III. Results of focus-group discussions

Prior to writing the policy note we were conducting focus group discussions with various actors involved in the process of integration. Eight discussions were conducted in so-called homogeneous groups (parents, teachers, pupils, self-government representatives, heads of special schools and members of committees assessing mental abilities, civil organizations, ministry officials responsible for Roma issues and representatives of the academic sphere). The suggestions formulated in these groups were brought up again in a new, this time a mixed group (where persons from each of the previous eight target groups were present) to be discussed in the form of another focus group discussion.

Each focus group-discussion was designed and moderated by one of the research team members. The members of the groups were selected very carefully, reflecting the reality of the Hungarian society; inviting people from different geographical areas where Roma are over-represented or where Roma are very few; teachers from different types of schools, from elite schools, “Roma-schools”, special schools, integrated schools, segregated schools; etc .

Members of the focus groups were invited by National Institute of Public Education but participation was entirely voluntary. Before the discussions we had been in everyday contact with 10 to 12 persons per group to ensure participation. In the actual discussions, however, not everybody turned up, the lowest participation rate was that of the representatives of the academic sphere with only three persons being present.

At the same time it has to be taken into consideration that participation was due to some degree of commitment, activity of those taking part in the discussions, therefore those present cannot be considered totally representative of the target group. In this respect it can be said that it was the parents with the lowest degree of interest-assertion that could not be present, among the teachers the actors of the extreme segregation cases were not present and similar absences could be identified in all groups.

In analysing the discussions we identified so-called thematic issues, which were reduced or narrowed down to main dimensions on the second level of analysis. The ‘rankings’ formed after the first eight discussions are shown in the tables (see appendix). The theme integration-segregation, which is highly important from the aspect of the policy note, was highlighted everywhere and in the following we wish to go over this theme within the separate groups while mentioning group-specific dimensions as well.

III.1 Pupils

Integrational educational policy serves the interests of pupils, of future adult citizens, the whole society after all.

It was fascinating how much pupils perceive the importance of integration and the harmful consequences of segregation. Segregation or negative discrimination was frequently brought up during the discussion, the same words were used and the pupils were fully aware that adults, parents and teachers could also be blamed for various forms of discrimination (segregation): parents, teachers “have the huge task not to discriminate children...” or: “You should not escape somewhere else, into another school, into another community where there are only Romany people because in this way you get even more isolated from the non-Romany population or non-Romany pupils... But in this case it was not the fault of the Romany pupil but of the teacher.” Another example: “in the first grade I had a horrible row with my physics teacher and at the beginning of the second year this teacher made me sit in the back corner, in the last row and told me that from that time on s/he did not bother about what I did.”

Sometimes they gave an exact picture of the potential failure of Roma minority being or life. Just an example for some kind of “accepting a course of life” or of making themselves aware of the potential dangers: “it is much harder to get onto a higher level of education from a Roma school than from a Hungarian one ... but even when they get admitted to universities it is much harder to get an appropriate job because a much less talented non-Romany student will get the job”.

III.2 Parents

Parents in general showed a positive attitude to integrated education. In their opinion integration is aimed at successful involvement in the society, avoiding a kind of ‘feeling ashamed’ and in their view successful integration starts at birth, in the kindergarten. They regard integrated education important because it gives positive, driving-force type examples for Romany children.

The participants in this group, however, accept that some kind of individual intention, the acceptance of the values of the majority society is also necessary for integration as children must not be brought up “with blinkers” on. This denotes some sort of assimilation but the intention to clarify the concept of assimilation is also present as such expressions are used like ‘intercultural’ or ‘educating together’.

Some parents are disturbed by talking about integration; they blame the media for distorting the picture by speaking too much about it: “Before” (1989) there was not any problem with it (“if it had remained as it was, there would not be any problem now”).

As it can be seen in the table, the major part of thematic issues is related to the relationship of school and parents, families. There should be an operational communication sphere, nevertheless in this communication sphere parents from disadvantageous background are less likely to participate. Important elements of school success are: a stable family background (family love: “they who love their families will cope with everything”) and a servicing function of school (“teachers help”). That is exactly why it can be said that maintaining communication is not merely a financial or social issue.

