bs_bs_banner

THE ROLE OF THE SENCO IN HONG KONG

Implementing the SENCo system in Hong Kong:

an initial investigation
bjsp_539

94..101

Kim Fong Poon-McBrayer

Monitoring mechanisms of support services for students with special needs can be broadly classified
as external and internal. Resembling the UK model,
Hong Kong has adopted an internal mechanism
through the establishment of the SENCo post.
This investigation, written by Dr Kim Fong PoonMcBrayer, of the Hong Kong Institute of Education,
explores how SENCos understand the policy intention of their roles, what the role entails in practice,
and what work conditions are usual for participants.
This qualitative study involved semi-structured
interviews to probe SENCos experiences. Findings
reveal that SENCos assume management but not
leadership roles in special educational needs provision. Policy deviation, and the prevalent autocratic
leadership style across schools in Hong Kong, are
the key contributors to conditions seen as unsatisfactory, of overwork, of the inadequate planning of
provision, and of the need for professional and clerical support. It is concluded that policymakers can
make improvements through implementing practical training in participatory governance for headteachers, developing a training model for SENCos,
and providing SENCos with additional personnel
resources. Further studies to gain a fuller picture of
the organisational contexts are recommended.
Key words: SENCos, inclusive education policy,
school leadership.

The effective monitoring of support services for students

with special educational needs in mainstream schools has
been central to the discourse of inclusive education because
of its close association with school outcomes and educational equity. Monitoring mechanisms tend to be part of the
legislative and/or policy mandates and can be broadly classified as either external or internal. External mechanisms
involve personnel outside the schools in guiding/leading the
process and monitoring the effectiveness of provision while
internal mechanisms involve the engagement of in-school
personnel in the same roles.
The mechanism adopted in the USA is a prime example of
how an external mechanism works. This mechanism is built
into the relevant legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, in that individualised education programmes
(IEPs) are mandated and associated procedures, and the
membership of IEP teams are clearly stated in the law. One

of these members must be a representative from each school

district who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision
of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of
children with disabilities, and has adequate knowledge
about the general education curriculum and the availability
of resources of the public agency (US Department of Education, 2004). In practice, they frequently assume the case
manager role to conduct assessments, organise and lead
team meetings, brief members about assessment results,
ensure compliance with relevant laws and district policies/
procedures, and provide consultations when teachers need
assistance (Council for Exceptional Children, 2000).
A distinctively different approach, which serves as a prime
example of an internal mechanism, is found in parts of the
UK, where a teacher is designated to manage support services as a SENCo for his/her school. The SENCo post in
English schools grew out of the specialist teacher post
(Crowther, Dyson & Millward, 2001). The managing role
and the status of SENCos in English schools were established and first formalised in 1993 (Garner, 1996). The aim
was to secure high-quality teaching and the effective use of
resources in order to achieve improved student outcomes
(TTA, 1998). This broad range of responsibilities involved
leadership and coordination. The vastly different practices
and the potential impact of this establishment have attracted
the attention of researchers and, hence, a sizable volume of
literature.
Garners (1996) investigation of SENCos experiences
found that the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice
(1994) enhanced the status of SENCos and made more
effective provision for their students, but sufficient time for
the additional administrative tasks was not allocated. A few
years later, Crowther et al. (2001) found in a large-scale
survey that the lack of time and the absence of qualifications
and appropriate resources were the consequence of a failure
of the public finances to resource schools adequately, to
enable SENCos to undertake their role.
A decade after the establishment of the post, Cole (2005)
reiterated that many SENCos were still struggling to fulfil
their roles with little support, time, or funding. Cole
concluded that the role of the SENCo should be reconceptualised and remunerated as a senior management post
within mainstream schools. Despite having clear policies for
the role of the SENCo (DfES, 2001, 2004), schools confronted, for example, with financial constraints, interpreted

