The victims of school segregation must speak out!

Last evening at Central European University (CEU) in Budapest, Legal Studies Department organized a debate on Roma school segregation. The CEU Rector and President Professor John Shattuck, a former US diplomat and a civil rights lawyer, delivered the opening speech. The panel moderated by Professor Uitz included Orsi Szendrey, Lilla Farkas and myself.

Rector Shattuck offered a brief description of the tools used by the Civil Rights Movement to overcome racial segregation in US making remarks and comparisons with the current situation of Roma in Europe. Orsi presented the policy developments in Hungary and the efforts until 2011 in promoting school desegregation through policy underlining that no predictions could be done regarding the results due to the new reforms introduced by the current government. Lilla talked about the issue of data protection and the lack of official data in arguing segregation cases in courts, showed the difference between US and European anti-discrimination law and practice and emphasized that the most important aspect of litigation is to impose a positive duty on the state to desegregate the education system. Lilla did not see the lack of a definition of segregation as an important impediment in promoting desegregation as segregation is covered by the Race Equality Directive and the challenge remains to define properly the Roma.

As the first speaker, I had to say few words about Ten Years After and then I presented my view on the challenges in arguing segregation cases before courts. In my view, the most important challenge is the lack of an internationally agreed definition of racial segregation which impedes application of law to particular cases. Judges as well as activists work will be eased by such a definition. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in spite of the efforts to unify the European legal standards as regards discrimination (European Convention of Human Rights, Race Equality Directive and soft laws) does not bring clarity to the issue. Is segregation of direct or indirect form of discrimination? What is the most effective way to argue? In my opinion segregation is a special form of discrimination and should be specifically defined (like harassment, victimization or incitement to discriminate) as it could be both direct and indirect discrimination. What standards should be applied when deciding such cases? Again, ECtHR jurisprudence is ambiguous as the standards applied in different cases are inconsistent. The provisions of the international law as regards parental choice and best interest of the child is another source of ambiguity in understanding the litigation in segregation cases. The remedies provided to the victims of segregation are rather symbolic and thus, litigation failed to bring justice to the victims.

One question raised during the debate was if there is any chance that the ECtHR would regard segregation as an inhuman and degrading treatment. Lilla was more skeptical than Rector Shattuck and I was. I indicated that there is such a possibility but additional studies have to be conducted so cases could be argued also on the bases of sufferings of the victims. Rector Shattuck reminded us that in US, in the Brown case, the US Supreme Court took into consideration such studies when it ordered desegregation “with all deliberate speed” in Brown II. He supported the idea to conduct such research and to make the voice of the victims heard.

As a follow up to the debate, today I found out about the open letter of Roma children addressed to the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and to the Education Minister calling for equal access to education for all.  I believe their voice must be heard as they are the ones to talk about their feelings and sufferings in segregated education. By exposing their thoughts and experiences to the public, they will make others understand that segregation inflicts a trauma on the victims that dehumanizes people and that such practices are unacceptable in a democratic society.

Below is the open letter…

Open letter to the Prime Minister and Education Minister

STOP the indirect discrimination of Romani children in the Czech schools! Let’s make equal access to education real

Dear Mr Prime Minister, Dear Mr Minister,

As civically active young members of the Romani national minority living in the Czech Republic, we would like to express our support for inclusive education and the necessary measures which the Government of the Czech Republic and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic should adopt to ensure equal access to education for all citizens in this country. Here we are primarily referring to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic, Article 22 (1), section IV, where it says everyone has the right to education, and the Education Code, Section 2, which sets forth the aims and principles of education, i.e., equal access to education and consideration for the educational needs of the individual.

The Anti-Discrimination Act of the Czech Republic, adopted in 2009, defines the right to equal treatment and the prohibition on discrimination in access to education and its provision in Section 1 (i), first part. Many international treaties also declare the right to equal access to education:  The Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 28), the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms (Article 2), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 13). The Czech Republic is also a party to the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes the right to education and access to professional and other education in Article 14, section II.

The Czech Republic was condemned in 2007 by the European Court of Human Rights for its indirect discrimination of Romani children in education through their incorrect placement into what were once called “special schools”. Five years have passed since that judgment and the existing Czech legal order continues to involve the inappropriate distribution of pupils into several categories. Assigning a pupil with special educational needs into a particularly legislated category of disability is a significant determinant of his or her future educational career and restricts his or her equal opportunity.

Currently Romani children continue to be disproportionately enrolled into ‘practical primary schools’ educating pupils according to the primary education program’s appendix for pupils with light mental disability. One proof of this is the thematic report entitled “Process of transforming the former special schools in the 2011/2012 academic year – Czech School Inspectorate” (Postup transformace bývalých zvláštních škol České školní inspekce za rok 2011/2012), which found that 26.4 % of Romani pupils are educated according to such an educational program,  a disproportionate number considering that the Romani minority constitutes only 2 % of the entire population in the Czech Republic.

