INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to consider whether a modified mainstream curriculum, the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC), was effective for children with mental handicap in Hong Kong. A review of special education provision for children with mental handicap is given together with an account of how special schools become involved in the implementation of the TOC. The features of the TOC are compared to the central elements of the curriculum for children with mental handicap. The relevance of the TOC for children with mental handicap is reviewed through investigating teachers' views and classroom practice on the extent of implementation in two case study schools. The aim is to provide information in some detail on how the TOC is working in these two schools. It is not assumed however that all special schools for children with mental handicap will be the same. But it is hoped that the situation in these two particular schools will provide some useful hints and suggestions in relation to the impact of the TOC on the education sector for children with mental handicap.
SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH MENTAL HANDICAP IN HONG KONG
In Hong Kong, children with special educational needs (SEN) include children with visual, hearing and physical impairments, maladjustment and different degrees of learning difficulties including children with mental handicap (CDI, 1997 a & b). The type of education they received under the category of special education. Special education in this paper mainly refers to education for children with mental handicap. They were chosen since their schools were the first group of special schools that opted to implement the TOC.
The history of special education in Hong Kong is rather short as compared to mainstream education. When the first school for children with mild mental handicap was established in 1964, the school developed their own curriculum. Children with moderate and severe mental handicap were under the care of social welfare or received no service/education at that time. All children with mental handicap within the schooling age received education in three types of schools: mild, moderate and severe when Hong Kong implemented nine years compulsory education in 1978.
However, special education in general, and special schools in particular, are often viewed as 'the other sector' in the context of schooling in Hong Kong (Board of Education, 1996). The education system differentiates schools by pupils' learning ability or disability and focuses very heavily on the assessment results of academic performance. Special schools for children with mental handicap have traditionally used a different curriculum from that used in mainstream schools and the orientation to teaching and learning is very different in the two settings. This is in contrast to a central policy of integration (the term we used in Hong Kong) since 1960s (Marsh & Sampson, 1963). Some people regard the dual-track system, regular and special schools, as a necessary means of providing appropriate support for the needs of two different groups of pupils, handicapped and non-handicapped. This leads to a segregated system and a hierarchy of schools.
Target Oriented Curriculum is a centralised mainstream curriculum introduced in Hong Kong in 1990, firstly named as the Targets and Target Related Assessment (TTRA) and renamed as TOC in 1993. The idea is similar to the National Curriculum in the United Kingdom but the details are different. The TOC curriculum reform actually did not consider special schools in its original development. This was a usual practice since many of the education initiatives such as the Activity Approach or Whole School Approach to Guidance which also did not consider special schools as their target schools. There has been a long term neglect of the curriculum for children with mental handicap, a view reflected by all the special school teachers interviewed in the current research study on the implementation of the TOC in special schools.
When the TOC was first launched, it was not popular among mainstream schools although extra resources were given to each participating school as an incentive. Many teachers expressed a negative view towards it in the newspapers. However, some special school principals/teachers of children with mental handicap perceived that what was promoted in the TOC were very similar to those of the curriculum for children with mental handicap. The participation of special schools for children with mental handicap in the implementation of the TOC since 1995 has contributed to the emergence of a different picture in the relationship between the mainstream and special school curriculum. One could perceive that with both mainstream and special schools using the same curriculum, it is a positive move to support the integration policy.
This move has raised the Hong Kong Education Department (ED) officials' awareness of the need to pay attention to the special school curriculum. Some special measures were carried out from 1995 to rectify the fact that special schools were not within the original plan of the TOC. Special school teachers were invited by ED to develop the TOC curriculum materials for children with special educational needs. Does employing a mainstream curriculum in special schools for children with mental handicap lead to integration/inclusion? This paper attempts to review this question through investigating the implementation of the TOC in two case study schools for children with mental handicap.
