32 romi u rumuniji 18 (2).pdf

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI 10.1163/157181811X584587

brill.nl/chil

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OFCHILDREN’S RIGHTS

International Journal of Children’s Rights 19 (2011) 501–522

*) Florin Moisa’s contribution to this article is funded by the Sectoral Operational Program for Human Resources Development, POSDRU 6/1.5/S/3.

Th e right to education of Roma children in Romania: European policies and Romanian practices *

Maria Roth a and Florin Moisa b a) Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania

[email protected] b) Resource Center for Roma Communities, Cluj, Romania

fl [email protected]

Abstract After a long history of living in Europe, latterly in democracies governed with reference to human, and children’s, rights, Roma children still have a very low education status and very low school participation rates. Th e aims of this article are to review the current state of participation of Roma children in education in European countries, with a special focus on Romania, and to discuss some issues about how the right to education is, or is not, respected in the region. Data accumulated in the last decade are revisited and educational policies are analyzed. Particular attention is given to issues of segregation in education, scrutinized through the lens of Romanian and international education practices. Th e article recommends a number of policy responses, including the value of added cash transfers, as well as action to ensure quality standards in all education settings fre-quented by Roma children.

Keywords discrimination of Roma ; poverty; school segregation ; inclusion; quality of education

Introduction

After a decade of recognition of the fact that Roma populations tend to be among the most socially excluded members of society, in February 2011 the EU reviewed its priorities concerning children’s rights, and restated that Roma children are especially ‘vulnerable to poor health, poor housing, poor nutrition, exclusion, discrimination and violence’ (European Commission, 2011b : 9-10).

In spite of the consensus on the importance of education for their eman-cipation, educational practices in relation to Roma children have not been yet proved successful. Roma children have to face the general requirements of school while carrying a number of historically accumulated social, cultural and economic

502 M. Roth and F. Moisa / International Journal of Children’s Rights 19 (2011) 501–522

disadvantages. Th e exclusion and marginalization linked with the identity of being a Roma justify the need to explore the way children’s rights, and minority rights, can be better used to assure the access of this group to quality education. One of the objectives of this article is to explore the situation regarding education of Roma children in European countries, with a special focus on Romania, and to outline major themes within the literature that addresses this situation and investigate what might improve it.

Th e article is organized as follows. Th e background section examines the social and historical context of the participation in education of Roma, before and after 1989. Educational exclusion of Roma is examined with reference to several European and international documents. Data are presented to document the educational gap between the Roma population and the majority, which is then analysed through the lens of major discourses: those of poverty, cultural rights and the right to non-discrimination. Barriers to the inclusion of Roma children in education are presented in relation to current practices in Romania and else-where in Europe. Th e following section deals with the main anti-discrimination policies, particularly those that respond to desegregation in school and classes and affi rmative action measures, in the context of recent EU calls for an EU Strategy on Roma. Th e conclusion draws attention to the need for consistent support to enable Roma to benefi t fully from the educational system.

Th e Roma in Europe. Social and historical background

Today, after centuries of oppression as slaves or nomads and persecution as an inferior race, the Roma are facing a new set of challenges and discriminatory prac-tices. Roma communities suff er disproportionately high levels of poverty, unem-ploy ment, poor housing and low education (Ringold, 2000 ; Fleck and Rughinis, 2007 ; Gog and Roth, manuscript, 2010). In a Europe so proud of its human rights and non-discrimination policies, the Roma continue to be its most dis-criminated ethnicity. Th e social status of the Roma is associated with a history of blame for a way of life at the margins of society, with an identity marked even to this day by low educational status and travelling (Hancock, 1987 ).

Attempts to integrate the Roma into European cultures date back to the Enlightenment (Petrova, 2004 ). Methods applied in ‘civilizing‘ the Roma included rules forbidding the use of Romani language, separating children from parents in workhouses, denying the right to use horses and wagons, and compul-sory adoption of the clothing and language of village people (Petrova, 2004 ). Although such methods might be thought long forgotten, forced sterilization of Romani women (Gokcen, 2010 ) was a practice in Central and Eastern Europe communist countries. Enrolling Roma children into special schools for children with mental retardation (Vincze and Harabula, 2008 ), often away from their

M. Roth and F. Moisa / International Journal of Children’s Rights 19 (2011) 501–522 503

parents and communities (Ringold, 2000 ) continues to be a common practice in some Eastern European countries, for example Serbia (Open Society Institute, 2010 ).

During the Communist era there were fewer visible discrepancies between the Roma and the majority of families with many children. State authorities tried to homogenize the society ‘converting’ the Roma into good citizens and disciplined workers (Barany, 2001 ; Gog and Roth, 2010), sometimes by forc-ing permanent settlement, like in Romania and Czechoslovakia (Oravec, 2005 ). Although Roma were able to work in agriculture or to enrol for unskilled jobs, they did not become socially included, nor was the problem of education solved (Barany, 2001 ). Subjected to assimilation, many Roma children had diffi culty in adapting to mainstream schools and ended up in special schools or did not gradu-ate (Barany, 2001 ).

Th e political shift in 1989 in the Central and Eastern Europe communist countries did not bring about the desired prosperity for the Roma. On the contrary, it widened the gap between the relatively better-off and the socio-economically deprived, among which the Roma were over-represented (Rat, 2006 ). Roma exceed by far poverty indicators for all other ethnic groups, and unemployment among Roma substantially exceeds average non-Roma rates in all countries, especially in long term unemployment (Milcher and Ivanov, 2004 ; UNDP, 2007 ).

Accession to the European Union did not bring guarantees to end discrimina-tion against the Roma. Nor did migration, a solution chosen by many Roma to escape poverty, bring them the envisaged prosperity and tolerance. Th ey continue to be considered a burden in their countries of origin, as well as in the Western countries of destination (UNDP, 2007 ).

Romania has the largest population of Roma people in Europe, with an offi cial count at the 2002 Census of 535,140 Roma, representing 2.46 percent of the population, an increase from the 1.75 percent of the 1992 Census. Th e unoffi cial estimations range from 1,800,000 to 2,500,000, meaning 8.3% to 11.5% of the population (Roma Education Fund, 2007). Th e Roma population is much younger than the majority population: 34% are children below 14 years, com-pared to 19.2% in whole population (CASPIS, 2002).

As for their quality of life, the poverty rate for Roma people in Romania is almost three times the national average (CASPIS, 2002). It deepened after the political shift in 1989. Th ey were the fi rst to lose their jobs, and also their accom-modation, after 1989. Many moved to marginal and often overcrowded neigh-bourhoods and to ethnically compact settlements, where Pantea ( 2007 ) observed the ‘re-traditionalisation’ of the Roma population (submission of women to men, early marriage for girls, child labour). Many lack identity and property papers, so that neither adults nor children can benefi t from diff erent forms of social pro-tection, thereby deepening their relative disadvantage compared to the majority


1) See http://mdgr.undp.sk/

population (Rat, 2006 ). For many of them, their only constant sources of income are child allowances and social benefi ts (CASPIS, 2002).

