II. Problem description

II.1 Nurseries and kindergartens

Sociological studies show that Romany children usually start their educational “career” with a serious drawback and their lag is increasing during the period they spend in formal schooling (Radó, 2002). This drawback originates mainly in the fact that the knowledge collected in a Romany family is incompatible and mostly unusable within the boundaries of the “white school”. So it would be the role of the kindergarten to make the two value-systems get closer, and prepare the child for his/her school-career but a considerable proportion of Romany children do not attend kindergartens. According to the representative research conducted in 1993–94 40% of three-year-olds, 54% of four-year-olds and 72% of five-year-olds were registered members of kindergartens. 72% seems to be quite a high rate but it should be noticed that at the age of five nursery education is compulsory in Hungary, because this is a preparatory phase for schooling. So it means that more than 20% of children did not fulfil their obligations. The research data of Havas–Kemeny–Lisko in 2000 show a more positive picture. Only 6,5% of the sample of 1774 Romany parents reported that their children did not participate in school-preparatory education, while 88% of five-year-olds took part in it. Researchers feel the need to highlight that being registered members of a kindergarten does not automatically mean that they visit it regularly. Statistics show that only every second child is a real participant. The causes of the situation can be the following:

1. there is no adequate infrastructural supply in kindergartens so they are compelled to refuse several applicants. In many disadvantaged families at least one of the parents is unemployed or inactive, thus the “childminder” role of the kindergarten becomes not so essential. Even more, one of the most common reasons for refusing the children is the parent’s unemployed status, with reference to the fact that non-working parents can look after the children all day (Vágó, 2002). It results in a smaller number of disadvantaged children attending kindergartens. Kindergarten attendance involves a considerable amount of costs (fares, meals, other expenses in the kindergarten etc.) All this can contribute to the lower proportion of kindergarten attendance in the case of disadvantaged families’ children. Costs can denote a strong limitation especially in places where there are no kindergartens.
2. Kindergarten supply can vary in each place. Presumably in small villages where the number of the disadvantaged is high – owing to the small size of the settlement as well as the unfavourable financial situation of the local government – there are fewer kindergarten rooms than in average kindergartens or there are no kindergartens at all.
3. Kindergartens do not provide suitable conditions for Romany children (such as attention, tolerance, pedagogical competence etc.) so they do not like going to kindergarten (Pik, 1998). There can be cultural differences between the disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children as well.

II.2 Primary education

In 1993–94 90% of the whole 15-year-old or older population finished their primary education by the end of the eighth year of schooling as set in the law. According to the representative research on Romany students conducted by Havas–Kemény–Kertesi (1997) revealed the fact that only 44% of the 14-year-old Romany children did so. If we take those pupils into consideration, too, who finished their primary education not on time but later, we can say that 77% of Romany teenagers own a primary school-leaving certificate. So nearly 25% of Romany children cannot continue their studies at a secondary level. The proportion of those who finish their primary education has increased since 1993 but very often there is no real, utilizable knowledge behind their performance. Statistical data collected by the Hungarian Institute of Educational Research (Havas–Kemény–Liskó, 2002) show that educational segregation of Romany pupils has increased in primary education since 1990. In 1992 every 12th or 13th Romany child (7,1%) learnt in an institution dominated by Roma. Nowadays this is true for every 5th or 6th pupil of Romany origin (18,1%). Considering the research data it can be substantiated that there are 126 primary schools with Roma majority in the country. 40% of all pupils of primary schools of Romany origin attend these schools, while only 6,3% of non-Romany children attend such schools. It can be supposed that there are:

• 1230 classes with 13 300 Romany children, where the proportion of Roma exceeds 50%,
• 740 classes with 10 300 Romany children, where the proportion of Roma is more than 75%,
• 700 homogenous Roma classes in the country (Havas–Kemény–Liskó, 2002).

So nearly 35% of Romany children learn at Roma dominated primary schools (32,600 of 93,000) (Kóczé, 2002).