SPECIAL SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN WITH MENTAL HANDICAP
There are three types of schools for children with mental handicap in Hong Kong; they are organised according to the degree of mental handicap, mild, moderate or severe. Children are classified into different grades of mental handicap according to their intelligence quotient (IQ). Children with IQ scores between 50 to 70 are referred to schools for children with mild mental handicap; children with IQ scores between 25 to 49 are referred to schools for children with moderate mental handicap; and children with IQ scores below 25 are referred to schools for children with severe mental handicap. At the present time, there are 6 schools for children with mild and moderate mental handicap; 11 schools for children with mild mental handicap; 14 schools for children with moderate mental handicap and 10 schools for children with severe mental handicap. For schools taking on both children with mild or moderate mental handicap, children with different grades of mental ability are educated separately most of the time but mix socially during recess, assemblies, etc. Special schools for children with mental handicap usually include classes from primary one to secondary three, hence these children do not need to go through a transition from primary schooling to secondary schooling within the nine years of free education. The official intake in special schools for children with mental handicap is 20 pupils per class in the mild grade setting, 10 pupils per class in the moderate grade setting and 8 pupils per class in schools for children with severe mental handicap.
The subjects taught in the primary level include Chinese Language, Mathematics, General Studies, Perceptual Motor Training, Self-care, Music, Art and Craft, Physical Education and Computer Studies. The subjects in the secondary classes include additional subjects such as Design and Technology, Pre-vocational Training or Independent Living Skills and Home Economics. The exact subjects taught vary slightly across schools or even among classes within the same school, depending on the ability of the pupils. For example, the more capable children may not have the subject Self-care. There are other individual teaching supports for the pupils in need such as individual education programmes in the form of one to one remedial teaching, speech therapy and 'resource teaching' for children with autism.
CURRICULUM FOR CHILDREN WITH MENTAL HANDICAP AND TOC
Among the 41 schools for children with mental handicap in Hong Kong, 2 schools joined in with the full implementation of the TOC in 1995/96, 10 schools joined in 1996/97 and 25 schools joined in 1997/98.
Prior to 1995, there were three curriculum guides for children with mental handicap in Hong Kong, one for each grade of mental handicap, mild, moderate and severe. They were developed about ten years ago, between 1983-85. The content was broad and required interpretation by teachers. Anecdotal evidence gathered by the author in her regular visits to special schools strongly suggested that teachers had been longing for a revision for some time. As some of the teaching principles used in special education were perceived as very similar to the TOC by most special school teachers, two special school principals opted to join in the implementation of the TOC in 1995. The policy of the TOC for special schools was not clearly defined. So, the implementation of the TOC in special schools was started off by an initiation of the school principals instead of the Hong Kong Education Department.
The project 'TOC for Special Schools' was set up by Curriculum Development Institute (CDI) in 1995 in response to the request of the 2 special school principals as the mainstream the TOC materials were perceived by the principals and teachers as not suitable for children with mental handicap. Teachers from these 2 special schools were invited to work jointly with the CDI personnel to develop the TOC programme of study for Chinese Language and Mathematics for children with mental handicap. One year later, in 1996 two more special schools joined in this development of the TOC programmes of study for special schools. The two TOC (SEN) programmes of study for Chinese Language and Mathematics (trial version) were published at the end of 1997 for trial in schools.
The key features of the TOC are in many ways similar to the key/central elements of the curriculum for children with mental handicap. There has been a long history of the special education curriculum trying to incorporate the elements proposed in the TOC into their curriculum. As depicted by the TOC (SEN) Programmes of Study for Chinese Language and Mathematics (CDI, 1997a & b), children with mental handicap might have difficulties in higher order thinking skills, memory, attention, perceptual motor skills, communication, self-control, perseverance and independence, and a low motivation to learn.
With reference to the learning difficulties of children with mental handicap, there has been a long tradition of using the objective based curricula in teaching (e.g. Farrell et al., 1992, Gardner et al, 1983). While a child-centred approach is a common teaching approach, the UNESCO teaching pack (UNESCO, 1993) emphasises the importance of offering pupils a stimulating variety of learning experiences. Byers (1996) suggested that active participation and meaningful involvement could be encouraged through different learning styles that involve exploration, pupil initiation and problem-solving. Sebba et al. (1995) recommended a creation of purposeful contexts which might be able to motivate pupils to pursue their individual learning targets.