As young citizens of this country, we want the state to prosper. According to research by the World Bank, better-educated Romani people can expect to make 110 % more money than their less-educated counterparts and thereby contribute more to the state. Joost de Laat, a World Bank economist who studies human development in Europe and Central Asia, presented the study to the International Steering Committee of the Decade of Roma Inclusion in Prague and said the following: “If Romani people of productive age (16-64) enjoyed equal opportunity in access to work and to salaries equivalent to those of their non-Romani counterparts, the country would have billions of euros more annually in its budget. If this were to occur in all of the countries of Central Europe and the Balkans, equal opportunity on the labor market would general a total of EUR 10 billion annually.”

Let us therefore make it possible for the Romani people living in this country to become equal citizens on the labor market. The Government and the relevant bodies of the Czech Republic should ensure equal access to education in mainstream elementary schools for all.

With respect,

David Tišer, member of the Crisis Committee

Crisis Committee open letter translated by Gwendolyn Albert

Source:  romea.cz

Debate on Roma school segregation at CEU – March 18, 2013, 17:30-19:00

Dear friends,

The Legal Studies Department of the Central European University is organizing a debate on Roma school segregation on March 18, 2013 starting 17:30. The panel includes Lilla Farkas, Orsi Szendrey and myself.  Opening speech is given by the CEU Rector and President – Professor John Shattuck – and the panel is chaired by Professor Renata Uitz, the Head of the Legal Studies Department. The announcement with all details  is below. Hope to see some of you there. Please feel free to share the info.

Best,

Iulius

http://www.ceu.hu/node/34621

The Struggle for Equality in Education: Combating Roma School Segregation Through Litigation

HOME » EVENTS »

Date:

March 18, 2013 – 17:30 – 19:00

Building:

Nador u. 9, Monument Building

Room:

203

Event type:

Panel Discussion

Event audience:

Open to the Public

CEU host unit(s):

 Department of Legal Studies

Racially-motivated segregation in education is one of the most serious human rights violations faced by the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. Since late 1990s, human rights activists have been challenging in courts the discriminatory practice of separating Roma from non-Roma pupils. From 2007 to date the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg issued 7 judgments in cases related to Roma school segregation in the Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia and, most recently, Hungary. At the national level, courts and specialized national equality bodies have also reviewed a few dozen cases of Roma school segregation.

CEU Legal Studies Department convenes a panel discussion on this issue. The discussion is part of a series of debates organized worldwide focusing on Roma school segregation and launched after the publication of Ten Years After: A History of Roma school desegregation in Central and Eastern Europe, by CEU Press and Roma Education Fund, Budapest 2012. Similar debates organized in 2012 took place in Skopje, Bucharest, Prague, Boston, New York, Washington D.C., and Cadiz.

This panel strives to assess the progress, to date, in challenging school segregation through litigation and answer few challenging questions.

Such questions are:

• What are the challenges in arguing segregation cases before courts?
• Is there a common understanding of segregation as a legal concept?
• Which aspect should prevail: parental choice or best interest of the child?
• Is there a tension between minority rights and human rights approach to education?

The invited panelists will also present their views on the future of Roma school desegregation in Europe.

Opening remarks:

John Shattuck, President and Rector

Chair:                        

 Professor Renata Uitz, Head of the Legal Studies Department

Panelists:

Lilla Farkas is an attorney registered with the Budapest Bar Association. She works for the Chance for Children Foundation on public interest litigation aimed at desegregating Hungarian schools and for the Migration Policy Group as a senior legal policy analyst. She is the race (Roma) ground coordinator for the European Network of Independent Experts in the Non-discrimination Field. Between 2005 and 2011 she served as president of the Hungarian Equal Treatment Authority’s Advisory Board.

Orsolya Szendrey is an advocacy consultant promoting Roma integration in EU structural funds programming in Hungary. She has supported the litigation of two education segregation cases of the Chance for the Children Foundation as an expert. Ms. Szendrey is a former policy consultant of the Roma Education Fund and former policy adviser of the Hungarian Ministry of Education. She was program manager of Hungary’s first public education development program promoting equal opportunities for Roma. She took part in the elaboration of the system of equal opportunity conditionality in public education development and worked as a supervisor of equal opportunity experts.

Iulius Rostas is the editor of the Ten Years After: A History of the Roma school desegregation in Central and Eastern Europe and serves as consultant for the Roma Education Fund.  He is a Roma researcher specialized in education, antidiscrimination, and social inclusion policies, who previously coordinated the international advocacy unit of the European Roma Rights Center and served as the Director of OSF Roma programs from 2005 to 2008.

