Thematic report endorsed by the CAHROM at its 9th CAHROM meeting

 

CAHROM (2015)6

Strasbourg, 9 July 2015

 

AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON ROMA[1] ISSUES

(CAHROM)

__________

 

THEMATIC REPORT OF THE GROUP OF EXPERTS ON

INCLUSIVE PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION FOR ROMA CHILDREN

(following the CAHROM thematic visit to Prague, Czech Republic on 19-21 November 2014)

__________

 

Czech Republic, requesting country:

 

 

Hungary, Latvia, Poland and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", partner countries:

 

 

European Commission:

 

 

Council of Europe:

 


 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

__________

 

  1. INTRODUCTIONpage 03

 

1.1   Background of the thematic report and visitpage 03

1.2. Composition of the thematic group of expertspage 03

1.3Agenda of the thematic visitpage 04

1.4 Terminologypage 04

 

  1. ROMA AND THEIR (PRE-SCHOOL) EDUCATION AND MAIN CHALLENGESpage 04

 

2.1 Information about Roma groups and their (pre-school) education page 04

2.1.1 Czech Republicpage 04

2.1.2 Hungarypage 07

2.1.3 Latviapage 10

2.1.4 Polandpage 12

2.1.5 "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"page 13

2.2. National and international context, timing, and expectations of the thematic visitpage 15

2.2.1 Context, timing and expectation as regards the Czech Republicpage 15

2.2.2 Context, timing at the international levelpage 16

 

3. POLICY ANDLEGAL FRAMEWORK IN THE FIELD OF (PRE-SCHOOL)

EDUCATION AND MEASURES AND PROJECTS UNDERTAKENpage 20

 

3.1 Czech Republicpage 20

3.2 Hungarypage 23

3.3 Latviapage 29

3.4 Polandpage 32

3.5 "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"page 33

 

4. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNT AND GOOD PRACTICES IDENTIFIEDpage 35

 

4.1               Conclusions concerning the preparation and organisation of the thematic visitpage 35

4.2Specific conclusions and lessons learntpage 36

4.2.1 Concerning the Czech Republic, requesting countrypage 36

4.2.2 Concerning partner countries (Hungary, Latvia, Poland and

"the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"page 42

4.3Good practices identifiedpage 44

4.4Follow-uppage 45

4.4.1Immediate follow-up at the level of the Council of Europepage 45

4.4.2Mid-term follow-up and future exchanges of experiencepage 46

 

APPENDICES:page 48

Appendix 1:Formal invitation received from the Czech Republicpage 48

Appendix 2:List of experts and participants of the thematic visitpage 48

Appendix 3:Agenda of the thematic visitpage 49


 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

1.1 Background of the thematic report and visit

 

A thematic group on pre-school education of Roma children was set up at the request of the Czech member of CAHROM at the 7th CAHROM meeting (Strasbourg, 14-16 May 2014)[2]. During that meeting, CAHROM representatives from Latvia, Poland and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" confirmed their interest to be partner countries. Hungary confirmed its interest to join this thematic group at a later stage.

 

An official letter inviting the CAHROM's group of experts to visit Prague on 19-21 November 2014 was received from the Czech authorities on 5 November 2014 (see Appendix 1).

             

1.2 Composition of the thematic group of experts

 

The composition of the thematic group of experts included state officials from ministries or offices that coordinate Roma inclusion policies and a specialist in the field of education from a municipality.

 

The Hungarian expert, Mr Ivan Sörös, leads the Department for Child Chance at the State Secretariat for Social Inclusion within the Ministry of Human Resources and had taken part in a previous CAHROM thematic visit on combating school drop-out and absenteeism of Roma children in the Netherlands (with Hungary, Spain, Sweden as partner countries)[3].

 

Poland participated for the first time in a CAHROM thematic visit. Ms Agnieszka Gajewska works for the National and Ethnic Minorities Division of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, which coordinates Roma inclusion policies and serves as EU National Contact Point on Roma.

 

“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” was represented by its CAHROM member (and Vice-Chair of the Committee), Ms Mabera Kamberi, who works in the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and coordinates the Roma integration strategy. Support to pre-school education is part of this ministry’s competence.

 

After consultation with the Latvian Ministry of Education and Science, as well as NGO experts, Ms Sarmīte Joma, who is the main specialist of Pre-school Education Department of Jelgava Municipality and has professional experience in the field of Roma education, including Roma pre-school education, was appointed to participate as Latvian expert for the thematic group. She had participated in a previous CAHROM thematic visit on Roma children's school attendance in Finland (with Latvia, Norway and Sweden as partner countries)[4]. The Jelgava municipality has good experience in the field of Roma children’s inclusion in mainstreaming education at local level.

 

The Czech CAHROM member, Mr Martin Martínek and one of his colleague, Ms Eliška Perevorska, from the Office of the Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs and Secretariat of the Government Council for National Minorities - the main co-ordination body on Roma issues in the Czech Republic - organised and accompanied partner countries' experts throughout the thematic visit. Ms Andrea Baršová, the Director of the Department for Human Rights and Minority Protection, who could not attend the meetings, paid a courtesy visit to the partner countries' experts during the debriefing session.

 

Ms Jana Balažová, Policy Officer, Roma Co-Ordination Unit, DG Justice, attended parts of the agenda of the CAHROM thematic visit. This first participation of a representative of the European Commission in a CAHROM thematic visit was considered as a positive development to the request expressed by some CAHROM members who are also EU National Roma Contact Points to create stronger working synergies between the two organisations.

 

This thematic visit was also innovative since the CAHROM Secretariat was accompanied by a colleague from a different CoE sector, namely, Ms Daniela Gheorghe, Programme Adviser in the Children's Rights Division, Directorate of Human Dignity and Equality, who brought her own expertise and the children rights’ perspective in the discussions.

 

The full list of participants, including the Czech interlocutors met during the thematic visit, can be found in Appendix 2.

 

1.3 Agenda of the thematic visit

 

The agenda of the thematic visit was jointly prepared by the Secretariat of the Council for Roma Minority Affairs of the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic in consultation with the CAHROM Secretariat and the Children’s Rights Department. The programme included visits to Lyčkovo náměstí Elementary School (Prague 8) and to People in Need pre-school club in Prague, as well as a bilateral meeting with Deputy Minister, Mr Jaroslav Fidrmuc, at the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. A round table was also organised and included among its participants representatives from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, the Czech School Inspectorate, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, representatives of the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation, the Agency for Social Inclusion, the Czech Society for Inclusive Education, the League for Human Rights and Romodrom o.p.s. The agenda appears in Appendix 3.

 

1.4 Terminology

During the preparation of the thematic visit and the visit itself, it became obvious that terminology differs from one country to another to designate for example "groups at risk" or "vulnerable groups". Also the terminology "special schools", as it was already raised in 2012 in the context of a previous CAHROM thematic visit on combating school drop-out and absenteeism of Roma children in the Netherlands, has not the same meaning in member states. In addition, the education system differs from a country to another and therefore the pre-school age and as an example the system of pre-school education or zero/preparatory classes can be different.

 

Therefore, the group of experts wishes to underline that these terms and systems should be understood in the present report from their respective national context.

 

 

2. ROMA GROUPS, THEIR (PRE-SCHOOL) EDUCATION SITUATION AND MAIN CHALLENGES

 

2.1 Information on Roma groups and their (pre-school) education

 

2.1.1 Czech Republic

 

Size and composition of the Roma groups

 

According to the 2011 census, 13,150 persons declared themselves of Roma nationality: 5,199 declared the Roma nationality alone and 7,951 declared Roma nationality in combination with Czech, Moravian or Slovak nationality. This was slightly more than in the previous 2001 census figure (12,500, 11,716, 784 respectively) but far less than in the 1991 census when 32,903 persons declared themselves of Roma nationality. The decline in the number of self-declared Roma can have a number of causes. In the past census counts of Roma were associated with a series of anti-Roma measures which has brought about mistrust on the part of Roma towards any state activities targeted at identifying people of Roma nationality. Over the last two decades, many Czech Roma families have either migrated (e.g. to the United Kingdom) or asked for asylum (e.g. in Canada where some of them obtained the refugee status).

 

The 2011 census results concerning the speakers of Romani provide a higher figure: 40,370 (they were only 16,630 Czech citizens as having Romani as their mother tongue in the 2001 census)[5].

 

Experts’ estimates of the number of members of Roma communities - which depend rather on identification of members of Roma communities by another person or group (most often by experts or staff of public institutions) - put the number between 150,000 to 350,000 Roma in the Czech Republic[6]. The average estimate of 200,000 is being used by the Council of Europe. This represents slightly less than 2% of the entire population in the Czech Republic.

 

Roma and education

 

According to the 2011 Study by Tomáš Sirovátka, the age structure of Roma is much ‘younger’ when compared to the overall population: 30% of the Roma are below 15 years of age; only 5% are over 60. The low level of education of the Roma is considered to be a key factor (in addition to other factors) of their labour market disadvantage, which is apparent in their low participation rate (61% for men and 30% for women) and high unemployment rates. Specifically, 74% of the Roma have primary education at most, while in the overall population it is 20%. Their educational structure has improved within the past two generations in the sense that the share of those with no education dropped significantly; however, only to the extent of primary education (Census 2001). One of the problems is the persistent segregation of Roma children into special schools and recently into ‘practical’ schools. There are about 330 socially excluded Roma localities in the country (most of them in areas of high unemployment) where about 60-80 thousand Roma are living and where unemployment is estimated at 90-100%. About one-fourth of these localities are spatially segregated (Gabal 2006) and their numbers seem to be growing. According to the 2010 Gabal and Víšek report - which estimated the number of Roma in the Czech Republic to be 250,000 - 32% (80,000) were designated as “socially excluded”.

 

Roma and pre-school education

 

So far, and until the forthcoming adoption of the pre-school reform, the last year of pre-school if free of charge and the school is obliged to enrol any children in this last pre-school year. However, this is not so far systematically implemented because Czech parents (and Roma parents too) consider the decision whether to send the child to pre-school or not as their own right. Many parents prefer to prolong the last pre-school year to two years (the child then starts compulsory education at the age of 7 instead of 6). There is a rather strong opposition in the Czech society, including at the level of the political spectrum, for enrolling children too early in pre-school. The Hungarian model of introducing compulsory pre-school education as from the age of 3 would be difficult to implement at this stage in the Czech Republic.

 

According to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, above 90% of children receive pre-school education and the remaining 10% (including many Roma children) will be included in the kindergartens/day-care centres created with structural funds in the future and a result of the new legislation that requires compulsory pre-school education. According to information provided in the May 2012 CAHROM thematic report on combating school drop outs and absenteeism, 48% of individuals over 5 among the Czech Roma population have never attended pre-school facilities (kindergarten or preparatory years). If one specifically looks at Roma children from socially excluded localities, approximately 52% of them have no pre-school preparation. In November 2014, Open Society Fund-Prague estimated that 40% of Roma children were not attending pre-school[7].

 

Unlike in other countries involved in the thematic group, the question of pre-school facilities is not considered as a critical issue in the Czech Republic. However, the distribution of facilities is highly unequal. Bigger towns and cities experience lack of places in public kindergartens and parents therefore have to pay substantial amounts to place the child into private kindergarten. Roma families are nearly completely excluded from pre-school education.

 

An amendment to the Act on Pre-school is envisaged in the course of 2015 so as to introduce one year compulsory pre-school education for all children. The last year compulsory pre-school education should become effective most probably as from the 2017/2018 school year.

 

Main challenges in relation to (pre-school) education of Roma

 

According to the Czech Ombudsman’s 2012 report, the crucial causes of the school failure of Roma pupils at elementary schools include:

- the lack of pre-school education;

- inadequate involvement of the parents of children from socio-culturally disadvantaged                             backgrounds in the education process

- the language barrier (use of the Romani language at home);

- the process of diagnosing (“testing”) the special educational needs of pupils.

 

Despite some overall progress, unjustified school segregation and enrolment of Roma children in “special schools” (so-called now ‘practical” schools) and programmes intended for pupils with learning disabilities under programmes for the education of children with mild mental disabilities remain issues of serious concern seven years after the milestone judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in D.H. and Others vs The Czech Republic. When this case was brought to the attention of the ECtHR in 2007, Roma children in the Czech Republic were 27 times more likely to be placed in "special schools" for the mentally disabled than non-Roma children. Today statistics show a constant, annual decrease in the total number of pupils (Roma and non-Roma) in special schools or classes from 17,755 in 2008 to 10,695 in 2014. But progress remains slow and questionable when it comes to Roma children. In fact, despite this overall decrease, the proportion of Roma pupils in special schools or classes increased from 28.2% (2013/2014 school year) to 32.4% (2014/2015 school year). Furthermore, the percentage of Roma children in mainstream classes decreased from 10.3% (2013/2014 school year) to 9.5% (2014/2015 school year).[8]

 

In its February 2012 report, he Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out that an estimated 30% of Roma children in the Czech Republic were educated in schools designed for pupils with mild mental disabilities, compared to 2% of their non-Roma counterparts. In November 2014, Open Society Fund-Prague said that “according to the report on the State of the Romani Minority in the Czech Republic for 2013 (…), more than 28% of the pupils in the “practical schools” are Romani, and in the Moravian-Silesian Region that number is as high as 36%. Those schools are intended exclusively for children with mild mental disability”.[9]

 

In the case of Roma pupils educated according to the (standard) Framework Education Programme, more than 30% went on to study for their school leaving certificate. A 2011 UNDP/World Bank survey showed the great likelihood that if a pupil completes elementary education conducted under the Framework Educational Programme for Elementary Education with an Annex for the education of children with mild mental disabilities (hereafter MMD), he or she will attain only secondary education without a school leaving certificate.[10]. The status of the "Mild Mental Disabilities (MMD) Annex" is not clear. It is supposed to be only a methodological tool for education pupils who score in IQ tests below certain line. Instead of this, the MMD Annex works as a separate educational programme according to which groups of pupils are educated in separate classes. Moreover, the whole separate schools work according to this "mere" Annex, which explains how "segregated schooling" is established in the Czech Republic. Many intellectually able Roma children in the Czech Republic are still being enrolled into the "practical primary schools" intended for children who are "mild mentally disabled”.

 

In its 2012 report, the Czech School Inspectorate had identified the following problems within the Czech schooling system:

 

  1. There is a need to reduce the proportion of the Roma ethnic group at former special schools not offering education in compliance with the Educational Framework Programme for Primary Education. For the time being, at such schools the proportion of the Roma ethnic group is still significantly higher than corresponds to its representation in the regional demographic structure, out of which 26.4 % have been diagnosed with a mild mental disability (MMD) at the nation-wide level. A material breach of the Education Act was ascertained in 110 cases during the school year 2009/2010; these schools used to allocate pupils to the MMD programmes without undergoing any diagnostic assessment; measures to remove these deficiencies were taken within the specified periods, a follow-up inspection was carried out at four schools last year.  The regional practical primary schools are competing in vain with municipal schools which have the duty to provide all pupils with equal access to education in accordance with the Act and which also have sufficient capacity available in terms of space.

