Prezastupljenost romske dece u overrepresentation of ......Alijević, Dalibor Nakić, Danica...

A Long WAy to goA RepoRt by the euRopeAn RomA Rights CentRe

ChAllenging DisCRiminAtion pRomoting equAlity

overrepresentation of Romani Children in “Special Schools” in SerbiajAnuARy 2014

eRRC

ChAllenging DisCRiminAtion pRomoting equAlity

jAnuARy / jAnuAR 2014

Još uvek dALeko od CiLJA izveŠtAj evRopskog CentRA zA pRAvA RomA

Prezastupljenost romske dece u „specijalnim školama” u SrbijijAnuAR 2014

Autorska prava: © evropski centar za prava Roma, januar 2014sva prava zaštićenaisbn 978-963-89916-2-1 Dizajn: Anikó Székffyprelom: dzavit BerishaŠtampa: Molnár és Faragó Bt., Budapest, HungaryFotografija na koricama: © Jiři doleželsa engleskog prevele: tatjana Perić i irena Popović

internet linkovi navedeni u ovom izveštaju bili su aktivni u vreme pisanja publikacije ovaj izveštaj je objavljen na engleskom i srpskom jeziku

molimo vas da kontaktirate eRRC radi dozvole za korišćenje teksta izveštaja

Adresa: 1074 budimpešta, madách tér 4, mađarskatelefon: +36 1 413 2200Faks: +36 1 413 2201e-mail: [email protected]

PodRžite eRRC

Rad evropskog centra za prava Roma zavisi od velikodušnosti individualnih dona-tora. molimo vas da im se pridružite u građenju budućnosti Centra putem davanja priloga. Donacije svih veličina su dobrodošle, i možete ih uplatiti preko pAypAl-a na eRRC internet stranici (www.errc.org, kliknite na “Donate” u gornjem desnom uglu stranice) ili putem bankovnog transfera na eRRC račun:

ime banke: BudAPeSt BAnkAdresa banke: BátHoRi utCA 1, 1054 BudAPeSt, HungARyvlasnik računa: euRoPeAn RoMA RigHtS CentReeuR broj bankovnog računa: 30P00-402686(euR ibAn: Hu21-10103173-40268600-00000998)sWiFt (ili biC) kod: BudAHuHB

Copyright: © european Roma Rights Centre, january 2014All rights reservedisbn 978-963-89916-2-1 Design: Anikó Székffylayout: dzavit Berishaprinted by: Molnár és Faragó Bt., Budapest, HungaryCover photo: © Jiři doležel

the internet links contained in this report were active at the time of publication this report is published in english and serbian

please contact the eRRC for information on our permissions policy

Address: 1074 budapest, madách tér 4, hungaryoffice tel: +36 1 413 2200office Fax: +36 1 413 2201e-mail: [email protected]

SuPPoRt tHe eRRC

the european Roma Rights Centre is dependent upon the generosity of individual donors for its continued existence. please join in enabling its future with a contribution. gifts of all sizes are welcome and can be made via pAypAl on the eRRC website (www.errc.org, click on the Donate button at the top right of the home page) or bank transfer to the eRRC account:

bank name: BudAPeSt BAnkbank address: BátHoRi utCA 1, 1054 BudAPeSt, HungARybank account holder: euRoPeAn RoMA RigHtS CentReeuR bank account number: 30P00-402686(euR ibAn: Hu21-10103173-40268600-00000998)sWiFt (or biC) code: BudAHuHB

this report was made possible with the support of the swedish international Development Cooperation Agency (sida). the content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the european Roma Rights Centre. the views expressed in the report do not necessarily represent the views of donors.

ovaj izveštaj je nastao uz podršku Švedske međunarodne razvojne agencije (swed-ish international Development Cooperation Agency - sida). za sadržaj publikacije u potpunosti je odgovoran evropski centar za prava Roma. stavovi izneti u ovom izveštaju ne predstavljaju stavove donatora.

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms 2

Acknowledgements 3

Executive Summary 5

1 Introduction 11

2 Roma and the Education of Students With Disabilities 13 2.1 “SpecialEducation”intheStrategicFrameworkforRomaEducation 15

3 Overrepresentation of Romani Children in “Special Schools” 17 3.1 OfficialDataonRomaniChildreninSchoolsforStudentsWithDisabilities 17 3.2 TheERRCResearchonRomaRepresentationinEPDSchools 19 3.2.1 The(over)representationofRomaAmongStudentsof“SpecialSchools”20 3.2.2 TheProportionofRomaAmongStudentsWithMildMentalDisabilities 22 3.2.3 NewEnrolmentsinAcademicYears2011/2012and2012/2013 22 3.2.4 EnrolmentofRomaniStudentsInto“SpecialSchools”Withoutthe

OpinionoftheInter-SectoralCommission 23 3.2.5 TransferofRomaniStudentsfromMainstreamto“SpecialSchools”

andViceVersa 23

4 How and Why Romani Pupils End Up in Schools for Students With Disabilities 25 4.1 GeneralEducationalBackgroundofStudents 25 4.2 KnowledgeAbout“SpecialSchools” 26 4.3 EducationalBackgroundofParents 27 4.4 TheProcessLeadingtoRomaniChildren’sPlacementin“SpecialSchools” 27 4.5 TheTransferofRomaniStudentsfromMainstreamto“SpecialSchools” 28 4.6 SupporttoRemaininMainstreamSchools 29 4.7 EnrolmentinSchoolsforStudentsWithDisabilities 30

5 Conclusions and Recommendations 35

6 Bibliography 37

Annex 1: Names of Schools Which Provided Data to the ERRC 41

Annex 2: Data Tables on the Participation of Romani Children in the Schools for the Education of Students With Disabilities 43

european roma righTs CenTre | www.errC.org2

Table of ConTenTs a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

abbreviations and acronyms

DILS DeliveryofImprovedLocalServicesEPD EducationofpupilswithdisabilitiesEPD classes Classes within mainstream schools for the education of pupils with disabilities(formerlyknownas“specialclasses”)EPD schools Schoolsfor theeducationofpupilswithdisabilities (formerlyknownas “specialschools”)ERRC EuropeanRomaRightsCentreIEP IndividualEducationPlanISC Inter-SectoralCommissionMoESTD MinistryofEducation,ScienceandTechnologicalDevelopmentNAP NationalActionPlanNGO Non-governmentalorganisationLFES LawontheFoundationsoftheEducationSystemLPE LawonPrimaryEducationOSI formerlyOpenSocietyInstitute,nowOpenSocietyFoundationsPS PrimarySchoolSPSE SchoolforPrimaryandSecondaryEducationUN UnitedNationsWB WorldBank

reporT 3

a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

acknowledgements

ThisreportwasproducedbytheEuropeanRomaRightsCentre(ERRC).AfterattendinganERRCtraininginfieldresearchintheareaofeducationofpupilswithdisabilities,ateamof16RomaniresearchersinterviewedRomanifamilieswithchildreninschoolsforstudentswithdisabilitiesinninelocationsthroughoutSerbia.Thisteamconsistedof,inalphabeticalorder,Aleksandar Dinić, AleksandarMakić, Aleksandra Demirović, Branislav Jovanović, DamirAlijević,DaliborNakić,DanicaJovanović,GoranHasanović, InaKaraba, JašarAšimović,JelicaNikolić,JovanNikolić,MilicaPavel,NadaĐuričković,SlađanaTeodorovićandSlavicaRakić.FielddatagatheredbytheresearcherswereprocessedbyAnđelijaVučurević.AndreaČolakpreparedalegalbackgroundanalysiswhichservedasabasisoftherelevantchapter.MarijaManićundertookthecollectionofstatisticaldatafromschools.TatjanaPerićconduct-edadditional interviewswithexpertsandactivists,andalsopreparedvariousdraftsofthisreport,withinputfromĐorđeJovanović,StephanMüller,AdamWeiss,MariannePowellandAndreaČolak.DezideriuGergelyapprovedthefinalversionofthereportforpublication.

TheERRCwouldliketothankalloftheschools,individualsandorganisationswhocontrib-utedtowardsthecreationofthisreport,andespeciallytheRomanifamilies inSerbiawhokindlyagreedtoshare theirviewswithusontheirchildren’seducation inschools for theeducationofpupilswithdisabilities.

reporT 5


executive summary

FormorethanadecadetheEuropeanRomaRightsCentre(ERRC)hasmonitoredaccessofRomatoeducationintheregion.OverrepresentationofRomanichildrenin“specialschools”hasalwaysbeenanissueintermsofbothqualityandequalityofeducation.However,ERRCwelcomesthatinlastseveralyears,theRepublicofSerbiahasundoubtedlytakenveryim-portantstepsintermsofbothlegislationaswellaspolicyrelatingtoRomaeducationandespeciallythesegregationofRomanistudentsinschoolsfortheeducationofstudentswithdisabilities.ThedecreaseintherepresentationofRomanistudentsinsuchschools,however,doesindicatethatchangesareslowlytakingplace.

TheRepublicof Serbia embarkedon a significant andmuchneeded changeof course ineducationwiththeadoptionofthenewLawontheFoundationsoftheEducationSystemin2009,providinggroundsformajorchangesininclusiveeducationforRoma.TheeducationsysteminSerbia,accordingtothenewlegislation,shouldbeequalandaccessible,withoutdiscriminationandseparationbasedonanumberofgrounds,includingethnicityanddisabil-ity.Thiswasbyallmeansurgentlyneeded,sinceRomanistudentsinSerbialagbehindtheirnon-Romanipeersintermsofschoolenrolment,attendanceandattainment,yettheyarealsoexposedtodiscriminationandsegregationineducation,includingthesegregationofRomanichildrenintheso-called“specialschools”forstudentswithdisabilities.

Fouryearssincetheadoptionofthelaw,thepromiseofinclusiveeducationremainsunful-filledforthemajorityofRomanichildrenandyouthinspecialisedinstitutionsforstudentswithdisabilities.InordertoillustratetheextentofthephenomenonofRomaoverrepre-sentationinsuchschools,theEuropeanRomaRightsCentre(ERRC)embarkedonadatacollectionexercisein2013,seekingstatisticalinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofRomanistudentsin“specialschools”andobtainingrelevantinformationfrom31schoolsthroughoutthecountry.

ThisresearchendeavourwascomplementedbyasurveyconductedintenlocationsacrossSerbia,in128householdsofRomanistudentsof“specialschools.”Inthecourseofthesurvey,ateamof15Romaniresearchers,previouslytrainedbytheERRC,talkedtoparentsandcaregiversofRom-anistudentsabouttheprocessesleadingtotheplacementoftheirchildrenin“specialschools.”

Key Findings

Romani students are still overrepresented in special schools though their absolute number in these schools have decreased

OfficialdataforVojvodinaandtheresultsoftheERRCresearchindicateadecreaseofboththenumberofRomanistudentsandoftheoverallnumberofchildrenattending“specialschools.”


exeCuTive summary a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

Despite thispositivedevelopmentandthepromiseof inclusiveeducationwith the legalandpolicyreformsSerbiaadoptedin2009,theshareofRomainspecialisededucationalinstitutionsremainhigh.ERRCresearchdata,collectedfrom31schoolsthroughoutthecountry, indicatesanongoingandnotabledegreeofoverrepresentationofRomainspe-cialschools.Furthermore,anumberofindividualschoolshavealarminglyhighsharesofRomanistudents,reachingupto73%in2012/13.

number and percentage of romani and non-romani students in epd schools and classes

School year Romani students (Vojvodina data) % All students Romani students

(ERRC research) % All students

2010/2011 736 28.26 2604 n/a n/a n/a2011/2012 623 27.29 2300 808 23 35392012/2013 557 26.15 2130 690 21 3306

schools with highest percentage of romani children in academic year 2012/2013 School Absolute number % of Romani studentsSPSEVidovdaninBor 69 73%PSSvetiSavainProkuplje 23 68%SPSEVeselinNikolićinKruševac 75 63%PSNoviBeogradinBelgrade 58 40%

Indications of a decrease in new enrolments in EPD education

● TheERRCresearchdatarevealthatatotalof 41Romanistudentsenrolledinfirstgradein2011/12,amountingtoafifth(20%)of allsuchstudents.In2012/13,boththeabso-lutenumberof Romaninewfirstgraders(24students)andtheirshareamongallsuchstudents(11%)becamesmaller.Inparticularthelatterdataindicateapositivetrendof adecreaseinrepresentationof Romanichildren,yettheyarestillabovethelevelof Romanistudents’participationinmainstreameducation.

● Further,accordingtoERRCresearch,in2012/2013onlytwoRomanichildrenwereen-rolledinEPDschoolswithouttheopinionof theInter-SectoralCommission.

Underlying reasons for attending EPD education

● Accordingtothesurveyinonlyone-fifthof thecases(22%),itwastheparentorothercaregiverwhotooktheinitiativethatthechildshouldbeassessedastowhichschooltypewouldbeappropriate.Thefirststepsinthedirectiontowards“specialschools”wereevi-dentlytakenfollowingtheadviceof educationalandmedicalprofessionals.

● Muchof therespondents’apparentconsentto“specialeducation”isinfluencedbytheperceivedauthorityof theprofessionalsinvolved,aswellasthesocio-economicfactorscreatingobstaclesrelatingtoeducationof Romanistudents.

● Thesurveyresultsalsotestifythat,despitetheexplanationstheygaveinsupportof spe-cialisedinstitutions,amajorityof respondents(63%)neverthelessstatedthattheywouldpreferif theirchildrenreceivededucationinmainstreamschools.

reporT 7


Insufficient assistance to children to stay in mainstream schools

● The practice of transferring students from mainstream schools to EPD still contin-ues.Boththeoverallnumberandthenumberof Romanistudentsevenincreasedfrom2011/2012to2012/2013.

