Early intervention is recognised as a right for individuals in specific groups, and particularly children with disability with the Convention on the Rights of Child (UNCRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) providing ‘the theoretical human rights underpinnings for the provision of early intervention’ (Brown & Guralnick, 2012). To strengthen the complementary mandates of the UNCRC and UNCRPD, a group from the two UN Committees worked on a joint statement, released in March 2022. The Joint Statement reaffirmed the right to quality inclusive education as not compatible with the existence of two systems of general and special education, and acknowledged that ‘early intervention, accessible learning environments and individual support must be provided in all phases of education process for ensuring the inclusive education’ (Committee on the Rights of the Child & Committee on the Rights of Children with Disabilities, 2022, par. 9).  

We start from the premise that even though there is a longstanding acknowledgement of the significance of early intervention, there is lack of clarity of how early intervention, in this instance early childhood intervention, relates to inclusive education. As Underwood et al. (2018) comment the positioning of the right to early intervention under Health is problematic ‘for young children and their families who are likely to interact more frequently with community childcare and early education programmes than with health services because health services are organised around the medicalisation of individual characteristics of the child’ (p. 58). Where early childhood intervention is located clearly relate to its intention and purpose. 

Another important issue is that rights discourses are not the only influence of understanding and developing early childhood systems, as dominant ableist discourses continue to influence fragmented systems that have been historically segregated and exclusive. According to Tomlinson (2017, p. 167) the ‘manufacture of inability’ has been justified by ableist discourses which present special-therapeutic services as beneficial. Such systems built on a deficit approach to disability (Underwood et al., 2020) undermining the centrality of children and families in decision-making about supports, and prioritising professionals and special-therapeutic services.

To explore how the prerogatives of the right to inclusive education is understood and translated into national policy, we compare policy documents of three countries, Australia, Cyprus and Greece. The three countries are characterised by similarities and differences. All three countries have been shaped by international policy influences and policy borrowing in their approach to educating children with disability. They have ratified all relevant international conventions and proclaim that their policies, action plans and national strategies as well as budgetary decisions are in accordance with their expectations. Australia and Cyprus share a colonial history, while Cyprus and Greece share similar structures concerning health, social care, and education, geographical proximity, and linguistic, cultural, and political bonds. All three countries are UN and OECD members, and Greece and Cyprus are members of the European Union. 

Using a critical discourse analysis approach, we examined key international and national policy documents to find answers to the following research questions:

1. What dominant discourses shape the relationship between early childhood intervention and inclusive education in international policy documents?
2. How do these discursive constructions position participation and active agency of key stakeholders (e.g., children, families, professionals, and services)?

The significance of the study lies in how the in-depth comparative analysis of different documents from different countries with marked differences illuminates the commonality of dominant ableist discourses in the nature and role of early childhood intervention. The discourse analysis demonstrates that both early childhood intervention and inclusive education as ‘social problems’ are informed by the same discourses based on a utilitarian understanding of (dis)ability.

The present study builds on the research team’s previous work, which conducted a comparative policy analysis of three countries, examining early childhood intervention and its intersection with inclusion. As a next step, the study advances this line of inquiry through a critical discourse analysis of key policy documents framing early childhood intervention and inclusive education in the countries of Australia, Cyprus, and Greece. The following key documents were systematically reviewed through a line-by-line reading to identify dominant discourses: The National Autism Strategy 2025-2031 (Australia; Commonwealth of Australia-Department of Social Services, 2024), the National Strategy and Action Plan for Autism 2024–2028 (Cyprus; Deputy Ministry of Social Welfare, 2024), and the Ministerial Decision 4510/B/2024 for a Pilot Programme on Early Childhood Intervention for Children Aged 0-6 (Greece; Government Gazette, 2024). The critical discourse analysis was selected as the most appropriate methodological approach, as early childhood intervention and inclusive education are both understood as ‘social problems’ of a ‘multidisciplinary’ nature (van Dijk, 2008; 2018). Accordingly, this approach enabled a focus in which discourses related to early childhood intervention and its intersection with inclusive education ‘enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations power abuse (dominance)’ (van Dijk, 2018, p. 467) within the societies of Australia, Cyprus, and Greece. Initially, each author analysed the key document from her country and produced analytic memos to capture initial interpretations of the content. The three authors then engaged in a series of meetings to discuss their understandings of the emerging findings. At a later stage, a thematic analysis, was conducted to identify patterns across the data. During this phase, codes were developed for each key document, and common recurring themes were identified, along with similarities and differences in language use, including the ways in which power relations between stakeholders were articulated when present. Three main themes were emerged: • Diagnosis and therapy guide early childhood intervention with an emphasis on health and ‘typical’ development • Early childhood intervention and inclusive education are separate spheres with a weak connection valorised by a special education discourse • Family-centeredness and the voice of young children are obscured by the dominance of professional knowledge and expertise.

Despite the differences of the countries and of the national documents, evident in the analysis of the three documents is a prevailing similarity in a fragmented understanding of early childhood intervention with an emphasis on diagnosis. In particular, in Australia and Cyprus, while the significance of early intervention is acknowledged, there is no clear definition or operationalisation. The emphasis is on diagnosis and a medical approach and in the Greek document in particular the diagnosis constitutes the ‘ticket’ to access early childhood intervention. The link between early childhood intervention and (inclusive) education is limited in the Australian document and it has a special orientation in the Cypriot one, while in Greece a ‘readiness’ transition is emphasised through the lens of a child’s adaptivity to the school setting. There are references to social circumstances that may require supports, but they are also linked to typical and atypical development. The presentation delves in the three documents exploring the circumstances and (vested) interests that inform the documents, the control that families have in decision making and allocation of funds and resources, and how education for professionals is understood. All three documents acknowledge a family-centred approach, but the analysis indicates that professional knowledge drives the allocation of resources and supports. Further, the discussion will return to a rights-based approach to question the extent that this is evident in the documents, especially in terms of early childhood intervention as the means of ‘reducing the implications’ of disability.

Commonwealth of Australia -Department of Social Services. (2024). The National Autism Strategy 2025-2031. https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-autism-strategy-first-action-plan-2025-2026?language=en. Deputy Ministry of Social Welfare (DMoSW). (2025). Revised national strategy and action plan for disability 2024-2028. https://www.gov.cy/media/sites/7/2024/02/National-Strategy-and-Action-Plan-2024-2028-1.pdf. (in Greek) Government Gazette. (2024). Ministerial Decision 4510/B/2024 for a Pilot Programme on Early Childhood Intervention for Children Aged Zero (0) to Six (6). https://www.nomotelia.gr/photos/File/6068b-24.pdf. (in Greek) Tomlinson, S. (2017). A sociology of special and inclusive education. Routledge. Underwood, K., Frankel, E., Spalding, K., & Brophy, K. (2018). Is the right to early intervention being honoured? A study of family experiences with early childhood services. Canadian Journal of Children's Rights/Revue canadienne des droits des enfants, 5(1), 56-70. United Nations (1989) Convention on the rights of the child. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and Committee on the Rights of Children with Disabilities. (2022). Joint Statement. The rights of children with disabilities. United Nations: Author. van Dijk, T.A. (2018). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The Handbook of discourse analysis (2nd edition), pp. 466-485. John Wiley & Sons. van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and power. Mc Millan.