2012 The Author. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2012.00539.x

the selection and role of their SENCo from one extreme to

another, with appointments to the role ranging from teaching
assistants to that of assistant headteacher, and postholders
being allocated vastly different amounts of resources
(Layton, 2005; Wedell, 2006). Nevertheless, Layton (2005)
insisted that the role could be powerful, regardless of whether
the SENCo is supported by senior management within the
school. The need to develop a high level of complexity in
terms of leadership and management within the role was
reiterated in another study two years later (Szwed, 2007).
Voices from the field have apparently reached the policymakers. In 2008, the UK government appropriated 10
million for SENCos (nasen, 2008) and required that
SENCos be qualified teachers and that their roles be defined
in relation to the leadership and management of the school
in the new SENCo regulations released that year (DCSF,
2008). The Governments commitment to raising the profile
of SENCos and ensuring that they receive the highest quality
professional development was amplified.
Hong Kong has adopted this school-based model of managing special educational needs services through the establishment of the SENCo post. In 2008, the Hong Kong
Government conveyed in a circular to all public mainstream
and special schools the new policy of funding an additional
deputy headteacher position (Education Bureau, 2008a). In
addition to the usual duties expected of a deputy headteacher, the responsibility of shaping school-wide development in inclusive education was attached to this post.
Specifically, this person assumes the SENCo role to manage
and monitor special educational needs programmes, to
facilitate the development of an inclusive climate linked to
school-based policies to meet the needs of students with
special educational needs (Education Bureau, 2008a). New
deputy headteachers are also required to go through a basic
school management training programme with a minimum of
40 contact hours to prepare them for assuming the new role.
The Hong Kong Governments intention for SENCos to play
a role in leadership as well as management was obvious.
The importance of the establishment of this role for the
development of inclusive education in Hong Kong makes it
imperative to examine its implementation status. However,
no relevant research data can be located. Therefore, this
investigation represents an initial effort to gain insight into
the current state of the SENCo establishment. As the first
part of a larger study, this initial investigation aims at
answering three research questions:
1.
2.
3.

What is SENCos understanding of policy intention

for their roles?
What do SENCos do in practice and how well does it
match the policy expectations?
What are their work conditions within current
organisational contexts?

Inclusive education support policy and framework

The establishment of the SENCo post can be seen as a
natural outgrowth of inclusive education in Hong Kong.

2012 The Author. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

Inclusive education as the policy for support of students with

special educational needs can be dated back to 1977 (Hong
Kong Government, 1977) although no action was taken until
two decades later (Poon-McBrayer, 2004a, 2004b). Along
with this policy, the Government recognised eight types of
special needs for the provision of support services
(Education Bureau, 2008a): specific learning difficulties,
intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, physical disability, visual
impairment, hearing impairment, and speech and language
impairment. Policies associated with resources for support
services have been modified from time to time since the
inception of inclusive education in Hong Kong.
Current funding mode
The current funding system for special educational needs
support is embedded within the learning support grant introduced in the 2008/9 school year. In its circular to schools,
the Education Bureau (2008b, 2008c) stated the aim of providing greater flexibility for schools to deploy resources, as
well as the requirement to ensure accountability and to
prepare teachers for challenges arising from inclusive education. Schools may use the grant together with other funds
or resources to employ additional teaching staff and/or
teaching assistants on a temporary basis, procure external
professional services, purchase teaching resources and/or
aids, organise learning or related activities to promote inclusivity, and implement school-based teacher training. Schools
which have students diagnosed with special educational
needs by specialists (for example, educational psychologists, audiologists) or medical doctors can apply for funds
based on the number of eligible students with special
educational needs as follows: (a) a basic provision of
HK$120,000 per school per annum for the first one to six
student(s) requiring tier-3 support; (b) a grant of HK$20,000
per student per annum for the seventh and each of the other
students requiring tier-3 support; (c) a grant of HK$10,000
per annum for each student requiring tier-2 support; and (d)
a ceiling at HK$1 million per school per annum (Education
Bureau, 2008c) (100HK$ = 8.11GBP, 19 March 2012).
Three-tier intervention model and student support team
As part of the requirement for receiving the learning support
grant, schools are required to cater for student diversity
through a 3-tier intervention model: (a) tier-1 support
quality teaching in the regular classroom for supporting
students with transient or mild learning difficulties; (b) tier-2
support add-on intervention involving small group learning and pull-out programmes, for students assessed as
having persistent learning difficulties, including those with
special educational needs; and (c) tier-3 support intensive
individualised support for students with severe learning difficulties and special educational needs, such as drawing up
an individual education plan (IEP).
In addition, schools are advised to set up a student support
team (SST) or to designate an existing functional group to
plan, implement and review the support measures as a monitoring mechanism. The SST should keep a register of
students with special educational needs to record the basic