● In70%of thecases, the intervieweesconfirmedthattheschooldidnotofferanyad-ditionalsupporttotheirchildreninordertokeepthestudentenrolledinthemainstreamschools,asopposedtotransfer.

● Inthecasesof studentstransferredto“specialschools”aftertheyhadspentsometimeinmainstreameducation,41%of theirparentsandcarerswerenevercontactedinrelationtothedifficultiestheirchildrenexperienced.

● Oncestudentsendupinaspecialisededucationalinstitution,thereishardlyanyreturn,andonlyoneintenrespondentsattemptedtotransferthestudentsto(orbackto)main-streamschools.

Limited information for parents - the ability of parents to make informed decision on the educational choices for their children

● Alargemajorityof respondents(75%)totheERRCsurveysaysthecommissiondidnotinformthemonthelimitationsandnegativeconsequencesassociatedwithattendingEPDschools.

● 71%werenottoldbythecommissionthattheyhavetherighttorefusethecommission’sopinion.

● Almosthalf of therespondentsstatedthattheydidnotreceiveanyinformationfromthemembersof theassessmentcommissiononwhattheassessmentshouldactuallyestablish.

● 10%of parentsandcarersforRomanistudentsof “specialschools”didnotknowtheexactnatureof theschoolsthechildrenandyouthareattending.

● Commissionmembersaskedasmuchas41%of parentsandcarerstosignrelateddocu-mentationwithoutclarifyingwhatthedocumentswereabout.

● Practicallythree-quartersof surveyrespondentssaidtheywerenottoldthattheycanbepresentatthecommission’sassessment.

● Followingtheassessmentof thecommission,twothirdsof respondentswerenottoldaboutthereasonsforthecommission’sdecisionthatthechildshouldbereferredtoa“specialschool.”

Treatment of Romani children in mainstream education

46%oftheintervieweesallegedthatthetreatmentinmainstreamschoolswasnotgood.Themostcommonreasons1givenwere:

● theteachersignoredthestudent(50%),● thestudenthadtositinthebackof theclass(50%),● theteachershumiliatedthestudentinfrontof theirpeers(39%).

1 Theintervieweescouldprovidemultipleanswerstothisquestion.


exeCuTive summary a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

Themost common reasonswhy studentswho additionally experienced bullying inmain-streamschoolswere:

● Romaniethnicity(75%)● disabilitiesorlowgrades(42%)● poverty(33%).

Recommendations

Thesekeyfindingsleadustotheconclusionthatfasterandmorevigorousactiononbehalf of theeducationauthoritiesisnecessary,andtheERRCurgestheGovernmentof Serbiatoeradicatetheoverrepresentationandsegregationof Romanichildrenin“specialschools”byadoptingthefollowingrecommendations:

● Implementinclusiveeducationasrequiredandregulatedbytherelevantlegislationandinternationalhumanrightsstandards.

● Endthesegregationof Romanichildreninto“specialschools”andthegeneralpracticeof segregatingpupilsbasedonintellectualability.

● ImplementtheNationalActionPlanonRomaEducation2012-2014,byprovidingad-equatehumanandfinancial resources,andespecially itsmeasuresaddressing theover-representationof Romanistudentsin“specialschools.”

● BansegregationonethnicgroundsinSerbianschools,especiallyinschoolsforstudentswithdisabilities.

● Inparticular, enforce thebanon the enrolmentof studentswhodonothavementaldisabilitiesineducationalinstitutionsdesignedforstudentswhohavementaldisabilities,regardlessof parentalconsentorrequests.

● Immediately address the situationof schools for studentswithdisabilitieswithanex-tremely high proportion of Romani students, transfer wrongfully placed students tomainstreamschoolsinthearea,andfullysupporttheintegrationof transferstudentsintomainstreamschools.

● Facilitatethetransferof studentsfrom“special”tomainstreamschools,byprovidingad-ditionalsupportandincentives,atboththenationalandlocallevel,tomainstreamschoolsacceptingstudentsfrom“specialschools.”

● Providetheparentsandcarersof childrenwithoutdisabilitieswhoarewrongfullyplacedin“specialschools”withopportunitiesof takingadequatelegalaction.

● InformRomaniparentsandcaregiversinprovidinginclusiveeducationfortheirchildren,andensurethateducationprofessionalsprovidefull informationtoparentsduringthecourseof relevantprocedures.

● Provide financial support tonon-governmentalorganisations inorder tocarryout in-formationcampaignsamongRomaniparentsandcarerswithregardstotheirrightsandresponsibilitiesregardingtheirchildren’seducation,andthebenefitsof inclusiveeduca-tioninmainstreaminstitutions.

● Speeduptheprocessof revisingtherulesandregulationsrelatingtotheworkof Inter-Sec-toralCommissions,toensurethattheirworkisdoneeffectively,lawfully,andprofessionally.

reporT 9


● ProvideconcretesupportandassistancetoRomaniparentswishingtoeducatetheirchil-drenininclusiveeducation.

● Increasethenumberof Romanipedagogicalassistantsinpreschoolandprimaryschoolinstitutions,inordertoensureinclusivequalityeducationforRomanichildren.

● Regularlycollectdatadisaggregatedbyethnicityandsexwithregardstoeducationandparticularly“specialeducation”andmakethesedatapubliclyavailable,whileatthesametimeensuringrespectfornationalandinternationaldataprotectionstandards.

TheERRChopesthattheirdatacollectionandfieldresearchresultswillassisttheSerbianedu-cationalauthoritiesintheirworktoachievelasting,positivechangeand,inparticular,toendseg-regationintheSerbianschoolsystem;thisincludesallformsofsegregation,suchassegregationofRomanistudentsbasedonethnicityandsegregationofpupilsbasedonintellectualability.

reporT 11


1 introduction

SerbiaembarkedonasignificantandmuchneededchangeofcourseoneducationwiththeadoptionofanewLawontheFoundationsoftheEducationSystem(LFES)in2009.2Amongmanyother innovations, theLFESprovidedgrounds formajorchanges in inclusivequalityeducation,includingtheinclusiveeducationofRoma.Thiswasurgentlyneeded,sinceRomanistudentsinSerbialagbehindtheirnon-Romanipeersintermsofschoolenrolment,attendanceandattainment,andtheyarealsoexposedtodiscriminationandsegregationineducation.Inparticular,thesegregationofRomanichildreninso-called“specialschools”forstudentswithdisabilitieshasbeena long-runningconcernof theEuropeanRomaRightsCentre (ERRC),aswellastheinternationaltreatymonitoringbodies.In2011forexample,theUnitedNations(UN)CommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscriminationexpresseditsconcernoverseg-regationofRomaineducationinSerbia.3ContinuingsegregationofRomanipupilsin“specialschools”leavesSerbiaopentothekindoflitigationthatledtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightstocondemntheCzechRepublic,4Croatia,5Greece6andHungary7 inrecentyearsfordiscriminatingagainstRomanichildrenwhensecuringtheirrighttoeducation.

FouryearssincetheadoptionoftheLFES,thepromiseofinclusiveeducationremainsunful-filledforthemajorityofRomanichildrenandyouthinspecialisedinstitutionsforstudentswithdisabilities.InordertoillustratetheextentofthephenomenonofRomaoverrepresentationinsuchschools,in2013theERRCembarkedonadatacollectionexercise,seekingstatisticalinfor-mationrelatingtotherepresentationofRomanistudentsin“specialschools”throughoutSer-bia.ThisresearchendeavourwascomplementedbyasurveyconductedintenlocationsacrossSerbia,in128householdsincludingRomanistudentsof“specialschools.”Inthecourseofthesurvey,ateamof16Romaniresearchers,previouslytrainedbytheERRC,talkedtoparentsandcaregiversofRomanistudentsabouttheprocessesleadingtotheplacementoftheirchildrenin“specialschools.”TheresultsoftheERRCdatacollectionandfieldresearcharepresentedinthisreport,inthehopethattheywillleadtomeaningfulandlastingchange,andendthesegrega-tionofRomanichildrenandyouthinschoolsforstudentswithmentaldisabilities.

2 Law on the Foundations of the Education System (Zakon o osnovama sistema obrazovanja i vaspitanja),Službeni glasnik RS, No.72/2009,52/2011,55/2013,availableinSerbianat:http://www.mpn.gov.rs/dokumenta-i-propisi/zakoni/obrazovanje-i-vaspitanje?lang=sr-YU.

3 CommitteeontheEliminationof RacialDiscrimination, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimina-tion of Racial Discrimination: Serbia,2011,availableat:http://www.bayefsky.com/docs.php/area/conclobs/treaty/cerd/opt/0/state/100004/node/3/filename/serbia_t4_cerd_78.

4 D.H. v Czech Republic.

5 Orsus v Croatia.

6 Sampanis v Greece andSampani v Greece.

7 Horvath and Kiss v Hungary.

reporT 13


2 roma and the education of students with disabilities

AseriesoflawsandbylawsrecentlyadoptedinSerbiapavethewayfortheeducationalinclu-sionofRomanichildren.ThenewumbrellaLawontheFoundationsoftheEducationSys-tem(LFES),adoptedin2009,introducedmajorchangestothesystemofprimaryeducationinSerbia.Initsfollowup,theGovernmentalsoadoptedtheRulebookonAdditionalEduca-tional,MedicalandSocialSupporttoPupils(2010),8RulebookonAssessmentandEvaluationoftheIndividualEducationPlan(2010),9RulebookonGradingPupilsinElementaryEduca-tion(2011)10andthenewLawonPrimaryEducation(LPE)(2013).11

TheeducationsysteminSerbia,accordingtothenewlegislation,shouldbeequalandaccessible,withoutdiscriminationandseparationbasedonanumberofgrounds,includingethnicityanddis-ability.12Thelawasksschoolstoadaptthemselvesaroundtheneedsofstudents,13especiallybythemeansofindividualeducationplans(IEP)preparedforstudents.14AccordingtotheLFES,man-datorypreschoolpreparationprogrammeforallchildrenagedfive-and-a-halftosix-and-a-halfhasbeenextendedtoninemonths,toimprovethereadinessofchildrenforschool.Italsointroducedthepositionsofpedagogicalassistants,providingadditionalsupporttostudentsinneed.15Socialprotectionlawsalsoallowforpersonalassistantstoprovidesupporttosuchstudents.16

Schoolenrolmentisnowunconditionalandinclusive,andinsomeexceptionalcaseschil-dren inSerbiacannowenrol intoschoolswithout somepersonaldocuments,which isvery relevant forRomanichildrenwhoare“legally invisible”due toa lackofpersonaldocuments,mainlybirthcertificates.17AccordingtotheLFES,therearenownoformal

8 Pravilnik o dodatnoj obrazovnoj, zdravstvenoj i socijalnoj podršci detetu i učeniku,Službeni glasnik RS, No.63/2010.

9 Pravilnik o bližim uputstvima za utvrđivanje prava na individualni obrazovni plan, njegovu primenu i vrednovanje,Službeni glasnik RS, No.76/2010.

10 Pravilnik o ocenjivanju učenika u osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju,Službeni glasnik RS, No.74/2011.

11 Zakon o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju,Službeni glasnik RS, No.55/2013.

12 LFES,Article3(1)(1).


14 Individualeducationplansareformaldocumentsoutliningtheinstitution’splanforadditionalsupporttotheeducationof aparticularstudent,interaliaspecifyingtheobjectivesof theeducationalactivitiesinquestion,detailingtheindividualsupportactivities,definingspecialachievementstandards,thepersonneltobeinvolvedintheactivities,andtheoverallIEPimplementationtimeframe(RulebookonAssessmentandEvaluationof theIndividualEducationPlan,Article5).

15 Pedagogicalassistantsprovideadditionalhelpandsupporttochildrenandstudents,dependingontheirneeds,andalsoassistteachersandothereducationprofessionalsinimprovingtheirworkwithchildrenandstudentswhoneedadditionaleducationalsupport(LFES,Article117).

16 Personalassistantssupportvariouscategoriesof disadvantagedindividualsinordertoimprovetheirqualityof lifeandenablethemtoleadactiveandindependentlives(LawonSocialProtection,Službeni glasnik RS,No. 24/2011,Articles40and45).

17 LFES,Article98;LFES,however,doesnotspecifywhetherthesestudentswillbeallowedtograduatefromprimaryschoolunlesstheyprovidethemissingdocumentsbythetimeof thegraduation.


roma and The eduCaTion of sTudenTs wiTh disabiliTies a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

limitationsforanychildtoattendamainstreamprimaryschool,alongwiththemandatoryformationofinclusiveeducationteamsinschools.18Although separate classes for studentswithdisabilitieswithinmainstream schools cannolongerbeformed,19schoolsforstudentswithdisabilities–theso-called“specialschools”20–arestillinoperation,andpreviousclassesestablishedwithinmainstreamschoolscontinue.Studentsshouldattend“specialschools”onlyexceptionallyandwheninthebest interestsofthechild.21Primaryschoolsforstudentswithdisabilitiesshouldalsoprovidesupporttomainstreamprimaryschools,withtheaimofpromotinginclusivepractices.22

TheformerCommissionsforCategorisation,whichhaddecision-makingpowersonthetypeofschoolastudentwouldattend,arenolongeroperational.Instead,theLFESintroducedInter-SectoralCommissions(ISC).Uponastudent’senrolmentinmainstreamschool,andincasethatthestudentrequiresadditionalsupport,theschoolenablesaccesstotheISCforthepurposeofmakinganassessmentofthetypeofadditionalsupporttobeprovided;further-more,astudentcanbeenrolledintoa“specialschool”onlywithbothanopinionoftheISCsupportingthismove,andtheconsentofthestudent’sparents.23Generally,thepurposeoftheISCassessmentistoenablesocialinclusionbyprovidingadequatesupporttoachildorpupilinaccessingtheirrights,servicesandresources.24

FouryearsaftertheadoptionoftheLFES,theimplementationofthelawanditsbylawssignificantlyvariesfromschooltoschool.Anumberoffactorshavecontributedtothis.Primarily, it took some time for theGovernment to adopt additional laws and bylaws,whichmadetheimplementationofLFESpracticallypossible.25Someofthesedocuments,especiallytheRulebookonAdditionalSupport,areinneedofseriousrevisionaccordingtoeducationpractitioners,andthenewdraftontheRulebookhasbeenwaitingforformal


19 LFES,Article98(7).

20 Informalparlance,Article3of the2013LawonPrimaryEducationusestheterm“schoolsfortheeducationof studentswithdifficultiesindevelopmentanddisability.”Theseschoolswereformerlyknownas“specialschools”andarecolloquiallystillreferredtointhesameway.Forthesakeof simplicity,thisreportwillrefertotheseschoolsas“specialschools”orschoolsfortheeducationof pupilswithdisabilities(EPDschools).

