International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

The Hare and the Tortoise: a comparative review

of the drive towards inclusive education policies in
England and Cyprus

Caroline Jones & Simoni Symeonidou

To cite this article: Caroline Jones & Simoni Symeonidou (2017) The Hare and the Tortoise:
a comparative review of the drive towards inclusive education policies in England and Cyprus,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21:7, 775-789, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1283715

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1283715

Published online: 25 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 974

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2017
VOL. 21, NO. 7, 775–789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1283715

The Hare and the Tortoise: a comparative review of the drive

towards inclusive education policies in England and Cyprus
Caroline Jonesa and Simoni Symeonidoub
a
Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; bDepartment of Education, University of Cyprus,
Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper explores the process of policy formulation and implementation Received 28 February 2016
in relation to children commonly described as having ‘special educational Accepted 21 December 2016
needs’ and disability (SEND), in Cyprus and in England. Drawing on
KEYWORDS
qualitative research evidence from key primary documentary sources Inclusion; special educational
including legislation, statutory and non-statutory guidance and reports, needs; policy; qualitative;
it provides a comparative analysis of the content and the spirit of policy Cyprus; England
in both countries over the cycle of a century. The findings indicate that
Cypriot policymakers have engaged in a process of ‘policy snatching’
from England, following four phases: charitable segregation and
categorisation; enlightened legitimisation and categorisation; integration,
‘special educational needs’ and categorisation; inclusion, SEND and
categorisation. Using the analogy of Aesop’s well-known fable ‘The Hare
and the Tortoise’, the paper concludes that England, symbolically
characterised as the hare, appears, overtly at least, to have moved
ahead; while Cyprus, characterised as the tortoise, has been following
slowly behind. However, progress has been slow in both countries, and
the hare may well have fallen asleep. It is argued that whilst some
common ground exists between the two countries, there is an inherent
danger in transplanting selected elements of policy texts from one
socio-cultural historical context to another.

Introduction
In recent years there has been an increasing global flow of ideas, resulting in the borrowing and lend-
ing, as well as selective stripping of imported ideas to suit local contexts (Tobin, Hsueh, and Kara-
sawa 2009). Historically, British educational policies relating to children described as having ‘special
educational needs’ and disability (SEND) have had a global widespread influence (Howie 2010). The
fact that the UK has a long history of policy responses to education makes it a possible context of
influence for other countries and it is perhaps not surprising that Cyprus being a former British col-
ony until 1960 would turn to the UK for ideas relating to special education policy, organisational
structures and practices. Existing literature reports that Cypriot policymaking has been particularly
influenced by the UK in terms of policy developments in the area of ‘special needs’ (Phtiaka 2007).
Indeed, Phtiaka (2003, 149) suggests that ‘education history and post-colonial dynamics suggest that
today’s UK policy is often tomorrow’s Cypriot practice’. This paper offers a closer examination of the
extent to which this borrowing of policy is a productive or a futile exercise and illustrates the impact
of colonialism as well as the effects of historical dependency. Georgeson, Payler, and Campbell-Barr
(2013) warn that whilst the grass may appear greener on the other side, established ideas should not

CONTACT Caroline Jones caroline.jones@warwick.ac.uk Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Warwick, Westwood
Campus, Coventry, West Midlands CV4 7AL, UK
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
776 C. JONES AND S. SYMEONIDOU

be replanted without consideration of the reasons why the ideas developed as they did, if and why
they worked so well there and whether the country doing the borrowing has the right conditions
for transplanting the ideas. This implies that prior to adopting in part or whole ideas from other
countries, policymakers should have a clear understanding of the policy rationale, content and con-
text. In addition, it presumes the existence of robust evidence-based evaluation of previous policies in
the country where the policy was constructed. It also assumes that country of origin had a clear
rationale for introducing a new policy rather than a quick fix solution and that the country doing
the borrowing has evidence that the policy actually worked well in practice and reason to believe
it will do so in their own context. It is part of a wider qualitative research project which aimed to
explore the chronology, key constructs and common or distinguishing features of central SEND pol-
icy and practice in Cyprus and England between 1899 and 2015. The key research question was:
To what extent has Cyprus encapsulated the SEND terminology, definitions and assessment pro-
cedures intended for the English education system in policy formulation and implementation?
The intention was not simply to consider whether policy texts have been reproduced in a tech-
nical or literal sense, but to explore the spirit, values and beliefs underpinning policy formulation
and implementation. This would allow us to develop new hypotheses and theoretical propositions
and to discuss the language and meanings created by policymakers, which, in turn, affect wider
meaning-making. The discussion that follows is based on the premise that documents cannot be
taken at face value and need to be critically assessed from a variety of perspectives. Policymaking
is far more complex than the production of documents, as documents themselves are not value neu-
tral and the search for meanings within documents is ‘tinged with suspicion’. As May (1993) in Blax-
ter, Hughes, and Tight (1996, 187) suggests,
Documents … do not simply reflect, but also construct social reality and versions of events … Documents are
now viewed as mediums through which social power is expressed. They are approached in terms of the cultural
context in which they were written and may be viewed ‘as attempts at persuasion’.

It is important to acknowledge at this point that whilst we refer to England and English policy
throughout this paper, some policy texts were applicable to England and Wales, and others through-
out the UK. Policy texts from Cyprus represent documents in Greek language, applicable in the
Republic of Cyprus (established in 1960). A few policy documents dated prior to 1960 are either
in Greek or in English, as Cyprus was a British colony at the time.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to debate the nature of inclusion and inclusive education in
detail but it is important to acknowledge that values, attitudes and beliefs relating to inclusion and
‘special educational needs’ are influenced by the language and labels used in policy documents. Rhet-
orically at least, there appears to have been a shift from a narrow focus on decisions about where
disabled children should be educated including the ‘integration’ of individual children into existing
learning environments, to more radical interpretations that focus on the provision of education that
best meets the diverse learning needs of all children regardless of difference. Nutbrown and Clough
with Atherton (2013, 8) offer a definition of ‘inclusion as the unified drive towards maximal partici-
pation and minimal exclusion from early years settings, from schools and from society’. However, as
they point out, definitions of inclusion vary from person to person and depend on a number of
factors,
How inclusive education is understood by different stakeholders has an impact in policymaking
contexts.

