Monica Rossi: IN TRANSITION: THE ROMA WITHIN THE BULGARIAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. ACTIONS, TRIALS AND PERSPECTIVES

64
IN TRANSITION: THE ROMA WITHIN THE
BULGARIAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.
ACTIONS, TRIALS AND PERSPECTIVES
Monica Rossi

National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, Italy
monicrossi@alice.it

Abstract. This paper is an attempt to analyse, diagnose and provide general recommendations concerning the Roma-related problems in the educational system of the Republic of Bulgaria from the standpoint of an external to the country analyst. Besides purely educational and ethnic issues, particular factors that create the context in which function and develop the educational system and interethnic relations after the 1989 changes are presented. Major challenges facing the education system and the associated with the Roma community issues (for example, reducing the share of Roma in the higher classes of secondary school), the necessary/pending reforms and current policies are discussed. A review of what has happened so far is also made.
Key words: Roma education, educational measures, educational policies
ROMA IN BULGARIA: A SHORT OVERVIEW
Among the ethnic groups that are historically present in the Bulgarian territory, Roma constitute the third largest group after ethnic Bulgarians and the Turkish minority. In the 2001 national census, there were 370 908 people (4.7%) who identified themselves as Roma (REF, 2004); while the official data from the last census from February 2011 put the Roma population at 4.9 %, although this number is considered by many researchers largely underestimated (Bogdanov and Zahariev, 2011, p.4).
Early traces of presence of Roma groups in the Bulgarian territory can be found between the eighth and the fourteenth centuries, and were documented by a number of historical sources, in particular during the rule of the Ottoman Empire and for all the course of the XIX century (Marushiakova and Popov, 2001)1.
Socialist policies toward the Roma shifted from an initial support during the decade from 1940 to 1950 to a decisive shift toward a process of minorities “Bulgarisation” which begun in the mid-fifties. After an initial support to Roma organisations which led to the creation of a Roma newspaper and of a Roma theatre, the early fifties saw a decisive shift in this policy (Tomova, 1995; Crowe, 1996).
1 Historically the Bulgarian territory has always been homeland to several different minorities. The Congress of Berlin tied the acknowledgement of the new states of Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Romania to the protection of the internal minorities of these states. The Treaty of Berlin (1878) granted with its Article 5 religious freedom to all subjects.
65
After the Second World War, the Roma became the target of a series of state policies which were aimed at ensuring their cultural homologation under the idea of a single national Bulgarian identity.
A systematic set of legislative actions were undertaken in order to assimilate the Roma through education and by mean of a series of specific acts directed to the removal of traditional features of the group. Such measures were touching all aspects of Roma life, and they ranged from the prohibition of practicing nomadism (as required by a State Decree in 1958) up to procedures such as that of the Muslim Roma name change. These policies did not target only the Roma but also large numbers of Bulgarian Turks and Bulgarian Muslims (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 1999 p. 3); it was a practice repeated several times in the history of Bulgaria starting from the 1950s up to the early 1980s.
When the Socialist government fell in 1989, Roma began their journey in the newly reformed Bulgarian state, but the road to full citizenship rights was going to be challenged by a series of major obstacles, first of all, economic and occupational ones.
The transition to the market economy from that of the centrally planned system brought many jobs losses in many economic sectors such as those of agriculture, manufacturing and mining. These were the occupational areas in which traditionally a large number of Roma were employed. Consequently, many groups abandoned the mining and agricultural areas to start a process of migration toward national urban centres and, later on, also abroad2.
After 1989, employment rates decreased by 37-66 per cent, and underemployment rose enormously. If we observe and compare the average national distributions, “not only the employment of Romani people is very low, but also the incomes of a large portion of those of them who work lag behind those of the other Bulgarian citizens” (Tomova, 2007, pp.4-8); data which confirm the substandard situation which has become common for this minority.
These processes led to new and more severe forms of marginalisation, i.e. “inadequate access to decent education and jobs in the formal sector, substandard housing, poor health and low life expectancy” (UNECE, 2011, p.2). Spatial segregation, unemployment, underemployment and low literacy skills became determinant factors for the growing ghettoisation of Roma. The process of urbanisation that took place during Socialism based on destruction of the former Roma slums and their resettlement in blockhouses soon turned into abandon, and rapidly gave way to the transformation of the former Mahalla model into that of the global contemporary urban slums and hyperghettoes3.
Today the Roma situation in Bulgaria remains affected by a complex series of problems in the fields of housing, employment and worsened by the lack of an adequate and systematic access to economic and educational opportunities.
2 “In 2007, 18% of Roma families declared they have members of the family working (seasonally) abroad” (Tomova, 2007, p.7).
3 For the transformations from ghetto to hypergetto see Rossi M., 2011, “Fiori nella discarica: forme di resistenza nell’iperghetto”. In: Inchiesta, N. 174 October - December.
5 Nasselenie review, 5–6/2013
66
A 2005 World Bank Report shows in figures how the processes of liberalisation that followed the Cold War period, have resulted in a substantial increase in the levels of poverty and unemployment especially among the Roma communities.
Further research, conducted in 2010 by the Open Society Institute and the World Bank for their crisis monitoring survey registered the data shown in Table 1 below, where is presented the Bulgarian poverty profile for the year 2010 - 2011:
Table 1
Poverty Profile during 2010-2011 (%)
Poverty Headcount Rate February, 2011 4
Distribution of the Poor February 2011
Distribution of Population February 2011
Total
23.0
100.0
100.0
Bulgarians
16.4
59.1
83.1
Turks
50.9
22.0
9.9
Roma
68.4
15.4
5.2
Source: Crisis Monitoring Survey OSI-WB, 2010–2011, p. 15
As clearly shown in this Table, Roma have the highest poverty headcount rate, followed by the Turkish minority.
Other indicators of exclusion are those related with the access to the healthcare system, especially regarding the aspects of health prevention.
Basic rights such as that to health, have an extremely limited impact on Roma population, thus aggravating a situation already set at a critical level.
A field survey from 2008 found that more than 37 per cent of the population who was living in segregated Roma communities were without any form of health insurance at all (Tomova, Metodieva et al, 2008, p.15).
A report from the Centre Amalipe - Veliko Turnovo, one of the most active NGOs advocating for Roma rights in Bulgaria stated that:
“It is crucial to solve the problem with the high percentage of people without health insurance from Roma origin. In this connection, it is necessary to extend the range of the health secured persons in unequal position by means of legislative and structural reforms in the sphere of health insurance of the socially weak persons, including the long-term unemployed. The health security status is an important precondition for the selection of a general practitioner and for the access to free medical and hospital assistance, the access to which is impeded at present for the Roma and other people living in poverty and isolation” (Centre Amalipe, 2008, p.90).
To further aggravate this background situation, it must also be remembered that just as it is happening in many other EU countries, also in Bulgaria we are witnessing to the rise of a form of new violent nationalism, spread and supported by extreme far-right wings of racist organisations.
