sign in sign up
<<
Home , Education in Romania

background papers

Ethnic differences in and diverging prospects for urban youth in an enlarged Europe

EnikO Magyari-Vincze AND Hajnalka Harbula

Country Report on Education: 2008

Edumigrom Background papers  The research leading to these results has been conducted under the auspices of the project EDUMIGROM: Ethnic Differences in Education and Diverging Prospects for Urban Youth in an Enlarged Europe, and has received funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013), under Grant Agreement SSH7-CT-2008-217384-EDUMIGROM.

About EDUMIGROM Ethnic Differences in Education and Diverging Prospects for Urban Youth in an Enlarged Europe is a collaborative research project that aims to study how ethnic differences in education contribute to the diverging prospects of minority ethnic youth and their peers in urban settings. Through applying a cross-national comparative perspective, the project explores the overt and covert mechanisms in socio-economic, political, cultural, and gender relations that make ethnicity a substantive component of inequalities in social status and power. The project involves nine countries from old and new member states of the European Union: the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. EDUMIGROM began in March 2008 and will run through February 2011. The project is coordinated by the Center for Policy Studies at Central European in Budapest, Hungary.

About the paper The first research phase of EDUMIGROM focused on background studies on education and ethnic relations in the domestic contexts of the project’s target countries. During this phase, research teams gathered and processed macro-level data and information with three adjacent goals in mind: to supply the comprehensive country studies on education and ethnic relations; to inform cross-country comparisons on minority ethnic youth in education; to provide ample information for the multi-level selection of samples for surveys, community and school case studies. A total of 16 studies were prepared, and their publication is intended to share valuable knowledge and stimulate discussion on issues related to the education and integration of minority ethnic youth in Europe. These reports made available to the wider public may no longer contain specific information on the sites and schools selected for the EDUMIGROM field research. The relevant chapters have either been excluded or anonymised in order to protect the identity of the researched schools, communities and individuals.

This Paper was prepared by the research team from the Center for Gender Studies at Babes-Bolyai University, Romania.

© EDUMIGROM The EDUMIGROM Consortium holds copyright for the Papers published under the auspices of the project. Reproduction in whole or in part of this text is allowed for research and educational purposes, with appropriate citation and acknowledgement.

CENTER FOR POLICY STUDIES CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY

Nádor utca 9 H–1051 Budapest, Hungary [email protected] www.edumigrom.eu Acknowledgements

We would like to express our special thanks to the non-governmental organisation Romani CRISS from (in particular to Magda Matache, Nicoleta Bitu and Cosmin Rad), to Gheorghe Sarău, Professor of Romani language and Consultant on Roma at the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth, to Gruia Bumbu, President of the National Agency for Roma from Romania, and to Crina Morteanu from the Civic Alliance of Roma from Romania for their assistance in providing us with up-to-date information about Roma schooling.

Eniko Magyari-Vincze and Hajnalka Harbula Babes-Bolyai University September 2008

1 Table of Contents

Abstract 3 1. Overview of the Education System 4 1.1. Institutional Structure 4 1.2. Ownership and Authority 7 1.3. Finances 7 1.4. Statistical Indicators 8 2. Schooling of Minority Ethnic Youth. Differentiation in the Educational System by Ethnicity 9 2.1. School Attendance 9 2.2. Regulations 13 2.3. Differentiation by Ethnicity in Education 14 2.4. Inter-ethnic Relations 15 2.5. Multicultural Education 16 3. Other Dimensions of Differentiation in the Education System 17 3.1. Differentiation in School Career 17 3.2. Differences in School Performance 18 4. Education of Minority Ethnic Youth in Light of Public Debates and Policy-making 19 4.1. Public Discourse and Representation 20 4.2. Policy-making: General Frame 24 4.3. Equal Opportunities 27 4.4. Segregation/Integration 30 4.5. Minority Language and Multiculturalism 32 5. The State of the in Research on Minority Ethnic Youth in Education 34 5.1. Desegregating Roma Schools 34 5.2. Educational Measures for the Roma Minority in Romania 35 5.3. Separate and Unequal 36 5.4. The Roma Education Resource Book 37 5.5. Come Closer 38 5.6. Social Exclusion of Roma 39 5.7. Social Exclusion at the Crossroads of Gender, Ethnicity and Class 40 6. Considerations Driving the Selection of Empirical Research: Groups, Schools, and Sites 41 Bibliography 43 Additional Research Reports and Studies 48 Useful Internet Resources on Roma and Education, Romanian and International 50 Abbreviations and Acronyms 51 Annex: Tables and Figures 52

2 Abstract

Since 1990, the Romanian educational system has undergone many transformations, including the structure of the school system, the types of schools, the limits of the , the number of pupils enrolled at different educational levels and types of schools, school abandon (or drop-out) rates, educational policies (including organisational, financial, curricular aspects), and the status and regulation of ethnic minority education (Chapter 1 of this report). These transformations are part of the post-socialist changes and of the accession of Romania to the European Union. The first post- socialist version of the Law of Education was finalized in 1995, and in recent years, a new project is on the table of legislators. Meanwhile, the government and of the Ministry of Education – also known as the Ministry of Education and Research (MER) or the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth (MERY) – drew up many ordinances and notifications to change the system of education. It happened quite often that, when the political ‘colour’ of the government changed, a new Minister of Education withdrew the ordinances of his or her predecessor; in turn, reforms since 1990 have looked more like a series of experiments than as a well-thought and coherent strategic process. However, legislation in the domain of education is in line with European principles of democratic governance. Legislation states that access to education in Romania for the citizens of Romania is assured at all the levels and forms, without discrimination:1 education is to be provided to all “without any difference of social and material condition, of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, political or religious options” (Art. 5/1); and “the state, based on the educational pluralism – and for the benefit of the individual and the society – guarantees the right to differentiated education” (Art. 5/2). But, existing data on education show inequalities in terms of access. Chapters 2 and 3 show that between the Romanian legislative regulations and everyday social realities there are huge gaps in students’ access to education. Visible differences in access to education result from social, economic, cultural and power relations, and reproduce the existing social order characterized by inequalities among people of different social status, ethnicity, age and gender. Chapter 4 of this report, which discusses educational policies and policy-making, shows that perceived ethnic differences in education are mobilizing different social actors (e.g. national and international non- governmental organisations, political parties, legislative and executive bodies) around claims regarding education. On the one hand, these claims are defined in the conceptual frame of social inclusion and citizenship rights (resulting in equal opportunities and integration/inclusion policies). On the other hand, they are also a terrain on which group identity is formed, specifically in the terms of cultural rights (resulting eventually in multicultural educational policies). So, in the Romanian multi- and inter- ethnic context, educational demands are both claims of redistribution and of recognition. Chapter 5 of this report presents some research results regarding these latter aspects, but also the situation of the school enrolment of Roma children. The final part of the report explicates our empirical investigations.

1 Non-citizens, like migrant workers in Romania, can apply to enrol their children (under the age of 16) in a one-year-long Romanian language course, followed by a language exam. If they pass the exam, the children can be enrolled for free into compulsory education. If they do not pass, they might be sent back to a lower class or even to a basic Romanian language course. The Ministry of Education mentions that there is a need to take measures for ensuring that children of immigrants may learn their own mother tongue. Law No. 242/2004 on the protection of children’s rights ensures these rights also to the refugees children. 3 1. Overview of the Education System

1.1. Institutional Structure Currently, the educational system in Romania is organized in four forms and six types of pre-university units. The four forms are: daily school, evening school, school attendance with reduced frequency, and distance learning. In The six types of pre-university educational units are: pre-, kindergarten, , /, high school/college and post- school. Children may attend school from the age of three (pre-kindergarten and small and middle kindergarten groups). Education is compulsory from the age of five years until the grade 10.2 This covers a period that includes comprehensive education, and one year of high school education at a theoretical, , sports, theological, technological or . A student must complete the grade 10 – the last year of compulsory education – by the age of 18 years.3 The institutional structure of school education, including grades and age levels (on the base of a Government Ordinance from 2005) is the following, as presented on the website of the Ministry of Education (see also Table 1, Annex).

Table 1. Institutional Structure of School Education

0. Pre-school (ages 3 – 6) 1. Primary (invatamant primar): grades 1-4 or ages 6/7-10/11 2. Secondary (nivel secundar): grades 5-12/13 or age 10/11-18/19), with two levels: 2.1 Lower-secondary: grades 5-10, with two cycles: • First cycle (gimnaziu): grades 5-8 • Lower cycle of the lyceum: grades 9-10, with theoretical (invatamant teoretic; invatamant de arta, sport si teologic; invatamant tehnologic) or vocational school (scoala de arte si meserii) 2.2 Upper-secondary level, including: • Upper cycle of the theoretical lyceum; or of the arts, sport and theological lyceum; or of the technological lyceum (liceu teoretic; or liceu de arta, sport si teologic; or liceu tehnologic): grades 11-12, ending with matriculation; or • Technological lyceum (liceu tehnologic): grades 12-13, for those who finish vocational school (grade 10) and the ‘year of completion’ (an de completare) (grade 11), continue with the technological lyceum, and end with matriculation (grades 12 and 13). 3. Tertiary level (non-university degree, or post-lyceum level) 4. Tertiary level, university education (above ages 18/19)

At the primary level and the first cycle of the lyceum (grades 1-4 and 5-8), children are enrolled into schools on the basis of residence and individual decision. Those who have residence in a certain school district and choose to study there, once accepted, have priority over other students. Parents may choose to enrol their children into schools out of the district in which they reside. In these cases, a

2 Compulsory education in Romania is defined in the terms of compulsory grades, but there is also an age limit.

3 The Romanian system allows for children to enrol at a certain school level within two years after the prescribed age. Thus, instead of finishing by the age of 16, students might finish compulsory education at the age of 18. If a student fails to do so, he or she may return to complete his/her studies through the ‘Second Chance’ Programme. 4 school may enrol pupils up to its capacity (number of classes and number of pupils forming a class). If a school refuses to enrol a student,4 it must provide parents with the justification that there are no free places. ‘Non-documented’ children often have few chances to be enrolled together at one school. The most important document to have is the birth certificate. Without it, enrolment is impossible. Obtaining a birth certificate at a later stage is very complicated and costly, and some parents are unable to go through the needed administrative procedures. If a child does have a birth certificate, but his or her parents do not posses identity cards, they are still allowed to enrol.5 Public authorities are obliged to take measures such that children obtain identity documents, and police should support this process on a concrete bases.6 In the case of that have classes at all levels of educational, starting with the primary level, pupils may go through all the educational levels within the same school. They do not need to change schools, but at ‘turning points’ – when applicable – they must pass admission exams. There are schools that offer education only at the primary level (mostly in rural areas), or classes only at the primary and/or secondary levels, from grades 1-8 (mostly in peripheral city districts). In the latter case, children must change their school or from primary to secondary, or from lower secondary to upper secondary level. There is no selection procedure from the pre-school level to that of primary school level, or from the primary school to the secondary school.7 There are some schools or classes (like schools, art classes, or intensive language classes) where admission tests are given at these turning points. Prior to academic year (AY) 2006/2007, a ‘capacity ’ (test de capacitate) was administered to the pupils ending grade 8, on the basis of which they were distributed across different schools to begin the lower cycle of the lyceum (grade 9). From the AY 2007/2008, national tests (teste naţionale) were given in grades 7 and 8, the result of which formed the selection criteria to the inferior cycle of the lyceum or of the vocational school. The first generation went through this new experiment in the summer of 2008. After finishing grade 10, they will enter upper cycle of the lyceum level on the basis of their results. The entrance exam to the university level was recently abolished for the majority of specialisations and institutes of , as a result of increasing university autonomy. However, some – like arts, music, sport, and technical – continue to administer specific tests to applicants. Special schools are designated for children with different types of disabilities. If a child fails one grade twice, a might suggest sending him/her for psychological testing. Based on the results, and with the parents’ consent, the child may be sent to a special school. Specialists consider that the test in itself is carefully constructed, but its administration might have shortcomings due to the person who administer it.8 On the base of the governmental decision from 2005, special schools at the primary level started to function with a renewed curriculum, while education at secondary level

4 In effect, this system of enrolment has allowed for racial bias and the exclusion of Roma children from schools with better educational..

5 Though there have been improvements, including programmes that assist with the procurement of legal documents,, these problems affect the ethnic Roma in particular; many lack documentation and thus do not have access various rights and services. This situation helps explain the structural reasons for the high percentage of Roma non-attendance or drop-out from school, an issue discussed at section 2.1 of this report.

6 The efficiency of this way of problem-solving is a different story. It is likely that the high rates of police abuse of Roma and Roma distrust of police have curtailed its results.

7 At the beginning of the 2000s, the evaluation system introduced a national evaluation system after grade 4. See Chapter 3 of this report.

8 Is should be noted that non-disabled Roma children are more likely to be ‘suggested’ to enrol in special schools for various reasons, increasing their disadvantages in the long-term. They might face disadvantages at home and a lack of care and expertise or even racial bias from ; special schools also provide free lunch and school materials that can be valuable for families living in poverty. Even if there are some schools of this kind that teach the compulsory national curriculum but in another rhythm and way, usually children coming out from these schools are not competitive on national tests. 5 was supposed to continue according to an ordinance from 1998. The new curriculum for children with moderate or easy disabilities prescribed around 20 teaching hours per week, and included the discipline ‘Special Therapies’ (adapted according to particular cases), and a complex educational therapy under the supervision of a separate teacher/educator. How reforms function in another story to tell. As of recently, the Romanian educational system provides education for ‘children with special educational needs’, referring to children with physical, sensorial, mental or behavioural deficiencies and related learning problems, but who not necessarily mentally disabled. The schools and teachers receive some financial incentives if they have such children, for whom they offer extracurricular education as a group at the school or at special centres or other locations, and who might benefit from the assistance of a specialist. However, on a daily basis, it is unclear who should be included into this category. The educator or teacher might suggest that a child ‘has a problem’ to an educational psychologist, who in turn might perform different tests, and then send the results to a county committee that decides if the child under scrutiny should be treated as a one with special educational needs. As far as the organisational structure of school education is concerned, according to the Law of Education, the existing county school inspectorates are subordinated to the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth (MERY) and have the following roles: the development of public policy documents; offering consultation to MERY; and implementing, monitoring and evaluating the process of decentralization. Schools and other educational units are subordinated to the school inspectorates, but on the basis of Law 349/2004, decentralization strengthens the role of schools in managing their budgets and in their personnel politics. Local school inspectorates have the following responsibilities: to observe the ways in which the pre-university educational units are organized and functioning; to ensure the application of legislation; to ensure the quality of education and the implementation of the educational standards through school inspection; to create the educational units with the approval of MERY; to propose to MERY the number of necessary spots at the units from their territory after consulting the latter, the local authorities, economic agents and social partners; together with the local public administration, to ensure the school enrolment of pupils for the whole period of compulsory education; to coordinate the hiring of the teaching staff, and organize and coordinate the activities aiming its permanent training; to coordinate the development and protection of the material conditions of the educational units; to coordinate the compulsory national examinations and admissions; to identify the breaking of laws and to take the necessary measures. The local school inspectorates have inspectors from different domains of specialisation, as well as a personal responsibility to provide education in the language of ethnic minorities. In AY 1998/1999, the Ministry of Education gave an Ordinance regarding the creation of the position of Roma School Inspector at the school inspectorates that serve counties where ethnic Roma are living. Their job description includes the very difficult task of ensuring the enrolment of ethnic Roma children in schools, as it is said, by involving all actors from the educational system and local public administration, and by even creating alternative and complementary forms of education for Roma. Moreover, they are designated to coordinate and monitor the census of the pre-school and school-aged Roma children, including those who abandoned compulsory education. In this work, they rely on data sent to them from schools, yet it happens that not all schools reply to their request. School mediators and teachers of Romani language and are under their subordination, and they are also responsible for introducing and organizing Romani courses at schools, and stimulating the interest of Roma children towards Romani language and culture, towards participating on the related national disciplinary contests and towards the promotion of Roma tradition. Roma School Inspectors do all this in addition to performing the general duties of a school inspector. In reality, they a concrete instrument, provided by law, by which they might actually ensure the enrolment of Roma in schools. Furthermore, the Inspector is unable to disrupt the vicious circle created in the relationship between parents/families and teachers/schools, as in the case of school abandonment: one blames the other for school abandonment, while the responsibility for abandonment stays with the family, and there is no authority who could be asked to respond for failing to enrol children into compulsory education. Moreover, a Roma School Inspector cannot simply make reference to existing ordinances, but must

6 administer carefully the informal relations through which real changes might be induced and situations of conflict might be solved. However, it happens that in very severe cases the Inspector sends reports to the Ministry of Education.

1.2. Ownership and Authority Since 1990, alternative and particular educational institutions in Romania started to appear. Thus, the state monopoly of the domain of education was broken. In the project of the new educational law, the authorized or accredited units of education are being considered as integral parts of the national educational system. The privatization of state-owned units of pre-university education is forbidden (Art. 15/3). Educational pluralism in Romania is promoted by five educational alternatives, all included in the national system of education: Waldorf (Waldorf , curative pedagogy Waldorf), Step-by-Step, Montesori, Freinet, and the Jena plan. The number of private educational units is relatively small, but it has increased steadily since 1990 (Table 2, Annex). It is highest at the pre-school level, followed by institutions at university level (see the related column of Table 5, Annex). However, the Romanian educational system continues to be predominantly a state-owned one. Schools of a wide range of confessions are included in the public educational system and receive financial support from the state. In the process of post-socialist changes, churches regained the ownership on property that had been nationalised under state socialism and started to organise their own schools within. There are cases when they enter into conflicts with the secular schools that functioned and still function in these buildings, while the state pays them a rent from the local budget. After 1990, became part of the secular school curriculum and, due to the complicity between school administration and church leaders (and despite protest from some human rights organisations), schools began to exhibit religious icons of a certain kind on school walls, suggesting that the discipline ‘’ was compulsory. (By law, it is optional.) Data from the Ministry of Education about the enrolment of Roma children do not contain any reference to their presence in confessional schools. On the basis of (a very few) studies about the impact of neo-Protestant churches on Roma communities, it appears that these institutions do have an influence on children’s education. Mostly through Sunday schools or after school programmes, churches conduct Bible reading sessions and offer material support for families in the form of food, clothing, and medicine.

1.3. Finances In the Annual Report of the Ministry of Education (MERY 2007) regarding the state of the national educational system, a reference is made to the growth of the amount of money allocated for education from the GDP. (It is worth noting that the promised six percent is often not provided completely). According to MERY, the growth in spending reflects the importance and priority given to education. But, one must observe (Table 3, Annex) that the weight of the public expenses allocated for education, as a percentage of GDP, relative to other Member States of the European Union, is still quite small in Romania. Most money for education (95 percent) is provided through the local budget, which in large part is accrued through payments of the value-added tax. Since 2005, due to decentralization, two tendencies might be observed: a constant evolution of contributions from the local budget, and the growth of the percentage of sums from other sources. In the year 2007, the financial state allocation for Roma education (a total of 583,543,240 RON)9 was distributed among different activities. The distribution reflects the themes and priorities targeted by decision-makers, and the policy-orientation in the domain of Roma education (Table 4, Annex).

9 In 2007, the exchange rate was 1 Euro to 3.1 – 3.5 Romanian New Lei (RON) 7 Phare educational programmes run by the Ministry of Education between 2002 and 2009 financed programmes for so-called ‘disadvantaged social categories’, with an emphasis, as they said, on the schooling of Roma. These programmes are presented in Table 1 (Phare Educational Programmes, 2002-2009).

Table 2. Phare Educational Programmes, 2002-2009

Expenditures Wave Time frame Scope (million EUR) September 2002 – 74 schools and with a dominantly 1: 2001 8.33 September 2004 Roma school population in 10 counties October 2004 and extended over other 116 educational units form 2: 2003 11.33 March 2007 other 12 counties January 2006 – expanded to educational units from 20 new 3: 2004 5 November 2007 counties open to counties of wave 3 that won a project 4: 2005 9.33 2007-2009 competition (nation-wide, on five counties were not yet involved)

1.4. Statistical Indicators Starting from 2003, the Ministry of Education made an annual report that presented an evaluation, with comparative reference to the European level, regarding progress in the domains of the Lisbon objectives. Reports show that, in the period between 1997 and 2004, the rate of those who left school at an early age in Romania grew from nine percent to 23 percent (MERY 2007, 110). These negative tendencies have resulted in lower number of pupils enrolled into school. One may notice a sudden drop regarding the participation of pupils in education. According to the report of the Ministry of Education from 2007, between 2000-2006, the number of pupils in the school system dropped by 206,800; in academic years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. the number decreased by 18,000. The most drastic drop was registered at the gymnasium level (grades 5-8). According to prognoses based on the natality rate, these tendencies will continue and even strengthen at the levels of primary and gymnasium education in coming years, affecting funding and other resources allocated for the educational system. Between 2000 and 2006, the length of time pupils spent in the educational system grew by 1.4 years – and with this, the hope that pupils would remain in school until the age of 16. Between girls and boys, the amount of time spent in school differs by 0.5-0.6 years, in favour of girls. In comparison with other EU countries with regard to the duration of schooling, Romania is inferior. The Romanian state initiated projects to reduce the rate of the population who intend leaving school earlier than normal – for example, with the help of the multiplication of the programme, ‘A doua şansă’ (‘Second Chance’). This programme was extended in the Phare project, ‘Access to Education of the Disadvantaged Categories’, especially for Roma. A 2007 report by the Ministry of Education, entitled The State of National Education, which includes data from the Household Labour Force Survey 2005, in Romania, showed that only 1.6 percent of adults between the ages of 25 and 64 had participated in some sort of continued learning programme. In comparison, the average in the EU-25 is 11 percent. In 2007, Romania reported a slight growth regarding this matter (1.9 percent). Table 5 from Annex offers a compilation of statistical data from AY 2005/2006 on the distribution of the school-age population across various school types, on number of pupils enrolled in private institutions and their percentage from the total of the school-age population, and on the abandon rates in pre-university education. It shows, among other matters, that out of the total school-

8 age population, in AY 2005/2006, pupils were present in the highest percentage at the secondary level (21 percent), followed by the university level (18 percent), primary and pre-school levels (both 14 percent), and finally, secondary levels (vocational: 15 percent, and theoretical: 8 percent). In AY 2005/2006 the enrolment rate for the school-age population was 76 percent (MERY 2007). As Table 6, Annex shows, during the 1990s, the enrolment rate increased for each age cohort, especially in the 19-23+ cohort (51 percent). In this cohort, however, the rate remained lower than for all other all others The highest –rates were observed in age groups 7-10 and 11-14 (98 and 96 respectively) enrolled in primary and secondary schools. In terms of the proportion of students finishing school, data were available only on the number of those who successfully passed what formerly was the National Capacity Test (at the end of grade 8) and the matriculation exam, marking the end of secondary schooling and the potential for further education at the university level (Tables 7 and 8, Annex).