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 2 2012

95

student data, learning progress, and support measures to

facilitate regular review. For students requiring tier-3
support, the SST should include in the IEPs a long-term or
annual plan with long-term education goals and post-school
options.
Accountability and professional development
For the purposes of accountability, schools are to engage
teachers and parents in identifying the needs of students
when planning for the use of the grant. A separate annual
evaluation regarding the use of support funds for students
with special educational needs must be submitted to the
Government. Another dimension of accountability can be
found in the new training requirements for teachers. To
improve teachers ability to work with special educational
needs, at least 10% of the teachers in each school that
receives the grant must complete the 30-hour basic training
course, at least three teachers per school must complete the
90-hour advanced course, at least one teacher per school
must complete the related thematic course on each of the
types of special educational needs that the school caters for,
and at least one Chinese teacher and one English teacher per
school must complete the thematic course on specific learning difficulties.
Research methodology
As part of a larger study, this initial investigation adopted an
inductive qualitative method. The participants were purposefully sampled. Patton (2002) suggests criterion sampling to select informants as a qualitative research sampling
strategy to ensure that informants are directly involved in
building inclusive schools. Thus, the most suitable participants are likely to come from schools serving as resource
schools for other schools under the School Partnership
Scheme as they are selected for their proficient experiences
in adopting whole-school approaches to cater for student
diversity (Education Bureau, 2009). In the 2009/10 school
year, six primary and four secondary schools were designated as resource schools (Education Bureau, 2010). The
SENCos of these schools were invited to participate in this
investigation. Six SENCos agreed to participate, four from
primary schools and two from secondary schools.
The aims of the study and data to be collected from potential
participants were first explained on the telephone, followed
by delivering via e-mail the formal consent form detailing
ethical procedures, including their right not to participate
and to terminate interviews at any time, the non-disclosure
of their identity, and the confidential disposal of audiotapes
after data transcription. Once consent forms were received,
participants were contacted to confirm the time and location
of their choice for an interview. Semi-structured interviews
were conducted to ensure that the responses to the questions
would be abundant, in-depth and detailed (Punch, 2009). All
participants chose to be interviewed in their schools with
interviews lasting between 45 and 60 minutes.
All interviews were transcribed verbatim. The raw data used
as examples in this article were translated from Chinese to
English and moderated by two peer researchers in the field
96

of special needs to confirm accuracy. Attride-Stirlings

(2001) model of thematic networks was selected as the procedure to analyse data because it systematically outlines the
procedure for analysing textual materials and, in turn, helps
interpret patterns of phenomena. To ensure data credibility,
each participant was asked to approve the transcript and
amend or modify the preliminary themes based on individual data. The preliminary themes from each participant
were then aggregated to identify patterns of experiences that
may provide insight into the current status of how this innovation is functioning.
Findings
All of the six SENCo participants are qualified teachers with
teaching experience of between 10 and 26 years. Four of
them had earned Masters degrees and three of them had
completed the basic course for special education. SENCo D
was also the deputy headteacher of his school, and SENCo
C, being the guidance coordinator for two schools, was the
only one without any teaching duties. Because the patterns
of experiences were strikingly similar between SENCos of
primary and secondary schools, data from both types of
schools were analysed as a unified set. The findings are
organised into the three broad areas to respond to the
research questions: SENCos understanding of policy intention for their roles, their actual responsibilities, and their
current work conditions. The four SENCos of primary
schools are referred to as SENCos A to D and those of
secondary schools as SENCos E and F.
Understanding of policy intention by SENCos
Examining the understanding by SENCos of the policy for
their roles sheds light on its impact on what they do. Interestingly, two of the SENCos had not read the Governments
policy at the time of interview, but this made no difference to
their overwhelming recognition of their role in managing
provision, leaving out any discussion of their leadership role
in developing school-based policies and inclusive culture, as
shown in these examples:
According to the government policy, I am supposed to
take a key role in the student support team, make
referrals, and liaise with all parties for meetings.
(SENCo B)
As I understand it, I need to coordinate meetings
regularly and report to the principal the progress,
monitor the identification mechanism and the use of
assessment instruments, and manage outsourced
services.
(SENCo D)
I think the government wants me to be a bridge
between teachers and students, maybe parents.
(SENCo F)
What SENCos do in practice
Participants understanding of policy intention matched the
actual responsibilities in that their engagements centred on
management tasks (see Table 1). Coordinating SST meet-

