Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Inclusive policy, segregating practice:
A cultural analysis of the impairment discourse reflected in the
official and hidden curricula in Cyprus

Simoni Symeonidou
University of Cambridge

Symposium: On the way to inclusion: the case of Cyprus

INTRODUCTION

Culture is increasingly recognised as a means to conceptualise cross-cultural phenomena and is considered a fundamental requirement for analyses in different disciplines (Hofstede, 2001).   In disability studies, the way disabled people experience disability across cultures has attracted considerable attention (Ingstad and Whyte, 1995).   Furthermore, the argument that disabled people’s oppression has its roots in ancient Western culture has been well-documented (Barnes, 1996; 1997).   In education, culture has been associated with curriculum as the latter reflects the culture of a country and emphasises the cultural features which are to be transmitted from generation to generation.   Curriculum, either official or unofficial/hidden, constructs knowledge and shapes attitudes in different ways, and thus, it is an area which receives considerable attention by academics in the field.   My attempt in this paper is to merge the concerns of disability studies scholars and educationalists about the relationship between culture and disability by analysing the cultural features reflected in the curricula through discourse which I consider oppressive to disabled children.   In this introductory section, however, I set the context for Greek-Cypriot culture, I refer to disability related terms in Greek language and I explain the rational behind the use of archival material to explore the relationship between culture and curriculum.   

Over the years, Cyprus has experienced a good deal of political, social, and cultural turbulence.   Its more recent history emphasises the impact of Ottoman sovereignty (1571-1878) and British colonialism (1878-1959) in shaping powerful national identities on behalf of Greek-Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, the two principal ethnic communities of Cyprus.   Cyprus was declared an independent republic in 1960 and adopted a constitution which gave political rights both to Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots.   However, the political tension between the two ethnic leaderships over the new constitution caused serious conflicts between the two communities.  On July 15 th, 1974, the ruling military junta of Greece tried to overthrow the government of Cyprus.   Turkey, using this as a pretext, invaded Cyprus on July 20 th 1974 to restore constitutional order.   Since then, the two communities were forced to split geographically and Cyprus was divided in two parts.   The invasion and occupation of the country has been condemned by the UN General Assembly, whereas other European and international bodies have claimed the full restoration of human rights in the island.   In May 2004 Cyprus accessed the European Union, while its main political problem still remains unresolved.

The long troubled political history of Cyprus is reflected in the Greek-Cypriot culture through two important features: Greek-Cypriot nationalism and Orthodox Christian religion.   The importance of these features lies in the fact that they have traditionally functioned as a counter-weight of the Turkish-Cypriots’ attachment to Turkey and Muslim religion.   Thus, I would argue that through nationalism and religion, Greek-Cypriots found a way to maintain their cultural existence which was constantly threatened over the years.   During the last few decades, however, Greek-Cypriots have submitted themselves to the superiority of the West and they have become Western subjects, arguably because ‘from a poor, largely self-contained, self-sustained British colony in the 1930s, Cyprus has transformed itself into an affluent, semi-occupied, European neo-colony’ (Argyrou 1996: 183).   This spectacular transformation led Cypriots to identify themselves with Western, European, ‘modern’ societies, denying the value of their own identity, which was only invoked when Greek-Cypriot nationalism was at stake.   Cyprus is considered by its citizens a Western society, and its recent accession to the European Union kind of confirms their belief.   However, Greek-Cypriot culture is actually a blend of all these influences as despite their Westernisation, Greek-Cypriots acknowledge the Middle-Eastern aspects of their culture among themselves.   As it is beyond the scope of this paper to analyse the impact of these features in different areas of life, I will only focus on how these are conveyed through a powerful impairment discourse which is reflected in the official and hidden curricula.