Educational exclusion of the Roma

In agreement with the Millennium development goals 1 , the World Education Forum in Dakar adopted in 2000 a platform called Education for All (EFA) that set the goal of increasing the chances for children to participate in quality educa-tion and to monitor progress towards a signifi cant reduction of the out-of-school population by 2015. Th is goal targeted vulnerable groups at risk of exclusion: children in diffi cult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities. After a decade UNESCO reports substantial progress of Eastern European coun-tries in extending enrolment, but also names the Roma community as falling below national majority populations in most Central and Eastern European countries for educational outcomes (UNESCO, 2010 ). Reports for Roma chil-dren showed the lowest European rates of attending secondary school (no more than 20% to 25%) and a high drop out amongst those already in primary schools. For example, 15% to 20% of Roma children in Bulgaria and 30% in Romania drop out of school below the fourth grade. Two out of three Roma (compared with one in seven in majority communities) do not complete primary school, and two out of fi ve (compared to one in 20 in majority communities) do not attend primary school. As a result, one in four of Roma surveyed are illiterate, 38% of Roma children did not complete elementary school, compared to only 4% for children from majority households and only 8% of Roma respondents reported having completed secondary education or above, compared to 64% of majority respondents (UNDP, 2007 ).

According to the Education for All Global Monitoring Report, low participa-tion in kindergarten and in early education programmes is an important cause of low educational performances of Roma children (Eurochild, 2010 ). Roma chil-dren living in Serbia do participate less in pre-school programmes then their Serb co-nationals (attaining less than one-sixth of the participation of their co-national age group (UNESCO, 2009 )). In Romania participation of Roma children in preschool is under 20% (Open Society Institute, 2007 ).

Th e Roma in Central Europe have much lower literacy levels than those of the majority population (UNESCO, 2005 ). For example, 13% of Roma children aged 12, or above, reached grade 5 compared to 63% of similar age ethnic major-ity children. Literacy rate for Roma people aged 15-24 is 72%, compared to 95% in their close proximity neighbourhood (UNDP, 2005). Wherever they are in


Europe, Roma children tend to be especially aff ected by early school leaving and have a poor quality of education (European Commission, 2011a ). Low school participation and early school drop-out of the Roma is due to lack of birth registration, low participation in early childhood and preschool education, and is often linked with labour exploitation, early marriages and traffi cking (Pantea, 2007; European Commission, 2011b ). Segregation is a particularly cru-cial barrier preventing access to quality education for Roma children (European Commission, 2011b ).

Looking at the data for the Roma in Southeastern Europe (SE), UNDP ( 2006 ) found that keeping Roma children in school is the central problem of education: they spend, on average, less than half the time of children from majority households. Low participation of Roma children in school is associated with a high rate of poverty in Roma families, which is also associated with low parental involvement and child labour (Pantea, 2007 ). Within the population not following any form of education, approximately 80% are Roma (Roma Educa tion Fund, 2007). Estimates of illiteracy among the Roma in Romania are extremely high: over one third (38.6%) are estimated to be functionally illiterate (CASPIS, 2002).

In Romania, 80% of Roma children live in poverty, and 43.3% in severe poverty (CASPIS, 2002). According to 2002 Romanian Census data, 26.2% of the Roma population over the age of 10 did not complete their primary educa-tion and 25.6% are illiterate, compared to 4.9% and 2.6% in the general popula-tion (Andreescu, 2004 ). School participation of Romanian Roma children is evaluated as low, uneven and constrained by poverty (CESPE, 2004 ), and marked by a diversity of adaptation strategies of Roma parents and children, some valuing while others not valuing school education. Th ere are some parents who do not trust teachers, and do not think that school education can really be useful to their children; however, most of the parents consider that school is important to pre-pare their children for the future, while their own knowledge and skills are not suffi ciently valid for what is required in society. Others, consider that a school diploma is required by society – children should obtain a school certifi cate, but one cannot count on the competencies learned in schools; some parents ask their children to go to school, others leave it for the children to decide, and claim that children cannot be forced to participate in school, where they might feel discrimi-nated against (Vincze and Harabula, 2008 ) Th e education system often produces school segregation in spite the fact that it has been shown to deliver low quality education for Roma students ( ibid. ). In communities with high percentage of Roma students, classes are often formed according to children’s school perfor-mance, Roma children being mostly grouped in the same classes, with lower education level, in spite of the laws prohibiting such segregation.

During the pre-accession period, UNICEF ( 2006 ) pointed to a need for sensi-tisation and awareness-raising against discrimination towards Roma children,


which contributes to over-representation of Roma among abandoned children, street children, working children, those in care or in confl ict with the law, as well as among illiterate and unschooled children (Baranyi, 2001; Horvath and Toma, 2006 ). Despite increased eff orts to increase school attendance, Roma enrolment in primary and secondary education is still 25% and 30% lower than the national rate. Poverty, unemployment and discrimination in school lead many Roma chil-dren to child labour, which becomes a survival strategy for many of them:

While some Roma children give up school when they manage to get some reimbursement for their work, others try to balance work and schooling, with more, but mostly, with little suc-cess. (Pantea, 2007 : 7).

In the years around the accession to the EU, the Romanian government intensi-fi ed its eff orts to improve the access of Roma children to education. However, the exclusion of Roma children from education continues to be a reality and to per-petuate a way of life leading to poverty (UNICEF, 2009 ).

Parenting traditions are most often blamed for the low involvement of Roma children in education. Teachers usually see parents as the main obstacles in the way of better performance of Roma pupils, because parents are not supportive of their children’s education, do not motivate children to study, cannot be involved in education and do not participate in meetings organized by the school as reported by the Open Society Institute ( 2007 : 138). With a low level of educa-tion, sometimes illiterate, or stressed by poverty, parents may consider that send-ing their children to school is the most they can do for being good parents, and the school should off er support to their children to study. Th e values parents attach to education are often ambivalent, acknowledging its importance, but giv-ing little support for children, even if they obviously have problems in school (Pantea, 2007 ; Vincze and Harabula, 2010 ). Th is parenting behaviour was observed also in poor non-Roma families whose children are less successful in school (Ghinararu, 2004).

Discourses, rights and practices in education

Th e discourses around Roma children’s rights to education diff er, according to the understandings of the main causes of exclusion. Th ough based on diff erent backgrounds the explanatory discourses presented below all raise issues of Roma children’s rights to education. Th e emphasis on poverty will orient to redistribu-tion policies that encourage education based on the rights of children to have a decent life and resources; the emphasis on cultural rights will strengthen policies for accepting diversity; the right to non-discrimination raises issues of desegrega-tion and inclusion.


1. Discourse on poverty as a barrier to social and educational inclusion

A recent world-wide research report affi rms that ‘opportunities for education are heavily infl uenced by where one is born and by other factors over which children have no control, including parental income, gender and ethnicity’ (UNESCO, 2009 : 26). Looking for explanations in terms of Bourdieu’s social reproduction approach, the capacity to make use of school and to succeed in it depends on the objective chances that are available to particular social classes or categories, which represent the most important factors in the reproduction of the structure of edu-cational chances (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977 ). Children do not enter educa-tion with equal social, economic or cultural capital (Coleman, 1990 ); inequality is generated in the social-economic sphere (Bowles and Gintis, 2008 ); the educa-tional system basically does not generate, but reproduces it. Educational out-comes are also dependent on the social capital of the schools themselves, the communities and peer groups that constitute the social milieu of learning (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977 ). Capital attracts capital, leading to a diff erentia-tion of schools and classes, so poor children with low cultural and social capital will be educated in poor classes and poor schools, reproducing the low educa-tional status.