21 LPE,Article10(2).

22 LPE,Article18(3).

23 LFES,Article98(7)andLPE,Article56.LFESexplicitlymentionsonlyparents’consentinthiscontext,howeverguardiansareentitledtolegalrepresentationof childrenonequaltermsasparents,withanexceptionthatguardians’decisionsrelatingtoeducationalsohavetobeapprovedbyCentresforSocialWork(FamilyLaw,Službeni glasnik RS,No.18/2005,Article138).

24 RulebookonAdditionalSupport,Article1(2).

25 Formoredetails,seeEuropeanRomaRightsCentreandMinorityRightsCentre,Parallel Report by the European Roma Rights Centre and Minority Rights Centre, Concerning Serbia to the Human Rights Council, within its Universal Periodic Review, for consideration at its 15th session (21 January to 1 February 2013)(Budapest:EuropeanRomaRightsCentre,2012),availableat:http://www.errc.org/reports-and-advocacy-submissions/errc-submission-to-un-hrc-on-serbia-july-2012/4037.

reporT 15


adoptionsinceJanuary2013.26Onapracticallevel,therearealsoconcernsregardingthelackofcapacityofschoolstoimplementthelaw,especiallyitsaspectsrelatingtoinclusiveeducation.Teachingstaffalsofrequentlycomplainofdifficultiesinimplementinginclusiveeducation,includingthedesignandapplicationofindividualeducationplans.27

2.1 “special education” in the strategic framework for roma education

Inadditiontolegislativechanges,thefocusoninclusiveeducationisalsoontheriseinstrategicdocumentsrelatingtotheeducationofRomanistudentsinSerbia.TheStrategy for the Development of Education in Serbia until 2020,adoptedbytheSerbianGovernmentin2012,placesastrongem-phasisoninclusivenessandfrequentlyreferstoRomanichildrenasaspecificsociallyvulnerablegroupofspecialimportanceineducation.28TherearesegmentsofSerbia’spolicycommitmentsunder theDecadeofRomaInclusion2005–2015thatsuggestdecreasingnumberofRomanichildrenin“specialschools.”Thecountry’sNationalActionPlan(NAP)onRomaeducationfrom2005proposedthemeasuresofdraftingandadoptingtemporaryregulationsforthere-as-sessmentofstudentswronglyassignedto“specialschools,”testingorretestingofsuchstudentsandtheirtransfertomainstreaminstitutions,andtheelaborationofspecialprogrammesforworkwithsuchstudentsupontheirtransfertomainstreameducation.29Moreover,theStrategy for the Improvement of the Status of Roma in the Republic of Serbia,officiallyadoptedaslateas2009,recognisedtheproblemofsendingRomanichildrento“specialschools”andattributeditprimarilytosocialandlinguisticfactors,ratherthangenuinedisability.30Therefore,oneoftheStrategy’saimsinthefieldofeducationwastheprovisionofqualityeducationforRoma,includingthereturntomainstreamschoolsforRomanistudentswhodonothavedisabilitiesyetwhoattend“specialschools”nevertheless.Inasimilarvein,theStrategy’spriorityofincludingRomanichildrenineducationenvisagedthecreatingofasystemforanadequateassessmentofreadinessforschool.

TheActionPlanforImplementationoftheStrategy for the Improvement of the Status of Roma in the Republic of Serbiafortheperiodof2012-2014buildsonthe2009educationreforms,andproposesthedraftingandrevisionoflegislationandregulationrelatedtoeducation,especiallywithregards

26 RulebookonAdditionalEducational,MedicalandSocialSupporttoChildrenandPupilsdefinesthecondi-tionsforundertakingassessmentof theneedforadditionaleducational,medicalorsocialsupporttoachildorpupil,andalsodefinesthemembershipandmodusoperandiof theInter-SectoralCommissions(RulebookforAdditionalSupport,Article1).

27 Formoredetails,seeEuropeanRomaRightsCentre,Serbia: Country Profile 2011-2012 (Budapest:Eu-ropeanRomaRightsCentre,2013),availableat:http://www.errc.org/article/serbia-country-pro-file-2011-2012/4166.

28 Governmentof theRepublicof Serbia,Strategy for the Development of Education in Serbia until 2020,availableinSerbianat:www.ff.uns.ac.rs/Files/StrategijaObrazovanja.pdf.

29 Ministryof HumanandMinorityRights,Common Action Plan for the Advancement of Roma Education in Serbia, 2005, availableinEnglishat:http://www.romadecade.org/article/decade-action-plans/9296.

30 OfficeforHumanandMinorityRights,Strategy for the Improvement of the Status of Roma in the Republic of Serbia,2009,availableinSerbianat:http://www.ljudskaprava.gov.rs/index.php/nacionalne-manjine/propisi-i-strategije.


roma and The eduCaTion of sTudenTs wiTh disabiliTies a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

totransfersfrom“special”tomainstreamschools.31Furthermore, therevisedNAPalsoplanssupportfortheinclusionofRomanistudentstransferringfrom“special”tomainstreamschools,bythemeansofcreatingmechanismsandproceduresforsuchtransfers,designingsupportpro-grammesforallsuchstudents,andworkwithparentswithregardstotheirchildren’senrolmentinmainstreamschools.TheNAP’splannedindicatorsalsoincludethenumberofstudentsenrolledin“specialschools”withouttheopinionoftheInter-SectoralCommission.

Unfortunately,theGovernmentdidnotearmarkanyfundsforthisactivity,scheduledforcomple-tionbytheendof2014accordingtotheNAP,andthefundingislikelytobeprovidedonlythroughdonations.TheNAPlists justonedonationwithregardstothe“specialeducation”ofRomanichildren:theDeliveryofImprovedLocalServices(DILS)projectoftheWorldBank.32Theobjec-tiveofDILSwasthecapacity-buildingofinstitutionalactorsandbeneficiariesinimprovingaccessto,andqualityof,localdeliveryofservicesintheareasofhealth,educationandsocialprotection.SinceMarch2008DILSwasimplementedbytheMinistryofEducation,ScienceandTechnologicalDevelopment(MoESTD),theMinistryofHealthandtheMinistryofLabourandSocialPolicyin55municipalitiesinSerbia,throughawidepartnershipnetworkincluding140primaryschoolsand55Romanon-governmentalorganisations.Theproject’sComponentIV:ImprovingCapacityofLSGsandOtherLocalPublicInstitutionsasServiceProviders,interaliadealtwiththeissuesofRomaeducation,bythemeansofgrantsforqualityimprovementsinschools.Nevertheless,DILSfundedonlyproject-specificactivitiesandonlyforalimitedperiodoftime.ItwasslatedtoendinDecember2013,andtherearealreadyconcernsonthesustainabilityofitsresults,primarilyrelatingtotheabilityoflocalself-governmentstofinanceandimplementlocalactionplansonRomaeducation.33

Ingeneral,however,itisnotpossibletofindanysystematicreportingoranalysisoftheim-plementationandimpactofinstitutionalmeasuresrelatingtoRomain“specialeducation”inSerbia.TheSerbianGovernment’sownprogressreportonRomaDecadeactivitiesin2012claimsthatallRomachildrenenrolledin“specialschools”withoutthedecisionoftheInter-SectoralCommissionarenowincludedinmainstreamschools,andthatadditionalsupportprogrammesdevelopedforthesestudents,areregularlymonitored.34Furthermore,“specialschools”havereportedlybeenrequiredbytheMoESTDtopreparesupportprogrammesforRomanistudentsinhighergradestoassisttheminpreparationforfinalexamsandenrolmentinmainstreamsecondaryschools.Asissadlyoftenthecase,thedegreeofimplementationofthesecommitmentsremainsunclear,especiallyinlightofthedatacollectedintheERRCresearch,whichwillbepresentedinthefollowingchapters,andwhichdemonstratesthecon-tinuedpresenceoflargenumbersofRomanistudentsinschoolsforstudentswithdisabilities.

31 Kancelarijazaljudskaimanjinskaprava,Akcioni plan za sprovođenje Strategije za unapređenje položaja Roma u Repub-lici Srbiji za period 2012-2014, 2013,availableinSerbianat:http://www.ljudskaprava.gov.rs/index.php/yu/nacionalne-manjine-l/propisi-i-strategije.

32 Moreinformationontheprojectisavailableatthewebsitesof theWorldBank:http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P096823/delivery-improved-local-services-project?lang=en&tab=overview,andtheSerbianMoESTD:http://www.dils.gov.rs/mp/.

33 EmailcorrespondencewithZdenkaMilivojevic,MoESTD:16September2013.

34 Governmentof theRepublicof Serbia,Progress Report 2012,2013,availableinEnglishat:http://www.romadecade.org/news/decade-progress-reports-for-2012/9276.

reporT 17


3 overrepresentation of romani Children in “special schools”

3.1 official data on romani Children in schools for students with disabilities

OfficialstatisticaldataonRomanistudentswhoreceiveprimaryeducationinschoolsfortheedu-cationofpupilswithdisabilities(EPD)inSerbiaarenotsufficientlydetailedandnotregularlypro-vided.Theonlyrecentofficialdataavailable,fortheacademicyear2010/2011,placethenumberofRomanistudentsof“specialschools”at1,199,whichamountedto28%ofatotalnumberof4,248studentsofsuchschools.35Apartfromthat,researcherscouldonlyrelyonastudypreviouslyconductedbythethenOpenSocietyInstitute(OSI)andtheFundforanOpenSocietySerbia,beforetheenactmentofnewlegislationoninclusiveeducation.Basedondatareceivedfrom88%ofSerbian“specialschools”atthetime,theOSIresearchestablishedthesharesofRomaamongpupilsinEPDschoolsat30%intheacademicyear2007/08,and32%in2008/09.36

TheProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesoftheAutonomousProvinceofVojvodina(hereinafter:ProvincialSecretariat) isanexceptioninthisregard,asitcollectsdatadisaggregatedbyethnicityforallmajorethnicgroupslivingintheVojvodinaprovince,includingRoma.Since2011,thedatahavebeenpubliclyavailableonthewebsiteoftheSecretariatandareupdatedonanannualbasis.37AccordingtotheProvin-cialSecretariat’sdatareports,thenumberofRomanistudentsattendingprimaryschoolleveleducationforpupilswithdisabilitiesisgraduallydeclininginVojvodina.38

Fromtheacademicyear2010/2011totheyear2012/2013,thenumberofRomanistudentsinbothEPDschoolsandEPDclassesdecreasedfrom736to557students;aprocesswhichre-flectstheoveralldecreaseofstudentsinEPDschoolsandclasses(2,604to2,130).39Therefore,

35 Zavodzaunapređivanjeobrazovanjaivaspitanja,Obrazovno-vaspitne ustanove za decu i učenike sa smetnjama u razvoju u Republici Srbiji (Belgrade:Zavodzaunapređivanjeobrazovanjaivaspitanja,2012),38.

36 OpenSocietyInstitute,Roma Children in “Special” Education in Serbia: Overrepresentation, Underachievement and Impact on Life(Budapest:OpenSocietyInstitute,2010),61.

37 ThedocumentsareavailableinSerbianat:http://www.puma.vojvodina.gov.rs/documents.php.

38 Thenumberof studentsinmainstreamprimaryschoolsisalsodiminishingtoacertainextent,yetin2012/2013itwasonlya1.25%declinecomparedtothenumberof studentsinthepreviousacademicyear;evidently,andpositively,thedropintheoverallnumberof studentsinEPDdevelopedatafasterpace(7.4%from2011/12to2012/13)andinthecaseof RomanistudentsinEPDreached10.58%forthesameperiod.