We shall overcome! Hope for Roma school desegregation

In the last four days, I participated in a workshop on strategic litigation on Roma school segregation organized by the Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF) in Budapest. CFCF is the organization that built strategic cases in Hungary to bring an end to different forms of Roma school segregation. Its most recent achievement is the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Horvath and Kiss vs. Hungary. Lilla Farkas, the lawyer that implements CFCF litigation strategy is to date – and I dare to say it – the most successful litigator on behalf of Roma!

The meeting was attended by other NGOs that litigated on behalf of Roma, especially in education: Equal Opportunities Association in Bulgaria (Daniela Mihailova), Poradna (Vanda Durbakova) Greek Helsinki Monitor (Theodoros Alexandridis), Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives (Iustina Ionescu) and other Roma and human rights activists from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The Roma Education Fund, a constant supporter of school desegregation was represented by three country facilitators and other staff. The idea of the meeting was a result of a discussion Lilla and I had almost two years ago, during the interview for the book I edited. At that time, we thought that there is a need to bring together those that are doing Roma school segregation cases to share their experiences and learn from each other.

The meeting was not only an opportunity to exchange ideas and good practices in this field but also a source of inspiration and energy to carry on the fight against school segregation. Lilla and her team drafted a handbook for lawyers that includes country strategies on how to legally challenge segregation. In the upcoming days, the partners will fill in the handbook and in few weeks, it will come out as the first concrete result of this regional cooperation. The handbook will be translated in local languages in order to facilitate lawyers’ access to information. Another result of this meeting was the participants’ decision to cooperate closely on their cases and provide support and expertise to those challenging school segregation.

In the same time, another event organized by Romani Criss and the European Roma Rights Center in Bucharest lead to the establishment of a transnational network – the Desegregation and Action for Roma in Education-Network (DARE-Net) – aiming at analyzing practices and initiatives relating to Roma education and the desegregation of Roma children in schools with the support of academic institutions. This network covers Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece, Hungary and Romania and is supported by the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University.  Criss and ERRC were vocal in promoting Roma school desegregation in Romania and elsewhere in Europe and their initiative will add force to their voices.

With these two regional initiatives, the Roma school desegregation seems to move ahead faster than anticipated!  It is my belief that without removing the structural factors that reproduce the subordinate status of Roma in the society -segregation being the first such factor- it is impossible to achieve significant progress in improving the life of Roma across Europe. These two initiatives come at a moment when populism and anti-gypsyism is growing in Europe and when concerns with equal opportunities in education are ignored by significant segments of the society. They bring hope to those that fight for human rights and for the children attending segregated educational facilities.

I wish many successes to both initiatives and, personally, I celebrate the fact that Roma school desegregation movement is getting stronger! We shall overcome…

 

 

 

Going back to the ground zero: notes on the Czech Government plans to implement DH decision

The Czech Government is really bizarre when it comes to Roma school desegregation. It did not prepare any announcement for the fifth anniversary of the DH judgement ( on November 13), when the human rights community did expect some government measures to implement the European Court of Human Rights judgement. For its policies of segregating Roma children by redirecting them towards special schools for mentally disabled, the Czech Government was widely criticised by the human rights community, most recently during the fifth anniversary of the DH judgement. The Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner was astonished by the inaction of the Czech Government to implement the DH decision and to desegregate the education system.

However, two weeks after the anniversary of DH that attracted the attention of the human rights community once again to the school segregation in the country, the Czech Government decided to announce its intentions to address the issue. According to the Prague Monitor, citing Czech News Agency CTK, on November 17 the Czech Ministry of Education announced its plans to tackle Roma school segregation. The intended measures will aim at preventing placement of children from socially-disadvantaged groups into practical schools by more frequent testing of pupils and data collection on ethnicity.

Through this statement, the Ministry of Education recognises that the amendment of the education law in 2005 lead only to a renaming of the “special schools” for mentally disabled into “practical schools”. It also proves that it never had the intention to desegregate the schools but rather to cover up for the shame of maintaining an ethnically segregated school system.

The announced measures seems to follow the same logic. Instead of closing down the whole practical school system and integrate all children into mainstream schools, the Government prefers to maintain a segregated system where those pupils attending practical schools will be disadvantaged only by the fact that separation means inequality. How will the Government ensure that the tests will be culturally sensitive towards minorities and, especially towards Roma? Let’s not forget that one of the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in DH was that the tests were culturally biased and disadvantaged Roma pupils.  What checks are against possible abuses from the side of those administering and interpreting the tests results? Why spend money on testing  pupils performances to separate them? Everybody knows that pupils will perform depending on  social, economic and cultural determinants. Wouldn’t be wiser to use the resources for identifying each child needs and address those needs? I think this is a much better option.