From this perspective, research on schooling Roma children points to poverty of Roma families as the background of low school performance, associated also with other factors like poor nutrition, high health risks, poor-quality hous-ing, lower quality educational settings in communities with higher number of Roma school-children (Open Society Institute, 2007 ). It explains the phenomena observed in Romania, Hungary and Slovakia by a number of authors (for exam-ple: Jigau and Surdu, 2002 ; Andreescu, 2004 ; Oravec, 2005 ; Vincze and Harabula, 2008 , 2010 ; Friedman et al . 2009 ) that Roma children are concen-trated in the poorest schools, which lack basic resources, where many teachers feel discriminated against or punished, and the quality of the education is very low.

Th e analysis from the poverty perspective also raises issues of children’s rights to redistribution policies that foster Roma children’s participation in education and contribute to better resourcing schools within poor communities. Options are usually between universal benefi ts versus targeted benefi ts and affi rmative actions (Riddell, 2009 ). Continuous compensation is required to assure a better position during the whole period of education. Together with Friedman et al . ( 2009 ), we emphasize the need for redistribution by added conditional cash transfers for disadvantaged Roma families and their children.

Positive discrimination such as programmes for zones of educational priority and programmes which provide targeted support to schools in disadvantaged areas are seen by the EU to improve the educational off er, provide additional sup-port to pupils and create innovative learning environments adapted to their spe-cifi c needs (European Commission, 2011b ).


2. Cultural-ethnic discourse

Th e cultural-ethnic discourse describes the special culture of the Roma families, and therefore encourages their special treatment, including in the area of educa-tion. It is based on the cultural discourse that brought into discussion the need and the right to educate minority children to be aware of their cultural heritage and to be proud of their ethnicity, in classes and schools where they feel home, not discriminated against and not inferior to children of other ethnicities. Th is discourse spread throughout Europe in the 1990s, and was largely embraced by minority civic movements. Teachers in ethnically diff erentiated classes need to speak the language of the ethnic group. Th is educational practice is seen as a vic-tory from the point of view of ethnic minority children in Romania, in Slovakia and in the Baltic countries, insofar as it contributes to the maintenance of the minority population, and to the preservation of its language and culture in a specifi c area among the majority population (Vincze and Harabula, 2008 ).

In line with this minority rights discourse, in the Romanian educational system ethnicity is recognized as a basis for separate classes and schools. Th e Hungarians in Romania were looking for the right to cultural autonomy and to set up educational structures where teaching is exclusively in the Hungarian language, at all the educational levels, based on the availability of Hungarian teachers. Th e old Romanian law of education from 1995, as well as the new one legislated in 2010, state the right of ethnic minorities to ethnically-based schooling.

Monitoring the education of ethnic minorities in Romania, G. Andreescu ( 2004 ) revealed that there are signifi cant diff erences between the needs of Roma children and other minorities. While Hungarian communities – at the collective level, as well as individual parents and children – express their preferences to learn in segregated schools, Roma activists and organizations, as well as many Roma parents and children when consulted, consider that the Roma minority needs integrated schools and classes (Andreescu, 2004 ). Th is is also the offi cial strategy of the Ministry of Education and Research. But several reports indicate that the inclusive approach is not reinforced at local level, and often educational practices turn out to support segregation. Integrated schools and classes often fail to reach their goal of inclusiveness:

Most importantly, the hostile or off ensive treatment of Roma children is a major cause for concern. For this reason, the current measures taken to fi ght discrimination in schools are insuffi cient (Andreescu, 2004 ).

Th e recognition of the right of Roma children to learn their culture and language in the school led to the introduction of the use of Romani as a teaching language in some primary classes, by Romani teachers. In 2007, by an order of the Ministry


2) Order no. 1529/2007, MER

of Education 2 , the terms of the multicultural curriculum were adopted. It referred to the introduction of elements of history and culture of ethnic minorities at secondary and high school level, as well as the disciplines of inter-cultural educa-tion and human rights at high school level (Roma Education Fund, 2007: 30). Schools have progressively complied by off ering language classes, and Roma fam-ilies appreciate those (Vincze and Harabula, 2010 ). Between 2001 and 2002, the number of persons teaching the Romani language doubled (Andreescu, 2004 ), and the extra curriculum was requested in 135 schools, by 24,010 pupils (Roma Education Fund, 2007).

Th e eff ect of this discourse extended beyond cultural and language education, and led to the creation of separate Roma classes within Romanian or Hungarian schools (Vincze and Harabula, 2008 ). Data from the Ministry of Education show that the majority of the schools with separate Roma classes had extremely low resources and facilities for teaching, with a very high number of unqualifi ed teachers (Vincze and Harabula, 2008 ). Children were transferred among classes according to their ethnic origin, a phenomenon that was noted in the last decade by researchers and civic organizations for Roma rights. More and more voices consider the discourse based on cultural identity as a source for introducing school segregation, and consider it as a hidden form of educational discrimina-tion against the Roma (Jigau and Surdu, 2002 ). In 2004, as part of the social policies taken by the Romanian government before acceding to the EU, the Ministry of Education and Research adopted norms aiming to combat school segregation, and presented it as a form of discrimination:

Segregation in education involves the intentional or unintentional physical separation of the Roma from the other children in schools, classes, buildings and other facilities, such that the number of Roma children is disproportionately higher than that of non-Roma compared to the ratio of Roma school-aged children in the total school-aged population in the particular area […] the Ministry of Education and Research prohibits the setting up of pre-school, pri-mary and lower secondary classes comprising exclusively or mainly Roma students. Th is way of setting up classes is deemed a form of segregation, irrespective of the explanation called upon. (Notifi cation no. 29323/20.04.2004)

In the same spirit, in 2005 the Resolution of the European Parliament on the situation of the Roma in the EU fi rmly rejected the racially segregated school systems in several Member States and called for the launch of desegregation pro-grammes (European Parliament, 2005 ). Th e recent EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child also states that segregation is a crucial barrier preventing access to quality education for Roma children (European Commission, 2011b ). Based on a similar analysis, segregation of schools and classes based on Roma ethnicity is forbidden


by law in today’s Romania, though it appears in hidden forms. European recom-mendations target desegregation policies, aiming to change the social composition of ‘disadvantaged’ schools and to improve the educational attainment of children from socially disadvantaged and low education backgrounds, with special atten-tion to Roma children. Active desegregation programmes in Hungary and Bulgaria improved at a regional level the educational achievement of Roma, by supporting schools which integrate them and at the same time fostering school quality by extracurricular activities and targeted academic support (European Commission, 2011b : 6).