4 Editor’s note: The poverty headcount rate - using 60% of the equalised median income as poverty line.
67
For the whole 1990s and up until today, political actions on behalf of these groups have been characterised by a widespread rise of anti-Roma activities. These actions have been extensively documented by a series of international reports such as those produced by the U.S. State Department‘s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (Human Rights Report Bulgaria, 2010, p.23) and by international human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International45.
THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND THE ROMA:
MAIN FEATURES
According to Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, education is free of charge. The principles of access to all levels of education, of equality in education, for the free-of-charge education in the state and municipal schools are specified by the Public Education Act (Art. 6).
The Bulgarian higher education system includes non-university institutions (kolezhi), universities and specialised higher schools (academies and institutes). The general criteria for admissions vary according to the type of institution as all higher education institutions are autonomous and can thus choose their preferred kind of examination. The common criteria for acceptance typically require a secondary school leaving certificate with academic records.
The universities award the students with several levels of degrees. The Bakalavar degree is awarded at the end of university studies with duration of at least four years. University courses which last for 5-6 years or more lead to the Magistar degree, which can also be obtained at the end of a one-year studies after the Bakalavar degree. The Magistar enables students to further continue their education and take a three-year university courses to receive a Doctorate (the Doktor).
Vocational secondary education is available at vocational-technical or technical schools. The vocational-technical schools offer three and four years of training. The students can continue for three years of training after they have completed of seventh grade or for four years of training after they complete eighth grade, both of which result in specialised secondary education. The vocational schools may also offer other forms of studying such as evening courses or external training that allow students at the age of 16 and above to acquire qualifications.
The Table below provides a description of the school stages, of their duration in years and the ages of pupils attending that cycle of studies.
Schools are for the large majority public, and the number of private institutes in Bulgaria is still very limited. In 2004, there were 56 private general schools in Bulgaria (5 elementary, 24 primary and lower secondary, 23 upper secondary and 4 combined schools), only 0.8 per cent of children attend private schools (Kostova, 2008, p.168). For Romani children in particular, a World Bank survey reported that “almost all Romani children reported to be in preschools were accessing services through the public sector (97%)” (World Bank, 2012, pp. 28-29).
5 See report available at: http://amnesty.org/en/region/bulgaria/report-2011
68
Table 2
Educational System in the Republic of Bulgaria
Compulsory Education
School stage
Primary / Secondary studies
Years of the stage
Years of the children attending that school stage
Elementary
-
from 6-7 to 9-10 years of age
Primary
-
from 10-11 to 14-15 years of age
Technical/vocational classes
-
from 13-14 years of age
Technical/vocational Schools, Technical schools (different types of
upper secondary schools)
-
from 14-15 to 17-18 years of age
Non Compulsory Education
School stages
General secondary schools (including schools with specialised sections)
4 – 5
from 14-15 to 17-18 years of age
Technical/vocational secondary schools
3 – 4
from 12-13 to 15-16 or 17-18 years of age for a 3 year course of study;
from 14-15 to 18-19 years of age for 4 year course of study.
Technical schools/gymnasiums
4 – 5
from 13-14 to 17-18-19 years of age
Source: Bulgarian Educational System, Eurydice
However, to ensure full access to education to the Roma there are still a series of major problems which remain to be addressed. Enrolment obstacles, segregated education, high early school leaving rates and the extremely limited progression toward higher levels of education are indicators that demonstrate the need for a systematic intervention.
In particular, the access to pre-school education is still very low for Romani children, due to the enrolment fees6 and to a government policy which gives priority to children with working parents.
Economic factors are also playing a key role due to the general costs of the schooling (transport, food, clothes, textbooks and notebooks etc.), all expenses that the average Roma family is not able to sustain without help.
A 2012 World Bank Report on Roma’s early education states that in spite of the fact that more than 80% of the Romani parents interviewed wished their children to have completed at least secondary education “… multiple disadvantages stand in the way of reaching that goal for the vast majority of Roma, especially inequalities early in life. In Bulgaria, only 45%… of Roma children aged 3-6 are in pre-school” (World Bank, 2012, p. 7).
6 Editor’s note: here, it is more likely that the author here refers to the monthly fee that parents have to pay on regular basis.
69
There is an intentional institutional commitment to improving Roma access to education, and in recent years the government has undertaken a series of measures to address the inequalities that Roma face. In 2005, the Centre for Educational Integration of Children and Students from Ethnic Minority (CEICSEM)7 was established. Its mission was that of supporting the implementation of government policies regarding the educational needs of these students according to four main action lines of intervention:
“... Activities in Program 1 are aimed at overcoming the difficulties in the process of educational integration of children and students from ethnic minorities, especially in pre-school and elementary school age, as well as its aimed to create conditions of detention and prevention of risks of school leaving, which ensures access to quality education... The focus of Program 2 is to preserve and develop cultural identity of children and students from ethnic minority groups through their involvement in extracurricular activities that aim to exploring ethno-cultural traditions... Program 3 covers activities aimed to training courses for teachers, learning and acquisition of practical skills for working in multicultural environment, using interactive teaching methods, for acquiring knowledge about the culture, holidays and traditions of different ethnic minorities... Activities in Program 4 were designed to exploring cultural diversity and traditions of different ethnic groups in Bulgaria to create an atmosphere of tolerance, mutual respect and understanding”. (CEICSEM, 2010, p.18).
The Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science in its Report on the “Progress in Implementation of the Education and Training 20108 Work Programme” gives us a picture a very detailed picture of the actual situation of Roma regarding education. The document presented also a series of practical proposals to keep the pupils within the education system and to encourage the enrolments into kindergartens and pre-schools, stating:
“Educational and training system in Bulgaria faces problems in integrating different ethno-cultural groups, especially Roma [around 10% of pupils in Bulgaria have Roma origin] and people with special educational needs. It the present moment 1/5 of Roma people does not have even primary education… Around 0.2 % of them have graduated higher education…and the percentage of school dropouts is the highest one, in comparison with the other ethno-cultural groups… Using data collected by the Ministry of Education and Science, around 1/5 of the pupils in obligatory school’s age annually drop out from school… In order to resolve the problem concerning better inclusion and keeping children and youth within the educational system, the Human Resources Development Operative Programme puts accent onto two basic moments:
7 See CEICSEM official website: http://coiduem.mon.bg/en/
8 Republic of Bulgaria, Ministry of Education and Science (2007), National Report – Contribution of Republic of Bulgaria to the 2008 joint interim report of the Council and of the European Commission on the progress in implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme. (p.2).
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/nationalreport08/bg07_en.pdf
70
1) inclusion of children, especially those from different ethno-cultural groups, in the educational cycle’s early stages, and
2) development of the system for out door activities. Inclusion of children in the early stages of education – kindergartens and pre-school education will facilitate their integration on one hand, and on another hand, it will provide better employability for their parents” (CEICSEM, 2010, p.2).
