion). Although the participants believe that society has made significant progress towards the acceptance of persons with disabilities, they assert that minor, unsystematic and atypical discrimination still exists according to the type of disability or socioeconomic status of each member. While this study sheds revealing light on contemporary conceptions about special education and disability expressed by participants, a deeper understanding of the Chinese educational system's eligibility model for special education, and inclusive education has been gained.
“…To gain a better understanding of the status of special and inclusive education policies, we present the following synthesis. Fu et al mentioned that “in several key government documents on national educational development, the Chinese government persists in developing more special schools” [ 1 ] (p. 581) but also raised their concern on “the contradictions in the new regulations reflecting long-rooted disagreements about inclusive education in reality” [ 1 ] (p. 581). Further, barriers hindering the development of inclusive education include a competitive exam-based school system, large class sizes (≥45), economic development and more investment, three modes of education (i.e., learning in regular classrooms (LRC), mainstreaming, and home learning), and a paucity of inclusive education in senior middle school (i.e., high school).…”
Laws and policies, no matter how well designed, can fail if they are not implemented correctly. This can occur when there is no interaction between policymakers and those who are working on the ground. The purpose of this study was to determine the understanding of Chinese stakeholders regarding legislation, policy, and law associated with the provision of special education and explore its implications for student wellbeing and mental health. Two questions were posed: (1) Does a stakeholder’s attitude towards legislation, policy, and law regarding special education impact their role or responsibilities? (2) In what ways do stakeholders interact with legislation, laws, and policies regarding special education and their work experience in the field? Using in-depth interviews as the basis for the study, researchers gained valuable insight into how administrators, practitioners, and academics perceive laws and policies. Participants exhibited exaggerated attitudes and over-interpretations of some of these items, which we attribute to partly real factors, as well as nationalistic or patriotic feelings. The evidence included calls for specific laws and policies as well as a switch from a top-down to a bottom-up approach to reform to bridge the disparity between different regions in the country. As the participants agreed, there have also been remarkable achievements in building a more comprehensive and inclusive system over the last decade. However, the gaps between rural and urban areas, primary and middle schools, high schools and vocational schools need to be addressed urgently in specific laws and policies. Addressing these disparities will not only improve the overall quality of special education but also have significant implications for student wellbeing and mental health. By ensuring that all students have access to tailored support and resources, policymakers can foster a more inclusive and supportive environment that promotes positive mental health outcomes for all learners.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
