This article was downloaded by: [Nanyang Technological University]

On: 03 March 2015, At: 15:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Inclusive

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

The evolution from integration to

inclusion: the Hong Kong tale
a
Kim Fong Poon-McBrayer
a
Department of Education Policy & Leadership, Hong Kong
Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong
Published online: 24 Jul 2012.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Kim Fong Poon-McBrayer (2014) The evolution from integration to inclusion:
the Hong Kong tale, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18:10, 1004-1013, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2012.693397

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.693397

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015
 International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2014
Vol. 18, No. 10, 1004–1013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.693397

The evolution from integration to inclusion: the Hong Kong tale

Kim Fong Poon-McBrayer∗

Department of Education Policy & Leadership, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po,
Hong Kong
(Received 25 April 2009; final version received 16 June 2011)
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

As a worldwide movement, some forms or stages of inclusive education have been

experimented and/or mandated in various countries since the mid-1970s.
Integration was piloted in Hong Kong in 1997 and remains the official rhetoric
and policy. Three developmental phases of inclusive education, namely,
integration, integration in transition to inclusion, and inclusion, are described in
this article according to the defining characteristics of integration and inclusion.
Issues in policies and practices as reported in various studies are described to
illustrate the development of each phase in Hong Kong. Based on a critical
review of the said defining characteristics, current policies and practices which
offer insight into the indicators signifying the migration to inclusion, I argue
that Hong Kong has entered the stage of inclusion and that it was achieved by
public pressure for improvement of practices instead of policy directions. This
article concludes with recommendations made to sustain effective practices of
inclusion.
Keywords: integration; inclusive education; special education policies; Hong
Kong; learning disabilities

Introduction
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
defines inclusive education as a developmental approach to search for ways to
address the learning needs of all individuals with a focus on those who are at risk
for marginalisation and exclusion. The National Center on Educational Restructuring
and Inclusion of the United States (1995, 6) defines inclusive education as:

Providing to all students, including those with significant disabilities, equitable opportu-
nities to receive effective educational services, with the needed supplemental aids and
support services, in age-appropriate classes in their neighbourhood schools, in order to
prepare students for productive lives as full members of society.

In Australia, all the state and territory government education departments have their
own definitions for inclusive education (Goliath Business Knowledge on Demand
2008). While word choices may be different, the fundamental views on inclusive
education are similar, providing equal opportunities to an appropriate education for
students with different learning needs within mainstream settings.

∗
Email: mcbrayer@ied.edu.hk

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1005

The concept of inclusive education is broadened by terms, such as integration and

inclusion, to signify different stages of the inclusive education movement (Wong
2002). Integration typically refers to offering support to students with special needs
who participate in the standard curriculum without major restructuring of content or
delivery (Booth 1996). This concept is essentially the same as what is advocated by
the American concept of mainstreaming as required by the Public Law 94-142
enacted in 1975. The law required that students with disabilities be provided with a
free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment to increase their
access to the general school system (United States Department of Education 2007).
American schools implemented this law through a process called mainstreaming.
The Wisconsin Education Association Council (2007) clearly elucidates the philoso-
phical or conceptual distinction between integration/mainstreaming and inclusion.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

Mainstreaming/integration proponents believe that a child with disabilities first