Following the recommendation that impairment, as distinct from disability, should be framed as a social and cultural issue rather than a medical or technical term (Whyte 1995 in Barnes and Mercer 2003), I have chosen to refer to impairment, rather than disability discourse because I believe that this analysis can demonstrate the cultural and historical roots of thinking and understanding through language.   Impairment discourse carries the medical assumptions constructed in the Cypriot society over the years, while at the same time it reflects social and cultural features.   Before initiating my analysis about a culturally imposed impairment discourse in the official and hidden curriculum, I need to inform the reader about the key words in this task.   In Greek language, there is no direct distinction made between impairment and disability, and thus the distinctions between the medical and the social elements represented by each term have not been made in the way they have in Britain (UPIAS, 1976).   Thus, the term anapiria is used, which is translated to disability, but it actually carries the concept of impairment.   A disabled person is known as anapiros (disabled) or atomo me anapiria (person with disability).   Disabled people do not distinguish between the two and they use both ways to refer to disabled people.   Furthermore, they do not distinguish between the terms ‘person with visual difficulties’ or ‘blind’, ‘person with hearing impairments’ or ‘deaf’, ‘person with physical impairments’ or ‘paraplegic’.   These terms, are also used interchangeably, whereas ‘blind’, ‘deaf’ and ‘paraplegic’ are more frequently used.   Furthermore, ‘people with learning difficulties’ other than reading and writing, are referred to as ‘people with mental retardation’ or ‘mentally retarded’.   Moreover, the term ‘special needs’, borrowed from the British context, is well established.   People outside the disability movement and a few disabled activists use the term atomo me idikes anagges (person with special needs) stemming from the most dominant term pedi me idikes anagges (child with special needs) which is used in the education system and it dominates media discourse.       

Arguably, impairment discourse runs through the history of ‘special education’ which is recorded in the state’s subsequent educational policies and official curricula.   Not surprisingly, educational policy, practice and discourse were heavily influenced by developments in Britain.   Impairment discourse in education has its roots in 1929 when The School for the Blind was established by the wife of the British Governor in Cyprus, while Cyprus was a British colony (Pancyprian Organisation for the Welfare of the Blind, 1982).   Not surprisingly, this initiative is associated with segregating practice taking place in Britain at the time.   The first teachers to show interest in promoting the idea of special schools in Cyprus were trained in Western countries, when the economy of Cyprus began to improve and ‘privileged young men’ (Argyrou 1996) had the opportunity to study at universities abroad, particularly in Greece and Britain.   Parents, another important part of the Westernisation chain, were convinced that segregated schooling and employment training were the best possible response to their disabled children, since these practices were successfully taking place in other Western countries, as witnessed by themselves and the new wave of teachers receiving training for ‘children with special needs’, a term borrowed from Britain.   Disabled people who had been fortunate to escape this pre-determined trajectory (education in special school and employment training in special school or special setting) and managed to pursue university education abroad could not escape internalising the superiority of the West (Symeonidou, 2005).   Thus, they returned to Cyprus furnished with linguistic terms, ideas and practices applied to improve the quality of life of disabled people in Western societies.

For the purposes of this paper, I employ only a few out of thousands of disability related articles published in the daily press and periodicals since 1980 and the most important educational documents to explain how impairment discourse is constructed and consolidated through curricula in Cyprus.   This material is only part of the archive I have created for the purposes of another disability research (Symeonidou, 2005).   I would argue that other methods could be used to help analyse culturally burdened curricula.   However, I consider that public documents and the archival material I have employed here was helpful in the sense that it was used as a tool to unravel how culture reproduces impairment discourse which is also reflected in curricula.   In this paper, references of the archival material can be found in footnotes while references of public documents can be found alongside the rest of the references used in this paper.   This distinction indicates the different character of the material used here, as newspaper articles cannot be located in the existing literature in the way public documents can.   I will now focus on my cultural analysis of official and hidden curricula through discourse which, as I will argue, prevent the development of inclusive practice in Cyprus.        