2. Schooling of Minority Ethnic Youth. Differentiation in the Educational System by Ethnicity

This chapter provides a picture of school attendance in Romania with relevant statistical data and regulations regarding ethnic minority schooling and ethnicity in the educational system. Particular attention is paid to processes of differentiation by ethnicity and inter-ethnic relations in education, including differentiation along the lines of the language of study that follow, to a certain degree, the differentiation of ethnic groups; also, the process of Roma educational segregation is linked to the very core of the impact of access to quality school education on social inequalities. As well, the chapter discusses meanings and strategies of multicultural education in the Romanian multi-ethnic context. One of the major observations presented in this chapter regards the influence educational policies developed in relation to the sizeable ethnic Hungarian minority on schooling for others who self-identify as belonging to an ethnic minority group. Later, under the impact of international and national non-governmental Roma organisations, by the end of 2007, there were signs of a willingness to maintain a balance between the treatment of Roma schooling as a cultural and social issue, accepting the fact that the two are interlinked. This necessitated the recognition that the possibility to learn in one’s mother tongue in itself does not solve the question of (the lack of) access to quality school education. Policymakers could no longer maintain easily the strategy of blaming the victim (i.e. for being ‘unable to integrate into the democratic, tolerant and open Romanian educational system’) and had to face the presence and functioning of institutional racism – the major force responsible for the social exclusion of ethnic Roma. Finally, it is also worth noting that, at least at the level of rhetoric and new governmental regulations, there has been a growing openness towards the model of inter-culturality – a way of dealing with ethno-cultural diversity that aims to approach reciprocally the ethnic groups living in proximity, and not only by providing the opportunity to study one’s own literature, history, or culture in separate educational units. However, when this official orientation will impact inter-ethnic relations in schools – among and between teachers, pupils and parents – in discernible ways is an issue that deserves long-term attention.

2.1. School Attendance Statistical data shows discrepancies in the educational levels of the population on ethnic lines (Table 9, Annex). Among above the age of 10, the percentage of higher education graduates is above that of ethnic minorities. In the case of sizable ethnic minority groups (Hungarians and Roma),

9 for instance, the percentage of higher education graduates is lower than their percentage in the whole population. In the case of Hungarians these figures –along with references to historical rights, the right of self-determination, the right to study in one’s native language, or rates of tax payment – were used by politicians and intellectuals to argue for the need for a separate, Hungarian-only state university. The census from 2002 also shows that among Roma, 34 percent had not graduated from any school. Of that group, 34 percent were from rural areas. As well, among those who declared themselves Turks, 23 percent did not have school education. Out of the Romanian population above the age of 10, two percent did not know to write and read, seven percent of which lived in rural areas. Existing data show that one encounters lower enrolment rates, higher drop-out rates and lower school attainment among Roma than among the general population. A report on racism from Romania considers that this situation results from “the general state of poverty, but also of the discriminatory attitudes and actions of the school administrators, teachers, and even parents of the majority population, and of segregation” (Nita and Ionescu 2006: 12). While discrimination against Roma appears to be a society-wide problem, it is particularly hard-felt in the domain of education. There are no official statistics about pupils’ ethnicity; thus, when one makes affirmations about ‘the Roma’, he/she relies on existing surveys that usually construct ‘the Roma sample’ through either self-identification or hetero- identification. The latter is based on ‘observing’ or ‘knowing’ an other group (the Roma), identified by assumptions about their language, style of dress, skin colours, place of residence, names and surnames, and other factors. With regard to self-identification, those children who have better school performances might not expose their Roma identity because they consider it to be a stigma. When preparing statistics about the number of Roma children included in the pre-university school system (see Tables 10 and 11, Annex), the staff of the Ministry of Education responsible for Roma schooling collects data from several sources: the network of Roma School Inspectors (who are not necessarily ethnic Roma), Roma school mediators (being ethnic Roma by definition), and teachers of Romani language and history. These data, collected primarily on the basis of hetero-identification, provide a different sense of the number of Roma than does the Census, which operates via self-identification. Recently, in cooperation with the local school inspectorates and the Ministry of Education, the Gallup Organisation began to compile data on Roma school attendance, but the findings have not been made public yet. Drawing from the Census and the research of Jigau and Surdu (2002), a report by the EU Monitoring and Advocacy Programme (EUMAP) of the Open Society Institute entitled Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma (EUMAP 2007) observes that “the proportion of the Roma population under age 19 is approximately twice that of the Romanian population” (EUMAP 2007, 346). Approximately 50 percent of the Roma in Romania are below 24 years of age, which makes Roma access to education even more pressing problem. The report continues: “Pre-school education enrolment is 66 percent for the country as a whole (2000–2001); the one-third of children who do not attend pre-school are among the most economically disadvantaged, with less educated parents. Pre-school education enrolment for the Roma community is as low as 20 percent” (ibid., 346). The report cited above observes that the proportion of Roma who dropped out or never enrolled in school decreased from 1992 to 1998, but the figures are still shockingly high (see Table 12, Annex). The report suggests two main reasons for the increase in Roma children’s school participation. First, according to teachers, policy measures in-line with Law No.61/1993 in 1993, concerning the conditioning of the payment of the school allowance benefit on school attendance, had an impact on increased enrolment. Second, the report suggests:

“a probable increase in the self-identification of Roma as a result of introducing a Roma-oriented curriculum and affirmative measures for Roma for and university. Finally the recruitment and activity of Roma teachers have also contributed to the greater number of Roma children enrolling” (EUMAP 2007, 347-348).

10 Data from the 1998-1999 school year, demonstrates that the drop-out rate is greater in segregated Roma schools than in the education system as a whole. According to Jigau and Surdu:

“For example, the proportion of rural primary schools registering a drop-out rate of over 5 percent was approximately two percent for the system as a whole, but four percent for primary schools accommodating Roma pupils. While for the total of rural schools, three percent of schools report over five percent of non-enrolled students, in schools with a majority of Roma pupils (over 50 percent Roma) this proportion rose to 14 percent.” (2002: 49-50).

Data about the situation of the Roma pre-school children and school pupils enrolled in the Romanian school system in AY 2004/2005 (Table 13, Annex)10 show that one encounters the highest number of Roma at the level (89,784). Numbers are lower at the pre-school level (23,051) and the secondary education level (62,619), and lowest at the level of high school (11,196). However, the total number of the enrolled Roma pupils increased since 1990. According to the Ministry of Education, in AY 2002/2003, the number of Roma pupils increased from 109,325 (as in 1990) to 158,128, which is a sizable increase in terms of the total number of enrolled children (to 3.5 percent).11 By AY 2006/2007, Roma students comprised seven percent of the student body. Also, in AY 2006/2007, nearly 10 percent of enrolled Roma pupils studied Roma language and history. In AY 2007/2008, the number of those who studied in Romani language at schools increased from 140 to 200. The previously mentioned report, Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma, is more cautious about the data and observes:

“Although these data show that the number of children who identify themselves as Roma has steadily increased, this may not in fact reflect growth in the enrolment rates within the Roma population. Students who were already in school, but registered as having Romanian or Hungarian ethnicity, may now have elected to declare themselves as Roma, while the situation of the most marginalized Roma children – the ones who have never been to school at all – remains unchanged.”

Indeed, data show that there is still a gap between the overall enrolment for Roma and their non-Roma peers, as Table 14 from Annex, cited by the same report, indicates (EUMAP 2007, after UNDP 2005). The EUMAP report also affirms:

“While data disaggregated for ethnicity are not available, according to data from the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, 73 percent of all children of pre-school age (between two and seven years old) attend pre-school, whereas over 86 percent of five-year-olds attend pre-school. On average, a child spends 2.9 years in pre-school. According to data from the 2002 census, the average number of years that Roma spend in school is 6.8 years for the population over ten years old, while for the population over the age of ten as a whole the average is 11.2 years. [...O]n average, Roma children are older than their majority peers within the classes of primary school, and the age gap increases in the higher grades of primary school. This may indicate that Roma are more likely to repeat grades than non-Roma. However, other factors may also contribute, such that Roma are likely

10 Provided by the General Directorate for the Education in the Language of National Minorities of the Romanian Ministry of Education, under the coordination of Professor/ and Councillor Gheorghe Sarau, on the basis of data provided by the County School Directorates.

11 According to ‘Realizariale invatamantului pentru romi între 2005-2008’ (‘Accomplishments of Roma education between 2005-2008’), provided via e-mail by Professor G. Sarau. 11 to begin pre-school late, or not at all, and to enter first grade at a later age. Many Roma who are asked to repeat the fifth grade may instead drop out, as the age discrepancy decreases after this point” (EUMAP 2007, 349-350)12

Chapter 5 of the Country Report on Education (Harbula, et al 2008), provides some explanation of the situation of Roma schooling reflected by the indicators above. Here, we refer to the analysis of Moisa (CEDIMR-SE 2000), who presented several causes of school abandonment and infrequent attendance, including:

• Practical issues related to the socio-economic context: “There are considerations of a practical order, which have to be considered when one sends a child to school; a lot of parents do not have the necessary money to buy them clothes and other necessary things. The schools are not financed enough so these elementary needs cannot be covered and Roma parents don’t let their children go to school dressed with old and dirty clothes. Children who go to school are often bullied by their colleagues or they feel different from them; they cannot adapt to the schools environment, so in this way they don’t want to go to school anymore” (CEDIMR-SE 2000).

• Logistical factors: Many Roma families do not live in close proximity to schools.

• Difficulties obtaining documentation: Many Roma families lack residence permits and birth certificates needed enrol a child in school.

• The growth of the violent attacks upon Roma communities since the 1990s: Roma have had to leave unsafe situations or their destroyed houses and move to improvised locations where they are not legally registered. In turn, the majority population interprets absenteeism among Roma as ‘Roma are not accustomed to sending their children to schools’. This interpretation reflects the old stereotype ‘they don’t want to learn’.

• Certain habits with regard to education: Many times, the success of a child at school depends on the familial environment, which has to be one which is appropriate, in which the members of the family are willing to help the child to do their homework. In many cases, Roma parents don not appreciate the value of education, because they didn’t have the opportunity to go to school “The advantages of long-term education are not so convincing when compared with the results of short-term season work which satisfies the immediate material needs. This is a characteristic not only for Roma communities, but for other cultures, too which live in communities affected by poverty” (CEDIMR-SE 2000).

• Language issues: “Roma pupils who speak Romani at home find that they are not able to keep up with the rhythm of the class, because they don’t speak the Romanian language very well (Helsinki Watch 1991: 26). In this way Romani pupils stay behind, until they abandon school, without finishing grade 8 – the minimum education which is necessary to be employed in Romania.

Besides these factors, school abandonment in the case of Roma can result from a school’s refusal to enrol a child. In such cases, parents often parents do not know how to proceed or defend their rights. Other times, a child might fail to pass a class and then not return to school. Importantly, many Roma fear or distrust state institutions and formal organisations; concerns about socioeconomic issues are also prevalent. Roma parents are aware that their child might face humiliation and attacks because of their

12 These observations are based a study by Simister (2006, 15), which covered 29,000 students at 109 schools from 12 counties, and findings from the UNDP (2005) and Ministry of Education (MER) (2005). 12 skin colour, language or accent, style of dress, or ‘being Roma’. Pressures associated with the contemporary ‘survival economy’ have pushed many families into a state of financial hardship drawn children at an early age into work and away from school. Roma girls face additional obstacles, some related to internal community norms – such as regarding the protection of their virginity, their duty to marry at an early age and give birth to children, and care of their younger brothers and sisters or the family elders. Thus, an internal patriarchal order, combined with a mix of socioeconomic factors and the prevailing ethnocentric regime in Romanian society, creates multiple disadvantages for Roma girls and women. Roma school mediators and Roma School Inspectors play an important role in decreasing drop- out rates. While they might be figures of importance in the eyes of parents, the system does not fully recognise them grants them little authority. It often happens that and usually happens that mediators are hired as auxiliary personnel with very low salaries, which do not appropriately compensate or motivate them for their demanding job. Romani teachers can also play an important role in keeping Roma children in schools. However, there are not enough teachers of Romani language: few institutions offer the possibility to gain certification as a qualified teacher of Romani. Further, as mentioned previously, many Roma lack official documentation, such as birth certificates or regarding their residence, or face racially-based prejudices of teachers and other authorities. These issues are also part of the structural reasons for the high numbers of Roma school drop-outs. In front of this situation – even in the context of compulsory education – state institutions do not have authority to bring children to schools by force. Parents who do not send their children to school might be financially punished, but this punishment is rare and also worsens the family’s situation. Chapter 4 of this report provides a description of the policies aiming to improve the school attendance of Roma. Today, it is clear that these policies are insufficient in the face of the current context. The Ministry of Education is proud about the sustained increase in the number of Roma students at the high school and university levels and indeed, the affirmative action measure that provided separate spots for Roma was a crucial factor in this trend. However, the participation of Roma at these levels of education is still very low and the specialisations where they were guaranteed placement are very restricted. The issue of pre-school attendance is thought to be solved by the means of the so-called ‘summer kindergarten’ programme, but as we will show, the efficacy of this programme is quite contested among Roma organisations. The ‘Roma School Mediator’ initiative is also directed towards increasing and maintaining school enrolment among Roma. ‘Second Chance’ is a continued learning programme that targets persons from all disadvantaged groups who left school at an early age and creates an opportunity for them to return. Altogether, the implementation of these policies and programs depends on the will of local school inspectorates and schools directors – and they can decide to start or to stop such programmes on their own volition. Regarding higher rates of abandonment in segregated schools, a government ordinance from 2007 that bans segregation might improve Roma school attendance, but it is too early to observe significant results.

2.2. Regulations The ‘Convention Frame for the Protection of National Minorities’, signed by Romania in 1995 (Article 10, 11 and 14) states that “every person which belongs to a national minority group has the right to use freely and without encroachment their minority language, in private or in public, orally or written” (CEDIMR-SE 2000). Article 118, Chapter XII of the Education Law of 1995 supports the Constitution, in that “persons who belong to national minorities have the right to study in their mother tongue at all levels and forms of education, under the conditions of the present law” (CEDIMR-SE 2000: 43-44). The Romanian government’s concept of minority education is also reflected in how two major issues are delineated in the domain of policies and institutional structures of the Ministry of Education.13

13 See the distinction between ‘Invatamantul in limbile minoritatilor nationale’ (Teaching/Learning in the National Minorities’ Languages) and ‘Accesul la educaţie a grupurilor dezavantajate’ (Access to Education of the Disadvantaged Groups), both on the website of the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth, at http://www.edu.ro. 13 These issues are: teaching/learning in the languages of national minorities, including those minorities who have access to minority education (e.g. Hungarian and the Roma minority groups); and education for Roma, as part of education for disadvantaged groups. These general frames within educational policy-making and implications for equal opportunities, policies against segregation, and policies for minority languages and multiculturalism will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of this report.

2.3. Differentiation by Ethnicity in Education As far as ethnicity is defined by language or ‘mother tongue’, differentiation by ethnicity as differentiation by teaching language is a characteristic of the Romanian school system. The right to learn in one’s native language is a right enshrined in the ; differentiation by language is not conceived of as a something that generates disadvantage. There are, however, some observations to be made in this regard. The participation of ethnic minority graduates in the job market in Romanian effectively necessitates knowledge of Romanian language. Obviously, the right to learn in one’s ‘own language’ does not mean in itself less language competence in Romanian (as some more extreme Romanian intellectuals and politicians would like to suggest). Competence in Romanian depends on many factors, including: how Romanian is taught for ethnic minorities (in a similar way than it is for those whose mother tongue is Romanian, or as a foreign language); what attitude is cultivated by, for example, Hungarian teachers, parents and children towards the Romanian language (e.g. as a language of power, of the other, or of the enemy); and the attitude of the Romanian language and Romanian history teachers towards ethnic minority students. The quality of education in an ethnic minority language depends on the quality of the teaching staff, but also on other factors as well, among them the material facilities and broader social context of the school. In comparing, for example, differentiation by the teaching language of the schools/classes in the case of ethnic Hungarians, on the one hand, and the case of Roma from Romania, on the other hand, we notice several differences. In the eyes of Hungarians, Hungarian-only schools/classes are a matter of cultural autonomy and as such, they have a positive sense: even if the quality of education at these schools is not necessarily good, or better than, in the mixed or ‘Romanian’ schools, this perception is still maintained by teachers, media, and politicians. In the case of Roma, the Roma-only educational units are defined as segregated schools, which effectively offer an education of a lower quality. According to the current official consensus – shared by Roma and non-Roma – schools/classes where pupils study in Romani (e.g. Romani language and history, and rarely, in other disciplines) are not considered as segregated units. One may ask: how do people perceive the link between the teaching language and the quality of education? On the one hand, educational units where children may learn in their mother tongue are considered ‘naturally’ better, because these schools help sustain their cultural identity; on the other hand, it is easier for children to study in different disciplines in his/her mother tongue than in any other language. In the latter sense, for example, the lack of Hungarian language classes is considered to be a disadvantage and discriminatory, reducing the chance of ethnic Hungarian children to perform well at school. Further on, as far as ethnic minority educational policies are framed under the influence of the ethnic Hungarian model (as also discussed elsewhere in this report), the running of Romani-language educational units is considered to be an ‘aim’ of the education of ethnic Roma. Issues that are perceived as problematic in these terms by the Roma elite are: the degree to which Romani language (as Roma identity generally) is considered to be stigma; and the ways in which Roma should cultivate, by way of different cultural programmes, pride in being Roma and speaking Romani. Similar ambiguous feelings surround the system of ‘positive discrimination’ or the affirmative action measures that reserve spots for ethnic Hungarians and Roma at universities. In the case of Hungarians, this is not so strongly considered to be a positive discrimination measure; rather, it is an aspect of their right to have their ‘own’ university. In the case of Roma, it is seen as positive discrimination. It is often perceived not as a temporary measure, which aims to reduce and eventually eliminate the

14 structural inequalities between Roma and non-Roma. Rather, it is seen as an intervention on behalf of a ‘tolerant’ Romanian majority, that is ‘nice and good’ enough to let Roma entering into universities because they are otherwise unable. As an additional illustration of the difference between Hungarian-only schools and classes and education units where the teaching language is Romani, research made by the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians from Romania (DAHR) showed that at the pre-university education level, there were 1,463 of institutions where the teaching language was Hungarian, of which 135 functioned at the secondary school level, and most of which were situated in Transylvania and in the Seklerland. In comparison, with regard to units in which Romani language was taught, there were only five classes at the primary level, five kindergartens, and some partial Romani teaching at the gymnasium level.14 The difference between the number of reserved spots that ethnic Hungarians and Roma are offered at the university level is also significant, as Tables 15 and 16, Annex show. It is possible to study Romani, including as major specialisation, at the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures at the and at Babes-Bolyai University from Cluj.

2.4. Inter-ethnic Relations This report has presented how the predominant pattern of inter-ethnic relations in educational policies is shaped by the Romanian-Hungarian relationship, and by the strategies of the Hungarian minority, which –through various policies and politics – acts as a ‘dominant minority group’ in comparison with other ethnic minorities. In the case of our ‘selected minority group’, segregation15 is the mechanism by which a large proportion of Roma are artificially directed to particular schools, resulting in separate classes or entire schools of Roma. In such classes or schools, the quality of education is quite low. In several cases, Roma are directed into ‘’ for ‘problematic’ children or pupils with learning disabilities or impairments. An evaluation report of the 2003 Phare project (Andruszkiewicz 2006, 6-10; Phare 200616) cited numerous practises that led to segregation, including:

• the channelling of Roma children into segregated all-Roma schools within, or close to, Roma neighbourhoods; • explanations from school managers that Roma children should attend ‘their’ (Roma-only) residence school; • the deliberate placement of Roma students in separate all-Roma or mainly Roma classes in mixed schools, as school managers expect at least some non-Roma parents to object to ethnically mixed classes; • ‘well-intentioned’ segregation, most often in cases involving traditional Roma families (often identified by style of dress), in which school managers anticipated that Roma parents would have concerns about their children forming relationships that would be inappropriate to family customs and traditions (as they mixed with non-Roma children) or about ‘Romanianisation’ (or assimilation); and • ‘unintentional’ segregation, as children who enrol late (which is common in the case of Roma occupational travellers) are grouped together in one class, or as Roma pupils/classes are kept intact when students progress from an all-Roma pre-school or primary school into an ethnically mixed school.

14 Data provided by Professor Sarău from the Ministry of Education, as part of results showing improvements in Roma education in Romania due to the governmental policies in recent years.

