Editor's Note
 
The successful launch of our Inaugural Issue in December served not only as a booster to our confidence, but a reminder of our professional obligation, in keeping alive such a publication for our colleagues. The response was gratifying. Over one thousand copies have since been distributed to individuals and organizations on our mailing list and on request. Several libraries have formally requested regular supply of our ensuing issues. The vacuum for a periodical publication on special education in Hong Kong is clearly there. We take it as our obligation to fill this vital gap with quality papers and maintain a venue for the exchange and sharing of professional experiences and academic findings.
 
In the Second Issue we would like to share with our readers the proceeding of the first Seminar of the Society on December 6, 1997. The Seminar entitled “Special Education in the 21st Century” attracted a full house of more than 200 teachers on a fine Saturday morning. For those who could not make it on that day we have prepared abridged versions of the presentations of all speakers as well as a summary of the forum that followed. There was one common message in all the speeches: That the development of special education is entering a crucial stage. After many years of “dualism” and “segregation” the government appears to be steering us back to inclusion. The change of heart was as abrupt as when special education was started in the sixties. It was NOT accompanied by an overall appraisal of the education system, research studies on the extent and nature of special needs in our student population, an appraisal of the values and functions of special schools and a long-term policy in teacher education and community education on “equal opportunity in education for all”. History should not repeat itself. Such important changes in our education policy cannot be allowed to slip through unnoticed. The setting up of the Society could not have been more opportune. Our mission is to search for and identify the Origin (本), the “root” or the basic theoretical premises on which special education (for that matter, good education) develops. Once this is established the road ahead for our policy on education can be easily “paved” (本立道生) . Our basic premises is special education; our ultimate concern is quality education for ALL. We will continue to dedicate ourselves in stimulating discussion on the future definition and role of special education (or special needs education) for our children.
 
Sources for such stimulation are certainly not lacking. Professor Kai-ming Cheng, the Society's professional consultant, reminds us with his paper, “Special education in Chinese societies : A cultural perspective”, to broaden our perspective of special education to include the cultural perspective. He makes no judgement on the impact of the emphasis on “collective learning” and “efforts” in Asian culture on “mixed abilities education”. However, such is the reality inclusive education in our culture has to face. Of course, there are success stories once there is a will and the heart to do well. Penny Mittler, a member of the consultancy team for the Education Department's Pilot Scheme on Integration, has every reason to be optimistic about integrating students with mixed abilities (and disabilities) in our mainstream schools. In her paper, “Inclusive schools, effective schools: First findings from a Hong Kong project”, which must be the first report on the Pilot Scheme, she shared with us some very exciting phenomena in the pilot schools. She highlighted some key factors for success in “effective” integrated education : leadership support from principals, whole school commitment, collaborative support to the resource teachers and a school culture that “takes diversity as normal.”, among others. Such, by the way, are not the characteristics commonly found in our other integrated settings, notably the revised resource classes and special classes. We have heard cases where teachers of our resource classes and special classes have to work in isolation and without much support from the school. If such a new culture as that identified in Penny's paper is emerging in our schools, it definitely is a sign of hope. And it would be greatly worth our while to find out what breeds this new culture and how this culture can be transplanted in our schools, integrated or otherwise. Such a culture of encompassing children with special needs within the mainstream system should remove the detrimental effects caused by a “stigmatization culture” and bring us closer to true integration. This is what Kwok-tung Chung (鍾國棟) believes would and should happen. In his paper《從雙單循環理論 (Double to single theory) 分析全納教育的發展方向》 (*“>From double to single theory – the direction of future development in inclusive education”) he advocates for a single system whereby mainstream education is extended to children with all abilities. The future education system should be holistic with special education being totally integrated into ONE system. Within the system there is a supportive network for special needs, with special schools taking a new role as resource centres as well as “transit stations” for children with learning difficulties. Such a theory inevitably raises a series of questions. Is the concept of “special education” still valid and useful? Should special education continue to be special and specialized ? Should the present mode of special schools continue to exist ? Are our mainstream schools ready to be “converged” with special schools ? We hope that you can share with us your views on these challenging questions.
 
