Toward a High-Quality System: A Critique of Chinese Special Education Policy Development and the Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Quality of Special Education Schools

Abstract

Purpose

This study reviews the development of special education policies in China and analyzes the major characteristics of policy changes from a critical perspective within specific sociocultural contexts in China.

Design/Approach/Methods

Interpretations of the newly published Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Quality of Special Education Schools are highlighted to reveal the recent manifestations of policy mandates for special education in China.

Findings

China accelerated its policy formulation on special education after the 1980s, moving away from a focus on universalization to quality enhancement and a holistic high-quality “special education system” under the mandate of legislation rather than non-binding regulatory recommendations. This policy aims to develop a high-quality system with accountability that responds to global trends toward inclusive education and fulfills local needs in a pragmatic manner. The mandatory approach to appropriate student development indicates that the goals of equitable and high-quality inclusive education have been taken as core evaluation indicators of the provision of special education in China.

Originality/Value

The paper's findings indicate that future policies need to be more concrete and operational for special education to be implemented effectively.

Introduction

Over the past four decades, policy advocacy in China has strongly favored the inclusion of special education in the national education framework in response to the international trend toward equitable and inclusive education for all (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012). Laws and regulations have been enacted and implemented gradually to make public schools more inclusive and responsive in catering to the needs of children with diverse needs (Zhang & Miao, 2022). In 2022, the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (MOE) issued a landmark regulation, Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Quality of Special Education Schools (GEQSES), to bring about massive changes in special education service provisions under the mandate of high-quality inclusive education. The guidelines cover stages of education ranging from preschool to higher education to improve the quality of the special education system. The document is the first in Chinese history to include special education as a component of the Chinese national goal of building a high-quality education system and to mandate the evaluation of the quality of special education. Thus, the pattern of policy development reveals not only the laws themselves and their social significance but also the specifics of the sociocultural values underlying them.

However, very few policy issues relating to special education in China have been the focus of scientific inquiry, and systematic critiques of the intended policy and actual policy implementation are scarce. Recent policy analyses have shifted from a functionalist to a radical humanist or interpretive paradigm, the latter having gained momentum from the critical tradition of a group of sociologists known as the Frankfurt School (Hvinden, 2003). Critical policy analysis is directed toward exposing connections between policy context, process, and content and reveals the ideologies and values underlying policy issues and their proposed solutions (Eppley, 2009). The analysis in this study focuses on revealing changes in the focus of special education policy under specific local and societal contexts in China, probing the interpretations of the GEQSES, and generating implications for conceptualizing the fundamental features and rationale of special education policy in China. This analysis also reflects the momentum behind the promotion of the public-benefit development of special education stated in the Report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.

From universalization to quality enhancement: Early policy foci

After the 1980s, China accelerated its policy formulation for special education under the influence of globalization and socioeconomic reforms. Most of the laws and regulations drafted during this period were shaped by the global policy context in relation to inclusive education. The policies were intended to make schooling accessible to children with disabilities, who were often denied education under the regulations of “universalization” and “quality” enhancement.

Universalization-centered policy momentum

Special education provisions were considered essential to educational reform after the 1980s’ Reform and Opening-up Policy (Xiao, 2007). In 1982, the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (henceforth, “National People's Congress”) revised the Constitution to mandate that “the nation is responsible for providing citizens with blindness, deafness, muteness, and other disabilities with opportunities to work, live, and be educated” (National People's Congress, 1982). This was the first principled mandate for special education in China (Deng & Harris, 2008). The Compulsory Education Law of the People's Republic of China (Compulsory Education Law; National People's Congress, 1986), the first specific law for compulsory school attendance, was passed in 1986. It required all children who had reached the age of six to be enrolled in school and receive compulsory education for a prescribed number of years.

The Constitution and the Compulsory Education Law established the basic principle of providing education for children with disabilities (Deng & Zhu, 2016). The fact that the majority of these children had been denied a school education presented great obstacles to the realization of the “education for all” advocated at the time (Feng, 2012). Statistics provided by the State Council of the People's Republic of China (State Council) showed that school enrollment for children with disabilities was less than 6% up to 1989, while that for children without disabilities was over 90% (State Council, 1989). According to the Suggestions on Developing Special Education (Suggestions; State Council, 1989), special education development should combine the principle of universalization with enhancement and emphasize universalization. This principle has been confirmed by almost all subsequent legislation and regulations relating to special education between the 1980s and the 2010s, such as the Law of the People's Republic of China on Protection of Disabled Persons (Law on Protection) and the MOE's Regulation of Education for Persons with Disabilities (Regulation of Education; State Council, 1994), intended to ensure its procedural implementation. In addition, the MOE published its Pilot Project of Implementing Learning in Regular Classes for Children and Adolescents with Disabilities (Pilot Project; MOE, 1994), to regulate inclusive education in China, referred to as Learning in Regular Classes (LRC), which has been adopted as the main strategy to provide school access for most children with disabilities in the “universalization” of compulsory education (Mu, 2015).