But most importantly is how will the Government ensure the realization of the best interest of that child?  By placing a child in a so-called practical school limits significantly his/her socialization with children from mainstream schools, an important component of the education process. Thus  assigning a child into a practical school limits his/her right to education. The 1994 Salamanca Statement (UNESCO) makes clear that the best way to ensure access to quality education to everyone is to integrate pupils with special needs into mainstream schools, only those with severe disabilities being offered separate educational opportunities.

It seems obvious that the Czech Government vision on school desegregation is worrying for those waiting for the implementation of the DH decision. There are pretty high chances that Roma children will be still overrepresented in the schools for mentally disabled as long as these will exist due to the procedures in assigning children to special schools and the strong anti-Roma attitudes among people in the Czech Republic.  The Government methods on data collection by ethnicity remains a mystery as it intends to do so by next academic year applying aggregate methods without  aiming at identifying the ethnic origin of individual pupils! Using such methods, one should not be surprised if by the end of the next academic year the Czech Government will be able to “prove” that its education system is ethnically neutral.

Testing pupils more frequently does not say much about integration. In fact, the Czech Government fails to address this specific issue: how to integrate pupils from practical schools into mainstream school. It prefers to keep a separate system of education for mentally disabled, expensive and inefficient, instead of transforming its education system into an inclusive one that delivers for the needs of each child.

 

UPDATE

According to Romea, the social democrat shadow minister of education is also supporting the existence of practical schools. It seems that there is a large consensus among politicians in the Czech Republic to avoid schools desegregation. When it comes to discrimination against Roma, there are no ideological differences among parties. Not a lot of hope for inclusive education in the near future in Czech Republic.

A sad day for Roma rights in Europe

Today is the fifth anniversary of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision on the case DH vs Czech Republic concerning school segregation of Roma children by placement in schools for mentally disabled. Five years ago, many human rights activists thought that the DH would be the Brown vs Board of Education case of Roma. Today, the enthusiasm and optimism from 2007 vanished and were replaced by disappointment and sadness in many Roma rights activists.  Instead of celebrating a victory for human rights we rather “celebrate” a failure of the Czech authorities to respect the human rights of Roma.

From a legal point of view, DH was a breakthrough case as it defines legal standards on the prohibition against discrimination. To cite the lawyer that build the case – James Goldston – “the D.H. judgment clarifies for the first time that the Article 14 prohibition against discrimination applies not only to specific acts, but to systemic practices; that racial segregation which disadvantages members of a particular racial or ethnic group amounts to discrimination in breach of the Convention; that Article 14 bars the “indirect discrimination” of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, generates disproportionately prejudicial effects; that the intent to discriminate is not an essential element of a claim of discrimination; that while they are not required, statistics can be used to establish discrimination; and that, where an applicant alleging indirect discrimination establishes a rebuttable presumption that the effect of a measure or practice is discriminatory, the burden then shifts to the respondent State to show that the difference in treatment is not discriminatory.”[1]

Some Roma rights activists perceived the ECtHR decision as the beginning of the end of school segregation. Limited attention was paid to the follow up and even less on how to use the ECtHR decision to desegregate the schools in other countries.  In the book I edited –Ten Years After: A History of Roma School Desegregation in Central and Eastern Europe – in the chapter I wrote on judicial power making I analyzed not only the decisions of the ECtHR in school segregation cases but also the impact and the changes these decisions brought on the ground where they originated and also in other countries.

There are a number of factors that explains the dissatisfaction of human rights activists with the implementation of the ECtHR decision in DH but also in Sampanis and Orsus. First, it is the position of the ECtHR regarding segregation.  In no decision ECtHR uses the word segregation to describe the situation of Roma children within the educational systems in spite of the references to research and reports prepared by NGOs and international organizations throughout the decisions. Thus, ECtHR send a message to the authorities that the facts alleged by the applicants do not equate segregation, although they breach the convention provisions. The inconsistencies in applying the reasoning tests in the five decisions on the three school segregation cases over the four years since the first judgment are difficult to comprehend. In the end neither decision clarified the position of the ECtHR on segregation nor did the Court clarify what exactly constitutes racial segregation. Even the understanding and consequences of this phenomenon seems to be misunderstood by the ECtHR as the compensations awarded by the victims are not at the level to have a deterrent effect on the perpetrators.[2]

And here comes the second factor: the compensations awarded to the victims do not have a deterrent effect, an important principle in the anti-discrimination law theory. It is obvious that the victims and people on the ground did not receive just satisfaction for their suffering. Four thousand Euros could not compensate also for the failure prepare the victims as good citizens and the competences they acquired to be competitive on the labor market. Thus, one should not be surprised that the DH victims are out of school, without jobs and living in poverty. The authorities did not receive a message that segregation is something serious that has to end.