As Hong Kong moves into the new millenium, a wide-spread grasp of information technology is crucial in maintaining our competition with the rest of the world. Proficiency in the mastery of Information Technology (IT) must be a crucial factor to effective education in the 21st century. No wonder Mr. C.H. Tung, our Chief Executive, has pledged no less than 26 billion dollars on the promotion of IT in education. However, such a project would become a “white elephant” if not accompanied by a thorough process of strategic planning. In his commentary,《特殊學校的資訊科技教育》(*IT in education for special schools), Hok-ling Ng (伍學齡), an experienced special education teacher with special interest in computer education, reviews the rationale behind such a policy. He also suggests to special schools how we can best take advantage of the generous provision from the government. Meanwhile, our teachers must be equipped in time to face the new challenge. Siu-tong Hung's paper “A staff development agenda on information technology” reminds us that mass training programmes by experts may not be as effective as a well planned and structured “school-based staff training programme”. Still on the subject of computer technology, Kenneth Sin and Thomas Chan reported in their paper “The use of multi-media technology in teaching MH children” that with sufficient support, the computer too could be an effective tool for enhancing the learning process of mentally handicapped children.
 
The last two papers of this Issue touch on the more day-to-day issues but raise one important point : That local research is crucial to the deepening of our understanding of the problems facing our students. The revealing finding of Vivian Heung's paper on “Depressive symptomatology in students with emotional and behavioural problems in Hong Kong ”, is a case in hand. The violent, defiant, alienated or provocative behaviours of our “maladjusted’ boys may just have been the overt symptoms of a deep level of depression. Her findings should trigger off some discussion on this subject and would surely have strong implications on our diagnosis, treatment and education of these students. The other paper is an essay from a front-line teacher and HKIED Special Education Course member. Contributions such as this are an important source for our Forum. We hope to receive more papers from them in such forms as essays, action research reports and research papers. Paul Wong's paper on “Bullying in special schools” may need to be substantiated in the depth of its discussion of the bullying problem and the width in the observation of the problem in other special schools; but it has a good literature review and draws our attention to fundamental considerations in dealing with the problems of bullying. Like Vivian's paper, his essay highlights the need for local research in order that effective intervention programme can be devised. We share the same concern and would strongly urge our colleagues to take the initiative to carry out school-based action researches and based on the findings to design effective intervention and teaching strategies and programmes.
 
Finally, we have published in this Issue the result of a questionnaire conducted by the Society on the key domains of “Performance Indicators” soon to be used in the “Quality Assurance Inspection”. This is our first response to the Government's launch of the Quality Education Package. Despite the loose design of the questionnaire and short notice, we did pool together some collective views from our teachers, views that should reflect teachers’ general comments on QAI. We do hope that more teachers will respond to this important issue and write to us to share their response to issues related to Quality Education.
 
Almost one year after our registration, the Special Education Society of Hong Kong is holding its First Annual General Meeting on 13th June 1998 from 2 p.m. at the Rhenish Church Grace School in Fung Tak Estate. From the core of eight, we have grown ten-folds. Our mission to search for the “Origin” (本) and our goal to identify the “Road” (道) remains our guiding spirit. The AGM will be an ideal occasions for all members to meet and brainstorm for the way ahead in our quest for the Origin of, and the way to, – QUALITY EDUCATION. Come and JOIN US !
 
A. Tse
 
STOP PRESS
 
The Government's announcement in early May of the Consultants’ recommendation to “simplify” the system of advisory bodies to our education authority is both disappointing and disturbing. At a time when we were looking with high expectations to the Board of Education Special Education Subcommittee to monitor the implementation of its recommendations and to lead the way to re-appraise the role of special education in future, the Government finds it in its interest to scratch it. On the macroscopic perspective, the removal of the Secretary of Education and Manpower from the membership of the Education Commission may herald the days when government executives lead the professionals in issues on education. Judging from the decisions made by our executives in education issues in the past months Hong Kong's educational development could be put back many years. We cannot remain silent. The Society will be forwarding our strong views to the Government on the recommendations of the Consultant's Report. Do let us (them !) hear your views, too !