The transformative dilemma of disabled students’ participation in the NCEE: moving toward inclusion or integration?

Abstract

A crucial component of the United Nations’ Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is to promote ‘inclusive education’ for the disabled population. As a member of the CRPD, China has made transformative efforts to promote inclusive education for disabled students in the past decades, including policy changes in the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE). Through reviewing Chinese disabled students’ participation in the NCEE, this article concluded three historical stages – Exclusion, Specialization, and Integration –of China’s disability higher education. Although the past few decades have seen significantly increased access to higher education for disabled students due to legal, institutional, and social changes, the goal of ‘inclusive education’ is yet to come true. The NCEE Physical Examination Criteria shed light on the fundamental limitations in China’s current education system predisposed by the state’s political lens predicated upon managerialism and productivism. Considering China’s present conditions, we outline three ways of promoting disabled students’ right to higher education in reference to the CRPD.

Keywords:

• National College Entrance Examination
• students with disabilities
• physical examination criteria
• reasonable accommodation
• formal equality

Introduction

The National College Entrance Examination (NCEE) is the standardized test for college admission in China. The NCEE was first held in 1952 and has since been one of the most important life events for students who seek to improve their social status through higher education. The NCEE proved effective in equalizing educational opportunities for the majority Chinese population, but disabled students’ experience with the examination tells another story.

The NCEE Physical Examination Criteria stipulate the types and levels of impairments qualified for college admissions. When first introduced in the mid-1980s, the criteria only allowed candidates with mild motor impairments to attend universities through the NCEE. Although the criteria have relaxed significantly due to social, legal, and institutional development, the remaining restrictions, together with problems in administration and execution of disability policies, still compromise disabled students’ access to higher education today.

This article examines changes in disabled students’ participation in the NCEE over the past few decades. We conclude three phases of China’s disability higher education – Exclusion, Specialization, and Integration. To evaluate China’s current approach to educational equity, we analyze intrinsic limitations underlying the status quo while crediting progressive aspects of the approach. Finally, we invite the audience to cogitate on the following question: is China’s higher education system moving toward the goal of ‘inclusion’, as suggested in Article 24 of the United Nations’ Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), or is it moving toward ‘integration’ instead?

The evolution of disabled students’ participation in the NCEE

In this section, we will discuss the three paradigm shifts – Exclusion, Specialization, and Integration – China’s disability higher education system has been through since the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC; 1949–).

Exclusion in the centrally planned command era (1949–1977)

China at its founding adopted humanitarianism and self-dependence as central doctrines of disability policies, but disability education was marginalized in policy-making and implementing processes.

In 1951, the Government Administration Council of the Central People’s Government adopted the Decisions on Educational Reform (‘Decisions’). These require governments at all levels to ‘set up specialized schools for the deaf-mute and the blind’ and underscore the educational rights of ‘children, teenagers, and adults with physical defects’. For the first time, China officially integrated disability education into the general education policy. The following years saw a surge in (non-university) disability education institutions. However, these institutions were limited in number and were mainly located in cities, so education remained inaccessible for a considerable portion of disabled people living in rural areas.

The Decisions begot limited improvement in disabled students’ access to higher education. Most disabled students remain excluded from the NCEE with few legal and institutional protections. Universities blatantly rejected disabled students due to their impairments. Only a few students with visual or auditory impairments enrolled in a ‘special program’ at colleges (e.g. blind massage therapist training programs).

Specialization in the Reform Era (1977–2008)

After the closure of the Cultural Revolution, the NCEE resumed in 1977, and China experienced drastic changes as Deng Xiaoping launched a series of economic reforms, historically known as the ‘Reform Era’.

While disabled people’s access to higher education remained an unsolved dilemma, the year 1988 saw the founding of the Chinese Disabled Persons’ Federation (CDPF). The state subsequently began to develop more progressive disability policies and institutionalize the disability education system. Chinese people and the government re-evaluated the disabled people’s contributions to society under the influence of the international disability rights movement.

Constitutional changes were made to promote disabled people’s rights to higher education. The 7th and 8th National People’s Congress revised the Disability Protection Law and the Higher Education Law, prohibiting denied admissions to senior high schools, secondary vocational high schools, technical schools, and higher educational institutions due to a candidate’s impairments. Additionally, many restrictions for visual or hearing impairments were removed from the NCEE Physical Examination Criteria in 1998. Because of these constitutional changes, more people with mild motor or hearing impairments could attend college. Yet it was still very common for colleges to reject disabled students due to their impairments.

This period also saw the rapid growth of ‘special’ higher education programs, as distinct from ‘common’ higher education programs. But it is often a Hobson’s choice for disabled students to enroll in a ‘special’ higher-educational program.

Integration in the social transformation era ¹ (2008–)

The year 2008 marks a critical juncture for Chinese disabled people. In 2008, China hosted the Summer Paralympics and joined the CRPD. The state has since taken on an active role in fulfilling the missions outlined in the CRPD by revising disability policies and regulations and redistributing financial, social, and educational resources. Increasing disabled students’ participation in the NCEE became a top priority of social construction. The general public became more educated about disabilities as a result of social advocacies. Due to the aforementioned and other factors, disabled students’ access to higher education has improved to an unprecedented extent.