15 See also Chapter 4 of this report, which focuses on desegregation policies and policy-making.

16 The report refers to the 108 schools that were included in the 12 county projects, and observes that out of them 35 had segregation issues to address, which constitutes 32 per cent of the schools included in the projects. 15 The Phare evaluation report also describes schools located in Roma settlements. While not all of these geographically isolated schools had typical lack of resources and other characteristics of ‘Roma ghetto schools’, a number were both residentially segregated and isolated, being in or close to a ‘compact’ Roma neighbourhood, with no alternative to non-segregated school provision within walking distance or easy reach by public transportation. Most of these schools shared some or all of the following characteristics:

• 80 percent or more of students at the school were from Roma families; • school managers reported problems in hiring well-qualified and committed teaching staff; the schools were overcrowded; • the school buildings lacked the facilities that other schools in the area had, and conditions were unhealthy, unsanitary, unsafe, cold, overcrowded and poorly lit; • there were high drop-out rates and problems with student attendance, but little support available to deal with these problems; • entrance and pass-rates for the National Exams were well below the County average; • low expectations of students: if students achieved basic and completed grade 8, this was seen as a good achievement; and • entry into an arts and trades college for vocational training was a very good achievement, while university was an aspiration that was rarely, if ever, mentioned.

According to a study released in 2002, 12.2 percent of the total number of Roma pupils enrolled in the education system were studying in segregated settings, where the student population at the school was 50 percent Roma and above (Jigau and Surdu 2002). This research did not account for segregation of Roma in separate classes or special schools, and data referred to rural schools only. Field research conducted by the European Roma Rights Centre in 1997 identified the phenomenon of creating special classes as a problem in Romania. At that time, the creation of separate classes for over-aged children was common, and those classes often taught the curricula used in special schools, that is, one of a lower standard than that of mainstream schools. Data collected by the Ministry of Education and Research provides quite a different picture regarding the number of pre-schools and schools that may be considered segregated. MER research, disaggregated by gender, suggests that 38 to as high as 45 percent Roma pupils may be studying in such ethnically segregated environments, compared to 32 percent (EUMAP 2007) and 14 percent (UNDP).

2.5. Multicultural Education The idea of multicultural curriculum is a very recent development in the Romanian educational policies. Previously, ethnicity was dealt with in public education through special classes for minority ethnic children; this continues to be the most common practise. Teachers of these classes needed to know the language of the respective ethnic minority group, and usually they were expected to belong to that group. One notable example is the case of the classes or schools. On the one hand, there are not only – and not mostly – German ethnic minority students enrolled; on the other hand, teachers might belong to any ethnic group, as long as they know German language. This differs significantly from the case of ethnic Hungarians, with the exception of teachers of Romanian language, literature, history and . German-language educational units have extra prestige in Romania, considered to be the ‘most elite’ schools, which provide good career opportunities; French- or English-language schools are also prestigious, though they have little to do with serving a specific ethnic minority group. Section 4.5 of this report provides a detailed presentation of how the idea of multicultural education is objectified in the Romanian educational policies and refers to existing data related to the education in the mother tongues of minorities (see also Tables 11, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Annex). In Romania, by and large, ‘multicultural education’ is based on the idea that ethnic minorities should learn (in) their mother tongues and should have their own educational units. As such, it lacks core elements of inter-culturality.

16 An interesting case is Babes-Bolyai University from Cluj, which is named a ‘multicultural university’ in its Charta of 1997 (Magyari-Vincze 2006a). The history of the university/universities of Cluj – which were established as separate, and later unified, institutions along ethnic lines, particularly in the context of the Romanian-Hungarian relationship – is interesting, but cannot be fleshed out fully here. In short, the story shows how education represents the ethnicised social order of the city, its institutions, and the Transylvanian region in general. The story of Babes-Bolyai University reveals the development of dominant patterns in how cultural difference and ethnic ‘others’ are treated. One of these patterns is the ‘conflictual model’ of institutional segregation. According to the idea of ‘Romanian land, Romanian university’, or the ‘Hungarian land, Hungarian university’, the dominant ethnic group excludes the non-dominant group, believing that absolute mono-culturalism and ethnic purity are the ‘proper’ model of existence. The second pattern – a sort of relative mono- culturalism or separatist multiculturalism – is a division based on a consensus, which allows for the development of two disconnected cultural worlds within the same social order; peaceful coexistence is guaranteed only by groups’ their strict delimitation. The third pattern follows the solution of institutional and cultural assimilation: the mixture of two formerly separated worlds is achieved under the hegemony of the dominant ethnic group. These patterns were developed and used by Romanian and Hungarian intellectuals and politicians who treated the university located in Cluj as a crucial element of their national identities. The permanent battles for one’s own university contributed to the formation and maintenance of the idea that the coexistence of Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania is simply a continuous ethnic fight, which always has winners and losers, and the conviction that Transylvania is ‘naturally’ an ethno-national space, in which people should be identified by their ethnic affiliations.

3. Other Dimensions of Differentiation in the Education System

Several factors are interrelated with ethnicity and shape children’s relationship with education. This chapter briefly looks at some of those factors, paying particular attention to the interplay between ethnicity and gender.

3.1. Differentiation in School Career Gender-disaggregated data on the educational level of the Romanian population (Table 21, Annex, based on the 2002 Census) shows that in general, regardless of ethnicity, the percentage of women among higher education graduates is significantly below 50 percent. Their percentage among those having primary education or not having education at all is significantly above 50 percent, and in some cases, it is above 60 percent. (These data are given for the population older than 10 years, so it does not reflect the situation of those currently in school.) Observers have noted the patriarchal nature of the system of ethnic relations in Romania, which favours men and masculine activities. We might conclude that gender, alongside ethnicity, contributes to inequalities in society, such as in access to school education. Looking at the enrolment rate for the school-aged population by gender (Romanian Statistical Yearbook on Education, AY 2005/2006), we may observe that women’s enrolment rate is higher than men’s in the majority of each age cohorts, but are quite close between the ages of 7 and 18 (Table 22, Annex). However, if we look at the employment status according to educational level and gender, data of the National Agency for Employment and the Household Labour Force Survey from 2005 show that men fare better (Tables 23 and 24, Annex). The percentage of women out of the total number of employed persons in each age cohort is around 41-46 percent. (One exception is women above the

17 retirement age of 65, very few of whom are employed, who constitute 53 percent of employed persons.) The percentage of women among the registered unemployed with tertiary university education is 58 percent; among high school and post-high school graduates, it is 57 percent. This suggests that the same educational level is not the only factor that determines opportunities in terms of access to jobs on the labour market. Gendered stereotypes and discrimination and traditional patterns of the division of labour also structure opportunities. If we introduce into this picture differentiation according to the development regions of Romania (Table 25, Annex), we may observe that – in terms of employment – women with university education fare better in regions surrounding the national capital of Bucharest. There, 15 percent of the employed with university education are women, while nationally, country only 6 percent of the employed with university education are women. We also present some data on the educational level observed at the crossroads of ethnicity and gender. As Table 26, Annex shows (using data from the 2002 Census), among those with no education, Roma girls are over-represented, at 39 percent (compared to Roma boys, at 29 percent). The percentage of Roma with no education is much higher (34 percent) than the percentage of non-Roma in the same situation (5 percent). This country report on inter-ethnic relations shows that Roma are over-represented among those living in poverty, among the unemployed, and among those working in low-paying occupational sectors, like agriculture. Roma are under-represented among the retired population and among those possessing properties of any kinds. Their socio-economic status ‘predisposes’ them for not being able to sustain financially their children’s school attendance, and in this way, the vicious circle – of a lack of or limited education, a lack of a decent-paying and secure job continues and forms one of the structural factors responsible for the maintenance and even increase in social inequalities between Roma and non-Roma.

3.2. Differences in School Performance There is no official statistical data on children’s school performance according to their social and ethnic background. However, we suggest that several interrelated factors have an influence on the school performances of ethnic minority youth: the financial and social conditions of pupils’ families; the material facilities and human resources of the schools that they attend; the degree to which children manage to learn at school in a language other than their mother tongue; and various stereotypes and exclusionary and discriminatory acts practised by the majority population. We also accept that lower school performances at lower educational levels lead to an increase in inequalities at later stages. The disadvantages with which pupils enter into the school system multiply and their effects reverberate throughout their education. There are two systems of qualitatively measuring students’ knowledge in Romania: national and international. The former includes multiple evaluations at the primary and secondary levels of education. The first evaluation is at the end of grade 4, known as the ‘national evaluation’. This type of evaluation was introduced recently, at the beginning of the 2000s. It involves testing in the following disciplines: Romanian language and Literature, , and Natural , as well as language testing in pupils’ mother tongue. The best results were registered in March 2007 in Mathematics. The percentage of the students who performed ‘unsatisfactorily’ was especially high in Natural Sciences (22 percent) and in mother tongue (14 percent). Subsequent national testing at the end of grade 8 has the goal to orient students’ professional life. This testing is a prerequisite for accessing grade 9 of high school and includes writing exams on Romanian language, mother tongue, Mathematics, and History or Geography. Recently, the number of students who attended these exams dropped. Regarding the evaluation of the education performance of pre-university students by way of international measurement systems, several tests have been introduced: the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and the Third International Mathematics and Study (TIMSS). According to the results of the Romanian

18 students taking the PIRLS in 2001, which uses written testing to evaluate 4000 students in order to observe their abilities to read and to reflect on what they have read, Romania ranked 22nd out of 34 countries. One may observe a difference between students living in the urban and in rural areas, but the lowest scores were registered in the case of pupils from suburbs. A discrepancy between rural and urban students was also registered in tests on Mathematics and Sciences in 1999 and 2003. According to the results of the Romanian students taking the PISA tests, which evaluate students’ knowledge at the end of compulsory education and their abilities to reflect actively on the process of gaining knowledge, in 2001, Romania ranked 34th out of 43 countries. Several observations can be made. First, Romania’s poor results were interpreted by educational stakeholders, but otherwise, there was little public debate around this kind of testing and evaluation. Second, there were attempts in Romania that tried to explain that a complex mix of factors, difficult to parse out, influenced the poor performance of Romania’s students. It has been observed that socio-educational factors that shape a student’s performance cannot be transformed by a school, but schools might initiate and develop ‘compensating policies’ that could re-balance the effects of specific disadvantages, such as like rural and urban differences. An example in Romania that aimed to eliminate specific social disadvantages was the Reformed Programme of Rural Education. Low performance in the year 2001 was followed by poor performance again in 2006. In response, the evaluation report of PISA testing in 2006 put emphasis on the current directions and methods of teaching and testing in the field of sciences at pre-university level in Romania. That is, the definition of ‘sciences’ in PISA 2006 and ‘thinking scientifically’ are very different from how they are conceived in the Romanian curricula for students 15 years-of-age, which required and assessed students on the basis of fast knowledge transfer, memorization, and the ability to react quickly when asked questions. Because international tests, like the PISA, had little or no impact on their immediate situations, students were not only unprepared but also unmotivated to exert a great amount of energy to prepare and perform well.

4. Education of Minority Ethnic Youth in Light of Public Debates and Policy- making

This chapter looks at how the education of ethnic minority youth is debated and represented in public discourse in Romania, as well as the frames within which the contested policy issues in this domain are addressed and solved. We also present the actors who define and carry out these policies, and describe some examples of the ways and extent to which programmes initiated by NGOs, Phare, and others were transformed into governmental policies. As a general observation, one should note that policy-making regarding the education of ethnic minorities is defined and put into practise as part of the broader educational policies; thus, it is shaped by the latter, while also structuring it. Pre-socialist and socialist legacies that have an impact on, for example, Hungarian and the Roma ethnic minority groups, are also important for understanding current orientations in the domain of education. Altogether, one may conclude that in Romania, the education of ethnic minorities is addressed in two general frames: that of access to education by disadvantaged groups, and that of the teaching/learning in the languages of national minorities. Consequently, in the case of Romania, besides describing the policies regarding equal opportunities and integration/segregation, we provide a section on policies related to minority language and multiculturalism. Debates on the ‘integration of Roma’ into the educational system have many complex aspects to consider that point behind the so-called ‘Roma issue’, including:

1. the extent to which the ‘integration process’ serves Roma interests, or is a tool by which Roma might be better controlled (understanding that education both equips pupils with 19 abilities, which allow for fulfilment and achievement later in life, but also disciplines according to dominant societal worldviews and lifestyles); 2. the extent to which one should aim to integrate into the education system by accepting its rules (understanding, for example, that it is among the most conservative institutions of the nation-state, which is based on and even increases various socio-economic inequalities, such as by tracking children according to the financial background of their families), or try to transform it (for example, using it as terrain that transcends ethnic boundaries, or a space where each individual really has the chance to develop his/her potential);17 3. the extent to which integration refers to the assimilation of the minority by the majority, or to groups mutually approaching one another and learning how to participate and share equally in the building of an inter-cultural environment; 4. the extent to which the separation of schools and pupils along ethnic lines serves their ‘own interest’ through education in groups’ mother tongue (or, as it is said, by providing a safe environment composed of their ‘own people’ that is ‘free’ from inter-group conflict and prejudice), or creates a disadvantage in terms of learning to communicate with the ethnic ‘others’ and perform in the global diverse, multiethnic context (how does separation reproducing the ethno-centric convictions about dangerous ethnic ’others’?).

Altogether it would be interesting to ask how the view on the mainstream educational system from the perspective of one of the most disadvantaged social categories might contribute to the transformation of the whole system – and not only particular aspects that directly affect that category.

4.1. Public Discourse and Representation The education of ethnic minority youth in Romania appears more in public debates that in the media. The former are shaped by different elements and arguments in the cases of Hungarian and Roma ethnic minority groups, because historically, they occupy dissimilar socio-economic and political positions. The Hungarian minority was recognised as a national minority during the socialist times and even early, after the unification of Transylvania with Romania in 1918. As previously noted, rights in the domain of education are shaped by the discourse of cultural autonomy and self-determination. That is why, during the 1990s, the right to have Hungarian-only schools18 and to learn in own mother tongue were often debated and contested. Many Romanian political parties, and particularly those nationalist in nature, expressed their worries about separating Hungarian and the Romanian pupils, and mostly about excluding Romanians from joint (heterogeneous) schools. However, the possibility of studying in Hungarian language at all educational levels is now ensured. In counties of Transylvania, many Hungarian-only schools have been (re)established. This debate is reopened politically only occasionally, mostly during the election campaigns, or by Hungarian politicians (calling for their ‘own’ institutions), or Romanian nationalists-extremist.19

17 During a roundtable discussion on Roma schooling organized within the summers school “Come closer” (Cluj, 12-19 July 2008) a leader of a Roma non-governmental organisation involved, among others, into educational programmes, expressed his concern about the fact that with the occasion of an intercultural programme offered for Roma and non-Roma children, within the space where this programme was going on, only Romanian national symbols were exposed and there was no Roma flag around. This denoted to us once again that even those social categories who are struggling for the change of the (educational) system still might act and think under the impact of the ethno-national pattern that dominates it.

18 The stake of having such schools is about re-obtaining the educational institutions lost mainly during the 1980s due to the regulations of Nicolae Ceausescu (leader of socialist Romania from 1965 until 1989). Besides kindergarten, elementary, middle and high schools, this demand includes the claim for a Hungarian state university (as far as, in the city of Cluj, the latter was unified with the former Romanian university approximately 50 years ago).

19 See also section 4.5. 20 In the case of Roma, who were not recognised as a national minority during socialist times, the issue of school education appears differently. One may observe that the public debates around Roma and education emerge at the junction of two major positions: one, emphasizing the ethnic nature of the ‘Roma question’; the other, stressing socio-economic issues. The former is more or less shaped by the paradigm of the dominant Hungarian approach, and is part of a culturalist ethnic identity politics: it advocates the recognition and appreciation of Romani culture, and demands the right to learn Romani language and history, to study all disciplines in Romani, and have Roma-only classes or schools. The latter ‘socially-oriented’ discourse and position focuses on access to school education of Roma as a disadvantaged group. The latter view is also favoured by many Romanian scholars and politicians, who often explain limited access of Roma to school as an economic or financial matter and as an element of what they judge to be the Romani ‘culture of poverty’. This is exactly why many Roma leaders tend to be critical of the socially-oriented paradigm and reducing the ‘Roma issue’ to problems of poverty; Roma leaders are also critical of the Roma elite which, while being dedicated to integration are – it is said – becoming part of the oppressive power system and not representatives of ‘authentic’ Roma interests. This is how debate about the meanings of access to education – access to Romanian schools, language, culture and history versus access to learn in the Romani mother tongue about Roma culture and history – remains subsumed by broader Roma identity politics and also shapes these politics. The discourse on non-discrimination seems to transcend the two poles mentioned above, by showing how ‘anti-Gypsy’ racism is an important element in how Roma are viewed and positioned as a disadvantaged group. Non-discrimination is very close to the recognition that the cultural and social elements of the access to school education are intertwined. As we will show, Roma educational policies were developed around many different issues since 1990, but among all of its aspects the issue of segregation factored prominently in public discourse. In different periods, there have been ‘keywords’ that not only represented, but also structured and produced the visions and priorities of policy-makers. That is, they have been more than words. They have been metaphors for naming the problems and/or the solutions of the problematic social realities, but referred to as ‘realities’. Furthermore, they have been loaded with ideological convictions and power relations and structured by the funds available on the international market of educational projects – without acknowledging all these influences. Shortly, they acted as the taken-for-granted categories about and according to which people were expected to think and act – such in regard to issues of access to school, schooling of ethnic minorities, or general school education. Today, there are Roma intellectuals – for example Nicolae Gheorghe, former officer of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe – who consider that the main problem is that the ways of thinking about priorities were not developed as a result of grass-roots public debates around diagnosis and solutions. Rather, particularly with regard to Roma and education, priorities were structured by other forces that had the power to impose policies.20 One may mention that his observation might be relevant for the whole post-socialist reform process in the Romanian educational system, which has been characterized by: shifting political regimes (1990-1996, 1996-2000, 2000- 2004, 2004-2008); changes to and within the Ministry of Education (even within a single regime); European norms, regulations, and ‘experiments’; and the lack of social actor who could generate and orchestrate a broad public debate on reforms defined from ‘above’. Potentially, such a debate and the resulting public consensus could have had an important impact on reforms to the educational system. Following how the issue of segregation entered into public debates can help to clarify the process of changing meanings and representations. One of the main concerns surrounding this topic is related to the problem of the distinction between ‘school segregation’ on the one hand, and the maintenance of ethnic boundaries on the other hand – the latter being conceived by many Roma intellectuals and activists, deceived by the low positive impact of integrationist strategies on the life of Roma, as a key factor n preserving and developing Roma identity. Another problematic aspect is the

20 After Nicolae Gheorghe’s comment at the summer school ‘Come Closer’, Cluj, 12-19 July 2008. 21 distinction between banning segregation and the right to use minority languages in the public sphere, such as at schools.21 When analyzing the representation and understanding of segregation, it is worth considering state Ordinances and Explanatory Notes, provided between 1998 and 2000 by the Romanian Ministry of Education. In a way, these documents officially initiated and legitimated the practise of segregation. At least according to the current definition of segregation,22 the education system practised segregation. At that time, segregation was meant to be, as the documents suggested, ‘compensatory and transitory’ – a mechanism of ‘positive discrimination’. Even if segregation was intended to follow the ‘successful’ policies regarding the Hungarian cultural autonomy and the related separation of schools along ethnic lines, it was a very dangerous experiment to play with the Roma community. The danger was particularly acute, considering the racist attitudes in circulation, the lack of consultation with Roma representatives at the time, and the limited available research data. ‘Hidden’ racism lurked in the apparently innocent and ’well-intentioned proposal‘ to ‘save’ Roma, by pushing them into “solutions” that – as research showed already at that time (Surdu 1998) – were a trap, because they enforced Roma children into ghetto- like schools or classes where the quality of education and the material facilities were unacceptable. The initiative under scrutiny is even more striking if one recalls that, in 1998, a database compiled by the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research (in cooperation with the Institute of Educational Science and the Bucharest-based Research Institute for Quality of Life) existed and was available for consultation. This database contained information from 5,560 schools from rural areas in Romania, and was created by selecting cases from a larger database of 19,427 schools (about 95 percent of schools in rural regions of Romania). If read carefully, this database shows that schools with a high percentage of Romani pupils are struggling institutions with poor facilities and high numbers of unqualified teachers – and as such, they have deleterious impacts on the quality of education Romani children receive and their motivation to attend school. High drop-out rates among Roma are, in part, the result of the negative experience they have at school. Roma scholars have observed that ultimately, educational segregation on the basis of ethnicity is a form of discrimination. They have stressed that it is harmful because it is also a mechanism of social exclusion that reproduces inequalities between Roma and non-Roma, and even naturalizes inequalities by fixing the (self)perception that Roma as ethnic group are ‘unable’ to perform well, who need to ‘catch-up’ and eventually be happy even with services of lower quality.23 Another debate pertains to a summer kindergarten initiative that brought up not only problems strictly linked to access to pre-school education, but also more general concerns regarding the state educational policies for Roma.24 During surrounding discussions, several key questions were raised, like:

1. if there are available funds, the state should consider enrolling Roma children into kindergarten for one whole year (or even for three years, as the new law of education defines this period as compulsory);

21 See a discussion about this at Chapter 5 of this report.

22 Today, there is an agreement on the following: those units of study where more than 50 percent of the pupils are ethnic Roma and the teaching language is not Romani are segregated educational units.

23 What is happening behind the discourses on segregation in terms of policy-making will be discussed later at this chapter.