3. Non-discrimination discourse

Th e UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that every child has the right to education (Article 28) and that this shall be guaranteed to all children (Article 2) without discrimination based upon race, colour, ethnicity, sex, lan-guage, religion, political opinions, nationality, ethnicity, property or disabilities. In its 2005 resolution on the situation of the Roma in the EU, the European Parliament ( 2005 ) explicitly recognized the need for better education for the Roma as crucial in the advancement of the Romani community as a whole. Th e rights discourse for Roma in the EU targets equality of opportunity and access to services as a fundamental right (EUMC, 2006 : 5). Beginning with the European Council meeting in Lisbon in 2000, the need for promoting tolerance and social inclusion as opposed to discrimination and racism was clearly stated in all European documents.

In spite of the warnings and recommendations of the EU and the civic move-ment for Roma rights, racism, intolerance, discrimination, and exclusion are the daily reality of the Roma in Europe, a reality that infl uences children’s lives and aff ects their schooling. To demonstrate discrimination against the Roma, the lit-erature often draws a parallel between the fate of the Roma in Europe and rac-ism faced by African-Americans in the US. Th ough the Roma are considered to belong to the Caucasian race, comparisons are in terms of underground features, cultures of poverty and racial policies (Kligman, 2001 ; Ladányi and Szelényi, 2004 ; Hawke et al . 2008 ). In her explanation of the relationship between race and educational outcomes, Hodges Persell (2008) considers that colour is a sym-bolic anchor for racism, an important predictor of grade points, attendance and drop-out rates, membership of special education programmes, graduation rates, employment and career paths. Th eir darker skin colour compared to other ethnic groups of Caucasian race is an important element of labelling Roma people. In a similar way to African-Americans, Roma children in schools and communities have to face historical legacies related to economic, cultural and social disadvan-tages, although they are placed in a legal context that entitles them to equal chances in schools.


Th e predominant recommendation for education based on the human rights and children’s rights discourse – developed by educational sciences – is the so-called inclusive education , or ‘education for all’ (Booth and Ainscow, 2002 ; Lebeer, 2006 ; INCLUD-ED, 2007). Inclusion is defi ned as bringing together children with diff erent levels of ability, cultural backgrounds and socio-economic status in the same schools and classrooms, and mobilizing resources in order to allow the best learning opportunities for all of them. Defi ning the criteria of school success by performances of students living in similar social contexts, Project INCLUD-ED (2007: 59) found out that students from inclusive educational centres obtained higher levels of educational attainment compared to students from non- inclusive educational centres located in similar socio-cultural and socio-economic con-texts. Inclusion overcomes streaming and other forms of segregation, leading school children to improve their school performances and social behaviour.

Th e principle is to maintain heterogeneity by bringing students together in the same educational environment. Culturally mixed groups can equalize the chances of students with diff erent abilities, and increase the chances of peers with lower abilities (Wilkinson and Fung, 2002 : 425). Positive eff ects of the inclusion of Roma children in mainstream classes were registered by Gerganov et al . ( 2005 ), espe-cially when children benefi ted from the support of a Roma teacher assistant.

Th e advocates of inclusion argue for mixed classes based on the principles of social learning: values and behaviour are shaped according to the dominant pat-terns. Research has shown that children in heterogeneous groups usually achieve better results than those in streamed groups if inclusion is practised by allocating human resources to help children perform better. In order for inclusive education to be successful, human resources are very important, mediators or educators assisting children if they have any special learning needs or other types of needs. Splitting classes in inclusive groups, by extending the learning time when needed, by individualizing the curriculum when necessary and by off ering inclusive choice to students, are important methods aimed at successful inclusion (INCLUDE-ED, 2007 ). All these options require recognition of cultural and educational diff er-ences among students, training of teachers to use inclusive teaching methods and allocation of fi nancial resources. Th is approach emphasises the responsibilities of governments to adopt eff ective policies towards the Roma (Milcher and Ivanov, 2004 ). It resulted in several regional and national affi rmative action programmes which brought together the emphasis on the rights of the Roma children and the European resources aiming for the improvement of their schooling.

In order to limit the eff ects of discrimination and to assure equal chances to education, Roma activists request affi rmative actions, as a means for correcting past discriminatory practices as well as historical disadvantages as a result of centuries of slavery (Surdu and Szira, 2009 : 131). For example, Oravec considers that to achieve ‘equality of opportunities in practice and to observe the principles of the equality of treatment, special balancing (compensating) measures may be


taken to prevent discrimination in relation to racial or ethnic origin’ (2005: 89). Affi rmative actions are planned to be maintained only till they reach their goals, and the needs of vulnerable groups are better balanced.

Barriers in school practices and good practices to achieve inclusion

In the last decade several research reports signalled barriers to the education of Roma children in Central and Eastern Europe countries. Th e Open Society Institute ( 2007 ) reports that Roma children are more often diagnosed as ‘special needs’ students than their peers and are often placed in special schools for learn-ing disabilities students all over the CEE (Central and Eastern Europe) countries. Promoting education ‘for all’ is an expression of democracy. It off ers opportuni-ties for personal development for all members of society, and it also creates the stage for the participation of all children in the form of organization which is the most adequate to their developmental needs. According to A. Faure Atger, segre-gation of Roma children is discrimination against both the individual child and its ethnic community (2009).

Looking at school practices which act as barriers to improving the education of Roma children, Roma rights organizations and researchers identifi ed segregation of Roma children in diff erent schools and classes as being the main barrier. One such practice is identifi ed as ‘tracking’ (orienting students into classes by prior achievements that lead to diff erent later professional careers). Findings demon-strated that such practices reinforced the infl uence of family background, not only on educational attainment but also, later, on labour market outcomes. Th e earlier the age of segregation (early tracking), the more severe the consequences for children coming from low SES families and communities. Postponing track-ing can provide individuals with the skills that can help more young people fi nd work and respond to the needs of the labour market throughout their adult lives, thus facilitating lifelong inclusion, overcoming inequalities and avoiding post-poned exclusion (INCLUDE-ED, 2007 ).

A similar barrier has been identifi ed in streaming according to learning abilities of students within the classroom: organizing classroom activities according to ability levels, remedial and support groups segregated from the regular classroom, exclusionary individualized curriculum, and exclusionary choice. Th ese practices were evaluated by researchers in INCLUDE-ED, 2007 as aff ecting the develop-ment of positive relationships across ethnic groups, and the opportunities to develop interethnic friendships.

Th e most frequent segregation is the streaming of Roma children in special schools or classes for mentally disabled children. Estimates cited in country reports put the share of Roma in special schools in Slovakia at 80%, Mace-donia at 60–70%, 80% in Montenegro, and 50–80% in Serbia (Open Society


Institute, 2010 ). Th e phenomenon is still reported for Romania: non-disabled Roma children are likely to be ‘suggested’ to enrol in special schools for various reasons, increasing their disadvantages in the long-term (Vincze and Harabula, 2008 : 5).

Th e data on low participation of Roma children to education underscores the need of specifi c measures that favour the participation of the Roma in education in general, and into mainstream schools in particular, alongside the majority child population.