In the view of the parents one of the reasons for the failure of continuing studies is unequal evaluation among schools or finance-based structural “permissiveness” (“in primary schools there is more permissiveness than in secondary schools as it is the primary schools that have the ‘ethnic normative support’”).

III.3 Teachers

Integration is not a central issue among teachers, it rather appears as a problem embedded in educational methods.

In connection with integration and segregation, segregation in a settlement is often mentioned as well as the attitude of parents representing the majority society (“some schools seem to be ‘gipsy schools’ as majority parents take they children away and ‘pack them’ into another school”).

They argue for integration saying that “this is how we can bring up tolerant people that accept each other”, they know such type of international practice (e.g. the method of learning together – England), but they often think that there are situations when it is hardly realizable (“it is not that we do not want to integrate but we cannot as 98 to 100 percent of our pupils are Roma”).

Schools where Romany children are in majority find the introduction of integrational normative support a loss (“we are absolute losers because we have only Romany children”) and they think this system should have been prepared better and the percentage level should have been reconsidered. Schools that according to the rules may get integrational normative support think: “we will make good use of the money but we miss the promised methodological packages”.

Teachers also raised the issue of Romany children who are mentally not handicapped, nevertheless have to attend special schools. What will happen to them?

III.4 Local governments

During the discussion conducted with representatives of local governments the issue of integration and segregation was often raised. Among causes of segregation the inner segregation of a settlement was most often mentioned but other social and demographic causes were also brought up. While speaking about segregation a kind of shifting responsibility could be recognized (“a certain segregation is taking shape among schools against our will” or “we have fixed the building but it is a ‘gipsy’ school and the reality is that it was not built like this”) and it was also mentioned that this issue should not be ethnicised so much and “we shouldn’t always speak about integrating Romany pupils”.

As an obstacle to achieving integrated education, the attitude of majority parents and free choice of school were mentioned. There is also a demand for clarifying concepts because integrated education, as an educational method aiming at combating disadvantageous situations should be differentiated from the integration of handicapped pupils. As a result of the previously mentioned attitude of shifting responsibility – “integration should not be used for Roma only” and it is not the teachers who can be blamed for segregation.

The members of the group accept that experimental educational programs are necessary but they believe that these programs will fail unless long-term financial support is ensured.

In connection with the integrational normative support it was asked (again) what will happen to the institutions where Romany pupils are in majority (‘gipsy’ schools) but there was also determination shown to use this normative support: “Some way of using it can be found in any case (e.g. formal merging of schools) but this will not solve the problem of genuine integrated education”.

III.5 Special schools

A frequently heard charge related to special schools was that the percentage of Romany children is very high there. There was no consensus among the members of the group concerning the rightness of this charge. Some say this proportion is high, others find – partly driven by not wanting to lose professional prestige – that it is natural: “our pupils, I think, are mentally handicapped; if other – sociological, social, medical (!) – aspects are taken into consideration I believe selection is good”. Also a certain ‘family tradition’ is added here. If one of the children of the family goes to a special school, the others should go there too, as children are treated much better here: “parents would like their children to experience success in a special school and do not want them to be excluded in a normal school” where they are pushed onto the periphery both by their peers and teachers, whereas in a special school they get love and care, “we hug them and kiss them as we do with the Hungarians”.

Among the causes of segregation a new element appears here: Romany pupils segregate themselves: “In our school gipsy pupils are integrated from the very beginning but they segregate themselves”. As an example they mention a group of pupils, where 6 of the 15 children are Roma and they sit at a separate table, they are together during classes and even in breaks, “and what is really painful they are together even in spare time activities”. In this argumentation the strategy of looking for a scapegoat and not reflecting on the role of the teacher can easily be identified.

The members of this group consider the creation of personal and material conditions and of appropriate educational methodology essential for the success of integration. In methodology they think the education of handicapped children should be given a greater role (external support system) as it is where expertise can be found: “differentiated organization of teaching in class should be learnt in majority primary schools as well”. If differentiated teaching methods were widespread in primary schools (“conditions were improved”), children with partial ability problems would not get to special schools so often after an unsuccessful primary school career.