24 I followed this debate on the E-mail list Romlink http://www.romlink.net) in April 2008. Arguments against summer kindergartens, which were compared by somebody to the African-American position of “this is to little and comes to late.” were counter-argued with reactions like: this programme should be considered only as a temporary and remedial one; the Ministry of Education and the persons who were coordinating projects for Roma were very successful in the past few years; if there are so much criticism towards these educational programmes, what about the programmes on other domains; instead of following the Ministry of Education), would it be better if we do nothing and wait for someone else to lead and dictate what is ‘good’ and then punish us if we do not follow? 22 2. the support from the European Union should not be used to establish surrogate and parallel institutions (whose sustainability, otherwise, is questionably), or separate institutions where Roma children can be more or less easily integrated. Rather, it should be exploited in order to maintain the institutions of integrated (or inclusive) education where children are not separated along ethnic lines – particularly because this is the educational policy that the Romanian government assumed recently; 3. temporary, remedial programmes, which might be successful in some punctual critical cases, should not be transformed into state policies. The state should support the integration of Roma children into the mainstream educational institutions where education is ensured not for only three weeks, but for years, as it is required by law; 4. the aim might be to change the whole educational system, and not only to repair some of its negative effects; 5. careful consideration could be given to extent to which such projects mostly serve the personnel involved into them and less the so-called ‘target groups’; 6. to attract Roma children in particular, schools should be made to be generally attractive, without constructing parallel programmes; 7. a change of the school system could not mean that the so-called parallel or alternative schooling programmes might undermine the monopoly of the ‘one and only’ system; 8. it is not clear what alternative programmes are ‘about’, and if they are of better quality or less exclusionary; 9. if children at the level of the kindergarten are separated, to what extent could we expect that they and their majority peers will be ready for the intercultural education they are supposed to receive at school; 10. the establishment of separate Roma institutions (like the County Offices for Roma, Local Roma Experts, Roma School Inspectors, Roma School Mediators, Roma Health Mediators, etc.) if, as they are, have little decisional and financial power and legitimacy, might have a negative effect: the Romanian government may argue that as far as these institutions exist they should find solutions for “the Roma problem” instead of taking up the responsibility for this on the base of its strengths and competence; and 11. if the Roma representatives (and the Roma institutions) continue to follow the official (state) mainstream positions regarding the needs of their communities and the ways of serving them, they remain the servants of the majority (the gadje). This is why there is a need to develop an distinct Roma educational vision and strategy. Only this could empower the Roma institutions and leaders and help them really take part in a debate with the Romanian state on needs, priorities, strategies.

During debates about what and how should be done ‘for Roma’ in the domain of education, some public actors (intellectuals, politicians, journalists, etc.) belonging to the Romanian majority started to talk about the ‘point(less)ness’ of financial support of Roma, who – as it has been argued – despite various efforts, continue ‘to prove’ that ‘they do not like to go to school’, or ‘do not like to work’. The different educational projects developed to improve the situation of Roma have been unable to change in a sustainable manner the multiple factors that shaped people’s opportunities within the current educational system – though they might have had some isolated, temporary positive effects on some individuals. In general, the whole system of exclusions (including the racist conceptions and discriminatory practises of the majority) continues to function (or was even reinforced). Most changes to date have been based on the idea that the benevolent or tolerant majority is helping the Roma integrate or, as it were, become ‘more normal’. Efforts to make systemic changes are essentially non-existent.

23 4.2. Policy-making: General Frame The education of ethnic minorities in Romania is defined in two general frames: policies ‘for minorities’, policies regarding ‘the access to education of disadvantaged groups’. These are delineated institutionally at the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth: the is dealt with by the sub-department of policies for minorities, functioning under the General Directorate of the Teaching/Learning in the Languages of Minorities and of the Relationship with the Parliament; the latter pertains to the General Directorate of Pre-University Education. Policies for teaching in the languages of minorities are shaped by legacies of the socialist past,25 and old and new international and European regulations. The frame of the ‘disadvantaged group’ is a later development in Romanian policy-making in the domain of education. It is not necessarily shaped in ethnic terms, but often emphasises a ‘focus on Roma’. In the specific ethnic minority context in Romanian-Hungarian identity politics dominate the field and from occasionally function as a ‘model to follow’ with respect to educational policies, even differences among ethnic groups are recognised. Why is this so? Generally speaking, we should acknowledge that any type of policy or politics – identity or other – uses the familiar and known elements in circulation as its ‘building blocks’ or reference points. Furthermore, one needs to note that the political participation of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians from Romania (DAHR) typically is regarded as a success story among other ethnic minority groups. At the same time, this Alliance, through its representatives in Parliament and government, has acted like an agent that ‘knows’ (in the sense of the all-knowing ‘big brother’) what needs to be done in terms of ethnic minority rights; it represents the ethnic minority group that is entitled to dominate the others. Under these conditions, it is no wonder that, between 1996-2000, when the DAHR entered for the first time into the Romanian government and there was no governmental strategy or organisation representing the Roma, governmental ordinances and notifications regarding Roma schooling were modelled after the Hungarian pattern. This pattern, moreover, was dominated by a certain cultural perspective: access to school for the Hungarian minority from Romania was about the right of the Hungarians to cultural autonomy, which included provisions for Hungarian-only educational institutions from pre-school to university level, learning of Hungarian language, literature and history, and studying all disciplines in Hungarian. Schooling was considered to be an instrument for the maintenance and development of the Hungarian identity, both in an ethnic and a cultural/national sense, as a way of belonging to the Hungarian ethno-nation while also being part of the Romanian civic nation. The main issues in post-socialist policy-making to promote schooling for Roma have changed many times since 1990. Focus has shifted from Roma School Mediators, Roma School Inspectors, the learning of Romani language, history and traditions, positive discrimination measures ensuring places for Roma pupils in the education system, the nature and dynamics of segregation, and strategies for desegregation, the ‘Second Chance’ programme, access to pre-school education, summer kindergartens, to various inter- and multicultural educational programmes.26 During Romania’s EU accession process, different European institutions and other organisations played a major role in defining what needed to be done in Romania in terms of increasing access to school for Roma, and general policies for Roma. Before the accession process, there were more general mechanisms that focused European attention on ‘the Roma problem’. The concept of Roma/Gypsy as a ‘European issue’ was formally acknowledged in 1993, when a Resolution of the Council of Europe declared Gypsies to be ‘a true European minority’. Roma communities were identified in almost every European country, with a total population between seven to nine

25 During this period, teaching in Hungarian language was recognised as a right of the Hungarian national minority, though, mainly during the 1980s, it suffered many attacks and cuts.

26 These issues will be discussed in detail in this chapter (sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5) classified under the heading of policies regarding equal opportunities, segregation/integration, and minority languages and multiculturalism. 24 million (or even 12 million, according some estimates). Human rights violations and the deteriorating socio-economic conditions of Roma led the European Community in 2000 to enact the Racial Equality Directive,27 which was preceded during the 1990s by many other initiatives. One initiative, for example, was the creation of the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) in 1996, which monitors the situation of Roma across Europe. Since its establishment, the ERRC has shown that anti-Gypsy racism is flourishing not only in the Central and East European candidate countries, but also in the old EU member states.28 Strictly monitored during the accession process, the Romanian government developed some general policies for Roma, which had important references to education. Unfortunately, several evaluations reported, these policies achieved little to do the lack of allocated funds and concrete implementation plans at the local levels (EUMAP 2007, 365-368). A National Strategy for Improving the Condition of Roma, adopted on 25 April 2001 and modified and completed with Government Decision No. 522/19 in April 2006,29 called for a significant improvement of the condition of the Roma through promotion of social inclusion measures. The Roma Strategy was intended to last for 10 years (2001-2010), and complemented by a Master Plan of Measures for the Period 2006–2008 (developed in the framework of the Strategy). Besides many other issues, the Roma Strategy observed problems related to education, namely: poor school participation in the education system as well as early school abandonment; the tendency to create separate, Roma-only classes; non-involvement of members of Roma communities in programmes of school recovery; lack of adequate housing and infrastructure; the high number of unemployed within this ethnicity; and the absence of readjustment or re-qualification and vocational courses for Roma. Early evaluations of the implementation of the Roma Strategy were critical, indicating that at the local level and in terms of central coordination, little progress could be identified. At the time of writing this report, no recent data on the level of achievement of the measures were currently available. In 2003, European governments and other stakeholders joined together and agreed to sign a Declaration of the Decade of Roma Inclusion (2005-2015).30 In doing so, they established several goals with regard to improving education for Roma:

• increasing the participation of Roma children in pre-school education (by 5 percent each year); • increasing the completion rate of compulsory education (grades 1–10) by Roma children; • increasing the participation of Roma children in post-compulsory and tertiary education (by at least five percent per year); • achieving an open, inclusive educational climate (eliminating segregated schools by 2008 and teacher training); • valuing and preserving the cultural heritage of Roma (tuition, study of Romani, history, mainstream curriculum enriched with elements of Roma history and culture); • fostering the school–community relationship (training school mediators, ’Second Chance’ for primary and secondary cycle, courses).

27 The Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/EC can be viewed at: http://www.stop-discrimination.info/43.0.html.

28 For more on the ERRC, visit: http://www.errc.org.

29 Government Decision No. 522/19 April 2006, for the modification and completion of the Government Decision No. 430/2001 regarding approval of the Governmental Strategy for the Improvement of the Condition of the Roma; , Strategy for the Improvement of the Condition of the Roma (hereafter, Roma Strategy).

30 The Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015 is a political commitment by European governments to improve the socio- economic status and social inclusion of Roma. It focuses on the priority areas of education, employment, health, and housing, and commits governments to take into account the other core issues of poverty, discrimination, and gender mainstreaming. For more information, visit: http://www.romadecade.org/ 25 In 2004, through the Office on Roma Issues (now, the National Agency for Roma), the government of Romania drafted an Action Plan as part of the Decade of Roma Inclusion,31 but did not adopt it. The Agency representative declared that the adoption of such action plans should take place only when documents have been elaborated with overarching goals, specific targets, indicators and monitoring arrangements defined precisely. In settings its concrete targets, the government of Romania developed several actions, including as eliminating segregated classes and schools by 2008, increasing Roma pre-school ‘zero year’ enrolment by five percent annually, and creating opportunities to ensure a full curriculum in Romani for children in pre-school and primary education. Roma students were also to be targeted by the general education programme. So far, however, there has been no direct allocation of funds for Roma education other than the general education state budget. The governmental policies mentioned above did gain considerable EU funding through the Phare multiyear programmes. The most important Phare project on education, ‘Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups, with a Special Focus on Roma’, was initiated in 2000 by the Ministry of Education and Research and the National Agency for Roma. The project involved multiple phases:

• Phase 1, started in 2001, focused on Roma, with the aim to fight social exclusion and marginalization and to promote human rights and equal opportunities. Projects were implemented during AY 2003–2004 in ten counties.

• Phase 2, started in 2003 and implemented between 2004 and 2006, received nine million EUR from the EU, plus 2.3 million EUR from the Romanian government. Without focusing on a specific ethnic group, this phase included activities in 12 counties with the aims to:

• improve pre-school education conditions, • to stimulate early enrolment, • reduce drop-out rates, • stimulate enrolment in ‘Second Chance’ programmes at the primary and secondary levels for those who have not completed compulsory education, and • promote inclusive education for all, among others for students with special educational needs.

The project also specifically targeted segregation in 12 pilot counties, and included support to various local actors working on desegregation. Of the 108 pilot schools that were included in projects submitted by the 12 ’new’ project counties in 2005, 35 had segregation issues to address.

• Phase 3, started in 2004, is currently in the process of submission of proposals from School Inspectorates. It aims at the institutional development at the national, county and community level, taking into consideration the Ministry of Education’s strategies related to access to education for all children. The project targets 27 counties that were not involved in the previous phases of the project.

• Phase 4, Phare 2005 (9.33 million EUR), started from November 2007 in the counties involved in Phare 2004 and aimed at:

31 The Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015 is a political commitment by European governments to improve the socio- economic status and social inclusion of Roma. It focuses on the priority areas of education, employment, health, and housing, and commits governments to take into account the other core issues of poverty, discrimination, and gender mainstreaming. For more information, visit: http://www.romadecade.org/ 26 • disseminating better information regarding reserved places for Roma youth in vocational and arts and crafts schools, • employing Roma School Inspectors in all county school inspectorates, • increasing the visibility of Romani and of Roma culture and history in school curricula, • redesigning of curricula to include multicultural approaches, and • providing transport to school for children living in remote areas (EUMAP 2007).

Recently, initiated by the Romanian Presidency, a National Pact for Education, which established priorities for solving the Roma education issue, was developed and signed by many stakeholders. Romanian President Basescu insisted on inviting to the discussions of the Pact several Roma organisations, too. Along with the Ministry of Education, educational non-governmental organisations, trade unions and political parties six Roma associations signed the Pact at Cotroceni Romania onJune 2008.32 Among other issues, these Roma associations asked for support in recognising the Roma identity and maintaining traditions and customs, while requesting the involvement of the Presidency in campaigns against negative stereotypes towards the Roma. The President stated that, with regard to education, the Roma minority requires more attention than the rest of the school-age population, and that there is a need to “educate the parents as well, which must send their children to school.”33

4.3. Equal Opportunities Policies of equal opportunities usually are based on the recognition of the fact that, as they are produced by structural factors, social inequalities are inscribed into institutional practises and their elimination requires an intervention at this level. Early signs of an equal opportunities policy targeting Roma in Romania were various affirmative action measures embodied in the ministerial regulations between 1998 and 2000, which emphasised the need to ‘be democratic towards Roma’ and to ‘help them as citizens of the same country, or as persons who aim belonging to the European Union’. They defined particular tracks for the development of what was to become the Roma ‘elite’, including opportunities for civic and cultural representation or – in the terms of the occupational domain – social work. The measures aimed at the formation of a Roma elite. Thus, a few members of the Roma community were given ‘special places’ (distinct spots) in high schools and universities. But, such a quota system is not the only means by which equal opportunities policies function. In Romania, too, there are other initiatives that have aimed to reduce the historically and structurally generated social inequalities between Roma and non-Roma, which might be considered as instruments of equal opportunity policies. These include: the hiring of Roma School Inspectors at the county inspectorates and a councillor on Roma issues at the Ministry of Education (who is necessarily ethnic Roma); the establishment of the Roma School Mediator system; the ‘Second Chance’ programme; and the summer kindergarten initiative. The first two initiatives – regarding Roma School Inspectors and Mediators – were based on the conviction that the Romanian education system needs experts committed to solving the ‘Roma

32 These associations were: the Roma Education Fund, Amare Rromentza, Romani Criss, European Roma Grassroots Organisation, Ovidiu Rom, and Impreuna Agency.

33 On 19 May 2007, President Basescu had addressed journalist Andreea Pana by saying: “You, pussy, don’t you have anything else to do today?” He then continued the conversation with his wife, Maria Basescu, in their car: “How aggressive that stinky Gypsy was.” Romani Criss filled a complaint to the National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD) (see the Romani Criss Newsletter, May-June 2007). Referring to these racist and sexist comments many Roma organisations refused to sign the Pact. As well, there were divisive issues among Roma organisations, and several organisations also said that they were not consulted beforehand. 27 problem’. In addition to possessing in-depth knowledge of Roma issues, experts should have contacts with Roma communities and enjoy trust among them; they should also have authority in the eyes of non-Roma. According to EUMAP:

“The idea of Roma School Mediators in Romania was first introduced in 1996–1997 by the NGO Romani CRISS together with the Intercultural Institute Timisoara. The Inspector for Education in Romanes, Professor Gheorghe Sarău, coordinated the design of the job description for school mediators” (2007, 383).

In 1998–1999, mediators were trained and worked with the pilot project entitled ‘Second Chance for Older Drop-Outs’, which was initiated by the Open Society Foundation Romania, and continued by the Centre Education 2000+. Due to Government Directive No. 721/14 May 2004, the School Mediator was introduced into the Code of Occupations in Romania (MERY 2007). However, in reality, the status of the mediator continued to be very confusing. They were hired or by schools, or by the county school inspectorates as auxiliary personnel. They received very low salaries and faced job insecurity, while performing difficult work. Mediators’ responsibilities have included:

• offering support to Roma parents and families in order to improve the schooling of their children; • encouraging the former to participate in the school’s life; • representing the Roma community at the school and the school within the community; • consulting Roma parents about the educational system; preventing and mediating conflicts among families and schools; • raising awareness among authorities about the problems of Roma; and • promoting the values of multiculturality and of the inclusive school.

In May 1998, the General Directorate for Teaching in the Language of Minorities at the Ministry of Education named a Roma School Inspector. One year later, a ministerial ordinance was launched that regarded the hiring of a Roma School Inspector at each county inspectorate. The latter decision encountered obstacles at the local level. Another Ordinance (No. 4219/17 August 1999) named 23 persons for these positions. (See section 1.1 of this report for Inspectors’ job description). Despite numerous difficulties, one may observe that in those schools where there are Romani teachers and mediators, and where there is a good partnership between the Roma School Inspector and the School Director, the drop-out rate for Roma children decreased. As well, attitude among non-Roma teachers towards Roma pupils or towards participating in courses regarding anti-discrimination and inter-culturality improved. In recent years, there have been more attempts on the side of the Ministry of Education to regulate the labour market position of the Roma School Mediator and Inspectors.34 Another manifestation of the equal opportunities policy has been the ‘Second Chance’ programme, which was initiated by the Centre Education 2000+ in 1999 and started in 2000 as an experimental programme. This programme aimed at:

“preventing the social and professional exclusion of young people from very poor families who have dropped out of compulsory education and have not achieved the minimum competencies for getting a job. The programme was initially piloted in 11 schools for 350 students, and was taken over by the Ministry in 2003 and had national coverage through the Phare programme” (EUMAP 2007, 369).

34 Namely: Ordinance No. 1539/19 July 2007 refers to the norms of appointment and functioning of the Roma School Mediator, and Notification No. 25 436/28, January 2008 pertains to appointment procedures. Notification No. 28859/26 March 2007contains a job description for Roma School Inspector for the educational problems of Roma, and Notification No. 28859/23 March 2007 refers to the completion of their duties. 28 In the Romanian educational system, if an individual is two years older than the age official set to enrol to enrol in a certain educational level, he or she may not attend school at that level any longer. The ‘Second Chance’ programme offers an opportunity for those who are in this situation through special classes. The Roma School Mediators, Romani teachers and Roma School Inspector have great importance in this programme. They spread this information among Roma communities and, one year in advance, collect names and signatures of those who would like to enrol into classes. On the base of the lists, schools might ask approval and financial support from the Ministry of Education for starting classes in which at least 20 persons should be enrolled. Funding for programmes like ‘Second Chance’, however, is tenuous, particularly as Phare support will ultimately cease. Often, the discontinuation of such programmes is justified with the ‘simple’ explanation that are not required by schools. Recently, problems of school abandonment and non-attendance by Roma were targeted by another ministerial document (Notification No. 42 047/4, October 2007), which addressed the methods for motivating teachers to organise summer kindergartens, held annually for three or four weeks in August and September, for Roma and non-Roma children who were not enrolled into pre-school institutions but expected to enrol into primary school. Summer kindergarten-type of projects started in 2001. By then, Romani CRISS had initiated a pilot programme in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and UNICEF-Romania. The programme was meant to be a local intervention with the aim of assisting those children near school age who were not benefiting from the preparation that a kindergarten offered to pupils in terms of facilitating their entrance to school. As such, a summer programme was envisaged as an appropriate affirmative or reparatory action directed towards disadvantaged Roma children. However, the idea and practise were later contested by Roma organisations. Namely, the General Directorate for the Teaching/Learning in Minority Languages of the Ministry of Education, in cooperation with the Ruhama Foundation from Oradea, won generous support from the European Social Funds for a three- year project, entitled ‘Everybody to kindergarten, everybody to school’, to organise summer kindergartens (grădiniţe estivale) across Romania. This project was thought to be offered to 8,000 children, who would participate in summer kindergartens for three weeks prior to entering primary school. The children were to be assisted ’educationally, morally and financially’ until graduation from grade 1. Initiators of the project considered that they had found the key to attract and motivate children to enrol into school, and that the project would be a good start for them in life and society. Yet, as previously mentioned, this initiative was contested by many Roma leaders because it presented the risk of segregation. The project was seen to be insufficient in solving the real issues at the core of non-attendance in pre-school education. Ultimately, various equal opportunities policies regarding education for Roma in 2007 were evaluated as follows:

“Affirmative action for Roma in the areas of secondary and higher education continues to be the strength of the educational system in Romania[...]. But while the segregated education of Roma has been acknowledged by the government as a serious barrier to equal education opportunities, the practical steps made to reduce this segregation have not been commensurate with the extent of the problem [...]. The number of qualified Romani school mediators remains very low with regard to the needs of the education system[...]. Another position created to facilitate measures on the educational integration of Roma – Roma school inspectors, appointed to the school inspectorates at county level – also remains underdeveloped. The functions of the Roma school inspectors are not clearly defined and the position is not sufficiently budgeted” (Decade Watch 2008, 37-38).

29 4.4. Segregation/Integration During the 1990s, even authorities could ‘defend’ segregationist practises by affirming that they did not understand school segregation as being discriminatory, even if by then – as presented in section 4.1 of this report – research on segregated schools had already shown the negative impact of segregationist practises on the access to education of Roma children. In April 2004, the Ministry of Education and Research issued an internal regulation, in the form of a notification (No. 29323), recognising and condemning segregation, and calling for collaboration with Roma School Inspectors in developing action plans for desegregation. But, desegregation was still difficult to implement for several reasons, including the decentralized administrative structure of the Romania education system and the lack of a strong legislative tool and administrative instrument to punish segregation. School inspectorates were not handling segregation ‘seriously’. As a result, “segregated classes continued to exist and Roma parents seeking to enrol their children in ethnically mixed schools continued to be directed back to their segregated neighbourhood schools” (Andruszkiewicz 2006, 6). In 2006, leading NGOs Romani CRISS and Impreuna Agency wrote and submitted an alternative country report to the European Commission, which provides background on how the issue of segregation was handled in Romania:

“An official problem acknowledged by the Ministry of Education and Research is segregation of students in ethnic criteria within the educational system. On [20 April 2004], as result of the civil society and other actors’ lobby, the Public Ministry issued Notification no. 29323 that bans segregation of Roma children in the educational system.

The Notification condemns segregation as a, condemns it as a ‘severe form of discrimination’35 and shows that its consequence is unequal access to quality education.”36 In addition, the Ministry implements projects and programmes, such as the Phare programme, Equal access to education of disadvantaged groups, with focus on Roma” (2006, 21).

The report observes that despite the Ministry’s official acknowledgment and addressing of this issue, cases of segregation in education are still encountered at level of schools or classes, in different regions of Romania. The report recommends the initiation of a public campaign against segregation in education that should focus primarily on MERY representatives (teachers and school principles, school inspectors, etc), as well as on Roma and non-Roma parents, and state representatives, civil society and the general public. At the same time, Roma organisations suggested that the:

“29323/2004 notification for desegregation must be granted greater legal force, by adopting a Ministerial Order or a Governmental Decision; and it’s necessary that the court of law sanctions the cases of segregation so that a message could be sent: segregation is, in fact, illegal and may be repercussions as result of law violation” (ibid., 22).