One of the programmes inspired by the US affi rmative actions aiming to reduce disadvantages in education for the Roma has been the Step by Step pro-gramme (Oravec, 2005 ). It has shown in 13 EU and CE countries with signifi -cant Roma population that Roma children can succeed in a supportive educational environment, in a similar way as their non-Roma mates succeed in mainstream classes. Th e philosophy of the Step by Step classrooms comes from the model called Head Start (in the US) that off ered the opportunity to millions of American children, whose parents could not aff ord kindergarten, to benefi t from preschool activities. Embedded in a child-centred education philosophy, Step by Step was designed by Open Society Institute to create a safe environment for Roma chil-dren in which they are treated like all other children, and provide the opportunity for them to reach their full potential. Due to their child-centredness, their active education methods and equally high expectations to all enrolled children, Roma children achieve academic outcomes similar to their mainstream peers. Roma teaching assistants are placed in classrooms to facilitate the learning of the lan-guage of the majority, to serve as a bridge between the school and the Roma com-munity, and to bring the Roma language and culture into the classroom. Still, the level of implementation is low, only 11 out of 41 counties in Romania use the Step by step system for approximately 29,000 children from 63 schools, without a clear record of the number of Roma children. Th e Step by Step programme has been successful in Roma communities in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia (Ringold et al . 2005 ), as well as the ‘Education of Roma’ in Greece (UNESCO, 2004: 37-38), Brudila Callí in Spain (CREA, 2000-2003) and Romano Missio’s Aina ammattiin asti programme in Finland (INCLUDE-ED, 2007 ) suc-cessfully involved parents to achieve the goal of school success for their children.

Community-based interventions targeting whole families can also improve children’s participation in education. Th ey promote home academic support of students that contributes to children’s progress in school (Iovu, 2009 ; David-Kacso, 2010 ). Going beyond the school walls and looking at ways to involve families and members of the cultural community in off ering support with school-related issues is in the spirit of the CRC that states the rights of parents to receive support to raise and foster the development of their children (Article 5). Parents and communities can be informed by school representatives on the status quo of the educational status of their children, or they can be consulted, or even better,


3) Th e fi ve types of family and community participation that have been identifi ed by researchers of the project INCLUDE-ED as being signifi cant for education were Informative, Consultative, Decisive, Evaluative, and Educative practices. Involving parents in decision making, in the evalua-tion of schools or educators, and investing in the education of parents are the most eff ective collabo-rative practices (Included, 2007).

they can be involved in the decision-making process 3 . Th e more the parents feel they can make a diff erence, the more they will contribute to the education of their children (INCLUDE-ED, 2007 ). Th e encouragement of family members to participate in school activities has appeared to be a signifi cant source of moti-vation and creation of meaning for Romani students (Gómez and Vargas, 2003 ). Visits of parents of diff erent origins in classrooms in joint activities with children favour their positive identity formation and help to overcome the stereotypes and prejudices which exist in these communities (Sunderman et al . 2005). To reduce the distance between schools and Roma communities, inclusive programmes organize parent-teacher associations, placement of parents as teachers’ aides in the classroom, and stimulating regular parent-teacher interactions (Booth and Ainscow, 2002 ).

Other successful affi rmative actions are subsidised places in universities and other higher education courses for Roma high school and secondary school grad-uates, scholarships for children, adolescents and also adults enrolled in education at any level. Th e Romanian experience in affi rmative actions has already lasted for two decades, starting in 1990 with allocation of places in pre-university pedagogy education, and continuing in 1992 with the fi rst places in social work university education. Since 2001-2002, up to two places may be allocated to any high-schools classes for Roma, with 2000-2500 Roma children currently admitted every year. Yet, according to research fi ndings (Fleck and Rughinis, 2007 ; Comşa et al . 2008 ), only 9% of Roma aged 18-30 are high-school graduates compared to 41% of non-Roma, a signifi cant gap that shows the need for continued affi rm-ative action. Th is applies especially in societies where discrimination is present, affi rmative action becoming the ‘proper mechanisms for changing the conduct of institutions, companies or individuals’ (Surdu and Szira, 2009 : 26).

Mainstreaming can also raise barriers to achieving good educational outcomes for Roma. Horvath and Toma ( 2006 : 30) point to the diffi culties due to educa-tion being ‘over-regulated and infl exible’: children coming to school from Roma families/communities, often without preschool experience, cannot comply with the prescribed syllabus. Th e authors suggest the re-defi nition of the term ‘integra-tion’ of Roma children in education, by fi nding ways to welcome children in schools, reinforce their feeling of identity as Roma and establish cooperative rela-tionships with their parents and communities.

In order to promote the educational access of the Roma children, a series of PHARE programmes were developed in Romania with European funds in order


4) Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on the elimination of all forms of discrimination. Th e English version is available at: http://www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Romania/Romania_antidiscrim_English.htm 5) Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, published in the Offi cial Bulletin L 180, 19/07/2000 P. 0022 – 0026, available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0043:en:HTML

to support the Ministry of Education and Research to implement its strategy on improving access to education for disadvantaged groups, with focus on the Roma. Th ese programmes aimed: to improve the chances of Roma children to be successful in primary education, by increasing their participation in pre-school education; to stimulate the completion of compulsory education and prevent school drop-out; and to provide second-chance education for people not completing compulsory education. Th ey off ered fi nancial support to NGOs and schools for after school programmes and youth centres. Improved outcomes were reported by children who completed schoolwork together with others in youth centres with the help of teachers or social workers. Some of the support centres are run by Roma organizations, others by NGOs aiming to help all children in communities. Good outcomes such as increasing attendance, improved grades, involvement of parents, building school motivation were reported by both cate-gories of centres (Podea, 2010 ).

Th e success of policies and investments largely depend on the degree of inclu-sion of Roma children in education settings. Th e educational segregation/deseg-regation became one of the most debated subjects for activists, teachers, and politicians and appeared to have grown in importance with the adoption of the fi rst anti-discrimination legislation in Romania in 2000 4 . Subsequently the Parlia-ment committed to the elimination of all forms of discrimination in Law 48/2002, aligned to the European Union Race Directive (2000/43/EC) 5 which forbids any form of discrimination on the basis of racial or ethnic origin. To encourage inclu-sion and prevent discrimination the Romanian Ministry of Education expects County Inspectorates of Education to promote desegregation policies, for exam-ple: ethnically mixed groups of students at all levels of education; transportation of Roma students to mainstream schools with a non-Roma majority; shared use of school facilities by diff erent ethnic students; training and employment of Roma school mediators; providing additional teaching for children with learning diffi culties; promoting ethnic identity of Roma in mixed schools, including via the curriculum; informing all parents about the benefi ts of inclusive education in order to deter those seeking to incorporate their children in classes without Roma students or organize separate classes for Roma; informing Roma parents about education possibilities and involving them in school decisions; promoting the teaching of Romani language and culture; training teachers in inclusive methods;


6) National Education Law, Art. 50 (3).

informing parents of Roma and non-Roma ethnicity about the benefi ts of inclu-sive education.