The policy trajectory

Although at first glance policymaking may appear to be a straightforward or linear process taking
place in a social vacuum, it is underpinned by a complex, dynamic set of overt and hidden inter-
actions. Whilst it may be linear in terms of chronology, policy has been defined as a ‘multi-faceted,
multi-dimensional social and political phenomenon which includes a cycle of strategies bound by
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 777

time, resources, players and performances within dynamic and often contested political sites’ (Farrell
2001, 241). This view contrasts with the more traditional positivist notion of a fixed, finite document
anchored in truth or facts. Policy theorists such as Bowe, Ball, and Gold (1992) challenge portrayals
of policy generation as separate from implementation and characterise the policy process in terms of
‘trajectories’. Rather than regarding policy simply as something that is ‘done to people’ it is argued
that policy is a continual process, which emerges from and interacts with a variety of interrelated
contexts. They draw attention to three primary contexts of policymaking, the context of influence,
the context of policy text production and context of practice (Bowe, Ball, and Gold 1992). The context
of influence, where policy discourses are constructed and key policy concepts are established, includ-
ing legislation and statutory requirements, provides the first platform for our comparison between
the chronology and content of SEND policy in our countries. The context of policy text production
refers to the written documents that represent policy, for example, local and national circulars, as
well as statutory and non-statutory guidance. In most countries, these texts are usually expressed
in language which claims to be reasonable, humanitarian and for the general public good. They
include texts such as the SEN Code of Practice (Department for Education and Skills – DfES
2001) or the MoEC (2003) Code of Practice. Such texts are then responded to within the third con-
text, the context of practice, or what actually happens on the ground, for example, in a nursery or
school, as a result of a particular policy. Ball (1994) later added two further contexts which are rel-
evant to this paper: first, the context of outcomes, which is concerned with effects on practice and on
patterns of social access, opportunity and justice; second, the context of political strategy; or a catalo-
guing of a set of political and social activities ‘which might more effectively tackle inequalities’
(Troyna 1993, 12). The issues are complex and contentious, often involving deeply held values
and beliefs.
With specific reference to SEND policy, Jones added a sixth context, the context of hidden values
(Jones 2004). Building on the notion of ‘benevolent humanitarianism’, Tomlinson (1982), she
suggests that whilst policy may overtly seem to be well-intentioned, where the policy outcome should
have a positive effect, such as increasing social justice for marginalised or ‘problem’ groups, there are
often hidden consequences. At central level, policy can be cleverly constructed to disguise a particu-
lar set of intentions, values and beliefs. Therefore, intentionally or otherwise, Jones (2004) suggests
that policy may be a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ in that it impacts on practice not only in the technical
or procedural sense, but influences deeply rooted stances, embedded in a social context (Jones and
Leverett 2008). Rather than being a solution to the perceived problem, the interaction between policy
and practice may sustain or exacerbate the situation, or even cause a new set of problems. Conver-
sely, through the interaction between policy and practice a process of learning and growth may or
may not take place. The bottom line is that all policies are implemented by individuals and will
be interpreted by them in idiosyncratic ways as they bring their own biographies, values, experiences
and interests to make meaning of policy.

Methodology
The first part of the study, on which this paper is based, was primarily concerned with the context of
text production, and consisted of documentary research. An archive was created which covered the
period from 1899 to 2015, and contained a range of selected policy documents from both countries.
To compile the archive of documents, we used our personal sources as a starting point, and searched
several databases on the internet: the database of the Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture
(MoEC), the database of the University of Cyprus Library, and the database of the Cyprus Bar
Association (CyLaw), the University of Warwick Library and the Department for Education
(DfE) in England. The searches focussed on legislative documents, statutory regulations and gui-
dance, official government reports and publications sent to local authorities and schools on behalf
of our respective governments. Due to the wide range of available documents, we agreed to focus
on those that we had noted to be similar to each other in content. The data that guided the analysis
778 C. JONES AND S. SYMEONIDOU

and inform the rest of this review included 23 documents (13 from the UK and 10 from Cyprus),
including two influential reports that preceded the passing of laws relating to the integration of stu-
dents categorised as having special educational needs in the mainstream school, and the subsequent
Codes of Practice that were developed in each country. The rest of the documents collected for the
study were used to inform the analysis and to contextualise the findings. Table 1 presents the key
documents used for the study in chronological order.
We adopted a qualitative, interpretive approach to the study, based on a belief that people are
creative and actively construct their social world, situations are fluid and changing, events are richly
affected by the context in which they are situated. We shared the belief that ‘The aim of scientific
investigation for the interpretive researcher is to understand how this glossing of reality goes on
at one time and in one place, and compare it with what goes on in different times and places’
(Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011, 18). From this standpoint, there are multiple interpretations
of and perspectives on single events and situations. The interpretive approach is essentially con-
cerned with interpreting the world in terms of its actors. It was appropriate in this context as we
aimed to explore the hidden values and meanings behind taken-for-granted legislation and policy
texts. A key function of policy research is to make these hidden values visible. In addition, inter-
national policy research needs to locate the policy being investigated within the context of practice
to which the policy refers.
We agreed to read all the documents at least three times, noting the definitions, terminology,
principles, processes and procedures for identification and assessment for comparative purposes.
In the second stage of documentary analysis we compared specific wording, using constant compari-
son to identify key themes and develop assertions. We were conscious that our own views and values
may influence the analysis and interpretation of the data particularly as our study is about exploring
values into practice. As two researchers with common and different insights engaged in interpreting
the documents from their own standpoint, we tried to negotiate meaning. What we had in common
was our background in inclusive education and our understanding of the complexities in developing

Table 1. Table showing comparative chronology of documentary evidence.