The third factor has to do with the message authorities received from the ECtHR judgments. Not only that the fines imposed lack a deterrent effect but also the ECtHR did not require the authorities to bring an end to school segregation. Thus, should one be surprised that almost nothing happened on the ground? Looking at the changes on the ground in the five countries under investigation and analyzing the role the ECtHR decision had on the jurisprudence in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, I concluded that the impact of the ECtHR decisions was very limited. A detailed account could be found in Ten Years After.

This is one of the bitter lessons Roma rights activists learnt to date:  the changes do not occur at international level but on the ground where ordinary people live and struggle with human rights violations. Litigation will bring changes only if it makes sense to the people on the ground.

Let’s see the positive side: in US the changes did not come immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court in spite of the Brown II injunction on desegregating the schools” with all deliberate speed”. Not even the Little Rock 9 action brought an end to school segregation. It took some time to desegregate the schools in US and it was a combined action of authorities, civil society and top politicians. Let’s hope that in a decade the results would be visible

PS  It seems that November 13 will become the Roma rights day of the European Court of Human Rights. ECtHR just issued its decision in the case IG vs Slovakia on forced sterilization of Roma women.

---

[1] James Goldston, Ending Racial Segregation in Schools: The Promise of D.H., Roma Rights, No 1/2008, p. 4.

[2] The compensation awarded by the ECtHR to each plaintiff varied: 4000 Euro in DH, 4500 Euro in Orsus, and 8,000 Euro in Sampanis.

US and Europe on school segregation: impressions from my trip to US

Few days ago I got back from US where I had the opportunity to present the book I edited – Ten Years After-in different meetings I had in Boston, New York and Washington DC. Here are my impressions: First, segregation is a sensitive topic in US and people are taking it seriously as a matter of rights. Unlike CEE where even judges thought that separating children based on ethnicity, the persons I met in US got it right from the beginning that segregation is about equal rights. I think this has to do with education and the influence of the civil rights discourse on society and schools.

Second, although segregation is understood in US as a matter of rights and equality, nobody made a drama of it. Even the questions were rather focused on what is next, what could be done, how best to move on. That is very different from what usually I got when talking about school segregation in Europe. Here, the first reaction is rather emotional and has to do with either defending the authorities or blaming the activists, researchers and/or Roma.  If in US the focus seems to be on fixing the issue, in Europe is about identifying the guilty one.

Third, school segregation should be less focus on blaming the authorities and the guilty ones as there is a temptation to revenge on the situation and persons, to make justice at any costs. It requires compassion and understanding for those that are subjected to it. Only then, one might come with solutions that fix the problem and give victims a sense of dignity.

Forth, human dignity comes from the way one is treated by the authorities and by others. Being separated by your colleagues on the basis of your presumed ethnicity does not give you a sense of dignity and certainly is not about recognition of the fact that you are different. It inflicts you rather a sense of inferiority and social anxiety that you are less human than others.

The visit to US confirmed that school desegregation represents an important step ahead in promoting the Roma agenda. Even if it will not solve all problems faced by Roma, it is a precondition for a long term improvement of the situation of Roma in Europe.

The establishment of “elite” schools for Roma is not an alternative to school desegregation

The establishment of the elite school for Roma children is the second alternative proposed by the opponents to Roma school desegregation. There are usually two bases for their arguments. The first relies on the experience in US of creating “magnet school” in order to desegregate. The second relies on the model developed by the Hungarian authorities by establishing the Gandhi high school in Pecs, south-west Hungary, as an elite school for Roma. Let me explore these two arguments.

From the policy perspective, the establishment of the magnet school does not make sense as they are very expensive and the results are not sure. For example, for a policy maker it does not make sense to invest 10 mil Euro in two “Gypsy schools” to develop infrastructure, acquire educational materials, train teachers, and pay good salaries. In this case, it is less costly to prepare the ground for moving the Roma children into the nearby mainstream school. Such measures might include working with Roma and non-Roma parents, teacher training on managing multiethnic cohorts, antibiased methods, participatory teaching methods and so on, intensive support for children that have to catch up with the mainstream curricula, developing rules, procedures and mechanism to mediate conflicts in schools, social assistance to the children in need, etc The experience from the US and the projects implemented by NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe show that this scenario has better chances for success at lower costs.

The Gandhi gymnasium in Pecs was established in 1994 as a way to foster Roma identity and promote minority education. The curriculum includes Romani and Beash language classes and the school is involved in cultural activities. The school has also a dormitory that delivers for the students. Though the school was intended to deliver for Hungarian pupils as well by to date it failed to do that. Moreover, it could hardly be regarded as an elite school in Hungary since only half of the students graduating the Gandhi gymnasium are able to continue their studies. In fact, the school has also a second chance program and a vocational training program. It is a fact that Gandhi school is not an elite school in Hungary in spite of its fame. However, the model was followed by Slovakia and) I hope not) by Romania, which intends to open a Roma high school in Bucharest.