Table 1: A Comparison of the key features of the TOC and the Curriculum for Children with Mental Handicap
| Key Features of the TOC | Central Elements of the Curriculum for Children with Mental Handicap |
| 1. Target-related teaching & learning | Yes |
| 2. Content of learning covers knowledge, thinking, skills and attitudes | Content always covers knowledge, skills and attitudes. High thinking skills are manifested in a different way when compared to mainstream children |
| 3. Learning based on meaningful contexts and activities | Yes |
| 4. Curriculum Strategies: · 5 fundamental intertwining ways of learning & using knowledge: problem-solving, reasoning, inquiring, conceptualizing, communication |
They are manifested in a different way as compared to mainstream children |
| · graded learning tasks and exercises | Yes But the type of tasks used in special schools is different from those defined in the TOC. |
| · integrative use of the subject | There is in general a strong orientation to thematic approach across subjects |
| · emphasise on process as well as product | Yes |
| · encouragement of active participation & learner responsibility/independence | Yes |
| · recycling of learning points | Yes |
| · catering for individual differences | Yes |
| · Use of various resources to promote learning | Yes |
| 5. Criterion-referenced Assessment | Yes |
The above comparison seems to reveal a lot of similarities between the TOC and the curriculum for children with mental handicap. However, it will be important to see the extent of implementation in schools rather than purely looking at the superficial similarities.
As there were no programmes of study specially designed for special schools when some of them joined in the implementation of the TOC in 1995, teachers in these schools had to find ways of incorporating the TOC in their daily teaching on their own. Although some draft materials on Chinese Language were produced in the beginning of the 1996/97 academic year and circulated to schools that joined in the implementation in that year, teachers and principals were quite unsure of how to incorporate the TOC in their school curriculum.
THE CASE STUDY SCHOOLS AND DATA COLLECTION
Case Study School 1 joined in the full implementation of the TOC in 1995/96. There were about 100 pupils with mild and moderate mental handicap on the roll. Some teachers of this school took part in the development of the TOC programmes of study with the CDI personnel. Teachers (20) of the whole school were interviewed in each year from 95/96 to 97/98 and teachers who were observed were also interviewed informally after the class observation. Both the principal, the TOC coordinator and subject coordinators were interviewed individually every year. The number of lessons observed were 6, 12 and 30 from 95/96 to 97/98 respectively.
Case study school 2 referred to in this paper was one of the ten schools that joined in the full implementation of the TOC in 1996/97. There were about 100 pupils with moderate mental handicap on the roll. This school did not take part in the development of the TOC curriculum materials with CDI officials, it implemented the TOC based on the information and materials supplied by the ED. The impact of the TOC in this school was an example of how the principal and teachers tried to understand the curriculum initiative based on resources and support provided by the ED to special schools taking part in the implementation without participating in the original curriculum development. The number of teachers interviewed was 15 and 21 in 96/97 and 97/98 respectively and teachers who were observed were also interviewed informally after the class observation. Both the principal, the TOC coordinator and subject coordinators were interviewed individually each year. The number of lessons observed were 9 and 26 from 96/97 to 97/98 respectively.
Therefore, the extent to which the TOC was implemented in these two schools was studied through interviewing the principals and teachers, classroom observations and document analysis.
A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO CASE STUDY SCHOOLS
There were features of the TOC that existed in the curriculum for children with mental handicap as revealed from the above comparison in Table 1 which led most special school teachers to think that they were already implementing the TOC in special schools. From the interviews, all the teachers reported that they were already implementing the TOC. However, there were a number of contradictions that came out from the interviews and the classroom observations that led the author to question whether teachers were really implementing the TOC in the way it was intended. The following table depicts the extend of implementation of the TOC in the two schools. The items under 'Extent of Implementation' are derived from the TOC documents, which are also related to the key features of TOC in table 1.