II.3 Types of segregation

II.3.1 Segregation between schools

The development of segregated Romany schools is closely related to segregation in housing – the schools reflect local ethnic divisions, so there is a strong link between the institutional segregation of Romany children and their isolated places of residence. The reasons for this are twofold, caused by economic problems and the prejudiced attitudes of non-Romany parents.

In the 1990s a process of spontaneous migration took place, when the proportion of Romany population significantly increased in small settlements located in the poorer regions of the country and in the deteriorating quarters of bigger cities. Non-disadvantaged families tend to move out of such areas mainly because of decreasing work possibilities, and the lack of proper infrastructure, so the proportion of non-Romany students at local schools radically dropped. When due to the migration process the number of Romany pupils started rising in the schools, prejudices begin to work, and even some of those non-Romany families took their children out from the school, who did not move away. Havas–Kemény–Liskó (2002, p. 59) examining 192 schools found that in the case of 28 educational institutions it was clearly indicated that although the given school was the only one in the given village or town, most non-Romany children living there were sent to schools located in different settlements. Romany parents being discouraged by the costs of travelling and/or unaware of the importance of school-choice mostly chose the school nearest to their place of residence, supporting the development of ethnically segregated schools. It has to be emphasized, that the schools of the ethnically segregated settlements are usually in a poor condition, thus providing no incentives for more affluent families to keep their children in these institutions.

The non-Romany parents’ efforts of separation can also be successful because schools receive state subsidies according to the number of children they teach. This means that schools have to fight for children and, as a result, they try to gain parents’ appreciation, they help creating Roma-free schools. As the Commissioner for the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities (Ombudsman-report, 2001. p. 42) points out “the local governments and the schools often give in the pressure coming from the local non-Romany population and play an active role in creating such situations”. In addition to this, due to the normative per capita support provided by the state for the purposes of minority education), schools and local governments (as their owners) are interested in organizing different forms of minority education in order to increase their income.

There are two basic forms in which such education may be organized: the educational institution may qualify either as an “educational institution participating in minority education” or as a “minority educational institution”. However, there are no clear-cut criteria as to what constitutes an “educational institution participating in minority education”. From the case law of the Minorities Ombudsman, we can conclude that an educational institution may be regarded as such if its deed of foundation contains reference to tasks related to national or ethnic minorities and if the school receives normative per capita support for minority education from the state budget (Ombudsman-report, 2002, p.298–299.).

The head of a minority educational institution may only be appointed and removed with the approval of the concerned minority self-government, whereas no such requirement is needed in the case of heads of educational institutions participating in minority education. The approval of the minority self-government is required for both types of institution with regard to – among others – the following: the establishment and closing down of the institution; the amendment of its scope of activities; the adoption and amendment of its budget; the assessment of the professional activity conducted in the institution; the approval of its rules of operation; the approval of the institution’s educational program or pedagogical program, and the assessment of the implementation thereof.

II.3.2 Segregation within school

Due to the per capita support system of education, schools (and local governments as their owners) are interested to have as many students as possible.¹Therefore, to prevent the above described ‘emigration’ of non-Romany children from schools where the proportion of Romany children starts to increase, some schools set up a class system making the segregation of Romany pupils possible. There are three basic forms of class segregation:

• special remedial classes, usually with a lower requirement level, poorer educational work and a disproportionate number of Romany pupils;
• special faculty classes offering extracurricular education (e.g. language teaching, advanced mathematics, etc), usually reserved for non-Romany children; and
• classes set up by misusing the institution of “Roma minority education”.

The 2000 research by the Institute for Educational Research examined the proportion of Romany children in remedial and special faculty classes at the 192 surveyed schools. It showed that while the proportion of Romany pupils was 45.2% in normal curriculum classes, their percentage in mathematics faculty classes and language faculty classes amounted to 16.2% and 17.5% respectively. In the light of the above it shall also come as no surprise that their proportion was 81.8% in remedial classes (Havas–Kemény–Liskó, 2002, p. 63).