35 Concretely, the Notification stipulates that “Segregation is a very serious form of discrimination. Except for schools/ classes where al subject matters are taught in Romani Language, segregation in education involves the intentional or unintentional physical separation of 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” (Romani Criss 2004, 21).

36 Segregation has as consequence the unequal access of children to quality education. Separation in kindergartens and schools leads invariably to a lower quality of education in the groups, classes or schools with other ethnic majority of school population (ibid.) 30 Later, in 2007, Romani CRISS identified and documented other cases of Roma school segregation, and presented them to the National Council of Combating Discrimination. The National Council defined cases of discrimination in two villages from Harghita county, at a school from Dolj county, and at two schools from . Following this, in February 2007 Romani CRISS initiated the Memorandum of Cooperation regarding the access of Roma youth from Romania to an education of good quality through school desegregation (Romani CRISS 2008). This document was signed by the Ministry of Education, the National Agency for Roma, the National Council for Combating Discrimination, OSCE/ ODIHR, Roma Centre Amare Rromentza, the Intercultural Institute from Timişoara, Save the Children- Romania, the Regional Centre PER and the Foundation Ovidiu Rom. All of the co-signers committed themselves to the elaboration of a strategy regarding desegregation. As a result, the Ministry of Education adopted Ordinance No. 1540/19 July 2007 regarding the prevention, elimination and banning of school segregation of Roma children, and in doing so, defined segregation as a serious form of discrimination that has negative impacts on the access of children to an education of a good quality. The Ministry of Education, Research and Youth then adopted Order No. 1539/19 July 2007 on the hiring and activity of School Mediators, and Order No. 1529/18 July 2008, on the development of the issue of diversity in the national curriculum. The anti-segregation Ordinance states that those who are not respecting its prerogatives will be sanctioned accordingly. Later, Romani CRISS, in partnership with the National Council for Combating Discrimination, recommended to the Ministry of Education that the latest Ordinances concerning cultural diversity, the banning of segregation, and the need to offer courses about intercultural education to school teachers by introduced into legislation on pre-university education. At recent press conference organized by Romani CRISS on 23 July 2008, under the title of ‘Roma children want to study – Say no to segregated schools’, it was pointed out that Romania still has schools or classes that are exclusively or predominantly comprised of Roma pupils. Organizers of the press conference noted that in 2008, they had documented 27 such cases. After all these developments, there have been some policy-making and implementation experiences in the domain of desegregation. The European Roma Rights Centre, for example. observes that:

“efforts to place Romani children from separate schools and classes into integrated education have been carried out predominantly within projects run by non- governmental organisations (ex. in Bulgaria) and/or within Phare projects (e.g. in Romania), without clear perspectives for the transformation of the experimental activities into government policy” (ERRC 2007, 37-38).

It is worth noting that a form of financial incentive that is linked to integrated education has recently been introduced in Romania. In 2005, the Ministry of Education introduced a merit salary for teachers at the amount of 20 percent of the minimum wage for a period of four years, starting in July 2006. The Order specifies desegregation activities among the eligible activities for which a merit salary can be awarded. However, this incentive provides an option, but not an obligation, for desegregation – that is, schools/school authorities may choose not to take advantage of such incentives. At the same time, a problem remains that in Romania, government efforts aimed at eliminating the physical separation of Romani and non-Romani children have been developed and implemented in the framework of separate projects. They are not necessarily coherent, nor do they inherently entail the revision of legislation and policies that would ensure sustainability of particular project activities. Notable desegregation measures that have been taken include:

• the integration of Romani children from separate classes with their non-Romani peers within one school; • bussing Romani children from distant Roma-only schools into ethnically mixed schools; and • closing schools which used to be attended by Romani children only.

31 Altogether, the implementation of existing regulations made evident the limitations of non- binding school desegregation measures. Schools that were entirely segregated or had some form of segregation have been able to refuse to undertake desegregation actions. Some instances identified by Romani CRISS across the country were brought to the attention of the National Council for Combating Discrimination, which later recognised them as cases of anti-Roma discrimination. However, two of the cases presented to the court in 2007 were rejected. Another international organisation, the Roma Participation Programme (RPP) of the Open Society Institute, has had an important impact on raising awareness about the huge negative impact of school segregation and has given considerable support to desegregation initiatives across Central and Eastern Europe.37 The RPP:

“directed its efforts towards the elimination of segregation and promoting full access to quality education for Roma. We have campaigned to raise awareness and elicit support for this issue at international and national levels. We have sought to involve the governments in the formulation of coherent desegregation strategies, because without their participation the desegregation process is not sustainable. We have supported Roma-led NGO initiatives to demonstrate in concrete terms that desegregation is possible and integration can work” (RPP 2002, 5).

Successful projects of the RPP, such as in Bulgaria in 2008, might be attributed to funding from the EU Structural Funds under the Operational Programme Human Resources Development.

4.5. Minority Language and Multiculturalism As previously mentioned in this report, the in one’s mother tongue is recognised by the Constitution or Romania and – consequently – by other legislative and institutional arrangements on the specific domain of school education (see Tables 15-20, Annex). In 1998, the Ministry of Education gave an ordinance with the specification that Romani language should be regarded as a minority languages, which will be taught four days per week in grades 1-4 and 6-9, and five days per week in grade 5. In this way, the state officially recognised Romani language and accepted that it be taught in schools, for classes of 15-25 pupils or for smaller groups of 7-15 (or even for smaller or larger groups). This system was introduced in AY 1998/1999. (Table 10 reflects the number of Roma pupils who studied the additional Romani curriculum in AY 2004/2005). A report by CEDIMR-SE (2000) refers to this ordinance with the specification that it will ‘take time’ to implement this ordinance and to do so efficiently, but it is certain that the number of schools in which teaching in Romani language takes place is constantly growing. As Table 20 suggests, here are also educational units in Romania where the teaching language is totally Romani. The idea of inter-culturality was hardly present in regulations issued during the 1990s. During this period, studying Romani language and history (as with the studying of any recognised minority languages, literature or history) was thought to be ‘the right of Roma’ (as with other minorities); it was not a possibility for all regardless of ethnicity (not to speak about as a compulsory element of education). This way of thinking shaped under the rule of a leader from Cluj who, at Babes-Bolyai University, was also thought to be the initiator of ‘the’ multicultural university. Multiculturalism was introduced as an alternative to separation, and as a modus vivendi in the context of which the parallel existence of ‘culturally divided worlds’ was thought to guarantee the peaceful coexistence of ethnic groups, while maintaining (the idea of) a shared institution. Definitely, these general frames of thoughts and practises influenced regulations regarding the schooling of ethnic Roma, too. Obviously, the teaching of and in Romani could not be possible without teachers of Romani. Their formation became possible in 1997. Since then, approximately 12-16 Roma students have enrolled

37 The role of the Roma Education Fund of OSI, established in 2005, should be also recognised here. 32 in regular courses at the Department of Romani Language and Literature within the Faculty for Foreign Languages and Literature at the University of Bucharest yearly. Since 1997, a total of 490 students have been enrolled in the Roma Teacher Training Section of the Department of Open Distance Education at Bucharest University. From AY 2007/2008, the Section on Romani-Romanian Language within the Department for Romani Language and Literature initiated an open distance education course for approximately 60 students per year. One report notes:

“In the 2005–2006 school year, out of 280,000 active teachers in Romania, 490 (0.18 percent) are Roma teachers who had been trained by the Ministry of Education and partners between 2000 and 2005. They are teaching Romani and Roma History and Culture, starting with the pre-school level and ending with high school, to students who have identified themselves as Roma” (EUMAP 2007, 387).

Training for non-Roma teachers in the cultural specificities of Roma communities started in 2004, and was initiated by the Ministry of Education and Research and Save the Children-Romania:

“The funding for this initiative is ensured by UNICEF Romania, Project on Ethnic Relations (Târgu-Mures office), and the Department for Interethnic Relations within the Romanian Government. Within this programme 450 Romanian teachers received training” (EUMAP 2007, 369).

Additionally, the Ministry of Education has financed several extra-curricular activities, that are linked to the right to study Romani and to learn about Roma culture, :38

• an annual national contest on Romani language, entitled ‘School Olimpiada’, first organised in 2000; • a national contest on Romani art and creation for winners of the Olimpiada, held on the Black Sea coast; • a festival of traditional Roma folklore, first held in 2007 for 170 participants; • the national contest ‘Diversity’, organised in schools in collaboration with the Project for Ethnic Relations, and the Department of Inter-Ethnic Relations of the Romanian government; and • a national contest of Roma history and traditions for those studying these subjects.

As discussed in section 2.5, the idea of multicultural curriculum is a very recent development in Romanian educational policies. The Ordinance of the Ministry of Education No. 3774/22 April 2008 refers to measures that recognise the multiethnic character of the Romanian society. These measures pertain to the introduction of two optional disciplines into the school curriculum: ‘Intercultural Education’, and the gymnasium-level; and ‘human rights’, at the lyceum-level. The European Year for Intercultural Dialogue (2008) is recognised as being the framework within which the Ordinance was made. The aim of positively valuing cultural differences and participating in an exchange of values is among the objectives that – at least on paper – are followed by the Ordinance. The idea of multicultural education is also reinforced by Ordinance No. 1529/18 July 2007, which refers to the need to develop diversity in the school curriculum. This Ordinance makes compulsory the introduction of elements of the history of minorities in Romania into the discipline of History, both at the level of gymnasium and of lyceum. Textbooks, manuals, and auxiliary educational materials are to be evaluated on the degree to which they handle issues of diversity and otherness, and the teaching staff should be prepared in issues of cultural diversity. These two initiatives are very new, so one cannot talk about their implementation yet. However, it would be valuable to determine how many county school inspectorates and schools know about them, how many take them seriously, and when all the necessary conditions of their implementation will be

38 Information provided by Professor and MER Counsellor Gheorghe Sarau. 33 fulfilled. At the same time, of course, it is worth asking who the authors of new teaching materials will be, how will they define inter-culturality, and to what extent will they reproduce the old paradigm of viewing cultures as existing separately. Last but not least, one should also observe how all the measures will be put into practise by local school teachers.

5. The State of the Art in Research on Minority Ethnic Youth in Education

In this chapter, we present analyses of school segregation and desegregation. We also present research results regarding the reduced access of Roma to education, focusing on the causes that might explain the state of affairs. The most contested aspects of research on Roma are:

• the need for statistics that are disaggregated by ethnicity in order to develop targeted policies, countered by the potential negative impact such statistics might have on the public perceptions of Roma (through associations with problems like high drop-out rates and lack of school education); • the ways in which the ‘Roma samples’ are constructed on the basis of self- and/or hetero- identification; • the definition of issues that are worthy of and need to be researched; • the ethnicity of the researchers; • the interpretation of research results and defining the ‘Roma issue’ or ’Roma problem’ as a socio-economic and/or as an ethnic-cultural phenomenon.

5.1. Desegregating Roma Schools

A Cost-Benefit Analysis (Surdu 2002) The term ‘segregated schools’ in this article refers to schools that, according to the Romanian educational standards, are ‘regular schools’. That is, they use standard curriculum and have over fifty percent Romani students. The author observes that:

“Historically, Romani segregated schools have appeared as a consequence of residential segregation. However, to explain educational segregation only by residential segregation is not enough. The explanation of the continuing educational segregation can be found in the social distance between the Romani minority and the majority. Established as a consequence of residential segregation, the segregated schools for Roma have become nowadays overwhelmingly an expression of the negative stereotypes for Roma. The social distance between the Romani minority and the majority is further enhanced by socio-economic discrepancies” (2002, 4).

The biggest problem with the segregated schools is that they offer relatively low quality education, The quality of education is analyses in this report from several angles, including:

• learner achievement in educational units with a majority of Romani pupils; • the ratio of pupils who repeat one or more school years due to poor school results; • basic reading and writing skills; • overcrowded classes;

34 • existence if school library; and • teacher qualification.

The research also reveals that cases of abusive treatment of Roma pupils who attended mixed schools make some Romani parents reluctant about the possibility of sending their children to school together with non-Romani children. Surdu states:

“Such cases included sitting Romani children in the last desks, failure of the teachers to stimulate Romani pupils to be active in class, exclusion of Roma from extracurricular activities, tensions between Romani and non-Romani pupils and sometimes between Roma and their teachers” (2002, 18).

As well, the author observes that Roma children might find themselves isolated in the mixed schools because of majority prejudices and stereotypes and due to status differences:

“Economic and social status differences between Romani and non-Romani children are visible in lack of school supplies, lack of adequate clothes and shoes, lack of meal, lack of money for extracurricular activities” (2002, 18).

Surdu concludes that:

“Separating schools means in fact making a judgment about Romani culture as one of a lower rank than the majority culture [and] even if segregated Romani schools would became equal in quality with other schools from the educational system, segregation is inappropriate for both the Romani minority and for the Romanian society as a whole [...] because tolerance, ethnic dialogue, democratic exercise cannot be applied if a minority is isolated, excluded from the mainstream society” (2002, 21).

5.2. Educational Measures for the Roma Minority in Romania

The Effectiveness of Integrated and Segregated Education (Toma 2005) This study consisted of several case studies that attempted to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of separation and integration. In the framework of this research, Baican conducted a case study in Pata- Rat, the (literal) garbage dump of the city of Cluj, and noted:

“In 1996, at the initiative of ‘Medicins Sans Frontieres-Belgique’ and through the efforts of this organisation, in collaboration with the local administration and Traian Darjan School, there have been created the first two special classes for the Roma from Pata-Rât. Until then, from the beginning of Pata-Rât colony, in 1990, those children had not been to school. So, in the school year 1995/1996 in the two classes there has been integrated children between 7 and 14 years old. Beginning with the school-year 2004/2005, educational desegregation was being promoted, meaning Roma children from Pata-Rât were being integrated in the ordinary schools along with the other students. In fact, to this moment, desegregation consisted in eliminating the first and the fifth grade for the school- year mentioned above. From the 11 children from Pata-Rât who entered first grade this year, six were integrated in normal schools and five of them were included in special classes for children with intellectual deficiency. From the 14 children from

35 Pata-Rât graduated from the fourth grade, 12 were included in the Special School and only two were integrated in a normal school in the fifth grade” (Baican in Toma 2005, 17).

Another case study conducted by Toma in Odorheiu Secuiesc observed the specificity of this situation: there, Hungarians formed the major ethnic group and the minor minority (the Roma) was positioned vis-a-vis them (Toma 2005, 4). In 2004, two of the primary schools of Odorheiu-Secuiesc had separate Roma classes and thus, a ‘special kind of education’; at the secondary level, there were only integrated classes. The inflexibility of the educational system is mentioned in this study as being a difficulty in the situation of the Roma pupils. The final conclusions of the authors are:

“We could see the dangers of the segregated education in a separate building, for example the danger of total isolation, since, due to “separate living” it is not possible to achieve living side by side, learning tolerance, getting to know one another, which would perhaps lead to the relief of the problems of the adulthood of these people. At the same time, the integrated learning has not proved – at least not in the case of Odorheiu-Secuiesc – to be an adequate solution. In this case the rate of school dropouts was higher, the good Roma students even more rare, since the teachers had less opportunities to especially work with them in this way, and very often the opposition of the parents was another source of difficulty” (Toma 2005, 30).

5.3. Separate and Unequal

Combating Discrimination against Roma in Education (PILI 2004) Rostas and Nicoara, in their contribution to this book (Advocacy Strategies to Combat Segregation), situate segregation from Central and Eastern Europe in a historical context, observing that

“The segregation of Roma in different fields of public life – housing, education, health, etc. – has been part of European history for centuries. Post-communism has only deepened the segregation of Roma in various fields. Changes in the agricultural sector of the region during the 1990s – agricultural reform and land privatization – to a large extent excluded Roma from among their beneficiaries. This led to the economic migration of Roma from rural to urban areas. Thus, existing ghettos expanded and new predominantly Romani areas appeared. In schools located in these areas, Romani children came to constitute the overwhelming majority of the student body. The resurgence of nationalist impulses after the fall of communism also reinforced already existing segregationist practises, leading in some cases to the creation of separate facilities for Roma enrolled in mainstream schools.

“Sometimes Romani parents sought relief from their material difficulties by registering their children in special schools for the mentally disabled, where students received aid in the form of food [...]. In some cases, new bureaucratic and financial arrangements associated with educational reforms encouraged the educational segregation of Romani children” (2004, 116-117).

As far as Romania is concerned, the authors wonder about the lack of grassroots support for desegregation, and observe that one of its causes

36 “[...]is the persistence of divergent points of view with respect to education among Roma themselves. Some Romani activists see segregation as a particularly serious form of discrimination that reproduces inequality, and they propose an inclusive educational system as a partial solution to racial inequality. Others see segregation as an opportunity for Romani children to preserve their traditions and to avoid potential psychological harm associated with mixed schooling environments; they propose increasing the quality of education in Roma-only schools as a means to remedy underachievement among Romani students. [Another problem is] the clash between the Romani advocates of desegregation and the members of other minorities that would like to have separate educational institutions for the preservation of their ethnic identity. The fault line lies between the human rights approach of those supporting desegregation and the minority rights approach of those in favour of minority language schools” (2004, 131-132).

5.4. The Roma Education Resource Book

(Fenyes, McDonald and Meszaros 1999) The introduction of this volume, written by a collection of renowned scholars and activists,39 situates Romania in a broader context and gives an informed overview on the region. It observes that:

“Romania, with its Romani population of over two million and its extreme levels – even by regional standards — of anti-Romani sentiment, offers a glimpse of a different kind of education entirely. Although Roma in Romania suffer from a variety of segregative practises when they enter the school, system, in many instances, Roma may not even enter the education system because they are blocked by laws which demand that persons show residence permits in order to enrol in schools.”

“In the first years following the collapse of the Ceausescu regime in 1989, Romania was the site of approximately thirty anti-Romani pogroms featuring killings and the expulsion of whole communities from villages. These people, along with Roma who have left villages in search of work opportunities in cities, now lead extremely marginal existences on the outskirts of Romania’s larger towns and cities, most notably Bucharest. Unable to procure residence permits for what is often no more than cardboard box housing, Roma are unable to enrol their children in schools. The bureaucratic requirements of the school system therefore effectively ensure that the children of persons on the fringes of society are condemned to remain there.”

“Racism is still the main factor in the non-schooling of Roma in Romania. Nongovernmental organisations in that country, working to assist in creating conditions whereby such children could enrol in schools, report that they have met with hostility from nearly all authorities concerned. As a result, some Romani communities in Romania receive no schooling whatsoever. Understandably, many of Romania’s educated Roma vigorously deny their ethnic origins; at present, such denial seems, sadly, to be the best strategy.” (1999, 23-24).

39 This volume, entitled Roma in the Educational Systems of Central and Eastern Europe, was first published in 1998 by the European Roma Rights Centre. 37 5.5. Come Closer

Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present-Day Romanian Society (Fleck and Rughinis 2008) This research was developed under the umbrella of the Phare project, ‘Strengthening Capacity and Partnership Building to Improve Roma Condition and Perception’. It was implemented by the General Secretariat of the Government with the aim to provide relevant data for further policy making on the social integration of Roma. This research project involved a survey of 2,000 households (1,000 Roma and 1,000 non-Roma living in close proximity to the Roma households), and 36 community studies. Altogether, the editors of the book, drawing together findings from community studies, write that

“Researchers agree that school failure and school abandonment generate low social mobility in the Roma communities and bring about a series of negative effects, leading to a vicious circle of other failures and economic traps.

“The researchers could identify two general types of causes leading to school abandonment and failure: the formal ones, embedded in the education system itself, and the structural ones that affect the everyday lives of the Roma communities and, implicitly, the children’s lives.

“The formal failures in education refer to the gaps in the education system and to the failures registered by the education institutions themselves.

“Equipment and infrastructure shortages, together with the crisis of teacher numbers, are the general problems facing the education system in Romania. The rural areas suffer most from this shortage – the poorest and most vulnerable communities (including most of the Roma communities) being particularly affected, especially the geographically marginal ones.

“Another generally known and much debated factor is the distance to the educational institutions and the lack of public transport in many rural settlements. This also affects the rural Roma communities.

“In recent years, the fact that most Roma children have not been attending kindergarten has generated much debate. Lack of pre-school education is perceived as one of the main causes of school failure, early abandonment and poor school performance of Roma children.

“The community reports showed (from interviews with school staff and with data collected from the local authorities) that pre-school attendance is low in the Roma communities, especially for the reasons given above – inadequate materials and geographical distance to these institutions.

“Complementing the formal failures, community researchers indicate the influence of language, communication problems and lack of familiarity, marriage practises, household child labour, and also the difficult choice one must make between urgent needs and future investments. In the case of very poor families, this choice is often

38 biased towards the first option. Early marriage as a reason for school abandonment was mentioned in all interviews with school staff.

“School – as any investment – becomes valuable only if it can offer something in return for the effort of attending it, such as the certainty of better economic status, or the opportunity to move into a better location. In poverty enclaves, or in poor rural areas, the effort of attending school is sometimes reckoned as too high in comparison to the benefits it could offer – from the perspective of both parents and children. This view is sustained by the fact that well paid job opportunities and better housing conditions are a distant reality” (155-157).