III.6 Representatives of the academic sphere

In this discussion as well, the issues of segregation in the settlement, segregation inside school and the question of voluntary segregation were raised.

They believe that the condition for successful integration is the introduction of a new educational view i.e. “the more or less Roma school should be attractive for non-Romany children as well”. True, it will only be possible when social conditions in the broader sense of the word change as well, when equal opportunities become reality and when maintainers do not misuse money. Moreover, educational methods are necessary by which children help each other in integrated education. Other conditions of successful integration are: training school social workers and extending experiences existing elsewhere onto this area.

In their view the fault of the present integrational initiative is that it is not communicated properly, and it can be regarded as a first step only, whereas the further steps are unknown.

III.7 Civil organizations

In the discussion conducted with the representatives of the invited civil organizations the theme of integration and segregation was in the centre as well as school success.

They see children-centred education in schools with high Roma majority an essential condition for integration. Here teachers should get in-service training and cooperation should be started at local levels with local governments, Roma organizations, professional organizations.

As a condition for facilitating further studies a pedagogical task (and examples) were mentioned in relation to helping those who failed in third or fourth grades so that they can get into upper primary (lower secondary) education.

Children directed to special schools can be integrated into normal education by a complex educational, methodological program of institutional development. The elements of this program are: children-centred education, cooperation with parents (“there is no successful education without families”), using normal curricula and prejudice decreasing trainings for teachers and pupils. This latter element is usually missing from government programs.

In relation to integrational normative support the opinion was formed that the scope of those affected is relatively well defined as “this limit is ... low enough”, but the condition for successful integration is that the existing public education system should be made suitable for Roma integration; the contact systems of teachers should be expanded by local governments and other educational institutions.

In this group it was also mentioned that integration should be started in kindergartens and the elements of a successful system of conditions are: changes in teacher training, in-service training, higher education and financing as well as managing prejudice at local and political levels. If all the elements are not known, or not formulated or communicated, the whole educational policy initiative may become a source of conflicts.

III.8 Ministry officials

From the discussion conducted with ministry officials it can be drawn that in their view integration means equal knowledge, marketable knowledge. If somebody possesses marketable knowledge, it is all the same whether they are Roma or not. The objective should be that Romany children finish primary school successfully, get into and stay in secondary education, appear in higher numbers in higher education and join the process of lifelong learning.

Integration, however, is unsuccessful if its subjects have no income, are socially deprived and live in misery. If there are no parents who can pay, there are problems with the education of the children because they cannot buy the extra services necessary for increasing the chances of their children to get into and stay in secondary education. An essential condition for integration and school success is demolishing slums or making them suitable for life as well as cooperation of minority local governments, National Roma Minority Local Government, civil organizations and families.

It would also be beneficial if education and labour market corresponded so that educated Romany youth could be guided back to the Romany community by creating job opportunities for them there because “if human capital does not stream back into the community, it will become weaker”. At the same time the historical process – that knowledge is getting valued in Roma families – has to be supported as well. “It is very important that Romany parents also make every effort so that their children can learn and move forward.”

In the discussion it was mentioned that although officials responsible for Romany issues appeared in the ministries in 2002, their job is not coordinated (the State Secretariat of the Prime Minister’s Office does not fulfil this function) and various Roma programs run parallel with each other and the spheres of authority are not well defined. “We could experience that they have a minimum of authority, minimal tasks and they work at the border of politics and profession.”

III.9 The mixed group

One or two representatives (but not the same persons) were invited from all the targets groups for this discussion. The discussion was centred on the issues of integration and financing.

Apart from the major themes mentioned above (lack ok preparation, in-service teacher training, identifying those affected, free choice of school, Roma schools not getting support, etc.) the following new elements were mentioned regarding integration:

• central regulation will be unsuccessful unless it takes into consideration the size of the settlements (capital vs. the country);
• the relationship of integration and assimilation should be clarified (is integration aimed at assimilation?);
• it is difficult to determine the number of those getting schooling nearly a year before the beginning of the next school year (1 October);
• integrational normative support should unambiguously be linked with in-service teacher training;
• a new type of segregation should be given more attention (segregation in secondary school halls of residence in Budapest).