There is also strong evidence that segregation is in part institutionalised by the misuse of funding for special measures for Roma education. Before the significant amendments of late 2002, state funding was available to local governments on an ‘ethnic per student grant’ basis to establish special classes for the Roma in the framework of so-called “Romany minority educational programs”. The program was supposed to contain two elements: strengthening the children’s Romany identity on the one hand and a catch up element on the other. In his 2000 report the Minorities Ombudsman bitterly summarized his main experiences concerning Romany minority educational programs: “We would not like to fall into the error of exaggerating generalization but we must say that in several cases the local governments – in cooperation with the schools – only organize Romany minority education to obtain the supplementary normative support and exploit this form of education to segregate the Romany pupils in a – seemingly – lawful manner” (Ombudsman-report, Budapest, 2001., p. 50).

A fundamental problem of the per student grant financing is that the amount of the grant, destined to reach the desired goal, is difficult to be determined (Varga, 1998), furthermore, the financing system is unable to manage the school specific cost differences. Moreover the cost differences are negatively correlated with the size of the schools/settlements, and the ratio of the disadvantaged within schools. Therefore the education of the disadvantaged would be more expensive per student in small settlement schools. The per-student grant financing is not able to handle such differences.

Another problem consist of the above- mentioned misuse of funding. If the aims of the financial assistance are not clearly defined, there are no incentives for the local governments to use the grant for the given purposes.²

Children may be placed in separated remedial classes within “normal” schools on the basis of the expert panel’s opinion (in the case of the child’s slight mental disability) – detailed description of the expert panel’s work is in Special schools section – or on the basis of the opinion of the educational advice centre if the child is not mentally disabled but finds it hard to cope with school due to learning or behavioural difficulties, or other problems with fitting in.

With – theoretically – strong parental involvement, the expert panel conducts an examination and in its expert opinion it may conclude that the child’s mental disability is of the extent that it does not require attendance in a special school, however, completely integrated education is not recommended either. In such cases the child may be sent to a normal school, where special remedial classes are organised.

Similar to the activity of expert panels, the procedure conducted by educational advisory centre is also legally safeguarded against abuses. The examination may only be launched upon the parent’s request, or his/her consent. These legal guarantees cannot fully prevent misuse: remedial classes are also often used to justify segregation of Romany pupils. The legal guarantees do not take the limitations of parental involvement into consideration. The parents of the Romany children relegated to the special class did not make use of their right to remedy. It is obvious that due to their educational disadvantages and restricted assertive abilities, the majority of Romany parents find it difficult to utilize the legal safeguards. Therefore, the provisions pertaining to the professional supervision of educational institutions at the local and institutional level are of outstanding importance.

Supervision can be initiated by the local government and the minority self-government at the local level, and the owner of the educational institution (most often the local government) has the right to initiate supervision at the institutional level. The possibility that the local minority self-government may request supervision is very important as the Minorities Ombudsman points out – “the local government is often counter-interested in a professional supervisory procedure” Ombudsman 2000, p. 54.). It is often the local government that we find behind discriminatory educational practices, whereas the right to initiate professional supervision could provide minority self-governments with another useful instrument in acting against segregation.

II.3.3 Special schools

Romany children go to special schools in a proportion that is much higher than their proportion among school-aged children. The percentage of Romany children increased in special schools from about 25% in 1974–75 to 42% in 1992 (Data of the Ministry of Culture and Education, MCE’, 1993). Due to the rules of data protection, no official statistics are available after this date, but numerous sociological studies have dealt with the issue. A 1997 survey involving 309 special schools estimated the percentage of Romany pupils to be over 40% (Radó, 1997), whereas a 1998 survey in Borsod-county showed over 90% of students attending schools with special curricula to be Roma (Loss, 2001). According to Havas, Kemény and Liskó (2002. p.95), about every fifth Romany child is declared to be mentally disabled. Most experts agree that a good number of Romany children attending special schools are not even slightly mentally disabled and are only relegated to such institutions due to the negligent failure to take into consideration their specific socio-cultural characteristics and owing to – conscious or unconscious – discriminatory considerations (Ombudsman-report, 2000. pp. 236–238.).

