Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area

Wang Yifei; Liu Hong Dou; Liu Zi Ying; Lo Sing Kai

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area

Wang Yifei

, Liu Hong Dou

, Liu Zi Ying

, Lo Sing Kai^*

Published in International Journal of Education, Culture and Society (Volume 10, Issue 2)

Received: 24 March 2025 Accepted: 16 April 2025 Published: 29 April 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study examines the ethical tensions in China’s inclusive education system, where policy-driven efforts to integrate students with special educational needs (SEN) into mainstream classrooms conflict with systemic challenges in balancing individual rights and collective interests. Despite national progress in SEN enrollment rates, regional disparities persist, Structural contradictions emerge from resource limitations. Ethical dilemmas between SEN students’ individualized support needs and the collective rights of typically developing peers. Grounded in Rawlsian justice theory, this research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews at a Greater Bay Area school with a three-dimensional theoretical framework (capability fairness, empathy theory, group dynamics) to address three objectives: demand coordination, leadership transformation, and collaborative governance. Findings reveal systemic issues, including resource allocation conflicts, teacher role dissonance, home-school trust deficits, and innovative strategies such as a dynamic “resource bank” and peer mentorship systems. The study proposes a tripartite governance model integrating institutional flexibility, cultural restructuring, and technological empowerment to reconcile educational equity with quality. Key contributions include operationalizing Sen’s capability approach into a dual-cycle evaluation matrix and shifting equity metrics from resource access to functional outcomes. Limitations include regional economic biases and stakeholder perspective gaps. Policy recommendations emphasize phased reforms: class-size regulations, regional resource-sharing platforms, and teacher training overhauls. Future research should expand to urban-rural comparisons and longitudinal evaluations to validate the proposed model’s adaptability and ethical implications in diverse contexts.

Published in	International Journal of Education, Culture and Society (Volume 10, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16
Page(s)	112-119
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Inclusive Education, Special Education Needs (SEN), Ethical Dilemmas, Resource Allocation, Governance Model

References

[1]	UNESCO, España. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, 1994.
[2]	Ministry of Education of The People’s Republic of China. Statistical Bulletin on National Education Development in 2022. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Available from: http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202307/t20230705_1067278.html (Accessed 24 March 2025).
[3]	Felder, F. Inclusive education, the dilemma of identity and the common good. Theory and Research in Education, 2019, 17(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878519871429
[4]	Materechera, E. K. Inclusive education: why it poses a dilemma to some teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2020, 24(7), 771–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492640
[5]	Michailakis, D., & Reich, W. Dilemmas of inclusive education. Alter, 2009, 3(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2008.10.001
[6]	Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE), London, UK: Rm 2S203 S Block, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QU, 2002, pp. 14-16.
[7]	Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 2011, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
[8]	Charmaz Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory research. London: SAGE Publications; 2014, pp. 1-12.
[9]	Rawls, J. Justice as fairness: A restatement. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology, Third Edition. New York, US: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. pp. 209-223.
[10]	Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2015). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. In Organizational Behavior 2: Essential Theories of Process and Structure (pp. 355–370). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315702001-32
[11]	Nel, N. M., Tlale, L. D. N., Engelbrecht, P., & Nel, M. Teachers’ perceptions of education support structures in the implementation of inclusive education in South Africa. Koers: Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 2016, 81(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.19108/KOERS.81.3.2249
[12]	Lipsky, M. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, US: Russel Sage Foundation; 2010, pp 13-16.
[13]	Huang, Ting. "Women hold up the shattering sky? Performance feedback on multiple conflicting goals and women’s representation in top management teams in the public sector." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2024, 34(4), 515-531. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae016
[14]	Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Rethinking Schooling: Twenty-Five Years of the Journal of Curriculum Studies, London, UK: Routledge, 2006, pp. 196–229.
[15]	Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. From Principles to Practice: An Embedded Assessment System. Applied Measurement in Education, 2000, 13(2), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1302_4
[16]	Sen, A. The idea of justice. Journal of human development, 2008, 9(3), 331-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880802236540