INCLUSIVE POLICY, SEGREGATING CURRICULUM

Despite the legacy of a segregating educational system, Cyprus gradually responds to international and European calls for inclusive education.   The 1999 Education of Children with Special Needs Act (Cyprus Republic, 1999), which is currently in force, legitimizes the education of all children in the mainstream school of their neighbourhood.   Education in special schools is still an option, but for ‘exceptional’ cases as the law suggests.   The only legislation prior the passing of the current legislation was the 1979 Special Education Act (Cyprus Republic, 1979), which legitimised the provision of special education in segregated settings.   This legislation, highly influenced by the British legislation of 1944, introduced four categories of children who were entitled to special education:   disprosarmosta (maladjusted), askisima (severely retarded), somatikos anapira (bodily impaired), ekpedeftikos kathisterounta (educationally retarded). Although this legislation was not abolished until 1999, integration had unofficially been taking place during the years it was in force.   In 1992, the turn towards integration was strongly recommended to the state through the Report of the Special Committee for the Study of the Ways of Providing Help to Children with Special Needs (Constantinides 1992), known as Constantinides Report.  This report, extremely influential for later developments in special education in Cyprus, introduced the concept of ‘special educational needs’, and the idea of integration, following the philosophy underpinning the Warnock Report, which came out in Britain a decade earlier.  Constandinides Report was used as a basis for the development of the current legislation which eventually passed after negotiations between the state and organised groups (parents and disabled people) over subsequent white papers.   Right from its birth, this legislation was burdened with the legacy of a segregating educational system and the reluctance of the state to support it financially (Symeonidou, 1999).   Nevertheless, its value lies in the fact that it constitutes a necessary step towards inclusive philosophy and practice.

As the physical presence of students in classrooms is no guarantee of their involvement in activities, the curriculum holds a central role in turning integration into inclusion (Thomas, Walker and Webb, 1998).   The role of the official curriculum becomes extremely important in the case of Cyprus as the education system is highly controlled by the Ministry of Education and Culture and school units have restricted autonomy to intervene either in the curriculum or the textbooks.  In this context, how does the curriculum prevent or facilitate the way towards inclusion in Cyprus?   Before I attempt to answer this question, I will briefly refer to the most important features of the Curricula of Primary Education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 1996), the official curriculum of primary education in Cyprus which covers the education of children aged between three and twelve years old.   The philosophical basis of the curriculum is summarized as follows:

The general goals of education are defined by the state according to the national, religious and cultural tradition, the socio-economic facts and the international educational, scientific, technological and cross-cultural achievements (Ministry of Education and Culture, 1996: 17, my emphasis)

Despite the rhetoric for promotion of friendship and co-operation between the ethnic communities of the country, official curriculum emphasises the Greek and Orthodox Christian character of education.   National and religious ideals run throughout the philosophical orientations of the curriculum and they are further expressed through the stated goals of subjects such as Orthodox Christian Religion, History, and Geography.   On the one hand, Orthodox Christian Religion is perceived as the only valid religion and on the other, History and Geography are believed to be the means through which students will shape powerful Greek-Cypriot identities.   Within this context, the tradition of charity which is central in the dominant religion is cultivated (Symeonidou, 2005; Phtiaka, 2003a), while at the same time powerful national identities are constructed in ways that give rise to an eternal enemy, the Turks, and other Others such as people from other ethnic groups (Spyrou, 2002; 2001, Philippou, 2003).