 

  1. Specific needs for supporting socially disadvantaged pupils and pupils with minor mental disorders are not distinguished. It is necessary to identify pupils’ needs correctly, to show them properly and allocate them to programmes of support of MMD at the school level. To remove risks of breaching the right to equal treatment and provision of corresponding education and, at the same time, also the unauthorized drawing of financial means from the state budget by this.

 

  1. Systemic funding of special needs of the group of socially disadvantaged pupils has not yet been resolved. The situation when institutional support of pupils with MMD is most convenient in economic terms for schools is to be changed. Any targeted means of a comparable amount are not aimed at forms of the group and individual integration at common schools and specific support in accordance with the needs for socially disadvantaged pupils and Roma pupils. The means to offer economic provision implicitly supports continuous unwanted attitudes at former special schools. It is necessary to provide systematic support for teaching assistants, preparatory classes, individualized educational plans and other specific measures for education of socially disadvantaged pupils within the state budget.

 

Another challenge concerns the lack of data. Due to the Act on the Protection of Personal Data, it is impossible to collect data on ethnic affiliation even though it would be an advantage for the Roma. Despite the fact that European and EU legislation allows the collection of ethnic data under some conditions, Czech public administration often misuses the Act on the Protection of Personal Data to justify their inability to show progress with respect to Roma, in particular in the field of education.

 

The attitude and living conditions of Roma parents constitute another obstacle. A number of testimonies indicate that there is a need for stronger efforts and more dialogue with Roma parents to convince them to send their children to mainstream schools and make them understand the benefit for their children to attend regular schools and finish their studies. A number of obstacles to this process have been identified during the visit:

  1. High level of illiteracy among the parents;
  2. Mistrust towards the education system viewed as an instrument of assimilation;
  3. Roma parents asking for flexibility and not ready to receive any form of pressure from schools.

 

There are some other factors that prevent Roma children and youth to take advantage of the educational system; most common constraints are the lack of appropriate clothes, lack of financial resources, lack of electricity and drinking water. Such factors are not predominant, but they do exist and all mentioned goals should be therefore taken into account when dealing with Roma education.

 

2.1.2 Hungary

 

Size and composition of the Roma groups

 

According to the data of the census conducted in 2011, based on ethnic affiliation, 315,583 persons declared themselves to be Roma (which is a higher figure compared to the 2001 census with 205,720 self-declared Roma). Researchers estimate the Roma population to be between 450,000 and 1,000,000. The average estimate used by the Council of Europe is 700,000, which represents approximately 7% of the entire population of the country.

 

Three linguistic sub-groups are identified: the Romungros (Hungarian-speaking Roma), the Vlach Roma (bilingual, speaking both Romani and Hungarian) and the Beaś (Boyash) Roma group (who speak Hungarian and Beaś, a dialect of Romanian).

 

The Roma population has an uneven geographical distribution in the territory of the country. In certain counties, Roma can reach 15%. Additionally, territorial differences are extreme at the level of smaller territorial units; in a number of localities and locality groups, the Roma constitute the majority of the population. More than 60% of Roma live in the countryside, in a rural environment, mostly in segregated residential zones, in rather poor housing conditions, whilst only 6% of Roma live in the capital (and the rest in other urban environments)[11].

 

There are some one hundred localities in Hungary which have definitively turned into poor Roma ghettos, while in another two hundred localities, this situation will emerge in the near future as a result of seemingly irreversible processes. Most of the segregated localities and localities on their way to micro-regional ghettoisation are situated in the country’s economically depressed north-eastern and south-western regions which are typically characterised by a structure of small localities.

 

The age composition of the Roma population is substantially younger than that of the non-Roma population. In 2010, the rate of children aged between 0 and 14 amongst Roma was 36.8%, while this proportion within the non-Roma population was 15.4%[12].

 

Roma and education

 

The general socio-economic situation of Roma in Hungary is worse than that of the majority population, specifically in the areas of unemployment, health and education. Most of the Roma suffer from a low educational level (24% of them reach secondary final examinations[13]).

 

The educational integration of the Roma population came to a halt in the years preceding the changes of 1989. While in the decades before the 1990s, the Roma significantly caught up with the national average in terms of the completion of their elementary studies and there was an increase in the ratio of Roma individuals with vocational qualifications, their ratio in secondary schools providing final examinations remained negligible and consequently so did their participation in higher education. Their relative situation regarding studies at a higher educational level has since further deteriorated. While their integration in elementary schools continued, their ratio in secondary schools providing final examinations remained below 15%, in contrast to the national average in excess of 80%[14]. Additionally, most of the few Roma who do continue their studies tend to seek admission to vocational schools. They have a much higher drop-out rate than their non-Roma counterparts. In vocational schools, every fourth student on average is required to repeat at least one year during the course of his/her studies (the ratio of students required to repeat a year in grammar schools is 5% in relation to the total number of students), many of them indeed never complete their studies and depart the educational system without qualifications. This phenomenon, which has been on the rise in recent years, greatly contributes to youth unemployment and a rise in poverty and plays a major role in the regeneration of a population with low educational qualifications.

 

Roma and pre-school education

 

In Hungary families that send their children to pre-school receive additional social benefits (incentives) called “pre-school benefits”. In practice, Roma children have limited access to pre-school education (kindergarten level) due to a lack of kindergarten and pre-school infrastructure in areas with large Roma population and restrictive enrolment policies by a number of kindergartens. Many Roma pupils consequently start school later (8 and beyond) than children from the majority population (6 or 7).

 

Among the Hungarian Roma population, 30% of individuals over 5 have never attended pre-school facilities[15].

 

Surveys looking into the kindergarten attendance of disadvantaged children demonstrate that, in the event of a shortage of kindergarten capacity, primarily children having completed the age of five and children with both parents actively working gain admission. The children of uneducated, unemployed or disabled pensioner parents are the most likely not to gain admission to kindergarten. Among Roma children, there are a substantially larger proportion of children who only start going to kindergarten at the age of 5, in contrast to non-Roma children, the majority of whom start kindergarten at the age of 3. The measure of the Government which renders kindergarten attendance compulsory as of the age of 3 effective as of 1 September 2015 is designed to tackle this situation.

 

Main challenges in relation to (pre-school) education of Roma

 

International organisations and human rights defenders had expressed over the last 20 years their deep concern about school segregation of Roma pupils and enrolment of children in remedial schools that do not exist any longer in Hungary.

 

As a result of the adoption and implementation in recent years[16]of new education legislation, there has been a decrease in the number of pupils classified as having special educational needs due to a mild mental disability. This could be a source of inspiration for other countries concerned by the misplacement of Roma children in such schools or programmes.

 

According to human rights monitoring bodies’ reports, segregation could and, to a lesser extent, still does take various forms. It started with limited access for Roma children to pre-school education (kindergarten level) due to a lack of kindergarten in areas with large Roma population and restrictive enrolment policies by a number of kindergartens. Many Roma pupils consequently started school later (age 8 and beyond) than children from the majority population (age 6 or 7). They were then often channelled to remedial school based on tests for school readiness carried out before entry to primary education. The curriculum in special schools/classes was significantly lighter and teachers were reportedly often not adequately trained to work with Roma pupils[17].

 

Segregation also happened through Roma-only classes in mainstream schools, often as a means for schools to increase their school population (and funding provided accordingly) with a view to avoiding any “white flight” (majority pupils leaving the school). These classes could often be found in separate and lower quality buildings[18]. Physical separation of pupils within a school could at times be extreme, with different entry doors, separated meals and separate end-of-year ceremonies.

 

Additionally, a growing number of Roma children were not attending school at all, as a result of becoming “private pupils” in line with the Public Education Act, which foresees the possibility for children to be exempted from class attendance while having to pass end-of-year exams in order to progress to the next grade. The decision of exempting a child from school attendance could be made by parents, but could also be recommended by the educational counselling services. The latter reportedly pressured Roma parents to request private pupil status for their children. Those facing special educational needs or disability could benefit from financial and academic assistance, including private lessons. However, in practice, it appeared that neither financial nor teacher assistance was available. This practice represented another form of segregation of Roma children and it often resulted in non-completion of compulsory education. Lastly, Roma having completed primary remedial education were often pushed into short-term vocational education, which trained pupils for low-skilled work and was usually disconnected from the employers’ needs.

 

Although this is not the main focus of this thematic report and issues of school segregation and classification and enrolment of Roma children in schools for disabled should be treated separately and require different types of measures[19], one could mention that the proportion of Roma children in special schools remains an issue. Although school segregation is banned by the Act on Public Education of 1993 and the Equal Treatment Act of 2003, the proportion of Roma children studying in segregated schools or classes has steadily increased in Hungary since 1990. While in 1992 7.1% of Roma pupils studied in a school attended mainly by Roma, this proportion rose to 20-25% in 2004. In 2007, schools were segregated in 170 villages and towns throughout the country and separate Roma-only classes existed in 700 communities[20]. The Ministry of Social Inclusion estimated in 2011 that approximately one third of primary schools were applying some form of segregation. The authorities also stated in 2011 in their National Social Inclusion Strategy-Extreme Poverty, Child Poverty, the Roma, 2011-2020 that the number of Roma-majority schools had increased by 34% since 2004.

 

2.1.3 Latvia

 

Size and composition of the Roma groups

 

According to the data of the census conducted in 2011, based on ethnic affiliation, 6,489 persons declared themselves to be Roma, i.e. 0.3% of the total population[21].

 

According to the results of this last census, the population of Roma in Latvia has decreased by about 21% since 2000 when 8,205 people had declared Roma ethnicity. An estimated figure for 2014 indicates 5,594 Roma presently living in Latvia. The reason of this decrease can be explained by the intense level of Roma emigration to other European States over the last years, primarily in the United Kingdom. However, the Roma community is the only ethnic group in Latvia that maintains a positive natural growth: Roma have the highest birth rates and one of the lowest death rates of all ethnic groups.

 

The Roma are one of the oldest ethnic minorities in Latvia and have been an integral part of Latvia’s cultural diversity since the 16th century. Of all the Roma that are registered officially, 93.6% are Latvian citizens, out of which approximately 70% speak Latvian. A large majority of Roma regard the Romani language as their mother tongue.

 

Latvia’s Roma is not an ethnically homogenous community. Two different groups of Roma have lived in Latvia since ancient times: the Latvian Roma (Loftitke Roma) and the Russian Roma (Xaladytka Roma), whose differences manifest themselves territorially, linguistically, culturally and in their traditional way of life. Over the last century, Latvia’s Roma have mainly lived a settled way of life. Based on the data that is available, the majority of Roma live in the large towns of the Kurzeme and Zemgale regions, such as Jelgava (2.3% of the city population) and Ventspils, as well as in Riga. Prior to the active migration of Roma to foreign countries, the highest proportion of Roma were found in Talsi, Dobele, Tukums, Limbaži and Daugavpils districts. In Latvia there is no ghettoisation of the Roma community or spatial segregation at the regional or local level: the Roma have formed a territorially heterogeneous group that communicates actively with the local community.[22]

 

Roma and education

 

The results of several studies show that the Roma community in Latvia is the most disadvantaged ethnic group, with the lowest level of education. The level of education of Roma community is as follows[23]:

 

Level of education

2000

2011

Tertiary education

0.4 %

0.8%

Specialized secondary

1.2 %

3.5%

General secondary

6.7 %

10.3%

Elementary school

(including primary school) (1–9)

42.1%

36.5%

Lower than Elementary school

(including cases when level of education is not specified)

50.4%

45.3 %

Illiterate persons

3.5%

All Romani people aged 15 and above

5 985

4 901

 

According to some research:

 

Over the last years the number of Roma students attended secondary schools has grown-up. According to statistic data from 2008 only 3 Roma children were educated in general secondary school, but in 2012 there were 20% of Roma children pursuing their education after elementary school.

 

Roma and pre-school education

Since 2002 education of 5-6 years old children is compulsory. Pre-school education is not compulsory for the children aged between 1.5 and 5.

 

Main challenges in relation to (pre-school) education of Roma

 

The main obstacles and problems in Roma children’s education are:

 

While efforts have been made by state and local authorities to promote the school attendance and achievement of Roma pupils, their integration in general schools remains a challenge, despite the employment of qualified teaching assistants to accompany Roma children throughout their studies, including at pre-school level and despite the provision of guidance material to teachers on how to integrate better Roma children into mainstream classes[25].

 

The high representation of Roma children in special needs’ schools remains an area of particular concern[26]. In 2011, 10.6% of all Roma children attended special needs schools. According to the latest information provided by the Latvian authorities, this figure has even increased to 16.1% during the academic year 2013/2014.

 

The Latvian Ombudsman usefully recommended in 2013 to teach the language or culture of Roma, or other national/ethnic minorities, in addition to the general school curriculum and not to use this as a reason for segregating Roma children in separate classes (and argument used by the local education authorities in Ventspils). Many local authorities, for example in the Kuldīga region, have taken into account the Ombudsman’s recommendations and discontinued separate Roma classes from the academic year 2013/14 September 2013 onwards; however, others, like the local education authorities in Ventspils, have not. Negotiations are currently underway to change this situation.

 

The lack of reporting of discrimination faced by Roma is another subject of concern. Despite ample reports of ethnically based hostilities and discrimination experienced by some groups such as Roma, only few cases are brought to the attention of the Ombudsman and even less to the courts, as awareness of and trust in the available remedies is limited[27].

 

2.1.4 Poland

 

Size and composition of the Roma groups

 

According to the 2011 census, 16,723 persons declared themselves of Roma nationality: 9,622 declared the Roma nationality alone. This was more than in the previous 2002 census figure (12,731 in total). Estimations from the realisation of governmental programmes on Roma estimate Roma in Poland to be approximately. 20,000-25,000, close to the CoE estimate of 30,000 (0.1% of the total population).

 

Roma are divided into several groups: Polish Roma, Bergitka (Mountain, Carpathian Roma), Lovara, Kelderari, Sinti, Chaladytka (Russian) Roma. Lovara, Kelderari, Polish and Russian Roma were nomads until the half of 60s.

 

During the communist regime there was a Romani migration from Poland: the main destinations were Germany and Sweden but there is no reliable data on the scale of that migration. Next migration wave was connected with Poland joining the EU in 2004. The main destination countries were (and still are) the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

 

Roma and education

 

The level of education of most Polish Roma should still be identified as low. According to data from the National Census of Population and Housing 2002, almost 51% of people over 13 years of age who have declared themselves to belong to the Roma minority, remained without education and unfinished primary school. In the available studies relating to the census data from 2011 a similar category is no longer available, however it was pointed out that 82% of Roma declaring education, chose education category "lower than secondary education". During the two censuses respondents were asked for secondary education: in 2002, 247 Polish citizens of Roma origin declared having secondary education; in 2011 they were 934. As for the higher education, 13 declared to have it in 2002; they were 272 in 2011.