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Yifei, W., Dou, L. H., Ying, L. Z., Kai, L. S. (2025). Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area. International Journal of Education, Culture and Society, 10(2), 112-119. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Yifei, W.; Dou, L. H.; Ying, L. Z.; Kai, L. S. Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area. Int. J. Educ. Cult. Soc. 2025, 10(2), 112-119. doi: 10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Yifei W, Dou LH, Ying LZ, Kai LS. Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area. Int J Educ Cult Soc. 2025;10(2):112-119. doi: 10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16,
  author = {Wang Yifei and Liu Hong Dou and Liu Zi Ying and Lo Sing Kai},
  title = {Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area
},
  journal = {International Journal of Education, Culture and Society},
  volume = {10},
  number = {2},
  pages = {112-119},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijecs.20251002.16},
  abstract = {This study examines the ethical tensions in China’s inclusive education system, where policy-driven efforts to integrate students with special educational needs (SEN) into mainstream classrooms conflict with systemic challenges in balancing individual rights and collective interests. Despite national progress in SEN enrollment rates, regional disparities persist, Structural contradictions emerge from resource limitations. Ethical dilemmas between SEN students’ individualized support needs and the collective rights of typically developing peers. Grounded in Rawlsian justice theory, this research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews at a Greater Bay Area school with a three-dimensional theoretical framework (capability fairness, empathy theory, group dynamics) to address three objectives: demand coordination, leadership transformation, and collaborative governance. Findings reveal systemic issues, including resource allocation conflicts, teacher role dissonance, home-school trust deficits, and innovative strategies such as a dynamic “resource bank” and peer mentorship systems. The study proposes a tripartite governance model integrating institutional flexibility, cultural restructuring, and technological empowerment to reconcile educational equity with quality. Key contributions include operationalizing Sen’s capability approach into a dual-cycle evaluation matrix and shifting equity metrics from resource access to functional outcomes. Limitations include regional economic biases and stakeholder perspective gaps. Policy recommendations emphasize phased reforms: class-size regulations, regional resource-sharing platforms, and teacher training overhauls. Future research should expand to urban-rural comparisons and longitudinal evaluations to validate the proposed model’s adaptability and ethical implications in diverse contexts.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area

AU  - Wang Yifei
AU  - Liu Hong Dou
AU  - Liu Zi Ying
AU  - Lo Sing Kai
Y1  - 2025/04/29
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16
T2  - International Journal of Education, Culture and Society
JF  - International Journal of Education, Culture and Society
JO  - International Journal of Education, Culture and Society
SP  - 112
EP  - 119
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3363
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16
AB  - This study examines the ethical tensions in China’s inclusive education system, where policy-driven efforts to integrate students with special educational needs (SEN) into mainstream classrooms conflict with systemic challenges in balancing individual rights and collective interests. Despite national progress in SEN enrollment rates, regional disparities persist, Structural contradictions emerge from resource limitations. Ethical dilemmas between SEN students’ individualized support needs and the collective rights of typically developing peers. Grounded in Rawlsian justice theory, this research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews at a Greater Bay Area school with a three-dimensional theoretical framework (capability fairness, empathy theory, group dynamics) to address three objectives: demand coordination, leadership transformation, and collaborative governance. Findings reveal systemic issues, including resource allocation conflicts, teacher role dissonance, home-school trust deficits, and innovative strategies such as a dynamic “resource bank” and peer mentorship systems. The study proposes a tripartite governance model integrating institutional flexibility, cultural restructuring, and technological empowerment to reconcile educational equity with quality. Key contributions include operationalizing Sen’s capability approach into a dual-cycle evaluation matrix and shifting equity metrics from resource access to functional outcomes. Limitations include regional economic biases and stakeholder perspective gaps. Policy recommendations emphasize phased reforms: class-size regulations, regional resource-sharing platforms, and teacher training overhauls. Future research should expand to urban-rural comparisons and longitudinal evaluations to validate the proposed model’s adaptability and ethical implications in diverse contexts.