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 2 2012

2012 The Author. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

Table 1: Current roles and responsibilities of SENCos

(N = 6)
Responsibilities of SENCos
Meeting coordination
Annual evaluation of special educational needs
services
Bridging between stakeholders
Establishing support plan and monitoring
progress
Working directly with students with special
educational needs
Planning of all student support team tasks
Coordination of professional service outsourcing
Delegating duties to members of student support
team

Number (%)

facilitate professional development for other teachers,

and improve overall support practices.

4 (67%)

Participating SENCos concurred that they could play a role

in making changes if they were members of the school
senior management. Both SENCos E and F said, at least I
will have more information about decision making and
school policy. SENCos A, B and C unanimously cited the
ability to allocate tasks and resources for special educational
needs services as major potential benefits of being members
of the school senior management. SENCo C stressed that:

4 (67%)
3 (50%)
2 (33%)

SENCos must be given commensurate power to allocate

duties to teachers all teachers because we aim at
whole-school involvement in inclusive education, right?

6 (100%)
6 (100%)
6 (100%)
4 (67%)

ings and serving as a bridge among stakeholders as two

common responsibilities of all participants are not surprising, as SENCos are leaders of the SSTs. Another common
responsibility across the board is to carry out an annual
evaluation of special educational needs services as part of
school annual reports to comply with Government policy.
The majority of SENCos (67%) also worked with students
with special educational needs directly and wrote up support
plans. Only two SENCos mentioned the power to delegate
duties to team members. Others worked as peers with SST
members.
Unchanged status among peers
Unlike their British counterparts, Hong Kong SENCo participants unanimously confirmed their unchanged status
among their peers. Apart from SENCo D who was already a
deputy headteacher before taking on SENCo duties, they
continued to be perceived as teachers with different nonteaching duties from others. This perception is consistent
with what they do and is likely to be a side effect of their
current role. Taken together, SENCos have fulfilled the
expected coordination responsibilities but have fallen short
on leading their schools in shaping policies and culture for
more effective inclusive education as expected by the policy.
Work conditions and challenges
Four common work conditions have been identified from the
participants interviews: a lack of commensurate power or
authority, heavy workload, inadequate or little personnel
support, and ill-prepared teachers. These conditions
appeared to form the basis for challenges confronting the
participants.
Firstly, except in the case of SENCo D, no commensurate or
additional power accompanied the new role of SENCo, as
intended by the Government policy. Even though data did
not reflect that SENCo D exercised leadership in developing
school-based policies and inclusive culture, he did state that
he could do so:
In my position, I can take leadership to develop an
inclusive and caring culture for students with SEN,

2012 The Author. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

Secondly, heavy workload was repeatedly emphasised. This

can be easily understood since responsibilities of SENCos
were additional to participants teaching and/or other duties.
Apart from SENCo C (who spent 50% of her work time),
none could give an estimate of his/her time spent on assuming duties as SENCos, because of many other duties they
had to perform. This was the case even for SENCo D who
was a deputy headteacher. As such, adequate planning and
discussions/consultations with other teachers regarding
student needs and setting task priorities were two common
challenges:
Its hard to know how much time I spend on SENCo
duties. It depends on whats more urgent. Sometimes
its teaching; other times administrative tasks. I do my
best.
(SENCo A)
Im trying to catch up with so many things . . . I
normally have a word or two with my colleagues about
a particular child in passing when we are on our way
to classes.
(SENCo E)
Thirdly, little or inadequate personnel support for SENCos,
except for SENCo D, to carry out their duties was noted
across the responses. SENCo D still found himself overloaded with teaching and many administrative tasks, despite
having four teachers aides to assist him and the SST with
various tasks. The main support for other SENCos came
from members of the SSTs in their schools. The huge
amount of associated paperwork was repeatedly cited as the
task for which they needed support:
The paperwork eats into so much of our time. We
should spend time on working with children and the
Government needs to give resources so that we can hire
someone to help with coordination and paperwork.
(SENCo C)
Both myself and other teachers are overloaded with
paperwork. More resources to hire teachers aides to
fill out forms and make contacts will be very helpful.
(SENCo F)