The official curriculum includes a chapter about the education of disabled children, namely ‘children with special needs’, which is given the character of a subject as it is located in the middle of other subject-chapters, such as Greek Language, Mathematics, Science etc.   Although the introductory section of this chapter emphasises the turn towards integration, the content of the rest of the chapter has a medical orientation and is stems from a segregating rather than an inclusive philosophy.   It is divided in five sections which address the educational goals of children with mental retardation, children with difficulties in social and emotional adjustment, children with visual problems, children with hearing problems and children with autistic characteristics (all terms are a direct translation from Greek language).   The emphasis is on goals that can be included in Individual Education Plans and there is no stated philosophy or goals about how the education of all children could be best achieved in the mainstream school.   As the proponents of the social model of disability would argue, the focus is on impairment rather than disability.   Thus, issues of effective management, differentiation and assessment, which are considered central in promoting curricular inclusion (Thomas et al., 1998), are not captured at all.   Despite the rigidness of the official curriculum, there are a few initiatives which aim to promote inclusive practice; co-teaching between support teacher and mainstream class teacher (Symeonidou, 2002a), programmes developed by teachers aiming to raise awareness about difference and disability in constructive ways (e.g. a programme called Rainbow).   The Ministry of Education and Culture often supports innovative inclusive practice and, at times, it arranges seminars so that these ideas are shared.   Nevertheless, the segregating character of the official curriculum makes the development of such initiatives difficult.   

It is worth noting that the government has recently announced its commitment to promote an educational reform based on the lengthy report Democratic and Human Education in the Euro-Cypriot state:   Perspectives of Reformulation and Updating (Educational Reform Committee, 2004), prepared by a committee appointed by the state, comprised of academics in the field.   Despite the suggestions for a democratic and multicultural education which will respect the cultural, linguistic and religious pluralism and the detailed proposals about general educational issues such as the education and in-service training of teachers, the development of national standards, the promotion of multicultural education for an open democratic society of knowledge, the development of an internal assessment system of the school unit, teaching product and teachers etc., there are no suggestions for curricular adaptations to serve the goals of inclusive education.   Furthermore, the goal of inclusive education passes unnoticed from the recommendations about the structure of the education system ranging from pre-primary and primary education to state University education.   

‘HIDDEN’ CURRICULUM, ‘HIDDEN’ SEGREGATION         

Hidden curriculum goes beyond the stated educational policy and the principles of the official curriculum as it refers to the set of knowledge taught by schools.   It is powerful in the transmission of values, beliefs and behaviour as it accommodates the main cultural features in the school setting, including the messages conveyed trough the physical environment, the content of the textbooks, the kind of language used etc.   Elsewhere, I have argued that currently, the values shared by the Greek-Cypriot society, the state and the stakeholders of education cannot support inclusive ideas (Symeonidou, 2002b).   Archival material further supports this argument as it unravels numerous examples about how hidden curriculum acts as a barrier to inclusive practice in Cyprus.   Inaccessible buildings, teachers’ and parents’ negative or charity-oriented attitudes towards disabled children, distorted understandings of the idea of integration and ignorance about inclusion are only a few of the parameters that shape hidden curriculum in Greek-Cypriot schools.   Scholars in the field provide research evidence to suggest that some of these factors make the way to inclusion problematic (Aggelides, 2004; Phtiaka 2003b).   In this section, I focus on how the legacy of the Orthodox Christian tradition of charity is embedded in the hidden curriculum which, in turn, reproduces the impairment discourse characterising the Greek-Cypriot society as a whole.  

The Orthodox Christian tradition of charity holds strong in the Greek-Cypriot context and this can be explained by the power of Orthodox Christian Church in Cyprus.   Recently, I have provided research evidence to suggest that after the independence of Cyprus in 1960 and the election of Archbishop Makarios as president, the state and the Church were attributed a blurred role (Symeonidou, 2005).   By the 1970s, the statement that ‘the state, the Church and the society should cater for disabled people’ became a cliché used in public speeches, usually delivered by non-disabled people representing disabled people.   Furthermore, priests and bishops who were traditionally invited to give their blessings in public events, school celebrations, social festivities and other gatherings have been promoting oppressive discourses towards disabled people, such as the necessity to believe in ‘miracle and cure’ expressed by Jesus Christ during his presence on earth.   Following the example of the Church, non-disabled individuals, disability organisations, special schools and the state have traditionally been encouraging charity at the expense of the development of social welfare policy (Symeonidou, 2005).   The post-1974 era further encouraged charitable calls, either in favour of people who became disabled during the war, or in favour of other groups of disabled people who were ‘victims’ of the consequences of the war.  

