An Analysis of Inclusive Education Policy Change in China (2016?2024) : Based on Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The period from 2016 to 2024 represents a crucial phase in China's inclusive education policy, shifting from access guarantee to quality improvement and high-quality governance. Inclusive education policies did not emerge suddenly during this time; rather, they gradually developed based on the construction of the special education system, local practice of learning in regular classrooms (LRC), and the translation and absorption of international inclusive education concepts. As the level of access to compulsory education for school-age children and adolescents with disabilities continues to improve, the policy focus has gradually shifted from simply gaining access to school and completing placement to ensuring they receive appropriate support after entering regular schools, genuinely participate in the classroom, and achieve continuous learning and development. The operational quality of support arrangements such as resource rooms, resource centers, itinerant guidance, and individualized education programs has also gradually become an important indicator for observing changes in inclusive education policies. This study takes key national policy texts from 2016 to 2024 as its main thread, combining relevant supporting policies, materials on key events, academic research results, and local practice materials. It focuses on the evolution of inclusive education policies in the compulsory education stage, and uses Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework to analyze how the policy agenda is formed, how policy tools gradually mature, and how political conditions provide institutional impetus from three dimensions: problem stream, policy stream, and politics stream. Around the two key nodes of 2017 and 2021, it examines the triggering mechanism, solution preparation, actor-mediated coupling, and institutional outcomes of the opening of the policy window. Research reveals that the shift in the problem stream manifests as a gradual shift in policy focus from enrollment and placement to classroom participation, support mechanisms, and high-quality governance. The policy stream shows that tools such as resource rooms, resource centers, individualized education programs, assessment and placement mechanisms, home-based education services, and teacher support are increasingly incorporated into policy documents, and later expanded into a governance toolchain encompassing long-term mechanisms, teaching guidelines, quality evaluations, regional resource networks, and comprehensive support services. The politics stream shows that inclusive education issues are increasingly embedded within broader frameworks such as educational equity, educational modernization, high-quality education systems, and common prosperity, and are continuously driven by funding, staffing support, supervision and evaluation, and interdepartmental collaboration. The study further indicates that the 2017 policy window primarily reflected institutional confirmation, enabling quality issues and basic support tools to be more fully integrated into formal institutional expression; the 2021 policy window primarily reflected the deepening of quality governance, further embedding existing institutional arrangements into long-term mechanisms, evaluation systems, resource networks, and comprehensive governance. The two windows are not simply of equal strength, but rather progressive policy advancement nodes with different functions. The formation of the policy window is not an automatic convergence of three streams, but rather a process completed by a policy community comprised of education administrative departments, expert networks, local practitioners, and relevant departments, involving problem naming, solution packaging, translation into policy language, and window utilization. Overall, this study explains why China's inclusive education policy gradually shifted from an access-oriented to a quality-oriented approach between 2016 and 2024, and further towards a high-quality governance orientation. The Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework effectively explains this policy process, but in the Chinese context, it still needs to be localized by incorporating planned policy windows, organized policy streams, and actions from a composite policy community. The research findings can provide an analytical framework for subsequent governance of inclusive education quality, and also offer references for problem identification, policy tool refinement, quality evaluation, and the improvement of cross-departmental collaboration mechanisms.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• CHAPTER 1. Introduction 1
• 1.1 Necessity and Purpose of the Research 1
• 1.1.1 Research Background and Necessity 1
• 1.1.2 Research Objectives 7
• 1.2 Research Questions 9
• CHAPTER 2. Theoretical Foundation 10
• 2.1 Conceptual Definitions 10