belongs in the special education environment and that the child must earn his/her
way into the general education environment by demonstrating an ability to ‘keep up’
with the work assigned by the classroom teacher. Inclusion supporters, on the other
hand, view the general classroom as the place to which the child belongs and
removal of the child happens only when appropriate services must be provided else-
where. Students with special needs are expected to be supported to enable them to
fully participate and be an integral part of the school community under the auspice
of inclusion.
The worldwide trend of implementing inclusive schooling became visible in mid-
1970s, first in the USA, following the passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act or Public Law 94-142 in 1975. In 1990, the globally historic Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law, then a mandate unparalleled in its
scope in the world (Welch and Palames 2004). The American legislations have
reformed the education for individuals with disabilities and the impact has spread
across continents. Four years after the passage of the ADA, the United Nations Edu-
cational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (1994), following the World Conference
on Special Needs Education in Salamanca, Spain, published the Salamanca Statement
as a worldwide call for commitment to inclusive education for children with disabilities.
Around the globe, this commitment has been translated into reforms that address the
rights of individuals with disabilities to not only an education, but also an inclusive edu-
cation (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 1997).
Though integration soon became the official goal of special education in Hong Kong
shortly after the passage of P.L. 94-142, it remained rhetorical without any action for
two decades (Poon-McBrayer 2004) until September 1997. To this date, the Hong
Kong government still insists that its policy is that of integration, not inclusion.
Problems and issues encountered throughout the last decade have been reported
(Hui 2001; Poon-McBrayer 2004; South China Morning Post 2002; The Hong Kong
Primary Education Research Association and Special Education Society of Hong
Kong 2006; Tong 2006; Wong 2002; Wong et al. 1999). A decade of implementing
integration has witnessed numerous struggles among stakeholders such as policy-
makers, general education personnel, special school personnel, parents, teacher educa-
tors, and advocates. Progress has been made irrespective and because of the struggles.
Even though integration remains the official rhetoric and current practices still
require further improvement, I argue that Hong Kong has begun to practise inclusion.
Recognising this milestone is significant because stakeholders can be better focused
and engaged in their effort in improving inclusive schooling instead of how we can
 1006 K.F. Poon-McBrayer

move forward from integration to inclusion. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to
conduct a critical review of the evolution from integration to inclusion by identifying
key stages of development in the last decade and discussing the way forward with
regard to policies and practices.

Key stages of development

The Hong Kong government formally launched the integration pilot scheme in Septem-
ber 1997, and since its inception, three major stages of development can be delineated:
(a) integration, (b) integration in transition to inclusion, and (c) initial stage of inclusion.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

Integration
The journey towards inclusive schooling began with a 2-year integration pilot scheme
in 1997 that involved seven elementary schools and two secondary schools. Only stu-
dents with the specified types of disabilities were allowed to participate in the pilot
project: those with mild intellectual disabilities, hearing/visual impairments, physical
disabilities, and autism. Schools were allocated an amount of money based on the
number of students and a lump sum for acquiring materials to support participating stu-
dents (Poon-McBrayer 1999a, 2000). Each school was given an extra teacher if they
took five integrated students, and a teaching assistant if there was a total of eight stu-
dents. Schools were asked to assign an experienced teacher to serve as the resource
teacher to provide support in instruction and behavioural management for classroom
teachers and participating students in collaboration with educational psychologists. A
team of researchers from a local university were commissioned to support the
schools in the form of participatory action research projects (Mittler and Poon-
McBrayer 1998; Poon-McBrayer 1999a, 2000). A couple of short and ad hoc training
sessions were conducted to prepare school practitioners for the implementation.
The elite-based education system, however, had already cultivated a culture of non-
acceptance among school personnel (Poon-McBrayer 2004). Experienced teachers of
pilot schools wanted to continue to work with elite students to maintain school status
through students’ performance in external examinations and were unwilling to serve
as resource teachers to support integrated students. Consequently, the pilot schools
assigned new and inexperienced teachers to take the role. There were also no policies
available to guide referrals for integration and to prepare students for integration. The
lack of policies or guiding principles contributed to many parents requesting for refer-
rals simply because of their erroneous view that their children could be ‘cured’ if given
opportunities to learn alongside their non-disabled peers (Poon-McBrayer 1999a).
During this period, both school personnel and parents expected these students, with
minimal support, to keep up with the standard curriculum through doing the same
homework, being assessed with the same tests/examinations as others, and meet the
same academic requirements. Such practices were congruent with the general
concept of integration in that students had to ‘earn’ and maintain their place in the
general schools. Those who could not cope with the demands of general schools
returned to special schools.
The implementation drew many criticisms from various stakeholders. A series of
problems such as inadequate preparation of school personnel to deal with the chal-
lenges, heavy workload, excessive types of disabilities in a single classroom, and
insufficient funding were reported (Poon-McBrayer 1999a; The Hong Kong Primary
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1007