Measures to combat segregation restricted former rights to organize Roma-only schools or classes. According to the Order no. 1540 of the Ministry of Education, ‘setting up of fi rst and fi fth grade segregated classes consisting of majority or entirely Roma children’ was prohibited from the school year 2007-2008. Although segregation is now banned, the objective of desegregation is yet to be ‘completed’ in educational practices (Stoian and Mark, 2010 : 34). In the new National Education Law of 2010 there are also sanctions against ‘abusive diagnosis of chil-dren based on race, ethnicity, language, religion, membership of a disadvantaged category…, which leads to placement in classes with special educational needs’ 6 .

Th ose in favour of desegregation argue that most of the recent success stories come from children learning in desegregated schools (Andruszkiewicz, 2006 ). Cozma et al. found that the attitude of Roma and majority children ‘varies from acceptance to rejection. Roma children are more willing to participate in non-Roma classes, but Romanian children [ sic ], as well as their parents, are less ready to accept Roma children as equals’ (2000:20). Other researchers confi rm these perceptions and described diff erent forms of discrimination and hidden segrega-tion. In a recent report on schools which targeted the analysis of the quality of mainstream education, Coman and Nedelcu ( 2010 ) reported that classroom organization favours segregation; teachers were placing Roma children in the last benches by themselves, even after the anti-discrimination law was passed and debated in the media.

Recommendations

Despite their positive eff ects, affi rmative actions and desegregation measures cannot be effi cient when they are not targeting essential aspects of the learning process: the development of autonomous learning capacities and learning skills, learning motivation and the sense of self-confi dence, feeling of competence, understanding of meaning and reciprocity (Andreescu, 2004 ; Roth, 2005). Without giving children tools to learn and breaking down the negative stereo-types related to Roma children who are not able to progress in schools, self-fulfi lling prophecies maintained by the majority population in their relations with Roma might reproduce the risk of their (self ) exclusion (Andreescu, 2004 ). In order to respect the right of children to develop their potential fully, schools should be better staff ed with competent teachers, school counsellors, speech therapists, social workers and other helpers.


7) For more on the Decade of Roma Inclusion see www.romadecade.org

Another major risk for progress in education of the Roma is the lack of sustain-ability of projects and of support for affi rmative actions over time. For example, the payment of especially trained school mediators was not maintained by several of the County Inspectorates, in spite of the generally good reports of their activity and of the awareness of the need for such personnel. If such measures are not sustained continuously in the present period of fi nancial crisis, they will have lit-tle impact on the diminution of socio-economic inequalities and educational gap.

Analyzing the European Agenda, the last years witnessed several international initiatives regarding the situation of Roma, starting with the Decade of Roma Inclusion ( 2005 ), promoted by the Open Society Institute and the World Bank 7 . Th e Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Aff airs of the European Parliament requires the European Commission to propose and the European Council to adopt an EU Strategy on Roma Inclusion. Improving education for the Roma is one of the priority areas for the new Strategy, with objectives like school desegregation, early childhood education, measures to prevent early school-leaving and academic failure, combating the over-representation of Roma in special schools. With such explicit calls of the European Parliament, the chances to bring about the desired change in status of the Roma may be closer.

From the rights perspective, the need to improve the education of Roma requires that authorities apply the legal provisions without exceptions and com-bat forced and discriminatory, often hidden, school segregation while inform-ing Roma children and parents of their rights and off ering them the possibility to choose the best available forms of education. Anti-discrimination rules should be strength ened, and impunity for all forms of discrimination or violence should be ended.

Despite the current reluctance and controversies on gathering data on ‘ethnic-ity’, but also acknowledging the still limited data we have on Roma children in and out of the school system, we argue here for collecting data on ethnicity and gender of children in schools. Only a systematic data collection can help authori-ties to become aware of specifi c needs, vulnerabilities and strengths, in order for policies to better address Roma children (Pantea and Roth, 2008 ). In Romania, the National Database in Education should become an instrument for policy analysis and decision making in all aspects of school education.

Affi rmative actions are needed to support Roma children and their families with the burdens of schooling. We discuss elsewhere the existing Romanian benefi ts and their limited eff ects on disadvantaged families (Roth et al . 2006 ) where we argue for reducing universal measures and introducing more targeted cash transfers for disadvantaged families. A systematic support is needed for dis-advantaged families in order for their children to stay in school for as long as


possible, at least until graduation from compulsory education. We agree with Friedman et al . ( 2009 ), who argue for conditional cash transfers as added benefi ts that can be off ered based on school enrolment and/or attendance (rather than on threats of removing universal benefi ts), covering the total costs of schooling, so that a family should not suff er shortage of income due to the schooling of the child.

Pre-school education is also an area that should be taken into consideration, as a pre-condition for school success of Roma children. Eurochild ( 2010 ) and many others join in emphasising the need for early childhood education, with a special target on Roma children.

Regarding resourcing schools, learning from the attractiveness of special schools that off er free lunch and after-school programmes (Pantea, 2007 ; Vincze and Harabula, 2010 ), an equally important step would be to better resource schools with social services by targeting the poorest. Th is would partially reduce the burden for parents of all poor children, ethnic Roma or non-Roma. After-school programmes could improve performances of Roma and other children with less involved parents and contribute to equalizing school performance.

Supplementary measures are needed to fi nance schools and reward teachers who are successful in including Roma and other disadvantaged children, by com-bining performance-based criteria with social needs criteria for funding schools. Finance for schools should equip them with technologies available to children during their school time or after-school programme, allowing them to develop competencies valued on the current job market.

Due to the generally low level of education of Roma youngsters and adults, support programmes like ‘Second Chance’ should continue until the gap between the Roma and non-Roma is reduced to a level which ensures access to decent jobs.

Conclusions

Education is largely present on the agenda of civic and public organisms con-cerned with the situation of Roma children, creating a dynamic debate of educa-tion specialists, human rights activists, politicians, legislators, etc. In spite of the consensus on the importance of education for their emancipation, educational practices for Roma children have not yet proved successful. Th e adoption of sev-eral international documents affi rming the rights of national/ethnic minorities is not the end of the road. Inclusive public policies are needed that will allow access of Roma children to quality education in a safe, anti-discriminatory and positive environment.

Th is article has presented the numerous barriers that hinder the inclusion of Roma children in education. It has shown that low fi nancial resources of families


and schools increase the educational gap. Existing incentives are not suffi cient to stimulate poor Roma families to be more involved in the education of their chil-dren. Th e discussion of discourses shows the importance of looking to the specifi c Roma issues from the point of view of children’s rights. Th e rights of the Roma children to a decent life, within their own families, and their rights to participate in good quality education strengthen the arguments for developing inclusive forms of education, desegregating schools and fi nancing affi rmative actions. Th is article has acknowledged that Roma children have additional support needs: they require more, rather than less, teacher support, and attention, but also fi nancial benefi ts (Pantea, 2007 ). Education being a universal right, the Roma, as other children with additional support needs, have the right to recognition of the bar-riers they face, and, accordingly, to receive adequate support.

Improving both the access of Roma children and the quality of their schooling is needed for increasing the school success of Roma children (UNICEF, 2009 ). Inter-sectoral, comprehensive and inclusive policies, together with anti-discrimi-natory practices, may have a long-term positive impact on the educational status of the Roma across Europe.