The reasons for sending these children to special schools are usually articulated according to the following: due to socialisation defects in the family and to insufficient kindergarten attendance, children are socio-culturally disadvantaged and, as a consequence, they are unable to study at the same speed with the other children, so they require the use of special pedagogical tools and methods, within the walls of a special school or a remedial class. In practice, special schools and special classes generally mean low expectations, low-level teaching and segregation, due to which catching up with the others becomes impossible. Teaching in Roma-dominated or in a special school is a low-prestige job accompanied by more than the average work and less than the average sense of achievement. Most teachers do not regard this kind of work as a challenge and they are often ill-equipped to handle it, which leads to a contra-selection of teachers. As a result of the contra-selection the proportion of teachers having no degree at all is much higher in special schools and in special classes than elsewhere. Research findings show that in those schools where the proportion of Romany pupils is over 75% the average of unskilled teachers is 30,8%, and at schools with Romany students with less than 25% this percentage is 17,4 (Liskó, 2001, p. 25.).

The selection of children sent to special schools is made by an expert panel, a selection committee by the request of local schools and kindergartens. Where doubts emerge about the ability of students to cope with normal school, the ‘expert panel’ examines them for possible attendance at a ‘special school’, intended for children with physical or mental disabilities with lower requirements for pupils. Children remain at these schools until their abilities are considered to be sufficient for elementary education, and may continue through the auxiliary system throughout primary level, with practically no chance of continuing to secondary schools afterwards. Roma are disproportionately represented at both the testing and selection stages (Interview, November 2000). ECRI reports that “such channelling, which in principle is carried out by an independent board, is often quasi-automatic in the case of Romany children” (CRI (2000) 5, par. 31.). Every child who did not go to kindergarten has to be examined.

As we described above Romany children go to kindergarten in much lower proportions than their non-Romany peers. While the importance of kindergarten attendance is emphasised by many and research (e.g.:Havas–Kemény–Liskó, 2002) shows that in the case of Romany children there is a strong link between regular kindergarten attendance and school success, it is difficult to measure the direct effects of kinde rgarten attendance to school success, since it is viable to suppose that children whose parents consider regular kindergarten attendance important have a different family background from those whose parents might even be late to send their children to school.

The other reason for Romany children ending up in special schools is that experts examining children still use measures that are inadequate to decide about the abilities of children socialised in poor and/or minority families.

If the child goes to kindergarten it is the nursery teacher’s task to establish whether the child is suitable for school attendance. If he/she believes that the child has some physical or mental disabilities that would pose a problem in this respect he/she shall contact the parent and suggest that the child has to be examined by the expert panel on rehabilitation. If the child does not attend kindergarten, his/her suitability for school attendance shall be established by the educational advisory centre. If the educational advisory centre comes to the conclusion that the child is physically or mentally disabled it shall suggest to the parent that the child has to be examined by the expert panel. If doubts about the child’s capacity to cope with “normal school” emerge in the course of school education (if the child has learning, behavioural difficulties or problems with fitting in), the educational advisory centre conducts a preliminary examination.

The expert panel examines the child and prepares an expert opinion. The expert opinion shall – among others – include the statement of disability, the description of the facts supporting this conclusion, a conclusion on whether the child shall attend a special educational institution or may participate in integrated education, and a list of those educational institutions where – taking into consideration the panel’s conclusion concerning the learning capacity of the child – the child can fulfil his/her educational obligation.