Education Research Association and Special Education Society of Hong Kong 2006).
However, the government, to align with the international trend of inclusion, was deter-
mined to keep integration as a parallel provision of special schools for students with
disabilities. Financial and personnel incentives continued to be injected into the
project for a larger number of schools following the pilot scheme.

Integration in transition to inclusion

The period from 2000 to 2003 can be considered as a transitional period from inte-
gration to inclusion. The government continued to come under severe criticism for
inadequate preparation for and ineffective implementation of integration, as cited
earlier, after the pilot scheme in 1999. The government introduced a number of policies
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

to strengthen the practices.

First, the government finally began to provide funding to organise structured train-
ing programmes for school personnel as recommended upon the completion of the
pilot scheme (Poon-McBrayer 1999a). Second, greater pressure was applied on
school principals to assign experienced and effective teachers to serve as resource tea-
chers facilitated by mandates of better timetabling and greater reduction of teaching
load. Third, there was a noticeable paradigm shift to adopt the view that all teachers
were responsible for students with disabilities, and instructional and assessment
accommodations were now encouraged. Schools effective in implementing these strat-
egies were enlisted to coach other schools. Fourth, accommodations during public
examinations were publicised to parents, teachers, and students as well as strengthened
through allowing assessment results from educational psychologists in private practice
and school endorsement as evidence of the need for accommodations. Fifth, though
initially reluctant to offer teacher education to educational psychologists who were
charged with the responsibility to support teachers in the areas of instruction, assess-
ment, and behavioural management, the government finally sent many of them for
teacher training through a post-degree teacher certificate programme offered by a
local university in the hope of improving their ability to support teachers after
gaining teaching experience. Though inconsistently implemented, these provisions
made it possible for students with disabilities not to have to perform at the same
pace as their non-disabled peers and earn their place in general schools, signalling a
migration from integration to inclusion.

Initial stage of inclusion

There was still no shortage of public criticisms and mounting pressure for further
improvement persisted. After consultations with various stakeholders, the government
put in place three key policies that moved Hong Kong from practising integration to
inclusion towards the end of 2003. These policies were parental choice of schools,
participation of all schools, and adoption of indicators of inclusion.

Policies to signify migration to inclusion

Parental choice of schools
In 2003, the government put in place the single most important policy to indicate
inclusion practices: parental right to choose neighbourhood schools irrespective of
the severity of their children’s disabilities, and schools being obligated to take them
without any recourse to refusal. This policy was significant in its emphasis that students
 1008 K.F. Poon-McBrayer

with disabilities belong to the general school to begin with, a practice that is congruent
with the concept of inclusion.

Opportunities to participate by all schools

Though participation is on a voluntary basis, the original plan of restricting integration
to no more than 140 schools was discontinued in 2003. Instead, any of the over 1000
elementary and secondary schools in Hong Kong could now freely participate in inte-
gration if they accepted a minimum of five students with disabilities. These students
could be transferred from special schools or may already be in the neighbourhood
schools but later identified with special needs. This policy also for the first time recog-
nised students with learning disabilities and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorders
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

as special education students in that their presence in school entitled their schools to
receive funding for support services provided to them.

Adopting indicators of inclusion

The government’s adoption of indicators of inclusion adapted from the Index for
inclusion (Vaughan 2000) to provide schools with guidelines for and evaluation of
effective inclusion practices (Education Bureau 2008b) is another apparent paradigm
shift from integration to inclusion. The indicators suggest practices congruent with
what is considered the conceptual framework of inclusion.