 

Exact figures on the number of Roma children and youth covered with compulsory education are difficult to determine. However, the data from annual reports submitted by voivodeship offices shows that this figure is steadily increasing (in the school year 2004/2005 it amounted to 2,844 people, while in 2012/2013 it was 3,259). Data on the number of Roma children pursuing compulsory education are also estimated. In addition to information collected annually by voivodes - based on reporting by educational institutions in Education Information System - on the number of Roma pupils for whom schools undertake additional educational activities (2,547 pupils in 2013). Moreover, the Minister responsible for religious denominations and national and ethnic minorities collects annually information on the number of Roma pupils benefiting from support under the assistance programmes (monitoring the number of pupils for whom school starter kits, insurance were purchased, participating in the classes in community centres, etc.). Analysis of the above data, and reports on the implementation of the Roma Programme indicates that over 80% of children covered with compulsory education actually pursues this duty. Also worrying is the high proportion of Roma students in special education (the national average is 17%).

 

Roma and pre-school education

 

Despite the increase in the number of Roma children benefiting from early childhood education, sending children to kindergartens is still not widespread among Roma families. According to Education Information System in 2013, 338 Roma children attended kindergartens and kindergarten units. Since 2013, one year of compulsory pre-school education has been introduced for all children aged 5, which should improve the situation.

 

Main challenges in relation to (pre-school) education of Roma

 

In Poland, challenges exist both within the Roma communities and from an institutional perspective. Poverty and cultural patters, especially among traditional Roma groups, are obstacles to the enrolment of children in pre-school education and education at large: a number of Roma families face financial difficulties and education appears less a priority compared to daily economic survival although pre-school education is covered in the framework of governmental support. This is particularly true for Roma children dropping out of school before finishing secondary education. For very young children, there is a certain over-protectiveness on the side of mothers which plays in favour of keeping their children at home with the family rather than sending them to pre-school. Another factor is the lack of trust in the school system which is often linked to stereotypes, prejudice and negative attitude towards Roma children.

 

2.1.5 "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

 

Size and composition of the Roma groups

 

According to the 2002 population census, the number of self-declared Roma is 53,879, i.e. 2.6% of the total population. In addition, 3,843 declared to be Egyptians. Researchers’ estimates of the Roma population vary from 80,000 to 260,000. The estimated figure used by the Council of Europe is close to 200,000 (Roma and Egyptians included), i.e. 9.5% of the total population. The country is also home to nearly 1,700 refugees, mostly Roma, who fled their homes as a result of the 1999 conflict in Kosovo*. Most of these persons are living in the municipality Šuto Orizari in Skopje. Most Roma speak Romani as their first language, others speak Albanian; most of them practice Islam.

 

Roma are recognised as a distinct ethnicity in the preamble of the Constitution. The Skopje neighbourhood of Shuto Orizari is Europe's first Roma municipality (led by a Roma mayor) and the only one in the world where the Romani language has been granted an official status.

 

Roma do not concentrate in a particular region of the country, but are instead spread all over the territory. According to the 2002 population census, 27 municipalities have a share of Roma exceeding 1%; 10 of them have a share of Roma exceeding 4%. Ethnic differences are less relevant than the way of life, costume and appearance that the members of this group share. Most of them still speak their own language, Romani, together with the language that dominates in the regions where they are located, i.e. Macedonian and/or Albanian. A number of Roma in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” are Muslim, although some of them practise other religions too.

 

Roma and education

 

There are several studies that indicate that the enrolment of Roma children in all levels of education is 20 to 30% lower than among non-Roma, and the drop-out rate of children is two times higher among Roma, in comparison to non-Roma children. Some of the positive measures aimed at promoting the inclusion of Roma in mainstream education have however borne results, such as a reduction of the drop-out rate between fifth and sixth grade among girls and the doubling of Roma enrolment in public universities in the past seven years (from 150 in 2005 to 300 in 2012).

 

The drop-out rate of Roma children is high. It is due to health problems because of bad weather conditions and outbreaks but also because of the lack of awareness among some Roma parents about the importance for their children to attend kindergarten.

 

Other challenges include the over-representation of Roma in special schools for children with disabilities, the need to secure participation of Roma children in mainstream pre-school education and to adequately inform Roma parents of all steps undertaken by the authorities relating to the inclusion of their children in mainstream education. The lack of personal identity document can also be an issue though birth certificates are no longer required to enrol children in public elementary schools.[28]

 

One of the major problems that contribute to the low level of education among the Roma population is poor socio-economic condition of the community. Official data from March 2014 indicate that 2% percent of all unemployed persons are Roma (based on official statistic from the people who are active in search for a job). Data from 2011 provide insight into the educational profile of the unemployed Romani population: 88% had complete or incomplete primary education, 4.14% had complete or incomplete secondary education and only 0.2% (40 persons) had completed tertiary education.[29]

 

Roma and pre-school education

Pre-school education is not compulsory. However, a project called «Inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education» implemented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and supported by the Roma Education Fund, is implemented in 18 municipalities to provide pre-school education for Roma children.

 

One of the main problems identified in the field of education is the large percentage of Roma children who are not enrolled in pre-school education (and at the opposite spectrum, in higher levels of education).  Although there are activities that directly contribute to the inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education, the number of Roma children aged 0-6 years who are not covered by any form of pre-school education is still high. The main reasons for the low level of inclusion of Roma children in kindergartens are:

 

  1. The fact that children speak Romani at home and have little knowledge of the Macedonian language. In 80% of the 18 municipalities targeted by the REF-supported project for Roma inclusion, Roma people mostly speak the Romani language.  This contributes to a low level of knowledge of the Macedonian language among the Roma community. The curriculum according to which the educational process is carried out is mostly in Macedonian language, which is why the Roma students have problems with learning and understanding the educational programme.
  2. The low awareness of Roma families about the importance of enrolling their children in pre-school institutions. The parents still do not understand the importance and the need of inclusion of their children in pre-school education and up-bringing, have some percentage of children who did not succeed in completing the pre-school educational process.
  3. Financial problem for the parents due to the fact that pre-school education being not compulsory, it is not free of charge (it costs 25 Euros per child per month).
  4. Low capacities and poor conditions in the kindergartens, etc.

 

In the academic year 2009/2010, 20,317 children (of all nationalities) aged 0-6 years were enrolled in 52 kindergartens; 454 or 2.23% of them were Roma children. In the academic year 2010/2011, there were 23,503 children (of all nationalities); 551 or 2.34% of them were Roma children. In the academic year 2011/2012, there were 25,200 children (of all nationalities); about 600 or 2.38 % of them were Roma children. The above suggests that the percentage of inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education is slowly increasing thanks in particular to the project “Inclusion of Roma children in public pre-school institutions” jointly conducted by the Roma Education Fund (REF) and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy between 2009 and 2012 and to the implementation of the project A Good Start (AGS)[30] in four Macedonian localities. Despite these efforts, the percentage of inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education remains particularly low.[31]

 

Main challenges in relation to (pre-school) education of Roma

 

According to several conducted studies on the educational status/needs of the Roma, few reasons have been stated as factors for the low educational status of the Roma:

 

  1. Low socio-economic status of the Roma population;
  2. High percentage of Roma children which are not enrolled in pre-school education;
  3. The number of Roma children enrolled in primary education is lower than the number of children who are required to attend primary school;
  4. Low level of knowledge of the Macedonian language when entering primary education, thus causing difficulties for Roma children to fully understanding the programme;
  5. Low awareness of Roma parents regarding the importance of pre-school education of their children.

 

The 2011 UNDP/WB/EC regional Roma survey revealed disproportionate literacy levels between Romani communities and the general population, with around 17% of adult Roma being illiterate. The literacy gap among adult Roma and non-Roma is 13 percentage points, while this gap is even bigger among Romani and non-Romani women (20 percentage points).

 

There is among Roma children a lower attendance rate, as well as higher drop-out rates than in the non-Roma population. The problem of low enrolment is particularly critical in pre-school education which is of utmost importance for the further education of children, especially regarding the learning of the national language used in school.

 

Child begging is a widespread problem which affects Roma pupils’ attendance at school.

 

Despite the increase of enrolment, attendance rates of the Roma children in day-care programmes remain much lower than the rest of the population. The main reason is the high monthly fee for public kindergarten (€.25 while most of the families live below the poverty line of €.94 monthly income). Primary education and, since the 2008–2009 academic year, secondary education is compulsory in the country. Yet enforcement is weak, in large part because families living in poverty are not able to pay cash penalties from €.400 to 700. Only one out of ten Roma children complete the primary school cycle, approximately half as high as among Macedonian citizens. Moreover, it appears that only a fifth of Roma children attend the secondary cycle.

 

2.2 National and international timing, context and expectations of the thematic visit

 

2.2.1Context, timing and expectations as regards the Czech Republic

 

The purpose of this thematic visit was to better understand and compare practices of pre-school education in requesting and partner countries, and to discuss the current education reforms. Particular attention was devoted to inclusive education as opposed to the enrolment and often misplacement of Roma children in segregated school institutions or in schools/programmes for mild mental disabled.

 

For the Children’s Right Division of the Council of Europe, the purpose of participating in this thematic visit was gaining more information on the practice of early education, pre-school segregation, children’s right respect in Czech Republic, at discussing measures undertaken or envisaged to combat misplacement of Roma children in practical schools, zero classes whilst at the same time looking at the situation and experience in partner countries, in particular inclusive, multicultural education and parenting support or desegregation policies and measures.

 

The proposal from Czech authorities to be a requesting country and host a CAHROM thematic visit of partner countries' experts on pre-school education was much welcome by the CAHROM and timely from a national perspective. Indeed, the Czech Republic has been going through a reform of its education policy and discussions are still on-going concerning proposed amendments to pre-school education-related legislation which will have a direct impact on the pre-school and primary education of Roma children. Recent developments in the Czech Republic in the field of education include the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Office of the Czech Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs and Secretariat of the Government Council for National Minorities was therefore keen to hear partner countries’ experience not only in their pre-school offers for Roma children but also the education acts in place and affirmative measures taken for increasing Roma children’s education. The Education Deputy Minister was interested in particular to hear more from partner countries about accompanying affirmative measures such as free meals, free transport, free textbooks, etc.

 

The thematic visit was also timely from the point of view of the international context as it took place in a context of great attention towards the education situation of Roma children.

 

2.2.2Context and timing at the international level

 

At the level of the Council of Europe

 

The situation of Roma education, whether it concerns school segregation of Roma children, their over-representation in programmes for mild mental disabilities or early school drop-outs, especially between primary and secondary levels, have been raised as a subject of concern in member States of the Council of Europe whether by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights[36], the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance or the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities[37]. As an example, in November 2012 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Nils Muižnieks, published a Human Rights Comment on segregation of Roma children in education[38]. On 12-16 November 2012, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights visited the Czech Republic to address measures undertaken by the Czech authorities to comply with the ECtHR judgment D.H. and Others v. The Czech Republic. The Commissioner raised also concerns about the school segregation of Roma children and their education in special institutions or classes in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, following his visit to Skopje in November 2012.[39]

 

At the level of the European Union

 

At the level of OSCE-ODIHR

The OSCE-ODIHR also devoted special attention to the education of Roma children. From 21 to 25 May 2012, a team of nine experts from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) visited the Czech Republic to assess educational opportunities for Roma children in the country. Advisers on Roma and Sinti issues from ODIHR, representatives of the Irish OSCE Chairmanship and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, as well as legal and academic experts on education and Roma issues travelled to six cities (Ostrava, Brno, Rumburk, Šluknov, Ústí nad Labem and Prague) to examine good practices and challenges in providing education for Roma children[43]. The report of this visit was released on 26 October 2012.

On 29 May 2014, a seminar on equal access to quality education for Roma children co-organised by the OSCE-ODIHR with the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation and Slovo 21, a local NGO, brought together some 50 participants, including government officials, Roma parents, and representatives from civil society and the international community, to discuss the implementation of recommendations from ODIHR’s report following a 2012 field assessment visit to the Czech Republic.

 

At the level of international NGOs (AI, ERRC, ERTF, OSF, REF, etc.)

 


3. POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN THE FIELD OF (PRE-SCHOOL) EDUCATION AND MEASURES AND PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN

 

3.1 The Czech Republic

 

Legal and policy framework

 

The relevant legal framework includes:

 

The 2005 Education Act[46] abolished the so-called special schools (renamed “practical schools”). Some of them were transformed into regular primary schools. Pupils are educated according to the relevant education programmes[47].The framework education programme of the primary school also addresses education of pupils with special educational needs[48] and pupils with light mental disability. Education of pupils according to individual programmes is performed on the basis of recommendations from the school counselling facility and with the previous consent from children’s legal representatives. Individual primary schools have prepared their school education programmes in accordance with framework education programmes, the process has been tested at pilot schools. Teaching according to school education programmes is started gradually – kindergartens, primary one to six, followed by additional years of primary schools in next years and other types of schools. School education programmes are assessed according to framework education programmes by the Czech School Inspection, in line with the Education Act, school councils have been established at schools which enable to parents, inter alia, to influence a school’s educational process. In order to increase protection and quality of care for non-governmental non-profit organisations, but also school facilities for special-interest education, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports has put in place the system of vocational training of staff working with children and youth according to the Instruction of the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports on testing of vocational training of staff working with children and youth in the area of leisure-time activities,[49] the Guidance Notes of the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports on securing further education of pedagogical staff of facilities for special-interest training of 2 July 2003 and recognition of the so-called Organisations for work with children and youth for the period 2007–2010 by the decision of the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports.

 

Recent developments in the Czech Republic in the field of education include the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

A number of proposed amendments to the School Act were controversial. The proposed initial wording of Section 16a § 5 of the School (Education) Act has been in particular the subject of debates between the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and some state institutions and civil society organisations.

 

According to the Czech Government, the proposed wording of Section 16a § 5 of the School (Education) Act is meant to ensure that diagnostics of mental disability is not based solely on IQ test results, which may be an insufficient basis for the placement of pupils with a social disadvantage including Roma pupils into a pertinent educational programme.

 

The Czech Government disagreed with the statement of NGOs (such as COSIV) that there are not enough standardised instruments and no methods for assessing the adaptive skills of pupils. The Government stated in its reply to those comments send to the Council of Europe that the Czech Republic has “endeavoured to set up a transparent environment in the counselling system in particular through:

 

 

The Government underlined that in December 2012 an expert group on diagnostic instruments in the education system was established. The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports subsequently launched a development programme for supporting the introduction of new or less available diagnostic instruments including training for their use in practice.

 

In 2013 the Czech adaptation of the IDS test was published and put into practice, containing 21 subtests. Standardisation of the CFT 20-R test was also completed in the same year, involving a large number of Roma pupils. A detailed test manual for the CFT 20-R test was prepared in 2014 and it will be available for psychologists in the course of 2015.

 

As regards the use of new tests, the Government pointed out that a total of 484 psychologists were trained in the administration of the Woodcock-Johnson test, which covers the needs of school counselling facilities in the Czech Republic. A total of 314 experts were trained in the use of the IDS test between 2013 and 2014. Besides, 205 experts were trained in the use of the MaTeRS test between 2013 and 2014.

 

Thanks to support provided by the MEYS in 2014 the needs of counselling facilities were met evenly in the territory of the whole Czech Republic and as a result each facility now has relevant tests at its disposal as well as staff trained in their administration.

 

As for providing diagnostic instruments and training about their use, the MEYS will continue to take various steps with the aim of achieving further improvements (for details please refer to the Revised Action Plan); however, it needs to be highlighted that already the present situation makes it possible to objectively diagnose mental disability.

 

When it comes to the methodological guidance of counselling facilities, the Government notes that in the course of 2014 the National Institute for Education (NIE) in collaboration with an expert group for MMD diagnostics came up with a standard (methodology) for diagnosing cognitive skills of pupils with special educational needs. Among other things, the document describes current diagnostic criteria of mental disability, procedures governing rough assessment of social disadvantage, prerequisites of culturally appropriate diagnostics and modalities of using interventions and dynamic diagnostics. Besides, it also specifies certain approaches to modifying a diagnostic conclusion depending on specific living conditions of the pupil, for which sufficiently specific guidelines are not provided even by test manuals. The standard emphasizes the use of a broad range of information about a pupil. It also highlights the need for interventions (i.e. specific support for the pupil), the need for monitoring response to the intervention and the need for dynamic diagnostics in ambiguous cases and in cases of pupils with a major social disadvantage. A diagnosis should be made only when there is a sufficient certainty that a correct diagnostic conclusion has been arrived at. Between 2015 and 2016 the methodology will be introduced into practice and the NIE will provide methodological guidance in this respect. More detailed information is given in the Revised Action Plan“.

 

Mr Tomáš Sirovátka from Masaryk University, the author of a study on the Czech national policy for promoting social inclusion of Roma published in July 2011 concludes that, although the policy objectives in the above-mentioned documents cover all the important areas, the targets are formulated only at a general level (except for the new Strategy to Combat Social Exclusion 2011-2015). Social inclusion of Roma is not well mainstreamed or coordinated. Progress in key areas is minor, as indicated by the small increase in the numbers of pedagogical assistants, preparatory classes, kindergartens in Roma communities, field social workers, health assistants, social housing; employment programmes, etc.

 

This critical analysis has been echoed by other observers. The National Action Plan for Inclusive Education (NAPIE), adopted in 2010, was said to lack concrete actions for its implementation and fail to acknowledge racial discrimination as a main cause for segregation[51]. The European Commission, commenting the National Strategy for the Integration of Roma 2012-2020, equally reported a lack of concrete measures in the chapter on desegregation and a lack of focus on inclusive education[52]. The Strategy to Combat Social Exclusion (2011-2015), however, foresees a number of concrete measures to promote desegregation, including a progressive closing down of primary practical schools and increased access of Roma children to pre-school education.

 

In 2005 all remedial schools were renamed from “special schools” to “practical schools” It appears however that the content and methods of education applied in these schools have not changed much[53]. A report of the Czech School Inspectorate released in 2010 revealed that 83% of the now practical schools continued to function as “hidden special schools” just as before 2005.

 

Responsible bodies have been established as well, including the Inter-ministerial Commission for Roma Community Affairs and the Agency for Social Inclusion in Roma Localities. Several initiatives, such as pedagogical assistants, preparatory classes, programmes of community field work and others have been put in place.

 

 

3.2. Hungary

 

Legal and policy framework

 

The relevant legislation[54] includes:

 

In Hungary, the policy approach is somehow a mixed approach between mainstreaming and targeting, in accordance with the EU basic principle of explicit but not exclusive targeting. Since most of the Hungarian Roma, about 80% of them, live in extreme poverty in disadvantaged regions, a policy aimed at the inclusion of the Roma in Hungary cannot be separated from the general fight against poverty and the improvement of social and economic competitiveness. At the same time, the Hungarian government agrees that particular attention should be paid to the ethnic group of the Roma as experiences show that they are the poorest of the poor and have been least reached by the various inclusion programmes.

 

Article 68 of the 1990 Hungarian Constitution provides minorities, including Roma, with the right to preserve their culture, language and history, allowing political collective participation in public life, as well as the rights to their own organisations and to establish regional and national self-governing bodies. The Romani language is recognised as an official minority language and the group is officially recognised as a minority[55]. The recognition of both individual and collective rights of minorities and members of minorities was granted through the 1993 Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities[56] which granted 13 such groups, including Roma, the right to self-government and personal autonomy. All the 13 minorities listed in the Minorities Act of 1993 possess dual identity (Hungarian and ethnic minority) and have the right to elect their own local self-governments, parallel to the national one. This provided the path to Roma autonomy and the formation of the National Gypsy[57] Minority Self-Government (National Roma Self-Government since 2011). The self-governing bodies act as advisory boards in co-operation with the national and local majority authority.

 

The National Roma Self-government and the Roma minority self-governments have the right to maintain and to establish schools and also operate schools of their own in the spirit of cultural and educational autonomy. Education in the school system enables Roma pupils to acquaint themselves with the cultural values of the Roma and provides information on the status, rights, organisations and institutions of the Roma. This form of education and teaching successfully operates in a number of localities. It is, however, necessary to provide further guarantees to prevent Roma minority education from becoming a means of segregation.

 

The forms, content and framework of the kindergarten and school education of the Roma minority are regulated in the Decrees on kindergarten education of national and ethnic minorities and on school education of national and ethnic minorities. The purpose of kindergarten education is to prepare children for a successful entry into the school system by consciously building on the differences and similarities between the Roma culture and the majority culture.

 

The State Secretariat for Social Inclusion plays a coordinative role between the various ministries and secretariats with the aim to promote social inclusion. It also closely co-operates with the National Roma Minority Self-government.

 

Through Act LXXIX of 1993 on Public Education (amended in 1996 and in 2003), an action programme was elaborated in the field of education, which allowed the regional minority self-governing bodies the possibility of setting up educational institutions in the minority language, alongside the possibility to address educational desegregation.

 

Both the Act on the Promotion of Equal Treatment and Equal Opportunities adopted in 2003 and the Civil Code provide general anti-discrimination legislation. Article 10 (2) of the 2003 Act on the Promotion of Equal Treatment and Equal Opportunities defines segregation in education and prohibits it as a form of discrimination: “unlawful segregation is a conduct that separates individuals or groups of individuals from others on the basis of their characteristics as defined in Article 8 without a reasonable explanation resulting from objective consideration”.

 

The target groups of educational equal opportunities programmes are, in every instance and regardless of ethnicity, groups of pupils/students qualifying as pupils/students with multiple disadvantages or as disadvantaged as defined in Section 121 Point 14 of Act LXXIX of 1993 on Public Education. Decree No. 4/2010. (I.19.)

 

As regards the separate topic of classification of pupils with mild disabilities, the Decree No. 4/2010. (I.19.) OKM on relevant procedure and professional requirements for the tests and examinations identifies the relevant procedure and the professional requirements of the tests and examinations serving as the basis of the subsequent expert opinion.

 

In Hungary, children/students with special education needs have the right to receive special education, adapted physical and conductive education within the framework of special treatment, after their eligibility was determined. The education of special treatment shall be provided for in line with the expert opinion of a committee of experts. The parent shall select the educational institution that provides appropriate education for pupils/students with special education needs on the basis of the expert opinion of the relevant committee of experts, in consideration of the needs and the possibilities of parents and children.

 

The pre-school education of children with special education needs, and of students in education institutions and halls of residence shall be conducted in an adapted physical education institution established for this purpose, in a conductive education institution, in a pre-school group or school class, partly or fully together with peers and students in the same pre-school group or school class (hereinafter: pre-schools and schools, hall of residence involved separately, jointly or partly in the education of children/students with special education needs together: educational institution involved in adapted physical education).

 

The education of children/students with special education needs require the prevalence of the following conditions:

 

  1. the involvement of a special needs teacher, conductor with appropriate skills to educate children / students according to the type and the rate of their special education needs, special curricula, course books and other instruments;

 

  1. in case of individual educational plans, integrated pre-school education, school education, developmental education and developmental teaching, a special needs teacher with special qualifications in line with the requirements set by the committee of experts, furthermore, special curricula, course books for the classes and special medical and technical equipment;

 

  1. the committee of experts’ decision on the areas to be developed.

 

Provision for pupils with special educational needs (SEN) within mainstream education may contribute to their successful education and integration in their communities. Mainstream schools also teaching SEN pupils have to ensure that SEN pupils are fully integrated and are able to make progress together with other pupils. The Guideline for the kindergarten and school education of children and pupils with special educational needs supports inclusive education in mainstream schools and at the same time provides a framework for schools to develop their local curricula and practice. It also defines the amendments that may be made to the content of subjects to suit the needs of the various groups of SEN pupils. An individual development plan has to be prepared for SEN pupils requiring individual progress at school.

 

Mainstream schools also catering for SEN pupils are assisted by the services and mobile professionals of Integrated Special Education Methodology Institutions. These methodology institutions may also perform some of the tasks of the pedagogical assistance services as well as family support and school health care.

 

The Public Education Act provides for extra services and preferential treatment for SEN pupils:

 

Children/pupils with social, behaviour and learning difficulties are also given special support. They are provided differentiated teaching/activities and extra services such as educational counselling or speech therapy.

 

Physical, sensory, intellectual and speech disabilities are ascertained by national and county level expert committees. The expert and rehabilitation committee examining sight, hearing and speech operate at national level while those examining leaning ability operate in Budapest and in each county. The head of the committee is a special teacher with professional skills corresponding to the type of disability and its members are psychologists and specialists. They draw up an expert opinion on the children examined based on which they make a proposal for the institution providing kindergarten education or school education, as well as for the specific requirements for education and teaching of the child or student.

 

The expert committees may make a proposal not only for admission of children in special classes but also for their transferring from special classes into the classes of the integrating majority school. The parents of students with special education needs have the right to intervene in the choice of institution in which their children would be educated. Physical, sensory, intellectual and speech disabilities may only be established by expert and rehabilitation committees examining only learning abilities and by national committees engaged in expert and rehabilitation activities based on a complex (medical, teaching, special teaching and psychological) examination. The detailed rules of procedure are laid down in the Ministerial Decree. Examination starts at the request, with the agreement and in the presence of the parents.

 

The committees established for diagnosing physical, sensory (visual and hearing) and speech impairment operate at national level and expert and rehabilitation committees examining learning abilities operate in each county and in Budapest (to establish or exclude diagnoses classified as the collective category of intellectual disability and “permanent and severe disability of the education and learning process due to disorders of psychic development”). Based on the screening and examination of the disability, a proposal is drawn up for the child’s or student’s care in the framework of special education as well as for the way, form and place of care and for the pedagogical assistance service related to the care. The proposal for the type of education to be provided is made on the basis of the criteria underlying the classification of the individual types of disabilities.

 

The committee’s expert opinion has to:

 

The institution is chosen by the parents from those complying with the conditions for education of the child or student concerned. If a child is disabled, the parents’ freedom of choice of institution is restricted to the choice between kindergartens and schools suggested by the committee. Parents’ co-operation is not only a right but also an obligation. The provisions of the Constitution stipulate that the parents have the right to choose the form of education to be given to their children but at the same time they are obliged to ensure the upbringing of their children, including educating them. Development of a child may not depend on the parents’ will or approval exclusively, therefor the notary of the place of residence may order the parents – in the framework of public administration procedure – to appear at the expert examination with their child and then to enrol him/her in the appropriate education institution.

 

A public administration procedure may be initiated, in the interest of the child or student, by:

 

Parents may file an appeal, in which case the local government authority makes a decision on the case.

 

The children and students who are not able to attend compulsory education at their place of residence participate in school education either by daily commuting – which is assisted by school buses only at some locations, so usually they have to use public transport – or by weekly accommodation in student hostels (from Monday to Friday). The family receives an aid for travelling in both cases.

 

Institutions available for mentally disabled children operate in the counties and those for children with physical or sensory disabilities operate in larger territorial units (individual regions) but, e.g., those for blind, partially sighted or students with physical disability operate at two or three places in the country.

 

Age groups and grouping of children and students

The public education of students with special education needs or disabilities starts from the day their disability was identified. From the age of 0 to 3 (or maximum 5) they participate in early intervention, from the age of 3 they attend kindergarten education and from the age of 6 or 7 they attend basic school education. The law also enables children with severe or multiple disabilities to participate in compulsory education.

 

Kindergarten and school education

Children with special education needs (disabilities) may participate in kindergarten education from age 3, and then continue in basic school until grade 8. After completing basic school, children with special education needs may continue their studies in a general secondary school, a vocational secondary school, a vocational school or a special vocational school. Children with special education needs must be accounted for as two or three children (depending on the type and severity of disability) in the average number of students per group or per class.

 

Early intervention

It starts when the child’s special education need (disability) is identified and it involves development activities for the child and consultation for parents. After age 3, the child may continue to participate in early intervention if he/she cannot join kindergarten. The task can be carried out in various forms: home-based provision, care in crèche, special needs counselling, early intervention centre etc.

 

Developmental education

In Hungary children with severe or multiple disabilities were granted complete exemption from compulsory education and received no school education until 1994. With the introduction of developmental preparation under the training obligation in 1994, children with severe or multiple disabilities received individual development in individual sessions at least three hours a week, or in case of group sessions, at least five hours a week.

 

In 2005, the Public Education Act defined developmental preparation as one form of accomplishing compulsory education and therefore provided a legal basis for children with severe or multiple disabilities to receive education, teaching and development in the form of developmental school education every day as appropriate to their condition. Developmental school education has been optionally organised since 2006 and mandatorily organised since 2010. Since 2012, developmental education can only be provided by special education institutions in principle. Developmental school units currently operating in welfare institutions are phased out until August 2014.

 

Developmental education is an integrated process organised not by grades but in accordance with developmental phases of students. It is based on the individual development plans determining the personalised development, education and rehabilitation programme. Similarly to mainstream education, it follows the schedule of the school year.

 

Curriculum, subjects

The National Core Curriculum is the basic document of school education of students with special education needs as well. When they elaborate their teaching programme, schools may apply the National Core Curriculum in accordance with their local features and taking the provisions of the Guideline for the education of students with special education needs into account. The contents of education, teaching and development outlined in the basic document are necessary for all children despite the differences between students.

 

Schools take the differences between students into account when they draw up their local teaching programmes. Disability is such a form of differences between children which necessitates higher differentiation than that applied usually to contents and procedures, use of special procedures and supplementary teaching services. The objectives, tasks, contents, activities and requirements relating to development (of the disability) need to be integrated in the teaching programme and quality management programme of the institution, in the local curriculum, in the learning-teaching programme related to the thematic units and plans, and in the individual development plan.

 

The schedule of the school year is the same as in mainstream education. Nevertheless, schools providing education for students with special education needs may determine a longer time than one school year for learning the content of one grade. The considerable majority of the institutions make use of this opportunity, usually in the first grade.

 

Teaching methods and materials

The Public Education Act defines the National Core Curriculum as the basic document intended for regulation of the content of school education. Irrespective of whether education and teaching are carried out in a special education institution or integrated, the Guideline should be taken into account when the teaching programme and local curriculum of the school are prepared. The document is aimed at enforcement of the rights of (disabled) children and students with special education needs for special care. The Guideline determines the main development fields intended for reducing and compensating the disadvantages resulting from disability, the basic principles, objectives and key tasks of development, as well as the tasks and forms of activities assisting teaching and health rehabilitation for all fields of the national disability categories.

 

The Individual schools and other special education institutions may decide of their own the methods they consider the most adequate and the procedures they use in the process of education. Such methods differ according to individual disabilities but in each case they obey the content requirements laid down in the National Core Curriculum. In the course of their application, school education is characterized by the subject-based approach. The Guideline defines the necessary modification of or supplement to the individual contents rather than including the contents specific to the impairment in separate subjects.

 

In each (mainstream or separate) school teaching students with special education needs mandatory health and education classes are integrated in the school curriculum. The rehabilitation time frame is 15-50% of the weekly compulsory number of lesson defined for the relevant grade, depending on the type of disability. Students participate in as many rehabilitation activities as required to reduce their disadvantage resulting from disability. In this time frame, such education activities (subjects) may be planned which are necessary for each student of the class and various individual therapeutic activities planned for individuals and small groups may be performed.

 

The Guideline defines the tasks of health and education rehabilitation in all fields of disability by designating the frames and objectives. The following are examples in the individual fields of disability:

 

The institution is responsible for filling rehabilitation classes with specific contents and forms of activities, which may be modified within the institution – as necessary – in compliance with the current development needs of the students concerned.

 

Competence-based programme packages suitable for promoting both inclusive and separate special education have been developed. Each programme package is accompanied by recommendations taking into account the specific features of the various disabilities. These recommendations contain:

 

Progression of pupils

The rules for progression of students participating in separate special education are the same as those relating to mainstream schools.

 

Evaluation of school performance and admission in further school grades are stipulated by and described in the requirements of the school’s local curriculum. In the event a student with special education needs changes schools/school types, an expert and rehabilitation committee has to examine whether the conditions necessary for the education of the student are met by the relevant institution.

 

Completion of grade 8 of the basic school gives entitlement to continuing studies in upper secondary schools. Most students with physical and sensory disabilities participate in secondary school education together with other students. Most intellectually disabled students perform secondary studies in special vocational schools.

 

Transfer from separate special education into mainstream education is possible on the basis of the proposal of an expert rehabilitation committee.

 

Certification

As a rule, (disabled) students participating in special education receive a final certificate equivalent to that of non-disabled students in mainstream schools. The marks entered in the certificate are based on the assessment of the performance of the student during the school year and are preceded normally by no special examination. An exception is when the student has performed compulsory education as a private student.

 

In the event the school allows a longer time than one school year for learning the curriculum of a grade, the mid-year school report and the end-of-year certificate are issued at the half and at the end of the increased teaching period, respectively.

 

Special vocational schools indicate in the final certificate – In the event a special school transfers knowledge required for commencement of employment or starting life - the field of activity in which the disabled student received theoretic and/or practical education in the final certificate.

 

3.3 Latvia

 

Legal and policy framework

 

The main legal texts that define the sphere of education in Latvia includes the Education Law from 1998 and the General Education Law from 1999. The 1998 Law of Education forbids the differential treatment to education. It means that Roma people have the same rights and obligations with regard to education as the general Latvian population. Every child has the right to equal and quality education.

 

Pre-school education is under the responsibility of municipalities. Since 2002, education of 5-6 year old children is compulsory. 

 

More specific guarantees, aims and goals are regulated by the normative acts of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia. For example, the amendments to the Cabinet Regulation No. 461 of 18 May 2010 “Regulations Regarding the Classification of Occupations, the Basic Tasks Appropriate to the Occupation and the Basic Qualification Requirements, and the Procedures for the Use and Updating of the Classification of Occupations” allow municipalities to provide their pre-schools and elementary schools with a teachers’ assistant of Roma background in order to promote school attending especially among Roma children. The general secondary education level is the minimal grade to work as teachers’ assistant of Roma background, but in the same time the tertiary pedagogical education is necessary to be employed as non-Roma teacher assistant.

 

Given the specific national situation and conditions, such as the small Roma population, Latvia has developed a series of national Roma integration policy measures (hereafter “Measures”). These Measures have been included in the development planning document: National Identity, Civil Society and Integration Policy Guidelines 2012-2018 (hereinafter “Guidelines”). There are concrete actions and projects will be formulated to implement the Measures in every two years in close co-operation with the representatives of the Roma community.

 

In 2012 the Council supervising the implementation of Roma integration policy measures (thereafter - Council) has been established by the Ministry of Culture. The Council includes representatives from state bodies (co-responsible ministries, the Office of the Ombudsman, local authorities, and educational authorities), Roma and non-Roma NGOs that work in the area of protecting the interests of the Roma, as well as experts in Roma integration issues. Totally 8 Roma representatives are involved in the Council: 6 representatives of Roma NGOs, one representative from the Office of Ombudsman and one expert. The main aim of the Council is to assess and foster the policy for Roma integration, as well as to promote civil participation of the Roma community and to strengthen cooperation between the Roma community and national authorities, in accordance with the National identity, civil society and integration policy guidelines for 2012-2018. The main tasks of the Council are ensuring an effective implementation and evaluation of results of the policy for Roma integration and particular the set of national Roma integration policy measures; providing recommendation to the authorities to improve the implementation of the policy for Roma integration especially in field of education, employment, health care and housing; fostering the cooperation between Roma community, authorities, stakeholders, social partners, NGO and experts; evaluating the possibility of effective use of EU structural funds to implementation of the set of national Roma integration policy measures.

 

Roma representatives are also members of the Consulting Council in Ethnic Minority Education Affairs of the Ministry of Education and Science.

 

The Measures of the national Roma integration policy have been developed in accordance with the European Union, Council of Europe and other international instruments and legislative acts binding on Latvia. These have also been inspired by Recommendations of the study “Roma rights to education: implementing the situation in Latvia”. According to this study, the main challenges for Roma integration in the area of education are as follows:

 

The Guidelines define the following policy results to be achieved and result indicators which have a targeted approach to Roma. The main policy areas set out in the Reform Programme for reducing the proportion of young people who do not finish school are as follows:

 

Given that the Roma are one of the social groups with one of the lowest levels of education, and the fact that a large number of Roma children drop out of the education process before completing their education, the tasks set out in the Reform Programme for reducing the proportion of young people who do not finish school also apply to the Roma population.

 

Solutions provided:

 

 

Teacher's assistants of Roma background were prepared to work in the school environment during the following projects of the Centre for Education Initiatives (CEI):

 

 

Other examples of projects run by the Centre for Education Initiatives (CEI) include[58]:

 

 

Roma children's inclusion and integration into mainstream education and the integration of their families, especially senior Roma, into society, is promoted through cooperation and intercultural dialogue in order to reduce social disparity.

 

In that respect, parental support centres and adult education - through cooperation with teachers, school administrators, local government representatives and parents - lead to more educated Roma adults who are more inclined to send their children to school.

 

New projects are being initiated under the “Social rehabilitation programme for Roma families with pre-school or school age children” for the 2012-2013 school year in Jelgava and Jurmala.

 

There are also many special activities regarding Roma inclusion, including Roma education, that are implemented in the framework of PROGRESS 2007-2013 project “Different people. Various experiences. One Latvia”. For example, Roma NGO leaders and representatives, specialists of municipalities and local governments, as well pedagogical staff of schools, are involved in activities to raise awareness of Roma and supporting their integration. These activities are implemented in 2012-2013 by the Social Integration Fund and the Ministry of Culture.

 

3.4 Poland

 

Legal and policy framework

 

It should be emphasised that the existing measures taken by the government of Poland in the area of promoting education among the Roma led to many systemic changes in the approach to education:

 

Moreover:

 

The number of ad hoc measures was taken to promote awareness on the subject of diagnosis of Roma children and providing them with support adequate to the needs in the education system:

 

Changes in the approach to the school education and extracurricular of the part of Roma observed during the implementation of the aid programmes allow to put forward the thesis that to a large extent, the Roma community recognizes the benefits coming from education, and being educated, and the actions taken to date should be continued - as a priority support.

 

3.5 “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

 

Legal and policy framework

 

The Preamble of the Macedonian Constitution explicitly recognizes Roma as an ethnic community. The same applies for the Ohrid Framework Agreement signed in 2001.

 

The pre-school education in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is regulated by the Law on Child Protection. The implementation of the "Inclusion of Roma Children in Public Pre-school Institutions" REF-supported project in 18 municipalities and 18 kindergartens was realized in accordance with the Law on Child Protection. This Law regulates the rights and responsibilities of parents and of the kindergartens as institutions. The Law on Child Protection defines the prices for the services of pre-school institutions and the programmes for pre-school education. Child care in all kindergartens is implemented in accordance with this law. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy is in the phase of developing amendments to the Law on Child Protection.

 

The National Strategy for Roma Inclusion (NRIS) is a policy document that was first adopted in 2005 and then reviewed in 2014 for a decade. A National Action Plan for Education was developed as part of this strategy. One of the measures to improve the educational structure of the Roma community is the increasing of the number of Roma children in pre-school institutions. The "Inclusion of Roma Children in Public Pre-school Institutions" project for the years 2009-2012 was created to assist fulfilling this measure. A similar project “Inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education” for the years 2014-2016 was recently approved by the Roma Education Fund (REF) and will be jointly conducted by the Roma Education Fund (REF) and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy.

 

Positive measures have been taken to broaden the educational opportunities of Roma children. This included the adoption of positive discrimination measures in both pre-school education and the following education cycles. Many projects are in place to include parents. In addition, special attention is paid to provide Roma children with the appropriate equipment. Affirmative action is also carried out to ensure that Roma students have access to universities.

 

Through direct inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education, the newly approved Roma Education Fund funded-project will contribute to increasing the participation of Roma children in kindergartens in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. The pre-school education programme is conducted in Macedonian language. This will allow Roma children included in the kindergartens to improve their knowledge of the language of the majority which will ensure their successful participation in primary education. The Roma teacher assistants are engaged on the project in order to help the project children to follow the curriculum which is on Macedonian language. Roma assistants have a crucial role in alleviating Roma children’s integration. Moreover, it will contribute to the increasing the number of Roma children who progress to higher levels of education, especially in elementary and secondary education. Additionally, the project will improve the socialization, and the intellectual, emotional and cognitive development of the children, as well as the adaptation of Roma children in the educational process. The project activities will contribute to raising the awareness of Roma parents to understand the importance of pre-school education for their children. Through all this, we expect increased support to education by the parents themselves in the long run.  The increased level of education among the Roma population will contribute to increasing the competitiveness of the Roma in the labour market. Indirectly, the project will contribute to the improvement of the socio-economic situation of the Roma community.

 

The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy has developed and adopted standards for early childhood development. The Department for Child Protection, together with the UNICEF Office in Skopje, makes efforts for proper implementation of the standards within the pre-school institutions.

 

On February 12, 2013, the National Assembly adopted the new Law on Protection of Children, published in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” No. 23/13 on February 14, 2013. Via this Law, a system for provision of care and education to pre-school children was established aimed towards early childhood development, which provides support to the overall development and well-being of pre-school children. With the incorporation of the majority of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, other relevant conventions, protocols, and of other documents, the protection of children has been raised to a higher level. The updated legal solutions created the need for inclusion of a larger number of children in the institutions for provision of care and education to pre-school children; to that end, the opportunity to open Early Childhood Development Centres for provision of care to children from rural areas aged 3–6 years arose.

 

In addition to the public institutions (kindergartens and early childhood development centres), state institutions can also be formed by the Macedonian Government. Private institutions can be established not only by domestic natural and legal persons, but also by foreign natural and legal persons.

 

With the purpose of raising the level of expertise and competence in the performance of work in this sector, a system for licensing by passing professional examinations and undergoing compulsory training as additional education was established, which has raised the quality level of service provision.

 

The Department for Protection of Children within the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy in collaboration with the UNICEF Office in Skopje continuously provides training to the professional staff of kindergartens in order to educate them on the proper application of the secondary regulations relating to pedagogical records and documentation.

 

The "Inclusion of Roma Children in Public Pre-school Institutions in the Republic of Macedonia" has been implemented since the academic year of 2006/07. The project is implemented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy within the Department for the Implementation of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005 - 2015 and the National Strategy for Roma Inclusion. The project is funded by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Roma Education Fund and 18 Local Self-Government Units in which the project is implemented. 18 Roma NGO’s are local partners in this project.

 

The Government intends to introduce compulsory and free of charge pre-school education (minimum 1 or 2 years before the child enter primary/elementary education, minimum for the children of social welfare beneficiary families). The analyses necessary for the implementation of this policy are currently in progress. The programme will be launched as a pilot programme to evaluate the effects of compulsory pre-school education. The introduction of compulsory pre-school education is particularly important for the successful continuation of the successful practices and the replication of project results.

 

The Government decided in May 2013 to employ the Roma teacher assistants who are permanently employed under the project as from January 2015 (the newest Government decision in this regard, initiated by REF and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, dates from June 2014). This will allow the regularly employment on project level of the Rоmа kindergarten teacher assistants within the kindergartens where they work.

 

4. LESSONS LEARNT AND GOOD PRACTICES IDENTIFIED

 

4.1Conclusions concerning the preparation and organisation of the thematic visit

 

At the debriefing meeting, the group of experts agreed to rename the report "thematic report on inclusive pre-school education for Roma children" in order to better reflect the scope of discussions during the thematic visit and to highlight the need to develop inclusive education, including at pre-school level, particularly in the Czech Republic where “inclusive education” is not sufficiently defined, in line with international standards and recommendations addressed to Czech authorities.

 

Among the positive aspects identified by the partner countries’ experts:

 

Among the shortcomings identified by the partner countries’ experts:

 

The group of experts also regretted the lack of reciprocity between the European Commission and the Council of Europe: whilst the Council of Europe welcomed the participation of the European Commission representative in the CAHROM thematic visit, the Council of Europe representatives could not attend the EC meeting with the Czech authorities scheduled just before the thematic visit, on 18 November 2014.

 

4.2Specific conclusions and lessons learnt

 

4.2.1 Concerning the Czech Republic (requesting country)

 

As a general remark, a more positive approach towards desegregation and inclusive education seems to gain ground among Czech policy makers, as it was noted by the CAHROM group of experts following discussion with various state officials and the Deputy Minister of Education, Youth and Sports during their visit in Prague. However, whilst a number of institutions such as the Czech School Inspectorate, the Ombudsman’s Office, the Agency for Social Inclusion, the Minister for Human Rights, the Office of the Government Council for Roma Minority Affairs and some political parties (e.g. The Greens[62]) seem to be clearly committed to achieve progress on Roma children’s inclusive education, some doubts seem to persist at the level of the entire Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, and at the level of associations of teachers and staff of the Special Education Centres who lobby for the maintenance of practical schools and programmes.

 

As regards the implementation of the ECtHR Judgment in the case of D. H. and Others v. the Czech Republic

 

The group of experts took note that a Revised Action for the Execution of this ECtHR judgement was submitted on 10 February 2015 to the Council of Europe and that this Revised Action Plan, replacing the Consolidated Action Plan, which was submitted to the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16 November 2012, contains an overview of measures for the execution of the judgment that have been implemented to date as well as an overview of measures that will be implemented for the execution of the judgment[63].

 

As regards the forthcoming reform of the Pre-school Act and the proposal to introduce the last year compulsory pre-school education

 

The group of experts believes that pre-school education as an important factor for success should be promoted. The group of experts believes that the present system of no compulsory pre-school education combined with streaming Roma children to so-called practical schools or programmes for mild mental disabilities is a "lose-lose combination". Failing to invest in Roma education dooms large numbers of Roma to unemployment or extremely low-paying jobs and deprives the Government of substantial fiscal revenues, as it was showed by World Bank and UNDP studies.

 

Therefore, experts of the thematic group took note with great interest and satisfaction the proposal to make compulsory the last year pre-school education compulsory for all children. It noted that in practice the proposed reform is aimed de facto at enrolling more Roma children in pre-school mainstream education since 90% of Czech children are already attending pre-school education. The group of experts also noted with satisfaction that pre-school facilities in the Czech Republic are not lacking compared to the opposite situation in many other member States.

 

Whilst welcoming the proposal of the Czech Government to introduce a last year compulsory pre-school year for all children, the group of experts underlined the following support measures that should accompany such development to make it more effective, especially for Roma children and families, in line with the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)4 on the education of Roma and Travellers in Europe[64]:

 

The group of experts discussed whether one year compulsory pre-school education was enough, having in mind that in Hungary compulsory pre-school education is compulsory as from the age of three for all children. The Hungarian expert, based on his experience, recommended that pre-school education for Roma children should be generalised as from the age of three and be financed by the regions[66]. The group came to the conclusion that, as a starting point, it might be sufficient to start with one year compulsory education, provided that there are enough infrastructure and facilities, human resources and free meals and/or transport. Following a monitoring of the results of the introduction of this measure, it could be later envisaged to increase the number of compulsory pre-school years if necessary. The group of experts indicated that the internal guidelines and instructions for school professionals that will follow the adoption of the revised Pre-school Act should provide clear and not biased guidelines for its proper implementation.

 

As regards the system of zero (preparatory) classes

 

Should the introduction of a compulsory pre-school year for all children be introduced in the Czech Republic with the aim to prepare children to primary education, the system of zero (preparatory) classes should be progressively stopped at primary school level. Indeed the group of experts considers that there is a certain incoherence and potential duplication between zero classes and the last year compulsory pre-school, both having the similar objective to prepare the child to primary education and feel comfortable in a mixed school environment. The experts believe that there is a potential risk that Roma pupils may end up doing a compulsory pre-school and still be asked to enrol zero classes in primary schools. Not only this potential risk would put into question the validity and efficiency of the introduction of a compulsory pre-school year, but it will also prolong for at least another year the enrolment of Roma children in primary school classes, creating an unnecessary age difference between Roma and non Roma pupils in subsequent classes from the start of the education process. The more Roma children repeat the first classes, the less educated they are and the less they finish compulsory education because many of them still drop out of school at an early stage for various reasons.

 

With the introduction of a last compulsory pre-school year, the group of experts considers that zero classes should be kept to the minimum and the decision to enrol children – Roma and non Roma –in zero classes should be decided not at the entrance in primary schools but after at least a trimester and following a thorough discussion and common agreement between relevant teachers, the school director, and the parents regarding the aptitudes of the child. When taking the decision, the best interest of the child should always be kept in mind.

 

Zero/preparatory classes in practical schools should be progressively abolished and compulsory pre-school education should be clearly dissociated from practical schools. Indeed the group of experts considers of utmost importance that zero classes or pre-school compulsory education are not misused for the further enrolment of Roma children in schools and programmes for mild mentally disabled.

 

In the meantime, the group of experts would encourage the Czech authorities to develop teaching plans and programmes for the primary “zero/preparatory class” in order to speed up the children’s development during the year spent in this zero class so that they could join the first primary class at the end of this preparatory year[67].

 

As regards the testing of children and incentives

 

As this issue was raised in the more general context of school enrolment of Roma children, the group of experts would like to recall in that respect the conclusions of the 2012 CAHROM thematic visit on inclusive education of Roma children as opposed to special schools following a thematic visit to the Czech Republic[68]:

 

As regards the duties of the Czech School Inspectorate

 

The group of experts welcomed the open and positive approach of the Czech School Inspectorate representative towards decreasing the enrolment of Roma children in practical schools and programmes and increasing the number of Roma children in inclusive mainstream education.

 

The group of experts believes that the role and duties of the Czech School Inspectorate should be broaden so as to include the supervision of the work of socio-pedagogical staff and psychological centres which conduct the testing of children.

 

The Czech School Inspectorate should also be given the mandate to monitor the pre-school attendance of children (in particular Roma children) and collect data on how many of these children  are, at the end of their compulsory pre-school year, directed to practical schools, directed to zero classes, or enrolled in mainstream primary schools (without going through zero classes).

 

As regards the Memorandum of Co-operation between the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation and the Czech School Inspectorate

 

This memorandum of understanding signed on 23 October 2014 was presented during the round table. The group of experts welcomed the fact that Roma experts could, as a result of this memorandum of understanding, accompany school inspectors in their visits to schools attended by Roma children. However, it regretted that Roma experts are only invited to visit so-called practical schools and not mainstreamed/inclusive schools. In addition, the group of experts would consider advisable to introduce in the Czech Republic school inspectors of Roma ethnic origin (as it is the case e.g. in Romania). Roma experts participating in these visits should also receive training and establish close contacts with Roma school assistants and mediators, in particular those trained by the ROMED programme.

 

As regards the role and involvement of Roma parents

 

The group of experts believes that more trust in the school system should be built among Roma parents for the enrolment of their children in pre-school education. Awareness-raising campaign among Roma communities should be conducted by public authorities with the help of NGOs to convince Roma parents about the added value of pre-school education. At the same time, information should be provided to non-Roma parents to accept the inclusion of Roma children in mainstream pre-school education facilities. The Czech Republic could introduce the practice of Latvia regarding pre-school development programmes according to which each pre-school director meets every three months with Roma parents to exchange about the educational development of their children.

 

As regards Roma parents’ approach towards the education of their children

 

Roma parents are encouraged, for financial reasons due to their poor economic living conditions, to choose practical schools for their children. They also are encouraged to believe that in mainstreaming schools their children would be bullied by the other children. The group of experts believes that there is a need through awareness-raising activities, to explain to Roma parents the negative effects of the enrolment of their children into practical school and the consequences for the rest of their live: poor chances for social inclusion, weak chances to have a good job in the future etc.

 

As regards the financial approach to (pre-school) education

 

The group of experts considers that the financial approach of the Czech Republic to education should be changed. The focus of state funding for education should be on the child - in his/her best interest - not on the services and financial assistance should be directed to support the inclusion of roma children in mainstream education, and not at encouraging the maintenance and further enrolment of Roma children in segregated schools or in programmes for mild mental disabilities when there is not such a need. As long as money does not follow the child but is spent on the services, the State will encourage a vicious system and the children will be maintained in or encouraged to enter practical schools, instead of mainstream education.

 

EU funding should not be used to further promote school segregation of Roma children as it has been observed in some cases reported by NGOs.

 

The group of experts took note that mainstream schools are under the control of regional administration, whilst practical schools are subordinated to the municipality which results in different budget and different administration/management. It might be advisable to have both of them under the same jurisdiction.

 

As regards school institutions and non Roma parents’ attitude towards including Roma children in mainstream education

 

The group of experts would suggest introducing awareness campaign activities for school institutions and the majority population to change their attitudes towards Roma children. Most of the schools directors and pedagogical centres use the majority attitudes and behaviours against Roma children as the best reason to put Roma children in practical schools or enrol them in zero classes. The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, together with the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Minister for Human Rights and civil society representatives, could develop national awareness campaigns to promote Roma children’s rights and change the mentality and attitude towards Roma children and families.

 

As regards Roma school mediators and assistants

 

It was unclear for the group of experts how can a teacher benefit from an assistant for Roma children. It could not find out if there was a legal framework for this. The models developed by Latvia, Poland and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” could be valuable sources of inspiration.

 

As regards the use of «socio-culturally disadvantaged» environments or backgrounds

 

The terminology «children from socio-culturally disadvantaged environments» (or backgrounds) is often being used by the Czech authorities to refer inter alia but primarily in practice to Roma children (e.g. in the Concept of In-Time Care for Children from Socio-Culturally Disadvantaged Environments prepared by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports). The group of experts expressed doubts about the use of this terminology which implies that certain culture combined with social background could be a disadvantage. No cultures can pretend to be considered as disadvantageous. The Hungarian expert highlighted that culture is not mixed up with social origin in Hungary. The Hungarian legislation has introduced a distinction between disadvantaged families/children and multi-disadvantaged families/children, both of them apply to Roma families/children but not exclusively.

 

According to the Child Protection Law (1997. XXXI. law), a disadvantaged  child or child of full age is, who is entitled to regular child protection allowance and meets one of the following requirements:

  1. The educational level of the parents or guardians is elementary at most;
  2. Low employed parents or guardians;
  3. Bad living conditions (for example living in segregations).

 

According to the Child Protection Law, the multi-disadvantaged child or child of full age is a child:

  1. who is entitled to regular child protection allowance and meets at least two requirements from the above mentioned paragraph a) to c);
  2. who is in foster care;
  3. who receives after-care allowance and has a student status.

 

As regards the lack of definition and indicators for inclusive education and other concepts

 

The terms “inclusive education”, “vulnerable children”, “practical schools” and “zero/preparatory classes” do not seem to be clearly defined in the Czech education system. The group of experts was surprised that the Czech School Inspectorate has no indicators for inclusive education. This lack of clarity results in lower quality standards with respect to the social and educational services provided to children. There are also no differences between the terms “special needs”, “mental disorders” and “social disorder” creating confusion regarding the diagnosis and the impact on children’s development. And this has long term effects. A child placed in a practical school can hardly integrate himself/herself in mainstreaming school in the future. The psychological evaluation is a vicious circle: the State pays the Pedagogical Education Centres to make the diagnosis and the psychologists working there are directly interested in maintaining the current system.

 

As it was already raised in the 2012 CAHROM thematic report on inclusive education of Roma children as opposed to special schools, the group of experts suggested a greater input and supervision from the part of the Czech Government and in particular the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports because, at the moment, it is up to schools to decide about their inclusion policy. If not all the schools in the same municipality/district follow the same rules, the ones who do not impose any sorts of barriers will end up as totally “Roma or migrants schools”, whilst others will become totally “white schools”.

 

As regards the lack of teacher’s evaluation and school and teachers’ performance

 

There is not national system for teachers’ evaluation. There are no indicators in the evaluation for inclusive performance of the teachers; the evaluation is based only on the school performance of the child. Criteria and the methodology are depending on the school’s director approaches. There is no proper legal framework to promote inclusive education and to support the teacher to use this approach for children. Inclusive education essentially depends of the school director’s decision to apply it. The teachers, both in mainstream and in practical schools, are not motivated for inclusive education. They have more than 25 children in a class but they do not benefit systematically from the help of an assistant for Roma children. Some teachers are forced to work extra time to integrate Roma children and they are not paid for these activities.

 

As regards the Law on Children’s Groups’ education

 

The group of experts took note that a new legislation adopted early November 2014 and supposed to enter into force in early 2015 provides new requirements and conditions for children’s groups’ education (e.g. related to necessary infrastructure, access to toilets, security measures, etc.). The Czech interlocutors of the People in Need pre-school club in Prague indicated that these new requirements would make it more complicated for NGOs to provide informal education and support for at-risk children. Whilst understanding the necessity to ensure full compliance with security and sanitary conditions, the group of experts believes that the new legislation should not be applied in a too restrictive way as it could jeopardize informal education provided by civil society organisations for children who could not otherwise access education at all. This being said, the group of experts believes that informal education should respect quality standards and be strict on compulsory and regular attendance of children which was not the case in the club that was visited in Prague.

 

As regards the recent amendments to the School Act (Education Act)[69]

 

During the thematic visit, the group of experts got familiar with proposed amendments to the School Act under discussion at the time of the visit. During the round table, the group of experts, the European Commission representative and various Czech interlocutors expressed their deep concern about initial Article 16a. § 5 concerning diagnostic method and its reference to children of “socio-culturally vulnerable backgrounds”. The experts of the thematic group were concerned that this type of terminology could lead to further enrolment of children in practical schools and would not be in conformity with the principles of the rights of the child. It believes that reference to socially-cultural groups should be generally avoided since there are no groups who are vulnerable on the ground of their culture. The national law on education is indeed not well connected with children’s rights. The group of experts would therefore encourage a better inclusion of children’s right throughout the legislative framework[70].

 

Since the organisation of the thematic visit, the group of experts was informed that the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) took seriously into consideration comments made by NGOs, institutions and international actors regarding the proposed wording of Article 16a § 5 of the School Act. In response to these comments the Ministry held roundtables on 12 November and 8 December 2014 where NGO representatives were invited and where arguments of all represented parties concerning the issue of diagnostic method were presented. Even though certain concerns were not fully dispelled, it was clearly stated that the purpose and aim of the draft provision is to ensure a proper diagnostic outcome of each individual client in accordance with current knowledge about diagnostic method in assessing mental disability.

 

Opponents to this Article, such as the Czech Society for Inclusive Education (COSIV) and other non-governmental organisations of 8 January 2015, pointed out two risks that they believe the proposed wording of the above provision might bring:

a) The proposed provision of Section 16a § 5 of the amendment to the Education Act was risky in relation to the Roma children’s education.

b) There are not enough standardised instruments and no methods for assessing the adaptive skills of pupils.

 

On 22 January 2015 at another meeting between the MEYS and representatives of some NGOs, it was announced that specific method of diagnosing mental disability would be governed by means of a Decree and by means of a methodological guidance that will specify the interpretation of the above provision. The purpose of the above provision of the amendment to the School Act is, according to the Czech authorities, to set rules for the assessment of mental disability. The primary aims are to:

 

However, the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports in the reply it submitted to the Council of Europe on NGO comments was not convinced by arguments a) and b) abovementioned. It responded to the argument by saying that “individual variables that are typical for a pupil’s social disadvantage (or even his/her social exclusion) may have an impact on his/her performance in IQ tests. The more of these criteria can be found in a child, the more likely his/her performance in the test is to be lower”.[71]

 

In conclusion, the group of experts would like to encourage the Czech Government to take into consideration the above conclusions during the reform of its Pre-School Act and for the preparation of new Action Plans for Inclusive Education for 2016-2017 and 2018-2020 and for the future update of the Social Inclusion Strategy (2014-2015) by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, in particular the chapter 3.4 on "Promoting equal access to education".

 

 

4.2.2 Concerning Hungary, Latvia, Poland and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (partner countries)

 

The practice of segregated schools and separate classes for Roma children should be stopped where they still exist (e.g. in Hungary and in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). The group of experts took note with satisfaction that Latvia almost completely abolished separate classes for Roma children (except in a few municipalities like Ventspils) and that this practice does not exist in Poland.

 

Building upon the project «Inclusion of Roma children in public pre-school institutions» between 2009 and 2012 and the similar project “Inclusion of Roma children in pre-school education” for the years 2014-2016 both jointly conducted by the Roma Education Fund (REF) and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, and the EU supported “A Good Start” (AGS) project, the authorities of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” should envisage introducing compulsory education for all children and developing positive measures for Roma children so as to ensure sustainability of the slight progress observed through these projects in Roma children’s attendance of pre-school education.

 

The role of Roma mediators and school assistants as key actors in promoting school attendance and increasing Roma children’s achievements at school - should be further promoted and institutionalised. In that respect, good progress was made in recent years in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” through the implementation of the ROMED joint CoE/EU programme was welcome by the experts participating in the thematic group. Hungary is a less good example: ROMED training conclusions show that the middle level of decision makers and the executives (such as child care department leaders, representatives of Roma NGO or self-government, head teachers, etc.) are more active and touched by Roma mediators’ work than the main decision-makers. There is a need in Hungary for a long term political commitment, as well as for an organised logistical and professional help for the mediators, including through the introduction of an internal mentoring mechanism. The employment of qualified Roma teaching assistants to accompany Roma children throughout their studies should be extended and appropriately resourced. Funding for the employment of Roma school assistants and mediators, including at pre-school level, should be secured at state, regional or local level. The share of external funding of Roma school assistants and mediators, e.g. in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” should progressively decrease to make the system sustainable in the long term.

 

Latvia and Poland are also good examples when it comes to using Roma school assistants. The Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia has developed comprehensive policy plans for the promotion of cohesion in education and is engaged in furthering the integration of Roma children through the employment of teaching assistants. The group of experts believes that employment of qualified teaching assistants to accompany Roma children throughout their studies should be extended and appropriately resourced. Poland has introduced Roma school assistants as a professional position in practice in 2001, and in law in 2005, as a kind of “cultural bridge” between schools and local Roma communities in order to improve the level of education, combating school drops out among Roma community and facilitate so called Roma education supportive teachers to recognize specific needs of Roma origin pupils. Training workshops for Roma school assistants and supporting teachers at the regional level were introduced to compensate the lack of professional experience.

 

In countries, such as in Hungary, where there is a lack of pre-school facilities (kindergarten) in areas inhabited by a large number of Roma families, efforts should be deployed by the state, regional and local (where relevant) to build new infrastructure for mainstream inclusive education. Restrictive enrolment policies by certain kindergarten should be condemned.

 

The group of experts expressed concerns about persisting practice of the enrolment of Roma children in special needs schools in the Czech Republic but also in all partner countries[72], i.e. which are well above the European average of 2.5%[73]. The group of experts firmly believes that integration is not a two-step process and that the inclusion of disadvantaged Roma children in segregated schools with the hope that they will “catch up” with the requisite level of knowledge and skills before envisaging their insertion in the mainstream school system is a wrong approach.

 

There is an urgent need to address the issue of over-representation of Roma in special schools for children with disabilities and to rectify the shortcomings in the respective legal and regulatory framework pertaining to special education. It is crucial that the authorities’ undertakings in this context go beyond reforming the system of categorisation of children, and include more comprehensive measures aimed at providing access to adequate education in mainstream schools for all children without discrimination on any ground. Measures to secure participation of Roma children in mainstream pre-school education should be strengthened and the presence of teaching assistants in all schools where they are needed should be ensured. Moreover, Roma parents should be included in and adequately informed of all steps undertaken by the authorities relating to the inclusion of their children in mainstream education.

 

Member States that have not yet joined the Dosta! campaign addressing stereotypes and prejudice towards Roma could envisage doing so. The Hungarian expert was interested to learn more about the Dosta! campaign.

 

 

 

4.3 Good practices identified

 

In the Czech Republic:

 

In Hungary:

 

In Latvia:

 

In Poland:

 

In “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”:

 

4.4 Follow-up

 

4.4.1 Immediate follow-up at the level of the Council of Europe

 

The Czech CAHROM member and Rapporteur on Roma children was invited to participate at the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Experts on the Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (DECS-ENF) in Strasbourg on 12-13 May 2015. He contributed to the reflection on future activities, projects and priority actions related to Roma children for the next Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child 2016-2019, especially as regards the priority to be given to Roma children’s inclusive early childhood education and the need to involve more Roma children and parents in participatory processes. He suggested that reference could be made in this Strategy to innovative programmes that Roma children could benefit from at the local and regional level, including exchange of experience between member States (e.g. teachers’ training on inclusive education). He also proposed that specific questions related to Roma children could be introduced in the questionnaire circulated to member States in view of drafting the next Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child 2016-2019.

 

Following his participation at the 2nd DECS-ENF meeting on behalf of CAHROM, the Czech CAHROM member and Rapporteur on Roma children commented the Roma children-related initiative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe contained in the document SG/INF (2015)16rev “Updating the Council of Europe agenda on Roma inclusion 2015-2019” which was circulated to the CAHROM for its opinion. Whilst welcoming the inclusion of Roma children among the most vulnerable groups under priority no.2, the Czech CAHROM member and Rapporteur on Roma children proposed an amendment to the 2nd line of action so as to more precisely reflects priorities defined for the next Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child discussed at the 2nd DECS-ENF meeting.[78]

 

The main conclusions of the present thematic report were presented by the Czech CAHROM member and Committee Rapporteur on Roma children at the 9th CAHROM meeting (Strasbourg, 27-29 May 2015). The report was also commented by CAHROM members from partner countries (Hungary, Latvia, Poland and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), and by Committee Rapporteurs on gender equality (Finland), on Roma youth (Croatia), and on anti-Gypsyism and hate crime (United Kingdom).

 

At the 9th CAHROM plenary meeting, CAHROM participants discussed:

 

  1. The added value of introducing compulsory pre-school education to better prepare Roma children for their education and social inter-action, including supportive measures such as fee exemptions, free meals and transport;
  2. The need of non- biased and culturally neutral diagnosis methods during the recruitment process of children;
  3. The need to further raise awareness among Roma parents, teachers’ unions and society at large on the negative consequences of school segregation, using the Dosta! campaign where relevant;
  4. The risk of duplication in maintaining zero/preparatory classes when compulsory pre-school education is introduced;
  5. The need to reinforce the role of Roma mediators or school assistants in pre-schools;
  6. The need to collect disaggregated data by ethnicity and gender at project/local level to better assess the impact of policy measures;
  7. The crucial role of local authorities to ensure the inclusion of all children in compulsory education;
  8. The relevance of using official curricula in pre-school clubs managed by NGOs.

 

The Polish CAHROM expert who participated in the thematic visit underlined the misleading terminology of “practical” schools, including for Romani parents who might not be aware that these schools are often segregated schools or schools for children with mild mental disabilities. She highlighted the fact that the thematic group did not only focus on pre-school education for Roma children but also addressed the whole system of education, and in particular the possible relation between the limited enrolment of Roma children’s in mainstream pre-school education and their excessive enrolment in special education. She pointed out the importance of raising awareness among Roma parents on the consequences of special education and among the NGO sector on the problems connected with the access of Roma children to pre-school education. For example, even when community places like “pre-school clubs” have been set up, they seem not to base their work on official curriculum which has as a consequence insufficient results in making equal opportunities in the education system. Important steps forward would also be to strengthen the role of Roma assistants/mediators both within their communities and at school to ensure the most possible efficient bridge between Roma families and educational institutions and to develop clearer procedures to help children moving from practical schools to regular schools at any moment of the educational process. Finally, she highlighted the need for more regular exchanges of information between institutions responsible for Roma issues from the perspective of education, social affairs, access to the labour market, etc.

 

The Finnish CAHROM member and rapporteur on gender equality urged member States to develop disaggregated data by gender which were largely missing in the report. The CAHROM member on behalf of the Netherlands highlighted the need to clarify the meaning of “pre-school” since the enrolment of Roma children in compulsory education differs from one country to the next. The CAHROM member from the Republic of Moldova warned that, among some Roma families, it was considered shameful for Roma mothers to send their children at an early age to kindergarten, whilst they are, according to the Romani tradition, supposed to take care of their young children at home. He therefore recommended introducing pre-school education within primary education facilities.

 

Representatives from the Roma Education Fund (REF), the European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) and Amnesty International called for a stronger political will to end school segregation and the persisting practice of enrolling Roma children in schools for pupils with special needs observed in many member States, whilst the OSCE-ODIHR representative underlined the need to involve Roma and non-Roma parents in the process.

 

  1. Mid-term follow-up and future exchanges of experience

 

As a response to the latest Committee of Ministers’ Decision from its 122nd CM-DH meeting (11-12 March 2015) on supervising the implementation of the European Court’s judgment D.H. and Others v. The Czech Republic[79], the Council of Europe Department for the Execution of ECTHR judgements proposed to set up a CAHROM thematic group on testing systems and diagnoses for pupils with allegedly mild mental disabilities, with a focus on Roma children. Noting the problems identified by the Committee of Ministers with the functioning of the testing system and the follow-up for Roma pupils recommended for transfer to mainstream education in the Czech Republic, it was proposed at the 9th CAHROM plenary meeting to envisage an exchange of experience between countries that have or had in place such a highly technical system of testing/diagnosing of pupils aimed at establishing whether children have “mild mental disabilities” so as to make an assessment of the functioning, efficiency and added value of those tests. The CAHROM expert from the Czech Republic indicated that he would be interested to visit Hungary to get more familiar with desegregation legislation and policy measures for preventing excessive enrolment of Roma children in schools for children with mild disabilities, and with the role of the equal opportunities officer in ensuring better impartiality for the testing of children.

 

The Council of Europe is considering further assisting financially (through a 2015 Finnish voluntary contribution) the project “Every child matters: high quality education for all” which consists in bilateral exchange of teachers and the training of Czech teachers by UK teachers on inclusive education for Roma children with the active participation of Czech teachers from Primary Schools Grafická in Prague, Trmice near Ústí nad Labem and Poběžovice. The project may be extended to Ostrava at their request.

 

 

 

*******

 

APPENDIX 1:               Official invitation letter received from the Czech authorities

 

 

***************

 

 

APPENDIX 2: List of experts of the thematic group and Czech participants

 

 

CZECH REPUBLIC (requesting country)

 

- Mr Martin Martinek, Head of Unit (CAHROM member)

- Ms Eliška Perevorska

- MS Margita Wagner

 

-  Mr Jaroslav Fidrmuc, Deputy Minister for Education

- Ms Pavla Ružková

- Ms Jaroslava Vatalová

- Ms Anna Pechová

 

- Ms Radka Soukupová

- Ms Jitka Modlitbová

 

 

- Ms Lucie Macků

 

- Mr Ondrej Andrýs

 

 

 

- Ms Olga Kusá

 

 

HUNGARY (partner country)

 

 

LATVIA (partner country)

 

 

POLAND (partner country)

 

 

"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" (partner country)

Ms Mabera Kamberi, Head of the Sector for Coordination and Technical Assistance, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (CAHROM Vice-Chair)

 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

 

 

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

 

 

 

***************

 

 

APPENDIX 3: Agenda of the CAHROM thematic visit

 

 

AGENDA

CAHROM thematic visit on pre-school/early education of Roma children

19 – 21 November 2014, Prague, Czech Republic

 

 

19 November 2014

 

8:30Welcome at the hotel, transfer for the first field visit

 

9:00 – 11:00 Visit at the Elementary school and kindergarten at Lyčkovo square, Prague

 

11:30 – 13:00 Lunch (organised)

 

Afternoon session at the Government Office building, Vladislavova 4, Prague 1

 

13:00 – 15:00Presentations on pre-school/early education of Roma children in the Czech Republic and the CAHROM partner countries

 

15:00 – 15:30Coffee break

 

15:30 – 17:00Discussion with representatives of Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

 

20 November 2014

 

8:30 – 9:15Meeting with the Deputy Minister (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports – Karmelitská 15, Prague 1)

 

10:30 – 12:30Visit at the pre-school club of the NGO People in Need

 

12:30 – 14:00Break

 

Afternoon session at the Government Office building, Vladislavová 4, Prague 1

 

14:00 – 14:30Cooperation between the Minister for Human Rights, Equal Opportunities and Legislation and the Czech School Inspectorate

14:30 – 15:00Round table with civil society representatives

 

15:00 – 15:30Coffee break

 

15:30 – 17:00Round table with civil society representatives (continued)

 

21 November 2014

 

09:30 – 11:30Debriefing meeting between experts from the requesting and partner countries and the Council of Europe Secretariat

 

 

***************

[1] The term “Roma” used at the Council of Europe refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale and related groups in Europe, including Travellers and the Eastern groups (Dom and Lom), and covers the wide diversity of the groups concerned, including persons who identify themselves as Gypsies.

[2] See paragraph 25 of document CAHROM (2014)8 Report of the 7h CAHROM meeting, available on the CAHROM website (htto://hub.coe.int/web/coe-portalicahrom1).

[3] See this thematic report at: http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/cahrom.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Romani variants spoken in the Czech Republic include Northern Central Romani and Lovari.

[6] The number of Roma has been estimated by the Office of the Government Inter-departmental Commission for Roma Community Affairs at 150,000 to 200,000. The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) estimate ranges from 150,000 to 350,000. According to the study “Promoting social inclusion of Roma in the Czech Republic: a study of national policies” published by Tomáš Sirovátka from Masaryk University in July 2011, the share of Roma in the Czech population is usually estimated at 200,000.

[7] See the article from Open Society Fund-Prague on pre-school attendance by Romani children published by the news server ROMEA.CZ on 14 November 2014.

[8] Source: Statement of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Roma Issues published on the Council of Europe Roma portal on 12 March 2015 (http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/roma) based on the Memorandum prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – doc. H/Exec(2015)8 D.H. and Others against Czech Republic (No.57325/00) General measures for the execution of judgment  of the European Court from 3 March 2015.

[9] Interview with Robert Basch from the Open Society Fund-Prague published by news server Romea.CZ on 14 November 2014.

[10] See UNDP/World Bank/EC Regional 2011 Roma Survey “Toward an Equal Start: Closing the Learning Gap for Roma Children in Eastern Europe” (published on 4 June 2012).

[11] Source: Labour Plus research, PowerPoint presentation delivered by Dr. Ivo Kostov  at Nagykallo 4th SC meeting, on7-8 November 2013 “Comparison between Hungarian and Bulgarian National Roma Integration Strategies (NRISs)”.

[12] Roma Decade Progress report 2011, page 1.

[13] According to data of the Life Course Survey (http://www.econ.core.hu/file/download/bwp/bwp1407.pdf); 20 years before it was 1%.

[14] Roma Decade Progress report 2011, page 6.

[15] CAHROM  (2012)18 Thematic report on inclusive education as opposed to special schools, page 56.

[16] In particular, the extraordinary reviews conducted as part of the “From the desk at the back” programme, the amendment of the relevant legal rules, including measures related to the establishment of the diagnosis of pupils with mild mental or intellectual disabilities.

