Evaluation of the seminar
and general discussion on the Project
The contributions of the experts offered the
participants of the seminar an opportunity to
realize and discuss the main components of the
pedagogical theory sustaining the Greek project
on the school integration of Gypsy/Roma children.
The discussion following the contributions of
the experts was focused on general issues of
educational policy towards Gypsy/Roma groups
in European countries and on issues any similar
project would sooner or later deal with during
its implementation. The way the Greek project
handled these issues and the solutions given
by the project to problems related to the issues
already mentioned turned out to be a realistic
way to evaluate the seminar as an in-service
training action as well as the project itself.
The product of this discussion, as it is presented
below, could function as a scheme for the evaluation
of similar educational initiatives in other European
countries and includes the following dimensions:
1. Participation
The answer given by the project to the question
of participation of Gypsy/Roma children in
educational processes is oriented toward full
and unitary participation. The standards of
schooling for the rest of the children were
considered common standards for all school
children, Gypsy/Roma children included. Partial
access to knowledge and skills offered by school
and legitimized through an anticipated Gypsy-specific
future occupational status was not considered
an acceptable option by the project as a way
of handling regular school attendance and modes
of participation in learning processes. Although
supportive measures - such as a mobile learning
record card, that is an updated learning certification
to be given to the pupil each time she/he moves
from one school to another during the school
year - were encouraged, practices of separate
enrollments, or of establishing and running
special schools and classes within a school
to be attended only by Gypsy/Roma pupils, were
systematically discouraged and/or prevented.
2. Curricula and textbooks
Educational aims and contents valid for non-Gypsy
children were considered to be valid for Gypsy/Roma
children, too. Developing special curricula
and textbooks for Gypsy children would contradict
the previous principle of unitary education
and educational inclusion of children coming
from specific socio-cultural backgrounds. The
experience gained through educational interventions
on behalf of Gypsy/Roma children involving
special group-specific textbooks before the
project started (1997) showed that even good
educational material or anti-racist intentions
in using it could not protect the teacher from
being perceived as an agent of discrimination.
This can be explained by the strong orientation
of Greek Gypsy families toward equal treatment
at school. Having access to the common textbooks
was considered by both parents and children
as a token for the implementation of the equal
treatment right, in other words of the right
to be equal for the school, independently of
specific cultural traits which may or may not
exist in the family environment. For members
of a social group who do not very often have
the opportunity to see this right implemented
in other social contexts, it is understandable
that they insist on the very same right being
implemented at least within institutional environments
(school, administration). Additional material,
though, had to be prepared in order to cope
with deficits and gaps in school knowledge
and school-related skills due to either delayed
access to the school or to irregularities in
school attendance linked with underachievement.
The educational material was thought to function
as a link between family and school, including
elements of both environments in order to facilitate
a smooth school integration for the children.
3. Coordination
The implementation of a nationwide project of
schooling for Gypsy/Roma children creates by
definition a multiple coordination problem.
The solution to the coordination problem consisted
of (a) a nationwide networking of the project's
personnel being responsible for the monitoring
of the project within a specific area (county),
(b) parents' involvement, (c) the involvement
of municipal and local state authorities, (d)
regular cooperation with local and regional
educational authorities, (e) cooperation with
parents' representatives at school level, (f)
cooperation with other agents of interventions
(state-based and non-governmental organizations)
towards the Gypsy/Roma local populations. Establishing
a network for coordination and consolidating
practices of cooperation was not only a matter
of technical concern to the project. At the
same time it was a priority of educational
policy concerning an implementation of the
project which could deliver positive results.
Not all of the agents involved in the solution
of the Gypsy/Roma children educational problem
were expected to have identical or even similar
concepts as to the type of schooling to be
provide or of action to be taken. The task
of finding a pedagogically meaningful consensus
regulating the action of all agents involved
in the children's schooling was addressed to
the project and had to be managed by it.
4. Resistance
The emergence of resistance toward the implementation
of such a project - even if the project's agent
was the Greek Ministry of Education through
the university of Ioannina - was anticipated.
Resistance was observed both at the school
level and at the level of local society, sometimes
taking the form of unexpectedly strong objection
or even hostility toward the project. The project
had to choose among three alternative solutions
to handle the resistance factor: (a) a lessaiz-faire
attitude, according to which the scope of an
education initiative is defined by the level
and the degree of the resistance expressed
against it, (b) an attitude of polarization
and confrontation, expressed mainly by exerting
pressure to low enforcement agencies (police,
magistrate, courts) to formally handle the
situation, (c) a strategy of anticipating and
circumventing resistance through systematic
information and sensitization of the school
personnel, the local authorities and the parents'
representatives concerning the civic rights
of the children and the constitutional duties
of the school vis-à-vis children of
school age. The experience gained during the
project's first implementation phase (1977-2000)
showed that a lessaiz-faire strategy only reproduced
resistance and legitimized its future development,
whether the threat of formal sanctions or the
act of triggering sanctions tended to feed
the confrontation between the project and its
social environment, even if it had a temporary
benevolent effect in some occasions. Anticipating
resistance and avoiding polarization proved
to be much more useful tools to cope with resistance.
When they were combined with patience and resolution
on the part of the project, they made clear
to the agents of resistance that objection
to the project's aims would not serve the interests
of any part involved. In cases of blind resistance,
though, the project had to resort to more formal
measures of neutralization, especially if the
objections were connected with the violation
of basic liberties and civic rights.