The document above is important for two main reasons: firstly, because the idea of “keeping children and youth within the educational system” is a wider goal, and reveals a long-term objective which surpasses the average need to have more enrolments every year in favour of a long time perspective dedicated to keep the student within the school institution. Secondly, because of the importance attributed to the Roma inclusion in early childhood education and for the attention to parents, thus implying that any process regarding children education ought to involve their parents as well in order to be successful.
Nonetheless, other urgent problems yet remain unsolved, like that of the limited access to pre-school for Romani pupils, and the existence of a segregated school system. The obstacles lies the fact that the present legislation gives priority to the pupils who have two working parents, therefore the Roma are forced to pay in order to enrol their children into these schools, a fee that Romani families due to their condition of extreme poverty are not able to pay. For this reason, and for the lack of available places in classrooms, early childhood education remains a right to be guaranteed to the large majority of Romani pupils.
Further, as it will be shown in the following paragraph, a system of segregated schools for the Roma has been maintained for years. It is a substandard system whose poor quality has seriously undermined the possibility for Romani students to progress to higher levels of education and has prevented the social and ethnic mixing required to produce a positive intercultural environment.
Another serious issue is represented by the high presence of Romani pupils in special schools and in correctional institutions such as the Educational Boarding Schools (EBS) and Social-Educational Boarding Schools (SEBS).
EBS and SEBS are forms of correctional institutions and have been the object of two reforms (in 1996 and in 2004) because of their infringement of human rights, in particular for practices such as that of arbitrary placement and lack of guarantees for fair trial. The Report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee on these institutions provided shocking evidence of these malpractices, further adding that:
“The existence of such schools is hardly compliant with the modern approach to integration and social rehabilitation of vulnerable children and the practice of their functioning so far does not show convincing evidence regarding whatever positive role they might have”. (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 2005, p.33).
A monitoring visit carried on by the BHC in 2006, openly asked the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science to reconsider the effectiveness of EBS and SEBS, and it is hoped that more significant efforts would be made to reform or to completely close down these institutions.
71
NATIONAL CHALLENGES AND ACTIONS FOR ROMA INCLUSION
In order to contrast the growing social exclusion of the Roma, the Bulgarian government has produced a number of key documents. Among those the most prominent is the “Framework Programme for Equal Integration of Roma in Bulgarian Society”, adopted on 22 of April 1999 by the Bulgarian Council of Ministers. This agreement was the product of a joint effort on behalf of many Roma NGOs and carried on in close cooperation with experts, various Romani representatives and institutions. However, the effects of this effort, despite the extensive participation and the involvement of the communities themselves, have failed to produce the expected results.
As Russinov pointed out:
“At the time of writing in late spring 2001, two years have passed without any observable progress in the implementation of the Programme…in our contacts with government offices, we have become aware that many officials are not even familiar with the Framework Programme. The government has thus far failed to develop a detailed plan of activities, to allocate resources, or to appoint officials in charge of implementing of the Framework Programme. It is worth noting that many of the tasks envisaged by the Framework Programme do not require substantial funding and depend entirely on the political will of the authorities. For example, amendments to the Penal Code introducing enhanced sentences for racially motivated crime, envisioned under the Framework Programme, have not yet been made. The adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination law and the setting up of a specialised body for combating discrimination remain similarly unrealised to date” (Russinov, 2001).
Consequently, the Framework Programme was renewed in 2010. In 2006, the government issued another document regarding actions to be implemented for Roma inclusion: The National Programme for the Improvement of the Living Conditions of the Roma (2006).
Although based on an extremely detailed set of data that included a needs assessment, a budgeting and reinforced by an extensive expert analysis, the Programme has remained yet largely unimplemented. As a result, a policy paper produced in 2011 by experts on behalf of the European Commission strongly advised that “Any re-launch of existing strategies and plans in the context of the new EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies should include precise budgetary commitments of appropriate scale from the Structural Funds and the national budget.” (Bogdanov and Zahariev, 2011, p.23). Similar considerations were also raised by other NGOs (Centre Amalipe, 2008, p.134).
In December 2011, the Bulgarian Council of Ministers adopted the National Strategy for Roma Integration (NRIS) and the consequent Action Plan (Bulgaria is one of the founder countries of the Decade of Roma Inclusion). This act showed a
72
precise political commitment to the topic of Roma inclusion both at the national and international level9.
With the aim of ensuring that the NRIS was the result of a wide consultation, an interdepartmental work group was formed after the Prime Minister’s indication in the summer of 2011. The workgroup was entrusted with the duty of outlining a draft document in line with the EU requirements for National Roma Integration Strategies. The group was composed by 53 members coming from institutions, NGOs, Roma communities and grassroots organisations. The interdisciplinary working group cooperated to the design of the National strategy and the related action plan. In January the group prepared a draft, and the Bulgarian NRIS was finally presented in 2012.
After the Strategy was published, several organisations and researchers have analysed their contents delivering critical remarks and evaluations. Among these critical papers, it is of particular interest a document produced by OSF in 2012 on the NRIS review regarding Bulgaria and other countries. The report analysed the NRIS noting in particular two important general aspects which all the strategies presented failed to properly address: “… to describe how EU funds will be better used for Roma inclusion; and to fulfil the criteria set by the EU framework and quoted by the draft EU regulations” (OSF, 2012 p.7), adding further on that “The national goals are not articulated in terms of concrete indicators for the four priority areas. Those indicators mentioned in the action plan in the different areas are inadequate” (OSF, 2012 p.13).
Both the previous comment from the European Commission and the second one by the OSF team are basically addressing the same issue, i.e. the fact that it is not sufficient for policy makers to produce the generic affirmation of a principle. Laws, in order to be effective and to have a real impact must be transformed into real policy acts, provided with an effective and stable economic coverage and plan of implementation, which only will allow an efficient realisation in the territories of the principle affirmed.
This article does not intend to produce a full evaluation of these efforts, but what can be said is that the occasion offered by the NRIS sparkled a debate and a collective engagement that has undoubtedly been beneficial to all the social actors involved and has created more awareness on the Roma issue.
The wide process of consultation, the materials produced and the evident active commitment of large parts of the Bulgarian civil society and institutions, are lively
9 See the pertinent documents available online: National Roma Integration Strategy of the Republic of Bulgaria (2012-2020),
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_bulgaria_strategy_en.pdf.
Bulgaria NRIS Action Plan, available at:
http://www.romadecade.org/files/downloads/Decade%20Documents/National%20Action%20Plan-Bulgaria.pdf
And a series of NRIS reviews and evaluations like the one conducted by ERPC (European Roma Policy Coalition), available at:
http://www.ergonetwork.org/media/userfiles/media/Final%20ERPC%20Analysis%2021%2003%2012_FINAL.pdf
and by the Integro:
http://www.ergonetwork.org/media/userfiles/media/Integro_Association_Reviewof_NlRS_Bulgariaeng.pdf
73
testimony of the willingness of many institutions, NGOs and citizens, to cooperate together effectively for the Roma inclusion.
THE REFORM OF BULGARIA’S
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
Bulgaria’s educational system has begun a deep process of change since a decade in many key areas like that of evaluation of the quality of the system; on such grounds a reform of the whole educational system was started in 2007 – 2008.
Strongly supported by international agencies such as the World Bank, the reform was mainly targeted at “economizing and at improving the efficiency” of the Bulgarian system. This reform plan was going to intervene not only on the economic and management aspects, but had also the aim of establishing a quality system. The final objective of these measures was that of improving the quality of education and to “change the educational model from resource-oriented to results-focused, strengthening the existing model of school autonomy and revisiting the accountability framework” (World Bank, 2010, p.3). Nonetheless, a large part of the reform efforts, consisted mainly in a process of rationalisation of the school workforce and of the school institutions.
The reasons for the reform were also based and supported by demographic evidence, such as the ongoing decrease of Bulgaria’s population10 and the consequent diminishing of the demands for education. This required that a large part of the efficiency procedures had been mainly targeted at reducing costs, cutting down on the number of schools and of teachers.
The reform also changed the funding system from the former centralised to a decentralised one: since 2007 the Municipalities have received their schooling funds on a per student basis. With this system, schools might be more eager to open to Roma pupils in order to raise the number of the students enrolled, but the procedure needs to be followed closely, because as a REF report warns, “real attendance and outcomes will need to be monitored” (REF, 2007, p.26)11.
10 In 2007 – 2009 the school population aged from 7 to 17 years of age decreased by 30% (World Bank, 2010, p. 12).
11 A similar problem has been arising also in Italy. In Rome for example, schools tend to favour the enrolment of Roma and migrant children in order to balance the demographic negative trend of the Italian population and therefore avoiding the closing down of classrooms, but the effective results of the schooling are still based solely on the quantitative data regarding the enrolments. Thus the achievements are impossible to be monitored, also due to the lack of a set of valid indicators for the enactment of a real assessment and evaluation procedure. Further, a differentiated system of registering presences has been introduced for Roma pupils. The system had been implemented to help the Roma children living in encampments to gain the minimum number of attendance days required to pass to the next school grade. But this proceeding has instead introduced and legitimised a different standard for the Roma students, thus crystallising a situation of exceptionality (the difficulty of living in encampments), which should have instead been implemented only an emergency measure and for a limited period of time (Rossi, 2009; 2012, p.3).
74
As a whole, the effects of this reform are still controversial according to several observers and to World Bank experts.
If on one hand that of closing down small schools and institutes had appeared as logic financially necessity, on the other hand, the same report acknowledges that “Roma students appeared to perform better in small schools” (World Bank, 2010, p. 9). Further on, the report dutifully registers that among the consequences of the reform there has been also an “exacerbation of school drop out rates”. This phenomenon had especially concerned the students whose schools had been closed down after the reform (World Bank, 2010, p. 29).
A peer reviewed study on the social inclusion of Roma in Bulgaria commissioned by the European Commission, and published one year later after that of the WB, registered that:
“In 2008, at the climax of the school optimization reform around 15 per cent of the schools were closed in a single year. This process was less orderly and rational than planned and did not take into account rising private costs and certain cultural specificities of the Roma. The result was a massive increase in school dropout” (Bogdanov G. and Zahariev B., 2011, p.11). Other weak points underlined by the report regarded the desegregation projects, which according to the authors have not involved the totality of Roma children, and the per capita system, which has in some cases damaged the poorest schools in terms of allocation of funds and resources (Bogdanov G. and Zahariev B., 2011, p. 13).
It is too early to provide an actual balance of this reform, which is a process and can therefore only be properly evaluated but in the long period. Certainly, there are a series of actions that should have been enacted to protect and support the weakest parts of society during these changes.
The sudden closing down of small schools has left a hole in the education service and has somehow made more difficult for Roma pupils to have full access education. The report’s author have pointed out different reasons for this: the pupils of these schools, which were mainly situated in small rural areas, have been transferred to other schools, thus creating the problem of the school transport and new inclusion challenges (although not all of these experiences were that negative of course). On the other hand the material conditions of the schools which were left open has not changed, and there have been little or no efforts to improve the material conditions of the school buildings and to overcome the lack of funding for the small rural schools left.
In a general perspective, there are still important structural efforts to be made to ensure that this reform will have a positive impact on Roma’s access to education. Infrastructure development and school refurbishment should constitute a priority in order to increase the quantity of enrolments and the quality of services, and more effective measures should be taken with regard to the support to families, also because “the national targets for the National Reform Programme cannot be achieved without the integration of the Roma in education” (Bogdanov G. and Zahariev B., 2011, p. 23).
75
ROMA CHILDREN IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS
As it happens in other countries of Eastern Europe such as Czech Republic, Slovakia and others, in Bulgaria the segregated education of Romani pupils remains an issue which needs yet to be thoroughly addressed and contrasted.
The European Parliament Resolution released in April 200512 and the following Resolution of 201013 both addressed explicitly the necessity for member states to implement and enact strategies and actions to achieve full school desegregation in order to eliminate the phenomenon of Romani pupils overrepresentation in special schools. On the same topic, in 2006 was issued a Declaration of the European Commissioner for Human Rights14 noting that segregation in education is a matter of particular concern to EU authorities.
Estimates produced by the Roma Education Fund and by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) in 2004 stated that 20% of Romani children never went to school and that about 70% of Romani students are attending ethnically segregated schools (REF, 2004, p.15).
The situation is further aggravated by the concentration of multiple correlates of poverty coupled with the fact that the schools where children from ethnic minorities are enrolled are also those with less activity on behalf of the school toward these pupils, who should instead be supported with active and engaging measures. One of the reasons why school attendance is so low is because of a perpetuating lack of literacy among the Roma parents and families. Such a situation naturally influences children’s school performance.
Graph 1 shows the correlation between the lack of participation of parents in school activities as well as school initiative and the gap in the educational levels between Romani and non-Romani Bulgarian mothers.
Government programmes for desegregation in schools were launched in the mid-2000s, but the percentage of Roma pupils in these institutions is still considerably high in spite of the efforts made insofar.
The ERRC Report “Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe”, presented in 2004, presented a full overview of the various forms of segregation which may affect Romani pupils. The report summarises the three main forms of segregation: segregation in schools for children with developmental disabilities; segregation in separate classes within mainstream schools; and segregation in ghetto-schools (REF, 2004, Chapters 4; 5 and 6). In order to confront this issue, various municipalities and the NGOs working in Roma education have since the year 2000 implemented a series of projects dedicated to the inclusion of Romani pupils
12 European Parliament Resolution of 28 April 2005 on the Situation of the Roma in the European Union.
13 European Parliament Resolution of 9 September 2010 on the Situation of Roma and on freedom of movement in the European Union.
14 2006, Final Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on the Human Rights Situation of the Roma, Sinti and Travellers in Europe for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, Chapter III. Discrimination in Education – Unequal Access and Segregation,
Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4402c56b4.pdf
76
Graph 1: Gap in the Educational Level between Bulgarians Romani and non-Romani Mothers
Source: Survey of Parent Participation and School Life in Bulgaria, OSI-Sofia and Expert Analysis Group,
In: Bogdanov G. and Zahariev B., 2011, Bulgaria. Promoting Social Inclusion of Roma. A Study of National Policies. On Behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, p.14
into non-segregated schools. An ERRC Report describing these experiences affirms that:
“Test results in Bulgarian language and Mathematics for Romani children in the 4th grade in Roma-only schools and their peers who participated in school integration programs run by Romani NGOs, showed that in four years Romani children in the integrated schools have accumulated serious advantages in school achievement as compared to their peers in the Roma-only schools” (ERRC, 2007, p.10).
According to the “Stigmata” Report, the data for Bulgaria regarding special schools and the Roma show that “the system of remedial special schools for children with developmental disabilities functions as a de facto parallel substandard system of education for Roma” (Stigmata, 2004 p. 37). The 2005 Report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee states that: “The BHC conducted a monitoring study in January–March 2005 in all SEBS and EBS15. It found out that at 12 of these institutions the number of registered children is almost half of or even less than the capacity requested by the institution. The documented number of children amounted to 1,500, but during the BHC visits about 900 children only were present. Approximately 60% of the institutionalised children are of Roma origin, reported the directors of these institutions” (BHC, 2005, p. 11).
15 SEBS Social-Educational Boarding Schools); EBS (Educational Boarding Schools).
77
Moreover, the same report further adds that: “It is not rare to have children with Roma origin placed in SEBS and EBS who are above the age of 14, who have never attended school and are completely illiterate” (BHC, 2005, p. 26).
Although the number of segregated schools decreased by 40% between 2005 and 2007, the number of pupils enrolled in such schools is still considerable (UNECE, 2011, p.10).
Extensive quantitative data on the percentage of Romani children enrolled in special schools have been provided in the “Stigmata” Report to which we refer for detailed data disaggregated for each District and Municipality. (See Table 3 below).
Table 3
Roma in the special schools for children with developmental*
Special school (SS)
Total number of children
Number of children with developmental disability
Number of children who had finished 8 grade/academic
Year
Percentage of Romani children
2 SS Sofia
138
92
11 (2000/01)
40%
3 SS Sofia
160
127
15 (2000/01)
30%
SS Pernik
138
116
8 (2000/01)
missing data
SS Ahmatovo
87
77
8 (2000/01)
35%
SS Byala Slatina
271
75 %
missing data
80%
SS Chokmanovo
96
missing data
missing data
60%
SS Dimitrovgrad
103
89
13 (2000/01)
80%
SS Nova Zagora
160
missing data
16 (2000/01)
70%
SS Rakitovo
100
89
8 (2000/01)
50%
SS Shumen
268
more than 50%
missing data
43%
SS Stan
45
45
11 (4th grade) (2000/01)
93%
SS Assenovgrad
63
60
11 (2000/01)
19%
SS Karnobat
88
79
6 (2001/02)
84%
SS Kazanlak
132
132
16 (2001/02)
30%
SS Stara Zagora
198
198
15 (2001/02)
60%
SS Godech
85
70
9 (2001/02)
50-60%
4 SS Sofia
161
more than 50 %
11 (2000/01)
more than 50%
5 SS Sofia
125
125
8 (2001/02)
60%
SS Sredets
130
127
6 (2001/02)
40%
SS Brestovica
120
32 %
9 (2001/02)
70%
SS Burgas
153
122
12 (2001/02)
15%
SS Svishtov
52
80 %
8 (2001/02)
6-7 in each class
SS Novi Pazar
158
91
8 (2001/02)
51%
SS Ruse
97
45
15 (2000/01)
11%
SS Ruse
208
168
17 (2001/02)
5%
SS Velingrad
107
77
missing data
16%
SS Pazardzhik
200
most children
16 (2001/02)
50%
SS Haskovo
130
missing data
8 (10 grade)
50%
SS Petrich
109
90
11 (2001/02)
77%
SS Kranevo
158
more than 50%
10 (2001/02)
missing data
SS Kavarna
140
70 %
17 (2001/02)
49%
SS Dolno Draglishte
115
more than 50%
15 (2001/02)
55%
78
SS Blagoevgrad
168
160
9 (2001/02)
80%
SS Goce Delchev
194
less than50%
16 (2001/02)
80%
SS Yambol
90
more than 50%
missing data
8%
SS Elhovo
146
more than 50%
19 (2001/02)
70%
SS Stob
115
more than 50%
18 (2001/02)
74%
SS Lozno
120
106
14 (2001/02)
more than 50%
SS Kurdzhali
108
77
8 (2001/02)
34%
SS Vratsa
246
221
23 (2001/02)
85%
SS Veliko Turnovo
106
86
8 (2001/02)
25%
SS Novo selo
108
104
5 (2001/02)
0
SS Mindia
84
80
7 (2001/02)
missing data
SS Lom
230
220
missing data
80%
SS Davidovo
102
70
9 (2001/02)
more than 50%
SS Targovishte
84
69
8 (2001/02)
more than 50%
SS Popovo
89
87
5 (2001/02)
more than 50%
SS Gabrovo
84
74
7 (2001/02)
50 %
SS Careva Livada
71
66
10 (2001/02)
more than 50%
SS Roman
119
109
15 (2001/02)
82%
SS Parvomaici
64
59
6 (2001/02)
less than 50%
SS Samokov
102
88
12 (2001/02)
46%
SS Dolni Dubnik
166
144
14 (2001/02)
64%
SS Pleven
143
112
11 (2001/02)
33%
SS Lovech
61
30
no children
10%
SS Berkovica
103
missing data
12 (2001/02)
more than 50%
SS Ajtos
98
88
7 (2001/02)
82%
SS Vetren
123
almost all children
8(2001/02)
90%
SS Sliven
192
missing data
missing data
40%
SS Harmanli
313
299
23 (2001/02)
41%
SS Svilengrad
162
137
9 (2001/02)
60%
SS Topolovgrad
124
119
8 (2001/02)
86%
SS Vidin
80
72
8 (2001/02)
70%
SS Muglizh
48
48
4 (2001/02)
80%
SS Chirpan
68
almost all children
3 (2001/02)
80%
SS Silistra
121
114
16 (2001/02)
50%
SS Radotina
99
91
8 (2001/02)
63%
6 SS Sofia
109
81
9 (2001/02)
1%
SS Slavyanovo
88
79
9 (2001/02)
70%
SS Osenec
105
98
8 (2001/02)
42%
SS Krivnya
75
69
8 (2001/02)
79%
SS Varna
102
77
19 (2001/02)
12%
SS Pernik, Carkva
107
74
7 (2001/02)
77%
SS Kubrat
187
150
13 (2001/02)
48%
TOTAL:
9 399
-
-
-
Source: Stigmata, 2004, pp. 99-102
* ERRC in cooperation with the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) visited 46 special schools for children with developmental disabilities. The rest of the schools were visited by the BHC.
79
As visible from the table above, the presence of Roma children in special schools is still very high. All of the 74 schools visited during the field visit made by the ERRC BHC team hosted Roma children, and in 54 cases of the 74 analysed their percentage ranged from 40 to 80% of the total presences, showing how evident is the Roma overrepresentation in these institutions.
In 2010, the National Strategy „Vision for Deinstitutionalisation of the Children in the Republic of Bulgaria“ was adopted, together with the annexed Action Plan for its practical implementation. Among the points of this strategy, there is that of closing down this sort of specialized institutions. It is hoped that this step will help to speed up the deinstitutionalisation process which for the time being, appears to be still too limited.
ACCESS TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CONTRAST TO SCHOOL DROPPING-OUT
The EU 2020 Strategy has underlined the centrality of Education as one of the main elements which can ensure a “smart, inclusive and sustainable growth”. In particular, the document dedicated a specific attention to early childhood education and care (ECEC), and to the phenomenon of early school leaving (ESL).
The Council of Europe document of 2009 on a “Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training“ (ET 2020) set up the following objectives:
“By 2020, the share of early leavers from education and training should be less than 10%. With a view to increasing participation in early childhood education as a foundation for later educational success, especially in the case of those from disadvantaged backgrounds: by 2020, at least 95% of children between 4 years old and the age for starting compulsory primary education should participate in early childhood education” 16.
The key importance of early childhood education is a given fact for the modern pedagogy, and all scientific evidences confirm that children who have had access17 to ECEC tend all to perform better in school than their peers who had not. Widening the access to ECEC services constitute a strategic priority for both EU institutions and for the member states.
Yet for the Roma, access to ECEC services is still extremely limited in many EU countries, although a series of international organisations such as the ISSA [International Step by Step Association], REF, UNICEF and OSI to name only a few, have invested enormous efforts to fill this gap. These efforts ranged from collaborating
16 Council Conclusion of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020). (2009/C 119/02). Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009XG0528%2801%29:EN:NOT
17 See the 2012 research report by UNICEF written in collaboration with Roma Education Fund and the Open Society Foundations.
80
with EU and local institutions, to providing research evidence up to the implementation of practical interventions18, but there is still much to be done.
In Bulgaria, one year of compulsory education is offered free of charge, but often, due to the lack of classroom spaces, Roma pupils cannot succeed in having access to this service (REF, 2007, p.39).
Another unsolved issue remains the high number of early school leavers, and a lack of progression towards the higher grades of education, a trend especially registered among Roma students. Such trends have been confirmed by the 2012 FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency) survey on Roma condition. The research, conducted in 11 EU member states, reported that:
“… At least 10% of Roma children aged 7 to 15 in Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, France and Italy are identified in the FRA survey as not attending school, meaning that they are either still in preschool, not yet in education, skipped the year, stopped school completely or are already working” (FRA, 2012, p. 16). An even more detailed data overview is offered by the OSI 2007 report (p.34) and by the IMIR Final Report (2003) where it is stated that “The gender gap is the largest among Muslim Roma. The share of the girls from this ethnic subgroup who say that they have “stopped going to school” is 21.2%, as against 14.9% of the boys. The sociological data, arranged by age group shows that 42.8% of the Roma drop out after passing junior high school age” (IMIR - International Centre for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations, 2003).
These data shows also the need to increase the attention toward the gender dimension of ESL. If for the majoritarian society trends shows that girls tend to perform better in school and to be less subject to phenomena of ESL, in Roma and other traditional communities it’s the girls those on whom the weight of poverty weighs certainly more19. To this we must add the predominant domestic economy model, which requires to young females to be of help at home with housework or looking after their younger brothers and sisters, and such system weights obviously very heavily especially on female pupils20.
Then there are also factors related with the processes of social change taking place within the Roma community, like those imposed by economic reasons. The crisis has forced many Roma to migrate abroad in search of job opportunities, and this migration
18 Roma Education Fund and partners have for example enacted the project “A good start”, dedicated to widen Roma access to ECEC and which runs in 4 European countries (Hungary, Macedonia, Romania and Slovakia). See more at: UNICEF, Open Society Foundation, Roma Education Fund, 2012, RECI, Roma Early Childhood Inclusion. The RECI overview Report.
Available at: http://www.romachildren.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/RECI-Overview-final-WEB.pdf
19 As clearly indicated in the 2011 UNECE Report: “… Whereas in the majority population the share of young women with at least upper secondary education ranges from 74 per cent in Romania to 88 per cent in Hungary and 92 per cent in Bulgaria, the comparable shares of young Roma women amount to 11 per cent in Romania, 19 per cent in Hungary and 9 per cent in Bulgaria” (UNECE, 2011, p.5).
20 Such a phenomenon is quite common also in Mediterranean countries and in many others all around the world, it is not a peculiarity of Roma society.
81
has often required to leave the children at home in the care of their grandmothers and grandfathers. It is an unprecedented situation which delegates to the elders the responsibility of children education, further weakening the already weak relationship among Roma parents and school institutions and teachers. For those who instead bring their children with them in their migratory trail, the access to education for their children is very much connected with the welcoming conditions of the hosting country21.
Another relevant social phenomenon is the increasing number of single mothers (a trend which needs yet to be investigated properly), for these households led by a single individual, the economic conditions and access to citizenship rights are even more limited than that of the average Roma family, thus adding to the ethnic dimension of poverty also the gender one.
The dramatic housing conditions are also heavily affecting the children performances in school, as they lack at home a place where to concentrate and study in tranquillity.
Poverty, illiteracy and unemployment of parents, inadequacy of the school system in welcoming and creating a healthy intercultural environment, discrimination and other factors all contribute to produce an ideal configuration for the insurgency of such widespread dropping-out phenomena.
The Bulgarian government does not collect data on dropout rates by ethnicity, but a 2004 REF survey indicates the number of enrolments disaggregated for school grade, showing a substantial decrease in the enrolment of Romani students as they proceed further in the school cycle. Such a tendency is observed for Roma also in other EU countries (see below Table 4).
Table 4
Proportion of Romani Students in Grades 1–10 (2004)22
Grade
Romani students as a proportion of total students (%)
1st
20.6
2nd
19.1
3rd
17.4
4th
14.5
5th
12.8
6th
10.1
7th
8.8
8th
7.2
9th
2.6
10th
1.7
Source: REF, 2004, p.11.
21 Romanian Roma living in Roma encampments have very different trends in school attendance, also due to the continuous evictions to which they are subjected. Those who travel back and forth from Italy to Romania following their families, often end up in not having a regular education neither in Italy nor in Romania.
22 Report and data available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTROMA/Resources/NAReportBulgariaAnnex1FINAL.pdf
6 Nasselenie review, 5–6/2013
82
The data in the table above show the proportion of Roma students per grade and clearly register the decreasing percentage of students enrolled as we proceed further up in the study cycle. What the table shows in general is that Roma children, like those of disadvantaged classes, suffer from multiple disadvantages which stand in the way of their full access to citizenship rights, first of all the right to education. However, between the lines, what the table also reveals is an inability to retain the children at ESL risk within the educational system for the whole duration of compulsory education and further on.
CONCLUSIONS
In accordance with what has been written insofar, Roma inclusion in Bulgaria can only become effective by mean of an integrated approach, able to tackle the multiple correlates of poverty who are affecting a large part of this community. Realistically this objective can only be achieved by mean of a strong political will and supported by regular financial investments. Unemployment and underemployment are key issues which need to be addressed urgently, providing forms of steady income23 for Roma households and individuals, and this is the first and most important intervention to be implemented. Without decisive and systemic actions to fight poverty, all other interventions, including that of education, risk to be largely ineffective or to remain mere affirmation of principles.
Regarding education, which is the main subject of this article, it is of paramount importance not only to enrol more and more pupils, but also to attract and retain the largest number possible of pupils within the school system, trying in the process also to attract parents.
Many reports and researches have stressed the importance of involving Roma parents in the educational process of their children. There are many possible ways to do this: events, public meetings, parties, school activities with students and their families, days before holidays etc. The event, organised in the school, could involve actively teachers, parents, pupils and school staff, thus becoming the occasion for an intercultural happening.
Such process of “opening” will gradually contrast forms of mutual mistrust and prejudice which may arise between the Roma parents and the schools (schools assuming that Roma are not interested in education, Roma assuming that they have not much to do in schools).
Changes of the methods used by school staff should be supported with specific training courses in order to enable them to adopt of a full intercultural approach.
Schools are today the privileged place for the intercultural meeting, and therefore the first action to undertake should be that of investing in schools and to support them in order to become welcoming, comfortable and open places for all children and for their parents.
23 “Households with a higher risk of poverty are those with unemployed or inactive heads (and adults); with no primary education; female-headed; with many children and/or large size; and of Roma and Turkish minority” (World Bank – OSI, 2011, p.12).
83
Investments in schools could ensure the necessary resources for developing infrastructure and to delivery proper training to the staff, providing awareness on intercultural issues and intercultural education. This action will help to improve the teachers’ performances and reflect positively on the quality of their work.
All these activities, combined together, could bring a change in the perception of the school by some parents as an alien environment where they do not feel familiar24 and will help in diminishing the distance between the community and the school institution.
Moreover, this condition of “nearingness” could represent the ideal foundations upon which build and nurture an intercultural dialogue based on respect and reciprocity. The familiarity of parents with school institutions might be able to produce notable side effects, like for example that of attracting back some adults toward basic literacy courses or to the possibilities offered by vocational training or through the continuation of school after the 8th grade25.
It is important to create occasion of meeting of parents, children and teachers in a protected and welcoming environment like that of the schools, and to engage them within the school life. These moments of encounter of people who share a common space for a common interest, represent a key tool to favour the social mixing, especially in a society like the contemporary one, in which monoculture clusters are gradually being replaced by forms of lively human métissage26.
Today in Bulgaria, many municipalities, NGOs and grassroots organisations are actively working with these methodologies, and there are numerous projects and interventions which have had very encouraging results. What is needed now is to valorise effectively these good practices and experiences, turning them into systemic interventions able to be transferred from the initial local, small scale dimension to the national one, becoming national policies.
REFERENCES
Bogdanov, G., Zahariev, B. (2007). Bulgaria. Tackling Children Poverty and promoting the social inclusion of children. A study of national policies, On behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.
Bogdanov, G. Zahariev, B. (2011). Bulgaria. Promoting social inclusion of Roma. A study of national policies. On behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
Bulgarian Educational System, Eurydice, Available at:
http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/eurypres-bul-misc-t05.pdf
24 For example, “giving Roma parents an increasing say over the design, management and funding of school programs may help remedy the deficiencies exposed during the qualitative research” (World Bank, 2010, p. 56).
25 The Italian experience on education might constitute a very interesting example for policy makers and NGOs. Italy had an enormous number of illiterate citizens, and through a system of schooling for adults (the so called “150 hours”) managed to attract back to school 100.000 adult workers (see Rossi, M., De Angelis R., 2012, pp. 7-11).
26 Editor’s note: métissage (French) is analogue to the English term miscegenation, whose meaning is wider: a mixture of races.
84
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (1999). Report submitted pursuant to Art. 25 Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
Available at: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/fcnm-reports-bulgaria-ngo.PDF
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (2005). In the name of the Institution, Correctional Schools in Bulgaria, August 2005.
Available at: http://issuu.com/bghelsinki/docs/05_correctionalschools-1-
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (2006). Assessment Report On the Conditions and Perspectives of the Institutions for Children in Bulgaria and of the Progress Made in Implementing the Government’s Obligations Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. November 2006.
Available at: http://0101.nccdn.net/1_5/094/10c/0d6/BHC%20report%20070112.pdf
Center Amalipe, Annual Report on Roma Integration in Bulgaria (2007 – 2008). Kolev D., Metodieva M., Panayotov S., Bogdanov G. and Krumova T. (eds.)
Available at: http://amalipe.com/files/publications/doklad-engl_2007_8.pdf
Centre for Educational Integration of Children and Students from Ethnic Minority (CEICSEM) (2010). Annual Report. Available at:
http://coiduem.mon.bg/en/page.php?c=32&d=79
Chronology for Roma in Bulgaria. UNHCR Refworld
Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,CHRON,BGR,,469f386f14,0.html
Commissioner for Human Rights, on the Human Rights Situation of the Roma, Sinti and Travellers in Europe for the attention of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, Chapter III. Discrimination in Education – Unequal Access and Segregation (2006). Final Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles.
Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4402c56b4.pdf
Council Conclusion of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020). (2009/C 119/02).
Crowe, D. (1996). A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia, London: I.B. Tauris Publishers.
ERRC (2004). “Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe”
Available at: http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/media/00/04/m00000004.pdf
ERRC (2007). The Impact of Legislation and Policies on School Segregation of Romani Children.
Available at: http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/media/02/36/m00000236.pdf
EUMC (2006). Roma and Travellers in Public Education. An overview of the situation in the EU Member States, Wien.
Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/roma_report.pdf
European Parliament Resolution of 28 April 2005 on the Situation of the Roma in the European Union.
Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2005-0151&language=EN
European Parliament Resolution of 9 September 2010 on the Situation of Roma and on freedom of movement in the European Union.
Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0312+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
Eurybase, The Information Database on Education Systems in Europe, The Education System in Bulgaria 2005 – 2006. Available at:
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/eurybase_full_reports/BG_EN.pdf
FRA, World Bank, UNDP (2012). Roma at a glance. The situation of Roma in 11 member states,
Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications_per_year/2012/pub_roma-survey-at-a-glance_en.htm
International Centre for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations (eds.) Mihaylov D. and Zhelyazkova, A. (2003). Final Report: Evaluation of the Existing Educational Policies and Prac85
tices to Grant Equal Access to Education to Children from Minorities and Elaboration of Policy Recommendations for Sustainable Solutions of the Educational Issues of Minorities.
Available at: http://www.ncedi.government.bg/en/reporteduc.htm
Kostova, D. (2008). The Bulgarian educational system and evaluation of the ISCED 97 implementation, pp. 162-175. In: Schneider S. L. (ed.), The International Standard Classification on Education. An evaluation on content and criterion validity for 15 European countries, University of Mannheim.
Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Bulgaria (October 2006).
Available at: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Bulgaria.pdf
Marushiakova, E., Popov, V., Tsiganite v Bulgaria. Sofia, Klub 90, 1993, pp.90–91 (quoted in ERRC, 2004, “Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe”, p. 67.
Marushiakova, E., Popov, V. (2001). Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Marushiakova, E., Popov, V. (2010). Migrations West to East in the Times of the Ottoman. (The Example of a Gypsy/Roma Group in Modern Iran). Anthropology of the Middle East 5 (1): 93–99.
Ministry of Education, Youth and Science, Center for Educational Integration of Children and Young People from the Minorities (2011). Annual Report
Available at: http://coiduem.mon.bg/en/page.php?c=32&d=79
Open Society Institute (2002). Roma Participation Program Reporter. Special Desegregation Issue. August 2002.
Available at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/roma/articles_publications/publications/desegregation_20020801/rpp1.pdf.
Open Society Institute – EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program, Education Support Program, Roma Participation Program (2007). Equal Access to Education for Roma. Vol.I, Monitoring Reports
Available at: http://www.soros.org/reports/equal-access-quality-education-roma-vol-1
Open Society Foundations (2012). Review of EU Framework National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS) submitted by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. Available at:
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/roma-integration-strategies-20120221.pdf
REI Roma Education Initiatives (June 2006). Final Report Prepared for the Education Support Program of the Open society Institute by Proactive Information Services.
Available at: http://www.osi.hu/esp/rei/Documents/REI%20Final%20Report_Final%20Full%20Report.pdf
Republic of Bulgaria, Ministry of Education and Science (2007). National Report – Contribution of Republic of Bulgaria to the 2008 joint interim report of the Council and of the European Commission on the progress in implementation of the education and training 2010 work programme. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/nationalreport08/bg07_en.pdf
Roma Education Fund (2004). (eds.) Loukanova, P., Dimova, L. and Kolev N., Needs Assessment Study for the Roma Education Fund, Background Paper. Bulgaria, December 2004, Annex 1, Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTROMA/Resources/NAReportBulgariaAnnex1FINAL.pdf
Roma Education Fund (2007). Country Assessment and the Roma Education Fund’s Strategic Directions. Advancing Education of Roma in Bulgaria.
Roma Education Fund (eds.) Rossi, M., De Angelis R. (2012). Draft Research Report 2012, Roma Inclusion in Italy: National education and employment strategies and actions.
Available at: http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/sites/default/files/publications/report_ref_english.pdf
Rossi, M. (2009). “Istituzioni, Rom e Politiche sociali a Roma. Spunti per una discussione critica”. In: d‘Orsi L. and Torani M. (eds.) Rom(a): Monadi o Nomadi?, Rome: La Sapienza editrice.
86
Rossi, M. (2011). “Fiori nella discarica: forme di resistenza nell’iperghetto”. In: Inchiesta, N. 174 october - december.
Rossi, M. (14/2/2012). Suggestions for an Italian Roma strategy. (Policy paper on viable strategies to favour Roma’s social inclusion in Italy). Delivered to: European Academic Network of Romanì Studies (DG Culture) – European Commission. p.3
Available at: http://www.immigrazioneroma.it/2012/04/suggerimenti-per-una-strategia-nazionale-per-linclusione-dei-rom-in-italia-m-rossi/
Russinov, R. (2001). The Bulgarian Framework Programme for Equal Integration of Roma: participation in the policy-making process.
Available at: http://www.errc.org/article/the-bulgarian-framework-programme-for-equal-integration-of-roma-participation-in-the-policy-making-process/1729
Slavkova, M. (2008). Being Gypsy in Europe. The Case of Bulgarian Roma Workers in Spain, in: Balkanologie, Vol. XI, n. 1-2, December 2008,
Available at: http://balkanologie.revues.org/index1102.html
Tanaka, J. (2000). Parallel worlds: Romani and non-Romani schools in Bulgaria
Available at:
http://www.errc.org/article/parallel-worlds-romani-and-non-romani-schools-in-bulgaria/1045
Tomova, I. (1995). The Gypsies in the Transition Period, IMIR (International Centre on Minorities and Intercultural Relations, IMIR-Sofia).
Tomova, I. (1998). Ethnic Dimension of Poverty in Bulgaria, World Bank.
Tomova, I. (2007). The Roma in Bulgaria, education and employment. Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
Available at: http://www.suedosteuropa-gesellschaft.com/pdf_2008/roma/tomova_ilona.pdf.
Tomova, I., Metodieva M. et. аl. (2008). Health Status in Communities with predominant Roma Population. OSI Sofia (unpublished report), in: Bogdanov G. and Zahariev B., 2011, Bulgaria. Promoting social inclusion of Roma. A study of national policies. On behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. P.15
UNECE (2011). (eds.) Cekota J. and Trentini C., The educational attainment, labor market, participation and living conditions of young Roma in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/oes/disc_papers/ECE_DP_2011-2.pdf
UNICEF, Open Society Foundation, Roma Education Fund (2012). RECI, Roma Early Childhood Inclusion. The RECI overview Report.
Available at: http://www.romachildren.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/RECI-Overview-final-WEB.pdf
US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (2010). Human Rights Report: Bulgaria, Available at: 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, April 8, 2011
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/eur/154417.htm
World Bank (2005). World Bank, Growth, Poverty, And Inequality: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, World Bank, Washington DC, 2005.
World Bank, Europe and Central Asia Region, Human Development Department (2010). A Review of the Bulgarian School Autonomy Reform.
World Bank – OSI (2011). Bulgaria: Household Welfare during the 2010 Recession and Recovery.
Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/BULGARIAEXTN/Resources/305438-1224088560466/5477317-1329829389066/CMSENGWEB.pdf
World Bank (2012). Toward an equal start: Closing the early learning gap for Roma children in Eastern Europe.
Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTROMA/Resources/RomaECD_FinalReport.pdf
87
В ПРЕХОД: РОМИТЕ В БЪЛГАРСКАТА ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНА СИСТЕМА. ДЕЙСТВИЯ, ОПИТИ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ
Моника Роси
Резюме. Настоящата разработка е опит за анализ, диагностика и общи препоръки по отношение на проблемите в образователната система на Република България, свързани с ромите от позицията на външен за страната анализатор. Освен чисто образователните и етнически въпроси са представени и отделни фактори, които създават контекста, в който функционират и се развиват образованието и междуетническите отношения след промените от 1989 година. Коментирани са и основни предизвикателства пред образователната система, свързани с ромската общност (като например, намаляващия относителен дял на ромите във високите класове на средното училище) необходимите реформи и действащите политики. Направена е оценка на случващото се досега.
Ключови думи: образование на ромите, образователни мерки, образователни политики