• 2.1.1 Core Concepts in Inclusive Education Practice 11
• 2.1.2 The concept of policy process in multiple-streams analysis 23
• 2.1.3 Value and Governance Concepts in the Chinese Policy Context 28
• 2.2 A Multidimensional Review of China's Inclusive Education Policy Research 32
• 2.2.1 Historical Context and Stage-Based Consensus on Policy Evolution 33
• 2.2.2 The Driving Mechanisms and Explanatory Perspectives of Policy Chage 41
• 2.2.3 Practical Dilemmas in Policy Implementation and Governance Innovation 42
• 2.2.4 The Interaction Between Academic Research and Policy Development 45
• 2.2.5 Research on Inclusive Education and Inclusive Education Policies Abroad 46
• 2.2.6 Review and Positioning of This Study 50
• 2.3 Theoretical Foundation 51
• 2.3.1 Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework 52
• 2.3.2 Cross-border travel using the Multiple Streams Framework: applicability and adaptation in non-Western and Chinese contexts 52
• 2.3.3 The Applicability of the Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework to the Analysis of China's Inclusive Education Policy 54
• 2.3.4 Governance and Instrumental Perspectives in Inclusive Education Policy Research 55
• 2.3.5 Theoretical Integration Framework of this Study 56
• 2.3.6 Research Gaps and Analytical Contributions 58
• CHAPTER 3. Research Methods 59
• 3.1 Research Scope 59
• 3.1.1 Time Scope 59
• 3.1.2 Scope of Policy Texts 61
• 3.1.3 Educational Stage and Thematic Scope 63
• 3.2 Analytical Methodology: Policy Process Analysis Based on the Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework 64
• 3.2.1 Problem Stream Analysis: Indicator Changes, Discourse Evolution, Implementation Feedback, and Focusing Events 65
• 3.2.2 Policy Stream Analysis: Policy Tool Repertoire, Competition among Alternatives, System Integration, and Interaction with the Policy Community 66
• 3.2.3 Politics Stream Analysis: Macro Agenda, Planning Rhythms, Institutional Resources, and Interdepartmental Coordination 68
• 3.2.4 Process Analysis of Policy Window and Policy Community Actions 69
• 3.3 Selection and Use of Materials 71
• 3.3.1 Selection and Use of Core Policy Texts 71
• 3.3.2 Selection and Use of Supplementary Materials 72
• 3.3.3 Steps of Inference and Evidentiary Boundaries 74
• CHAPTER 4. Analysis of Research Results 77
• 4.1 Problem Stream Analysis 77
• 4.1.1 2016–2020: The focus of the problem shifted from ensuring school enrollment to insufficient quality and support 80
• 4.1.2 2021–2024: The focus of the problem shifted from insufficient quality to insufficient high-quality governance 86
• 4.1.3 Summary: The overall evolution of the problem stream and the significance of its results 92
• 4.2 Policy Stream Analysis 94
• 4.2.1 2016–2020: Supporting tools were incorporated into national policy texts and the institutional framework was established 95
• 4.2.2 2021–2024: Toolchain extension, support system shifts from institutional entry to embedded governance 101
• 4.2.3 Summary: Overall Evolution of Policy Stream 106
• 4.3 Politics Stream Analysis 109
• 4.3.1 2016–2020: Inclusive education entered the national education agenda and received institutional support 110
• 4.3.2 2021–2024: Politics Stream Shifts from General Promotion to Systemic Governance Guided by High-Quality Development 113
• 4.3.3 Summary: The Overall Evolution of Politics Stream 117
• 4.4 The Opening of the Policy Window and the Coupling of the Three Streams 119
• 4.4.1 The opening of the policy window in 2017: Quality issues enter institutional expression 123
• 4.4.2 The opening of the policy window in 2021: System deepening under the guidance of high quality 132
• 4.4.3 Comparison of the Stage Functions of the Two Policy Windows 141
• 4.4.4 Summary: The Phased Opening of the Policy Window and its Significance 145
• CHAPTER 5. Conclusion and Discussion 153
• 5.1 Main Conclusions 153
• 5.1.1 Main Conclusions on Conceptual Evolution and the Core Elements of the Three Streams 153
• 5.1.2 Key Conclusions Regarding the Policy Window in 2017 and 2021. 159
• 5.2 Theoretical Reflection: Applicability and Localization of the Multiple Streams Framework 166
• 5.2.1 Explanatory power of the Multiple Streams Framework in this study 168
• 5.2.2 Key areas requiring revision in the Chinese context 171
• 5.2.3 Localized Interpretation of the Multiple Streams Framework in the Analysis of Inclusive Education Policies in China 176
• 5.3 Policy Implications: Reflections on the Quality Governance of Inclusive Education 179
• 5.3.1 At the problem-stream level: Identify quality problems earlier, more accurately, and more continuously 80
• 5.3.2 At the policy-stream level: making tools more usable, more seamlessly integrated, and providing support more closely aligned with classroom needs 183
• 5.3.3 At the politics-stream level: Maintaining stability as a priority, ensuring resource support, and promoting coordinated progress 188
• 5.4 Research Limitations and Future Directions 193
• 5.5 Summary 198
• References 202