Quality enhancement policy priority

Even in the 1980s, policies attempted to enhance the quality of special education while emphasizing the universalization of access to schools for children with disabilities. The principle of universalization has established the basic tone for the development of special education in China for over three decades. Consequently, the focus on enrolling children with disabilities in school has taken priority over “enhancement,” that is, the improvement of educational quality (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012); school access remained the primary concern for children with disabilities before the first decade of the 21st century.

In 2010, the Chinese government published its Guidelines for Mid- and Long-Term Education Reform and Development (2010–2020), calling for the establishment of a quality special education system and initiating governmental momentum toward inclusive education (Guidelines for Reform and Development; State Council, 2010). Following this, the Special Education Promotion Plan (2014–2016) (Promotion Plan 2014) and the Special Education Promotion Plan (2017–2020) (Promotion Plan 2017) outlined specific goals and strategies to enhance the quality of special education. These stipulations were based on the finding that nearly 85% of children with disabilities had been enrolled in school by 2010 and thus that the goal of universalizing compulsory education had been realized. Since then, priority has been given to the high-quality development of special and inclusive education to keep pace with the overall development of society.

High-quality mandate: Policy highlights of the GEQSES

In 2019, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council issued China Education Modernization 2035 to establish a comprehensive national high-quality education system and develop special education in the direction of quality inclusion. In 2022, the State Council also issued the “Fourteenth Five-Year Plan” Special Education Development Improvement Action Plan (hereafter, the Action Plan), which detailed the goals and supports for establishing a “high-quality special education system” with an emphasis on developing inclusive education. To put the Action Plan into practice, the GEQSES specify the objectives, using detailed evaluation indicators and procedures for the enhancement of a “high-quality system of special education.” The GEQSES cover five dimensions—governmental accountability, curriculum and teaching implementation, teacher team construction, school organization and management, and student development—comprising 18 themes with 49 indicators for specific quality evaluations. The principal objectives as we interpret them are presented below.

Strengthening governmental accountability to mandate quality inspection

Early documents, such as the Suggestions and Regulation of Education, advocated the inclusion of special education in the national education system and stated that it was the government's responsibility to implement and inspect education for students with disabilities. However, these policies provided only “suggestions” on what governments “should” do and did not provide details on what they “had to” do and how. These policies were general and rhetorical in nature and did not come close to mandating quality education (Morris & Scott, 2003). The Promotion Plan 2014 began to require that quality supervision and inspection of school enrollment, teacher training, and support systems for special education be carried out. The Promotion Plan 2014 and Action Plan mandated that governmental accountability be established to evaluate the implementation of special education in local regions.

The GEQSES require local governments to treat special education as an essential element of the local development inspection index system and to include indicators to oversee the quality of special and inclusive education schools in annual school evaluations. Thus, the results of the quality evaluation will provide a solid foundation for school rewards and penalties, policy support, resource allocation, and the assessment of principals’ performance. All regions are required to formulate specific procedures and indicators for implementation to make progress with evaluations, so that special and regular education schools reform teaching and management methods, improve material conditions, promote the maximum development of children with disabilities, and enhance the overall quality of special education.

The GEQSES imply that the special education policy in China has changed from symbolism to a clear, concrete approach that mandates accountability (Gilbert & Terrell, 2005). The stipulations clarify in a mandatory manner that special education belongs to the domain of the national basic public service and requires “governmental accountability,” which means that government has to take the principal responsibility for developing and implementing special education. The stipulations also indicate that special education policy in China echoes the international trend toward a sociological model that views “disability” as a “public issue” within the remit of state expenditure and services and away from a bio-medical model that views it as an individual or personal issue (Smart & Smart, 1997).

Implementing special education specially administered to support high-quality development

Education for children with disabilities has long been the weakest part of the national education system. Consequently, governments at various levels have often been encouraged to adopt the principle of “special education specially administered” to give preferential policies to special education. The Action Plan stipulated that special education should be specially administered and given special support, including policies, funds, and projects.