In fact, one has to acknowledge that there are pretty low chances for a Roma only school or majority Roma students school to become an elite school, especially for a high school. There are several factors influencing the educational performance of students that makes almost impossible the existence of a Roma elite school these days. First, the family environment and support from family. There is a strong correlation between the parents’ level of education, especially the mother’s level of education and the educational performance of children. It is a well known fact that educational level among Roma is the lowest among all the ethnic groups in different countries in CEE. As regards Roma women level of education, that is even lower taking into account also the gender discrimination from the society at large and inside the community. Early marriages is another factor impeding their access to education. Thus, Roma students enjoy less support from family to perform in school.

In addition, poverty is a risk factor for drop-out rate and affects the educational performance of children. It is another well known fact that poverty rate among Roma is the highest of any ethnic group in any country in CEE. It is clear that Roma parents are unable to support costs associated with education of the children the same way as other parents do.

The second important factor influencing educational performances is the teacher qualification and performance in school. Teacher training in CEE countries does not include antiracism and managing ethnic diverse cohorts. They do not receive training on Roma culture and traditions in order to be able to understand and deal effectively with Roma students. It is assumed that teachers have the same level of prejudices and stereotypes towards Roma as the average in a given society. Taking into account the profound negative prejudices towards Roma all over CEE, teachers might have lower expectations from Roma students as research from these countries indicate. Researches in these countries also show that in schools with high percentage of Roma pupils, teachers are less qualified and the turnover of teachers is high (See ERRC’ “Stigmata” report or Agentia Impreuna “A School for All”).

There is also a category of Roma nationalists that support the establishment of Roma “elite” schools using the example of the German minority in Romania. German schools in Romania are highly valued by the parents due to the positive stereotypes and prejudices towards German minority in Romania, although very few Germans are enrolled in these schools. I would say that the situation of German and Roma minority are so different that applying the same standard would be a mistake. While the majority of population has positive views towards Germans, anti-Gypsyism is rampant all over CEE. Who will be so open to register their children in a “Gypsy school”? While learning German opens opportunity to enter in relations with a significant labor market, economy and a vivid cultural area, learning Romani does not lead to the same opportunities.

I have serious doubts that in these conditions there are any chances to establish an elite school for Roma. It might be the case if one considers “elite” the fact that Roma are attending school. In reality, an elite school is one in which educational performance are well above the national average.

Why minority education is not an alternative to Roma school desegregation

Minority education is very often seen as an alternative to Roma school desegregation by those opposing desegregation. Minority education is also a reasonable argument and the fear to be categorized as segregationist is limited having in mind the legal framework for the protection of national minorities.

Let us make clear the important difference between minority education and desegregation. Minority education aims at preserving the language and cultural and ethnic identity of an ethnic group. There are provisions in the international law protecting this right of the national minorities. In the European legal system, the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities represents the highest legally binding standard regulating minority education. Desegregation is a process aiming to ensure equal access to quality education for a particular group, usually minority group at disadvantage. Desegregation focuses on both accesses to education as well as the content of the right to education by stressing that every child is entitled to the same quality of education. Thus, desegregation focuses on ensuring equality as regard right to education.

Following this line of argumentation, one might say that minority education derives from minority rights and is concerned with minority identity while desegregation derives from the human rights and is concerned with the principle of equality and the right not to be discriminated against. Balancing the two perspectives, it is evident that the principle of equality as part of the fundamental human rights takes precedence over the right to maintain one’s identity. In other words, minority education is important, but it is still a bonus while desegregation is about ensuring fundamental human rights.

Should minority education continue to exist as it collides with the human rights approach to education? The answer is absolutely yes! In a democratic society, this balancing is solved by the principle of free choice of education by the parents or legal guardians of the children. Parental choice is an important aspect in solving the conflict between the minority rights approach and the human rights approach to education. The international law is not clear as regards parental choice and the best interest of the child. However, this issue will be discussed later.

To sum up, I do not see minority education and desegregation as mutually exclusive. One might chose mainstream education while others should have also the right to study in their mother tongue. From this point of view, minority education could co-exist with the desegregation process. Those that argue for minority education as an alternative to school desegregation bring up the argument of keeping or building the ethnic identity of pupils and the advantages of having a homogenous environment, specifically in the generations and mediation of conflicts. I refute these arguments as non-realistic, theoretically invalid and ungrounded in the everyday reality.