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 2 2012

97

Fourthly, five of them expressed the view that the small

number of trained teachers to cater for student diversity in
their schools made their job more difficult as they needed to
provide support for other teachers in addition to their already
heavy workloads. This was further exacerbated by the loss of
teachers and the subsequent need to train new teachers.
Consequently, the lack of time to provide training and be
engaged in training became a norm. The simultaneous call
for more training and more time for training was loud and
clear from the participants.:
because of the heavy workload, trained teachers quit.
We need to train new and inexperienced teachers all
the time but we simply dont have the time and they
dont either.
(SENCo C)
Of all the issues we have, teacher training is most
pressing. Most of my colleagues said they dont know
how to deal with SEN. We dont have enough resources
to receive training.
(SENCo E)
Lastly, despite the increased resources through the learning
support grant and other funding schemes to facilitate the
work related to inclusive education, SENCos, at the end of
their respective interviews, unanimously voiced the need for
more resources, to reduce their teaching load, to provide
clerical support, and to allow time for training, planning and
working with parents and students.
Discussion
While the experiences of the six SENCos cannot be generalised to all schools, they do offer a powerful initial glimpse
into the realities of the role of SENCos in some schools
already considered proficient in implementing inclusive
education. The findings reveal strikingly similar organisational contexts impacting on the functioning of the SENCos,
in which autocratic school leadership, heavy workload,
insufficient support, and inadequate resources are common
across the schools. To crystallise the analysis, the experiences of British SENCos will be compared with the Hong
Kong experiences where appropriate. The following discussion is organised under two broad themes: autocratic school
leadership and common challenges.
Autocratic school leadership
The establishment of the SENCo role demands the decentralisation of school governance. There are two types of
decentralisation: administrative and democratic. Administrative decentralisation refers to the limited delegation of
decision-making authority to the lower organisational levels
while democratic decentralisation transfers more power and
authority to the lower organisational levels (Gamage, 1996).
Autocratic leadership is a prime characteristic of administrative decentralisation.
The prevalent leadership style as suggested by the findings is
the key distinction between Hong Kong and its British counterpart. Three years into the establishment of their role,
98

British SENCos reported that the school senior management

increasingly saw them as key advisers on special educational
needs policy matters and their status among fellow teachers
was raised (Garner, 1996). Moreover, Garner (1996) found
that 80% of the participating SENCos were given commensurate power in policy formulation. It is especially intriguing
when considering the fact that the policy at that time did not
tie British SENCos to a senior post. Hong Kong SENCos,
however, did not experience such changes.
The results of this investigation indicate a significant divergence in role expectations between England and Hong
Kong. In the former, inconsistent role expectation across
schools seem to be the norm (Hallett & Hallett, 2010),
whereas a consistent role expectation across schools is the
norm in Hong Kong in that over 80% of the participants
schools deviated from Government policy by not appointing
the SENCos as deputy headteachers nor engaging them in
shaping school policy. Instead, their roles were confined to
coordination tasks. This suggests the continued practice of
autocratic, single headship, commonly found in local school
leadership studies (for example, Wong, 2003; Ho, 2008),
which still dominates Hong Kong schools (Wan, 2005). This
prevalent top-down centralised school leadership may demonstrate the cultural influence in Chinese and Western management (Law, 2009) in spite of the introduction of the
Governments school-based management policy to encourage a participatory governance framework that involves
headteachers, teachers, parents and sometimes students in
decision making (Education Bureau, 2011). Such an initiative has turned out to be restrictive in providing avenues for
improvement in schools due to the cultural context that
values replication rather than generation (Fang, 2000),
reflecting a lack of adequate preparation for making a paradigm shift (Kwan, 2011). In this organisational context,
SENCos are not expected to be partners in policy formulation for shaping inclusive education and thus peer perceptions of the status of the SENCo remain unchanged.
Challenges within current organisational contexts
The above comparison offers insight into the organisational
contexts that have a direct bearing on SENCos roles and
challenges. Unlike their British counterparts, Hong Kong
policymakers embedded the role of the SENCo in the new
deputy headteacher post right from the beginning to
empower SENCos to be involved in what Hallett and Hallett
(2010) distinguish as the strategic management role.
Without being appointed as deputy headteachers, SENCos
are not entitled to a reduced teaching load and do not have
positional power. Instead, they are overloaded with administrative and teaching duties even when they are part of the
senior management like SENCo D. The SENCos emphasis
on the immense amount of paperwork associated with their
new roles and their loud cry for workload reduction and
help from paraprofessionals clearly illustrate the inadequate
support from the school management. The widespread
policy deviation among the participants schools three years
into the establishment of the SENCo post also reflects a lack
of governmental commitment to see that this initiative functions as expected, to achieve effective special educational

