Editor¡¦s Notes

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

¡§This may not be the BEST of times; this may not be the WORST of times; but for special education in Hong Kong, this must be the most CRITICAL of times!¡¨

Critical times come with ¡§crisis¡¨ and ¡§opportunities¡¦. For the past year or two, a constant sense of ¡§crisis¡¨ appeared to spread among teachers, principals, parents and those who are involved in the education of children with special educational needs.

The sense of ¡§crisis¡¨ was first felt in late 2004 when the New Senior Secondary Structure reform proposal (also known as 3+3+4) was launched with hardly any reference to special schools. Immediately it triggered off extensive but collaborative actions from principals, teachers, parents and professional groups like us to campaign for the equal rights of children with special educational needs to senior secondary and higher education opportunities. Their rightful cause generated extensive discussions and debates including some conducted at the Legislative Council, which finally ended with the government accepting the demand for three years of senior secondary education for children in ALL special schools.

The sense of ¡§crisis¡¨ was also felt among special schools when the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) published a Report on the ¡§Study of Effectiveness of Special Schools¡¨ in December 2005. While the Report does make some constructive and timely recommendations on curriculum objectives and effective classroom practice, it criticizes some special schools for their quality of teaching and learning and (questionably) attributes these to the lack of purpose in their education provision and ineffective management and leadership. Understandably the Report stirred up widespread concerns, confusions and even dissatisfaction among principals and teachers in special schools, who in the past thirty to forty years have dedicated themselves to the enhancement of quality in education for their students within the restricted resources in curriculum support and staff provision provided by the government.

The sense of ¡§crisis¡¨ is also felt in mainstream schools, which in the past two to three years, have to face the challenges of admitting integrators without much professional support from the government. The ¡§whole-school approach¡¨ to integration which was unilaterally enforced by EMB in 2003 started with the removal of the basic resource teacher support from the existing scheme, replacing it with a head-count funding provision whereby schools were left to themselves to use the allotted fund. With the diversity of learning disabilities of integrators being uncontrolled and with professional training of teachers being significantly depleted and fast becoming inadequate to meet the diverse learning needs of integrators, schools, students and parents are experiencing challenging and very difficult times to cope with the problems given rise to by the integration policy of the government.

Such is the ecology of special education in 2006 in Hong Kong. Crises bring opportunities and challenges. The campaign for the New Senior Secondary Structure for all special schools has brought new horizons, opportunities, hopes and challenges to children with special educational needs, to their parents and of course to those who dedicate their careers to their growth and welfare ¡V their teachers. The reflections from the ¡§School Effectiveness Study¡¨, if viewed positively, should throw light on the direction of curriculum reforms and school-based initiative for special schools. The shared concern and responsibilities for effective and quality learning of integrators in mainstream schools should bring teachers in special and mainstream schools closer together. The new challenges and demands mean that the traditional service model and paradigm of special education must be changed.

Such is the background that drove the Society to dedicate our Annual Conference in 2005 to the New Senior Secondary Structure. It took the form of a Seminar. Seven panelists comprising a senior government official, a school principal, two legislative counselors, two scholars and a parent were invited to speak on the subject, ¡§Opportunities and Challenges from the Senior Secondary Structure for Special Education.¡¨(·s°ª¤¤¾Ç¨î¬°¯S®í±Ð¨|±aªº¾÷·|»P¬D¾Ô). A full report of the proceeding of the Seminar has been included in this Issue. The speeches and views expressed at the Seminar by the panelists and participants, which touched on dreams, hopes, visions and reality of education for our children with disabilities, read like a Memorandum for Reforms and Changes in special education.

What then are the major focuses and urgent agenda of reforms and changes? If the spread of concerns and interests of our paper subscribers in this Issue of the Forum is any indication, curriculum, integration and professional research appear to the three major issues.

As if in response to the call for a greater sense of purpose and more tangible learning outcomes in the school-based curriculum by the ¡§Effectiveness Study¡¨ team, ®e®a¾s(Yung Ka-kui) presented an extensive delineation of the process of curriculum development of two special schools in his paper ¡m¾Ç®Õ¥»¦ì½Òµ{µo®i¡G¨â©Ò¤¤«×´¼»Ù¾Ç®Õªº¾úµ{¡n(¡¨School-based curriculum development: Process of two schools for moderate mentally handicapped children¡¨). In the paper he details the challenges and obstacles that schools in isolation have to face in matching the framework of the central curriculum and in developing stage-based base-line assessment criteria. While commending the teachers in the project for their deep commitment and dedication to the project and marveling at the quality and pace of professional growth of the team-members in the process and feeling ostensibly delighted with the initial impact of the product on teaching and learning, ®e®a¾sis adamant in his conviction that any major curriculum development reform in special education cannot produce effective and holistic impact without the leadership, vision, direction and guidelines from the central government, in this case, the Curriculum Development Council.

Schools are willing and ready to match the spirit and directions of the central curriculum. One example, among many from special schools, is described in the paper by°Ï¬üÄõ (Au Mei-lan) and ¼ï®ü®e (Poon Hoi-yung) on generic skills in¡mÄY«´¼»Ù¨àµ£¦³³Ð³y¡B§å§P©Ê«ä¦Ò©M¸Ñ¨M°ÝÃDªº¯à¤O¶Ü?¡n(Do severe mentally handicapped children have the generic skills of creativity, critical thinking and problem solving?) Backed up by an assessment framework solidly based on studies in Hong Kong and Taiwan, their study on the use of interactive story shows that even children with severe mental handicap can develop high-order thinking skills. Their study further underlines the importance of leadership from the Curriculum Development Council in accommodating the whole range of learning abilities in the central curriculum framework. And here lies the challenge of future curriculum development endeavours in special education, including the one for the new senior secondary classes.