39 Seetheannualreportsof theProvincialSecretariat:ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesof theAutonomousProvinceof Vojvodina,Informacija o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju učenika sa posebnim osvrtom na obrazovanje pripadnika nacionalnih manjina u AP Vojvodini u školskoj 2010/11. godini(NoviSad:ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesof theAutono-mousProvinceof Vojvodina,May2011);ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesof theAutonomousProvinceof Vojvodina,Informacija o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju učenika sa posebnim osvrtom na obrazovanje pripadnika nacionalnih manjina u AP Vojvodini u školskoj 2011/12. godini(NoviSad:


overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

whenitcomestotheshareofRomanichildrenaspartoftheentirestudentpopulationinEPDeducation,therearestillreasonsforconcern.In2010/2011,28.26%ofthesestudentswereofRomanioriginwhichdecreasedonlyto26.15%in2012/2013.40Theireducationtakesplacein13EPDschools(threeprimaryschoolsandtenschoolsforprimaryandsecondaryeducation)orEPDclasseswithin54mainstreamprimaryschoolsin28localself-governments.41

romani and non-romani students in epd schools and classes (vojvodina)42

School year Overall no. of EPD students

No. of Romani students

Roma among all EPD students

Annual decrease of Romani EPD students

2010/2011 2604 736 28.26% N/A2011/2012 2300 623 27.29% 15.35%2012/2013 2130 557 26.15% 10.58%

Thedownwardtrendiscommendable,yetthisisbynomeansrepresentativeoftheRomapres-encewithintheVojvodinademographic.Illustratively,accordingtotheofficialdatafromthemostrecentpopulation census, conducted inSerbia in2011, therewere42,391Roma living in theVojvodinaprovince,as2.19%ofitstotalpopulationof1,931,809.43Additionally,Romastudentsrepresentedonly5.43%ofstudentsinmainstreamprimaryschoolsinVojvodinain2012/2013.44

Furthermore,in2012/13,107,692studentsofSerbianethnicityattendedmainstreamprimaryschools,comparedto934SerbianstudentsinEPD,aratioof115:1.InthecaseofRoma,theratiowasonly14:1,with557studentsinEPDand8,272studentsinmainstreamprimaryeducation– thus forevery14Romani students inmainstreamprimaryschools, therewasonestudentinEPD.45Evidently,thereisstillaconsiderabledegreeofoverrepresentationofRomaintheeducationforstudentswithdisabilitiesinVojvodina.

InAugust2013,theERRCalsoaskedtheProvincialSecretariattoprovidedataonRom-anistudentsattendingprimaryeducationinEPDschoolsonly(excludingthoseattendingEPDclassesinmainstreamprimaryclasses,asisthecaseinthedataquotedabove).46Ac-cordingtothissource,thetotalsof356Romanistudentsin2011/2012and306students

ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesof theAutonomousProvinceof Vojvodina,May2012);ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesof theAutonomousProvinceof Vojvodina,Informacija o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju učenika, s posebnim osvrtom na obrazovanje pripadnika manjinskih nacionalnih zajednica u Autonomnoj Pokrajini Vojvodini u školskoj 2012/13. godini(NoviSad:ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesof theAutono-mousProvinceof Vojvodina,May2013).

40 ProvincialSecretariat,Informacija (2011);ProvincialSecretariat,Informacija (2013).

41 ProvincialSecretariat,Informacija (2012),2andProvincialSecretariat,Informacija (2013),3.

42 Officialdataof theProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesof theAutonomousProvinceof Vojvodina;seefootnote39forspecificreferences.

43 StatisticalOfficeof theRepublicof Serbia,availableinSerbianat:http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.aspx?rptId=1210.

44 ProvincialSecretariat,Informacija (2013),25.

45 ProvincialSecretariat,Informacija (2013),9,12and25.

46 TheProvincialSecretariatrespondedpromptlyandthedatawasreceivedinhardcopyon27August2013.

reporT 19


in2012/2013attendedprimaryEPDschoolsinVojvodina.Outofthesenumbers,onlynine students (2.5%) in 2011/12 and seven students (2.3%) in 2012/13were studentsnewly enrolled in their first grades. Notably, six out of 13 schools did not enrol anyRomanistudentsintheirfirstgradesin2011/12,andthisnumbergrewtoeightschoolsin2012/13.TheSecretariatalsoprovideddataonRomani studentspereachEPDpri-maryschoolinVojvodina,butinabsolutenumbersonly,andwithoutdataontheoverallstudentpopulationoftheseschools,soitisnotpossibletoaccuratelycalculatethepro-portionofRomanistudentsandmakeanyconclusionsonpossibleoverrepresentationofRomanichildren,basedonthesedataalone.

3.2 The errC research on roma representation in epd schools

NotwithstandingthepositiveexampleoftheVojvodinaprovince,detaileddataonRomanistudentsinEPDschoolsisotherwisenotreadilyavailablewhenitcomestotherestofSerbia,asmentionedearlier.Inresponsetothedearthofinformationonthismatterforthewholecountry,theERRCdecidedtocollectrelevantdatadirectlyfromschools.InearlyApril2013,theERRCsentwrittendatarequeststo41EPDprimaryschoolsthroughoutSerbia,request-ingdatarelatingtoRomanichildrenattendingtheseschoolsinthecurrentandthepreviousacademicyear.Onthebasisofthe2004SerbianLaw on Free Access to Information of Public Impor-tance,47theERRCaskedtheschoolstoprovideprecisedatawithintwoweeksofreceivingtherequest.Alternatively,theschoolswereaskedtoprovideatleastsomereasonableestimatesor explanationswhy data are unavailable.TheERRC sought data for the academic years2011/2012and2012/2013,forallstudents,aswellasdisaggregateddataforRomanistudentsspecifically,forthefollowingtypesofinformation:

● Thetotalnumberof pupilsattendingschool;● Thenumberof pupilsnewlyenrolledinthefirstgradeintherelevantacademicyear;● Thenumberof pupilstransferredfrommainstreamprimaryschoolstotheEPDschoolinquestionintherelevantacademicyear;

● Thenumberof pupilstransferredfromtheEPDschoolinquestiontomainstreampri-maryschoolsintherelevantacademicyear;

● Thenumberof newstudentsenrolledwithouttheapprovalof theISC;● Thenumberof studentswithmildintellectualdisabilities;and● Thenumberof girlsattendingschool.

Outofthe41schoolscontacted,25schoolsprovidedtheirdataby7May2013.48Additionally,fourmoreschoolsrespondedwithexplanationsofwhythedatarequestedwasnotavailableor

47 Serbia,Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance,Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia120/04,54/07,104/09and36/10,Article15/1.

48 PleaseseeAnnex1foralistof allschools.



notrelevantintheircase.49InlateMay2013,theERRCfiledappealswiththeofficeoftheCom-missionerforInformationofPublicImportanceandPersonalDataCollectionregardingthependingcasesoftwelveschoolswhichdidnotrespondbythatpoint.50Withintwoweeksfromthedatetheappealsweresubmittedsixschoolsprovidedtherequesteddata.51TherequestsarependingwithsixschoolsasofOctober2013.52

The totalof31schoolswhichprovidedstatisticaldata requestedby theERRCcomprised13primaryEPDschoolsand18EPDschoolsworkingatbothprimaryandsecondary level (i.e.schoolsforprimaryandsecondaryeducation–SPSE).Fiveoftheseschools–oneprimaryschoolandfourSPSEs–areschoolsspecialisingmainlyineducatingchildrenwithvisual,speechand/orhearingimpairments.53Themannerofidentificationofstudentsas“Roma”wasnotspecified,andintheirresponseoneschoolnotedthat,forinstance,somestudentsdeclaredthemselvesasbothethnicallyAlbanianandRoma,andanotherschoolexplainedthattheirdataarenotreliablebecauseparentswerenotrequestedtodeclaretheethnicityoftheirchildren.

3.2.1 The (over)represenTaTion of roma among sTudenTs of “speCial sChools”

SimilartothetrendsfoundintheofficialstatisticsfromVojvodina,thedatatheERRCre-ceivedfrom31schoolsacrossSerbia(includingVojvodina)alsoindicateareductioninthenumbersofstudentsofallethnicities,aswellasthenumbersofRomanistudentsinEPDschools,fromtheacademicyear2011/12to2012/13.54

romani and non-romani students in epd schools and classes55 School year

Overall no. of EPD students

No. of Romani EPD students

Roma among all EPD students

Annual decrease of Romani EPD students

2011/2012 3539 808 23% N/A2012/2013 3306 690 21% 14.6%

49 TheschoolsinquestionwerePSDrDraganHercoginBelgrade,PSLjubomirAćimovićinBelgrade,SPSESvetiSavainBelgradeandPSMladostinKnjaževac.PSMladost,forexample,isaschoolspecialisingintheeducationof youthwithbehaviouralissues,andcannotprovideinformationontheirpupilsunlessrequestedbytheMoESTDandwiththepermissionof parentsandguardians(emailcorrespondencewithanunnamedrepresentative,PSMladost:17April2013).PSDrDraganHercogisaschooltemporarilyeducatinghospitalisedchildrenandyouth,aswellasthosestayingathomeforhealth-relatedreasons;thesepupilsreturntotheirpreviouseducationalinstitutionsaftertheirmedicalconditionsimprove(emailcorrespondencewithLjiljanaMilović,PSDrDraganHercog:16April2013).

50 Serbia,Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance,Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia120/04,54/07,104/09and36/10,Article22.

51 TheschoolsinquestionwereSPSEAntonSkalainStaraPazova,SPSEBubanjinNiš,PSDraganKovačevićinBelgrade,PSJovanJovanovićZmajinŠid,SPSEMilanPetrovićinNoviSad,andSPSEVeselinNikolićinKruševac.

52 TheschoolsinquestionwereSPSE1.novembarinČačak,SPSE11.oktobarinLeskovac,PSMiodragMatićinBelgrade,PSMiodragMatićinUžice,SPSEMladostinPirotandSPSESvetiSavainUmka(Belgrade).

53 PSDraganKovačevićandSPSEVeljkoRamadanović,bothinBelgrade,educatestudentswithvisualimpair-ments.SPSEBubanjinNiš,SPSESchoolCentrefortheEducationof StudentswithHearingImpairmentsinSuboticaandSPSE11.majinJagodinaspecialiseineducatingstudentswithhearingandspeechimpairments.

54 Unlessstatedexplicitlyotherwise,thesourcesof alldatapresentedinthissectionarethereportsfromschoolsreceivedbytheERRCinthecourseof thespringandsummer2013.

55 Thesourceof alldatapresentedintablesinsection3.2.istheERRC,onthebasisof datareceiveddirectlyfromschools.Forafullreviewof alldatareceivedfromschools,seeAnnex2.

reporT 21


Itisevidentthatdespitethedeclineinabsolutenumbers,stilloverafifthofthestudentsintheseschoolsareofRomaniethnicity.Illustratively,accordingtothe2011census,Romarepresentonly2.05%ofthepopulationofSerbia.UnofficialestimatesconsidertheproportionofRomainSerbiatobehigher,ataround6%.Romapopulationdemographicsaretypicallyyoung,soRomanichildrenofprimaryschoolagecouldamountto10%ofthetotalpopulationinthisagecategory.56ThisisstillconsiderablybelowtheshareofRomanipupilsinEPDschools.

Additionally,accordingtothedatareceivedforbothyears,nearlytwo-thirdsoftheRomaniEPDstudentsareboysthoughtheproportionofRomanigirlsvariesconsiderablyfromoneschooltoanother;intheSPSEVukašinMarkovićinKragujevacandthePSMilojePavlovićinBelgrade,girlsactuallyconstitutedamajorityofallRomanistudentsinthegivenacademicyear(67%and65%,respectively).

TwoschoolshaveanextremelyhighshareofRomanistudents:SPSEVidovdaninBortopsthelistwiththelargemajorityofitsentirestudentpopulationbeingofRomaniethnicity–95Romanistudents(81%)outofthetotalof118in2011/2012,withaslightdecreaseto69Romanistudents(73%)outofthetotalof95in2012/13.PSSvetiSavainProkupljefollows,with75%ofitsstudentsbeingRomani(39outof52)in2011/12,decreasingto68%ofitsstudentsbeingRomani(23outof34)in2012/13.Furthermore,morethanahalfofallstu-dentsofSPSEVeselinNikolićinKruševacareRomani:56%(76outof136)in2011/2012,which,surprisingly,grewto63%(75outof119)in2012/13.

romani students as a share of entire student population in individual epd schoolsName of school School year 2011/2012 School year 2012/2013SPSEVidovdan,Bor 81% 73%PSSvetiSava,Prokuplje 75% 68%SPSEVeselinNikolić,Kruševac 56% 63%PSNoviBeograd,Belgrade 48% 40%SPSEBubanj 41% 37%

Intenschools, theproportionofRomanistudentsstayedat thesame level in thegivenperiod,andin16schools,theproportionofRomanistudentsdecreased,accordingtothedatatheschoolsprovided,mostnotablyinthecaseofPS12.septembarinNegotin,witha17percentagepointdrop,andtheSPSEJelenaVarjaškiinVrbas,witha12percentagepointdropintheshareofRomanistudents.

The aforementioned SPSEVeselinNikolić inKruševac is one of only five schools fromtheERRCresearchrecordinganincreaseintheshareofRomanistudentsamongitsoverallpopulation.Thehighestincreaseofthistypefrom2011/12to2012/13wasnotedinSPSEVukašinMarkovićinKragujevac(8%),followedbySPSEVeselinNikolić,andtheSubotica-basedSPSEŽarkoZrenjanin.

56 OpenSocietyInstitute,Roma Children in “Special” Education in Serbia: Overrepresentation, Underachievement and Impact on Life(Budapest:OpenSocietyInstitute,2010),63.



Furthermore, ifwe leaveout the fiveEPDschools focusingprimarilyonsensory impair-ments,57 theoverall shareofRomani students forall the remaining26schools slightly in-creased(25%in2011/2012;23%in2012/13).Ontheotherhand,amongtheEPDschoolsfocusingonsensory impairments, thesharesofRomanistudentswerecomparatively low,rangingfrom3%to12%in2012/13,withtheexceptionoftheoutlyingvalueoftheNiš-basedSPSEBubanj,whereoverathirdofstudents(37%)in2012/13wereRomani.

3.2.2 The proporTion of roma among sTudenTs wiTh mild menTal disabiliTies

Allschoolswerealsoaskedtoreportonthenumbersoftheirstudentscategorisedasthosewithmildmentaldisabilities,andtheshareofRomanistudentsamongthem.Notably,theproportionofRomanistudentsinthiscategoryishigherthantheirproportionamongtheto-talstudentpopulation–30%in2011/12,decreasingto28%in2012/13.TheschoolswithaveryhighproportionofRomaamongallstudents,alsostandoutregardingtheproportionofRomanichildrenwithmilddisabilities:PSSvetiSavainProkupljewith82%ofRomaamongall studentswithmildmentaldisabilities in2012/13,SPSEVidovdan inBorwith79%ofRomainthiscategory,andSPSEVeselinNikolićinKruševacwith63%.

romani students as a share of all students with mild mental disabilitiesSchool year 2011/2012 School year 2012/2013

Allschools 30% 28%PSSvetiSava,Prokuplje 81% 82%SPSEVidovdan,Bor 86% 79%SPSEVeselinNikolić,Kruševac 56% 63%

3.2.3 new enrolmenTs in aCademiC years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013

Whenitcomestonewenrolmentintofirstgrade,inboth2011/2012and2012/2013thereweretwoschoolswhichdidnotenrolanynewstudentsatall(andoneschooldidnotanswerthisquestion).Outoftheremaining28schools,13enrollednewRomanistudentsinboththese academic years.A total of 41Romani students enrolled first grades of all surveyedschoolsin2011/12,amountingtoafifth(20%)ofallsuchstudents(209)regardlessofeth-nicity,whereasin2012/13,boththeabsolutenumberofRomaninewfirstgradersandtheirshareamongallsuchstudents(223)becamesmaller(24studentsand11%,respectively).

InparticularthelatterdataindicateapositivetrendofdecreasedrepresentationofRomanichildren,yettheyarestillabovethe levelofRomanistudents’participationinmainstreameducation,asdelineatedabove.

57 Sensoryimpairmentsareobstaclesinthefunctioningof senses,suchassight,hearing,spatialawareness,etc.

reporT 23


3.2.4 enrolmenT of romani sTudenTs inTo “speCial sChools” wiTh-ouT The opinion of The inTer-seCToral Commission

ThecurrentlegislationinSerbiastipulatesthatboththerequestofparentsandtheopinionoftheInter-SectoralCommissionmustbesecuredbeforeastudentisplacedinanEPDschool.TheresultsoftheERRCresearchrevealthatasmallnumberofstudentsareenrolledinEPDeducationwithouttherequiredopinionoftheInter-SectoralCommission(31in2011/2012;5in2012/2013).PSDraganKovačevićfromBelgrade,aschoolforstudentswithvisualim-pairments,standsoutstarklyinthisrespect,sinceitenrolled26studentsin2011/12(oneofwhomwasRomani)andthreestudentsin2012/13(oneofwhomwasRomani)inthisway.In2011/12,onlytwomoreschoolsenrolledintotalfivestudentswithouttheopinionoftheISC,noneofwhomwereRomani.In2012/13,onlyonemoreschoolenrolledtwostudents,oneofwhomwasRomani,inthismanner.

enrolment without opinion of the inter-sectoral Commission

School year No. of all new EPD students

Enrolled with-out ISC opinion

No. of new Romani EPD students

Roma enrolled with-out ISC opinion

2011/2012 209 31 41 12012/2013 223 5 24 2

ThedatashowthatinstancesofenrolmentwithouttheopinionoftheISCwerestilltakingplaceinpractice,whichisindirectconflictwithrelevantlegalprovisions,stipulatingthatbothparentalconsentandtheISCopinionmustbesecuredbeforeenrolment.

3.2.5 Transfer of romani sTudenTs from mainsTream To “speCial sChools” and viCe versa

AccordingtodatareceivedbytheERRC,thepracticeoftransferringstudentsfrommainstreamschoolstoEPDstillcontinuesandboththeiroverallabsolutenumberandtheabsolutenumberofRomanistudentsevenincreasedfrom2011/2012to2012/2013.Overall,lessthanonethirdofthestudentpopulationtransferredfrommainstreamtoEPDschoolswereRomanistudents.

Transfer from mainstream to epd schools

School year No. of all transferred students

No. of transferred Romani students

Percentage of Romani students

2011/2012 71 20 28.17%2012/2013 83 24 28.92%

Inanycase,thefactthattheshareofRomanistudentsamountstoalmostonethirdofalltransferstudentsindicatesthatRomanistudentsareatahigherriskofbeingtransferredfrommainstream,inclusiveeducationtospecialisedinstitutions.

Ontheotherhand,thedataillustratethatthepossibilitiesoftransferfromEPDschoolstomainstreamschoolsappearstobeusedconsiderablyless,andespeciallysoforRomanistu-dents.In2011/12,only21studentsfromsixEPDschoolstransferredtomainstreamschools,



includingnineRomanistudentsfromonlytwoEPDschools.SevenoftheseRomanistudentsweretransferredfromSPSEVidovdaninBorandtwofromPSNoviBeogradinBelgrade;bothschoolswhichhaveaveryhighproportionofRomanistudents.Inthefollowingaca-demicyear2012/13,atotalof19students,includingsixRomanistudentsfromfiveschools,weretransferredfromEPDschoolstomainstreamschools.

Transfer from epd schools to mainstream schools

School year No. of all transferred students

No. of transferred Romani students

Percentage of Romani students

2011/2012 21 9 42.86%2012/2013 19 6 31.58%

Overall, thestatisticaldata theERRCreceivedfromschools indicateapositivetrendofadeclineintheabsolutenumbersofstudentsofspecialisededucationalinstitutionsinSerbia(irrespectiveoftheirethnicity),showingthatthereformofeducationinSerbiainthisrespectisyieldingsomeconcreteresults.ThepersistentoverrepresentationofRomainsuchschools,neverthelessremainsalarmingandsendsaseriouswarningthatmuchworkstillremainstobedoneinthisrespect,andthatthereasonsfortheplacementofRomanistudentsinsuchschoolsmustbeinvestigatedandaddressed.EspeciallyinthelightofcaseswhereRomacon-stituteuptothreequartersoftheentirestudentpopulationandnegativerolemodelscouldbeformed,furtherinvestigationsarenecessary.

reporT 25


4 how and why romani pupils end up in schools for students with disabilities

Inorder toestablishhowandwhyRomani students still endup in schools forpupilswithdisabilities,theERRCtrainedateamof16RomaniactivistsandresearchersinskillsrelevantforinterviewingparentsandcaregiversofRomanistudentsattending“specialschools.”58TheresearchteamembarkedonasurveyinJuly2013,intenlocationsthroughoutSerbia:Bečej,Bel-grade,NoviSad,Kikinda,Kruševac,Leskovac,Niš,Prokuplje,SremskaMitrovicaandVranje.59

Thesurveyincluded128interviewees,mostofwhomwereparents(93%)ofstudentsattendingEPDschools,followedbythestudents’guardians(3%)andotheradults(suchasotherfam-ilymembers,fosterparents,etc.).Theinterviewsweregivenby56men(44%)and72women(56%),wherethenumericalmajorityofwomenisattributedtobothhigherunemploymentratesamongwomenandtheirconsequenthigheravailabilityforinterviews,aswellasthegenderedsocietalnorms,positioningwomenasprimarycaregiversofchildreninthisregion.Theaverageageoftheintervieweeswas38,withintherangeof20to68years.Theadultintervieweeslivedinanequalnumberofhouseholdswithatotalof227studentsofprimaryschoolage,i.e.sixto15years.60Averyslightmajorityofstudents(52%)inthesehouseholdsweremale.

4.1 general educational background of students

ThestudentsfromthehouseholdstheERRCteamvisitedappeartobemissingoutonformaleducationintheirearlyyears.SixmonthsofpreschooleducationwasthelegalminimuminSerbiasincetheacademicyear2006/07,extendedtoninemonthswiththe2009LFES,andcurrentlyallchildrenagedfive-and-a-halftosix-and-a-halfshouldbeattendingpreparatorypreschoolprogrammesbeforetheystartwithprimaryeducation.Althoughpreparatorypre-schooleducationisobligatoryinSerbia,asmanyas42%ofRomanichildrenandyouthinthesurveyedfamiliesdidnotattendit,andslightlyoverhalfofthestudentswhomisseditweremale(53%).Amongthosewhoneverthelessattendedpreschool,amajorityof70%didsointheperiodofsixto12months,and14%didsoforlessthanhalfayear.

Additionally,previouspreschoolattendanceofsix to12monthswashigheramongthestu-dentsofmainstreamschools(84%)comparedto“specialschool”students(63%).61Evidently,

58 Thesurveyquestionnaireusedtheterm“specialschools”asthisishowtheschoolsfortheeducationof studentswithdisabilitiesarecommonlyknown,eventhoughthistermisnolongerofficiallyused.

59 ResearchresultsfromBečejweretakenintoaccountforqualitativeanalysisonly.

60 Becauseof thedifferentages,itshouldbenotedthatsomestudentsenrolledin“specialschools”beforethe2009reforms,andsomeafterwards,sothestudentsintheresearchhouseholdsweresubjectedtodifferentproceduresbeforedifferentbodies,dependingontheyeartheirenrolmenttookplace.Itcould,however,beassumedsafelythatstudentsingrades1-3atthetimeof thesurveyshouldhavebeenenrolledunderanewsetof rules.

61 Thispartof thesurveycollecteddataonallstudentsinahouseholdagedsixto15,regardlessof thetypeof educationalinstitutiontheyattended,orwhethertheywereformallystudentsatall.


how and why romani pupils end up in sChools for sTudenTs wiTh disabiliTies a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

studentswhohadcompletedpreparatorypreschoolprogrammeshadahigher likelihoodofcontinuingtheireducationinmainstreamschools.

Theschoolenrolmentrateofchildrenandyouthinthesurveyedhouseholdswas95%,witharemaining5%ofchildrencompletelyoutofschool,inacountrywhereprimaryschoolenrol-mentispracticallyuniversalamongnon-Romanichildren.Therearealsoevidentvariationsaccordingtosex,asinthecaseofgirlsoutofschooltheproportionroseto8%,comparedtolessthan3%ofboysoutofschool.

Outof the children and youth attending school, less than a quarter attendedmainstreamschools(24%),andthreequartersattended“specialschools”(76%).Onapositivenote,noneof the students placed inmainstream schools attended so-called “special classes,” classesformedwithinmainstreamschools to educate exclusively studentswithdisabilities,whichcouldnolongerbeformedaftertheformalintroductionofinclusiveeducationin2009.

4.2 Knowledge about “special schools”

Thesurveyestablishedthatamajorityof intervieweesbelievedtheyknowwhat“specialschools”were:thiswasthecasewith90%oftheinterviewees.Still,aworrying10%ofcar-ersforstudentsofsuchschoolsdidnotknowtheexactnatureoftheschoolsthechildrenandyouthwereattending.62

Furthermore,whenprobedfurthertoclarifythedifferencebetween“special”andmain-streamschools,11%oftheintervieweesdidnotknowtheanswer.Theintervieweeswhorespondedthattheyknewthedifferencemainlyrelated“specialschools”totheeducationofchildrenaffectedbyillnessanddisabilities(40%).

With regards to the quality of learning, 15% of the responses stated that mainstreamschoolsprovidebettereducationaloutcomes,andanidenticalshareofresponsesconsid-ered“specialschools”easierthanmainstreamones.Further,7%ofintervieweeswerenotawareofanyconcretedifferencebetweenthesetypesofschools,eventhoughtheyhadjustclaimedtoknowwhatthedifferentschooltypesrepresented.Evidently,asignificantproportionofRomaniparentsarenot inpossessionoffullknowledgeonwhatkindofinstitutionstheirchildrenareattending.

Knowledge about “special schools”Yes No

Doyouknowwhata“specialschool”is? 90% 10%Doyouknowthedifferencebetweena“special”andamainstreamschool? 89% 11%

62 Therewasalsosomevariationacrossthesexes:theshareof womenwhodidnotknowwhat“specialschools”werewastwopercentagepointshigherthantherelevantproportionof men(11%and9%,respectively).

reporT 27


4.3 educational background of parents

TheERRCresearchteamalsowantedtoestablishwhether“specialeducation”couldbeapartoffamilyheritage,orwhetherparentsandcarerswhohadbeeneducatedinspecialisedinstitutionsweremorelikelytosendtheirchildrentosuchinstitutionsaswell.Forthisreason,theintervieweeswerealsoaskedwhethertheyortheirpartnerhadattended“specialschools.”Thiswasindeedthecasefor42%ofallinterviewees,andespeciallysoinSremskaMitrovica(86%)andKruševac(58%).

educational background of parents

Have you or your partner attended “special education”? Yes No

Allschools 42% 58%SremskaMitrovica 86% 14%Kruševac 58% 42%

TheanalysisofERRCdataalsoshowsthatparentsorcaregiverswhothemselvesreceived“special education” took care of a higher number of pupils who also attended “specialschools”–therewasanaverageof1.45pupilsineachsuchfamily,comparedto1.15pupilsperfamilyofthoseparentsandcaregiverswhodidnotattendsuchschools.PreviousOSIresearchonthistopicinSerbiaalsoelaboratedonthisphenomenon,bothintermsofadultshavingatendencytosendpupilstothesamekindofeducationtheyhad,aswellashavingmoresiblingsfromonefamilyallattending“specialeducation.”Forinstance,theOSIstudyfrom2010recordedthatin74%ofsurveyed“special”primaryschoolsinSerbiatherewereinstancesoftwoormoreRomanipupilsfromthesamefamily.63

4.4 The process leading to romani Children’s placement in “special schools”

TheERRCsurveyalso tried to investigate theprocesses resulting in theoverrepresentationof Romani students in “special schools.” Among 164 students of “special schools” in thehouseholdsvisitedwithintheERRCsurvey,95students(60%)wereenrolleddirectlyintosuchschools,andtheremaining64(40%)attendedmainstreamprimaryschoolsbeforethetransfer.64

FormostofthestudentswhoenrolledinEPDschoolsdirectlyitwasvariousofficialsandpro-fessionalswhomadetherecommendationthatthestudentsbe“tested”,asisstillthecommoncolloquialtermfortheassessmentoftheireducationalneedsrequiredforthepurposeofplace-mentinEPDschools,aremnantofthetimesbeforetheeducationreformwhensuchstudentswereindeedsubjectedtotests.AccordingtotheERRCsurveydata,thepersonsuggestingthe“testing”wasmostcommonlyaschoolpsychologist(25%),adoctor(23%)orapreschoolstaff

63 OpenSocietyInstitute,Roma Children in “Special” Education in Serbia(2010),101.

64 Responsessuchas“Idonotknow”orrefusalstoanswerwerenottakenintoaccountindataprocessingandanalysis,unlessspecifiedotherwise.



member(14%).Inonlyonefifthofthecases(22%),itwastheinterviewee–theparentorothercaregiver–whotooktheinitiativeinthisrespect.Theinitialstepsinthedirectiontowards“spe-cialschools”wereevidentlytakenfollowingtheadviceofeducationalandmedicalprofessionals.

persons suggesting that the student is assessed for placement in “special schools”Schoolpsychologistorpedagogue 25%Doctor 23%Parent/carer 22%Preschoolstaff member 14%Somebodyelse 17%

4.5 The Transfer of romani students from mainstream to “special schools”

Inthecaseofthe64studentswhowerefirstenrolled inmainstreamprimaryschools,theERRCdataindicatesthatmostcommonlythestudents’difficulties,eventuallyleadingtothetransfer,tookplaceimmediatelyduringthefirstgrade(68%,forbothboysandgirls).Inonlyonequarterofregisteredcases(27%),difficultiesoccurred in latergrades,fromsecondtofifthgrade;therewerenoinstancesofstudentstransferredafterthefifthgrade.

Importantly,theproportionofthosewhosedifficultiesemergedinfirstgradeismuchhigherforthestudentswhoenteredtheeducationsystemafterthe2009reforms,i.e.whohadjustcompletedthefirst,secondorthirdgradeatthetimeofthesurvey:92%ofthem,12outof13studentstrans-ferredfrommainstreamto“specialschools,”hadexperienceddifficultiesalreadyasfirstgraders.

Whenaskedabouttheexactnatureof“difficulties,”mostintervieweesprovidedresponsessuchasdifficultytoconcentrate(42%),lowgrades(24%),difficultiesinreadingandwriting(21%)orevenjustrestlessness(16%).65Inonlyfourinstancesdidtheintervieweesactuallylistaspeechorhearingimpairment,oranothermedicalissue,asareason.Ontheotherhand,fiveintervieweesalsomentionedthebullyingoftheirchildrenatschoolasoneofthemainreasonsforinitiatingthetransfer,illustratingbothsafetyconcernsofRomaniparents,aswellastheperceptionofa“specialschool”asasaferenvironmentforRomanistudents.

Types of difficulties encountered before transfer from mainstream to “special school”Difficultytoconcentrate 42%Lowgrades 24%Difficultiesinreadingandwriting 21%Restlessness 16%Absenteeism 11%Bullying 8%

65 Thedatareferstotheanswersof thoseintervieweeswhosechildrenweretransferredfrommainstreamto“special”schools,whetherpre-orpost-2009reform.Theintervieweescouldprovidemultipleanswerstothisquestion.

reporT 29


4.6 support to remain in mainstream schools

TheschoolsdonotappeartohaveprovidedRomanistudentsfacingdifficultieswithadequatesupport.Whenaskedwhethertheywereevercontactedinrelationtothedifficultiestheirchil-drenexperienced,anotableproportionof41%answerednegatively;withintheinterviewsrelat-ingtostudentsingradesonetothree,enrolledafter2009,theproportiondecreasesto23%ofthosewhowerenotcontacted.66Amongtheintervieweeswhoansweredpositively,one-third(34%)stated,nevertheless,thattheywerecontactedonlyrarely,e.g.severaltimesayear,whereasjustone-fifth(26%)saidtheywerecontactedfrequently,almostonadailybasis.67

Furthermore,59%oftheintervieweesstatedthattheywereinvitedformeetingsattheschool,todiscusstheirchildren’sdifficulties.Thesamepercentageofinterviewees(59%)alsoattendedsuchmeetingsandmetprimarilywithteachers(97%)andschoolpsychologists(46%).68Thecontentofthesemeetingsrelated,inmostcases,towaysoftransferringthestudenttoa“specialschool”(57%),followedbywaysofimprovingthesituation(49%);intheinterviewsrelatingtochildreningradesonetothree,thesituationchangesinapositivedirection,with60%ofmeet-ingsontheissueofimprovement,and30%ofdiscussionsontheissueoftransfer.69

Inlessthanathirdofcases(30%),theintervieweesconfirmedthattheschoolofferedadditionalsupportinordertokeepthestudentenrolledinthemainstreamschool,asopposedtotransfer,whereasanotable70%ofintervieweesdidnotreceiveanyoffersofthistype;inthesubgroupingradesonetothree,theproportionis62%.Fortheformer,thesupportofferedwasmostcommonlyintheformofassistancebytheschoolpsychologistorpedagogue(39%),additionalclasses(33%),ortheindividualeducationalplan(17%),whereitshouldbenotedthattheindi-vidualeducationplanswereformallyintroducedonlywiththe2009educationreform.

TheintervieweeswerealsoaskedwhetheratthattimethemainstreamschoolhadaRomateachingassistant,oranyothertypeofassistant,whocouldsupportthestudentinkeepingpacewiththeirpeers;accordingtotheirresponses,lessthanahalfoftheprimaryschoolsinquestiondidhaveanassistant(44%).Whentheemphasisisplacedonlyontheinterviewsre-latingtochildreningradesonetothree,theproportionofsuchstudentswhobenefitedfromthepresenceofanassistantrisesto67%,asopposedtoolderstudentswhobenefitedfromthesupportofassistantsin39%ofthecases.

Anumberofotherfactorsalsonegativelyinfluencedthedecisionmakingrelatingto“specialeducation.”Forinstance,intervieweeswerealsoaskedaboutthemannerinwhichtheteachingstafftreatedtheirchildinmainstreamschools.Almosthalfoftheintervieweesallegedmis-treatment:asmanyas46%thoughtthetreatmentwasnotgood.Thelatterwereaskedtostate

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.

68 Thedatareferstotheanswersof thoseintervieweeswhosechildrenweretransferredfrommainstreamto“special”schools,whetherpre-orpost-2009reform.Theintervieweescouldprovidemultipleanswerstothisquestion.




thereasonfortheirdissatisfaction,andthemostcommonresponseswerethattheteachersignoredthestudent(50%),thatthestudenthadtositinthebackoftheclass(50%),andthattheteachershadhumiliatedthestudentinfrontoftheirpeers(39%).70Forthosestudentswhoadditionallyexperiencedbullyinginmainstreamschools,thereasonwhythestudentwastreat-edinthiswayforanotablemajorityofthreequartersofinterviewees(75%)wasperceivedasbeingduetoRomaniethnicity,followedbydisabilitiesorlowgrades(42%)andpoverty(33%).

negative treatment of children prior to transfer to “special schools”

Overall Children in grades 1-3

Children in grades 4-8

Childwasignored 50% 71% 43%Childwasplacetositinthebackof theclassroom 50% 57% 48%Teachershumiliatingchildreninfrontof peers/others 39% 29% 43%Teachers’reluctancetoreportbullying 11% 14% 10%Physicalabuse 4% 0% 5%

Thetimingofthetransfersismainlyearlyintheeducationprocess.Thetransfertoa“spe-cialschool”thateventuallyfollowedmostcommonlytookplaceinthesecondgrade(45%),followedbyfirstgrade(27%),andthirdgrade(16%).Essentially,avastmajorityofstudents(89%)inthehouseholdsvisitedweretransferredwithinthefirstthreeyearsofeducation,andonlyasmallminority(11%)movedtoanotherschoolduringalatergrade.Whenitcomestothesubsampleofstudentsingradesonetothreeenrolledaftertheeducationreformswereintroduced,thesituationisdifferent:allofthem(100%)weretransferredduringfirstgrade.

Bothteachers(39%)andparents/caregivers(36%)suggestedthetransferinsimilarpropor-tions.Furthermore,therearesomedifferenceswithregardstostudentsingradesonetothree:theirtransferwasmorefrequentlysuggestedbyteachers(46%),andtookplaceattheinitia-tiveofparentsinlessthanonequarterofcases(23%).

4.7 enrolment in schools for students with disabilities

Therespondentsof theERRCsurveywerealsoaskedabout theactualprocessprecedingtheenrolmentintoschoolsforstudentswithdisabilities.Afterthesuggestionthatthechildintheircareshouldbeassessedforthepurposeofenrolmentin“specialschools,”in6%ofcasestheparentsandcaregiversdisagreedandtheassessmentdidnottakeplace,andanother6%disagreedwiththisideayettheassessmenteventuallytookplacenonetheless.71Ontheotherhand,a largemajorityof intervieweesinfactagreedwiththeproposal–88%statedso,withadifferencebetweentheintervieweeswithstudentswhoenrolledinEPDschoolsdirectly (91%) and thosewhose childrenwere transferred fromamainstreamschool to aspecialisedinstitution(83%),whowerelessinfavouroftakingthisstep.


71 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Haveyouagreedthatyourchildis‘tested’?”

reporT 31


Thekeyquestion,however, iswhatkindof issues influencedtheminmakingthiskindofdecision.Whenprobedtoprovidereasonsfortheiragreement,onlyone-fifth(19%)ofinter-vieweesactuallyagreedtothe“testing”becausethechildwasphysicallyormentallydisabled,hadasensoryimpairmentorwasaffectedbyillness.Therestoftheintervieweeswhoagreedwiththe“testing”mostfrequentlystatedthattheyweretoldthatitmusthappenand/orthattheydidnothaveanotherchoice(23%oftheoverallcases,yet28%thecaregiverswhosechil-drenwentstraightto“specialschools”and14%ofthosewhosechildrenweretransferred).72Thesecondmostcommonlycitedreasonwasthewishoftheparentstoseewhichschoolwouldbeappropriatefortheirchild(10%),followedbytheconcernsaboutthefinancialas-pectofeducation(8%),duetotheperceivedhighercostofeducationinmainstreamschools.Another7%oftheintervieweesbelievedthatchildrengetbettereducationandmoreatten-tionfromteachersinschoolsforstudentswithdisabilities,andin6%ofcasestheparentsan-sweredthattheassessmentwaswhattheyorthechildwanted.Furthermore,in4%ofcases,theintervieweeslistedthechild’ssiblingsorfriendsalreadyattending“specialschool”asthereasontheyagreedtothe“testing.”

reasons for agreeing to testing

Overall Directly enrolled

Later transferred

Toldtestinghastohappen/nootherchoice 23% 28% 14%

Childhadaphysicalormentaldisability 19% 21% 16%

Wantingtoseewhichtypeof schoolwouldbeappropriate 10% 7% 14%

Financialaspect 8% 9% 4%Childwouldgetbettereducationandmoreteacherattentionin“specialschools” 7% 4% 12%

Theparentsorthechildwantedit 6% 6% 6%

SiblingsorfriendsalreadyattendEPDschools 4% 2% 6%

Importantly,itishighlydoubtfulthatparentswereinapositiontomakeafullandinformedchoiceonthismatter.Duringthe“testing”itself,aconsiderableshareofinterviewees,almostahalf(44%),didnotreceiveanyinformationfromthemembersofthecommissiononwhatthe“testing”shouldestablish.73Amongthosewhoweregiventhiskindofinformation,mostcommonly(66%)thecaregiversweretoldthatthepurposeofthe“testing”wastodeterminethetypeofschoolthechildshouldattend,andtoestablishwhetherachildisdisabled(11%).Practicallythreequarters(75%)ofsurveyrespondentssaidtheywerenottoldthattheycanbepresentatthe“testing,”whereastheproportionwashigher(78%)amongthecaregiversofstudentstransferredtoEPDschools.In5%ofthecasesthe“testing”wasattendedbyateachingassistant,andmoreoftenso(8%)inthecaseofstudentstransferredtoEPDschools.

Themostworryingaspect,however,isthelevelofinformationthecommissionsprovidedtoparentsandcaregiversinthecourseoftheassessmentaboutthemostcrucialaspectsofthe

72 Theintervieweeswhoagreedtothetestingwereasked:“Whydidyouagreetothe‘testing’?”

73 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Didanymembersof thecommissioninformyouaboutwhatthe‘testing’shouldestablish?”



assessmentanditsconsequences.Alargemajorityofrespondents(75%)saidthecommissiondidnotinformthemonthelimitationsandnegativeconsequencesaffiliatedwithattendingEPDschools.74Furthermore,asimilarnumber(71%)werenottoldbythecommissionthattheyhavetherighttorefusethecommission’sopinion.75Thisislikelytohaveleftanumberofparentswithanimpressionthattherewerenoalternativepaths.

information received with regards to the assessment


Later transferred

TheCommissiondidnotinformusonwhattheassessmentshouldestablish. 44% 49% 38%

Nobodytolduswehavetherighttobepresentattheassessment. 75% 72% 78%

TheCommissiondidnotinformusonthelimitationsandconsequenc-esof “specialeducation”. 75% 76% 73%

Wewerenottoldabouttherighttorefusetheopinionof theCommis-sion. 71% 71% 72%

Oncetheydiscoveredthatthefinalopinionofthecommissionwastosendtheirchildtoa“specialschool,”only7%ofparentsandcaregiversdisagreedwiththecommission’sfinalfindings.76Whenaskedwhytheydisagreed,theyexplainedthattheywerenotaskedforanopinion,andthattheywerenotgivenachoice.Evenless,atinyfraction(2%)oftheparentsandcarerscomplainedaboutthedecision,andthree-quartersofthemdidsoonlyverbally.

Ontheotherhand,93%ofrespondentsagreedwiththecommission’srecommendation,andthosewhoenrolledtheirchildreninto“specialschools”directlyagreedwiththeopinionofthecommis-sionin97%ofcases.Theseparentsandcarers’explanationsastowhytheyagreedwereverydi-verse,yetonlyonequarter(25%)ofthelistedreasonsrelatedtothechild’sinabilitytoreceiveeduca-tioninmainstreaminstitutionsduetohavingmentaldisabilities,illnessesorsensoryimpairments.77

reasons for accepting the decision of the Commission Overall Directly enrolled Later transferred

Childinabilitytoreceivemainstreameducation 25% 25% 24%

Nootherchoice 9% 12% 4%

Educationisbetterin“specialschools.” 9% 6% 14%

Specialschoolisfree. 8% 10% 4%

Childshouldgetaneducation. 7% 10% 0%

74 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Didthecommissioninformyouonthelimitationsandconsequencesof attend-ingspecialeducation?’

75 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Didthecommissionexplaintoyouthatyouhavetherighttorefusetheopinionof thecommissionthatyourchildshouldbereferredtospecialeducation?”

76 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Haveyouagreedwiththeoutcomeof thetestingandthecommission’sopinionthatyourchildshouldbeeducatedina‘special’school?”

77 Theintervieweeswhoagreedwiththecommission’sopinionwereaskedwhytheyagreed.

reporT 33


ItwaswhattheCommissionwanted. 7% 8% 4%

Childorparentspreferredspecialschool 6% 5% 8%

Childlearntnothinginthemainstreamschool. - 16% 6%

Specialschoollessdemanding 5% 3% 8%

Childwouldhavefriends. 4% 3% 6%

WetrustedtheCommission. 3% 2% 4%

Roughlytwo-thirdsofrespondents(66%)werenottoldbythecommissionaboutthereasonsforthedecisionthatthechildshouldbesenttoa“specialschool,”andinthecaseoftransferstudentstheshareroseto73%.78Inthecaseswherethecommissiondidprovideanexplana-tion,mostcommonlyitwasmentaldisability(48%ofall,and54%amongthecaregiversofstudentsdirectly enrolled inEPDschools), problems in emotionalor social development(23%) and difficultieswith speech and language (23%).79Additionally, one quarter of re-spondents(24%)didnotreceivethecommission’sopinioninwriting.80

Furthermore,manyoftherespondentsthensigneddocumentstheyhadnotbeenfamiliarisedwith.Thecommissionmembersaskedasmuchas41%ofparentsandcarerstosignrelateddocumentationwithoutclarifyingwhatthedocumentswereabout.81Amongtheremainingre-spondents(59%)whosaidtheyweretoldaboutthenatureofthepaperssigned,three-quartersunderstoodthattheywereagreeingforthechildtobesenttoa“specialschool.”82Surprisingly,intwocasestherespondentsunderstoodthatattending“specialschool”asbeingconnectedtoreceivingsocialassistance,onerespondentcomplainedofbeingtoldsomethingtheydidnotunderstandatall,andinonecasetherespondentwastoldthatthechildwasnotreallyacasefor“specialeducation”yetitcouldbeconsideredsoiftheparentswanteditthatway.

Answerstooneofthesurveyquestionsindicatethat,despiteagreementwiththecommis-sion’sopinions,thetruewishesofmanyrespondents,nevertheless,aiminadifferentdirec-tion.Despite the explanations they gave in support of specialised institutions, amajorityofrespondents (63%)statedthat theywouldprefer if theirchildrenreceivededucation inmainstreamschools.83Theserespondentsalsostatedthattheirchildrenwouldlearnmoreinmainstreamschools(23%amongall,37%amongrespondentswithtransferstudents),thatsuchschoolsarebetterforchildren(22%),thatthiswouldallowstudentstolaterenrol inbetterhighschools(15%)andgetbetterjobs(15%).Someparentsandcaregivers,indeed,understoodthatmainstreamschoolsofferbetterfutureprospectstotheirchildren,yetanar-rayofissuesforcesthemtomakedecisionsinadifferentway.

78 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Didthecommissionprovidereasonsforreferringthechildtospecialeducation?’


80 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Haveyoureceivedthedecisionofthecommissioninwriting?”

81 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Didthecommissionexplaintoyouwhatitisthatyouaresigning?”

82 Theintervieweeswhoansweredpositivelytothepreviousquestionwereasked:“Whatdidtheysaytoyou?”

83 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Wouldyoupreferthatyourchildattendsmainstreamschool?”



preference for mainstream education


Later transferred

Preferforthechildtoattendamainstreamschool. 63% 65% 61%

Mainstreamschoolsarebetterforchildren. 22% 21% 23%

Thechildcanenrolinabetterschoolaftercompletingmainstreamschool. 15% 20% 9%

Thechildcouldgetabetterjob. 15% 16% 14%

Studentsstudymoreinmainstreamschools. 23% 14% 37%

Another7%oftheseparentsalsostatedthatmainstreamschoolswouldbeabetteroption,sincetheirchildrenshouldnotbein“specialschools”inthefirstplace.Forthisreason,allrespondentswerealsoaskediftheyknewwheretoseekassistanceiftheythinktheirchildwasdiscriminatedongroundsofethnicity–morethanhalf(53%)didnotknowwhomtoaddress.84Amongthosewhoansweredpositively(53%)amajorityof70%wouldcomplaintoaschoolstaffmember,followedbymunicipalcoordinatorsforRomaissues(10%)andRomaassociations(4%).Notably,noneofthemmentionedinstitutionsofferingprotectionfromdiscriminationorsupportingtherightsofnationalminorities.Alackoftrustininstitutionswasalsoevidentwith6%ofrespondentsexpress-ingthebeliefthatnoinstitutionwouldreacttoinjusticeinanycase.

Despitetheregulationsallowingfortheopposite,itappearsthatoncestudentsareplacedinspe-cialisededucationalinstitutions,thewaybackisvirtuallyimpossible.ERRCresearchersaskedtherespondentswhethertheyhadeverattemptedtotransferthestudentstomainstreamschools,orbacktomainstreamschoolsincaseofthosestudentswhoweretransferredalreadyintheoppositedirection.Onlyoneintenrespondents(10%)haddoneso,yetwhathappenedinmostofthesecases(83%)wasthattheyweretoldthatitcouldnothappen,thatitwasnotrecommendedand/orthatthechildwouldnotmanageinamainstreamschool.Inasimilarvein,inonly12%ofcases(15%amongtransferstudents)thechildrenwerere-assessed,primarilybyschoolpsychologists(92%).Inallsuchcases,thetestingconfirmedtheinitialfindings.Amongtherespondentswhosechildrenwerenotre-assessed,mostdidnotknowwhythisdidnothappen(62%),andsomewerenevertoldthiscouldtakeplace(15%).Still,issuesrelatedtothesocialpositionofRoma,suchasracialdiscrimi-nationandlackofaccesstohealthcare,alsopresentedobstacles:inthreeofthevisitedhouseholdstherespondentsclaimedthechildrenwereneverre-assessedbecausetheywereRoma,andintwofamiliesthereasonthisdidnottakeplacewasbecausethechildrendidnothavevalidhealthcards.

Allinall,thedatacollectedclearlyindicatesthatanumberofRomaniparentsandcaregiversdonothavesufficientinformationtoallowthemtogiveinformedconsentontheplacementoftheirchildrenin“specialeducation.”Theyareinfluencedbothbytheauthorityofinstitu-tionsaswellassocialandeconomicdifficultiesthefamiliesarefacingondailybasis.Thereisinsufficientawarenessofthelimitationsofeducationprovidedbyspecialisedinstitutionsandinadequateprovisionofinformationandclarificationbytherelevantprofessionals,renderingthe“choice”ofRomaniparentsandcaregiverstoapracticalcul-de-sacfortheirchildren.

84 Allintervieweeswereasked:“Doyouknowtowhomyoucancomplainifyouthinkthatyourchildwasdiscriminated,i.e.treatedlessfavourablythanotherchildrenbecauses/heisRomani?”Theintervieweeswhoansweredpositivelytothepreviousquestionwereaskedtospecify:“Towhom?”

reporT 35


5 Conclusions and recommendations

DespitethepromiseofinclusiveeducationwiththelegalandpolicyreformsSerbiaadoptedin2009,thedataERRCcollectedfrom31schoolsthroughoutthecountryindicatesanotabledegreeofoverrepresentationofRomainschoolsfortheeducationofstudentswithdisabili-ties,with21%ofRomanistudentsin“specialschools”asoftheacademicyear2012/2013.Furthermore,anumberofindividualschoolshaveanalarminglyhighproportionofRomanistudents.Evidently,itisalsostillpracticallypossibleforstudentstoenrolin“specialschools”withoutthemandatoryopinionoftheInter-SectoralCommission.

TheERRC’ssurveyillustratesseriousgapsintheprocessesplacingRomanistudentsinsuchinstitutions.NotallparentsandcarersforRomanistudentsofsuchschoolsknowtheexactnatureoftheschoolstheirchildrenandyouthareattending.Itismainlyvariousofficialsandprofessionalswhomade the recommendation that the studentsbeassessed for theplace-ment in“special schools,”oftenwithoutexplainingwhat theassessmentshouldestablish,andwithoutinformingtheparentsthattheycouldbepresentattheassessment.Commissionsreportedlyalsocommonlydidnotinformparentsaboutthereasonsforthedecisionthatthechildshouldbesenttoa“specialschool,”andoftenaskedthemtosignrelateddocumenta-tionwithoutclarifyingwhatthedocumentswereabout.

Muchoftheapparentconsentto“specialeducation”appearstobeinfluencedbytheper-ceivedauthorityoftheprofessionalsinvolved,andsignificantsocio-economicfactorscreat-ingobstaclesrelatingtotheeducationofRomanistudents.Despitetheircommonagreementtoeducation inspecialised institutions,manyparentsandcarerswouldprefer if theirchil-drenreceivededucationinmainstreamschools.Still,itseemsthatoncestudentsendupinaspecialisededucationalinstitution,thereisnoreturn,andonlyafewattempttotransferthestudentsto(orbackto)mainstreamschools.

TheRepublicofSerbiahasundoubtedlytakenveryimportantstepsintermsofbothlegisla-tionandpolicyrelatingtoRomaeducationandespeciallythesegregationofRomanistudentsinschoolsfortheeducationofstudentswithdisabilities.Theslightdecreaseintherepresen-tationofRomanistudentsinsuchschoolsdoesindicatethatchangesareslowlytakingplace.Nevertheless,therearestillconsiderablereasonsforconcern,asillustratedbythedataabove,whichcallforfasterandmorevigorousactiononbehalfoftheeducationauthorities,andtheERRCurgestheGovernmentofSerbiatotakethefollowingstepstoeradicatetheoverrep-resentationandsegregationofRomanichildrenin“specialschools”:

● Implementinclusiveeducationasrequiredandregulatedbytherelevantlegislationandinternationalhumanrightsstandards.

● Endthesegregationof Romanichildreninto“specialschools”andthegeneralpracticeof segregatingpupilsbasedonintellectualability.


ConClusions and reCommendaTions a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

● ImplementtheNationalActionPlanonRomaEducation2012-2014,byprovidingad-equatehumanandfinancial resources,andespecially itsmeasuresaddressing theover-representationof Romanistudentsin“specialschools.”

● BansegregationonethnicgroundsinSerbianschools,especiallytheschoolsforstudentswithdisabilities.

● Inparticular, enforce thebanon the enrolmentof studentswhodonothavementaldisabilitiesineducationalinstitutionsdesignedforstudentswhohavementaldisabilities,regardlessof parentalconsentorrequests.

● Immediately address the situationof schools for studentswithdisabilitieswithanex-tremely high proportion of Romani students, transfer wrongfully placed students tomainstreamschoolsinthearea,andfullysupporttheintegrationof transferstudentsintomainstreamschools.

● Facilitatethetransferof studentsfrom“special”tomainstreamschools,byprovidingad-ditionalsupportandincentives,onbothnationalandlocallevel,tomainstreamschoolsacceptingstudentsfrom“specialschools.”

● Providetheparentsandcarersof childrenwithoutdisabilitieswhoarewrongfullyplacedin“specialschools”withopportunitiesof takingadequatelegalaction.

● InformRomaniparentsandcaregiversinprovidinginclusiveeducationfortheirchildren,andensurethateducationprofessionalsprovidefullinformationtoparentsinthecourseof relevantprocedures.

● Provide financial support tonon-governmentalorganisations inorder tocarryout in-formationcampaignsamongRomaniparentsandcarerswithregardstotheirrightsandresponsibilitiesregardingtheirchildren’seducation,andthebenefitsof inclusiveeduca-tioninmainstreaminstitutions.

● Speeduptheprocessof revisingtherulesandregulationsrelatingtotheworkof Inter-Sec-toralCommissions,toensurethattheirworkisdoneeffectively,lawfully,andprofessionally.

● ProvideconcretesupportandassistancetoRomaniparentswishingtoeducatetheirchil-drenininclusiveeducation.