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 2 2012

2012 The Author. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

needs services and educational equity in Hong Kong

schools.

SENCo practitioners as trainers and school-based coaches

should also be key features of the training model.

Implications for practice

Educational policies reflect social-political conditions
(Keogh, 1990). The role of the SENCo was introduced to
support inclusive education policies (Petersen, 2010) both in
England and Hong Kong. The gap between policy and practice is a continuing challenge (Carrington & Elkins, 2002) to
all and demonstrates a need for policymakers to take a direct
responsibility in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness
of the SENCo to support schools in working towards the
goal of effective inclusive education via three channels:
training and coaching for participatory leadership and management, training of SENCos, and resource allocation.

Resource allocation
Insufficient support from school management, heavy workload, and inadequate resources are frequently noted with any
new educational initiative and are not unique to the establishment of the SENCo role. Fifteen years after the establishment of the SENCo roles, English policymakers specified the
leadership status of SENCos in the new 2008 regulations and
appropriated funds for training, to demonstrate their commitment to enhancing the role of the SENCo in shaping and
improving special educational needs provision. Likewise,
Hong Kong policymakers should examine, as a companion to
facilitating leadership development, the possibility of providing funds to increase paraprofessional support to maintain a
reasonable level of workload and to allow time for SENCo
training. They must also support school leaders so that tensions arising from workload and resource issues can be
minimised during the evolution of SENCos roles.

Training and coaching for participatory management

Undeniably, headteachers play a significant role in building
effective schools and in successful school improvement
(Hallinger, 2003). Beginning in 2000, Hong Kong implemented a policy dictating a coherent framework for the
professional development of headteachers and programmes
associated with the framework which are run by local universities (Walker, Hallinger & Qian, 2007). Switching from
autocratic to participatory leadership requires a paradigm
shift. Walker et al. (2007) found that the use of trained and
experienced headteachers to play clearly defined roles
(such as mentoring, sharing, observing) and flexible learning structures in terms of method and content can improve
training and meet diverse needs of school leaders. Thus,
the government can strengthen current training for school
leaders to involve headteachers practising participatory
management in on-site coaching together with university
trainers to assist peer headteachers to move toward collaborative school governance. Improving the school context for
SENCos to participate as leaders in school goals and policies (Zeichner, 1991) is fundamental to the success of this
establishment.
Training of SENCos
The call for more training by practising SENCos came loud
and clear from this investigation. Vastly different practices
and interpretations of the SENCo role are still seen in
English schools (Hallett & Hallett, 2010). Increased legal
requirements and funds have contributed to the evolution of
the SENCo role and the move toward a national qualification
framework in England (OPSI, 2009). Whether the training
provided by the British tertiary institutions will produce
effective SENCos has yet to be determined, and adopting the
English framework may be inappropriate for the Hong Kong
school context, but it can certainly serve as a reference when
devising a local training model.
Some of the core training elements are significant for
SENCos in any cultural context: (a) the role of SENCos as
leaders in promoting good practice, implementing policy
and promoting staff development in their schools; and (b)
how SENCos can ensure that special educational needs
issues are fully integrated into the shaping, implementing
and evaluating of school policy. Skilled and experienced