5.6. Social Exclusion of Roma

A Case Study from Timisoara (Magyari-Vincze 2007) This study, conducted in August and September 2007 in the city of Timisoara, explores the phenomenon of social exclusion in the framework of a country-wide research on Roma inclusion and exclusion in the Romanian society (presented above). In order to understand the issue under scrutiny, Magyari-Vincze identifies factors and mechanisms that transform Roma into disadvantaged people on the domain of education, health, housing and labour market. Among them, she pointed out the role of anti-Gypsy institutional racism and discrimination in the maintenance of the social order and in shaping structural barriers that prevent Roma from in having equal access to services and goods. The research consisted of participant observation – accompanying Roma women and men on their journeys to the mayor’s office, social assistance departments, medical institutions, or at home – and of semi-structured interviews and informal discussions with Roma and non-Roma at educational, medical, local administrative and other types of institutions. The author offers several factors that explain Roma’s limited access to education:

• lack of birth certificates and identity cards (presenting an obstacle in enrolling children to school or kindergarten); • financial (including housing) conditions of the families, which increase the risk of failure in graduating a class or even that of school abandon (after grades 4 or 8); • marriage at an early age in the case of girls, as well as early child-bearing (especially in the case of traditional Roma groups, in this case geambaşi and Gabor); • prejudice toward and discriminatory treatment of Roma children by teachers, other pupils and parents; • temporary migration of parents, who travel with their children; and • school segregation.

The author observes that segregation as mechanism of social exclusion leads to a higher level of school drop-outs. Segregation also reinforces the majority group’s prejudices about Roma – e.g. that they cannot or do not with to study – and helps to legitimize lower quality of education. Additionally, the study mentions that the failures of the educated persons on the labour market easily reproduced the lack of trust in the value and usefulness of formal education. Young children might have observed the case of middle-aged persons, who graduated vocational schools during the socialist period, or that of the young adults with university degrees and different training certificates, who nevertheless remained unemployed. Pictures and drawings made by fourth graders about their future reflected the impact of life-models coming from outside the school and the fact that the influences of formal education in imagining their future was quite law.

39 5.7. Social Exclusion at the Crossroads of Gender, Ethnicity and Class

A View through Romani Women’s Reproductive Health, Orastie (Magyari-Vincze 2006b) The research consisted of participant observation, audio and video-recorded interviews and informal talks conducted within Roma communities from the city of Orastie between 2004 and 2006. Magyari-Vincze aims to identify the multiple factors and mechanisms that affect Roma women’s access to reproductive health. The research looks at the broader context of women’s lives, including their experiences regarding school education. People from this community reported that they experienced discrimination regularly: whenever they applied for jobs, were registering their place of residence, or in encounters with the education system. With regard to Roma children’s experiences in school, Magyari-Vincze describes several phenomena. It happens very often that Roma children are effectively allowed to fail an elementary grade three times, or are negatively evaluated by a psychologist after grade 4 in order to be sent to a special school. It also happens that Romani children who perform well are under-valued in the grading process in order to be excluded from high performing (majority) students. In a ‘hidden’ way, these issues reproduce segregation. Worse, they present a situation in which Roma children face multiple disadvantages. These phenomena, together with school abandonment by girls and boys at a young age definitely maintain the disadvantaged position of Roma and increase the already existing social inequalities between them and the majority population. School abandonment occurs for several reasons: there is a need for older children to help care for youngsters, such as by performing housework, gathering wood or herbs, collecting scrap metal, or doing other types of work on a daily basis – among them begging – for a living. Girls often leave school early to be married and give birth. The value of education is interpreted paradoxically within this community: on the one hand, both women and men face the fact that job announcements (including those from abroad) require applicants to have completed at least eight years of school; but on the other hand, they observe how even those who completed ten grades during the socialist period do not have secure jobs and are unemployed (such because of their ’darkness’). Some families might not place sufficient emphasis on school education; more precisely, they lack the material conditions to do so. The “culture of living in present” (Day, Papataxiarchis and Stewart 1999)40 might not be compatible with long-term planning: preparing for an unimaginable future with secure employment by studying consistently over a long period of time. Families’ daily concerns about basic resources are passed on to their children. Under these conditions, children are taught first and foremost that ‘life is tough’ and they must find solutions, ‘right here and right now’. Given the extent and impact of the issue of access to school education on other domains of life, more research is needed. In particular, more qualitative case studies should be done. The gender aspect of this problem and the intersections between gender and ethnicity in shaping school performances and careers is an under-investigated subject, as is the functioning of educational policies in everyday life. Likewise, integrating data from Romania data into comparative studies (as presented in Table 28) would be valuable. Aside from empirical research, well-grounded theoretical works are also crucial, particularly for clarifying how awareness about including ethnicity in the study of the access to school education in Romania does not necessarily need to rely on biological or primordialist cultural arguments. Theoretically informed analyses will reveal how ethnicity is a relevant social factor and mechanism, which – together with other forces – shapes social relations, influences cultural (self)

40 Living in the present (which characterises very many communities around the world who live in enclaves at the margins of society) “is an active, not passive response to conditions of marginalization and social exclusion” (Day, Papataxiarchis and Stewart 1999. 7). It might be “a source of joy and satisfaction” (ibid., 2), or “an effective cultural and political critique” (ibid., 7). It might be a way of avoiding dependencies, of feeling free and a “form of resistance,” but certainly, “a strategy for dealing with encapsulation” (ibid., 9). 40 perceptions, and determines socio-economic positions, while structuring redistributive and recognition politics. In a political and historical context, where ethnicity is still relevant in all dimensions, ‘ethnic neutrality’ would mean that we deny that ethnicity is an on-going process of differentiation, which creates inequalities, and we reject recognising that ethnic and racial prejudices – ethnicism and racism – are responsible for the maintenance of a social order in which individuals and groups are marginalized on the basis of their ethnic or racial belonging.

6. Considerations Driving the Selection of Empirical Research: Groups, Schools, and Sites

Research will focus on Roma in Romania.41 In the 1992 census 401.087 people (1.8 percent) identified themselves as Roma, and in the 2002 census the number of those self-identifying as Roma increased to 535.250 (2.5 percent), but unofficial estimates of the actual figure of Roma in our country range between 1.8-2.5 million (so approximately between 8-11 percent). It is worth noting that Romania has the largest number of ethnic Roma in Europe. Why there is such a huge difference between the so-called official and unofficial estimates, and why there has been an increase in the number of self-identified Roma during the past years, are complex questions that span multiple issues. These issues include:

• changing Roma identity politics and state policies towards Roma; • tensions between self- and hetero-identification and the functioning of classification systems at different local settings; • confidence in versus the embarrassment about self-identification as Roma; • methodological and ideological conceptualizations of those conducting research on Roma; and • the processes of ethnicisation of poverty as a result of which poor people are perceived as Roma (as a result of which the number of people hetero-identified as Roma is higher as of those self-identified).

In short, one may conclude that in Romania, Roma are racialised minorities who – despite being citizens and despite the wide range of recent (anti-discrimination and equal opportunities) legislative measures – are over-represented among those social categories, which are excluded from various important and quality resources and services and subjected to racial discrimination. The situation of Romani people in terms of access to housing, health, employment and education should be viewed in the context of post-socialist changes, as well as with an eye to socialist and pre- socialist legacies (including slavery, Roma holocaust, and forced socialist assimilation). These factors are marked by manifestations of institutional ‘anti-Gypsy’ racism. Most importantly one needs to observe the local particularities of Roma communities under scrutiny. As with any social category, Roma are extremely diverse in multiple respects. Collectively, Roma communities struggle to integrate into and remain distinct from the dominant communities in their immediate surroundings. At the time of our research, the issue of educational desegregation is on the top of the public agenda in Romania. Last year, the Ministry of Education omitted an order regarding Roma segregation and since then, one may expect that the county school inspectorates would be forced to develop and

41 According to the 2002 census, out of the country’s total population, the Romanians constitute 89.5 percent, the Hungarians 6.6 percent, the Roma 2.5 percent, the Germans 0.3 percent, the Ukrainians 0.3 percent and the other ethnic groups under 0.2 percent. 41 implement desegregation projects. Under these conditions, we have a special opportunity to observe how all this is actually happening – and how segregation continues to function in hidden forms, sustained by the ‘othering’ processes that are underscored by anti-Gypsy racism. Research will be conducted in two regions of the country, in western Banat region and in north western Cluj County, in Transylvania. Specifically, research will be conducted in two large cities that have similar ethnic compositions. Both are very multicultural, with significant populations of Romanians, Hungarians and Roma, and also with some other ethnic groups, like Germans, and Serbs etc. They are also characterized by dissimilarities in interethnic relations – namely, in the current proportions of ethnic groups, these groups’ historical and contemporary relationships with the state, and how their multicultural nature is captured in the Romanian imagination. Both cities experienced economic crises in the early 1990s, as socialist-era industries collapsed, but recently have witnessed robust economic development, with large number of foreign investors and a low figure of unemployed. In fact, the cities are competing in economic and cultural terms, and also are important university centres. In these two cities, research will be conducted in districts, mostly situated at the cities’ margins, where Roma are concentrated. We will conduct our surveys among pupils in grade 8 in schools where Roma pupils are enrolled, thus investigating multiethnic groups of children with a substantial proportion of Roma. Community case studies will also look at schools and districts, but will also extend beyond them. One has to notice that there are no official statistics regarding the number of ethnic Roma school-aged children (among them eighth graders) because they are not asked to declare their ethnicity at the time of their enrolment into the school. However, Roma School Inspectors, under the directions of the Ministry of Education do gather data about ethnic Roma students.

42 Bibliography

Andruszkiewicz, Maria. 2006. Desegregarea scolilor – progrese si provocari. Experientele programmeului 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. http://www.edu.ro/index.php/Articles/6758

Badescu, Gabriel, Vlad Grigoras, Cosima Rughinis, Malina Voicu, Ovidiu Voicu. 2007. Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor [Roma Inclusion Barometer], Open Society Foundation – Romania,=. http:// www.osf.ro/en/publicatii.php

Baican Eugen. 2005. Research Report: Educational Measures for the Roma Minority in Romania. The Effectiveness of Integrated and Segregated Education. Case Study of Pata-Rât, Cluj-Napoca: CERGE-Ei.

Burtea, Vasile. 1999. For an Equalisation of Chances. In: Csaba Fényes, Christina McDonald, and Anita Mészáros, eds. The Roma Education Resource Book, Volume I. Soros Foundation Network.

Cahn, Claude, David Chirico, Christina McDonald, Viktória Mohácsi, Tatjana Peric, and Ágnes Székely.. 1999. Roma in the Educational Systems of Central and Eastern Europe. European Roma Rights Centre Report, Summer 1998. In:, Csaba Fényes, et al, eds. The Roma Education Resource Book, Volume I. Soros Foundation Network.

CEDIMR-SE. 2000. Minoritatile din Europa de Sud-Est. Romii din România 2000: Romii din România [Minorities from Central and Eastern Europe. Roma from Romania]. Cluj: CEDIMR-SE. . http:// adatbank.transindex.ro/html/cim_pdf452.pdf

CNCD [NCCD. Perceptions and Attitudes Regarding Discrimination. http://www.cncd.org.ro/studiianalize. swf

CRDE [EDRC]. 2004. O necesara schimbare de strategie. Raport privind stadiul de aplicare a Strategiei de îmbunatatire a situatiei romilor din România [A Necessary Change of Strategy. Report on the Stage of Implementation of the Strategy for the Improvement of the Condition of the Roma], Cluj-Napoca: CRDE. http://www.edrc.ro/docs/docs/provocdivers/033-058.pdf

Decade Watch. 2008. Roma Activists Assess the Progress of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2007. http:// demo.itent.hu/roma/portal/downloads/DecadeWatch/DecadeWatch%20-%20Complete%20 (English;%20Final).pdf

DRI and MER. 2006. Panorama invatamantulu ipentru minoritatile nationale din România în perioada 2003–2006 [Panorama of the National Minorities’ Education in Romania 2003–2006]. http://www.eumap.org/topics/minority/reports/roma_education/national/romania/romeduc_ romania2.pdf

EAFR. 2007. Report on racism and xenophobia in the member states of the European Union. http://fra. europa.eu/fra/material/pub/racism/report_racism_0807_en.pdf

ERRC. 2007a. The impact of legislation and policies on school segregation in Romani children. A study of anti-discrimination law and government measures to eliminate segregation in , Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/ getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=D659BB03-7B9D-4978-B530-87828C06C6D1

43 ____. 2007b. Policies and Measures Targeting Segregation of Romani Children in Standard Education, European Roma Rights Centre Research Papers. http:// www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument. aspx?logid=5&id=D659BB03-7B9D-4978-B530-87828C06C6D1

_____. 2001. State of Impunity, Human Rights Abuse of Roma in Romania. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/ data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/19/81/e0.pdf

ERRC and Romani CRISS. 2006. Shadow Report. United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in Romania, for its consideration at the 35th Session 15 May to 2 June 2006, http://www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/pdf/Romania(2)_SR.pdf

ESP. 2006. Monitoring Education for Roma. A Statistical Baseline for Central Eastern and South Eastern Europe. New York: Open Society Institute. http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_ publications/publications/monitoring_20061218/monitoring_20061218.pdf

____. 2001. Roma population in Central and Eastern Europe. New York: OSI ESP. http://www.soros.org/ initiatives/esp/articles_publications/publications/rerp_20010428/background_20010428.pdf

EUMAP. 2007. Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma. http://www.eumap.org/topics/minority/ reports/roma_education/report/vol1.pdf

European Commission Delegation in Romania. 2005. Assessment of the Roma Strategy Implementation Mechanism, RO/ Phare 2003 SSTA 05, Bucharest. http://www.anr.gov.ro/docs/rapoarte/Focus_ Final_Evaluation_Report_181.pdf

Fényes, Csaba, Christina McDonald, and Anita Mészáros, eds. 1999. The Roma Education Resource Book, Volume I. Soros Foundation Network.

Fleck, Gábor, and Cosmina Rughinis, eds. 2008. Come Closer. Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present- Day Romanian Society. Bucharest. http://www.sper.org.ro/pdf/cercetare/engleza/final_reports/ Come_Closer.pdf

Han Jung, Soknan and Florin Botonogu. 2006. UNDP’s Engagement with Minorities in Development Processes. Romania Case Study on Roma. http://www.undp.ro/pdf/Romania%20Case%20 Study%20October%202006.ppt

Harbula, Hajnalka, Nándor Magyari, Eniko Magyari-Vincze, and Letitia Mark. 2008. Country Report on Education: Romania. EDUMIGROM Background Papers. Budapest: Central European University, Centre for Policy Studies.

Household Labour Force Survey 2005.

Ivanov, Andrey, ed. 2002. The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. Avoiding the Dependency Trap. Bratislava: UNDP, http://roma.undp.sk/reports_contents.php?parent_id=1&id=217

Impreuna Agency for Community Development and Romani CRISS. 2006. Overview of the Roma Situation in Romania: for European Commission Consideration at the 2006 Country Report. http://www. romaniCRISS.org/documente/DDO/noutati/Alternative%20report%20on%20Romania%20 aug%202006%20CRISS%20Impreuna%20FINAL.pdf

Jigau, Mihaela and Mihai Surdu, eds. 2002. Participarea la educatie a copiilor romi – probleme,solutii, actori [School Participation of Roma Children: Problems, Solutions, Actors]. Bucharest: Marlink Publishing House, http://www.unicef.org/romania/children_1604.html

44 Liga Pro Europa. 2005. Discriminarea rasiala în judetele Arad, Cluj, Harghita, si Timis [Racial Discrimination in the Counties of Arad, Cluj, Harghita, Sibiu and Timis], report developed in the framework of the project “Minority Rights – Monitoring – Advocacy – Networking”, Budapest: Open Society Institute.

Magyari-Vincze, Eniko. 2008. Public Policies as Vehicles of Social Exclusion. The Case of Romani Women’s Access to Reproductive Health in Romania. In Katherine O’Sullivan See and Linda Racioppi, eds. Gender and Politics in Post-Communist Eurasia. Michigan University Press.

_____. 2007. Social Exclusion of Roma. Case Study from Timisoara. http://adatbank.transindex.ro/ vendeg/htmlk/pdf7060.pdf

_____. 2006a. Battlegrounds of identity politics: nationalizing universities in a multicultural context, lecture at the Institut fur die Wissenschaften vom Menchen, Vienna, http://www.iwm.at/publ- wp/wp-06-03.pdf

_____. 2006b. Social Exclusion at the Crossroads of Gender, Ethnicity and Class. A View through Romani Women’s Reproductive Health, Cluj: EFES.

McDonald, Christina. 1999. Roma in the Romanian Education System: Barriers and Leaps of Faith. European Journal for Intercultural Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2.

MER. 2006. Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups, Phare RO 2004/016-722.01.01.02, Quarterly Report 2, 16 July – 15 Oct 2006, November 2006. http://www.wyginternational.com/3what_ we_do/projects/018.htm

____. 2005. Raport asupra starii sistemului national de invatamant [Report of the Situation of National Education System], Bucharest. http://193.231.1.3/file.php/39/raport_miclea_starea_ sistemului_2005.pdf

MERY. 2007. The State of Education in Romania 2007. http://www.edu.ro/index.php/articles/10376

Nita, Delia Luiza, and Iustina Ionescu. 2006. Racism in Romania, European Network Against Racism Shadow Report, Centre for Legal Resources.

OSCE-HCNM. 2000. Report on the Situation of Roma and Sinti in the OSCE Area, The Hague, 63-97, http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/2000/03/241_en.pdf

EUMAP, RPP, and the Resource Centre for Roma Communities. 2004. Monitoring the Local Implementation of the Government Strategy for the Improvement of the Condition of Roma, New York: Open Society Institute. http://www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/Articles_publications/publications/ romap_20040927

PER. 1999. State Policies towards Romani Communities in Candidate Countries to the EU: Government and Romani Participation in Policy-Making, Princeton, N.J., U.S. http://www.per-usa.org/reports/ StatePolicies99.pdf

_____.. 1998. Schools, language and Interethnic Relations in Romania: the Debate Continues: Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. http://www.per-usa.org/reports/SchoolsLanguage98.pdf

Phare. 2006. Programmeul Multianual Phare 2004–2006, Accelerarea Implementarii Strategiei Guvernului de Îmbunatatire a Situatiei Romilor [The Multi-annual Phare Pprogramme 2004– 2006, Accelerating the Implementation of the National Strategy for Improving Roma Condition], Bucharest. 45 ____. 2004. Consolidarea Capacitatii Institutionale si Dezvoltarea de Parteneriate pentr Îmbunatatirea Perceptiei si Conditiei Romilor [Phare 2004, Strengthening Capacity and Partnership Building to Improve Roma Condition and Perception]. Bucharest: Phare.

_____. 2000. Fondul pentru Îmbunatatirea Situatiei Romilor. O monografie a proiectelor implementate în cadrul schemei de granturi [Phare 2000, Fund for Improvement of the Condition of Roma. A Monograph of the Projects Implemented through a Grant Scheme]. Bucharest: Phare.

PISA. 2007. Programmeul International OECD pentru evaluarea elevilor. Raport national, Bucuresti [International Programme OECD for student’s evaluation. National Report], http://wwwold. cnceip.ro/index.php/genericdocs/c531/

Prenton, Keith. 2006. Expert Visits to Project Counties and Schools, Report on Tour 1, January–March 2006, WYG International, EuropeAid/118970/D/SV/RO. Unpublished.

____.. 2004. Separate and Unequal. Combating Discrimination against Roma in Education, Columbia University Kht. http://www.pili.org/en/content/view/350/53/

REF. 2004. Needs Assessment for Romania, Budapest. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTROMA/ Resources/NAReportFinalRomania.pdf

Research Institute for Quality of Life and the National Office for Roma (NOR). 2002. Indicators Regarding Roma Communities in Romania, Bucharest: Expert Publishing House. http://www.rroma.ro/

Romani CRISS and Impreuna Agency. 2004. Overview of the Roma Situation in Romania. For European Commission consideration at the 2006 Country Report. Bucharest: Romani CRISS.

Romani CRISS. 2008. Nevoie de calitate si egalitate în educatie. Mai 2006 - iunie 2008 [Need of quality and equality in education, May 2006 – June 2008]. http://www.divers.ro/actualitate_en?wid=3 7647&func=viewSubmission&sid=8985

Romanian Statistical Institute. 2005. Romanian Statistical Yearbook 3. Labour Market. http://www.insse. ro/cms/files/pdf/ro/cap3.pdf

Romanian Statistical Institute. 2005. Romanian Statistical Yearbook 8. Education. http://www.insse.ro/ cms/files/pdf/ro/cap8.pdf

RPP. 2002. Reporter: Special Desegregation Issue. August. http://www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/ articles_publications/publications/desegregation_20020801/rpp1.pdf

Rus, Calin. 2006. The Situation of Roma School Mediators and Assistants in Europe, DGIV/EDU/ROM(2006)3, Council of Europe, CoE, Strasbourg, http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/romatravellers/Documentation/ Education/RomaMediators06

Save the Children Romania. 1998. Roma Children in Europe: Final Report, International Seminar: Bucharest, Romania, http://roma.undp.sk/reports.php?parent_id=1&id=241&scroll=241

Simister, Nigel. 2006. Baseline Report Prepared for the Phare Project RO 2003/005-551.01.02 on Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups, WYG International, report prepared for the Ministry of Education and Research (Project Implementation Unit) and School Inspectorates, Bucharest, manuscript.

Spirova, Maria, and Darlene Budd. 2008. The EU Accession Process and the Roma Minorities in New and Soon-to-be Member States. Comparative European Politics 6: 81–101. 46 Surdu, Laura, and Mihai Surdu. 2006. Broadening the Agenda: The Status of Romani Women in Romania, Budapest: Open Society Institute. http://www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/articles_publications/ publications/broadening

Surdu, Mihai. 1998. Conditionarea alocatiei pentru copii de prezenta scolara si efectele sale asupra educatiei copiilor rromi [Children’s State Allowance, School Attendance and Their Effects on Roma Children’s Education]. Calitatea Vietii Review 1, February.

Surdu, Mihai. 2006. Segregare scolara si reproducerea sociala a inegalitatilor. [School Segregation and Social Reproduction of Inequalities].In O noua provocare: Dezvoltarea Sociala [A New Challenge: Social Development], Iasi: Polirom Publishing House.

Surdu, Mihai. 2002. Improving quality of education in schools with a high percentage of Roma pupils in Romania. Roma Rights Review...