If the aim of the education system and authorities is to keep or build the Roma ethnic identity, then how one could explain that in the segregated school the curricula is not in Romani language – not even thought as a foreign language in most of the cases – and rarely includes subjects on history and traditions of Roma. What separation of children based on ethnicity has to do with Roma identity when policy makers do not consider basic aspects of the identity representation in public education? On the contrary, the stigma associated with the so-called “Gypsy schools” ort “Gypsy classes” inflicts a sense of inferiority in the children enrolled in these schools and classes. Separating Roma children from their peers reflects rather the widespread stereotypes and prejudices towards Roma as backward, stupid and not worth as human beings.

The homogenous environment does not help with the identity building process. In the academic literature on identity is widely held that identity is relational. Identity becomes relevant only in the case when there is an “Other” to compare to. From this perspective, identity building of Roma children would take place better in an ethnic diverse environment and not in an ethnic homogenous environment. Thus, the homogenous environment represents an obstacle in the identity building process and the argument presented by the opponents to Roma school desegregation is not theoretically grounded.

The homogenous environment argument is also superfluous as regard conflict mediation among pupils due to cultural differences. The capacity to prevent and mediate conflicts in the schools has rather to do with the institutional arrangements, with the norms, rules and procedures available to prevent and mediate such conflicts as well as with the training of teachers in managing ethnic diversity and not with the ethnic homogeneity of the school population. By choosing ethnic homogeneity instead of designing rules, procedures and setting up mechanism to prevent and mediate conflicts equates to putting the burden on Roma children to integrate. Thus, Roma pupils are perceived as a source of conflict, a supplementary source of mental harm for them.

Teacher training has a lot to do with their capacity to manage ethnically diverse cohorts. There is a historical tradition of pedagogy which is teacher-centered emphasizing discipline and obedience to authority. There is a need to change the focus of the pedagogy to the child, stimulating creativity, skill-development and critical thinking. Teacher training lacks skiils development in managing ethnic diversity. The knowledge of teachers working in ethnically diverse environments about Roma culture and traditions is very limited if any at all. If  progress as regards teachers performances is pursued by educational policies among the important measures has to be the introduction of Roma culture and traditions as part of their initial training. This will help capacitate them to manage ethnically diverse cohorts and be sensitive to Roma culture.

But there is one crucial argument in favor of school desegregation. And this has to do with the aims of education in a 21^st century society: socialization. Socialization is an important aim of education that very often is ignored by educational specialists and policy-makers. Education aims to create active citizens that could integrate on the labor market and take an active role in participating in society. A good society is one in which its members have the skills to engage with the state institutions and build cooperative relationships among them. What kind of society is the one in which a part of it cannot master the language to communicate with the majority, it has limited interaction with the majority and is isolated or isolate itself from the mainstream society? In the specific case of Roma, who are scattered all over the territory ofEurope and beyond, how will they integrate on the labor market and how will they be active citizens if they do not master the majority language? Keeping them isolated from the majority will just increase the existing gaps as regards education, housing, employments, health, poverty etc between Roma and non-Roma.

In addition, a recent study conducted by CNN among pupils in US indicate that socialization has an important role in reducing ethnic animosity and the potential for ethnic conflicts in society (see Online Report for CNN Anderson Cooper 360° Special Report “Kids on Race: The Hidden Picture” March 5, 2012). In the particular situation of Roma where the level of prejudices and stereotypes towards them is a major source of potential conflict and animosity, socialization is extremely important in diminishing the conflict potential and engaging in relations with others and with the state institutions on equal footing.

Here, the reader might understand that I favor assimilation as I am not a supporter of minority education. Let me make clear: Roma should have the possibility to study Romani and in Romani language within the educational systems inEurope. There are many forms of bilingual arrangements that might be envisaged. They have to be proud of their ethnicity as any other group in a democratic society. Hiding their ethnicity or feeling inferior due to it is an indicator that their social inclusion and participation in society is limited. But being proud of Roma ethnicity is not directly linked with minority education. On the contrary, engaging in relationships with others is a way to built and affirm their ethnic identity while respecting ethnic diversity of the society.

 

 

 

Why is segregation about moral fallacy and intellectual cowardice?

Roma school segregation is not part of the mainstream discourse in academia and NGOs. Those that continue to talk about Roma school segregation are considered marginal. One might question this odd situation: hundreds of thousands of Roma children are deprived of their right to education, their access to quality education is limited, and there are few voices only speaking out against it.

I respect academic freedom and none should be forced to research a subject that s/he does not feel its importance. The situation with the Roma school segregation is different though. It is about moral and intellectual cowardice. It is not about what is considered by academics and activists to be important and worth investigating. It is in many cases the lack of courage to speak out against desegregation. These academics, human rights activists and leaders do not want to be regarded as segregationist. They refuse to speak publicly about their beliefs and opinions on Roma school desegregation. However, in closed circles they dare to question school desegregation. Their arguments revolve around the difficulties in desegregating the schools and proclaiming that desegregation does not work. Eventually they could give you some examples justifying their position. At best, they might come up with alternatives.