2012 The Author. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

Research implications
The current lack of data on Hong Kong SENCos necessitates a definitive call for further studies. Findings of this
initial investigation suggest the need for an associated larger
study to examine the views of headteachers on special educational needs policies and provision and their experiences
and constraints when establishing the role of the SENCo, to
gain a full understanding of contextual factors that have
contributed to policy deviation and the current state of
operation. When focused on educational reform, it is clear
that one major responsibility of the research community is to
carry out a systematic and comprehensive study of the
implementation of change (Keogh, 1990).
Conclusion
Narrowing the gap between policy and practice is a continuing challenge to all. The change of policy from confining the
practice of inclusive education to a small number of schools
(Poon-McBrayer, 1999) to widening it to all Hong Kong
schools in the last decade testifies to the impact of unstoppable worldwide trends in inclusive education. Resources
designated to support special educational needs provision
continue to increase as well. These developments, and the
policy of school-based management for Hong Kong schools,
have together set a foundation for building a school-based
system through the establishment of SENCos to intensify
school-wide engagement in inclusive education and to
facilitate policies and practices responsive to individual
organisational contexts. The potential benefits are considerable. If Hong Kong policymakers are committed to improving special educational needs provision through this schoolbased mechanism, understanding factors contributing to
policy deviation and examining ways of developing the role
of the SENCo in Hong Kong schools should be urgent tasks.
Whether the roles of Hong Kong SENCos will be expanded
and evolved like their British counterparts is contingent
upon efforts from policymakers and school management to
eliminate barriers and create a conducive environment for
their effective functioning.

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 2 2012

99

References
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001) Thematic networks: analysis
tool for qualitative research, Qualitative Research, 1
(3), 385405.
Carrington, S. & Elkins, J. (2002) Bridging the gap
between inclusive policy and inclusive culture in
secondary schools, Support for Learning, 17 (2), 51.
Cole, B. A. (2005) Mission impossible? Special
educational needs, inclusion and the
re-conceptualization of the role of the SENCo in
England and Wales, European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 20 (3), 287307. DOI:10.1080/
08856250500156020.
Council for Exceptional Children (2000) Educational
Diagnostician: making a difference in the lives of
students with special needs [online at http://www.cec.
sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Job_Profiles&
Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1667].
Crowther, D., Dyson, A. & Millward, A. (2001)
Supporting pupils with special educational needs:
issues and dilemmas for special needs coordinators in
English primary school, European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 16 (2), 8597. DOI: 10.1080/
08856250110040695.
DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families)
(2008) The Education (Special Educational Needs
Co-ordinators) (England) Regulations 2008 [online at
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2945/
made?view=plain].
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2001)
Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. London:
DfES.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2004)
Removing Barriers to Achievement: the Governments
strategy for SEN. London: DfES.
Education Bureau (2008a) Creation of a Senior Primary
School Master/Mistress Rank for Deputy Heads in
Aided Primary Schools [online at http://www.edb.
gov.hk/UtilityManager/circular/upload/EDBC/
EDBC08008E.pdf].
Education Bureau (2008b) Education Bureau Circular
No. 10/2008: enhancement of the new funding mode
for primary schools [online at http://www.edb.gov.
hk/FileManager/EN/Content_7433/edbc08010e.pdf].
Education Bureau (2008c) Education Bureau Circular No.
9/2008: learning support grant for secondary schools
[online at http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/
Content_7434/edbc08009e.pdf].
Education Bureau (2009) School Partnership Scheme in
Supporting Students with Special Educational Needs
[online at http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=
4875&langno=1].
Education Bureau (2010) Information Sheet: special
education services [online at http://www.edb.gov.hk/
FileManager/EN/Content_7427/2010%20speds.pdf].
100