Children with hearing impairments was among the groups of ‘victims’ as the newly built School for the Deaf was destroyed during the war.   The headmaster of the School, Georgios Markou, addressed anxious calls for financial aid in order to rebuild it.   One of his letters was published in British newspapers, calling for financial and moral support ‘to the deaf children of Cyprus who were being educated in tents and improvised shelters’.   The organisation British Friends of Cyprus responded to his call by organising a march in London to raise money for this reason.    One year later, the Association of Deaf and Hard of Hearing of Germany also donated a large amount of money for the re-building of the School.   There are also other donations which reached the School from organisations and other bodies based in other countries.   The massive response of organisations was welcomed by Georgios Markou who stated that ‘deaf people have lost their School due to the Turkish invasion, but they have gained thousands of friends around the world’

In the 1980s, parallel to the impairment discourse developed the ‘special needs’ discourse which emphasises disabled children’s needs rather than rights.   Arguably, mainstream school students who are exposed in a hidden-segregating curriculum, they construct false understandings of ‘children with special needs’.   Research evidence among students of the sixth grade of the primary school, the second grade of the gymnasium and the second grade of lyceum (aged between 12 and 18 years old) suggests that non-disabled teenagers believe that children with special needs are children with learning difficulties; in Greek language termed as children with mental retardation (Phtiaka, 2003b). The same research suggests that non-disabled children’s attitudes towards their disabled peers is mainly characterised by pity.   The percentage of non-disabled children who recognise that disabled children have equal rights to them is very low.   The findings of this research indicates that the impact of the primary school hidden curriculum holds strong while non-disabled children grow up and constantly acts as a barrier to inclusive education.   

 In the last decade, the term ‘special needs’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘special abilities’, in an attempt to draw attention from the impairments which make a person have special needs.   However, as I will argue later in this paper, ‘special abilities’ are part of the hidden curriculum associated with charity.   Although I cannot claim certainty about the origins of this term, I note its resemblance with the British term ‘differently able’ which is also to draw attention from people’s impairments.   The term ‘special abilities’ used in Cyprus, has become a cliché, especially when fund-raising campaigns for disabled children are promoted by commentators on the radio and television.   It is striking to realise how many parents adopt this term when they are invited to talk in public about their children.   Not surprisingly archival material suggests that non-disabled children tend to do the same when they are asked to express their feelings about fund-raising campaigns.  This term, although it appears positive, it is believed to increase the Otherness of disabled children and adults in the Cypriot context (in similar ways Wendell, 1997 explains for another cultural context), and like other terms it is not challenged; rather is unquestionably used for the sake of the consolidation of charity.  

Linked with terms and phrases which are associated with impairment, charity and pity is the legacy of Radiomarathon, the biggest fundraising campaign for children with special needs in Cyprus which takes place annually since 1990.   As it is organised by a radio station and a national bank, Radiomarathon gradually turned into a big enterprise, where vast amounts of money are invested and individuals’ interests are promoted while at the same time the state’s responsibility to disabled children remains largely marginalised.   Although the oppressive consequences of Radiomarathon are now being challenged by disabled people and scholars in the field (Phtiaka, 1999), most people continue to celebrate the event.   The majority of primary school teachers view Radiomarathon as an opportunity to cultivate non-disabled children’s attitudes towards disabled children.   However, they are trapped in their own false understandings of disability.   Their eagerness to emphasise how important it is to donate money makes the hidden curriculum segregating.  

The writings of non-disabled children published in a daily newspaper indicate how hidden curriculum reproduces impairment discourse for the sake of charity.   Apparently, a school teacher (like many others) was inspired by Radiomarathon and encouraged her students to express their ideas and feelings by choosing between two essay themes:   ‘Days of love’ and ‘I am Elpida’.   The former was about the goals and social contribution of Radiomarathon and the latter required that the students take the role of a disabled girl named Elpida and write a short essay to express her feelings.   In both cases, the writings of children indicate how strongly they feel about donating money, how they have internalised that love and money is all disabled children need and how important it is for disabled children to get well.   For example, a boy who pretends to be Elpida concludes his essay by saying:

 ‘I wish I can talk and walk soon’.

A boy who writes his ideas about the ‘Days of love’ writes:

‘We need to love children with special needs.   One day, they will become children like us’.  

Another boy for the same topic:

‘These children need the money so that they get well and then they can buy whatever they want.   I wish they get well again, like us…’  

Finally, a girl writes:

‘What these children only need is love and happiness.   ..   I feel very sorry about these children and I wish them one thing: I would like people to collect money for children with special needs and have our love.   This is they only thing they require’.  

Even when Radiomarathon is over, teachers continue to operate within its philosophy.   They often encourage their students to participate in essay-writing competitions announced by disability organisations or institutions.   Although this could be a means to transform the existing attitudes towards disabled children, the winning essays published in the daily press often reflect society’s pitiful responses to disabled children.   There are few examples of hidden curriculum which deviate from these charity-oriented activities.   One such example is the involvement of primary school students to the conduct of a research about their peers’ attitudes towards children with special needs.   Through this process, teachers and students managed to operate within a hidden curriculum which not only rejected charitable responses, but aimed to unravel them and replace them with more inclusive responses found in the literature.

So far, I have argued that hidden curriculum in mainstream schools is generally segregating because it cultivates charitable responses to disabled children.   Not surprisingly, special schools seem to take advantage of this tendency by becoming recipients of charity from students attending the mainstream school.   By this, I do not intend to criticise the organised visits organised by mainstream schools to special schools in order to give presents to disabled children, even though they too have their roots in distorted understandings about what disabled children ‘need’.   Archival material suggests that one particular special school seems to attract the attention of various mainstream schools.   Pictures of its headmaster are frequently published in the press, showing him around non-disabled children who receive honorary diplomas for their ‘spontaneous’ initiative to participate in fundraising for the particular special school.   The number of times these publications are found in the press indicates that children attending different mainstream schools were guided through the forces of hidden curriculum to engage in fundraising for this special school.   In my view, the administration of the special school campaigned for fundraising by liaising with mainstream schools, and mainstream schools responded by encouraging their students to participate in such activities.   However, the note which is sent to the newspapers for publication presents these activities as non-disabled children’s initiatives, using, to my amazement, the word ‘spontaneous’.   At times, the donations are accompanied by visits to this special school.   A newspaper announcement about a visit of non-disabled teenagers to the same special school concludes: ‘They (the visitors) offered sweets, toys, a cheque and their love to children’.   This statement is striking as it indicates how superficially adults operate when they believe that by visiting a special school with their students they offer love in the same way they offer a cheque.   These, in their view, are two of the most essential ‘needs’ of disabled children.    

CONCLUSIONS

What I have argued in this paper is that despite the turn to inclusive schooling, official and hidden curricula in Greek-Cypriot schools continue to encourage segregation.   Although this cultural analysis focused on the impairment discourse, other features of curricula were raised.   The important questions in this concluding section is: What can we learn from this analysis?   How can we employ curricula in ways that help us move towards more inclusive practice?   At the level of the official curriculum, I would argue that there is an urgent need for a radical deconstruction of the existing one.   At the level of hidden curriculum, I consider that schools and teachers should reflect on everyday practice and think critically about the teaching practices they employ, the language they use and the ideas they promote.   There is no doubt that in-service training of teachers is vital not only for understanding the goals of inclusive education, but also for encouraging the deconstruction of the Greek-Cypriot culture and reflect on the cultural features which are believed to be oppressive for disabled children and adults.   Both tasks are difficult.   On the one hand, in-service training of teachers in Cyprus is not well designed in content and, more importantly it is not obligatory.   On the other hand, research about the role of culture in the oppression of disabled children and adults is scarce in Cyprus.   However, the way towards more inclusive practice is not an unattainable goal as history teaches us that changes do take place in the education system in Cyprus, even if this means that it takes longer than some of us would expect.   Besides, we should never underestimate the power of ‘enlightened’ scholars, teachers and policy makers who contribute in change.     