As a former human rights activist and later as a researcher, I met academics, researchers, experts in education, human rights activists, teachers and principals, public officials and important public figures who advocated for solutions to Roma education. They did that in private or closed circles. None dared to say it publicly what they thought and to engage in a public debate with those that believe school segregation is bad, to put it simply. The lack of courage to put forward the arguments for their position in public while discrediting the school desegregation process in sectarian circles has to do with the intellectual cowardice of these people. Their cowardice is complemented by their fear to be categorized negatively by the supporters of the desegregation process. Their moral fallacy consists in the doubts they have in coming out with their arguments.

Based on my experience I could summarize the solutions and arguments proposed by these invisible opponents to desegregation. For a better understanding of the arguments, let’s clarify some aspects about segregation. Segregation is a special form of discrimination. The freedom not to be discriminated against is not absolute. In some circumstances, discrimination might be justified and, if justified, it is not considered illegal. Thus, one has to look into the concrete situation of a specific case to assess the justification of discrimination. The assessment takes into consideration the legitimacy of the aim pursued and the means employed to achieve that aim.

1. The usual alternative proposed is minority education. Keeping Roma children together is beneficial to their development and identity. They will feel safer in such a homogenous environment. Also, teaching might be adapted to their specific needs.

2. The establishment of Roma elite schools, following the model of the Gandhi school inPecs,Hungary. In this way, Roma students might benefit from quality education, strengthen their identity and become the leaders of the emancipation movement of their ethnic group. Such a school would have good educational infrastructure, well paid teachers in order to attract qualified cadre, and will ideally ensure access to children from poor families through stipends and boarding.

3. In a more sophisticated way, an alternative to placing Roma children into mainstream schools and classes might be the development of magnet schools. In this way, the investments in the schools attended in majority by Roma will determine the non-Roma parents to cross the ethnic divide and register their children into the “Gypsy school” to balance the proportion of Roma and non-Roma pupils.

4. There is no solution proposed but some hypothetical situation given to test the limits of desegregation. The classical situation is that of an isolated 100% Roma community, far from other towns and cities, where parents will prefer sending their children to local school than bussing them 20 km to the closest school nearby. What should be done in this case? Should one do desegregation just for the sake of doing it? Should one force desegregation against the will of the Roma?

My answer to these issues in the next postings.

 

 

Is segregation irrelevant for the actual situation of Roma?

In February 2005, at the launching event of the Decade of Roma Inclusion, the prime ministers and other top officials of the nine participating governments from Central and Eastern Europe pledged their commitment to close the gap between Roma and non-Roma achievements in education, among other fields. Thus, through the approval of the national actions plans, which included measures to combat segregation of Roma children, Roma school segregation became a topic on the governments agenda in CEE.

Seven years later almost nobody talks about school segregation. Have these governments implemented their action plans? Have the CEE governments brought to an end segregation of Roma in education? Is segregation irrelevant for the actual situation of Roma?

The answers are well known to those that are in contact with Roma communities, visit schools in the region from time to time and go beyond the rhetoric of the public officials. For those that do not have these privileges, the answers to these questions are eventually intuitive. No, the governments from CEE did not implement their commitments and they did not bring to an end the school segregation of Roma children. The book I edited recently – Ten Years After: A History of Roma School Desegregation in Central and Eastern Europe– offers more elaborated and detailed answers.

The logical question is then why almost nobody speaks out against segregation? Segregation in education is not a hot topic these days. Important donor organizations for the region do not consider at all school segregation as an issue. The leadership of some of these organizations considers the debate about segregation as artificial, as irrelevant, or, at best, not a priority for their agenda. This is an explanation of why these important organizations that promote human rights and inclusion of Roma remain silent on this topic. A second possible explanation is that they did not get it right what is about when children are separated in schools based on their ethnicity.

Roma school segregation remains an under-researched topic in academia. While the literature on Roma is growing significantly in the last ten years, there is no research or study on Roma school segregation or desegregation. There are also exceptions, but most of these exemptions are in fact connected to the non governmental initiatives and are not part of scholarly interests.

Together with a team of scholars, lawyers and activists I managed to put together a first book on Roma school desegregation policies in CEE. I hope that it will stimulate a debate among specialized circles on school desegregation in the larger context of social inclusion policies. It will serve as a reference point for those interested on education for Roma, anti-discrimination and social inclusion, both scholars and policy-makers.

Based on the research I carried out with my team, I can say that Roma school segregation is a very actual topic for Roma, affecting hundreds of thousand of children. The next postings on my blog will try to present the main messages of the book.