The procedure is based on parental involvement. As a reaction to the indications concerning the disproportionate number of Romany children in special schools, a Decree regulating the work of the expert panels was amended in 1998 and 2001 with the aim of strengthening the role of the parents in the process. At present the parent’s most important rights are the following:

• Upon the voluntary request of the parent, in the course of their examination the educational advisory centre and the expert panel shall take into consideration the special linguistic and socio-cultural characteristics of children belonging to minority groups.
• The examination of the expert panel shall be launched upon parental request or with parental consent.
• If the educational institution believes that the child ought to be examined by the expert panel, it contacts the parent and suggests the child’s participation in the examination. The reason for the suggestion shall be communicated to the parent.
• If the parent consents, he/she shall sign the request for expert examination, which is then sent to the expert panel by the educational institution.
• the examination of the expert panel may not be started in the absence of the parent, unless the parent’s whereabouts are unknown or he/she is permanently prevented from attending the examination. (The parent is obliged to participate in the examination.)
• the expert opinion of the expert panel shall contain a warning that if the parent does not accept the opinion, he/she has the right to request the competent notary for a review of the opinion.
• the expert panel informs the parent of the possibilities in accordance with which the child may fulfil his/her educational obligations. From among the educational institutions suggested by the expert panel it is the parent who chooses the so-called “designated” educational institution.
• The parent shall be informed about the contents of the expert opinion. A copy of the opinion shall be handed over or sent to the parent. In the course of the information process, the parent’s attention shall be drawn to the fact that the implementation of what is included in the expert opinion is only possible if he/she agrees and his/her consent is verified by his/her signature. The parent’s attention shall also be drawn to the fact that if he/she disagrees with the contents of the expert opinion, he/she may initiate its amendment by launching a public administrative procedure with the competent notary.
• If the parent agrees in writing with the expert opinion, the expert panel sends it to the designated educational institution.

Besides parental involvement, a further guarantee against potential mistakes in the procedure is that in the case of students with slight mental disabilities the expert panel shall review its opinion one year after its initial decision, and then in every second year until the child reaches the age of 12. After this time the review shall be carried out every three years.

II.3.4 Romany children as private students

A relatively new method of separating problematic Romany children has evolved recently: declaring them private students and exempting them from going to school. Private students must be exempted from all class attendance and the private students fulfil their educational obligation by taking exams at the end of each semester before an independent panel.

There are two ways in which a child can become a private student, depending on the parent’s choice, the child’s educational obligation may be fulfilled by school attendance or as a private student. The other case is when the child has some kind of disability, learning or behavioural disorder, and the expert panel decides that he/she shall become a private student. In the former case it is the parent’s obligation to prepare the child for the exams, whereas in the latter, this obligation remains with the school.

In 2001 the Minorities Ombudsman started receiving complaints claiming that in some schools the parents of “problematic children” are persuaded to request that the child be declared a private student. Sometimes parents are even threatened that they either do so or the child will be sent away from the school. Therefore, the Minorities Ombudsman requested the Ministry of Education to introduce safeguards that may prevent such abuse. In accordance with the request, Ministry of Education inserted a new provision which claims that if the parent claims that the child wishes to become a private student, the school’s principal shall request the opinion of the local child care service within three days, which shall respond within 15 days.

In his 2002 report the Minorities Ombudsman states the following: “In spite of the amendment, we still receive complaints from this field. The local government, the school and the childcare service usually stand on the same side. Numerous complainants claimed that the childcare service [...] contributed to the pressure from the school and the local government with its consenting opinion. The reason behind the phenomenon is to be found in the often helpless situation of the Romany parents and in the approach that can only handle differences through the means of segregation” (Ombudsman-report 2002, p. 127.).

II.4 Secondary education

According to research findings (Liskó, 2002. p.17.) two thirds of Romany pupils finish their primary education by the age of 16, while 14–15% of them finishes it by the age of 18. 85% of those students who finish the primary school in their lower age enter secondary educational level. Students gaining primary certificate at special schools can continue their studies at institutions of special vocational training.

The proportion of Romany and non-Romany students participating in secondary education can be seen well by examining the following table:

Table 1. (Liskó, 2002, p. 18.)

	Roma (in %)	Non-Roma (in %)
do not continue studies	14,9	3,2
special vocational training	9,4	3,2
vocational training	56,5	36,8
secondary school with school-leaving exam	15,4	38,1
grammar school	3,6	18,4

 

So 50% of Romany students continue their studies at vocational schools, while 14% of them go to secondary or grammar schools ending with final examination.