The major challenges of integration are normalization and effective learning. Normalization cannot be imposed upon. As¹p¦¿µØ(Lei Jiang-hua) and¾H²r(Deng Meng), writing from Mainland China, remind us in their paper¡m¿Ä¦Xµo®i¹Lµ{¤¤À³³B²zªº´XÓÃö«Y¡n(Several relations to be addressed in the process of implementing inclusive education) that normalization can only be achieved by the provision of an environment that able and disabled children can learn under same or similar conditions. Same or similar conditions mean that the conditions are designed to allow for children with diverse abilities (and disabilities) to demonstrate their strengths of learning not their weaknesses.

Such is also the message of Clare Yuk-kwan Cheng in her paper on ¡§The use of cooperative learning to promote full participation of children with physical impairment in physical education in mainstream schools¡¨. The basis of cooperative learning is to recognize strengths and accommodate weaknesses. It is through cooperative learning (not competitive learning) that positive interdependence, equal opportunity for success, individual accountability and explicit teaching of collaborative skills and hence effective learning and social integration can be truly achieved for integrators.

Effective learning is the key to success in integration. A very important ¡§relation¡¨ to be addressed in implementing inclusive education as postulated by ¹p¦¿µØ and¾H²r is the compromise between ¡§quality standards¡¨ (½è¼Ð) and ¡§quantity standards¡¨(¶q¼Ð). They remind us that ¡¥an inclusive education without ¡§quality standards¡¨ (½è¼Ð)¡¨ is backward, unsystematic and unscientific¡K Only when ¡§quality standards¡¨ are established and followed can the quality of education be enhanced by the practice of inclusive education¡¦, be it in Mainland or Hong Kong.

¡§Quality standards¡¨ ensure quality teaching and quality learning. Scientific research is what is urgently needed in special education to deepen our understanding of the growing complexities of the learning difficulties that are challenging children with disabilities. Through engaging in research and the perseverance of an inquisitive mind, frontline practitioners will gradually assume confidence and become better equipped to respond to any change in the ecology of education service for our students in whatever learning environment they might find themselves.

The three research papers in this issue reflect the capacity and variety of concerns of our practitioners and the quality of their professional pursuit. Flora Chung and Leung Man-tak¡¦s study focuses on how increasing metalinguistic awareness improves the reading abilities of Chinese dyslexics. The message behind their paper is: effective teaching of dyslexia is not rooted in common sense, goodness of heart and repetitive learning, but in a scientific understanding and analysis of the underlying conditions. Intensive and specialist training of practitioners is the key to effective teaching of dyslexic children. And researches such as Chung & Leung are what drive us forward in meeting the challenges of the new paradigm.

The action research paper of ¶¾§Ó¤å(Fung Chi-man) on ¡m¹B¥Î¦æ¬°§ïÅܧ޳N§ïµ½¾Ç¥Í¡Õ¬G·N¿ò§¿±¡ªp¡n(¡¨The use of behaviour modification techniques to improve ¡§deliberate urinating¡¨ by students¡¨) is another example of how analysis and application of scientific data bring about better effect and higher quality of teaching and learning and how teachers come out of the research much more confident and competent in facing the challenging behaviours of children with special educational needs. Any reform in special education must provide opportunities and ¡§space¡¨ for scientific research. Professionalism in special education cannot be enhanced just by sharing. It should be built on the continuous accumulation of scientific data and field experiences.

The new paradigm of special education is no longer restricted to education for children with physical and/or intellectual disabilities, as the old medical model stipulates. It addresses all children with special needs in education. School reforms and curriculum reforms should take into consideration social and emotional factors that may complicate the effective implementation of reform policy. Such may be the motivation for the study by Lydia Kong, Peter Westwood and Yuen Man-tak on school-related worries of adolescents. Their study reminds us that the pressure of schoolwork and good academic grades may be greater than we think and, if not properly addressed, may be another source of special needs in education.

Special education needs to change. How? The ¡§Effectiveness Study¡¨ seems to be setting the tone. But is it just towards fuller integration? How do we maintain a continuum of special education provision without a central curriculum that covers all abilities? How do we truly and honestly (and effectively) implement the idealistic ¡§one-curriculum-for-all¡¨ framework for all schools that are catering for a great range and diversity of disabilities. The challenges are many. The solutions are understandably difficult to come by and must be solidly based and backed by a macro and comprehensive review that is supported by research data.

Such is the ¡§critical¡¨ nature of our time.

It is for this cause that Hong Kong Special Education Forum and the Special Education Society of Hong Kong pledge to serve. For the past ten years, we have persevered to maintain this platform for sharing views, insights, visions, theories and research findings in special education issues. With the support of our colleagues across the profession, we did receive many. However, the breadth, depth and range that they captured represented only the iceberg of the real special education ¡§ice-scape¡¨. To meet the daunting challenge of the CRITICAL time, a new awareness, interest and culture in research in special needs education must be inculcated and spread among our colleagues. Only when we become proactive can we become masters and not victims of the critical time.

A. Tse