Inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools is now one of the most significant issues facing the education community both nationally and internationally. In order to address this issue there is widespread acceptance that teacher training institutions must ensure that new teachers are trained to teach effectively in classrooms where there are students with a variety of learning needs. Utilizing a data set of 603 pre-service teachers from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore this study reports the effects of training in inclusive education on pre-service teacher attitudes towards inclusion, their sentiments about people with a disability and their concerns about inclusion. The results are discussed in relation to a range of factors that could have produced different gains in their attitudes, sentiments and concerns among cohorts from different countries.
[Copyright of Disability & Society is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271]

The present paper examines the experiences of teachers in teaching children with special needs in mainstream schools and how they see and evaluate the feasibility of the new integration initiatives in Hong Kong. The data are based on individual and focus group interviews with general class teachers, resource class teachers and principals of mainstream schools admitting students with special needs. Teachers reported difficulties and problems in maintaining classroom discipline and ambivalence in meeting the competing demands between students with and without special needs. The structural constraints of implementing a rigidly defined curriculum and being accountable for good academic results regardless of student competence pose formidable obstacles in achieving the goals of integrated education. There is a conflict at the systemic level between the philosophy of academic excellence defined by grades on the one hand and the philosophy of equality and inclusion on the other. Improving parent participation, having an ample supply of binds, the provision of necessary equipment arid facilities, the availability of pre- and in-service training to teachers, and additional manpower in counselling are the most urgently needed resources in facilitating teachers to engage in teaching students with special needs alongside others.
[Copyright of International Journal of Inclusive Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360311032000160599]

This paper describes the moves towards greater inclusion in the Hong Kong education system and the problems that have arisen from those moves. It then describes the introduction of an adapted version of the Index for Inclusion, called the Indicators for Inclusion in Hong Kong, in order to stimulate greater progress. As the adapted Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion are developed in a unique education culture and based on a particular notion of inclusion, it may be of interest to international readers to see the impact of culture differences in shaping the Indicators. Further, the Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion are connected with school self‐evaluation and performance standards. The interaction between inclusion and school evaluation will be explored. The paper questions the use of the indicator system to drive inclusion in Hong Kong and the assumptions regarding the capacity of schools for self‐review.
[Copyright of International Journal of Inclusive Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603110500430674]

The debates I explore in this article were prompted by conversations I had with a Government Education Inspector who accompanied me on a visit to a primary school and participated in a series of workshops I organised while I was on a fellowship at Hong Kong University. May Lee's challenge to me that a non-selective education system was a luxury only the First World could afford provoked me into acknowledging a whole new dimension for our discussions of the function of segregated education for groups excluded from the mainstream. I begin by introducing the education system in Hong Kong as it was in the early 1990s. Then I go on, and discuss the activities and conversations I shared with May Lee. Patterns of inclusion and exclusion in Hong Kong reflect a deeply-respected concept of a `good school'; special schools and classes are the only settings for the provision of additional learning support. I discuss examples of each. Finally, I discuss inclusion in education in the context of a developing country, drawing on the work of Chinese, Indian and Western writers to assess May Lee's claim. Opinion is divided. I conclude that the force of an international rhetoric of inclusion obscures the continuing operation of a cultural commitment to selection.
[Copyright of Disability & Society is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599826948 ]