References

Andreescu , G. , ‘Analytical report phare RAXEN_CC minority education’ . In RAXEN_CC National Focal Point Romania , Report on Minority Education in Romania ( Vienna : EUMC , 2004 ). Available online at : http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub/RAXEN/4/edu/CC/EDU-Romania-fi nal.pdf .

Andruszkiewicz , M. , ‘Desegregarea scolilor – progrese si provocari. Experientele programului PHARE 2003: ‘Acces la educatie pentru grupurile deavantajate’’ [School Desegregation: Progress and Challenges, Experiences from the Phare 2003 ‘Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups’ Project] ( Bucharest : 2006 ). Available online at : http://www.edu.ro/index.php/Articles/6758 .

Barany , Z. , ‘Th e socio-economic impact of regime change in Eastern Europe: Gypsy marginality in the 1990s’ , East European Politics and Societies 14 (2) ( 2001 ): 64 – 113 .

Booth , T. & Ainscow, M. , Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools ( UK : CSIE , 2002 ).

Bourdieu , P. & Passeron, J.C. , Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture ( London : Sage Publications , 1977 ).

Bowles , S. & Gintis , H. ‘Schooling in capitalist society’ . In Schools and Society . eds. J. Ballantine & J. Spade ( Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore : Pine Forge Press , 2008 , 3 rd edition ) 41 – 44 .

CASPIS (Comisia Nationala Antisaracie si Promovare a Incluziunii Sociale) , ‘Planul National Anti-saracie si Pentru Promovarea Incluziunii Sociale’ [Th e National Antipoverty Plan and the Promo-tion of Social Inclusion] ( Bucuresti : Guvernul Romaniei , 2002 ). Available online at : http://www.gov.ro/planul-national-anti-saracie-si-promovare-a-incluziunii-sociale l1a100022.html .

CESPE , ‘Participarea scolara in randul copiilor romi’ [School Participation among the Roma chil-dren] ( Bucuresti : CPSE , 2004 ). Available online at : www.cespe.ro .

Coleman , J.S. , Equality and Achievement in Education ( Boulder CO : Westview Press , 1990 ). Coman , S. & Nedelcu, A. ‘Scoala la prima vedere - Radiografi e subiectivă asupra scolii asa cum este’

[School at fi rst sight – Subjective radiography of school as it is] . In Jurnal de cercetare . eds. A. Nedelcu & L. Ciolan ( Bucharest : Vanemonde , 2010 ).


Comşa , M. , Rughiniş, C. & Tufi ş, C. , Atitudini faţă de muncă în România [Atitudes towards work in Romania] ( Bucureşti : Fundaţia Soros România , 2008 ) Available online at : http://www.soros.ro/ro/publicatii.php?pag=5# .

Cozma , T. , Cucos, C. & Momanu, M. , Educaţia romilor în România: Difi cultăţi, Soluţii [Education for Roma in Romania: Diffi culties, Solutions] ( Iaşi : Polirom , 2000 ).

David-Kacso , A. , ‘Th e role of family factors in school outcomes at diff erent school levels’ , Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Sociologia LV , 1 ( 2010 ): 57 – 70 .

Decade of Roma Inclusion , Terms of Reference ( Sofi a , 2005 ) Available online at: http://www.romadecade.org/fi les/downloads/Decade%20Documents/Roma%20Decade%20TOR.pdf .

EUMC , Roma and Travellers in the Public Education. An Overview of the Situation in the EU Member States ( Vienna : EUMC , 2006 ). Available online at : http://www.fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/roma_report.pdf .

Eurochild , Ending Child Poverty within the EU? A Review of the 2008–2010 National Strategy Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion ( Brussels : Eurochild , 2010 ). Available online at : http://www.eurochild.org/fi leadmin/user_upload/fi les/NAP_2008_-_2010/Ending_child_poverty.pdf .

European Commission , Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Tackling Early School Leaving: A Key Contribution to the Europe 2020 Agenda COM ( 2011a ), 18 fi nal. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/doc/earlycom_en.pdf .

European Commission , Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, Th e Council, Th e European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child COM ( 2011b ), 60 fi nal). Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/children/docs/com_2011_60_en.pdf .

European Parliament , Roma in the European Union. Resolution on the Situation of the Roma in the European Union (Brussels : 2005 , 28.IV) . Available online at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-0151+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN .

Faure Atger , A. , ‘Education and political participation of migrants and ethnic minorities in the EU, policy analysis’ . In CEPS Special Reports, Justice and Home Aff airs ( CEPS , 2009 ).

Fleck , G. & Rughinis, C. , Come Closer. Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present-day Romanian Society , Human Dynamics for the Government of Romania ( Bucharest : Human Dymanics , 2007 ).

Friedman , E. , Gallová Kriglerová, E. , Herczog, M. et al. , Assessing Conditional Cash Transfers as a Tool for Reducing the Gap in Educational Outcomes between Roma and Non-Roma ( Budapest : REF , 2009 ). Available online at : http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/sites/default/fi les/publications/ccts_-_working_paper_4.pdf .

Gerganov , E. , Varbanova, S. & Kyuchukov, H. , ‘School adaptation of Roma children’ , Intercultural Education 16 (5) ( 2005 ): 495 – 511 .

Ghinararu , C. , Zamfi r, A.M. & Mocanu, C. , Munca Copiilor in Romania [Child Labor in Romania] ( Bucuresti : Ro Media , 2004 ).

Gokcen , S. , ‘UN Committee urges compensation for coercive sterilisations in the czech republic’ . In ERRC News&Events ( 2010 ). Available online at: http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=3788 .

Gómez , J. & Vargas, J. , ‘Why Roma do not like mainstream schools: Voices of a people without territory’ , Harvard Educational Review 73 (4) ( 2003 ): 559 – 590 .

Hancock , I. , Th e Pariah Syndrome. An Account of Gypsy Slavery and Persecution ( Ann Arbor : Karoma Publishers , 1987 ).

Hawke , L. , Seghedi, A. & Gheorghiu, M. , White Paper. Learning from America's Mistakes: A Proposal for Closing the Education Gap between Children of Roma Descent and Other Children in the European Union – STARTING WITH ROMANIA ( Bucharest : Asociatia Ovidiu Rom , 2008 ). Available online at : http://www.ovid.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/eng_white_paper_1_aug.pdf .

Horvath , I. & Toma, S. , ‘Th e Roma in Romania. General overview and an inventory of problems’ . In Community Force Qualitative Field Research Romania ( Cluj-Napoca : CCRIT , 2006 ).

INCLUDE-ED , ‘Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe’ - from education Project 1/ WP4: Th eories, reforms, and outcomes in the European educational systems. Citizens and


Governance in a Knowledge-based Society. 6 th FP. CIT4-CT-2006-028603 . ( European Commission , 2007 ). http://www.ub.edu/includ-ed/docs/ 3_D.4.1%20Report%202.pdf .

Iovu , M. , ‘Education and minority children. Findings from a Romanian survey’. In Integrat ing Diff erences: Human Rights, Social Inclusion and Social Cohesion in the Balkans on its Road to the EU, Conference proceedings . eds. Lozanoska & Dimitrov ( Skopje : Euro-Balkan Institute , 2009 ).