England – Act or text Year Cyprus – Act or text Year
Elementary Education (Defective and 1899
Epileptic Children)
School for the Blind St Barnabas (chapter 168) Act. 1957
Regulations of the School for the Deaf 1971
Education Act (The Butler Act) 1944 Law 47/79 The Special Education Law of 1979 1979
Handicapped Pupils and School Health 1945
Service Regulations
Education Act (Handicapped Children) 1970 Special Educational Bulletin 1988
Warnock Report 1978 Constantinides Report 1992
Integration of Deaf Children Act 1993
Special Education Information Bulletin 1996
Education Act 1981 The Education and Training of Children with Special 1999
enacted Needs Act (N. 113(I)/99) enacted
1983 (amended in 2001 and 2014) 2001
Regulations Κ.Δ.Π.185/2001 2001
Regulations Κ.Δ.Π.186/2001 (amended in 2013)
Code of Practice on the Identification and 1994 Code of Practice for Referring Children with Special 2003
Assessment of Special Educational Needs to the Special Education and Training District
Needs Committees
Education Act 1996
Special Educational Needs and 2001
Disabilities Act (SENDA)
SEN Code of Practice 2001
Equality Act 2010
Children and Families Act 2014
Special Educational Needs and Disability 2014
Code of Practice 0–25
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 779

and implementing policies related to children categorised as having ‘special educational needs’ and
disabilities. What differed was our conceptualisation of the education system and historical develop-
ments in education in each country. We made a conscious effort to makes sense of the documents in
each social context (Punch 2005), while at the same time we tried to understand any patterns in pol-
icy developments followed by the two countries. The evidence indicated that policy developments in
Cyprus and England followed a similar route through four thematic phases, representing the sprit,
context and chronology of the documents, albeit with Cyprus moving some years behind England.
Although we appreciate that collecting reliable government publications from both countries, and
using our knowledge/experiences of the local in order to provide the best possible interpretations are
the main strengths of our research, at the same time we acknowledge that there are limitations. Rely-
ing on important policy documents from England and Cyprus may not fully uncover all the factors
that shaped the context of influence which led to the context of text production that we are examining.
Clearly, in Cyprus, pressure groups such as the disability movement, the parents and the teachers
lobbied for policy developments. These pressure groups interacted with Ministry officials and
MPs in their effort to improve policy (Symeonidou 1999, 2007). However, we are not aware of
the extent to which pressure groups and policymakers were familiar with English policymaking.
Future research could focus on the involvement of government officials and pressure groups in
the context of influence and in the context of text production.

Phase 1 – charitable segregation and categorisation

England
In England, early official reference to dividing children into educational groups can be traced to
Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893. This was extended shortly afterwards
in 1899, when the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act was passed. The
Act heralded the first statutory requirement for local authorities to provide special schools or classes
for certain groups of children. It distinguished two clinical categories of children – those who were
‘mentally defective’ and those who were not. It gave power to the local authority to ascertain which
children were ‘epileptic’ or ‘defective’. Mental ‘defectives’ were described as those who,
not being imbecile, and not being merely dull or backward, are defective, that is to say, […] by reason of mental
or physical defect are incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in the ordinary public elemen-
tary schools, but are not incapable by reason of such defect of receiving benefit from instruction in such special
classes or schools as are in this Act mentioned (Chapter 32 of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epi-
leptic Children) Act, 1899).

This indicated that some children’s needs may be met in the ‘ordinary’ schools but the remainder
were still capable of learning, if education was provided in a segregated class or school. This require-
ment for local authorities to make separate provision for certain groups was extended in 1921, to
include ‘Blind, Deaf, Defective and Epileptic’ children. At this stage, the ‘defect’ was clearly located
within the child, an individual deficit certified by a school medical officer. Here we find the origins of
an approach later referred to as the ‘medical model’, where educational failure or difficulty in learn-
ing were viewed as a medical problem belonging to the individual concerned, which needs treating,
curing or at least ameliorating.
Children were commonly classified by measurement of intelligence or an intelligence quotient
(IQ) which measured the ratio of the mental age to the chronological age. Labels were assigned to
the various scores below the average of 100. Those scoring 85–100 were known as ‘retarded’,
those with an IQ of 85–70 were termed ‘dull’ (approximately 15%), whilst those scoring 70–50
were described as ‘feeble-minded’ or ‘mentally defective’ (1.5%), and viewed as the lowest intelligence
level that can be educated in a school. Children with an IQs of below 50 were deemed ‘ineducable’
(0.4%). This simplistic numerical categorisation provided a crude justification for segregation and
negative labelling of individuals, because of their apparent learning needs. The ‘ineducable’ group
780 C. JONES AND S. SYMEONIDOU

were deemed capable of training, and based in health authority provision, rather than being capable
of learning, in the traditional sense of attending a school or class.

Cyprus
In Cyprus, the first phase was also characterised by the gradual establishment of segregated special
schools (Phtiaka 2007). Symeonidou (2009) refers to this period as consisting of the triad of society,
church and charity which shaped early provision and formed the roots of the values and attitudes
that were to prevail for many years. The first two special schools, 1929, School for the Blind, and
1953, School for the Deaf, were the outcome of charitable initiatives and were managed by private
boards. The colonial government supported the schools financially, but charity funds were necessary
for the functioning of the schools.
The wife of the British governor in Cyprus, Dame Louisa Storrs, promoted and supported the
opening of the first special school for blind people in 1929 (School for the Blind 2016). In 1957
the premises and all the assets of the School for the Blind passed in the colonial government (School
for the Blind St Barnabas (chapter 168) Act of 1957). The Pancyprian Association for the Welfare of
the Blind, founded by sighted people in 1972, supported the School financially, whereas the govern-
ment paid the staff salaries.
The School for the Deaf opened in 1953 with the financial support of the Nicosia Rotary Club and
the agreement of the colonial government. Apart from Nicosia Rotary Club, the Nicosia Municipal-
ity, other organisations and wealthy parents supported the functioning of the school, whereas the
colonial government provided the school equipment and the staff salaries (Savvides 2003). The
charitable nature of the School is evident in archival photos published in the booklet for the 50-
year anniversary from the establishment of the School (e.g. the mayor of Nicosia Lellos Demetriades
dressed as Santa Claus gives presents to the deaf students of the School). The Church was close to the
school as it donated land for the new building and Archbishop Makarios was present in celebrations
and important activities of the School (Symeonidou 2009).
Other examples of special schools are a school for young prisoners (1943–1986, Lapithos Juvenile
Detention School), a school for children with cerebral palsy (1957, Cyprus Red Cross Home for Sick
Children), schools for ‘mentally retarded’ children (from 1965 onwards) and the school for ‘malad-
justed’ children (1979), later renamed as Nicosia Special School. The gradual establishment of special
schools did not follow a legislative framework but it was guided by informal networks between policy
figures, charitable organisations, and ‘enlightened’ parents and teachers.
Cyprus was a British colony from 1878 until 1960, and therefore patterns of policy and provision
mirrored those in the UK. As it is the case with colonial countries, there were unequal power
relationships between the governors and the locals. Over the years, Cypriots’ dissatisfaction
increased, as the economy became poor and progress was slow. Their claim to be unified with Greece
led to the National Liberation Struggle (1955–1959). Cyprus became an independent republic in
1960, and Archbishop Makarios became president. Thus the Church and the government had the
same leader until 1977 when Archbishop Makarios died. The blurred role of Church and State
guided the responses to disability-related issues in this phase (Symeonidou 2009).

Phase 2 – enlightened legitimisation and categorisation

England
The next key milestone in England, at the context of influence, was the Education Act of 1944 or
‘Butler Act’ which reaffirmed the duty of local authority medical officers to ascertain which children
had a ‘disability of mind or body’ that called for ‘special educational treatment’. It was followed by an
attempt to move away from a sharp classification based on deficiency and remove the stigma of being
referred to as defective in some way. The Act was coupled with the Handicapped Pupils and School
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 781

Health Service Regulations (1945) which depicted eleven categories of ‘handicap’: blind, partially
sighted, deaf, partially deaf, delicate, diabetic, educationally subnormal, epileptic, maladjusted, phys-
ically handicapped and those with speech defects. The term ‘educationally subnormal’ was widely
welcomed as enlightened compared to ‘mentally defective’. The Act endorsed the view that children
had problems due to ‘medical categories of handicap’ that could be diagnosed, reinforced the dom-
inance of medical model and failed to acknowledge that a child’s educational needs may stem from
external circumstances.

Cyprus
Meanwhile in Cyprus the culture of segregation on the grounds of disability was becoming firmly
entrenched with special schools being viewed as the best and only place for children. These special
education practices informed policy formation and in 1978. The Ministry of Education (MoE) pre-
sented a draft legislation mainly to monitor all the emerging issues around the functioning of special
schools. The consultation process of the draft legislation was conducted between the stakeholders,
such as the representatives of the MoE, members of the parliament and representatives of four par-
ental associations (Symeonidou 2007). According to archival material retrieved from the Cyprus Par-
liament, the consultation was brief and conducted in a friendly atmosphere as both the state and
parents shared the view that the time had come for special schools to be under the jurisdiction of
the MoE (Cyprus Parliament, March 19 1979).
A special education law was a necessary step as the state needed to legitimise the functioning of the
special schools that had already been established through charities and were managed by private boards.
Cyprus then secured segregating legislation with The Special Education Act of 1979. This was the
first unified legislation that legitimised the provision of special education in segregated special
schools. It introduced four official categories of children who were entitled to special education: dis-
prosarmosta (maladjusted), askisima (trainable) somatikos anapira (bodily impaired) and ekpedefti-
kos kathisterounta (mentally retarded). Although the law does not define the aforementioned
categories, relevant information is found in the National Curriculum of 1981 (MoE 1981), which
was concerned with further categorising ‘mentally retarded’ children the ‘educable’ (IQ 55–76),
the ‘trainable’ (IQ 25–54) and the ‘severely retarded’ (IQ 0–24). According to the same source, ‘edu-
cable’ children were placed in special classes functioning in the mainstream schools, ‘trainable’ chil-
dren were placed in special schools for trainable children, whereas the ‘severely retarded’ children
were placed in special institutions. This information was included in a chapter entitled ‘Special Edu-
cation (schools for trainable children)’, which implies that this chapter targeted these particular
special schools, even though other special schools for children with sensory impairments were
already functioning at the time. The categories ‘maladjusted’ and ‘bodily impaired’ were not men-
tioned in the National Curriculum of 1981, and thus not defined.
According to article 4 of the 1979 Act, children could move between categories if specific factors
changed (i.e. mental ability, behaviour and skills, educational achievement, vocational skills, personal
and family details, clinical tests and other environmental factors).
The National Curriculum of 1981 (MoE 1981) highlighted that in England the Education Act of
1944 promoted the human rights of marginalised groups of children. It was seen as enlightened, and
specifically mentioned by the Cypriot National Curriculum (MoE 1981, 291) as the culmination of
long and slow process:
It took time, a lot of scientific research, and raising awareness so that the views and stereotypes about this group
of people begin to change. For example, in England, the first school for the retarded was established in 1892.
However, it took more than 50 years (with subsequent changes in the legislation and perceptions) to pass the
law of 1944, a new law that catered for a more humane society, a law that brought forward human values, and
opened the way to cater for this group of mentally retarded children. (our translation)

Nevertheless, apart from giving the MoE the authority to put private special schools under its con-
trol, the 1979 Act did not have any significant impact on patterns of provision.
782 C. JONES AND S. SYMEONIDOU

Phase 3 – integration, ‘special educational needs’ (SEN) and categorisation

England
It was not until the Education Act (Handicapped Children) 1970, that no child was deemed ‘ineduc-
able’ in England. This Act (Chapter 52) abolished the system ‘for classifying children suffering from a
disability of mind as children unsuitable for education at school’ and transferred responsibility for
the children, formerly considered incapable of learning, from Health Authorities to Educational
Authorities. The term ‘treatment’ was removed from currency. This heralded a renewed emphasis
on the education of children considered as different from the ‘norm’. In 1974, Baroness Margaret
Thatcher, Secretary of State for Education, commissioned a committee to review educational pro-
vision for ‘handicapped children and young people’ in England, Scotland and Wales. This commit-
tee, chaired by Dame Mary Warnock, published a report in 1978 entitled The Report of the
Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped children and Young People (DES 1978).
The Report, commonly referred to as The Warnock Report, intended to set out a framework for
the redirection of traditional systems based on rigid labels and categories to more responsive and
flexible arrangements. It recommended the abolition of the traditional categories of handicap and
the introduction of an umbrella term ‘special educational needs’ (defined below). The Report
suggested that this encompassed approximately 20% of children who may have SEN at any one
time, including 2% with severe and complex needs. Overtly, at least, it represented a radical change
and brought SEN into the frontline of education policymaking.
The legal response was the Education Act 1981 which brought in the new and relative concept of a
child with ‘special educational needs’ (SEN).
For the purposes of this Act a child has ‘special educational needs’ if he has a learning difficulty
which calls for special educational provision to be made for him.
… a child has a ‘learning difficulty’

(a) he has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age; or

(b) he has a disability which either prevents or hinders him

from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided in schools, within the area of the local
authority concerned, for children of his age; or

(c) he is under the age of five years and is, or would be if special educational provision were not made for him,
likely to fall within paragraph (a) or (b) when over that age.

The Education Act 1981 also called for integration, ‘wherever possible’, but still left a caveat in that
placement in mainstream was subject to certain conditions. The Act signalled a shift in thinking
from the diagnosis of disability in order to isolate, to a graduated school-based model of assessment
of children on a continuum of need in order to make appropriate provision, again on a continuum. It
required local authorities to provide additional resources for those requiring ‘special educational
provision’ through a ‘statement’ of special educational needs.
During the late 1980s and 1990s, the issue of integration was beginning to be regarded related to
social and political values rather than a point of educational debate. Successive changes stemming
directly from government policies combine to create a set of experiences and responses from edu-
cational settings and those who work in them. In the early 1980s, the idea of ‘integration’ and the
concept of ‘special educational needs’ were gaining ground in the UK.

Cyprus
A significant landmark for Cyprus was the establishment of a Committee in 1991, following 25 years
behind the UK. As was the case for the Warnock Committee, the Committee was tasked to evaluate
the educational provision for disabled children and make suggestions for new legislation. In 1992, the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 783

move towards integration was strongly recommended to the state through the publication of the
comprehensive Report of the Special Committee for the Study of the Ways of Providing Help to Chil-
dren with Special Needs (Constantinides 1992), known as The Constantinides Report.
The Constantinides Report made detailed recommendations relating to the promotion of inte-
gration in policy and practice. This extremely influential report was submitted to the president of
the Republic of Cyprus in 1992, like the Warnock Report, and became the compass for later devel-
opments in special education in Cyprus in the years that followed. The Report explicitly replicated
the philosophy of the Warnock Report, making a direct reference to the 1981 Education Act
and the 1988 Education Reform Act to justify the need for a broad definition of ‘special needs’
(Constantinides 1992, 89–90):
In England, as a result of the Warnock Report of 1978, the 1981 Education Act passed, and it should be read in
relation to the 1988 Education Act. The categorization between educable and non-educable children mentioned
in the 1944 Education Act had already been abolished, and the adoption of a unified term stopped the categ-
orization of children. Emphasis was placed on the special need of each child and to the necessary effort that
needs to be made to meet the need. The definition of children with special educational needs in the aforemen-
tioned law is as follows (the definition follows translated in Greek). The Committee believes that this is a
balanced definition and it suggests its adoption. (our translation)

It is important to note that even though the Committee acknowledged that the term used in the UK
was ‘special educational needs’ and directly quoted the same definition, it was the term ‘special needs’
that was used mostly throughout the report.
The Committee made a series of suggestions that guided the development of the law to follow,
again mirroring those in the Warnock Report (DES 1978). These included the establishment of a
staged assessment procedure, the extension of the education of children with special needs beyond
the age of 18; provision of special education for children prior to statutory school age, the introduc-
tion of the role of the SENCO (referred to as sindetikos litourgos, joining official), and arrangements
for school placement and special education support (special school or special setting in the main-
stream school).
Although the law promoting integration was still being negotiated, the MoEC had already
adopted the rhetoric of integration and the term ‘special needs’ in other policy documents. For
example, the national curriculum of 1994 and a slightly amended version of it published in 1996
reflected the widespread perception that ‘children with special needs’ were expected to attend special
schools and thus were entitled to special education provision (MoEC 1994, 1996). The Primary Edu-
cation Curricula (MoEC 1996) included a chapter entitled ‘Education of Children with Special
Needs’, which was placed between the chapters that described the goals and content of the different
subject areas. The introductory note of the chapter explained the international shift towards inte-
gration, but the wording was cautious, conceivably because there was no legislation in Cyprus to
legitimise integration at the time of publication:
Today, a large group of special educators have begun to support the idea that children, regardless of their pro-
blem, should be educated in the least restrictive environment […] In Cyprus, integration is successfully applied
in several cases […] special schools continue to be considered necessary and important for children with more
serious problems … . (MoEC 1996, 159, our translation)

The Cyprus education system entered the era of integration seven years after Constantinides Report,
with the passing of the Education of Children with Special Needs Act 1999 officially implemented in
2001 (Phtiaka 2007). The 1999 Act, which is still in force, was the outcome of a long consultation pro-
cess with all stakeholders (Symeonidou 1999). Cyprus was following the UK again and the new law
mirrored the rhetoric of the Education Act 1981. Although it used the term ‘special needs’ rather
than ‘special educational needs’ the legal definition was virtually the same and is worth quoting for
comparison,
A child is considered to have ‘special needs’ if a child has a serious learning or special learning, functioning
or adjusting difficulty, caused by physical, mental or other gnostic or psychological deficiencies and
784 C. JONES AND S. SYMEONIDOU

having need of special education and training. A child shall have a special learning, functioning or adjusting
difficulty if:

(a) It has a significantly greater difficulty compared with the majority of children the same age or
(b) a disability which prevents impedes, excludes or hinders him from using the education provision
resources in mainstream schools generally provided for children the same age (our translation).

Although the Constantinides Report suggested adopting the definition of ‘special educational needs’
as it appeared in the 1981 Education Act, the term ‘special needs’ prevailed. It might be that this was
the result of translating the term in Greek language. In particular, it has been argued that many terms
that are related to special and inclusive education are often not translated in Greek accurately
because being well received in Greek language is considered more important than conveying the
exact meaning (Symeonidou and Phtiaka 2012). The increased use of ‘special needs’ throughout
Constantinides Report, and the use of this term in documents that preceded and followed the Report,
supports this assumption. The preference for ‘special needs’ may also be explained by the fact that in
Cyprus the definition of the term refers to children who may have a range of ‘needs’ that are not
necessarily cognitive, as was the case in the UK.
Other important aspects of the new law were the introduction of the identification and assessment
procedure, details about the provision of special education in special settings, the parents’ right to
participate in the assessment procedure and express their disagreement with the final decision,
and the right to attend public schools up to the age of 21. The 1999 Act and Regulations (185/
2001 and 186/2001) mirrored the 5-stage model and ‘statementing’ procedure of the Education
Act 1981, albeit 20 years later and in a different context.
The law provided the first official commitment to integration as the general rule, with the option
of special schools only applicable in ‘exceptional cases’. However, from its inception, this legislation
was burdened with the legacy of a segregated educational system and the reluctance of the state to
support it financially (Symeonidou 1999). Integration was primarily viewed as related to placement
rather than the quality of that placement, and the special education system (withdrawal in special
settings, special education provision and so on) was reproduced in the mainstream rather than
any fundamental change.
In Cyprus, during this period, a number of reports evaluating the quality of special schooling and
the progress of integration were submitted to the MoEC. These reports were compiled by UNESCO
experts who visited Cyprus (Benevento 1980; Birch-Rasmussen and Trier 1992; Hansen 1994), and
other experts invited by the ministry (Markides 1990; Barnard 1997; Paschalis 1997). A research
report funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Phtiaka et al. 2005) identified a series of
problems in the implementation of the law, such as teachers’ beliefs (they believe that ‘special’ sup-
port in segregating settings is more effective compared to education in the mainstream class),
inadequate resources, inexistent time for co-operation between special and general class teachers,
ineffective legislative framework and so on. Similar findings were recorded in another research pro-
ject (Symeonidou and Phtiaka 2009, 2012, 2014). It appeared that the 1999 Act was a necessary pol-
itical step which was not followed by a shared philosophy regarding the education of disabled
children.

Phase 4 – inclusion, SEND and categorisation

England
Meanwhile, it appears that England was moving ahead with the passing of the Education Act 1993,
(later replaced by the 1996 Education Act) and the associated Code of Practice on the Identification
and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (Department for Education and Employment – DfEE
1994) which retained the umbrella definition of SEN from 1981, yet referred to eight official
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 785

categories: learning difficulties; specific learning difficulties; emotional and behavioural difficulties;
physical disabilities; sensory impairment/hearing; sensory impairment/visual; speech and language
difficulties; medical conditions. Each of these also incorporated sub-categories. Specific learning dif-
ficulties (SLD), for example, included Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia; speech and language difficul-
ties include Dysphasia and Dyspraxia. In spite of the abolition of the categories of ‘handicap’ and the
use of SEN as representing a continuum, this period represented a renewed emphasis on categories
and labels.
However, there was some progress in that the Code (DfEE 1994) provided a clear rationale for
educating children in the mainstream and adopted the more recent term ‘inclusion’ rather than inte-
gration. Inclusion initially implied a subtle shift of emphasis from placement to the quality of the
placement. The Green Paper (DfEE 1997) developed these ideas and set out a vision of excellence
for all:
There are therefore strong educational, as well as social and moral, grounds for educating children with SEN
with their peers. We aim to increase the level and quality of inclusion within mainstream schools, whilst pro-
tecting and enhancing specialist provision for those who need it. (DfEE 1997, 43, our emphasis)

The 1996 Education Act was later amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act
(SENDA) 2001 which, rhetorically, at least, reinforced the Government’s commitment to the
inclusion of children with SEN in mainstream. A revised statutory version, the Code of Practice
(DfES 2001), came into force, which included a new section on early years’ education. The revised
Code (DfES 2001, 1.3) grouped needs into four categories: communication and interaction; cogni-
tion and learning; behavioural, emotional and social development; sensory and/or physical.
A change of government resulted in a renewed focus on special educational needs with the pub-
lication of the Green Paper, Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and
disability (DfE 2012) which set out plans for ‘radically reforming’ the current system. This resulted in
yet another revised Code of Practice the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0–
25 years (DfE and Department of Health – DoH 2014). In spite of claiming to be ‘radical’, the
changes, based on Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014, are fairly limited when compared
to the previous Code (DfES 2001). There is a greater emphasis on support that enables children cate-
gorised as having SEN to succeed in their education and make a successful transition to adulthood.
The revised Code (DfE and DoH 2014) provides a clearer focus on the views of children and young
people and on their role in decision-making; it includes guidance on the joint planning and commis-
sioning of services to ensure close co-operation between education, health services and social care.
Otherwise, the assessment process is fundamentally similar to the previous Codes, with three school-
based stages (assess, plan, do) followed by review. Then, again as was previously the case, followed by
two more stages, a referral for a multi-disciplinary needs assessment and eventually for children and
young people with more complex needs, a new 0–25 Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC plan)
gradually replaced the statements of special educational needs. The definition of SEN, by this time,
almost 50 years old remains virtually unchanged. The emphasis on identification and assessment of
individuals with SEND retains and reinforces the operational dominance of the medical model,
rather than a philosophical belief in the rights of every child to be included in the broadest sense.

Cyprus
Two years after the implementation of the 1999 law, the MoEC also circulated a Code of Practice
(MoEC 2003). Although only 14 pages of text and forms, the circular was developed to encourage
schools to work with students believed to have ‘special needs’ prior to referring them for assessment.
Following a similar pattern to the UK SEN Code of 1994 (DfEE 1994), the Cypriot Code of Practice
introduced a five-staged assessment procedure consisting of 3 steps, taking approximately 5 months:
firstly, within class support, agreed between class teacher and parents (1 month); secondly, within
school support agreed between the class teacher, the parents and the head of the school (2 months);
786 C. JONES AND S. SYMEONIDOU

and thirdly, support with extra help agreed between the class teacher, the parents, the head and
specialists such as therapists and doctors (2 months). After the completion of the collective effort
to support the student, if the student is still believed to have ‘special needs’ then s/he can be referred
for assessment. The Code of Practice can be disapplied if a child has a disability which is verified by a
doctor, for example, blindness, deafness, a medical condition.
According to the Code of Practice circular (MoEC 2003, 2–3):
It is evident that the assessment procedure, which is time-consuming and costly, shall not be followed without
consideration, so that it is possible to serve quickly and effectively children who are in real need. At the same
time, however, the immediate, early, and systematic intervention shall be secured at school level so that children
with mild difficulties are helped.

The Code does not substitute in any way the procedures of the Law about the assessment of children with
special needs. It aims at clarifying consistent procedures related to the identification, assessment and education
of children at school level to ensure that:

(a) The school takes responsibility to provide help to all the children who need it and
(b) Referrals to the District Committees are about cases for which, despite all the preliminary work,
the systematic and co-ordinated effort taken by the school, and the assistance of specialists and
other mechanisms, the difficulties persist (our translation, emphases in the original).

The Code of Practice has been in place since it was circulated and it is viewed as a means to reduce or
delay the referrals for statutory assessment.
Even though the integration law of 1999 was slightly amended in 2014, the policy framework
remains the same as in the law of 1999.
A related development is the New National Curriculum (NNC) published in 2010 (MoEC 2010)
as part of wider Education Reform which began in 2004. Unlike the previous national curricula, no
chapter on special education is included in the NNC. Instead, the philosophy of inclusive education
is stated in a separate booklet (Phtiaka 2010) which serves as complementary to the NNC document.
However, research evidence suggests that the philosophy of inclusive education is not reflected in the
NNC at all, diversity is defined in a narrow way and disabled students were not considered in the
wording of the goals, the contents, the teaching methods and assessment (Mavrou and Symeonidou
2014; Symeonidou and Mavrou 2014).

Conclusion
This review has provided a comparative analysis of SEND policymaking in Cyprus and England over
the cycle of a century. It has illustrated that although at the context of influence, Cyprus is operating
in a totally different socio-cultural historical, political and economic landscape, Cypriot policy-
makers have engaged in what we refer to as ‘policy snatching’. At central level, Cypriot policymakers
have allowed English terminology and ideas to dominate the discourse of SEND, rather than con-
sider their own socio-cultural historical context. Indeed, Cyprus has produced very little, indepen-
dently of English policy.
Our documentary analysis of the spirit, content and chronology of the policy trajectory identified
that both countries have followed a similar route, at a different pace. Both countries have travelled
through four phases, starting from the gradual establishment of special, segregated provision, based
on individual and charitable origins and a national philosophy of segregation, and moving to the
growth of state provision, and a national philosophy of integration. More recently, in the UK, the
rhetoric in the policy documents reflects an attempt to embrace the broader philosophy of inclusion.
At the context of political strategy this implies change at societal level and focus on quality of pro-
vision for all children, as opposed to any one selected category or group. At the context of outcomes in
Cyprus, the notion of integration, however, is still largely related to placement rather than quality.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 787

The broader concept of inclusion has not yet been embraced in policy or in practice, with
special education simply being offered by special teachers in mainstream buildings or in special
schools.
Drawing on the well-known Aesop’s fable of the Hare and Tortoise, the evidence has be used to
symbolically characterise Cyprus as the tortoise, crawling very slowly behind England as the hare,
who appears, overtly at least, to be moving ahead. Acknowledging that the route towards inclusive
education is a journey, rather than a ‘race’ to a fixed destination, inclusive policymaking and
implementation have been presented as associated with a direction of travel, a route towards an ideo-
logical goal, rather than static set of processes. Chronologically, however, at the context of influence,
Cypriot policy has been formulated on average 16 years behind England.
In relation to the context of text production, the tortoise, again in the chronological sense, appears
to be following literally in England’s footsteps, as exemplified by the Warnock Report (DES 1978)
and Constantinides Report (1992). The Code of Practice (MoEC 2003) in Cyprus is very brief on
comparison with England (DfEE 1994; DfES 2001) with responses at the context of outcomes
being largely procedural in nature. In spite of the claim that the most recent SEND Code of Practice
(DfE and DoH 2014) will play a vital role in underpinning ‘major reform’, it appears on close exam-
ination to merely replicate the definitions and staged assessment procedures established by the 1981
Education Act, albeit using different terminology.
In relation to the context of hidden values, there has been limited fundamental change in
approach. The division of the Elementary Education Act 1899 between ‘defective’ or ‘not defective’
is retained in the distinction between ‘special’ and ‘normal’. The concept of ‘special’ in relation to
children’s needs continues to be linked to the deficit view and has served to perpetuate inequalities
and categorisation. Both countries continue to apply outdated legal definitions and procedures,
with successive governments in England ignoring opportunities to redefine SEN or to use inclusive
language. Instead, categorisation is constantly increasing, with little fundamental change taking
place.
The evidence suggests that policymakers need to develop a sense of policy literacy, seeing beyond
the rhetoric and committing to the policy aims, socially, economically and philosophically. Interna-
tionally, at the context of political strategy, if policymakers are to engage in the process of policy
snatching, there is a need to find extensive, reliable, evaluative evidence that the policies being
adopted have achieved their desired goals and are likely to be successful in a different time and
place. However, the tortoise has not emerged from his shell to take a look at the surrounding
landscape and the hare appears to be dreaming. This review points to an urgent need to engage
in a critical consideration of the underlying values and purposes of education and of the provision
not only for children categorised as having SEN and disability but for all children. It remains to be
seen whether the recent Cypriot vision of the ‘humane and democratic school’ (MoEC 2010) will
become a reality, or whether the tortoise will eventually move ahead of the hare.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Caroline Jones is a part-time Associate Fellow in the Centre for Lifelong Learning, University of Warwick. She is a
founder member of the National SEFDEY Network and former Chair of the Midlands Region. Her key research inter-
ests are Leadership and Professional Development in Early Childhood Education, and Special Educational Needs. She
has published a number of articles and chapters in edited books. Caroline’s most well-known publications are Support-
ing Inclusion in the Early Years (2004) and Leadership and Management in the Early Years: Principles to Practice
(2008). Caroline is active in research and in consultancy abroad. She owns two early years settings and is committed
to collaborative working with local authorities and developing partnerships with local schools and early years settings.
788 C. JONES AND S. SYMEONIDOU

Simoni Symeonidou is an Assistant Professor (Inclusive Education) at the Department of Education of the University
of Cyprus. Her research interests include teacher education for inclusive education, curriculum development for
inclusive education, inclusive education policy and practice, and disability politics. Her publications include articles
in international peer-reviewed journals, book chapters, two books in Greek, and a book in English (Purpose, Process
and Future Direction of Disability Research, 2013), co-edited with Karen Beauchamp-Pryor. Simoni is the scientific co-
ordinator of the research project ‘Tessearae of Knowledge’ ( www.ucy.ac.cy/psifides-gnosis); a project focusing on the
collection, digitisation, dissemination, and usage of material produced by disabled people and people with chronic
illnesses.

References
Ball, S. 1994. Politics and Policymaking in Education. London: Routledge.
Barnard, A. 1997. Integration of Children with Special Educational Needs. Report prepared for the Ministry of
Education. Newcastle upon Tyne: Barnard.
Benevento, J. 1980. Cyprus. Special Education. Restricted technical report. Paris: UNESCO.
Birch-Rasmussen, S., and M. Trier. 1992. Cyprus. Education of the Deaf. Restricted technical report. Paris: UNESCO.
Blaxter, L., C. Hughes, and M. Tight. 1996. How to Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bowe, R., S. Ball, and A. Gold. 1992. Reforming Education and Changing Schools. London: Routledge.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. 7th ed. Oxon: Routledge.
Constantinides, G. 1992. Report of the Special Committee for the Study of the Ways of Providing Help to Children with
Special Needs. Nicosia: Constantinides. (in Greek).
Cyprus Parliament. 1979, March 19. Report of the Parliamentary Committee of Education about the Special Education
White Paper. Nicosia: Cyprus Parliament. (in Greek).
DES (Department of Education and Science). 1978. Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of
Handicapped Children and Young People. London: HMSO.
DfE and DoH (Department for Education and Department of Health). 2014. Special Educational Needs and Disability
Code of Practice: 0–25 Years. London: DfE and DoH.
DfE (Department for Education). 2012. Support for Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and
Disability – A Consultation. Green paper. London: DfO.
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). 1994. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of
Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE.
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). 1997. Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational
Needs. London: The Stationery Office.
DfES (Department for Education and Skills). 2001. Special Educational Needs: Code of Practice. London: DfES.
Farrell, A. 2001. “Policy Research.” In Doing Early Childhood Research. International Perspectives on Theory and
Practice, edited by G. MacNaughton, S. A. Rolfe, and I. Siraj-Blatchford, 240–253. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Georgeson, J., J. Payler, and V. Campbell-Barr. 2013. The Importance of International Perspectives. In International
Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Care, edited by J. Georgeson, J. Payler, and V. Campbell-Barr, 3–8.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Hansen, J. 1994. Cyprus. Educational Service for Handicapped Students. Restricted technical report. Paris: UNESCO.
Howie, D. 2010. “A Comparative Study of the Positioning of Children with Special Educational Needs in the
Legislation of Britain, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 14
(8): 755–776.
Jones, C. 2004. Supporting Inclusion in the Early Years. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Jones, C., and S. Leverett. 2008. “Policy into Practice: Assessment, Evaluation and Multi-agency Working with
Children.” In Changing Children’s Services; Working and Learning Together, edited by P. Foley, and A. Rixon,
123–166. Bristol: The Policy Press in association with Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Markides, A. 1990. Special Educational Needs. Nicosia: Markides.
Mavrou, K., and S. Symeonidou. 2014. “Employing the Principles of Universal Design for Learning to Deconstruct the
Greek-Cypriot New National Curriculum.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (9): 918–933.
MoE (Ministry of Education). 1981. Curriculum for Basic Education Schools. Nicosia: MoE (Ministry of Education).
MoEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). 1994. National Curriculum for Primary Education in the Context of Nine-
year Education. Nicosia: Department of Programme Development.
MoEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). 1996. Document of Information about Special Education. Nicosia:
Department of Programme Development.
MoEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). 1996. National Curriculum for Primary Education in the Context of Nine-
year Education. Nicosia: Department of Programme Development.
MoEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). 2003. Code of Practice for Referring Children with Special Needs to the
District Committees of Special Education and Training (Circular). Nicosia: MoEC. (in Greek).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 789

MoEC (Ministry of Education and Culture). 2010. National Curriculum for the pre-Primary, Primary and Secondary
Education. Nicosia: Cyprus Pedagogical Institute and Programme Development Service. (in Greek).
Nutbrown, C., P. Clough, and F. Atherton. 2013. Inclusion in the Early Years. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Paschalis, P. 1997. A Study for the Educational Needs of Autistic Children or Children with Autistic Characteristics in
Cyprus. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Phtiaka, H. 2003. “The Power to Exclude: Facing the Challenge of Inclusive Education in Cyprus.” International
Journal of Contemporary Sociology 40 (1): 139–152.
Phtiaka, H. 2007. “Educating the Other: A Journey.” In Cyprus Time and Space. In Policy, Experience and Change:
Cross-Cultural Reflections on Inclusive Education, edited by L. Barton, and F. Armstrong, 147–161. London:
Springer.
Phtiaka, H. 2010. Inclusive Education: Education for all in a Democratic and Humane School. Nicosia: Ministry of
Education and Culture, Cyprus Pedagogical Institute and Programme Development Service. (in Greek).
Phtiaka, H., A. Michaelidou, C. Tsouris, and S. Vlami. 2005. The Implementation of the Educational Legislation 113(I)/
99 in Cyprus Schools: Phase A – Pre-primary and Primary Education. Report submitted to the Minister of Education
and Culture (in Greek).
Punch, K. 2005. Introduction to Social Research. London: Sage.
Savvides, G. 2003. “School for the Deaf: A 50 Years’ Journey.” In School for the Deaf: A Fifty Years’ Journey, edited by
the School for the Deaf, 11–27. Nicosia: Cyprus Press and Information Office.
School for the Blind. 2016. “The History of the School for the Blind ‘St Barnabas.’” Accessed January 31, 2016. http://
eid-scholi-tyflon-lef.schools.ac.cy/ (in Greek).
Symeonidou, S. 1999. “Special Education in Cyprus: Policy and Practice.” Bachelor Thesis, University of Cyprus,
Nicosia.
Symeonidou, S. 2007. “Parental Involvement in Education Politics: The Case of Disabled Children.” Mediterranean
Journal of Educational Studies 12 (2): 45–67.
Symeonidou, S. 2009. “Trapped in Our Past: The Price We Have to Pay for Our Cultural Disability Inheritance.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 13 (6): 565–579.
Symeonidou, S., and K. Mavrou. 2014. “Deconstructing the Greek-Cypriot new National Curriculum: To What Extent
are Disabled Children Considered in the ‘Humane and Democratic School’ of Cyprus?” Disability and Society 29
(2): 303–316.
Symeonidou, S., and H. Phtiaka. 2009. “Using Teachers’ Prior Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs to Develop in-Service
Teacher Education Courses for Inclusion.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (4): 543–550.
Symeonidou, S., and H. Phtiaka. 2012. Teacher Education for Inclusion: From Research to Praxis. Athens: Pedio. (in
Greek).
Symeonidou, S., and H. Phtiaka. 2014. “‘My Colleagues Wear Blinkers … If They Were Trained, They Would
Understand Better’. Reflections on Teacher Education on Inclusion in Cyprus.” Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs 14 (2): 110–119.
Tobin, J., Y. Hsueh, and M. Karasawa. 2009. Pre-school in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan and the United States.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tomlinson, S. 1982. A Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Troyna, B. 1993. “Critical Social Research and Education Policy.” Paper presented to the Conference on New
Directions in Education Policy Sociology’, 30–31 March 1993.