1055 Bp., Szalay u. 10–14.
Tel.: (+36-1) 235-7200
Fax: (+36-1) 235-7202
Arany János Programok ,IKT ,OFI ,OKJ ,SDT ,Vizsgacentrum ,biztonságos iskola ,egészségtudatos iskola ,erőszakmentes ,kiadvány ,konferencia ,kétszintű érettségi ,letölthető ,oktatás ,próbaérettségi ,pályázat ,rendezvény ,ÚPSZ ,Új Pedagógiai Szemle ,érettségi ,
In the period prior to preparing the policy note focus group discussions were organized with various actors participating in the integration process. We opted for focus group discussions as the time and financial resources available would not have made it possible to do surveys that could have been used for “measuring” the actors that we had regarded as important. The drawback of the conclusions drawn on the basis of these discussions is that we cannot formulate statistically significant conclusions based on a representative sample. The advantage, however, is that during half-structured discussions such aspects concerning integration may ‘come out’ that could have got lost while using a standardised questionnaire. Another great advantage of discussions is that the views based on the personal experiences of participants bring the theme of the integration of Roma children very close. Although the technical, physical conditions of a focus group, its organisation inevitably convey some kind of formal framework for the participants, the discussions could be guided in a way that the expected subjectivity of those present was manifest.
The discussions were conducted in so called homogeneous groups: parents, teachers, students, representatives of local governments, heads of special schools and members of expert panels assessing mental abilities, civil organizations, ministry officials responsible for Roma issues and representatives of the academic sphere. In order to fine-tone the suggestions formulated in these groups they were brought up again in a new, this time a mixed group (where persons from each of the previous eight target groups were present) to be discussed in the form of another focus group discussion.
In selecting participants it was an important aspect to ensure there the various regions of the country were represented. There were, however exceptions, partly in students’ groups and in other groups where the aspect of regionalism is invalid (e.g. representatives of ministries). In the cases of actors that are directly connected to school an important aspect was the type of school and the assumed ratio of Roma students among the students of the school.
Members of the focus groups were invited by OKI (National Institute of Public Education) but participation was entirely voluntary. Before the discussions we were continuously in touch with 10 to 12 persons to ensure participation. In the actual discussions, however, not everybody turned up, the lowest participation rate was that of the representatives of the academic sphere with only three persons being present (that is why this group was left out from this analysis). We will not give a detailed account of the discussion conducted with the ministry employees as the officials responsible for Roma issues were not able to present in due number owing to difficulties in fixing an appointment appropriate for everyone. (To ensure the anonymity of participants, their names will not be given.)
At the same time it has to be taken into consideration that participation was due to some degree of commitment, activity of those taking part in the discussions, therefore those present cannot be considered totally representative of the target group, therefore in some groups it can be suspected that picture given of integration is too positive. In this respect it can be said that it was the parents with the lowest degree of interest assertion that could not be present, among the teachers the actors of the extreme segregation cases were not present and similar absences could be identified in all groups. It also happened that participants with ‘multiple attachment’ could not stay in one particular role and did not formulate their opinions as representatives of one given focus group (it was the most striking in the case of a parent – working as an official responsible for Roma issues – who did not want to behave as a parent and wanted to channel the discussion into one discussing methodological issues.)
The discussions were conducted in a half-structured way: prior to each meeting a so-called scenario was outlined, which contained the most important issues planned for the discussions. At some points we did not keep to the planned outline of the interview but the central theme (integration) was discussed in all cases.
The analysis of the discussions started with coding, in which so-called thematic issues were identified, which were later contracted or narrowed down to main dimensions on the second level of analysis. In the following we will examine the group-specific dimensions and the themes of integration and segregation as discussed in the focus groups. In the following owing to lack of space only the summaries of the focus group discussions will be given.
Five themes could be identified that were discussed in more than one focus groups. They are as follows:
d) programmes aiming at school success of Roma students,
The category of ‘prejudices’ includes the themes of teacher and parent prejudices and that of school discrimination as well.
The category of ‘school-life’ involves criticism against general schools, the features of the ideal teachers and the variable of pedagogical methods.