The GEQSES mandate that governments adopt the principle of “special education specially administered,” and a few specially designed regulations are proposed to support special education development. First, an administrative mechanism mandates that “the government takes the lead and coordinates with various departments” to develop a network of inter-departmental collaboration. At the county level, a Committee of Experts on Special Education is required to manage disability diagnosis and placement decisions and to coordinate transition services for children with disabilities. A “Resource and Support System for LRC” is required to establish resource centers and classes to provide professional support for inclusive education.

Second, the central government has established a “special education subsidy budget” to support special education programs nationwide, and a tuition-free financial subsidy policy has been provided for students with disabilities. In addition, an enhancing welfare policy is being applied to special education teachers that offers them special allowances, and priority is being given to special and inclusive education teachers in terms of promotions, rewards, and salary. Furthermore, barrier-free environments and accessible services are being provided so that students with disabilities can live and study in schools and receive specific teaching and learning equipment.

Third, from a school leadership perspective, a “zero reject” policy is being implemented for all children with disabilities at school age and for the inclusion of special education in school development plans. The aim is to create an inclusive school culture to eliminate discrimination and prejudice and nurture culturally valuable diversity. In addition, the GEQSES focus on strengthening teachers’ team building to develop high-quality teams based on the mandates of “special education teacher qualification certificates” and related professional development opportunities.

The “special education specially administered” principle seems to regard welfare provisions as a major national responsibility, echoing traditional ethical views of care and benevolence with regard to disability. From a bio-medical perspective, this falls within the domain of the social welfare model. It is apparent that both sociological and social welfare models have been included in China to formulate a pragmatic special education policy paradigm; this differs from the international socio-political policy trend toward equity and pluralism (Mitra, 2006).

Emphasizing planning and distribution to develop a high-quality system

China has tended to establish a holistic special education “development system” since the 1980s. This system specifies the ways in which children with disabilities receive education services in two respects: (1) the placement options in special education schools (classes), general education placements, and other alternatives, and (2) the hierarchical structure involved in transitioning from preschool to higher education stages. After the passage of the Compulsory Education Law in 1986, more service delivery options were advocated for accommodating children with disabilities who were still being denied an education (Deng & Zhu, 2016)). A new special education “development pattern” was developed, which mandated that special schools constituted the “backbone” of the system, and a large number of special classes and LRC served as the “body.” This pattern resembled the continuum of the special education service delivery system in the West under the philosophy of Mainstreaming, which offered an array of similar placement alternatives for students with disabilities (Feng, 2012).

The GEQSES further stipulate that a high-quality system should be planned and distributed (planning and distribution) rationally and that a “development pattern” should be set up that “takes LRC and special education classes as the main body, special education schools as the backbone, and homeschooling and distance education as supplementary.” The difference from previous stipulations is that LRC plays a major role and the options of homeschooling and distance education are included in the list of choices. In this way, Chinese special education has formed a unique development pattern characterized by “multiple options toward inclusion.”

When the worldwide trend toward inclusive education resulted in the closing of special schools, China accelerated the construction of new special schools while developing LRC programs. LRC served approximately 30% of the students with disabilities in schools in the early 1990s and has reached 50% today. Special schools numbered around 300 nationwide in the early 1980s and over 2,300 in the 2020s (MOE, 2021). Thus, special schools, representing the typically segregated special education, and LRC, representing inclusive education, have been developed in parallel in China to form a pragmatic special education model. There has seldom been any debate on full or partial inclusion, as there was in the West, which resulted in the closing of special schools (Tiwari et al., 2015).

In addition, the “planning and distribution” stipulation reinforces the longstanding advocacy of the two-end extensions to expand special education to both the preschool and post-compulsory stages and a vertical hierarchy in the school operation system is mandated. Early documents, such as the Suggestions and Law on Protection, called for the development of preschool and vocational education for students with disabilities, but the relevant provisions remained only voluntary and recommended. The policy goal of improving the special education system was formally determined after the Guidelines for Reform and Development were enacted in 2010. The GEQSES stipulate the establishment of a consistent, 15-year system from kindergarten to high school; thus, a high-quality socialist system of special education is being instituted. The document also extends its evaluation areas to the high school, vocational, and higher education stages to improve lifelong learning for students with disabilities.