At the grade of 9 and 10 the 50% of Romany students drop out, which means that only 32% of them enter 11^th grade. It can be supposed that dropping-out is also continuing in this grade, so the proportion of those who finally finish their secondary education is about 24%.

According to statistical data and research findings the majority of Romany students of the upper secondary level study at institutions of vocational training, and Havas–Kemény–Liskó’s data show that this regards to Romany parents, too (Havas–Kemény–Liskó, 2002, p.33). The majority of responding parents, who own secondary qualification, had taken part in vocational training.

There is no consensus concerning the function, requirements of the grades 9 and 10 of vocational schools, the function of the examination of public education, the frameworks and financing of programs preparing for vocational education in grades 9 and 10 of vocational schools. In grade 9 of vocational schools the proportion of failures and drop-outs is very high. A part of the teachers work according to secondary schools requirements. Students are unmotivated, parents do not understand what this school is for, and they believed their children would get vocational education. Local governments maintaining these schools operate the grades 9 and 10 according to the ‘remainder’ principle, forcing schools to organize classes of 30–35. In the marketed in-service teacher training system there is no appropriate supply of courses on the methods serving the support of those who drop behind. Especially high is the drop-out rate of Romany students in the grades 9 and 10 of vocational schools, thus this educational phase cannot be regarded as an organic element of inclusive school, either.

In the vocational education grades of vocational schools students with different previous qualifications are trained for qualifications that give various opportunities to them. The competitive trades of commerce, services, electro-technology, woodwork, light industry can be studied after completing grade 10, the majority of trades of metal industry, agriculture, food-processing, chemical industry, construction, construction material industry can be learnt in two years after the successful completion of grade 8. The majority of Romany students of 16 or more years of age can only choose from among the latter trades. Especially narrow are the opportunities for Romany girls, as the majority of trades in commerce, services, light industry that are chosen by girls in Hungary can be studied only after the successful completion of grade 10.

In the last 3–4 years the erosion of vocational schools has continued. Today this institution is the school of “the rest”, the least advantageous quarter of the pupils of a given year attending them. The unsettled conditions of grades 9 and 10 further damage the motivation of students. Due to low salaries a major part of vocational trainers are old, burnt out, and also unmotivated. Thus on the one hand the vocational school is unsuitable for inclusion, nor does it provide such opportunities and perspectives that would ensure that exacting educational policy and minority policy take them into consideration while defining the scenes of integration.

The education in secondary schools ending with a school leaving exam is determined by course books designed based on the curricula of 1979 and the requirements of the school leaving exam and university entrance exams. Although between 1990 and 2002 the proportion of those who continue their studies in secondary education and those who pass the school-leaving exam nearly doubled, and now it is nearly 70%, the higher education entrance requirements are getting sharper. The education in secondary schools ending with a school leaving exam is determined by co urse books designed based on the curricula of 1979 and the requirements of the school leaving exam and university entrance exams. Although between 1990 and 2002 the proportion of those who continue their studies in secondary education and those who pass the school-leaving exam nearly doubled, and now it is nearly 70%, the higher education entrance requirements are getting sharper.

The only initiative in the last four years for introducing second chance-type programs is the catch-up training regulated in 27.§ (8) of the Act on Public Education, which would provide opportunities for the students not being able to get to the former primary schools for adults to enter the vocational year of vocational schools. Its name came from 27. § (7) of the Act on Public Education of 1996. To avoid misunderstandings it would be worth naming it “vocational school integration program”. This regulation made it possible that practically each pupil can study all traditional trades. Influential representatives of public education policy, however, did not accept the positive discrimination element of catch-up training, i.e. the regulation that those of over 16 years without a primary school qualification are allowed to learn the functional elements of the closing stage of primary education that are required for starting vocational training. The conditions of starting to learn a trade have changed as well and according to present regulations catch-up education makes it possible for the student to enter vocational training if it prepares for the exam of the given year of primary school, i.e. it takes the role of the former evening primary schools for adults. Catch-up programs have been launched in about 20 schools, the number of participants is less than 400.