Abstract
This paper argues that new curriculum trends may be promoted to the functional integration of students with diverse needs and abilities in the regular schools through a collaborative effort between regular and special school teachers in Hong Kong. The paper also highlights areas of concern such as issues, review and recommendations of the current curriculum and pedagogy; examination mid assessment practices. Based on the findings of the Hong, Kong government's integration pilot project and a contextual analysis of Hong schooling, practical steps to inclusive school-based practices are outlined. An attempt is made to tailor Rowntree's and Skilbeck's models of curriculum development for re-engineering the existing school curriculum and assessment approaches.
Introduction
Enhancing effective learning for all should always be a prime aim of any educational innovation. This is especially so in Hong Kong today where teachers are facing a diverse student population in the ordinary setting; students from Mainland China and/or with challenging behaviours are no strangers in the ordinary schools. With the recent implementation of the integration initiative in Hong Kong in 1997, meeting the diverse needs of these students is no longer the single privilege of special school teachers. The "Evaluation of the Pilot Project on Integration of Pupils with Special Needs in Ordinary Schools" conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of Education in 1999 has highlighted the fact that project schools have accumulated more hands-on experience in managing a wide range of learning needs of students enrolled. Because of this, students with mild disabilities such as mild grade visual impairment, hearing impairment and intellectual and physically disabilities, have been benefited from the inclusive practice. As a result, there is a gradual change of teachers' attitudes and beliefs in educating diverse learners in ordinary school setting. This change, given the Hong Kong's long standing elitist school context, is slow but significant. It indicates that teachers of the project schools are now more prepared to accept challenging behaviours and/or individual-paced learning behaviours.
Identification of needs
In order to support the change and to facilitate an inclusive classroom setting, attention should firstly be paid to the systemic issues. Rose (1998) and Thomas et al. (1998) argue that inclusive practice is a systemic issue and requires considerable curriculum and assessment modification. With reference to the data collected in the Evaluation project, curriculum and assessment are always key areas in the promotion of effective teaching and learning yet, at the same time, are the weakest components within the current inclusive practice of schools in Hong Kong. At the school level teachers either lack the expertise or the time to develop, implement and manage curricular innovations. Because of the academic-oriented approach to student learning innovative teaching strategies, such as peer tutoring, cooperative learning and co-teaching are seldom employed by classroom teachers (Crawford et al., 1999). Despite the fact that several curricular innovations such as the Target-Oriented Curriculum Initiative and Curriculum Tailoring have been launched by the Education Commission (1990) and the Curriculum Development Institute (1998) respectively, there is a lack of coherent effort and systemic approach to integrate innovations at the school level. Innovations become at risk when teachers fail to appreciate the rationale of each individual curricular effort and, as a result, often suffer, in Fullan's (1992) term, "the implementation dip"(p.25).
Reasons for failing to manage the change with relevant curriculum innovations are many. They can be classified mainly as problems of conceptual understanding and support resources. Pugach and Warger (1996) have highlighted that teachers in the inclusive classroom have a different understanding of the role of curriculum adaptation than their colleagues in special schools. Owing to the fact that they are dictated by the standard curriculum with uniform exit outcomes, employment of strategies that foster individual-paced learning is limited. In contrast, teachers in special schools are restricted in their knowledge and understanding of the standard curriculum in ordinary schools and they, therefore, tend to employ a "watered-down" curriculum for the various students, even for those with only mild disabilities. This presents a universal challenge to schools.
The curricular concerns for supporting inclusive practice have special relevance in schools in Hong Kong. An examination driven curriculum satisfies neither regular nor special school students. This can be illustrated in two key areas. The first result from the primary task of increasing the knowledge base of the students in contemporary regular schooling. Here, understanding the school subject knowledge becomes the dominant task. Attention is concentrated on fact transmission and rote learning. One of the major disadvantages of this is that it inhibits in-depth understanding and synthesis of knowledge. It allows little room for independent and individualistic mode of learning. Another disadvantage is that it prevents meaningful pedagogical practice in regular schooling. Teachers' professional autonomy is highly restricted and, both teaching and learning behaviours are instrumental. Eventually, there results the failure to realize the goals of quality education.