Additional support measures for inclusion practices

In addition to the three policies, the government also offered a great deal of financial
incentives to new and existing support measures to further improve school practices.
The most important of all is the introduction of the new funding scheme for integration
participation in 2003. This scheme was first piloted in 25 elementary schools (Edu-
cation Bureau 2008a). Under this scheme, schools are given greater flexibility in utilis-
ing the funds, provided with an Intensive Learning Support Grant to increase school-
based support, and required to adopt the whole-school approach in which all personnel
will be charged with the responsibility of supporting students with special needs. The
greater autonomy in managing and utilising the funds contributed to the increasing
number of participating schools. In the 2007/2008 school year, the number of elemen-
tary and secondary schools adopting the scheme and the whole-school approach was
about 300.
More recently, incentives for individualised school-based support schemes have
been offered one after another. In 2006, the Enhanced Speech Therapy Grant was
approved for elementary schools to provide more intensive and timely school-based
support for students with speech and language impairments. In 2007, the School Part-
nership Scheme was launched to select 18 special schools to serve as resource centres
for general schools participating in integration and eight general schools as resource
schools using the whole-school approach (Education Bureau 2008a). In 2008, the gov-
ernment began to give a new Learning Support Grant to all public secondary schools to
strengthen support for special needs students and increased the existing Learning
Support Grant for elementary schools from HK$550,000 to a million dollars each
(Education Bureau 2008c). An additional 100 schools would also be provided with
school-based psychological services for special needs students (Education Bureau
2008d).
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1009

The government is undoubtedly moving steadily in the direction of bringing in

school-based support in inclusive settings. Services in areas that were neglected in
the earlier stages have become available in individual schools. This movement has
also propelled Hong Kong into the inclusion era.

The evolution
The development of inclusive education around the globe has similar themes. Edu-
cation policies are fundamentally political decisions where education comes under gov-
ernmental control (Amutabi 2003; Cheng and Cheung 1995; Csizmadia, Enders, and
Westerheijden 2008; Maranto and Milliman 2004). When civil rights and equity occu-
pied the centre stage of politics, providing formal education to special needs students
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

and then inclusive schooling flourished. The passage of Public Law 94-142 in the
USA, the Salamanca Statement endorsed by the UNESCO (1994), and certainly the
launch of integration in Hong Kong are all responses to the call for civil rights,
equity, and social inclusion.
Difficulties and issues encountered during the experimentation of inclusive school-
ing inevitably fuel discussions, criticisms, and demands for improvement from relevant
stakeholders such as the public, parent organisations, professional organisations, aca-
demics, advocacy groups, and school personnel. Such a journey of evolution was defi-
nitely witnessed in Hong Kong’s experience of progressing from integration to
inclusion. The involvement of various stakeholders in the policy-making process and
the pressure exerted by them have played a pivotal role in motivating the government
to implement improvement measures. The migration to inclusion is not a consequence
of intentional policies but public and political pressure. Integration may continue to be
the government’s rhetoric in the foreseeable future, but the practices are those of
inclusion.

Tasks ahead to sustain effective inclusion

Although Hong Kong has made strides in its evolution from integration to inclusion,
one must keep in mind that many areas require further improvement to facilitate suc-
cessful inclusion experiences. Recommendations from researchers (Mittler and Poon-
McBrayer 1998; Poon-McBrayer 1999a, 2000) involved in the pilot scheme of inte-
gration in Hong Kong schools in the areas of administrative structure and support,
systematic teacher training, and creating a culture of acceptance have since become
policy mandates. The impact of barriers identified in early phases is lessened, not elimi-
nated. Persistent challenges include withdrawal of membership from general schools
caused by ineffective and inadequate support services and the absence of referral cri-
teria and preparation for inclusive schooling, inadequate teacher training, and the
lack of transition planning to facilitate continual services (The Hong Kong Primary
Education Research Association and Special Education Society of Hong Kong
2006). The absence of post-secondary support services is another major issue that
requires attention.
The current deficits call for efforts in a number of tasks essential to sustain effective
inclusion. A comprehensive referral system and integration guidelines with necessary
details in critical aspects for an effective process and experience should be developed
and participating general and special schools should be required to follow them. One of
the major aspects to be addressed is the preparation for integration. A list of academic
 1010 K.F. Poon-McBrayer

