In the People's Republic of China, the 2015 (revised) Higher Education Law provides that citizens enjoy the right to receive higher education. That legal ideal, however, is not easy to implement in practice. One important issue in higher education is the extent to which in law and in practice the educational rights and interests of students with disabilities are realized. In anticipation of difficulties, the same law specifically requires Chinese higher education institutions to enrol disabled students who meet the relevant admission qualifications and it explicitly prohibits rejection on grounds of disability. Admission standards and processes, however, remain a problem, as do social attitudes to disability, and other difficulties persist in securing the rights and interests of disabled persons in higher education. The complications that arise remain significantly under researched and are not explicitly addressed in the Higher Education Law. Proposals for reform are not likely to succeed without substantial changes in societal and governmental attitudes.

We investigated attitudes toward 10 specific groups of individuals with disabilities among students in college settings. These groups comprised major depression, substance use disorder (SUD), anxiety disorder, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), cerebral palsy, hearing impairment, learning disability, visual impairment, spinal cord injury, and cancer survivor. The multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis revealed a two-dimension space representing participants’ attitudes toward those disabilities. The MDS biplot further indicated higher levels of perceived dangerousness from the groups with SUD, major depression, anxiety disorder, and ASD. The hierarchical cluster analysis revealed that cluster A (SUD and major depression) was rated as having the highest level of social distance (i.e., negative attitudes). The implications for research and practice in rehabilitation counseling were discussed.

Despite aspirations to be a world-class national curriculum, the Australian Curriculum (AC) has been criticised as ‘manifestly deficient’ (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2014 p. 5) as an inclusive curriculum, failing to meet the needs of all students with disabilities (SWD) and their teachers. There is a need for research into the daily attempts of educators to navigate the tension between a ‘top-down’ system-wide curriculum and a ‘bottom-up’ regard for individual student needs, with a view to informing both policy and practice. This article is the first of two research papers in which we report the findings from a national online Research in Special Education (RISE) Australian Curriculum Survey of special educators in special schools, classes, and units regarding their experience using the AC to plan for and teach SWD. Survey results indicated (a) inconsistent use of the AC as the primary basis for developing learning objectives and designing learning experiences, (b) infrequent use of the achievement standards to support assessment and reporting, and (c) considerable supplementation of the AC from other resources when educating SWD. Overall, participants expressed a lack of confidence in translating the AC framework into a meaningful curriculum for SWD. Implications for policy, practice, and future research are discussed.