The second area concerns the current rigid examination methods which are designed to cater for a group of students who are well-equipped for paper examination. One of the problems with this assessment mechanism is that learning outcomes become uniform, resulting in a narrowing of the learning focus onto concrete assessment scores. The lack of stimulating and reflective learning experience not only restricts the students' creative and problem solving skills but also fails to address the individual learning style and needs of the student body. In so doing, it actually fails to provide a context in which all students are equally valued. In other words, it rejects the fundamental belief that all children share equal value and equal status. With reference to the experience of the local integration pilot project (1999), diversified instructional strategies and modified assessment methods such as wider achievement gap and exit outcomes are crucial elements in the facilitation of meaningful learning of students with diverse needs and abilities. To make room for integration to proceed from where it is now therefore, there is an urgent need to reform the existing school curriculum and examination process. And that requires a joint effort between the regular and special teachers, teacher educators, educational policy makers and researchers.
Indeed, teachers are concerned with assessment procedures and how that might affect their instructional strategies and curriculum implementation. However, while on the one hand, teachers are keen to try out new instructional strategies and adopt different strategies to assist both students with and without disabilities (Slavin, 1990), on the other hand, owing to the tight timetable and the lack of policy support to enhance pedagogical practices at the classroom level, it is not uncommon that teachers have to juggle with time to manage the examination syllabus at the expense of facilitating reflective learning experience. This is underlined in the main findings of the Integration Pilot Project, that curriculum tailoring is one of the weakest parts in the integrated schools. One of the reasons for that is curriculum and instructional adaptations are understated in the inclusive classroom and teachers in ordinary schools do not possess the necessary skills in managing them (Pugach and Warger, 1996). Teachers from both ordinary and special schools should be equipped in the areas of curriculum, assessment and instruction so they can contribute to the curriculum reform actively. And this is the prime purpose of this paper to address the needs and identify areas of curricular change in schools in Hong Kong in relation to supporting integration.
Building bridges for mutual curriculum reform
For a long period, special education has been playing a marginal instead of a truly supporting role in the whole education sector, and the interaction between special education and general education has been minimal. This has created a distinctive systemic gap between the two sectors. Whilst curriculum in general education is dictated primarily by subject knowledge transmission, the curriculum in special education is focused much more on fragmented fact transmission and skill acquisition. The fact is that teachers of the two school settings have little knowledge of one another. They have different perceptions and understandings of the role of curriculum adaptation in facilitating student learning. In order to foster a meaningful and functional inclusive practice at schools, building the curriculum bridge is the first step to approach convergence. Due to their lack of curriculum consciousness in educating the children with special learning needs, especially those with mild disabilities, teachers in regular and special schools seldom consult one another (Pugach and Warger,1996).
Change in educational thought and practice
We have witnessed waves of curriculum reform in Hong Kong, as detailed in the consultative document entitled "A Holistic Review of the Hong Kong School Curriculum, Proposed Reforms" launched by the Curriculum Development Council, October 1999. This signified that the government is beginning to address the problems in the long standing curriculum practice. Since school curriculum is no longer understood as individual subject matters, collaboration and partnership among teachers are promoted. The gap between schools, community and tertiary institutions is bridged. Students are asked to take greater responsibility in their own learning. The role of teachers has diversified while students are required to take more initiative in their own learning. Moreover, integrating the eight key learning areas into a unity allows learning to take place in a coherent and continuous manner and learning resource can be effectively used as well.
Quality education in the 21st century is about the promotion of students' holistic development and supporting the aim of developing multiple intelligence. The notion of individual learning styles and equal opportunities to the core curriculum should be at the centre of the innovations. The inclusive classroom demands such curriculum and pedagogical change. In this connection, the above curriculum trend, especially in the inclusive classroom, further distances special school teachers activities in redesigning the curriculum in terms of supporting the inclusive practice as they are still very much on fact and skills transmission. Pugach and Warger (1996) note that some special school teachers fail to grasp the key theoretical understanding of curriculum approaches, for example, using the Individualized Educational Programme, as an instructional tool rather than a curriculum. As a result, students are given a "watered-down" version of their peers' curriculum. Likewise, Pugach and Warger (1996) also highlight that general curriculum practice of inclusive classroom remains very much the same fashion, driven by the standard outcomes-based performance approach. It is a common practice of general school teachers to adopt a kind of "enabling curriculum" for the students with mild disabilities which merely seeks to push them towards the blanket standards of the non-disabled. It is clear that more work needs to be done in providing an inclusive curriculum for all, integrating learning with personal ability and style and with personal and social relevance.