Table 2: A comparison between two case study schools
| School 1 | School 2 | |
| Nature of involvement | Joined in 1995. Participating in the development of TOC curriculum materials & tried out the materials themselves | Joined in 1996. Tried out the developed curriculum materials |
| Extent of Implementation 1. Clear Direction to Teaching, Learning and Assessment |
Senior teachers made a sample for other teachers to follow. Teachers in general had a very clear picture of what's required by the school. | All the teachers reported that they always set different objectives for different pupils even before the TOC was introduced. Though they did not write them down in detail previously, they recounted that they already had these different objectives in their mind. However, this was not reflected in their lesson plans. |
| 2. Setting Learning Targets and Objectives | Teachers did not find it too difficult to follow the sample. | All the teachers reported that they had difficulty in writing the learning objectives for different subjects since they did not really understand the hierarchical relationships within them. |
| 3. The Five Fundamental Ways of Learning: problem-solving, reasoning, inquiring, conceptualizing, communication | Teachers reported difficulties in promoting some of the skills such as problem-solving, reasoning and inquiring in low ability pupils. | Teachers in general reported that four of the five fundamental ways of learning, problem-solving, reasoning, inquiring and conceptualizing were not suitable for their pupils. |
| 4. Catering for Individual Differences | Teachers revealed that catering for individual differences was easier in high ability class or a class with a smaller range of ability differences. | Many teachers admitted that it was difficult to engage all the ten pupils meaningfully in each lesson because of reasons such as pupils' low ability, behaviour problems and medical conditions. The low ability pupils were generally not able to work independently. |
| 5. Use of various resources to promote learning | This was limited by the resources available in the school and in shops. Teachers reported about the problem of workload. | Most teachers reported that they planned their teaching according to what teaching aids were available since they did not have enough time to produce too many teaching aids themselves. |
| 6. Target-oriented Assessment | Official guidelines from ED were unclear, formats of assessment varied among teachers. | Teachers seemed to be concentrating on the mechanical nature of assessment rather than the purpose of it. Assessment and learning are not linked together in the school. |
From the above table, we can see that teachers in Case Study School 1 seem to have a clearer direction in planning and setting learning targets and objectives as compared to Case Study School 2. This could be a result of the fact that the senior teachers in School 1 were under better staff development when they worked with the ED officials in the TOC curriculum materials development and they could provide strong leadership in their school. Interviews with the two principals revealed that both school has a strong leadership from the top level. The difference in the two schools seems relate to the leadership at teacher level.
For point 3 to 6 under the 'Extent of Implementation', the situations in both case study schools were quite similar.
DISCUSSION
Factors affecting the success of implementation
From Table 2, teachers attributed the problem of not able to teach some elements of the TOC to the pupils' low ability, workload, limitation of time and resources available. We observed that leadership at the teacher level seems to make a difference in the extent of implementation of TOC in the two schools. In the following discussion, House's (1979) three perspectives on change is used in analysing factors that affect the success of implementing the innovation, TOC, apart from those just mentioned.
1. Technical Perspective
This perspective focuses on how an innovation is developed and implemented.
When the TOC was developed, it was based on a top down model: Research, Development and Diffusion model. The curriculum framework was first developed by some academics based on research and then developed and disseminated by officials of the Education Department. Firstly, a centralised curriculum does not necessary fit in the needs of all schools. Secondly, because of the complexity of the TOC framework, different officials interpreted it differently. This confused teachers in school. Thirdly, when the dissemination seminars were first conducted for special schools, the content was mainly based on the mainstream situation since those ED officials-in-charge had no knowledge about the curriculum in special schools. The special school teachers had difficulties in associating what were required in the TOC with their own context.
2. Political Perspective T
his perspective considers how the various interested parties compromise the underpinning ideologies and adapt the innovation. Although the TOC was not originally developed for children with mental handicap, when two special school principals requested to join this innovation, there was a negotiation between the Education Department and the special school principals. However, after joining the TOC, the teachers discovered that the mainstream TOC curriculum materials were not suitable for their pupils, they requested to have some TOC curriculum materials specially developed for them. This was another negotiation. So, for those schools that joined the innovation in the beginning, there were no curriculum materials for them to use and they had to interpret what was required on their own.
Moreover, the TOC framework is a mainstream curriculum framework, there were problems in adapting it to the special education context. For example, there are four stages in the mainstream framework based on pupils' class level (KS1:P.1-3; KS2:P.4-6; KS3:S1-3; KS4:S4-5). In the case of children with mental handicap, the special school teachers perceived that these pupils' learning cannot be divided into key stages since their ability is not in direct proportion to class level. So, the design of key stages was taken away in the TOC framework for children with special education needs. Other adaptations included the subject learning contents. The mainstream contents were found to be too difficult for children with mental handicap. Relevant contents were suggested by special school teachers. However, there are three types of schools for children with mental handicap. Those schools involved in the development of TOC curriculum materials were from the mild and moderate grade. The teachers from schools for children with severe grade mental handicap complained that the modified special education version were not suitable for them. Some teachers actually requested to have a TOC curriculum for each grade of children with mental handicap. So, is the new mainstream curriculum really suitable for children with mental handicap? Will the special schools for children with mental handicap be better carrying on with designing their own school-based curriculum as in the past? When they requested to have a curriculum for their particular grade of children, are they going against integration/inclusion or are they just being realistic?