and social behaviours essential for successful integration experiences (Gresham et al.
2004) should be identified and available for school personnel to prepare students for
integration. For example, the understanding and mastery of societal norms regarding
appropriate interpersonal behaviour (Sullivan and Caterino 2008) as well as taking
initiations and turn taking skills (Harper, Symon, and Frea 2008; Humphrey 2008)
are crucial for students with autism spectrum disorders to succeed in educational and
community settings. Because peer relationships in childhood play a vital role in
later-life adjustment, schools have a responsibility to create environments that
support and promote social competence and acceptance (Meadan and Monda-Amaya
2008). In addition, study/test taking skills are important for students with learning dis-
abilities to succeed in inclusive settings (Aguila et al. 2008). Training should be pro-
vided for teachers who could then assist students to develop these skills in
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

preparation for integration. Because some students may begin their schooling in
general schools under current policies, both teachers of general and special schools
should receive training to facilitate their work.
The second major aspect of the comprehensive guidelines is to delineate, as far as
possible, roles and responsibilities of professionals as well as the communication mech-
anisms for all parties involved in the process to enable better collaboration and infor-
mation sharing. Such arrangements can also be used for transition planning after
students are already integrated. The third aspect to be addressed in these guidelines
is a framework for transition planning to ensure continuity of appropriate services
from elementary to secondary schools and post-secondary needs. Such a framework
should emphasise the person-cantered approach, the significance of which is confirmed
in the existing literature (Michaels and Ferrara 2005; Miner and Bates 1997; Thomas
1999). Socio-cultural appropriateness should also be considered during the develop-
ment of the framework. The fourth major aspect of the guidelines should address the
formalisation of support services for post-secondary education and adult life in con-
junction with the establishment of transition planning systems. This is especially criti-
cal for students with learning disabilities who now form the largest group of students
with special needs with no support beyond secondary education while students with
sensory impairments and physical disabilities receive limited support services. Last
but not the least, a centralised record keeping system to maintain figures and paper
trails of services for students with special needs should be established to provide a
basis for further improvement and guarantee the continuity of services.

Conclusion
Integration has experienced a decade of trial and error and advanced to inclusion by
public pressure for improvement in practices in Hong Kong. Perhaps, the next question
is whether Hong Kong will eventually move towards full inclusion that has been hotly
debated for almost two decades in the West. The heavy emphasis on individual rights in
the Western cultures making the discourse of full inclusion as a means to achieving
equality is thus nothing less than expected. With a pre-dominantly Chinese population
and a society still under heavy influence of Confucian ideology that emphasises social
harmony even in the education of students with disabilities (Poon-McBrayer and
McBrayer 2007), one is not surprised when parents who have had bad experiences
with inclusive settings choose to have their children sent back to special schools
(The Hong Kong Primary Education Research Association and Special Education
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1011

Society of Hong Kong 2006) instead of demanding full and appropriate support in
general schools.
Although Confucian ideologies still influence policies and behaviours in Chinese
societies, acculturation to Western values in Chinese societies has been going on for
at least a century (Poon-McBrayer and McBrayer 2007). The increasing emphasis on
individual civil rights makes it impossible to rule out a demand for greater equality.
Whether such demand will pave the way for a debate of or call for full inclusion in
Hong Kong has yet to be seen. The interplay of various political, social, cultural,
and economic forces will eventually determine future directions. Tensions arising
from the discourse surrounding the pursuit of full inclusion and the changing sociopo-
litical and sociocultural climate in Hong Kong need to be considered in planning future
policy directions. It may indeed be unfair to provide the same education for students
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

with different needs (Kauffman and Hallahan 1995; Poon-McBrayer 1999b). As

Rimland (1993) rightly stated inclusive education is right for some, not for all. The
goal of providing an appropriate education for students with disabilities and respect
for individual differences that may require differentiated instruction and/or another
location for effective delivery of services must be in the centre of all decisions.

Notes on contributor
Kim Fong Poon-McBrayer is currently Associate Professor and Associate Head of Department
of Education Policy & Leadership at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Dr. Poon-McBrayer
has been a teacher and teacher educator for over 30 years in Hong Kong (University of Hong
Kong), the United States (Monmouth University), Singapore (Nanyang Technological Univer-
sity), Macao (St. Joseph’s University), and Brunei (University of Brunei). She has published
extensively in the areas of inclusive education, learning disabilities, and multicultural issues
in the classrooms. Her recent research interests have expanded to policy and leadership issues
with regard to education reforms, transition planning, lifelong learning and post-secondary
support for students with disabilities, and policymaking.

References
Aguila, C.M., C.C. Morocco, C.E. Parker, and N. Zigmond. 2008. Middletown high school:
Equal opportunity for academic achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice 21, no. 3: 159– 71.
Amutabi, M.N. 2003. Political interference in the running of education in post-independence
Kenya: A critical retrospection. International Journal of Educational Development 23,
no. 2: 127 – 44.
Booth, T. 1996. A perspective on inclusion from England. Cambridge Journal of Education 26,
no. 1: 87 – 99.
Cheng, Y.C., and W.M. Cheung. 1995. A framework for the analysis of educational policies.
The International Journal of Educational Management 9, no. 6: 10– 21.
Csizmadia, T., J. Enders, and D. Westerheijden. 2008. Quality management in Hungarian higher
education: Organisational responses to governmental policy. Higher Education 56, no. 4:
439– 55.
Education Bureau. 2008a. Special education: Recent development in special education. http://
www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=154&langno=1 (accessed August 1, 2009).
Education Bureau. 2008b. Catering for student differences. Indicators for Inclusion: A tool for
school self-evaluation and school development. http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/
Content_187/indicators-042004_e.pdf (accessed August 1, 2009).
Education Bureau. 2008c. Enhancement of the new funding mode for primary schools. http://
www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager /EN/Content_6597/ edbc08010e.pdf (accessed August 1,
2009).
 1012 K.F. Poon-McBrayer

Education Bureau. 2008d. Learning support subsidy for secondary schools. http://www.edb.
gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_6598/ edbc08009c.pdf (accessed August 1, 2009).
Goliath Business Knowledge on Demand. 2008. Inclusive education in Australia. http://goliath.
ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-7058479_ITM (accessed August 1, 2009).
Gresham, F.M., C.R. Cook, S.D. Crews, and L. Kern. 2004. Social skills training for children
and youth with emotional and behavioural disorders: Validity considerations and future
directions. Behavior Disorders 30, no. 1: 32 – 46.
Harper, C.B., J.B.G. Symon, and W.D. Frea. 2008. Recess is time-in: Using peers to improve
social skills of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 38,
no. 5: 815 – 26.
Hui, P. 2001. Dilemma over disability code teachers unprepared for integration, say educators.
South China Morning Post, March 31.
Humphrey, N. 2008. Including pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in mainstream schools.
Support for Learning 23, no. 1: 41– 7.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