Jigau , M. & Surdu, M. , eds., Participarea la Educatie a Copiilor Romi – Probleme, Solutii, Actori [School Participation of Roma Children: Problems, Solutions, Actors] ( Bucharest : Marlink Pub-lishing House , 2002 ). Available online at : http://www.unicef.org/romania/children_1604.html .

Kligman , G. , ‘On the social construction of otherness’ , Review of Sociology 7 ( 2001 ): 61 – 78 . Ladányi , J. & Szelényi, I. , A kirekesztettség változó formai [Various forms of exclusion] ( Budapest :

Napvilág Kiadó , 2004 ). Lebeer , J. , ed., In-clues. Clues to Inclusive and Cognitive Education ( Antwerp : Garant . book+DVD ,

2006 ). Milcher , S. & Ivanov, A. , Th e United Nations Development Programme's Vulnerability Projects: Roma

and Ethnic Data ( Budapest : ERRC , 2004 ). Available online at : http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1936#3 .

Open Society Institute , Acces Egal la Educatie de Calitate Pentru Romi. Raport de Monitorizare [Equal Access to quality education for the Roma. Monitoring Report] ( Cluj-Napoca : AMM Design , 2007 ).

Open Society Institute , Roma Children in ‘Special Education’ in Serbia: Overrepresentation, Undera-chievement, and Impact on Life. Research on Schools and Classes for Children with Developmental Diffi culties ( New York : OSI , 2010 ).

Oravec , L. , ‘Possibilities for taking affi rmative action in the education of Roma’ . In Roma Children in the Slovak Education System . ed. A. Salner ( Bratislava : Slovak Governance Institute, OSI Budapest. ADIN , 2005 ). Available online at: http://www.osi.hu/esp/rei/Documents/ SGIRomaChildrenintheSlovakRepublic.pdf .

Pantea , M.C. , Challenges for Combating Roma Child Labor through Education in Romania and the Need for Child Centered Roma Policies ( Budapest : International Policy Fellowships of Open Society Institute , 2007 ).

Pantea , M.C. & Roth, M. , ‘Challenges in addressing child abuse and neglect among Roma children in Romania’ . In ISPCAN's World Perspectives on Child Abuse: an International Resource Book ( West Chicago : ISPCAN , 2008 ).

Petrova , D. , ‘Th e Roma: Between a myth and the future’ , Roma Rights (1) ( 2004 ). Available online at : http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1844 .

Podea , A. , ‘Romanian foundation for children community and family, a practice model contribut-ing to the school success’ , Today's Children are Tomorrow's Parents ( 27 ) ( 2010 ): 56 – 63 .

Rat , C. , ‘Social transfers and capability-building for the Roma’ , Social Transfers and Capability Building for the Roma‘ – paper presented at the International Conference of the Human Development and Capability Association, Groningen, the Netherladns (August 2006 ). Available online at : http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/6_1_Rat_int.pdf .

Riddell , S. , ‘Social justice, equality and inclusion in Scottish education’ . In Discourse (Centre for Research in Education Inclusion and Diversity , 2009 ) 30 , 3 , 283 – 297 . Available online at : http://www.creided.ac.uk/adr/pubs/DiscourseRiddell.28Feb09.pdf .

Ringold , D. , Roma and the Transition in Central Eastern Europe: Trends and Challenges ( Washington : Th e World Bank , 2000 ).

Ringold , D. , Orenstein, M. & Wilkens, E. , Roma in an Expanding Europe: Breaking the Poverty Cycle ( Washington : Th e World Bank , 2005 ).

Roma Education Fund (REF) , Advancing Education of Roma in Romania, Country Assessment and the Roma Education Fund's Strategic Directions ( Budapest : REF , 2007 ).

Roth , M. , Popescu, L. & Rat, C. , ‘Children and social policies in Romania’ . In Studia Universitatis Babes Bolyai. Sociologia , Categ CNCSIS C , ( 2006 ) (LI (2)) , 69 – 94 .

Stoian , I. & Mark, D. , DecadeWatch Romania Report, Mid Term Evaluation of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2010 ( Bucharest : Roma Civic Alliance , 2010 ). Available online at : http://www.romadecade.org/files/downloads/Decade%20Watch%202010/Decade%20Watch%20Romania%20Report%202010%20EN.pdf .


Surdu , M. & Szira, J. , Analysis of the Impact of Affi rmative Action for Roma in High Schools, Vocational Schools and Universities ( Budapest : Roma Education Fund and Gallup , 2009 ). Available online at : http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/sites/default/fi les/publications/gallup_romania_english.pdf .

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) , ‘Faces of poverty faces of hope’ . In Vulnerable Groups Status in SEE and CEE ( Bratislava : UNDP , 2005 ). Available online at: http://vulnerability.undp.sk .

UNDP , At Risk: Roma and the Displaced in Southeast Europe ( Bratislava : United Nations Develop-ment Programme , 2006 ). Available online at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/regionalreports/europethecis/name,3460,en.html .

UNDP , National Human Development Report. Make EU Accession Work for All ( Bucharest : UNDP , 2007 ). Available online at : http://www.undp.ro/download/fi les/publications/NHDR%202007%20EN.pdf .

UNESCO , EFA Global Monitoring Report. Education for All the Quality Imperative ( Paris : UNESCO , 2005 ). Avilable online at : http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137333e.pdf .

UNESCO , EFA Global Monitoring Report ( Paris : UNESCO , 2009 ). Available online at : http://www.unesco.org/education/gmr2009/press/efagmr2009_Chapter1.pdf .

UNESCO , Reaching the marginalized. EFA global monitoring report (Paris: UNESCO; Oxford , UK : Oxford University Press , 2010 ). Available online at : http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001866/186606e.pdf .

UNICEF , Children on the Brink. A Focused Situation Analysis, of Vulnerable, Excluded and Discriminated Children in Romania ( Bucharest : VANEMONDE , 2006 ).

UNICEF , Toward Roma Inclusion: A Review of Roma Education Initiatives in Central and South-Eastern Europe ( Geneva : UNICEF Regional Offi ce for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States , 2009 ). Available online at : http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/ROMA_PAPER_FINAL_LAST.pdf .

Vincze , E. & Harabula, H. , ‘Country report on education: Romania’ . In EDUMIGROM. Background Papers ( Budapest : Center for Policy Studies, Central European University , 2008 ).

Vincze , E. & Harabula, H. , ‘Attitudes toward schooling and ethnic identifi cation in the case of Roma from Romania’ . In Social Ecology of School Success . eds. M. Roth , D. Damean , L. Vaetisi & C. Degi ( Cluj Napoca : Cluj University Press , 2010 ).

Wilkinson , I.A.G. & Fung, I.Y.Y. , ‘Small-Group composition and peer eff ects’ , International Journal of Educational Research [online] 37 (5) ( 2002 ): 425 – 447 . 148 M. Roth and F. Moisa / International Journal of Children’s Rights 19 (2011) 501–522.

Copyright of International Journal of Children's Rights is the property of Martinus Nijhoff and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.