Surdu, Mihai. 1998. Desegregating Roma schools: a cost-benefit analysis. http://www.policy.hu/surdu/ final%20policy%20paper.pdf

Toma, Stefania. 2005. Research Report: Educational Measures for the Roma Minority in Romania. The Effectiveness of Integrated and Segregated Education. CERGE-Ei - Global Development Network, CCRIT, Cluj.

Ulrich, Catalina. 2006. Raport privind Studiile de caz – Acces la educatie pentru grupuri dezavantajate Phare 2003 [Multiple Case Study Report: Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups, Phare 2003]. Bucharest: WYG International. http://www.edu.ro

UNDP – United Nations Development Pprogramme. 2005. Vulnerable Groups in Central and Southeastern Europe, Bratislava: UNDP. http://vulnerability.undp.sk/

Velea, Simona, and Botnariuc, Petre. 2002. Education Reform in Romania during the Last 12 Years. Working paper, Hungary Course Summer University, Budapest, Central European University, July 1–12.

Zamfir, Catalin and Marian Preda, eds. 2002. Romii in Romania [Roma in Romania]. Bucharest: Expert Publishing House.

Zamfir, Elena, and Catalin Zamfir, eds. 1993. Tiganii între ignorare si îngrijorare [Gypsies between being ignored and worried]. Bucuresti: Editura Alternative.

Zoom, Ina. 2001. On the Margins, Roma and Public , Bulgaria and Macedonia. http:// www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/articles_publications/publications/marginsromania_20011201/ romania_bulgaria_macedonia.pdf

47 Additional Research Reports and Studies

This report on ethnic minority educational issues in Romania has referred to several research reports and studies. Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma (EUMAP 2007) is the most up-to-date work that covers the issue of our project in the context of Romania. It references research results (mostly quantitative) from:

• Investigations conducted by the team of the Research Institute for Quality of Life, Bucharest: * NOR. 2002. Indicators Regarding Roma Communities in Romania, Bucharest: Expert Publishing House. http://www.rroma.ro/ * Preda, Marian. 1998. Starea populatiei de romi din România în anul 1998 [The situation of Roma population from Romania in the year 1998]. http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/ getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=79D2D5F8-FF2F-4FD6-9BB9-F51DD3CB21F3 * Surdu, Mihai. 1998. Quality of Education in Schools with a High Percentage of Roma Pupils in Romania. International Policy Fellowship. Budapest: Open Society Institute.42 www.policy.hu/surdu/final%20activity%20report.htm * Zamfir, Catalin, and Marian Preda, eds. 2002. Romii în România [Roma in Romania]. Bucharest: Expert Publishing House. * Zamfir, Elena and Catalin Zamfir. 1993. Tiganii între ignorare si îngrijorare [Gypsies between being ignored and worried]. Bucuresti: Editura Alternative.43

• CEDIMR-SE). 2000. Minoritatile din Europa de Sud-Est: Romii din România [Minorities from South-East Europe: Roma from Romania]. Cluj.

• Ivanov, Andrey. 2002. The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. Avoiding the Dependency Trap. Bratislava: UNDP.

• Jigau, Mihaela and Surdu, Mihai Surdu, eds. 2002. Participarea la educatie a copiilor romi – probleme, solutii, actori [School Participation of Roma Children: Problems, Solutions, Actors]. Bucharest: Marlink Publishing House.

• UNDP. 2005. Vulnerable Groups in Central and Southeastern Europe, Bratislava: UNDP.

42 It is worth noting that this author’s basic position differs from those of the Institution at which he worked (Zamfir and Zamfir 1993).

43 This work defined the major methodological and theoretical framework that shaped all research on the conditions of Roma and policies for Roma coordinated by the Research Institute for Quality of Life in 1998 and 2002 (with support from the Soros Foundation, Romania). Leaders of the Institute and the authors of this book constructed survey samples on the base of the hetero-identification of Roma, and stated that ‘the Roma issue’ was a social and not an ethnic problem. This position might to favour socio-economic explanation over culturalist/essentialist assumptions. However, it fails on several accounts. For example it assumes that there is a strong correlation between “the native language, the cultural influences and the declared nationality of Roma and their low school educational level” (Preda 1998). This position seems to place all responsibility for their low participation in school on Roma themselves (i.e. due to their severe poverty and ‘culture of poverty’). Such assumptions do not address critically the issue of anti-Roma racism inscribed into the personal attitudes and institutional practises of the majority population; it conflates ‘Roma’ with ‘poverty’, and it does not consider the importance and consequences of ethnic identification for Roma identity politics. 48 The Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Youth has made several reports (cited in this report) on the state of the country’s educational system, including the schooling of ethnic minorities, among them Roma. The latter are public on the website of the Ministry of Education, under Education in the National Minorities’ Languages, and Access to Education of the Disadvantaged Groups. Reports regarding the Phare -funded educational projects administered by the Ministry provided, among other things, important statistical data on their target groups. These include:

• Andruszkiewicz, Maria. 2006. Desegregarea scolilor – progrese si provocari. Experienţele Programmeului Phare 2003. Acces la educaţie pentru grupurile dezavantajate [School Desegregation – Progress and Challenges; Experiences from the Phare project 2003, Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups].

• Department of Interethnic Relations of the Romanian Government (DIR) and MER. 2006. Panorama învatamantului pentru minoritatile nationale din România în perioada 2003–2006 [Panorama of the National Minorities’ Education in Romania during 2003–2006].

• MER. 2008. Realizari: învatamântul pentru romi între 2005-2008 [Accomplishments of Roma education between 2005 and 2008].

• _____. 2006. Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups. Phare RO 2004/016- 722.01.01.02, Quarterly Report 2, July 16–October 15, 2006.

• _____. 2005. Raport asupra starii sistemului national de învatamânt [Report on the Situation of the National Education System]. Bucharest.

• Simister, Nigel. 2006. Baseline Report Prepared for the Phare Project RO 2003/005-551.01.02 on Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups. WYG International, prepared for the Ministry of Education and Research;

• Ulrich, Catalina. 2006. Raport privind Studiile de caz – Acces la educaţie pentru grupuri dezavantajate Phare 2003 [Multiple Case Study Report: Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups, Phare 2003]. Bucharest: WYG International.

During the past 18 years, many other organisations have developed reports on Roma schooling in Romania, including:

• CEDIMR-SE. 2000. Minoritatile din Europa de Sud-Est. Romii din România [Minorities from South-East Europe. The Roma from Romania]. Cluj.

• ERRC. 2007. The impact of legislation and policies on school segregation in Romani children. A study of anti-discrimination law and government measures to eliminate segregation in education in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. Budapest: ERRC.

• Nita, Delia Luiza and Iustina Ionescu. 2006. Racism in Romania, ENAR Shadow Report on Romania. Centre for Legal Resources.

• Romani CRISS. 2006. Overview of the Roma Situation in Romania: for European Commission Consideration at the 2006 Country Report, with the Împreună Agency for Community Development..

• Romani CRISS. 2008. Nevoie de calitate si egalitate în educatie, Mai 2006 - iunie 2008 [Need of quality and equality in education, May 2006 – June 2008].

49 Useful Internet Resources on Roma and Education, Romanian and International

Agentia Nationala pentru Romi a Guvernului României http://www.anr.gov.ro/ [National Agency for Roma of the Romanian Government] Alianta Civica a Romilor din România [Civic Alliance of http://www.acrr.ro/ Roma from Romania], Bucharest Centrul pentru Diversitate Etno-Culturala [Ethno-Cultural http://www.edrc.ro/ Diversity Resource Centre], Cluj Centrul de Resurse pentru Comunitati de Romi [Resource http://www.romaCentre.ro/ Centre for Roma Communities], Cluj Centrul pentru Romi [Roma Centre] Amare Romentza, http://www.amarerromentza.org Bucharest Divers. Altfel despre minoritati etnice [Divers. Differently http://www.divers.ro about ethnic minorities] Investigative Reporting Network and Project on Ethnic http://www.edu.ro/ Relationship Ministerul Educatiei, Cercetarii si Tineretului [Ministry of Education, Research and Youth] Oficiul National pentru Romi [National Office for the Roma] http://www.rroma.ro/ (the predecessor of the National Agency for Roma) Romani CRISS. Centrul Romilor pentru Interventie Sociala si Studii [Roma Centre for Social Intervention and Studies], http://www.romaniCRISS.org Bucharest Romaworld http://www.romaworld.ro/ Education Support Programme – Open Society Institute http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp

http://www.eumap.org/topics/ EUMAP: Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma minority/reports/roma_education/

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php European Roma Rights Centre http://www.errc.org/ Minority Rights Group International http://www.minorityrights.org/ Roma Education Fund http://www.romaeducationfund.org/ Roma Education Initiative, Open Society Institute http://www.osi.hu/esp/rei/ UNDP: Human Development Reports http://hdr.undp.org/ UNDP: Vulnerable Groups in Central and South Eastern http://vulnerability.undp.sk/ Europe UNICEF: Central and Eastern Europe and Commonwealth of www.unicef.org/ceecis/ Independent States World Bank: Needs Assessment studies for Roma Education http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/ Fund EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/

50 Abbreviations and Acronyms

Centrul de Documentare si Informare despre Minoritatile din Europa de Sud-Est CEDIMR-SE [Centre for Documentation and Information on the Minorities of South-East Europe] Centrul de Cercetare a Relatiilor Interetnice [Research Centre on Interethnic CCRIT Relations] Consiliul National pentru Combaterea Discriminarii [National Council for Combating CNCD Discrimination] Centrul de Resurse pentru Diversitate Etnoculturala [Ethnocultural Diversity CRDE [EDRC] Resource Centre] DIR Department of Interethnic Relations of the Romanian Government (DIR) DRI DRI –Department for Interethnic Relations of the Romanian Government EAFR European Agency for Fundamental Rights Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Centre [Centrul de Resurse pentru Diversitate EDRC [CRDE] Etnoculturala] ERRC European Roma Rights Centre ESP Education Support Project EUMAP EU Monitoring and Advocacy Programme MER Ministry of Education and Research MERY Ministry of Education, Research and Youth National Council for Combating Discrimination [Consiliul National pentru NCCD Combaterea Discriminarii] NOR National Office for Roma OSCE Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe OSCE-HCNM OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities OSI Open Society Institute OSI Open Society Institute PER Project on Ethnic Relations PILI Public Interest Law Initiative PISA. Programme for International Student Assessment REF Roma Education Fund RPP Roma Participation Programme. UNDP United Nations Development Pprogramme UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

51 Level of Qualification 5 4 3 3 2 1 lyceum education Vocational Vocational Technological Technological Completion year (School of crafts) lyceum education Technological Technological Technological Technological Educational levels Post-high school () Post-high University education Pre-school education Comprehensive education education theological Arts, sport and Arts, Arts, sport and Arts, theological lyceum lyceum education Theoretical Theoretical 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 education Primary education Non-university tertiary Upper secondary education Lower secondary education University tertiary education I II X V III XI IX VI IV XII VII Big XIII VIII Small Grade Middle http://www.old.edu.ro/preu_struct.html http://www.old.edu.ro/preu_struct.html 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 > 11 10 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 Age Annex: Tables and Figures Annex: Tables of Schools and Levels Education 1. The Romanian School System: Types Table Source:

52 6 31 46 53 52 171 2005/06 9 29 48 53 62 173 2004/05 7 24 47 56 67 147 2003/04 8 70 20 46 47 122 2002/03 8 72 12 33 67 67 2000/01 - 4 21 13 20 36 1995/96 - 4 … 16 34 23 1992/93 Pre-school Primary and secondary * High school Vocational high school Post Tertiary Table 2. Education Units from Private Institutions Table * ‘Secondary education’ refers to gymnasium (including grades 5-8); ‘high school’ refers to theoretical lyceum (grades 9-12); ‘vocational’ refers to both the vocational/professional school (grades 9-10) and technical lyceum and (grades ‘tertiary 11-13); education’ refers to the university education. the Altogether, meanings of the terms as used in the classification of the table. 1, Appendix), differ from those in this statistical Romanian educational system, according to changes from 2005 (presented in Table 8. Education, 2005/2006 Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook, 3. Expenses for Education across Europe, Comparative figure Table

53 ** 7000 RON 7000 6400 RON 41,600 RON 41,600 57,440 RON 60,000 RON 28,000 RON 42,000 RON 42,000 RON 25,200 RON 39,600 RON 37,200 RON 60,000 RON 182,000 RON 126,500 RON 1,316,600 RON 1,316,600 5,500,000 RON 1,200,000 RON 2,760,000 RON Transport: 11,700 Transport: 572,000,000 RON Budget Allocations not enrolled in pre-school education

(6 titles in 2007) (6 titles in 2007)

schooling at the level of county school inspectorates ’, Costinesti, 11-18 August 2007 August 2007 ’, Costinesti, 11-18 working with Roma pupils, from the perspective of Rromanipen Romanes and Roma history summer kindergartens for 1600 Roma (104 participants, including pupils and teachers) (104 youth at the CEU from Budapest for the 2500 enrolled pupils in grade 9, at high school or vocational schools teaching at grades I-XII Romanes and Roma history textbooks formation of the Roma teaching staff school mediators 260,000 Roma pupils distinct spots for Roma jobs for Roma teachers national contest of Romanes of Roma dance and folklore Festival ‘Parade two scholarships for Roma jobs for school inspectors responsible Roma formation of 420 non-Roma teachers a. Financing Financing b. c. Financing 454 distinct Roma spots at the level of university education a. Initial formation of 40 teachers Romani language Formation of 60 experts on the methodology teaching Romanes and Romani history b. c. Further development of 60 Roma history teachers d. Further development of 260 teachers Romanes e. Further development of 42 school inspectors for schooling Roma youth f. Formation of 42 trainers in the educational Rromanipen g. Formation of 66 h. Formation of 62 trainers for the Second Chance programme, Roma school mediators, outside of the Phare Programme i. Formation of 117 In 2007, the value of EUR in Romania oscillated around 3.1-3.5 RON. In 2007, I. Formation of the Roma human resources necessary for educational system II. Financing 42 III. Financing 460 IV. Financing the V. Financing the re-edition of VI. Financing the VII. Financing of VIII. Initial and continuous IX. Continuous X. Financing by county school inspectorates of 80 These figures alone do not say a great deal about the extent of state financial support to Roma education Phare funds designated to promote access to school for students from Table 4. State Funding for Roma School Education, 2007 4. State Funding for Roma School Education, 2007 Table * disadvantaged groups, or amounts allocated for snacks, books ‘lyceum pocket-money’, are not included in this table. ** by the Ministry of Education Source: Data provided

54 Table 5. Compiled Data on the School-aged Population and School Enrolment Pupils in Total School-aged Pupils in Abandonment private school-aged population private rates, pre- institutions population (%) institutions university (%) Total 4,360,831 100% 9,334 Pre-school 648,338 14.5 3,154 1.43% 1.3 Primary and 42.5 1,900,561 10,124 0.16% 2.0 secondary (14.5+21.0) High school 767,439 8.2 3,199 1.31% 2.3 Vocational 284,412 15.2 22,310 1.12% 5.5 Post high 43,617 1.0 202,786 51.14% 9.2 school Tertiary 716,464 18.6 9,334 28.30% 1.3 (University)

Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook, 8. Education, 2005/2006

Table 6. Enrolment Rate for the School-aged Population

1998/1999 2001/2002 2005/2006 Total 66.3 70.6 76.0 Age 3-6 68.5 72.3 80.4 Age 7-10 (I-IV) 95.8 97.2 98.0 Age 11-14 (V-VIII) 98.1 93.2 96.2 Age 15-18 (IX-XII) 63.0 73.9 73.5 Age 19-23 and over 26.7 36.4 51.2

Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook, 8. Education, 2005/2006

Table 7. Pupils Completing the National Test, Grade 8

Total Out of which female Total 164,687 91,037 Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook, 8. Education, 2005/2006

Table 8. Number of Pupils who Graduated the School-Leaving Examination (Maturation)

Total Out of which female Total 168,058 94,011

Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook, 8. Education, 2005/2006

55 No 663 4.91 0.06 75.94 1,977 14.64 (0.05) (0.05) (0.48) 13,501 10,253 responses 5.57 0.43 (5.0) (3.6) 80.71 12.93 (34.2) 47,260 874,938 140,220 1,083,935 education No school 5.90 3.75 20.06 88.92 (19.8) (17.6) (35.7) school Primary 146,291 230,123 3,898,996 3.467,246 graduates 7.69 1.76 27.61 88.90 (31.6) (27.3) (23.1) school 94,739 Inferior (V-VIII) 413,182 5,367,630 4,772,179 graduates secondary 0.51 7.78 (3.7) 15.25 90.64 (15.4) (17.6) school 15,216 230,909 superior 2,965,524 2,686,823 graduates secondary Vocational Vocational 6.77 0.22 (2.2) 21.39 91.69 9,289 (21.8) (21.5) Lyceum 281,552 4,157,718 3,812.277 graduates 426 0.07 2.92 6.56 (3.0) (2.8) (0.1) 92.21 3,.834 531,520 576,376 or post- graduates vocational Post-lyceum Post-lyceum 7.5 684 4.68 0.04 (7.3) (4.9) (0.1) 93.36 Higher 64,176 1,280,117 1,371,108 graduates education 100 6.71 2.10 89.71 Total* 408,842 1,305,699 19,434,788 17,435,353

% No. No. No. Percent Number (% of (% of (% of group) group) group) of total %of total % of total

(over 10 yrs.) (over 10

(over 10 yrs.)** (over 10 Romanians Hungarians Roma Total population: 21,680,974 Total Table 9. Educational Level of the Population over Age 10 over Age 10 9. Educational Level of the Population Table * according to the declared ethnicity and level of graduated **Percentages Source: Census 2002

56 (11,196) 1,028,207 grades IX-XIII (out of which Roma) (62,619) 1,025,043 grades V-VIII grades (out of which Roma) 967,952 (89,784) grades I-IV grades I-IV (out of which Roma) 641,054 (23,051) Pre-school Pre-school (out of which Roma) 102,931 speakers Romanes- : Roma 218,411 curriculum with Romani 194,301 + 24,110 Total Total pupils 3,643,703 This statistics was made by the General Directorate for the Education in the Language of National Minorities of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, under the coordination the under Research, and Education of Ministry Romanian the of Minorities National of Language the in Education the for Directorate General the by made was statistics This * of Professor and MER Counsellor G. Sarău, on (but this to the due Maybe column. separate basis any in appear not of does latter the data However, provided by schools’. the ‘special from pupils and County grades I–XIII the of School pupils children, pre-school include Directorates They elements. for the school year 2004/ 2005. However, these data have many confusing we do not know for sure why) is the higher total than number 186,650, of a Roma figure pupils that presented one in would the get (218,411) if Table would sum the numbers presented in the includes columns. twice One the may Roma also children observe who that learn the Romani total language of and 218,411 Romani history in school (once as enrolled at a certain school level, and once as benefiting of the Roma additional curriculum). The number presented as being of those who speak Romani is again unclear: one cannot find out from where this figure was obtained and how it relates to the other figures of Table. Table 10. Pre-school and School Pupils of Roma Ethnicity Enrolled in the Romanian System, 2004 / 2005 10. Table

57 - - - - - 48 109 156 523 185 269 136 1 hr /wk traditions Roma history and Roma curriculum - 99 219 104 152 542 690 349 457 906 388 2184 Romani language 3-4 hrs/wk Roma pupils who study additional XIII 9024 (<35) (<99) (<68) (<99) (<37) (< 99) 21282 (<311) (<198) (<187) 18.416 20.573 34.156 33.235 30.234 15.674 29.279 20.753 16.976 112281 (< 152) (< 385) (<1499) (< Roma) High school: vocational, IX- theoretical and (<821) (<798) (<568) 21.780 31.042 30.704 67.219 21.733 17.905 38.258 16.808 26.254 24.256 16.699 15.955 (< 494) (<1119) (<1009) (<1669) (<2.074) (< 1307) (<2.549) (< 3548) (< 1662) (< Roma) Gymnasium Number of Pupils school 56.710 (<990) (<664) 21.581 36.570 16.031 16.290 2.0678 28.282 30.232 23.469 24.227 14.948 15.459 (< 712) Primary (<4812) (<2234) (<2472) (<2790) (<1608) (<3.563) (<1.030) (< 1390) (< 2.276) (< Roma) Pre- 9191 10410 16051 school 32056 14623 (<518) (<587) (<965) (<835) (<579) (<469) (<252) (<184) (<464) 24.012 12.108 12.329 13.276 19.237 20.092 15.175 (< 574) (< 276) (< 4194) (< Roma) 890 830 1.112 3.610 1.316 2.092 2.642 4.660 1.740 1.344 3.872 1.585 speakers Romani- 4.313 5.361 1.581 2.414 3.138 9.360 8.926 2.554 6.649 6.033 3.344 1.733 Roma at pre- university level Pre- 60.621 79.919 64.940 74.605 94.177 85.287 59.033 53.629 school) 111.262 112.717 132.075 268.266 (incl. pre- university County Alba Arad Arges Bacau Bihor Bistrita Nasaud Brasov Botosani Braila Bucuresti Buzau Caras Severin Table 11. Number of Roma Children Enrolled in Pre-university Schooling, 2004/2005, by County 11. Table