The category ‘keeping contacts’ covers communication between students and teachers, teachers and parents, parents and parents, civil organizations and schools and local governments and Roma minority self-governments.
Programmes aiming at the school success of Roma students include not only programmes introduced by the schools but also the initiatives of local governments.
The dimension ‘Roma-image’ includes definitions for the Roma as an ethnic group as formulated in the focus groups, and the features relating to the whole ethnic group or to concrete, smaller groups as enlisted by participants.
Before presenting the main findings let us see which themes were discussed in the particular focus groups. (In the table + indicates that a theme was discussed.)
|Focus group actors||Prejudice||School-life||Keepingcontacts||Programmes aiming at school success of Roma students||‘Roma image’|
|Criticism of the general school||The ideal teacher||Pedagogical methods|
The analysis of the data given in the table reveals the following relationships:
While comparing all views on (successful/unsuccessful) integration of Roma students it can be said that arguments were focused around four major themes:
a) the role of the family (parents),
b) inner conditions at schools (teachers, educators, and the role of particular pedagogical methods),
c) local (settlement-level) contexts of schools,
d) specific features of the education system.
Let us see the features of the arguments of the individual focus groups. (In the table + is inserted into the appropriate columns.)
|Focus group actors||Family (parents)||Inner conditions of school||Local (settlement level) context of school||Particularities of the educational system|
From the summarized arguments it can be concluded that:
|School – Parent – Family||14||Pedagogical methods||22||Integration-segregation||30|
|Integration||8||Cooperation, keeping contacts with parents||16||Financing||24|
|Role and place of kindergartens||5||Segregation - integration||12||Schools||16|
|The world outside school (e.g.making a living, prejudice)||5||The world outside school||11||Development plan, the role of local government||15|
|Further education||4||Keeping contact (with partners)||9||Competition/tender opportunities||12|
|Competitions/Tenders||9||National Roma Selfgovernment||8|
|’Catching up’ programs||7||Roma pupils||8|
|Individual abilities||2||Parent, family background||8|
|Further education||1||Characteristics of Romagroup||5|
|Special School||Civil Organizations||Ministries|
|Parents – Family – School||28||School success||13||Programs to help Romas||10|
|Characteristics of Roma pupils||20||Integration-segrega-tion||13||Contact with Nation-al Roma Self-government, ministries||8|
|Examination – test – decision||14||Financing||12||Integration||7|
|Integration-segregation (segregation inside school)||14||School – parent – National Roma Self-government||11||Training, inservice training||6|
|The world outside school||10||Special schools||8||Data collection, measurement||4|
|Teachers, educational methods||6||Data collection, measurement||6||Roma competitors||3|
|Special education||4||Methodology||6||Real roma image, Roma-non Roma coexistence||3|
|Proportion of Roma pupils||2||School Roma coordinator, teacher responsible for child protection||4|
|Further education||1||Percentage of Roma pupils||2|
|Strengthening identity, transferring values||2|
|Ideal teacher||12||Situation of Romology||15||Financing||15|
|Roma image||12||Educational content||14||Competitions/tenders, PHARE||10|
|Roma-non-Roma coexistence||9||Financing||14||Educational content, methodology||9|
|Conflict||8||Characteristics of the group of Roma||13||School||8|
|Roma-non Roma teacher comparison||7||Schools||9||Capital vs. the country||5|
|Previous schools||5||Partnerships||4||Continuity of educational policy, lack of communication||4|
|Prejudice||5||Labour-market||3||Local governments, involving National Roma Self-government||4|
|Percentage of Roma pupils||3||Foreign examples||3||Characteristics of Roma-group||3|
|Non-Roma pupils||2||Research||2||Ministry of Education||2|
|Forcing to become a 'private' student||2|
|School – parent rela-tions||2|
A honlapon található tanulmányok, egyéb szellemi termékek, illetve szerzői művek (a továbbiakban: művek) jogtulajdonosa az Oktatáskutató és Fejlesztő Intézet. A jogtulajdonos egyértelmű forrásmegjelölés mellett felhasználást enged a művekkel kapcsolatban oktatási, tudományos, kulturális célból. A jogtulajdonos a művekkel kapcsolatos anyagi haszonszerzést azonban kifejezetten megtiltja.