VL  - 10
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Wang Yifei

Faculty of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0957-5113
Liu Hong Dou

Vocational Education Research School, Shenzhen Institute of Information Technology, Shenzhen, China

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0009-5670-8757
Liu Zi Ying

Law and Politics School, Lingnan Normal University, Zhanjiang, China

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1556-1815
Lo Sing Kai

Faculty of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8401-1759

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Yifei, W., Dou, L. H., Ying, L. Z., Kai, L. S. (2025). Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area. International Journal of Education, Culture and Society, 10(2), 112-119. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Yifei, W.; Dou, L. H.; Ying, L. Z.; Kai, L. S. Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area. Int. J. Educ. Cult. Soc. 2025, 10(2), 112-119. doi: 10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Yifei W, Dou LH, Ying LZ, Kai LS. Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area. Int J Educ Cult Soc. 2025;10(2):112-119. doi: 10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16,
  author = {Wang Yifei and Liu Hong Dou and Liu Zi Ying and Lo Sing Kai},
  title = {Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area
},
  journal = {International Journal of Education, Culture and Society},
  volume = {10},
  number = {2},
  pages = {112-119},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijecs.20251002.16},
  abstract = {This study examines the ethical tensions in China’s inclusive education system, where policy-driven efforts to integrate students with special educational needs (SEN) into mainstream classrooms conflict with systemic challenges in balancing individual rights and collective interests. Despite national progress in SEN enrollment rates, regional disparities persist, Structural contradictions emerge from resource limitations. Ethical dilemmas between SEN students’ individualized support needs and the collective rights of typically developing peers. Grounded in Rawlsian justice theory, this research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews at a Greater Bay Area school with a three-dimensional theoretical framework (capability fairness, empathy theory, group dynamics) to address three objectives: demand coordination, leadership transformation, and collaborative governance. Findings reveal systemic issues, including resource allocation conflicts, teacher role dissonance, home-school trust deficits, and innovative strategies such as a dynamic “resource bank” and peer mentorship systems. The study proposes a tripartite governance model integrating institutional flexibility, cultural restructuring, and technological empowerment to reconcile educational equity with quality. Key contributions include operationalizing Sen’s capability approach into a dual-cycle evaluation matrix and shifting equity metrics from resource access to functional outcomes. Limitations include regional economic biases and stakeholder perspective gaps. Policy recommendations emphasize phased reforms: class-size regulations, regional resource-sharing platforms, and teacher training overhauls. Future research should expand to urban-rural comparisons and longitudinal evaluations to validate the proposed model’s adaptability and ethical implications in diverse contexts.
},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Ethical Tensions and Collaborative Governance in Inclusive Education: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model from China's Greater Bay Area

AU  - Wang Yifei
AU  - Liu Hong Dou
AU  - Liu Zi Ying
AU  - Lo Sing Kai
Y1  - 2025/04/29
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16
T2  - International Journal of Education, Culture and Society
JF  - International Journal of Education, Culture and Society
JO  - International Journal of Education, Culture and Society
SP  - 112
EP  - 119
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-3363
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijecs.20251002.16
AB  - This study examines the ethical tensions in China’s inclusive education system, where policy-driven efforts to integrate students with special educational needs (SEN) into mainstream classrooms conflict with systemic challenges in balancing individual rights and collective interests. Despite national progress in SEN enrollment rates, regional disparities persist, Structural contradictions emerge from resource limitations. Ethical dilemmas between SEN students’ individualized support needs and the collective rights of typically developing peers. Grounded in Rawlsian justice theory, this research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews at a Greater Bay Area school with a three-dimensional theoretical framework (capability fairness, empathy theory, group dynamics) to address three objectives: demand coordination, leadership transformation, and collaborative governance. Findings reveal systemic issues, including resource allocation conflicts, teacher role dissonance, home-school trust deficits, and innovative strategies such as a dynamic “resource bank” and peer mentorship systems. The study proposes a tripartite governance model integrating institutional flexibility, cultural restructuring, and technological empowerment to reconcile educational equity with quality. Key contributions include operationalizing Sen’s capability approach into a dual-cycle evaluation matrix and shifting equity metrics from resource access to functional outcomes. Limitations include regional economic biases and stakeholder perspective gaps. Policy recommendations emphasize phased reforms: class-size regulations, regional resource-sharing platforms, and teacher training overhauls. Future research should expand to urban-rural comparisons and longitudinal evaluations to validate the proposed model’s adaptability and ethical implications in diverse contexts.

VL  - 10
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download