Our story
What happened when we enrolled our children at PASCAL Larnaca
This is our account, written from our own records, emails and notes kept at the time. To protect our children we refer to them only as our elder son (who was placed in Year 5) and our younger son (Year 2). We name no member of staff. Where we describe how something felt or what we conclude from it, that is our honest opinion.
Why we chose a private school in the first place
We relocated to the Larnaca area in January 2026 for work, and we were looking for a stable, long-term, English-medium school for our two boys. Our elder son had, in January 2026, been the subject of a formal Therapeutic Needs Assessment by a UK specialist service. That assessment described a bright, articulate, creative child who also had genuine difficulties with emotional regulation, executive functioning (attention and working memory) and coordination of a "dyspraxic-type," and who needed trusted, relationship-based support to do well.
Crucially, the assessment warned — in writing — that our son "would typically perform well in a short trial setting" and that "the areas requiring support tend to emerge over time, particularly with sustained demands, transitions and cumulative cognitive load." We took that warning seriously. We wanted a school that would take it seriously too.
We disclosed everything — and invited the school to say no
When we first enquired, in early February 2026, we gave the school a detailed account of both children's educational history and disclosed that a specialist report existed for our elder son. We then provided that full assessment to the school. We did not minimise his needs. We did the opposite: we expressly invited the school to decline the placement if it could not meet them, writing that if his needs "would be difficult to accommodate within your current framework, we would genuinely prefer an open and honest conversation now."
The school did not decline. Through its admissions office it confirmed that the Head Teacher had agreed to place our elder son in Year 5, accepted both boys, asked us to complete the school's own special-needs disclosure forms (which we did), and requested a registration payment per child. We paid. Our children started attending towards the end of February 2026.
Why this matters to us. The school accepted our son with full, advance, documentary knowledge of his assessed needs, after we expressly invited them to decline if they couldn't meet them. In our view, that acceptance came with a responsibility to actually deliver the support — not just to take the fees.
The weeks that followed
Our first written concern went to the Head Teacher on 6 March 2026 — within days of the children starting. We were still positive about our son's early sense of belonging, but we flagged that his breaks (an important regulation tool for him) were being lost to concert practice; that he had been asked to sit out and watch a music lesson because low energy had been read as low effort, which he found humiliating; and that there had been a significant emotional release at home. We asked that the emphasis stay on regulation and support rather than consequences or public corrections.
That email received no response. For us, the silence was itself a problem: the school's own policy promises an "open-door" approach and a Head Teacher "available to deal with concerns." We had raised a concern early, exactly as parents are asked to, and heard nothing back.
Over the following weeks, on our account, a consistent pattern emerged across both boys' classes. Teaching felt time-pressured and worksheet-driven: topics covered lightly, answers written on the board before the children had understood, and frequent testing under exam-like conditions. Homework was heavy and, much of it, made up of generic worksheets that bore little relation to what had been taught — so completing it became, at times, an exercise in copying rather than learning. On 31 March we wrote to the class teacher explaining that our son was "quite overwhelmed," asking that punitive point deductions be avoided because they "can increase anxiety and dysregulation for him," and re-sending his assessment and special-needs form "in case it hasn't been shared." That we needed to re-send it more than a month in told us his needs had not reached the classroom.
We want to be fair and complete: there were good moments too. Our son was named "Star of the Week" and took part in the Spring Show, and his class teacher was courteous in messages. We also told the school, in late March, of sad family news affecting him. None of that, in our view, displaces the structural problems — several of which (the unanswered 6 March email; the adjustments never being put in place) pre-date that news.
Easter, and breaking point
Over the Easter break, 63 pages of homework were set for our elder son — much of it generic worksheets unrelated to lessons, which we ended up re-teaching at home. By this point, on our account, the cumulative load had brought him to what we can only describe as burnout: persistently low energy, heightened anxiety, a fear of not finishing homework, and episodes in which he became non-verbal and shut down entirely. That is the opposite of the "happy, secure" and "supportive" environment we had been promised — and, painfully, it is exactly the "cumulative load" deterioration his assessment had predicted.
Our younger son struggled too, more quietly: under performance pressure, and — of particular concern to us — not feeling comfortable asking to go to the toilet, and so withholding, with a physical impact at home.
Withdrawal, and the school's response
By mid-April we concluded we had no responsible alternative but to withdraw both children. On 20 April 2026 we wrote to the Head Teacher confirming the withdrawal with immediate effect, setting out our son's documented requirements, the ways we felt the provision had not reflected them, and our wellbeing concerns for both boys.
Having had no substantive response, we followed up on 22 April. On 27 April the Head Teacher replied. She characterised the matter as an ordinary adjustment period, said the children "appeared happy," noted that our son had been a "star performer" in the Spring Concert, and declined any refund by reference to a clause in the price list. When we explained that this was not an ordinary withdrawal but a failure to deliver the agreed, special-needs-appropriate provision, the Director of Globeducate Cyprus responded that the fees were "clear and non-negotiable," that the school "will not engage in further discussion," and that "this matter is now considered closed and no further correspondence on it will be addressed."
Where things stand. We paid €7,672.50. We have asked for that to be refunded, along with an acknowledgement of what went wrong. As of now, the school and the group have declined to engage. We have set out the fee dispute in detail on the fees page, and the gap between what was needed and what we experienced on the what went wrong page.
One last thing
After we withdrew him, our elder son showed signs of recovery. To us, that says the difficulty was about the environment, not the child. We're sharing this so that the next family — especially any family with a child who needs a little more understanding — can ask the questions we didn't know to ask. If that's you, please read on, or tell us your story.