Optimizing appropriate development to promote high-quality teaching and learning

There have been few stipulations regarding the curriculum and instructions for special and inclusive education, and the development of policies for students with disabilities was rarely highlighted before the first decade of the 21st century. Early documents, such as the Regulation of Education and the Pilot Project, recommended that teachers develop individualized education plans (IEPs), combine whole-class teaching and individualized tutoring, and employ differentiated teaching and cooperative learning to teach students with disabilities. The Promotion Plan 2014 began to focus on the cultivation of students’ self-esteem, self-confidence, self-reliance, and self-improvement under the principle of combining potential development and defect compensation. In 2020, the MOE issued the Guidance on Strengthening the Work of Learning in Regular Classes for Children and Adolescents with Disabilities at the Stage of Compulsory Education (LRC Guidance), which mandated adjustments to the curriculum and teaching, the cultivation of life and independence skills, the flexible evaluation of student performance, and the nurturing of an inclusive school culture. The focus was on developing a holistic evaluation of student LRC to enhance students’ quality of life and social participation. The Action Plan required the principle of “appropriate development” to be followed to promote quality inclusion. However, the early stipulations were general and ambiguous and did not consider evaluating the quality of student achievement in a mandatory manner.

The GEQSES focuses on regulating curriculum designs and optimizing teaching quality to reach the goal of “appropriate development.” First, special education schools are required to implement the national curriculum plan and standards of special education, utilize teaching materials standardized by the national authorities, and develop school-based curricula to represent the school culture. In addition, general education schools should modify curricular and instructional content for students with disabilities on the basis of the standards of the national curriculum for elementary and secondary schools. Second, IEPs should be designed to teach students with disabilities in accordance with their aptitude and on the basis of defect compensation and each student's potential development. An inclusive atmosphere must be nurtured, and differentiated teaching and cooperative learning should be practiced with the support of teaching assistants, information technology, and other available resources.

In addition, the GEQSES elaborate on three evaluation dimensions of student development. The first concerns moral development, to make students with disabilities law-abiding and honest, with positive psychological qualities and social responsibility. The second dimension involves encouraging students to participate effectively in learning activities and to master basic knowledge and life skills to adapt to future society. In addition, other areas, such as sports, aesthetics, leisure and entertainment, and information literacy, should be highlighted. The third dimension involves enabling students to live independently, learn basic labor skills and social interactions, and manage their emotions and behaviors so that they can adapt to their family, school, and community lives.

The stipulations provide a baseline mandate for special and inclusive education schools to place their curricula and instructions in order. They are intended to advance curriculum reform for special education to keep pace with the national “new curriculum reform,” which targets the goal of a high-quality education system. In addition, the regulation of “appropriate development” focuses on students’ future “social life” while following the spirit of “holistic development” specified by the national education goal (Yan et al., 2021). Social adaptation and life skills are important for enabling students to live independently in society.

Conclusion

This study analyzes special education policy in China, focusing on the transformation of its priorities from universalizing compulsory education to quality enhancement and a high-quality system. The policy documents enacted during the past four decades formed an initial, holistic, high-quality, and “socialist” special education system with Chinese characteristics, mirroring China's determination to put special education under the mandate of legislation instead of previous non-binding regulatory recommendations. The GEQSES are not just a summary of the accumulation of policymaking achievements in the past decades. They also mark the accelerated development and deepening of relevant policies to mandate quality indicators for special education. They show the incremental and progressive nature of the development of Chinese special education toward a high-quality system in the spirit of inclusion.

The mandates of “governmental accountability” and “special education specially administered” demonstrate that there is political momentum to develop a systematic and complete accountability and management system to support and guarantee the development of high-quality special and inclusive education. They also show that special education policy has changed from merely symbolic to a clear, concrete approach that mandates accountability. The two conflicting policy paradigms of socio-political and social welfare alternatives comprise Chinese policymaking for special education without mutual exclusivity, as in the West.

In order to facilitate the “planning and distribution” of a high-quality special education system, the Chinese “development pattern” responds to the global trends toward inclusive education and pragmatically evolves from local needs. Western orthodoxies of special education are grafted onto and recontextualized within Chinese cultural arenas and are, in turn, affected by them. This explains the LRC approach, a localized inclusive education model pragmatically based on Chinese sociocultural conditions in pursuit of expanded school-enrollment opportunities and appropriate education for students with disabilities. The hierarchical composition of transitions from preschool to higher education implies that a complete and coherent “school operation system” has been formed to provide lifelong education to children with disabilities. The mandate on “appropriate development” reflects the adoption of equitable and high-quality inclusive education as core indicators in the evaluation of the provision of Chinese special education, using instructional strategies for which there is evidence from around the world.

However, it should be noted that China is at an early stage in the use of legislative power to implement special education. Although the political momentum is strong, there is a long way to a new era of legal mandates and their observance. The implication is that future policies should specify more concrete measures and operational procedures and clarify the power and authority delegated to different institutions and personnel in relation to the establishment of an operational routine for the effective implementation of special education. In this way, legal procedures and genuine accountability can be established under the mandate of legislation to make Chinese special education policy more practical while maintaining its ideal goals.