Monitoring Discrimination in Education Aleksandar Baucal OSI ESP & University of Belgrade International Conference The Right to Education for Every Child: Removing Barriers and Fostering Inclusion for Roma Children Belgrade, June 2-3, 2009

Starting remarks Next year is the mid of the Roma Decade We still do not have regular (annual or biannual) Government/Ministry report on progress related to ensuring equal access to quality education for Roma Lack of monitoring: is it another form of discrimination?

What is discrimination? When legislation, policies and/or practices make Roma less equal than non Roma Discrimination can take many forms Discrimination forms: –might be overt (easy for detection), but also very subtle (difficult for detection) –are very resistant and can easily mutate (when you stop one, it might come back into a different form) –are rooted deeply in the culture of majority, and integrated into legislation, policies and practices But, any form of discrimination leaves some traces

What is discrimination? When discrimination exists, it can be monitored based on: –Lower access to an educational service –Lower quality of educational service, and –Lower developmental and learning outcomes Related to different educational levels: AccessQualityAchievements Preschool (0-3y., and 3-6y.) Primary (7-10y. and 11-14y.) Secondary Tertiary

Implication of the right based approach: focus on outcomes Every child has a right for such education service that is necessary to close the gap in relation to developmental and learning outcomes between children who belong to different groups Therefore: –It is not enough to have the same level of access –It is not enough to do the same with children from different groups The outcomes gap needs to be closed!

Practical questions 1)How to identify who is Roma? 2)What are good indicators for monitoring of discrimination of Roma in education?

Identification issue Crucial issue Collection of ethnic data is not forbidden, it is recommended (with protection of personal identity!) Self identification vs. identification by others Important for self identification: –Participation of Roma representatives and NGOs is crucial –Raise awareness campaign to encourage free expression of ethnic background –Have a separate questions for citizenship and ethnic background –Allow more answers on ethnic question

Identification issue Alternative approach: monitor disadvantage groups (for example, 20% of poorest) Good side: –In this way, the complex issue of identification of ethnic issue is avoided –In this way those who are in worst conditions will be supported regardless on ethnic background –In this way, the most Roma will also be targeted Bad side: –Discrimination of Roma cannot be reduced only to very low socio-economic status

Identification issue: key recommendation Agree your approach with Roma representatives and NGOs Whichever approach you select, do it quickly and start to use it

Indicators issue: key messages Do not wait for the ideal set of indicators! Use existing indicators! Ensure Roma vs. non Roma comparison for existing indicators Segregate data, not children!

Potential indicators Percent of Roma who do not posses personal documents Percent of Roma and non Roma (3-6 years old) enrolled in the preschool institutions Percent of Roma enrolled in mixed preschool institutions Average length of preschool education for Roma and Non Roma

Potential indicators (If you have zero grade) Percent of Roma and non Roma enrolled in the zero grade (If you have school readiness testing) Use readiness gap as indicator of quality of preschool service for Roma (and not for streaming Roma children to special schools)

Potential indicators Percent of Roma and non Roma who are enrolled in the first grade of the compulsory education at time Percent of Roma and non Roma who are enrolled in the compulsory education Percent of Roma and non Roma who are enrolled in the non segregated setting (mixed classes within regular schools) Percent of Roma and non Roma who attend school regularly

Potential indicators No of units (lessons or textbook chapters) where Roma is presented in affirmative vs. negative way Percent of Roma students who attend Roma language and culture courses in the compulsory education Percent of Roma and non Roma who complete compulsory education at time

Potential indicators Percent of Roma and non Roma who are enrolled in any form of secondary education Percent of Roma and non Roma who are enrolled in shorten secondary education streams that do not allow further education Percent of Roma and non Roma who complete compulsory education at time Percent of Roma and non Roma who are enrolled in tertiary education Percent of Roma and non Roma who complete tertiary education

Potential indicators Achievement gap between Roma and non Roma students at the national examinations (after compulsory and secondary education) Achievement gap controlled for socio-economic status between Roma and non Roma in the assessment studies (national and international) in which country participated (for example PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, national assessment studies) By achievement gap the quality of education delivered to Roma students is monitored

MDG indicators If country participate in UNICEF MICS study (like Serbia, Macedonia, B & H, Albania, Montenegro) Use this for monitoring of MDG indicators for Roma and non Roma –MICS study covers indicators not only for education, but for health and environment as well

If it is possible Percent of Roma and non Roma students who are victims of any form of unfair treatment (based on reports of the inspectorate service and Roma organizations) Percent of Roma and non Roma students and parents who are satisfied with different aspects of interaction with schools (based on student/parents surveys)

And, in future When country adopt some standards of educational achievements (for early development, compulsory or secondary education) percent of Roma and non Roma who rich standards

In short Use existing indicators and sources of data Enable disaggregated data Close the gap