REFERENCES

Aggelides, P. (2004)   Moving towards inclusive education n Cyprus?   International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(4): 407-422.

Argyrou, V. (1996)   Tradition and Modernity in the Mediterranean.   The wedding as symbolic struggle.   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Barnes, C. (1997) A Legacy of Oppression: A History of Disability in Western Culture, in: L. Barton and M. Oliver (Eds) Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future. Leeds: The Disability Press.

Barnes, C. (1996) Theories of disability and the oppression of disabled people in western society, in: L. Barton (Ed.) Disability and Society. Emerging Issues and Insights. Harlow: Longman.

Constandinides, G. (1992)  Report of the Special Committee for the Study of the Ways of Providing Help to Children with Special Needs.   Nicosia, Cyprus.

Cyprus Republic (1979) Special Education Act N. 47/1979.

Cyprus Republic (1999) Education of Children with Special Needs Act N.113(I)/1999, 338-350.

Educational Reform Committee (2004)   Democratic and Human Education in the Euro-Cypriot state:   Perspectives of Reformulation and Updating.   Nicosia, Cyprus.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences. Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations.   Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Ingstad, B. and Whyte, S. (1995) (Eds) Disability and Culture. Berkley:   University of California Press.

Ministry of Education and Culture (1996) Curricula of Primary Education.   Nicosia, Cyprus.

Pancyprian Organization for the Welfare of the Blind (1982).   Informative Leaflet: Pancyprian Organization for the Welfare of the Blind:   Ten Years of life 1972-1982’.   Nicosia.

Philippou, S. (2003)   The European dimension in education and pupils’ identity: A study of the impact of a primary school curricular intervention in Cyprus.   Unpublished PhD Thesis.   School of Education.   University of Cambridge.

Phtiaka, H. (2003a)  The power to exclude: Facing the challenge of inclusive education in Cyprus.   International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 40(1):   139-152.

Phtiaka, H. (2003b)   Press Conference for the presentation of research findings.   University of Cyprus.   Nicosia. Cyprus.

Phtiaka, H. (1999)  Disability, human rights and education in Cyprus, in: F. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds) Disability, Human Rights and Education: Cross-cultural perspectives. London: Open University Press.

Spyrou, S. (2002)  ‘Images of the “Other”: The “Turk” in Greek Cypriot Children’s imaginations’.   Race, Ethnicity and Education, 5(3):255-272.

Spyrou, S. (2001)   Those on the other side: Ethnic identity and imagination in Greek Cypriot Children’s Lives, in: H. Schwartzman (Ed.) Children and Anthropology: Perspectives for the 21 st Century.   Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

Symeonidou, S. (2005)   Reclaiming cultural insights in conceptualising and theorising disability and disability politics: A case study of the Cypriot disability movement.   Unpublished PhD Thesis. School of Education. University of Cambridge.

Symeonidou, S. (2002a)   The changing role of the support teacher and the case of Cyprus: the opportunity for a cooperative teaching approach.   European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2):149-159.

Symeonidou, S. (2002b)   A critical consideration of current values on the education of disabled children.   International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(3): 217-229.

Symeonidou, S. (1999) The perspectives of disability organisations on educational developments: a comparative study. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis, University of Manchester.

Thomas, G., Walker, D. and Webb, J. (1998)   The Making of the Inclusive School.   London: Routledge.

UPIAS (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation) (1976) Fundamental Principles of Disability. London: UPIAS.

Wendell, S. (1997)   Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability, in: L. Davis (Ed.) The Disability Studies Reader.   London: Routledge.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact