Dr. István HORVÁTH

Research Institute on Romanian National Minorities

For how many? Census (taken 2002)

535,140 persons 2,5% of population

Not accurate

Why?

Roma category as a stigma

Roma defined not ethically but socially

Dual identities

Linguistic and partly cultural assimilation

Than again. For how many? Estimated 1,5 million (1998) today 1,7-

1,8 million

Hetero-attribution

Self identification 63%

Heterogenity

TRADITIONAL ADAPTED MAINSTREAM

Heterogeneity Multiple internal boundaries especially among traditional

Roma Linguistic heterogeneity (varieties based on Valx and

Romungro dialects)

Romani first language

Romanian or Hungarian first language

Different degrees of multilingualism

-2002 census 45% of the persons assuming Roma identity declare Romani as the mother tongue -A 2007 survey 47 % of the Roma are using Romani as dominant language at home, (32% as the major community language)

Territorial concentration Mostly rural (63-65%)

Presence in approximately 2/3 of the municipalities (out of 3185 in 1992)

Frequent type of communities

170-300

500 persons

Exceptionally larger ones

Teritorial concetration

Political recognition National minority (single level recognition system, no

cultural autonomy)

Political representation in Parliament

Access to founding designated National Minorities

Minority of special political concern

Special programs and institutions

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

Protects it only under part II (less specific measures form protection and promotion)

Social conditions Roma non Roma

Not connected to electricity 13% 2%

water for domestic consumption

from outside the household 47% 8%

Not connected to a collector

sewer system 86% 4%

Roads (totaly unsatisfactory or

non-existing)

64% 42%

Public transportation (totaly

unsatisfactory or non-existing)

50% 34%

Street illumination (totaly

unsatisfactory or non-existing) 55% 23%

Formal employment

(working age) 21% 51%

Educational situation Census year 1977 1992 2002

All Roma All Roma All Roma

Illiterate 4.8% 26.1% 3.1% 21.5% 2.6% 25.2%

No, school, or up

to four years of

schooling

49.9% 86,2% 29.7% 63,2% 24.3% 66.6%

University

completed 2.6% 0,03% 5.1% 0.09% 6.7% 0.15%

Enrollement Kindergarten (2008) Roma 31% national level around 70%

Primary level (2004): Roma 76% national level around 94%

Drop out rate high among Roma, ally starting with the ages 13-14.

In 2008 inclusion of youngsters between 15-18 years Roma 21% national level of 75%,

university education (youngsters between 19-22 years) Roma 2% national level 30%

Why

Socio-cultural aspects

Physical limits of access

Patterns of exclusion

Socio-cultural aspects Differences in defining the social age.

4.5% of the females aged between 15-19 years declared being mother of one or more children. Within the population assuming Roma ethnic affiliation the share of the young mothers was of 22.3%.

Low importance attributed to formal education by parents low level of expectations of the students.

Deficiencies of the anticipatory school socialization among parents.

The cultural gap thesis.

Physical limits of access According to a survey taken in 2007 one fifth (22%) of

the Roma families considered that the access to school is highly difficult (or in certain respect inexistent) compared with one out of ten (11%) non-Roma family accusing the difficulty of access to school.

Extreme poverty involving basic difficulties regarding clothing or covering the additional costs of the education (textbooks, notebooks, pencils, other parental contributions)

Exclusion Segregation – (according to various assessments in

approximately 30% of the primary schools the share of pupils of Roma origin is considerably high, thus practices of segregation can be suspected) several typical patterns are documented for Romania

School unit segregation

Class level segregation

Special school segregation

Segregation by withdrawal

The major problem with the segregation is the loss of quality of education.

Discriminative treatment

Measures Fostering of the institutional inclusion

Adapting the content of education

Adapting the methods of teaching

Institutional inclusion School mediator

Second chance

Summer kindergarten (2011 – 45 where financed)

Reserved places in high school, vocational education and universities (2011-2012 – 611 reserved places in 49 institutions of tertiary education total 125 thousand students)

Planned After school program

School mediator Two types in Europe

Classroom mediator teacher assistant (content and method)

School community mediator

PRO CON

Non- bureaucratic form of communication and institutional pressure

Transferring a problem from educators too a specialized personnel

Cultural closeness - communicative effectiveness. Roma community parental involvement

Not community worker (instrument of school management). Not integrated approach like the incubator project or village caretaker

Content related aspect Romani language

As subject item

As medium of instruction

The history and the traditions of Roma

Romani language teaching PRO’s Status and self esteem.

Assisting linguistic integration. Immersion.

Cultural closeness.

Structural.

Language teaching dilemma Dialect versus standard

Romani language teaching versus classroom Romani language use

The issue of visibility and markedness.

The issue of prospective utility.

The major dilemma:

Increased individual chances versus identity politics.