58 - - - - - 40 92 12 20 28 110 441 614 100 150 300 - 97 351 700 415 602 605 383 349 382 209 577 556 809 2279 1375 (179) (<99) (<46) (<18) 7.700 9.803 8.552 (< 18) 14088 32629 (<115) (<115) (<301) (<455) (<643) (<180) (<676) (<265) (< 35 ) 21.928 25.561 41.672 38.682 16.293 32.262 29.720 16.982 14.637 23.930 14.349 (< 718) (< 1705) 30.119 (<281) (<539) (<740) (<369) 15.271 25.807 10.362 33.401 15.268 33.228 28.795 29.637 13.397 20.836 15.174 13.932 42.197 12.308 26.429 (< 788) (<1341) (<1269) (<2832) (<1.117) (<2.101) (<1.018) (< 3121) (< 4506) (< 1.071) (< 1.155) (< 1.590) (<547) (<937) 24.271 10.613 27.103 31.472 14.108 21.958 12.813 15.760 25.679 30.765 29.292 19.168 15.083 14.353 42.397 13.279 (<1117) (<1309) (<1800) (<1943) (<1.502) (<2.190) (<1.223) (<1.544) (< 4.516) (< 3.024) (< 1.758) (< 2.960) (< 5.057) (< 1.248) 8829 8675 8.710 6.844 6.828 8.675 18769 18964 14394 (<350) (<820) (<690) (<380) (<122) (<974) (<438) 17.708 13.291 19.659 13.228 12.695 26.997 17.268 (< 819) (< 361) (< 212) (< 544) (< 876) (<1820) (< 1105) (< 1066) (< 1708) 993 1.011 3.102 2.706 3.191 2.141 2.029 3.728 1.985 5.379 5.796 1.820 1.903 1.543 2.546 1.648 2.114 7.215 3.402 4.756 4.868 3.132 3.685 4.545 1.134 1.685 3.139 3.240 5.606 2.509 11.050 10.734 40.714 86.021 91.298 61.962 51.609 53.945 35.667 67.929 49.669 42.348 74.635 107.196 121.639 124.617 106.357 153.263 Calarasi Cluj Constanta Covasna Dâmbovia Dolj Galati Giurgiu Gorj Harghita Hunedoara Ialomita Iasi Ilfov Maramures Mehedinti

59 - - - - 48 30 58 49 75 32 19 227 139 247 - 90 74 24 317 105 103 160 239 199 620 240 458 1404 (<85) (<96) (< 92) (<113) (<114) (<117) (<113) 11.468 (<270) (<459) (<153) (<300) (<259) (<126) (<180) 21.414 17.791 31.033 20.813 23.541 27.025 27.025 25.962 22.394 38.196 12.695 33.050 16.506 15.643 (<798) (<984) (<947) (<898) 38.716 28.401 23.517 36.812 25.628 19.909 12.334 20.663 30.269 18.859 12.254 20.275 24.565 18.067 (< 903) (<2866) (<1335) (<1238) (<1839) (<1.110) (<1.224) (<2.990) (< 2780) (< 1.251) 11.818 10.920 18.416 38.402 26.984 26.605 22.208 34.559 18.206 19.408 27.294 18.040 25.385 17.936 (<1727) (<1.718) (<1.101) (<1.075) (<7.580) (<2.128) (<2.292) (<1.338) (<1.452) (< 1212) (< 2658) (< 2.600) (< 4.098) (< 1.589) 9.625 8.033 (<719) 16.114 (<451) (<241) (<252) (<924) (<497) (<680) (<999) 26.010 10.489 20.685 15.525 20.567 13.188 14.599 18.845 12.337 13.205 17.169 (< 151) (< 440) (< 887) (< 604) (< 284) (< 1474) 1.507 1.819 2.027 5.980 1.876 3.749 1.590 2.930 2.968 2.149 1.787 1.390 4.892 1.053 3.071 2.177 3.039 7.400 4.446 3.167 5.680 4.376 3.288 3.139 2.887 8.357 2.868 12.186 72.709 69.024 99.259 98.146 83.644 46.472 76.084 63.742 42.675 90.660 62.135 134.161 109.458 130.134 Olt Salaj Sibiu Timis Vaslui Mures Tulcea Vâlcea Neamt Vrancea Prahova Suceava Teleorman Satu Mare * Statistics made by the General Directorate of the Ministry of Education regarding Education in the Language of Minorities (Professor and MER Counsellor G. Sarău), on the base of data provided by the County School Inspectorates for the school year 2004/ 2005, including pre-school children and pupils between post-lyceum level were not considered. grades 1-13, and pupils from special schools. Pupils at

60 Table 12. Proportion of Roma who Abandoned or were Never Enrolled in School, 1992 and 1998

Share of total school-age population (percentage)

Age group (years) Abandoned Never enrolled in school 1992 1998 1992 1998 7-10 10.1 1.9 27.9 15.4 11-14 24.4 8.6 17.6 15.8 Source: EUMAP 2007, 347-348, based on Zamfir and Zamfir 1993.

Table 13. Number of Roma school pupils, 1989-2007

School year Total number of Roma Studying Romanes and Roma history 1989/1990 129.000 50 1990/1991 138.000 2002/2003 158.128 15.708 2003/2004 183.176 20.528 2004/2005 220.000 24.129 2005/2006 243.008 24.903 2006/2007 260.105 25.525 (140 studying integrally in Romanes) Source: Data provided by Professor and MER Counsellor G. Sarău after an interview in Bucharest, collected with the support of Romanes teachers and Roma School Inspectors working at the county level, as well as with direct support of the schools.

Table 14. Enrolment Rate for the Majority Population in Close Proximity to Roma and for Ethnic Roma Education level Enrolment rate of majority population (%) Enrolment rate of Roma (%) Primary (ages 7-15) 94 76 Secondary (ages 16-19) 69 17 Tertiary (ages 20 ≥) 5 1 Source: EUMAP 2007, 349, based on UNDP 2005.

61 Table 15. Number of Spots Allocated for Ethnic Hungarians at Universities

Students with Romanian citizenship Ethnic Hungarian students School year Total Public system Private system Number % 1989–1990 157,838 157,838 … 7,100 4.49 1990–1991 195,225 184,171 11,054 8,300 4.5 8,777 4.27 1991–1992 240,194 205,393 34,801 12,842* 5.34 1992–1993 311,111 224,700 86,411 … … 1993–1994 … 238,219 … 8,814 3.7 1994–1995 … 242,242 … … … 1995–1996 322,779 237,604 85,175 12,248 3.79 1996–1997 319,807 … … 13,240 4.14

* The smallest number and percentage is given by the data offered by the Democratic Union of Hungarians from Romania, and the highest number is provided by the 1992 census, the latter probably includes also the students studying abroad. Source: : http://www.jakabffy.ro/magyarkisebbseg/index.php?action=cimek&cikk=m980321.htm

Table 16. Number of Spots Allocated for Ethnic Roma at Universities*

University year Allocated numbers Number of institutions 2001/2002 397 29 2002/2003 422 37 2008/2009 493 49

* The Ministry of Education and Research, through an annual order, allocates special spots for ethnic Roma at universities. At the university level the distribution of the spots for Roma is made by rectors, but deans might also make requests in this sense. According to Romaworld.ro the numbers of these spots increased in the past few years, as the Table shows. Source: Romaworld, at: http://www.romaworld.ro/educatie/lista-locurilor-pentru-romi-in-facultati.html

62 Table 17. Enrolled Students at Pre-university Education by Teaching Language

1990/1991 2005/2006 Pre-school education Total 752.141 (100%) 648.338 (100%) Romanian (89.5% of total population)* 697.611 (92.75%) 600.920 (92.68%) Hungarian (6.6% of total population ) 47.600 (6.32%) 41.104 (6.33%) German (0.3 % of total population) 5.961 (0.78%) 5.408 (0.83%) Serbian 367 (0.04%) 276 (0.04%) Ukrainian (0.3% of total population ) 156 (0.02%) 236 (0.03%) Slovakian 283 (0.03%) 227 (0.03%) Czech 98 (0.01%) 16 (0.00…%) Bulgarian 25 (0.00…%) 20 (0.00…%) Turkish 40 (0.00…%) - Greek - - Croatian - 97 (0.01%) Romanes (2.5% of total population) - 34 (0.00…%) Primary and secondary (gymnasium) education (I-VIII) Total 2.730.306 (100%) 1.900.561 (100%) Romanian 2.574.999 (94.31%) 1.793.992 (94.39%) Hungarian 142.459 (5.21%) 96.266 (5.6%) German 11.183 (0.40%) 8.977 (0.47%) Serbian 472 (0.01%) 287 (0.01%) Ukrainian 71 (0.00…%) 159 (0.00…%) Slovakian 966 (0.03%) 661 (0.03%) Czech 156 (0.00…%) 50 (0.00…%) Croatian - 42 (0.00…%) Romanes - 48 (0.00…%) Armenian - - Turkish - 79 (0.00…%) High school education (IX-XII) Total 995.689 (100%) 767.439 (100%) Romanian 952.058 731.769

63 Hungarian 41.367 30.876 German 1.730 4.101 Serbian 290 131 Ukrainian 49 208 Slovakian 195 164 Croatian - 57 Bulgarian - 133 (IX-XIII) Total 365.860 (100%) 284.412 (100%) Romanian 361.281 (98.74%) 274.273 (96.43%) Hungarian 4.123 (1.12 %) 10.139 (3.56%) German 22 (0.00…%) - Serbian 95 (0.02%) - Slovakian 339 (0.09%) - Post-high school Total 29.225 (100%) 43.617 (100%) Romanian 28.651 (98.03%) 42.105 (96.53%) Hungarian 525 (1.79%) 1.512 (3.46%) German 49 (0.16%) -

* According to the 2002 census. Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook, Education, 2005/2006

64 Table 18. Number of Hungarian-only Schools and Hungarian Language Classes

Schools with Hungarian Teaching Level of education Number of institutions Number of students / School year 13,624 2005–2006 Pre-school education 375 16,789 2006–2007 9,854 2007–2008 26,791 2005–2006 Primary education 432 26,023 2006–2007 15,733 2007–2008 27,459 2005–2006 Secondary school 380 25,472 2006–2007 16,664 2007–2008 12,587 2005–2006 High school 77 10,863 2006–2007 9,542 2007–2008 2,275 2005–2006 Vocational high school 38 2,430 2006–2007 1,550 2007–2008 6,128 2005–2006 Art school 56 5,270 2006–2007 4,765 2007–2008 4,755 2005–2006 Tertiary education 80 5,172 2006–2007 4,429 2007–2008 728 2005–2006 Post-lyceum education 25 306 2006–2007 253 2007–2008

Source: http://archivum.rmdsz.ro/oktatas/index.php?lang=hu

65 Table 19. Secondary Schools where the Teaching Language is Hungarian

County Number of institutions Alba 2 Arad 1 Bistrita-Nasaud 1 Bihor 11 Brasov 4 Bucuresti 1 Harghita 31 Hunyad 1 Cluj 16 Covasna 14 Mures 22 Maramures 2 Satu Mare 15 Sibiu 2 Salaj 9 Timis 3 Total 135

Source: http://archivum.rmdsz.ro/oktatas/index.php?lang=hu

66 Units in Romanes: UNICEF in 2005): only Amare Rromentza and 4 classes from AY 2003, School No.. 12, Maguri – Lugoj, Timis county, 4 classes from AY Aurel Vlad,Orastie, Hunedoara county School Dr. 2007, 1 class from AY 2005, Sarulesti, Calarasi county 1 group from AY Maguri-Lugoj, Timis county 2007, 2 groups from AY Bacau county 2007, 3 groups from AY 1992 facultative course in Romanes from AY 1997 section on Indian studies including Romani and Hindi from AY 1998 minor section on Romani from AY 2005 Roma and non-Roma students per year) from AY independent programme in Romanes as major (10-20 • • • • • • • • • 5 classes where children study 5 schools with exclusively Romanes teaching (with bilingual methods in and Romanian, a project initiated by 12 from Maguri-Lugoj, Timis county School Nr. school year 2007/2008, Romanes teaching from AY Partial Continuing study of Romanes as major specialization, Faculty Foreign Languages and Literatures, University Bucharest: Cluj, Continuing partial study of Romanes language and literature, University Bucharest Babes-Bolyai University, at the latter institutions offered for Roma students Faculty of and Education. Continuing partial study of Romanes language and literature for Roma students at the Faculty Psychology Cluj, Education, Babes-Bolyai University, Level Primary Level (grades 1- 4) Kindergartens Gymnasium (grades 5-8) University Source: These data were by provided Professor and MER Counsellor G. Sarau as part of the results the of showing improvement Roma education in Romania due to the policies governmental of 2007. Table 20. Snapshot: Educational Units, in which the Teaching Language is Romani in which the Teaching 20. Snapshot: Educational Units, Table

67 72 42 83 No 663 7.774 1.977 13.501 10.253 57.61% 51.38% 53.01% 57.58% 59.12% 76.19% (0.06%) 57.89% response No 1.501 5.051 7.930 47.260 57.21% 64.97% 56.24% 58.56% 65.68% 58.75% 688.803 874.938 140.220 (63.54%) schooling 1.083.935 8.723 6.309 12.141 51.39% 56.72% 57.73% 48.32% 62.84% 49.34% Primary 146.291 230.123 (56.46%) 2.201.518 3.898.996 3.467.246 5.981 V-VIII 17.312 94.739 22.063 55.46% 59.09% 45.23% 64.08% 53.40% 45.04% 413.182 (55.56%) 2.982.712 5.367.630 4.772.179 Gymnasium, 1.591 8.093 6.435 15.216 31.16% 27.91% 21.62% 28.65% 25.15% 25.68% 915.049 230.909 (30.85%) 2.965.524 2.686.823 Vocational Graduates of: 9.289 5.344 3.567 12.405 41.21% 41.51% 55.70% 58.47% 56.43% 52.60% Lyceum 281.552 (55.78%) 4.157.718 2.319.247 3.812.277 Source: Census 2002 731 426 268 2.140 37.834 45.68% 48.62% 36.86% 42.38% 47.74% 43.28% 264.321 531.520 576.376 (45.85%) and post- vocational Post-lyceum. Post-lyceum. 684 1.108 5.943 1.329 Higher 64.176 46.81% 44.86% 37.13% 44.28% 43.56% 30.58% 638.244 (46.54%) 1.280.117 1.280.117 1.371.108 education 10 56.189 53.136 26.837 51.56% 52.23% 49.53% 53.90% 50.37% 47.65% 408.842 (51.54%) 1.305.699 10.017.668 19.434.788 17.435.353 Population over Population ks Tur Roma Total* Women Germans Ukrainians Romanians Hungarians Women (%) Women (%) Women (%) Women (%) Women (%) Women (%) Women Table 21. Educational Level of the Population over the Age of 10 by Sex and Ethnicity over the Age of 10 Educational Level of the Population 21. Table (51.25%). of which women: 11.112.233 population: 21,680,974, * Total

68 71.5 81.2 51.2 76.0 78.0 74.1 80.4 79.6 98.0 97.8 98.1 96.2 96.2 96.2 73.5 75.6 56.1 46.5 2005/2006 71.1 71.6 70.6 72.1 69.2 72.3 73.5 97.2 97.0 97.4 93.2 93.2 93.3 73.9 76.3 36.4 39.6 33.3 2001/2002 61.4 66.3 67.2 65.4 68.5 69.6 67.6 95.8 95.6 95.9 98.1 98.0 98.2 63.0 64.6 26.7 28.3 25.2 1998/1999

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Total Age 3-6 (I-IV) Age 7-10 (V-VIII) Age 11-14 Age 15-18 (IX-XII) Age 19-23 and over Table 22. Enrolment Rate (%) for School-age Population, by Sex 22. Enrolment Rate (%) for School-age Population, Table 8. Education, 2005/2006 Source: Romanian Statistical Yearbook,

69 1.7 0.4 0.9 0.2 2.2 0.7 4.3 0.6 464 61.3 52.7 29.6 13.0 37.8 65 + 3.8 6.1 2.0 9.6 4.5 2.7 870 11.1 44.7 17.1 33.1 17.1 23.0 14.6 55-64 6.5 6.3 2.5 9.1 3.8 2.0 11.9 46.0 14.0 25.3 14.0 30.6 20.0 2,104 45-54 6.4 4.1 1.7 8.9 1.5 0.6 10.1 45.4 12.9 43.6 23.0 27.8 48.0 2,328 35-44 8.5 5.1 3.2 8.2 6.3 2.3 0.7 of which, women (%) 44.26 57.94 (8.26 of total unemployed women) of total unemployed women) 56.88 (34.51 37.89 (57.22 of total unemployed women) 44.5 16.4 35.5 17.6 25.5 14.2 2,523 25-34 4.7 2.6 2.6 1.7 9.1 6.3 1.7 858 41.3 28.7 14.2 27.3 30.4 12.0 15-24 Total Total 215.,311 6.31 26.85 66.83 6.1 4.8 2.2 7.8 9.1 7.8 4.3 45.2 12.6 30.7 15.7 25.5 18.6 9,147 Total employed Total . 2005 Total (%) Women Tertiary (%) Women high school Post (%) Women High school (%) Women school Vocational (%) Women Secondary school (%) Women Primary school or without education (%) Women unemployed Total education graduates Tertiary High school and post high graduates secondary and vocational graduates Primary, Table 23. Employment Structure by Educational Level, Age-group and Sex Table Source: Household Labour Force Survey 24. Registered Unemployed by Educational level, Age-group and Sex* Table * In thousand persons and by percentage for Employment 2005 Source: National Agency

70 5.1 2.7 5.6 8.8 3.8 0.9 0.4 962 958 47.1 30.2 15.0 37.5 19.6 17.5 Ilfov Bucharest- 5.6 5.8 2.7 4.7 3.7 1.1 987 968 11.7 10.9 43.0 12.3 34.1 18.0 32.4 Centre 5.4 5.1 2.6 8.6 3.5 1.6 11.1 10.3 45.8 33.4 17.3 27.4 19.5 1.118 1.072 Northwest 78 6.0 4.8 1.9 8.2 8.7 3.0 1.4 770 44.4 13.5 35.6 18.2 25.7 17.4 West 5.6 6.6 3.1 6.6 6.7 4.0 950 10.9 44.9 12.0 30.9 14.7 23.5 20.3 1.043 Oltenia Southwest 9.4 4.5 4.6 1.9 6.8 9.7 6.1 2.3 43.0 33.5 16.7 27.0 19.4 1.414 1.322 South Muntenia 5.3 4.8 2.2 7.6 8.5 6.5 2.9 10.8 42.2 30.9 15.7 28.3 18.7 1.147 1.095 Southeast 5.2 3.8 2.1 6.8 3.8 10.1 10.3 47.5 26.0 13.7 29.4 23.9 12.4 1.688 1.548 Northeast 2005 Total 15-64 year Total 15-64 (%) Women Women Women Women Women Women Women Household Labour Force Survey Total employed Total education Tertiary high school Post High school school Vocational Secondary school Primary or no education Table 25. Employment Structure for Individuals Aged 15-64, by region, Education level and Sex Table Source:

71 7 7.7 6.3 0,7% 0.20 0.12 0.16 Others 4.93% 1.34% Higher education Serbs 6,311 0.10% 1.95% 1.04% 13,273 62 33.5 24.7 66.6 29.1 64.2 Professional (9-10) Secondary overall (9-12) / Roma 3,029 3,062 2.82% 0.95% 0.98% 2.46% 16,084 20,052 2.37 % 21.1 25.1 23.1 27.6 29.7 25.3 (5-8) Lower secondary 6.6% 7.91% 50,556 24,287 60,287 7.45 % 17.40% 18.96% 122,131 Hungarians 20 18 21.9 36.6 34.9 35.7 (1-4) Primary education 89.5% 79.38% 79.39% 85.14% 271,677 558,332 252,433 565,639 83.43 % Romanians 29 6.8 4.1 5.5 39.6 34.2 No education Total 703,269 317,953 317,660 677,926 21.6 million 21.6 Girls Girls Boys Boys Total Total Cluj county Cluj Timis county Timisoara Romania Roma Non-Roma Source: Census data, 2002 27. Ethnic composition in Select Counties and Cities Table Source: Census data, 2002 Table 26. Educational Level, Roma Boys and Girls Table

72 10 41 14 33 Gap (%) 81/91 55/88 86/100 59/100 Roma/majority Share of children in school,15 years age 44 (UNDP), carried out in five Eastern European countries in 2001–2002; and UNDP (UNDP), carried out in five Eastern European countries 2001–2002; 7 1 33 37 Gap (%) Avoiding the Dependency Trap 90/97 90/97 90/97 46/83 Roma/majority (%) People over the age of 12 with more than 4 years education (%) People Hungary Czech Republic Bulgaria Romania Table 28. Comparative Education Indicators: Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, 2004 28. Comparative Education Indicators: Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Table and Budd 2008, from datasets of two major surveys on Roma: Source: Spirova during 2004. Eastern European states and Kosovo Vulnerable Groups Dataset, conductedin 10

73 Edumigrom Background papers

Country Report on Education: Czech Republic Denisa Katzorova, Katerina Sidiropulu Janku, Radim Marada, Arnost Svoboda • 2008

Country Report on Education: Nordic (Denmark and Sweden) Bolette Moldenhawer, Tina Kallehave • 2008

Country Report on Education: France Claire Schiff, Joelle Perroton, Barbara Fouquet, Maitena Armagnague • 2008

Country Report on Education: Germany Frauke Miera • 2008

Country Report on Education: Hungary Emilia Molnar, Csaba Dupcsik • 2008

Country Report on Education: Romania Hajnalka Harbula, Eniko Magyari-Vincze • 2008

Country Report on Education: Slovakia Zuzana Kusa, David Kostlan, Peter Dral • 2008

Country Report on Education: United Kingdom Gary Fry, Shona Hunter, Ian Law, Audrey Osler, Sarah Swann, Rodanthi Tzanelli, Fiona Williams • 2008

Country Report on Ethnic Relations: Czech Republic Laura Laubeova, Marketa Laubeova • 2008

Country Report on Ethnic Relations: Nordic (Denmark and Sweden) Bolette Moldenhawer, Tina Kallehave • 2008

Country Report on Ethnic Relations: France Claire Schiff, Joelle Perroton, Barbara Fouquet, Maitena Armagnague • 2008

Country Report on Ethnic Relations: Germany Rainer Ohliger • 2008

Country Report on Ethnic Relations: Hungary Roza Vajda, Csaba Dupcsik • 2008

Country Report on Ethnic Relations: Romania Nandor Magyari, Letitia Mark, Hajnalka Harbula, Eniko Magyari-Vincze • 2008

Country Report on Ethnic Relations: Slovakia Zuzana Kusa, Peter Dral, David Kostlan • 2008

Country Report on Ethnic Relations: United Kingdom Ian Law, Shona Hunter, Audrey Osler, Sarah Swann, Rodanthi Tzanelli, Fiona Williams • 2008