3. Cultural Perspective
This perspective concentrates on the culture and meanings of the social setting developed by the participants.
Does employing a mainstream curriculum in special schools lead to inclusion?
This question relates closely to the meaning of inclusion-whether they view educating pupils in the same school setting using the same curriculum as successful inclusion or preparing pupils to be included in society when they leave school as inclusion. From the current study, all the special school principals/teachers seem to be mainly taking the latter view. If one argues that the special school setting can actually better prepared children with mental handicap to be included in society in the long run, our special schools may be doing well.
CONCLUSION
There has been a long history of trying to include children with mental handicap in the mainstream schools in different countries since the 1980s. The situation in Hong Kong has not been very successful if we referred to the number of children with mental handicap being educated in segregated special schools. The current study revealed that employing a mainstream curriculum in special schools for children with mental handicap does not necessary lead to inclusion. It also raised a question for debate, whether special school setting can actually better prepared children with mental handicap to be included in society in the long run?
References
Board of Education (1996) Report of the Sub-committee on Special Education. HK: Government Printer
Byers, R. (1996) Classroom processes. In B. Carpenter, R. Ashdown and K. Bovair (eds.) Enabling Access: Effective Teaching and Learning for Pupils with Learning Difficulties, London: David Fulton
Curriculum Development Group, Special Education Section (1985) Curriculum Syllabus for Schools with Children with Moderate Mental Handicap. HK: HKED
Curriculum Development Institute (1997a) Target Oriented Curriculum (Special Educational Needs) Programme of Study for Chinese Language, HK: Education Department
Curriculum Development Institute (1997b) Target Oriented Curriculum (Special Educational Needs) Programme of Study for Mathematics, HK: Education Department
Education Department (1994) General Introduction to Target Oriented Curriculum, HK: Government Printer
Farrell, P., McBrien, J. and Foxen, T. (1992) EDY Instructor's Handbook: Second Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Gardner, J., Murphy, J. and Crawford, N. (1983) The Skills Analysis Model: An Effective Curriculum for Children with Severe Learning Difficulties, Kidderminster: BIMH Publications
Marsh, R.M. and Sampson, J.R. (1963) Hong Kong: Report of Education Commission, HK: Government Printer
Sebba, J, Byers, R. and Rose, R. (1995) Redefining the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties(2nd ed), London: David Fulton
Sweeting, T. (1990) Education in Hong Kong Pre-1841 to 1941: Facts & Opinion. HK: HKU Press
UNESCO (1993) Special Needs in the Classroom-Student Materials, Paris: UNESCO
Case Study School 1 joined in the full implementation of the TOC in 1995/96. Some teachers of this school took part in the development of the TOC programmes of study with the CDI personnel. Teachers of the whole school tried out the developed curriculum materials in Chinese Language and Mathematics. The implementation of the TOC in this school was studied longitudinally for three years.
There were about 100 pupils with mild and moderate mental handicap on the roll of Case Study School 1 with around 20 pupils in each mild grade class and 10 pupils in each moderate grade class. Three teacher group interviews were conducted in each year and teachers who were observed were also interviewed informally after the class observation. Teachers (20) of the whole school were interviewed in each year 95/96, 96/97 and 97/98. Both the principal, the TOC coordinator and subject coordinators were interviewed individually every year. The number of lessons observed were 6, 12 and 30 from 95/96 to 97/98 respectively.
Case study school 2 referred to in this paper was one of the ten schools that joined in the full implementation of the TOC in 1996/97. This school did not take part in the development of the TOC curriculum materials with CDI officials, it implemented the TOC based on the information and materials supplied by the ED. The impact of the TOC in this school was an example of how the principal and teachers tried to understand the curriculum initiative based on resources and support provided by the ED to special schools taking part in the implementation without participating in the original curriculum development. The implementation of the TOC in this school was studied longitudinally for two years.
There were about 100 pupils with moderate mental handicap on the roll of Case Study School 2 with around 10 pupils in one class. Three teacher group interviews were conducted in each year and teachers who were observed were also interviewed informally after the class observation. The number of teachers interviewed was 15 and 21 in 96/97 and 97/98 respectively. Both the principal, the TOC coordinator and subject coordinators were interviewed individually each year.
 |
 |