Kauffman, J.M., and D.P. Hallahan. 1995. Toward a comprehensive delivery system for special
education. In The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special
education bandwagon, ed. J.M. Kauffman and D.P. Hallahan, 157 –90. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Maranto, R., and S. Milliman. 2004. Politics, markets, or both? Comprehensive school choice
and district superintendent turnover. Paper presented at the American Political Science
Association 2004 annual meeting in Chicago, USA.
Meadan, H., and L. Monda-Amaya. 2008. Collaboration to promote social competence for stu-
dents with mild disabilities in the general classroom: A structure for providing social
support. Intervention in School and Clinic 43, no. 3: 158 – 67.
Michaels, C.A., and D.L. Ferrara. 2005. Promoting post-school success for all: The role of col-
laboration in person-cantered transition planning. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation 16, no. 4: 287– 313.
Miner, C.A., and P.E. Bates. 1997. Person-cantered transition planning. Teaching Exceptional
Children 30, no. 1: 66 – 9.
Mittler, P., and K.F. Poon-McBrayer. 1998. Interim report: Action research of the pilot project
on integrating pupils with disabilities in ordinary schools. Hong Kong: Education
Department of Hong Kong.
National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. 1995. National study of inclusive
education. New York: City University of New York. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/
ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/ 80/13/62/d4.pdf.
Poon-McBrayer, K.F. 1999a. Final report: Action research of the pilot project on integrating
pupils with disabilities in ordinary schools. Hong Kong: Education Department of Hong
Kong.
Poon-McBrayer, K.F. 1999b. Practitioners’ views on integrating students with disabilities. Hong
Kong Special Education Forum 2, no. 1: 69– 78.
Poon-McBrayer, K.F. 2000. School action research: Insights from supporting two schools.
Journal of International Special Needs Education 3, no. 4: 20– 6.
Poon-McBrayer, K.F. 2004. To integrate or not to integrate: Systemic dilemmas in Hong Kong.
The Journal of Special Education 37, no. 4: 249 –56.
Poon-McBrayer, K.F., and P. McBrayer. 2007. Students with intellectual disabilities. In
Learning diversity in the Chinese classroom: Contexts and practice for students with
special needs, ed. S.N. Phillipson, 283– 306. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Rimland, B. 1993. Inclusive education: Right for some. Autism Research Review International
7, no. 1: 3.
South China Morning Post. 2002. Reduction in IE schools. September 21.
Sullivan, A., and L.C. Caterino. 2008. Addressing the sexuality and sex education of individuals
with autism spectrum disorders. Education & Treatment of Children 31, no. 3: 381– 94.
The Hong Kong Primary Education Research Association and Special Education Society of
Hong Kong. 2006. Report on the study of integrated education in Hong Kong primary
schools. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Primary Education Research Association and
Special Education Society of Hong Kong.
Thomas, C.A. 1999. Supporting student voices in transition planning. Teaching Exceptional
Children 31, no. 5: 4 – 9.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1013

Tong, N. 2006. Bureau rebuffs appeal to limit entry of special needs students. South China
Morning Post, July 21.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1994. The Salamanca state-
ment and framework for action on special needs education. http://www.unesco.org/
education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 1997. Inclusive schools and
community support programmes 1996 –1997: First phase. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0011/001176/117625ev.pdf.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2006. Inclusive education:
Concepts. http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-url_id=27856 &url_do¼do_topic
url_section¼201.html.
United States Department of Education. 2007. A 25 year history of IDEA. http://www.ed.gov/
policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html.
Vaughan, M. 2000. Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 15:39 03 March 2015

United Kingdom: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

Welch, P., and C. Palames. 2004. A brief history of disability rights legislation in the United
States. http://www.udeducation.org/resources/readings/welch.asp.
Wisconsin Education Association Council. 2007. Special education inclusion. http://www.weac.
org/resource/june96/speced.htm.
Wong, D.K.P. 2002. Struggling in the mainstream: The case of Hong Kong. International
Journal of Disability, Development, and Education 49, no. 1: 79 –94.
Wong, D., V. Pearson, F. Ip, and E. Lo. 1999. A slippery road to equality: Hong Kong’s experi-
ence of unplanned integrated education. Disability and Society 146, no. 6: 771– 89.