Dr. István HORVÁTH Research Institute on Romanian National Minorities - PDF

Dr. István HORVÁTH Research Institute on Romanian National Minorities For how many? Census (taken 2002) 535,140 persons 2,5% of population Not accurate Why? Roma category as a stigma Roma defined not ethically

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 21
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.


Publish on:

Views: 10 | Pages: 21

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Dr. István HORVÁTH Research Institute on Romanian National Minorities For how many? Census (taken 2002) 535,140 persons 2,5% of population Not accurate Why? Roma category as a stigma Roma defined not ethically but socially Dual identities Linguistic and partly cultural assimilation Than again. For how many? Estimated 1,5 million (1998) today 1,7-1,8 million 63% Hetero-attribution Self identification Heterogenity TRADITIONAL ADAPTED MAINSTREAM Heterogeneity Multiple internal boundaries especially among traditional Roma Linguistic heterogeneity (varieties based on Valx and Romungro dialects) Romani first language Romanian or Hungarian first language Different degrees of multilingualism census 45% of the persons assuming Roma identity declare Romani as the mother tongue -A 2007 survey 47 % of the Roma are using Romani as dominant language at home, (32% as the major community language) Territorial concentration Mostly rural (63-65%) Presence in approximately 2/3 of the municipalities (out of 3185 in 1992) Frequent type of communities persons Exceptionally larger ones Teritorial concetration Political recognition National minority (single level recognition system, no cultural autonomy) Political representation in Parliament Access to founding designated National Minorities Minority of special political concern Special programs and institutions European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Protects it only under part II (less specific measures form protection and promotion) Social conditions Not connected to electricity water for domestic consumption from outside the household Not connected to a collector sewer system Roma non Roma 13% 2% 47% 8% 86% 4% Roads (totaly unsatisfactory or non-existing) 64% 42% Public transportation (totaly unsatisfactory or non-existing) 50% 34% Street illumination (totaly unsatisfactory or non-existing) 55% 23% Formal employment (working age) 21% 51% Educational situation Census year All Roma All Roma All Roma Illiterate 4.8% 26.1% 3.1% 21.5% 2.6% 25.2% No, school, or up to four years of schooling 49.9% 86,2% 29.7% 63,2% 24.3% 66.6% University completed 2.6% 0,03% 5.1% 0.09% 6.7% 0.15% Enrollement Kindergarten (2008) Roma 31% national level around 70% Primary level (2004): Roma 76% national level around 94% Drop out rate high among Roma, ally starting with the ages In 2008 inclusion of youngsters between years Roma 21% national level of 75%, university education (youngsters between years) Roma 2% national level 30% Why Socio-cultural aspects Physical limits of access Patterns of exclusion Socio-cultural aspects Differences in defining the social age. 4.5% of the females aged between years declared being mother of one or more children. Within the population assuming Roma ethnic affiliation the share of the young mothers was of 22.3%. Low importance attributed to formal education by parents low level of expectations of the students. Deficiencies of the anticipatory school socialization among parents. The cultural gap thesis. Physical limits of access According to a survey taken in 2007 one fifth (22%) of the Roma families considered that the access to school is highly difficult (or in certain respect inexistent) compared with one out of ten (11%) non-roma family accusing the difficulty of access to school. Extreme poverty involving basic difficulties regarding clothing or covering the additional costs of the education (textbooks, notebooks, pencils, other parental contributions) Exclusion Segregation (according to various assessments in approximately 30% of the primary schools the share of pupils of Roma origin is considerably high, thus practices of segregation can be suspected) several typical patterns are documented for Romania School unit segregation Class level segregation Special school segregation Segregation by withdrawal The major problem with the segregation is the loss of quality of education. Discriminative treatment Measures Fostering of the institutional inclusion Adapting the content of education Adapting the methods of teaching Institutional inclusion School mediator Second chance Summer kindergarten ( where financed) Reserved places in high school, vocational education and universities ( reserved places in 49 institutions of tertiary education total 125 thousand students) Planned After school program School mediator Two types in Europe Classroom mediator teacher assistant (content and method) School community mediator PRO CON Non- bureaucratic form of communication and institutional pressure Transferring a problem from educators too a specialized personnel Cultural closeness - communicative effectiveness. Roma community parental involvement Not community worker (instrument of school management). Not integrated approach like the incubator project or village caretaker Content related aspect Romani language As subject item As medium of instruction The history and the traditions of Roma Romani language teaching PRO s Status and self esteem. Assisting linguistic integration. Immersion. Cultural closeness. Structural. Language teaching dilemma Dialect versus standard Romani language teaching versus classroom Romani language use The issue of visibility and markedness. The issue of prospective utility. The major dilemma: Increased individual chances versus identity politics.
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks