Examples of intercultural education from the Western

Balkans

The Institutional Foundations for Dialogue and Respect Informal conference of European Ministers of Education

Oslo, June 5-6, 2008Tünde Kovač-Cerović

Overview

• Address 3 issues pertinent to intercultural education in the Western Balkans:– Equitable enrolment– Quality of education– Levels of intervention

• Use the case of Roma education as a common but difficult one (www.romaeducationfund.org)

• Use successful examples of currently running program types which I saw, evaluated

• Lessons learned, Questions suggested to address

2

Ethnic composition in the Western Balkans – Roma in all countries

Albania Albanians Macedons Greeks Roma

100.000

B&H Bosnians Croats Serbs Roma

30.000

Croatia Croats Italians Hungarians Serbs Roma

30.000

Kosovo Albanians Serbs Roma

20.000

Macedon Macedonians Albanians Roma

130.000

Turks

MN Montenegrins Albanians Roma

20.000

Serbia Serbs Hungarians Albanians Roma

450.000

S/R/R/C

In all countries minorities from neighboring countries + Roma

Multi-language instruction in all countries (e.g. Vojvodina):

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 lang 2 lang 3 lang

Serbian

Hungarian

Slovak

Rumanian

Ruthenian

Croatian

Instruction in basic education provided in 6 languages (data 2007)

Minority language instruction mostly in 2 language schools

Optional language and culture courses offered in 6 languages (Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian, Ruthenian, Croat and Romanes)

Specific situation of Roma in all countries affects their education chances

Poverty constraints:• invisible costs of schooling not affordable for Roma families• lack of parental literacy to support education • parental unemployment

Admin constraints:• schools not in vicinity ofRoma settlements• transportation not provided• lack of identity/registration papers

Social & cultural constraints:• language barriers• fear of discrimination in schools• lack of prerequisite skills

Issue 1: Intercultural education and living together

How to overcome effects of territorial

segregation on education chances?

Roma face patterns of multiple barriers

Low achievement

dropout

Overrepresentation in special schools

Lack of preparation for school

Preschool started too late

or not at allLack of financial

assistance

Distributed funding – who’sresponsibility?

No enforcement of compulsory

enrolment

Schools reluctant

to accept Roma

Neighborhood

preschool?

No notification from pre/school

Enrolment from settlement

Example 1: Facilitating enrolment of Roma children • Macedonia, local Roma NGO • Community work:

– house to house data collection– parent informing and motivation – providing school equipment to children

• Work with media: – reducing stereotypes, positive framing

• Work with schools: – sharing database – ensuring placement of children in integrated classes

• Similar project in Bosnia, Tuzla Canton and in many other places

Example 2: Preventing discrimination and segregation of Roma children

• Serbia, Human rights Roma NGO

• NGO: – Monitoring discrimination & segregation– Training inspectors– Preventing placement to special schools (new type of

testing, Roma person present)

• NGO in cooperation with MoE:– Rulebook for inspectors– Negotiating school desegregation plans

• International replication considered

Lessons learned

• Distribution of housing is hindering the education of Roma

• Additional support and community work needed

• There are cases when territorial distribution would best be ignored and deliberately overcome for social outcomes to happen (Roma settlements in Medjimurje, Croatia, Roma settlement Konik in Montenegro, Sutto Orizari in Macedonia, etc.)

• Open questions:– Free choice of schools or neighborhood schooling? – What size of unit? How school catchment areas are/should be

organised?

Issue 2: Quality of intercultural education

• Intercultural education challenges dominant discourse on education quality

• Innovative actions & new concepts required

input process outcomes

performance

social

disagregatedperformance

Affirmative action:EnrolmentEquipmentTeachers

Key issue: Finding connections between input and process variables which maximize social outcomes and reduce group differences in performance

Example 3: Scholarship and mentoring program for secondary education• Macedonia, int’l NGO

• Small stipends (all 1st year Roma students, after 2nd year merit based)

• Mentoring for all Roma students

• Dynamic monitoring of attendance and success, “freezing” scholarships in case of low indicators

• Evaluation: – success rate, participation rate– parent motivation– cooperation at school level

• Model replicated in other countries: Romania, Serbia (Vojvodina, NIP)

Example 4: Roma parents in school boards • Serbia, local NGO + community + municipality + regional school

authorities

• Community: ensures election of Roma parents for school representation

• School: – involvement of Roma parents in parent councils– school development plan includes their input

• Municipality: involvement of parents in school boards

• School authority: – endorsement– Guidebook– disseminating practice to other school authorities

• NGO: preparing Roma parents for the new roles (training, coaching)

• Non-Roma parents request similar training

Example 5: Teacher training and Roma assistants in schools

• Bosnia, pilot, teacher training NGO

• Intense preparation of schools:– Training teachers in child centered methodology -

changing teachers’ expectations – Equipping schools– Hiring assistants

• Community work and work with parents

• School improvement, monitoring outcomes • New activities of school: second chance & adult

education

Lessons learned:

• Not easy: Action on input, process and outcome level needed

• Focus on outcome (both closing the performance gap and on social outcomes) requires changes at input and process level - integration of Roma in mainstream schools

• Dilemmas of policy makers: what comes first - quality or integration

segregated integrated

lowquality

high quality

Issue 3: Multiple levels of intervention - school or policy

Example 6: Advancing education for Roma studies 2006/07 www.romaeducationfund.org

For:•Bulgaria•Czech Republic•Hungary•Macedonia•Romania•Serbia•Slovakia•Croatia •BIH and Montenegro forthcoming

Provides:•A lot of data on the education and Roma in each country•Basis for monitoring progress•Basis for comparative analysis •Inventory of policies currently used in the countries with regard of education of Roma

Old policies: Cumulated systemic barriers – felt at school level

Special schools Special programmsCulturally appropriate programms

A,B,C classes (segregated classes)

Segregated schools

Early tracking

Short VET schoolsNo access to preschool(statutes)Lack of financial support

Lack of AA

Non-conducive financing

Curricula not recognizing Roma

Unqualified teachers

Discrimination not monitored

New policies: Chance for school level success

AA in preschool Active remedial classes

Parent participation

Desegregation

Stipends/mentoring

Per capita coefficientsRoma mediators

Roma teachers, inspectors

Disaggregatedoutcome evaluation

Teacher training

Cross-curricular integration

Monitoring discrimination

Typical traps in education policies concerning Roma:

• The “minority cultural rights” trap– Assimilating into other minority policies

• The “poverty” trap – Ignoring discrimination, providing assistance

• The “vulnerable group” trap– Not recognizing resiliency, compensating for handicap instead of building on

strengths• The “inclusion” trap

– Fusion with special needs children

• The “school-based-approach” trap– Creating Roma-magnet schools

• The “parent involvement” trap– Expanding the role of school above realistic limits

• The “quality education” trap– Ignoring integration

Multiple levels of actions requiredFramework, guidance, funds

School networkMaintenance

Where the action is

National level

Municipal/regional level

School level

Curriculum, textbooks, teachers, evaluationFinances, management

Example 7: Roma education initiative

• Montenegro, national program + school action

• National framework:– Co-funding– Data collection– Monitoring– Legitimity

• School action:– Roma assistants– Roma mediators connecting school and parents– Teacher training

• Similar program in Croatia

Example 8: Preschool program• Serbia, national only - history of failure • New design:

– community + – municipality + – preschool institution +– Professional support institution

• Roma coordinators: parent motivation• Teacher sensitization and coaching • Data/-base

• Key factors of success: – preschool institutional capacity– cooperation of teachers, teacher model– municipal committment

• If levels disconnected:Commitment without system (school level) or system without commitment (national level)

• If levels connected: Not easy: living with tensions, unconfortable for all parties

• Needed at policy level:– Closer link between national and school policies– Closer link between research and schools– Closer connection of “Roma policies” to “education

policies” – Clearer focus on equity in designing new education

reform policies

• Special look at the schools

Lessons learned

Why is the school where the action is:

Place of human interaction:

Teacher/studentStudent/studentTeacher/teacherTeacher/parentParent/parent

Place of intimatesocial experience:

– Learning – Deep

understanding – Respect

Place of development of the Self-concept:

Self-regulationSelf-efficacySelf-esteem Self-description/attribution

Place of creativity and innovation

All depend on thequality of IA in school

Research shows that quality of interaction matters (a small reminder):

•Place of important barriers/enhancements:

Hierarchy of motives •Students’ memories

Expectations of teachers function as self-fulfilling prophecies:

•Capacity development (Rosenthal & Jacobson)•Motivation (Pelletier & Vallerand)

Academic self-expectation (Wigfield)

Self-actualization

Esthetic needs

Knowledge and understanding

Respect

Belonging

Safety

Physiological needs

Schools need a conducive and rich context

Research Education Developmental priorities

…and strong connections

Research Education Develop

ment

Education system solutions in other countries

International instruments

Conclusions

Multitude of success stories in all countries, at a variety of levels

• Multicultural context is needed for intercultural education to happen, but it is not enough

• Quality of intercultural education calls for new mechanisms and revisiting basic concepts

• Novel ties between national, local and school policies and actions need to be fostered

• Missing link: teacher and school leadership initial education for intercultural education

But:• Be aware of “policy traps”

• Be aware of, and change teachers’ expectations

• Be aware of time: Delay in overcoming barriers increases the gap between Roma and non-Roma

Social benefits

Personal benefits

teachers

efficient

Equitable &Equitable &

Interculturally Interculturally sensitivesensitive

accountable

regulated

participatory

textbooks curriculum

financing managementassessment evaluation

SCHOOL

Research

Development Policies

2025

Thank you!

Examples of intercultural education from the Western

Balkans

The Institutional Foundations for Dialogue and Respect Informal conference of European Ministers of Education

Oslo, June 5-6, 2008Tünde Kovač-Cerović