This presentation is a conceptual and empirical examination of the tensions that inform the development of curriculum policy for students with disability. The role of the curriculum in the education of children with disabilities has been an area of interest for scholars operating within the theoretical framework of Inclusive Education and Disability Studies (Erevelles, 2005; Duke et al., 2016), who have identified a number of issues that need to be considered. A recurring dilemma countries face is the decision to develop a common curriculum for all children that will be part of inclusive education policies, or maintain a parallel curriculum for children with disabilities, usually referred to as special curriculum. Although special curricula have been criticized for acting as ‘diet curricula’ for children with disabilities and informing Individual Education Plans (IEPs) that act as another form of curriculum that excludes children instead of including them (Eilers, 2023), special curricula are in place in many countries. At the same time, countries following a common curriculum do not necessarily safeguard equal opportunities for all children (Graham et al., 2020). In addition, countries are recipients of external forces suggesting the need for inclusive education and common curricula, and internal forces that consider this path difficult or even impossible to follow. European and international bodies call for inclusive education for all children and for children with disabilities in particular (e.g. Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN, 2006 and SDG 4 on inclusive and equitable education, UN, 2015). Countries are expected to provide equal opportunities and quality education for all, while at the same time special education systems run parallel to mainstream systems for years. Developing common curricula that truly serve all children may be extremely difficult in such contexts. The colonial mindset, which is prevalent in some countries, acts as a barrier for the development of curricula that include. These countries tend to seek advice from other countries which they consider more developed, without considering the critique of their systems which is recorded in the literature (Duke et al., 2016).

It has been argued that ableist thinking guides policy developments in different areas (Campbell 2001). Ableist thinking guides curricula that aim to serve primarily children without disabilities because they are considered essential for the national economy. In this context, there is a shared understanding that the role of education is to prepare children for high-stakes exams, which at the same time act as pillars of evaluation of the education system that is in place. Children with disabilities and  children who belong in other vulnerable groups are often judged as incompetent and therefore, eligible for other ‘less demanding’ curricula. Ableist thinking also influences the content of the curriculum and the process of its implementation. Many countries establish a rigid link between children’s age and content. In such curricula, differentiation can be a stated national priority, but cannot be implemented. Children with disabilities are then characterised as ‘unable to follow the curriculum’ and they are excluded to receive specialist support in special settings. Last but not least, decisions around the implementation of the curriculum are taken by special education professionals and this is justified by the prevalent view that general teachers do not have the knowledge and skills to educate children with disabilities (Florian, 2015)

In light of these tensions, our study was concerned with the ways curriculum policies in Australia and Cyprus disables children with disabilities despite the proclamations of inclusion. Using a comparative analysis, this presentation maps these tensions in the curriculum policy documents and proposes a critical understanding of what constitutes inclusive curriculum.

This study utilises comparative analysis to identify how similar tensions between competing objectives inform curriculum policy. We are interested in the diachronic analysis of the historical development of these tensions and the changes in the emphasis of the objectives evident in policy. Such analysis identifies the uniqueness of each context, the influence and interpretation of international developments within each context, and the way that policy addresses tensions in the documents under examination. The methodology is informed by a comparative case study approach (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2016) using the horizontal (multiple case studies of policy implementation), vertical (micro, meso and macro levels), and transversal (time and space) axes for comparative data collection and analysis. For each country, Cyprus and Australia, key documents were identified covering the period 1990-2023. While the broad categories were the same, there are differences in the type of documents to account for the differences in the system organisation, curriculum models, and levels of actors involved. Documents include a) policy, legislation and procedures documents related to the curriculum with references to students with disability, b) curriculum documents, and c) reports and reviews or other policy-related documents that inform policy. In addition, international policy and documents produced by international organisations related to students with disability and curriculum supplemented the analysis. While we agree with Fulcher’s (1989) perception that all educational encounters produce policy, we focus only on document analysis in this study. The analysis firstly involved the identification of key drivers, competing objectives and tensions within each context separately. Then, these were mapped in terms of the tensions identified in the documents, the way that they are prioritised and justified, and those that were omitted. This mapping was done for each document allowing for a diachronic analysis of continuity and change. The mapping exercise was initially conducted separately for each context, followed by a comparative analysis across the two contexts.

Preliminary analysis has identified that despite the historical, cultural and sociopolitical differences of Cyprus and Australia, similar competing objectives and tensions are evident. Anxieties around national identity, performance in international testing regimes and economic competitiveness dominate discussions of excellence and equity in the documents under analysis, reducing inclusion to a buzzword or a special concern for specific students. Over time in both contexts there is an increased rhetorical emphasis on a common curriculum for all students. Nevertheless, the design principles of a unified curriculum do not translate to an inclusive curriculum that is accessible by all students, and calls demanding the (re)introduction of special curricula are persistent. In terms of the common curriculum, there is a clear tension in what is taught and how it is taught and who makes decisions about them. Control and autonomy at all levels of the educational systems impact on the ability of teachers, students and their families to imagine, let alone realise an inclusive pedagogy, which is perceived as subordinate to what is taught (content) of the curriculum. The possibility for an inclusive pedagogy is furthered curtained by an emphasis on individualised provision, within a special education administration system, with adaptations and goals set for students with disability separately from the rest of the students. As it is argued in this presentation, while the analysis identifies how these tensions limit the inclusive potential of the curriculum, it is an opportunity to conceptualise the conditions that can expand this potential.

Bartlett, L., and Vavrus, F. 2016. Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Taylor & Francis. Campbell, F. K. 2001. “Inciting legal fictions – disability’s date with ontology and the ableist body of the law.” Griffith Law Review 10 (1): 42–62. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/3714 Duke, J., H. Pillay, M. Tones, J. Nickerson, S. Carrington, and A. Loelu. 2016. “A case for rethinking inclusive education policy creation in developing countries.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 46 (6): 906–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2016.1204226 Eilers, N. 2023. “Individualized education program development in early childhood education: a disabled children’s childhood studies perspective.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 31 (1): 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2147974 Erevelles, N. 2005. “Understanding curriculum as normalizing text: disability studies meet curriculum theory.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 37 (4): 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276970 Florian, F. 2015. “Inclusive pedagogy: A transformative approach to individual differences.” Scottish Educational Review 47 (1): 5–14. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/inclusive-pedagogy-a-transformative-approach-to-individual-differ Fulcher, G. 1989. Disabling policies? A comparative approach to educational policy and disability. The Falmer Press. Graham, L., M. Medhurst, H. Tancredi, I. Spandagou, and E. Walton. 2020. Fundamental concepts of inclusive education. In Inclusive Education for the 21st Century. Theory, Policy and Practice, edited by L. Graham, 27–54. London and New York: Routledge. UN. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: UN. UN. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals. New York: UN.