This proposed framework of a balanced and broad-based curriculum supports the educational thought of making learning interesting and personal, multi-dimensional rather than one- dimensional. All these changes marked the inappropriateness of the existing curriculum and set the agenda for a mutual curriculum convergence between the regular and special educational sectors that will lead to meaningful reform.
The parameters of an inclusive curriculum
Although a comprehensive review of the relationship between theories and implementation of curriculum is beyond the range of this paper, it outlines parameters of an inclusive curriculum on the basis of Malcolm Skilbeck's (1984) and Derek Rowntree's (1983) models. Generally in regular schools in Hong Kong, textbooks dictate the whole curriculum structure whilst in special schools, behaviourist and psycho-dynamic approaches are commonly adopted. One can argue that the more theory laden and 'expert' the curriculum is structured, the less openness will be the negotiation between the 'expert' and the 'non-expert' circles, namely frontline teachers. Nevertheless, the benefit of adapting relevant curriculum models is to assist teachers in the inclusive classroom to ensure that a set of minimum standards is met, and at the same time, allow enough professional initiative to suit individual schools' circumstances.
Differentiated curriculum for inclusive practice
Thomas et al (1998) remind us that the filling of the curriculum is important. The claim of access has invited lots of debate. In order to avoid providing a watered-down version of the curriculum to those with special needs, inclusive schools should offer a differentiated curriculum with a sound knowledge base. Special educators who advocate greater access of the students with disabilities to the curriculum should also be alerted that meaningful access demands a careful design of broad areas of knowledge and skills in literacy, citizenship, interpersonal relations and social and economic participation. One of the keys is to identify ways that students with diverse learning abilities can get access to and achieve the common-based core curriculum but which also allows for variations in what students are expected to learn. Pugach and Warger (1996) argue that "adaptation of the standard curriculum will always be a function of special education for students whose disabilities stem from vision, hearing, multiple, or physical impairments"(p.13). Hence developing a differentiated curriculum is to ensure appropriate educational outcomes. Differentiated curriculum has special relevance to students with mild disabilities in regular schools. More importantly, teachers' awareness in curriculum adaptation and tailoring would have direct influence on their subsequent instructional strategies and assessment approaches.
Differentiated instruction for inclusive practice
Differentiated instruction lies at the heart of enabling access and individual-paced learning for inclusive practice. It rejects the "One size for all" curriculum and supports the implementation of a differentiated curriculum in an inclusive classroom. Vaughn et al. (1998) refer to their findings that most teachers do not perceive that they have the skills, knowledge and confidence in meeting the special needs of students with learning difficulties in ordinary classroom. Their findings have also been confirmed by the local integration project. Vaughn et al. claim that considerable effort is needed to alter the traditional instructional practices. Alternative skills such as co-teaching, classwide peer tutoring, and collaborative strategies reading are found useful to students with special needs. In addition, Rowntree (1982) advocates the application of learner-centre concepts to provide flexible scheduling, integrated studies, non-graded schooling, multi-media resources and independent study. To include and develop a group of students with diverse abilities and personal characteristics, the above discussed instructional approaches are valuable to schools in Hong Kong changing from a traditional rote learning mode to a within-student paced and reflective learning strategies.
Differentiated assessment for inclusive practice
Meltzer (1994) points out that one of the main purposes in the assessment of learning disabilities is to understand the cognitive strategies and processes underlying learning. Assessment results should inform curriculum structure, and pedagogical practices. Differentiated assessment is related both to the differentiated curriculum and differentiated instruction to make inclusive practice successful and meaningful. The principles underlying the differentiated assessment are (a) incorporating a wide range of goals and objectives; (b) integrating learning from isolated skills into a continuum multidimensional learning outcomes, (c) identification of the students' needs and difficulties in learning to determine instructional plan, strategies and exit outcomes.
Alternative means of assessment, however, should not cause the expectation on students with special needs to fall. Regular and diverse assessment approaches must be treated as part of the curriculum goal and strategies. Age-appropriate and ability-appropriate assessment activities that can truly reflect the ability of students should be considered and implemented. Since learning becomes more a self-construction process, students should be given the opportunities to choose their own way of assessment in addition to other planned assessment activities. Again the spirit of measuring the performance of students' with diverse abilities across the same standards in a variety of ways such as employing the curriculum-based and standard-based approaches should be encouraged too.
Indeed, the differentiated assessment approach is an alternative to the existing Hong Kong examination driven approach and have special relevance to the inclusive classroom. It records the achievement of individuals exclusively in terms of their own progress, unrelated to that of their peers (Thomas et al., 1998). It is also criterion-referenced and with individual pace.
Adaptation of M. Skilbeck's (1983) school-based curriculum development model at the schools in Hong Kong
Based on the above discussion, M. Skilbeck's curriculum model is proposed as a theoretical framework for individual school personnel to adapt and further develop their own practices in curriculum tailoring, structure and integration. One of the strengths of Skilbeck's model is that it takes both the internal and external school variables into considerations. The internal school variables include the needs, potential and abilities of students and the attitudes, skills and experience of the teachers. The external school variables are social expectations, challenges of the education system, professional support and resource (Skilbeck, 1983).
Based on the above discussion, M. Skilbeck's curriculum model is proposed as a theoretical framework for individual school personnel to adapt and further develop their own practices in curriculum tailoring, structure and integration. One of the strengths of Skilbeck's model is that it takes both the internal and external school variables into considerations. The internal school variables include the needs, potential and abilities of students and the attitudes, skills and experience of the teachers. The external school variables are social expectations, challenges of the education system, professional support and resource (Skilbeck, 1983).
As indicated in the diagram, Skilbeck highlights that the whole curriculum process begins from conducting a contextual/situational analysis, then setting the educational goals, establishing the procedure and implementing and interpreting the learning contents. Finally, evaluating, assessing and re-organizing students' learning outcomes. Special attention is given to the flexible evaluation of each procedure. Skilbeck (1984) pays much attention to the broadening of the curriculum, clarification of the teachers' role and specific tasks. In the whole process, curriculum is learner shaped and school shaped. This certainly would provide a good theoretical foundation for Hong Kong school-based curriculum development.
Adapted Skilbeck's model provides a framework for school-based curriculum development which promotes professional autonomy. But for a more detailed illustration of the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy; examination and assessment, this paper proposes an adapted D. Rowntree model. In Rowntree's model, much attention is paid to the regular and flexible evaluation and assessment practices especially at the classroom level. Teachers are encouraged to design learning into activities and that help re-structure students' conceptual framework such as using the mind map approach. Key components such as sequence in learning and varieties of sequence, mass media and environment have direct implications to pedagogical practice and assessment approaches. Rowntree's (1982) work can be adapted to improve the inclusive practice as it emphasizes individualized learning, own pacing and mastery learning as well as valid measures of the objectives being aimed at.
Translating the theoretical framework of an inclusive curriculum for all into feasible steps in the Hong Kong school context requires three phases of development which are highlighted below. It is impossible to implement an inclusive curriculum at the classroom level without involving the teaching practitioners and their personal commitment (Rose, 1998). Therefore, it is felt more desirable to highlight initiative at their school levels. Principles of constructing a framework for a school-based curriculum for all are rooted in the differentiated curriculum, differentiated instruction and differentiated assessment approaches.
An action plan for implementing a whole school curriculum for all
With the aim to promote an inclusive culture in all schools through active initiation and participation, it is recommended that school principals and teachers of every Hong Kong school must be required to work collaboratively to produce a framework of their school-based curriculum for all. Their role first of all is to identify all necessary positive changes of the school in managing inclusive practice. That might include need analysis, student characteristics, principles, rationales, curricular framework and commitment to diverse learners. On the policy making level, for example, the curriculum Development Institute can provide a guide with clear resource and staff development suggestions outlining basic curricular components that meet the requirements of good inclusive practice. Professional support to develop curriculum plan, tailoring and tryout of new instructional strategies should be provided too.
At the beginning phase, schools are required to adapt an inclusive curriculum framework, such as outlined previously, with reference to school-based need analysis. In so doing, schools should be able to develop a differentiated curriculum for every student with and without disabilities. Within that differentiated curriculum, wider exit criteria and flexible interpretation of basic competence standards should be provided. They will form a range of performance indicators for all students. For example, the curriculum should promote the development of the following areas: ethics, intellect, physique, social skills, and aesthetics as outlined in the Education Blueprint for the 21st century (Education Commission, 1999).
In the second phase, with reference to the individual schools' curriculum framework discussed above, participating schools have gained sufficient hands-on experience and professional support in implementing a curriculum for all after a period of time. This shows that in the second phase, schools are able to produce a revised curriculum framework with differentiated learning outcomes, classified performance indicators. Schools would also be required to apply various instructional strategies such as meta-cognitive strategies, peer tutoring, co-teaching and cooperative learning on a regular basis. More importantly, schools should provide evidence of applying differentiated assessment methods such as curriculum-based and within-student paced assessments; wider outcomes-based and criteria-referenced approaches.
In phase two, each school should be able to provide evidence of curriculum change at the school level. Teachers and other professionals have gained certain degree of understanding, knowledge and experience in managing integration through curriculum and assessment adaptations. Some pedagogical practices would be promoted at the classroom level and students with diverse needs are encouraged to develop personal learning strategies in understanding the subject contents and social competence. Moreover, schools are developing towards a self-renovating direction responding to educational initiatives positively.
In the third phase, it develops a value-added school-based inclusive curriculum for all. When schools have acquired the necessary knowledge, skills and experience in managing students with diverse learning needs effectively, they would have generated a pool of valuable expertise in tailoring curriculum contents, structure, delivery strategies in relation to their specific school and student characteristics. Owing to the different paces of individual schools, those more advanced in inclusive practice can serve as a resource centre of inclusive curricular and assessment practice. They will also serve as outstanding change agents participating in the wider education reform circle in the new century.
Concluding remarks
The integration initiative has challenged the traditional uniform textbook-oriented curriculum in general education and the behavioural skill-oriented curriculum in special education. As a result, it presents a need to coordinate expertise in both regular and special education to re-engineer the two different school systems in terms of promoting the systemic change. An inclusive curriculum model with an action plan has been outlined with reference to Rowntree and Skilbeck's curriculum models and the needs of schools in Hong Kong. This emphasises the fact that teachers have a vital role to play in influencing, and even dictating, the curriculum structure, contents and delivery for inclusive approaches. Teachers should engage themselves together with their local educators in the school-based curriculum development process. Teachers of the participating schools, because they have more hands-on experience in inclusive classroom teaching, they should play a more active role in generating ideas for further general-special curriculum reforms. This challenge to both special and general education is also accelerating the subsequent change in pedagogical practices, especially in the inclusive classroom.
Reference
Crawford, N., Heung, V., Yip, E. & Yuen, C. (1999). Integration in Hong Kong: where are we now and what do we need to do? A review of the Hong Kong government's pilot project. Hong Kong Special Education Forum, 2(2), 1-13.
Curriculum Development Council (1999). A holistic review of the Hong Kong school curriculum, proposed reforms. Consultative document. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Education Commission (1990). Education Commission Report No.4. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Education Commission (1999). Education Blueprint for the 21st century. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Fullan, M.(1992). Successful school improvement. London: Open University Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change force. London: the Falmer Press.
Goodwin, A.(1997). Assessment for equity and inclusion: embracing all our children. London: Routledge.
Integration Research Team, (1999). Final report on evaluation of the pilot project on integration of pupils with special educational needs in ordinary schools. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Pugach, M. and Warger, C.(1996).Treating curriculum as a target of reform: can special and general education learn from each other? In M. Pugach, & C. Warger, (eds.). Curriculum trends, special education, and reform: refocusing the conversation. Danvers, MA: Columbia University.
Rose, R.(1998). The curriculum: a vehicle for inclusion or a lever for exclusion? In C. Tilstone, L., Florian, R. Rose. Promoting inclusive practice. London: Routledge.
Rowntree, D. (1982). Educational technology in curriculum development. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Skilbeck, M. (1983). School-based curriculum development. In V. Lee & D. Zeldin, (eds.), Planning in the curriculum. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Skilbeck, M. (ed.)(1984). Readings in school-based curriculum development. London: Harper & Row Ltd.
Slavin, R.(1990). Co-operative learning: theory, research and practice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Thomas, G., Walker, D. & Webb, J.(1998). The making of the inclusive school. London: Routledge.
Vaugh, S., Hughes, M., Schumm, J. &Klingner J.(1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusion classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, (21, Winter), 57-74.
 |
 |