Education Bureau (2011) Introduction of School-Based

Management [online at http://www.edb.gov.hk/
FileManager/EN/Content_1951/introduction10_e.pdf].
Fang, Y. (2000) The effect of distributive preferences on
decisions: an empirical study of Chinese employees,
Cross Cultural Management An International
Journal, 7 (1), 311.
Gamage, D. T. (1996) School-Based Management: theory,
research and practice. Colombo: Karunaratne and Sons
Ltd.
Garner, P. (1996) Go forth and coordinate! What
special needs coordinators think about the Code of
Practice, School Organisation, 16 (2), 179186.
Hallett, F. & Hallett, G. (2010) Introduction to Part 1:
concepts and contexts of SEN, in F. Hallett and G.
Hallett (eds) Transforming the Role of the SENCo:
achieving the national award for SEN coordinators.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Hallinger, P. (2003) School leadership development,
in J. P. Keeves and R. Watanabe (eds) International
Handbook of Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific
Region. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ho, C. W. D. (2008) The definitions of quality early
childhood programs in a market driven context: case
studies of two Hong Kong preschools, International
Journal of Early Years Education, 16 (3), 223236.
Hong Kong Government (1977) Integrating the Disabled
into the Community: a united effort [online at http://
www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_689/
disabl_e.pdf].
Keogh, B. K. (1990) Narrowing the gap between
policy and practice, Exceptional Children, 57 (2),
186190.
Kwan, P. (2011) Development of school leaders in Hong
Kong: contextual changes and future challenges,
School Leadership & Management, 31 (2), 165177.
DOI:10.1080/13632434.2011.560601.
Law, W. W. (2009) Culture and school leadership in
China: exploring school leaders view of relationshipand rule-based governance, in A. W. Wiseman (ed.)
Educational Leadership: global contexts and
international comparisons (International Perspectives
on Education, vol. 11). Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Ltd.
Layton, L. (2005) Special educational needs coordinators
and leadership: a role too far? Support for Learning,
20 (2), 5360.
nasen (National Association for Special Educational
Needs) (2008) The Working Lives of SENCos [online at
www.nasen.org.uk/uploads/publications/70.doc].
OPSI (Office of Public Sector Information) (2009)
Education (Special Educational Needs Coordinators)
(England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009. London:
OPSI [online at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/
2009/1387/pdfs/uksi_20091387_en.pdf].

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 2 2012

2012 The Author. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation

Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petersen, L. (2010) A national perspective on the training
of SENCos, in F. Hallett and G. Hallett (eds)
Transforming the Role of the SENCo: achieving the
national award for SEN coordinators. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (1999) Final Report: action
research of the pilot project on integrating pupils with
disabilities in ordinary schools. Hong Kong Education
Bureau.
Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2004a) To integrate or not to
integrate: systemic dilemmas in Hong Kong, Journal
of Special Education, 37 (4), 249256.
Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2004b) Equity, excellence,
marketization: inclusive education in Hong Kong,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 24 (2), 157172.
Punch, K. F. (2009) Introduction to Research Methods in
Education. London: Sage.
Szwed, C. (2007) Managing from the middle? Tensions
and dilemmas in the role of the primary school special
educational needs coordinator, School Leadership and
Management, 27 (5), 437451.
TTA (Teacher Training Agency) (1998) National Standard
for Special Educational Needs Coordinators [online at
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/7871/
National%20Standards%20for%20SEN.pdf].
US Department of Education (2004) IDEA Regulations:
individualized education program team meetings and
changes to the IEP [online at http://idea.ed.gov/explore/
view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,9,].
Walker, A., Hallinger, P. & Qian, H. (2007) Leadership
development for school effectiveness and improvement

2012 The Author. British Journal of Special Education 2012 NASEN

in East Asia, in T. Townsend (ed.) International

Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement,
Springer International Handbooks of Education, 17(5),
659678. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5747-2_36.
Wan, E. (2005) Teacher empowerment: concepts,
strategies, and implications for schools in Hong Kong,
Teachers College Record, 107 (4), 842861.
Wedell, K. (2006) Points from the SENCo-Forum:
SENCos roles and expertise, British Journal of
Special Education, 33 (1), 47.
Wong, W. Y. (2003) The dilemma of early childhood
teacher required to carry out a curriculum
implementation process: case studies, Early Child
Development and Care, 17 (1), 4353.
Zeichner, K. M. (1991) Contradictions and tensions in the
professionalization of teaching and the democratization
of schools, Teachers College Record, 92 (3), 363379.

Address for correspondence:

Kim Fong Poon-McBrayer
Hong Kong Institute of Education
Department of Educational Policy and Leadership
10 Lo Ping Road
Tai Po
Hong Kong
Email: mcbrayer@ied.edu.hk
Article submitted: October 2011
Accepted for publication: March 2012

British Journal of Special Education Volume 39 Number 2 2012

101