Nonetheless, severely insufficient (or substandard) accessible facilities at university campuses remain an issue. Bringing existing infrastructure into compliance with the current accessibility standards requires great amounts of financial and technical resources, so these construction projects are often placed on the bottom of priorities, let alone the persistent issues in resource allocation.

China’s current approach to educational equity: inclusion or integration?

This section evaluates China’s definition and classification of disabilities in contrast to international standards and investigates the underlying limitations from the perspective of the state’s political philosophy and social development. To account for progressive aspects of China’s approach to educational equity, we examine the development of ‘reasonable accommodation services’ in the NCEE. We leave the following question for the audience to answer: is China’s current higher education system moving toward inclusion, or integration?

How current definition and classification of disabilities in China reveal the intrinsic limitations of the higher education system

The definition and classification of disabilities in the NCEE Physical Examination Criteria originate from the Classification and Grading Criteria of Disabilities (‘Grading Criteria’). The latest version of the Grading Criteria defines disabilities as ‘the impairment, or dysfunction, of one or more body structures, resulting in severely restricted individual activities and social participations’­(CDPF 2011). A primary distinction between the CRPD and the Grading Criteria is that the former, in its definition, emphasizes the role of environmental factors, in addition to personal factors, in compromising a disabled person’s equal participation in society.

We also compared the Grading Criteria and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Besides differences within the content, the two classifications have fundamentally disparate goals, which is of more importance for the purpose of our discussion. The ICF aims to predict services and interventions necessary for a specific disabled individual and anticipate the outcomes. The ICF shares with the CRPD the focus on environmental factors of disabilities and investigates the extent to which ‘the environment can be changed to facilitate the individual’s functioning’ (Bornman 2004, pp182-188).

In contrast to the CRPD and ICF, the Grading Criteria hardly account for the role of intersectionality in disabled people’s experience with education and other aspects of society. They serve primarily to select people by the principle of managerialism; that is, to screen out individuals of less ‘utility’ or ‘adaptability’. The Grading Criteria show a disconnection with the ‘international focus on the participation and functioning of individuals within a particular community’ and understate the ‘environmental factors that restrict or facilitate participation’ (Bornman 2004, pp182–188). Therefore, as the source of definition and classification in the NCEE Physical Examination Criteria, the Grading Criteria might have underlain the persistent discrimination against disabled students and marginalization of their rights and interests in China’s higher education system.

The development of ‘reasonable accommodation services’

The term ‘reasonable accommodation services’ in today’s NCEE policy originates from Article 2 of the CRPD, defined as ‘necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments … to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms’ (CRPD 2018, p2). In 2008, a series of law revisions made according to the CRPD’s provision required all examinations held by the state to provide blind examinees with Braille test papers, electronic test papers, or assistance from specialized staff.

This is the first time China has ensured candidates with visual impairments the right to accommodation services in examinations through legislation. Although the coverage is relatively narrow, it sets a precedent for future accommodation service policies. In the ‘Concluding Observations’, the CRPD recommended China to include a clear definition of ‘reasonable accommodation services’ in law (Qu 2015). China subsequently and accordingly defined the term in the 2015 NCEE and expanded individualized accommodation services to all types of disabilities.

Discussion

This article reviewed the progression of Chinese disabled people’s access to higher education by observing their participation in the NCEE since the founding of the PRC. Along with China’s rapidly developing society and economy, legal and institutional protection of disabled people’s right to higher education has greatly increased. Nonetheless, the NCEE Physical Examination remains a major barrier for disabled students who seek to attend colleges via the NCEE. Loopholes in relevant laws and the administration of disability policies, add to the educational equity dilemma.

Given the limitations we have pinpointed, we herein make three suggestions:

1. We should re-evaluate the role of the NCEE Physical Examination in college admissions decisions and redefine the rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. College admissions decisions should not be monopolized by the college admissions office but should be made collaboratively by the Education Administrative Department, the CDPF, the college admissions office, and the students.

2. The state’s Education Administrative Department should establish specialized departments on all levels of government that aim to integrate resources for disabled students who are enrolled in, or plan to enroll in, a ‘common’ college or university. These departments should be responsible for building a thorough support system in every college and university through active collaboration with local hospitals, accessible facility and service providers, related social organizations, and so on.

3. Schools should work jointly with the government to promote social advocacies that combat stigma, prejudice, and discrimination against disabled people by endorsing an intersectional approach to building an inclusive environment. Schools should assume a leading role in reshaping the general public’s perception of disabilities and enhancing individualized education by promoting accessible facilities, accommodation services, relevant student organizations, and specialized academic and vocational advising services, as part of the movement to enable disabled people’s ‘full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’ (CRPD 2018, p4).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 ‘Social transformation’ is a political terminology that refers specifically to the historical phase following the Reform Era.