[17] See National Social Inclusion Strategy –Extreme Poverty, Child Poverty, the Roma, 2011-2020.

[18] Roma Education Fund: Pitfalls and bias: entry testing and the overrepresentation of Romani children in special education, (2012).

[19] In Hungary, measures have been taken in the field of unjustified qualification of persons as disabled (development of the diagnostic test-system, development of a protocol). As a positive result, there has been a decrease in the number of children classified as a mild mental and intellectual disabled.

[20] See Open Society Justice Initiative, EU Monitoring and Advocacy Programme: Equal access to quality education for Roma, Hungary, 2007.

[21] Source: the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2011. At the same time, according to data from the population register of the Office for Citizenship and Migration Affairs, there were 8 517 Roma living in Latvia as at 1 July 2011, comprising 0.35% of the total population.

[22] Anti-Gypsyism is not as prominent as in other EU member states as shown by the results of the Eurobarometer data survey on discrimination in the EU conducted in 2009. According to this survey, 27% of the population of Latvia stated that they have Roma friends or acquaintances. This indicator has increased since 2008 when 26% of the population gave the same response. In other EU member States where the Roma population is similar or even larger, this indicator is far lower. The overall average for the EU is 17%.

[23] Source: the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2012.

[24] http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_fact_lv_en.pdf .

[25] See this report and ECRI Conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Latvia subject to interim follow-up (adopted on 9 December 2014 and published on 24 February 2015) at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Latvia/Latvia_CBC_en.asp

[26] See ECRI report on Latvia (fourth monitoring cycle), and

[27] Source: Resolution CM/ResCMN(2014)9 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Latvia (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 July 2014 at the 1205th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).

[28] Source: CommDH(2013)4 Report by Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, following his visit to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, from 26 to 29 November 2012.

[29] Source: Employment Service Agency and Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of «the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia».

[30] A Good Start was funded by the European Union. Explicit but non-exclusive in its targeting, the project currently helps more than 4,000 Roma and non-Roma children from ages zero to six to access early childhood education and care (ECEC) services. With a mandate until June 2012, it operated in a total of 16 locations in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and in the «the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia». Coordinated by the Roma Education Fund (REF), its three international partners were the International Step By Step Association (ISSA), Fundacíon Secretariado Gitano, the Slovak Governance Institute, and 12 local implementing partners.

[31] Source: “Inclusion of Roma Children in Public Pre-school Institutions” project, Ministry of Labor and Social Policy

[32] Source: Article published by the news server Romea.CZ on 15 May 2015.

[33] According to that judgment, the enrollment of the Romani children into what were then called "special schools" violated their right to education and was discriminatory. Today many Romani children still continue to end up in the "practical schools", which are intended for pupils with mild mental disability.

[34] In June 2012, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Deputies adopted conclusions on the implementation of the ECtHR Judgment concerning D.H. and Others v. The Czech Republic. See latest Committee of Ministers Deputies’ decision on DH and others v. the Czech Republic at:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp?CaseTitleOrNumber=&StateCode=CZE&SectionCode. See also the supervision of the execution of the judgments in the case of D.H. and others against Czech Republic, judgment of 13/11/2007 - Grand Chamber - prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (DG-HL) dated 24 November 2010 at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1707993&Site=CM and documents submitted by the authorities/civil society at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Themes/Add_info/CZE-DH_en.asp.

[35] See latest ECRI Conclusions on the implementation of the Recommendations in respect of the Czech Republic subject to interim follow-up (adopted on 23 March 2013) http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Czech_Republic/CZE-IFU-IV-2012-027-ENG.pdf.

[36] See for example the report of the previous Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Thomas Hammarberg, published in February 2012 “Human Rights of Roma and Travellers in Europe” in which he devoted a sub-chapter on school segregation of Roma children:http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/source/prems/prems79611_GBR_CouvHumanRightsOfRoma_WEB.pdf

[37] On 19 March 2012, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities published its Opinion on the Czech Republic (which was adopted on 1 July 2011): http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/3_FCNMdocs/PDF_3rd_OP_CzechRepublic_en.pdf. FCNM/AC Opinions on other countries participating in the CAHROM thematic group can be consulted at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/minorities/3_FCNMdocs/Table_en.asp.

[38] See this Human Rights Comment at http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Activities/IPList_en.asp.

[39] See document CommDH(2013)4 Report by Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, following his visit to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, from 26 to 29 November 2012.

[40] See article published by news server Romea.CZ on 20 March 2014.

[41] Infringement proceedings as established by Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provide the Commission with an effective legislative tool to engage with the 28 European EU member states to ensure compliance with EU law. Member states found to be in breach of EU law may be brought to the Court of Justice for the European Union. If the Court finds a member state has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, it will require the state to take the necessary measures to comply.

The decision to launch the proceedings against the Czech Republic was announced on 25 September 2014, following a meeting of the College of Commissioners. The proceedings call into question the Czech Republic’s compliance with: Article 21 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which prohibits discrimination based on any ground such as race or ethnic origin; and the Race Equality Directive (2000/43/EC (RED)) Articles 2.2a, 2.2b, 2.3, 3.1.g, which prohibit discrimination in access to education on the grounds of race or ethnicity.

The Commission sent a formal notice with its assessment of the situation to the Czech government which was given a deadline to submit its observations. On 24 November 2014, the Czech Government published its official response to Brussels, objecting to the European Commission's charges that the Czech state discriminates against Romani children in the schools. The Commission should now conclude whether the Czech Republic is indeed failing to comply with EU law. In case of an infringement, the Commission may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

[42] See article published on Romea.CZ news server on 15 May 2015.

[43] See OSCE-ODIHR press release following this visit at http://www.osce.org/odihr/90813.

[44] Sources: articles published on News server Romea.cz on 25 and 27 September 2014. One of the articles recalls that of the Member States that joined the EU in 2004, the Czech Republic was the very last to transpose the Race Equality Directive.

[45] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_cz_strategy_perspectives_en.pdf.

[46]              Act No. 561/2004 Coll., on preschool, primary, secondary, higher vocational and other education (The Education Act).

[47]              For each branch of education framework education programmes are issued. Framework education programmes define mandatory content, scope and conditions of education; they are mandatory for the development of school education programmes, evaluation of results of education of children and pupils, preparation and assessment of textbooks and teaching materials. Education at individual schools and school facilities is performed according to school education programmes.

[48]              A child, pupil or student with special educational needs is a person with disability, health handicap or social handicap.

[49]              Instruction of the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports No. 6/2003 of 1 July 2003, on testing of vocational training of staff working with children and youth in the area of leisure-time activities.

[50] Source: Article published by the news server Romea.CZ on 15 May 2015.

[51] See Joint Statement of the League of Human Rights and MDAC concerning the implementation of the ECtHR judgment D.H. and others v. Czech Republic, 29 May 2011.

[52] See European Commission: National Roma Integration Strategies, a first step in the implementation of the EU framework, 2012.

[53] See the report of the Czech School Inspectorate released in 2010 which  revealed that 83% of the now practical schools continued to function as “hidden special schools” just as before 2005.

[54] Not exhaustive list.

[55] Hungary ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1995. The extension of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages to the Romani and Beaś (boyash) languages spoken by the Roma in Hungary was promulgated by Act XLIII of 2008.

[56] The Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities was modified in 2011. According to the new Act, Roma are also recognised as a minority. In 1990 the Office for National Minorities was set up, including a Department on Roma issues.

[57] Cigány, the Hungarian term for “Gypsies” is not as derogatory and pejorative as in neighbouring countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. The word “Roma” (Romák), however, is increasingly used in official documents since 2011.

[58] For older CEI projects, see information provided by Latvia in the Addendum of this thematic report.

[59] The position of Roma education assistant was introduced to the Polish school system in 2001. Roma Education Assistant provides assistance to Roma students in contacts with the school and works with the parents and the. The purpose of introduction of Roma assistants to the schools where Roma children learn was primarily to increase the low turnout of pupils, and to assist in the implementation of school obligations. Roma assistants should be Roma who have the trust of local Roma communities. The duties of the assistant should also include building a good contact between the parents and the school, informing parents about the progress at school, as well as monitoring attendance of pupils and progress at school. Assistants are responsible for providing comprehensive assistance for children and youth at school and beyond. To a large extent, it is their duty to cooperate with the parents of Roma pupils. In 2004 the profession of Roma education assistant was entered into the official catalogue of professions in Poland. Since 2006, a systematic change in the system of financing of Roma education assistants has taken place. Initially, their work was funded under the Roma Programme, which involved large pool of funds. Over time, the possibility was created to finance employment of Roma education assistants from the increased educational subsidy.

[60] Journal of Laws of 2012, item 393.

[61] The aim of these measures was to disseminate the issue related to the decisions issued for Roma children by the counselling centres, in particular attention was focused on the need to use non-verbal and free culture tests during examination of Roma children that take into account the degree of proficiency in Polish. The emphasis was also placed on developing and disseminating procedures for recognizing the needs and abilities of bilingual and culturally different pupils. Meetings were also showcase for examples of good practices and discussion on the activities that would contribute to the improvement of local strategies for multilingual and culturally diverse pupils, including Roma pupils and to present recommendations.

 

[62] See article published by Romea.CZ news server on 19 September 2014.

[63] For more information on the Revised Action Plan of the Czech Government and enhanced supervision of this case, consult the Execution of Judgements webpage:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp?CaseTitleOrNumber=D.H.+and+Others&StateCode=CZE&SectionCode=

[64] Paragraphe 10 of the Recommendation states: “Attendance of pre-school education for Roma and Traveller children should be encouraged, under equal conditions as for other children, and enrolment in pre-school education should be promoted if necessary by providing specific support measures.”

[65] At the moment, the last pre-school year is free except 20 Euros which are being asked to each family per child for maintenance costs, plus meals taken at school.

[66] So far in the Czech Republic, only the last year of pre-school education can be funded by local authorities, and this is not an obligation.

[67] In this respect, see the practice of the State Pedagogical Institute (SPU) in Bratislava implemented between January 2000 and June 2003 in the Council of Europe database on Roma-related good practices at http://goodpracticeroma.ppa.coe.int/en/node/45.

[68] See this thematic report on CAHROM public website at: http://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/cahrom.

[69]              Act No. 561/2004 Coll., on pre-school, primary, secondary, higher vocational and other education (The Education Act).

[70] See the Council of Europe legal standards, implementation tools and materials on children’s rights at the Children’s Rights Division website: http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/.

[71] For the full argumentation, consult the Czech Government response to NGO comments

 For more information on the Revised Action Plan of the Czech Government and enhanced supervision of this case, consult the Execution of Judgements webpage:

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp?CaseTitleOrNumber=D.H.+and+Others&StateCode=CZE&SectionCode

[72] In the Czech Republic, despite a constant, annual decrease in the total number of pupils (Roma and non-Roma) in special schools or classes from 17,755 in 2008 to 10,695 in 2014, the proportion of Roma pupils in special schools or classes increased from 28.2% (2013/2014 school year) to 32.4% (2014/2015 school year). Furthermore, the percentage of Roma children in mainstream classes decreased from 10.3% (2013/2014 school year) to 9.5% (2014/2015 school year). In Hungary, as an average, the enrolment of Roma children reaches over 20% (Pitfalls and bias - Entry Testing and the Overrepresentation of Romani Children in Special Education, Roma Education Fund study, April 2012). In Latvia, according to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) the figure has increased from 10.6% in 2011 to 16.1% nowadays. In Poland, however, according to the Ministry of Education, the figure of Roma children enrolled in special needs schools has decreased to 7% compared to 17% in 2010. The Roma Early Childhood Education, OSF-REF-UNICEF 2011 report reveals that 32% of Roma children “in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” are enrolled in special schools; this average figure comprises special primary and secondary education for the 2008/2009 school year.

[73] The European Academy of Childhood Disabilities considers a disabled children rate of at least 2.5% to be the ‘norm’ (with 1% having serious conditions).

[74] See article published in Romea.CZ news server on 19 February 2015.

[75] See http://romed.coe-romact.org/.

[76] The 2011 Research study by Lucie Fremlova and Heather Ureche ‘From segregation to inclusion: Roma pupils in the UK found that Roma primary and secondary pupils, some of whom had been sent to special schools in the Czech Republic, studying at UK schools performed just as well as their non-Roma peers or slightly below average. Many went on to study in higher education, including tertiary education. Mainstream/inclusive schooling had proven to be a key factor in the process of every pupil’s socialisation and social inclusion as Roma and non-Roma pupils grew up side by side. Babington Community College has built up experience in working with Roma pupils from eastern European countries for several years now. Many Roma pupils from the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia chose Babington as their preferred school even though there were several schools nearer to where they live because they appreciated the efforts Babington had made to engage with their community. At Babington Roma pupils attend 90% of the time even though most live 5 miles away and the most common reason for absence is the inability to pay the bus fare when money is short. Many Roma pupils achieve well. In 2012, 38.3% of year 11 Roma pupils left with 5A*-C with English and Maths and one Roma pupil passed maths GCSE at grade B at the end of year 9. Babington has also established a very good relationship with Roma parents who have come to trust the school. Babington successfully engages with the Roma parents who regularly attend a complementary school twice a week and are involved in their children’s education. Babington produced a handbook on delivering the secondary curriculum to pupils who do not speak English as a first language. Babington is a school with a proven track record of excellence in the field of inclusion. In 2011 Babington became the second secondary school in the UK to receive the Equalities award which is only given to schools who can demonstrate a commitment to all aspects of inclusion which goes beyond the average. Babington has a history of welcoming Czech and Slovak education professionals who have been coming there over the past two years to learn how to apply efficient inclusive education policies and strategies in practice. Based on their experience, Babington has been advising other schools in the UK, too, who have recently started to receive high numbers of Roma pupils.

[77] More information on this bilateral exchange is available in the online database on Roma-related good practices: http://goodpracticeroma.ppa.coe.int/en/good-practice/every-child-matters-high-quality-education-all.

[78] Czech Republic proposed to rephrase, under priority no.2, the second initiative Making children’s rights accessible to Romani families as follows: “A new initiative on children’s rights, empowering Roma parents and their children shall be developed, aimed at strengthening the awareness and the access to children’s rights, fighting the abuse of Roma children within and outside their own community, with a particular focus on child marriage and school segregation, and building capacity of professionals to develop child-friendly and discrimination-free public services in particular in the field of education, social, health and justice, making use of mediators.”

[79] In addition to D.H. v Czech Republic, the Committee of Ministers is currently supervising the cases of Horvárth and Kiss v Hungary and Sampanis v Greece which raise similar questions. For more information on the Committee of Ministers’ recent examination of the cases see the website of the Department of the Execution of judgments “pending cases”: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp?CaseTitleOrNumber=d.h.&StateCode=&SectionCode; http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp?CaseTitleOrNumber=HORVATH+and+KISS&StateCode=&SectionCode; http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/pendingCases_en.asp?CaseTitleOrNumber=sampani&StateCode=GRC&SectionCode.