● Increasethenumberof Romanipedagogicalassistantsinpreschoolandprimaryschoolinstitutions,inordertoensureinclusivequalityeducationforRomanichildren.

● Regularlycollectdatadisaggregatedbyethnicityandsexwithregardstoeducationand“specialeducation”inparticularandmakethisdatapubliclyavailable,whileatthesametimeensuringrespectfornationalandinternationaldataprotectionstandards.

TheERRChopesthattheirdatacollectionandfieldresearchresultswillassisttheSerbianedu-cationalauthoritiesintheirworktoachievelasting,positivechangeand,inparticular,toendseg-regationintheSerbianschoolsystem;thisincludesallformsofsegregation,suchassegregationofRomanistudentsbasedonethnicityandsegregationofpupilsbasedonintellectualability.

reporT 37


6 bibliography

CareInternationalNorthWestBalkans,Rezultati istraživanja: Rodna dimenzija uzroka odusta-janja romske dece od obaveznog školovanja u Republici Srbiji(Belgrade:CareInternationalNorthWestBalkans,2011).

Društvo za razvoj dece imladihOtvoreni krug, Izveštaj o rezultatima praćenja obrazovanja po inkluzivnim principima (inkluzivnog obrazovanja) u ustanovama obrazovnog sistema(Niš:DruštvozarazvojdeceimladihOtvorenikrug,2013).

EuropeanRomaRightsCentre,ERRC Report on Serbia for the 2011 EU Progress Report(Budapest:Eu-ropeanRomaRightsCentre,2011),availableat:http://www.errc.org/reports-and-advocacy-submissions/errc-submission-to-the-european-commission-on-serbia-may-2011/3855.

EuropeanRomaRightsCentre,Written Comments by the European Roma Rights Centre Concerning Serbia Regarding EU Accession Progress for Consideration by the European Commission During its 2013 Review (Budapest:EuropeanRomaRightsCentre,2013),availableat:http://www.errc.org/article/errc-submission-to-the-european-commission-on-serbia-may-2013/4142.

EuropeanRomaRightsCentre,Serbia: Country Profile 2011-2012 (Budapest:EuropeanRomaRights Centre, 2013), available at: http://www.errc.org/article/serbia-country-pro-file-2011-2012/4166.

EuropeanRomaRightsCentre andMinorityRightsCentre,Parallel Report by the European Roma Rights Centre and Minority Rights Centre, Concerning Serbia to the Human Rights Council, within its Universal Periodic Review, for consideration at its 15th session (21 January to 1 February 2013)(Bu-dapest:EuropeanRomaRightsCentre,2012),availableat:http://www.errc.org/reports-and-advocacy-submissions/errc-submission-to-un-hrc-on-serbia-july-2012/4037.

EuropeanRomaRightsCentre,Bibija,EurekaandWomen’sSpace, Written Comments of the Euro-pean Roma Rights Centre, Bibija, Eureka and Women’s Space Concerning the Republic of Serbia for Considera-tion by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women at its 38th Session (Budapest:EuropeanRomaRightsCentre,2007),availableat:http://www.errc.org/reports-and-advocacy-submissions/errc-submission-to-un-cedaw-on-serbia-march-2007/3725.

FundforanOpenSocietySerbia,Indikatori jednake dostupnosti kvalitetnog obrazovanja za Rome(Belgrade:FundforanOpenSocietySerbia,2010).

MilenaMihajlović,NikolaDuvnjak,DarinkaRadivojević,BrankaPavlovićandDuškoŠarošković,Istraživanje: Obrazovna, zdravstvena i socijalna podrška deci sa smetnjama u razvoju i invaliditetom – Analiza novog koncepta i njegove primene u tri sredine(Belgrade,CentreforInteractivePedagogy,2013).

Novi SadHumanitarianCentre,All Different, All Equal: Creating Inclusive Culture, Policy and Practice in Schools(NoviSad:NoviSadHumanitarianCentre,2012).

NoviSadHumanitarianCentre,Situational Analysis of Education and Social Inclusion of Roma Girls in Serbia(NoviSad:NoviSadHumanitarianCentre,2012).


bibliography a long way To go: overrepresenTaTion of romani Children in “speCial sChools” in serbia

OpenSociety Institute,Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma (Budapest:OpenSocietyInstitute,2007).

OpenSocietyInstitute,Roma Children in “Special” Education in Serbia: Overrepresentation, Undera-chievement and Impact on Life (Budapest:OpenSocietyInstitute,2010).

OrganizationforSecurityandCooperationinEurope,Romski pedagoški asistenti i asistentkinje kao nosioci promena: Značaj i smisao uloge, oblasti delovanja i uticaj na promene u školi i romskoj zajednici(Belgrade:OSCEMissiontoSerbia,2010).

ProvincialOmbudsmanof theAutonomousProvinceofVojvodina,Inkluzija između želje i mogućnosti: Istraživanje Pokrajinskog ombudsmana o realizaciji inkluzije u osnovnim školama u AP Vo-jvodini (NoviSad:ProvincialOmbudsmanoftheAutonomousProvinceofVojvodina,2011).

Praxis,Analysis of the Main Problems and Obstacles in Access of Roma in Serbia to the Right to Education(Belgrade:Praxis,2011).

Provincial Secretariat for Education, Administration and National Communities of theAutonomousProvinceofVojvodina, Informacija o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju učenika, s posebnim osvrtom na obrazovanje pripadnika manjinskih nacionalnih zajednica u Autonomnoj Pokrajini Vojvodini u školskoj 2012/13. godini(NoviSad:ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,Adminis-trationandNationalCommunitiesoftheAutonomousProvinceofVojvodina,May2013).

ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesoftheAu-tonomousProvinceofVojvodina,Informacija o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju učenika sa poseb-nim osvrtom na obrazovanje pripadnika nacionalnih manjina u AP Vojvodini u školskoj 2010/11. godini(NoviSad:ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesoftheAutonomousProvinceofVojvodina,May2011).

ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesoftheAu-tonomousProvinceofVojvodina,Informacija o osnovnom obrazovanju i vaspitanju učenika sa poseb-nim osvrtom na obrazovanje pripadnika nacionalnih manjina u AP Vojvodini u školskoj 2011/12. godini(NoviSad:ProvincialSecretariatforEducation,AdministrationandNationalCommunitiesoftheAutonomousProvinceofVojvodina,May2012).

RomaEducationFund,Advancing Education of Roma in Serbia: Country Assessment and the Roma Education Fund’s Strategic Directions(Budapest:RomaEducationFund,2007).

RomaEducationFund,Advancing Education of Roma in Serbia: Country Assessment and the Roma Education Fund’s Strategic Directions(Budapest:RomaEducationFund,2010).

RomaEducationFund,Pitfalls and Bias: Entry Testing and the Overrepresentation of Romani Children in Special Education (Budapest:RomaEducationFund,2012).

UnitedNationsChildren’sFund,TheRightofRomaChildrentoEducation:PositionPaper(Geneva:UNICEFRegionalOfficeforCentralandEasternEuropeandtheCommonwealthofIndependentStates,2011).

Vesna Zlatarović and Milena Mihajlović, Karika koja nedostaje: mehanizmi podrške detetu sa teškoćama pri prelasku na sledeći nivo obaveznog obrazovanja u “redovnom obrazovnom sistemu” (Bel-grade,CentreforInteractivePedagogy,2013).

reporT 39


VitomirJovanović,ed.,Obrazovna inkluzija dece romske nacionalnosti: Izveštaj o sprovedenom monitor-ingu u osnovnoškolskom obrazovanju (Belgrade:Centarzaobrazovnepolitike,2013).

VladanJovanović,ValentinaZavišić.SnežanaLazarevićandMilenaJerotijević,Priručnik za rad i nterresorne Komisije za procenu potreba za pružanjem dodatne obrazovne, zdravstvene ili socijalne podrške detetu i učeniku (Belgrade:MinistryofHealth,MinistryofEducationandMinistryofLabourandSocialPolicy,2010).

Zavodzaunapređivanjeobrazovanjaivaspitanja,Obrazovno-vaspitne ustanove za decu i učenike sa smet-njama u razvoju u Republici Srbiji (Belgrade:Zavodzaunapređivanjeobrazovanjaivaspitanja,2012).

reporT 41


annex 1: names of schools which provided data to the errC

primary school:● 6.oktobar,Kikinda● 12.septembar,Negotin● AntonSkala,Belgrade● BoškoBuha,Belgrade● DraganKovačević,Belgrade● DušanDugalić,Belgrade● HerojPinki,BačkaPalanka● JovanJovanovićZmaj,Šid● MilojePavlović,Belgrade● NoviBeograd,Belgrade● SavaJovanovićSirogojno,Belgrade● SvetiSava,Prokuplje● SvetiSava,Šabac

school for primary and secondary education:● 9.maj,Zrenjanin● 11.maj,Jagodina● 14.oktobar,Niš● AntonSkala,StaraPazova● Bratstvo,Bečej● Bubanj,Niš● JelenaMajstorović,Zaječar● JelenaVarjaški,Vršac● MaraMandić,Pančevo● MilanPetrović,NoviSad● RadivojPopović,SremskaMitrovica● Školskicentarzavaspitanjeiobrazovanjeslušnooštećenihlica,Subotica● VeljkoRamadanović,Belgrade● VeselinNikolić,Kruševac● Vidovdan,Bor● VukKaradžić,Sombor● VukašinMarković,Kragujevac● ŽarkoZrenjanin,Subotica

reporT 43


annex 2: data Tables on the participation of romani Children in the schools for the educa-tion of students with disabilities Table 1: Total numbers of students at schools

2011/2012 2012/2013

No. Town School All Roma All Roma

1 BAČKAPALANKA PSHEROJPINKI 93 9 82 7

2 BEČEJ SPSEBRATSTVO 155 13 117 14

3 BELGRADE PSANTONSKALA 102 0 99 0

4 BELGRADE PSBOŠKOBUHA 119 32 104 24

5 BELGRADE PSDRAGANKOVAČEVIĆ 157 6 163 4

6 BELGRADE PSNHDUŠANDUGALIĆ 90 4 80 1

7 BELGRADE PSMILOJEPAVLOVIĆ 124 18 118 17

8 BELGRADE PSNOVIBEOGRAD 143 69 145 58

9 BELGRADE PSSAVAJOVANOVIĆSIROGOJNO 150 0 128 0

10 BELGRADE SPSEVELJKORAMADANOVIĆ 134 10 129 10

11 BOR SPSEVIDOVDAN 118 95 95 69

12 JAGODINA SPSE11.MAJ 101 12 116 14

13 KIKINDA PS6.OKTOBAR 95 35 92 29

14 KRAGUJEVAC SPSEVUKAŠINMARKOVIĆ 34 0 38 3

15 KRUŠEVAC SPSEVESELINNIKOLIĆ 136 76 119 75

16 NEGOTIN PS12.SEPTEMBAR 39 13 37 6

17 NIŠ SPSE14.OKTOBAR 162 28 152 31

18 NIŠ SPSEBUBANJ 56 23 62 23

19 NOVISAD SPSEMILANPETROVIĆ 360 84 315 66

20 PANČEVO SPSEMARAMANDIĆ 103 13 102 13

21 PROKUPLJE PSSVETISAVA 52 39 34 23

22 SOMBOR SPSEVUKKARADŽIĆ 152 9 140 8

23 SREMSKAMITROVICA SPSERADIVOJPOPOVIĆ 100 38 105 31

24 STARAPAZOVA SPSEANTONSKALA 100 16 88 12

25 SUBOTICA SPSEŠKOLSKICENTAR 36 5 37 4

26 SUBOTICA SPSEŽARKOZRENJANIN 121 12 133 20

27 ŠABAC PSSVETISAVA 60 10 62 10

28 ŠID PSJOVANJOVANOVIĆZMAJ 27 3 26 3

29 VRŠAC SPSEJELENAVARJAŠKI 94 31 98 21

30 ZAJEČAR SPSEJELENAMAJSTOROVIĆ 107 32 102 31

31 ZRENJANIN SPSE9.MAJ 219 73 188 63

3539 808 3306 690


annex 2: daTa Tables on The parTiCipaTion of romani Children in The sChools for The eduCaTion of sTudenTs wiTh disabiliTies


Table 2: number of students enrolled in first grade

2011/2012 2012/2013




















19 NOVISAD SPSEMILANPETROVIĆ n/a n/a n/a n/a













209 41 223 24

reporT 45


Table 3: number of students transferred from mainstream to “special schools”

2011/2012 2012/2013

































71 20 83 24




Table 4: number of students transferred from “special” to mainstream schools

2011/2012 2012/2013

































21 9 19 6

reporT 47


Table 5: number of newly enrolled students without the prior opinion of the inter-sectoral Commission

2011/2012 2012/2013

































31 1 5 2




Table 6: number of students with mild mental disabilities

2011/2012 2012/2013


1 BAČKAPALANKA PSHEROJPINKI n/a n/a n/a n/a


















19 NOVISAD SPSEMILANPETROVIĆ 196 84 176 66

20 PANČEVO SPSEMARAMANDIĆ 90 n/a 98 n/a








28 ŠID PSJOVANJOVANOVIĆZMAJ n/a n/a n/a n/a




2060 616 1835 510

reporT 49


Table 7: number of girl students

2011/2012 2012/2013

No. Town School All girls

Romani girls

All girls

Romani girls
































1234 289 1125 258

Prezastupljenost romske dece u overrepresentation of ......Alijević, Dalibor Nakić, Danica...

Documents

Transcript of Prezastupljenost romske dece u overrepresentation of ......Alijević, Dalibor Nakić, Danica...