Abstract
The European Union represents a transnational level of polity where education policies are constructed in parallel to those of nation states, and where equality is framed both in legal frameworks and in policies around citizenship and inclusion. This chapter focuses attention on the interplay between the legal and the policy landscapes around equality and their relation to education policy, and explores these ideas in relation to the Roma minority, and the efforts of the EU to address their experience of multiple inequalities across the continent. The process of developing an education and social policy, and the refinement of equality and anti-discrimination legislation, contribute to a reframing of equality beyond the borders of national policies, and open up new opportunities for their negotiation. The case of Roma EU policies suggests that a combination of legal and policy processes is necessary to address issues of inequalities in education. But there are political risks with the EU taking over such policy work especially when the equality definitions used are narrow in their remit, and when national governments lack the political will to implement EU policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term ‘competence’ refers to the authority and power of the EU to legislate. The EU can only act within the limits of its competence. Competences are defined in the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. The fight against discrimination has been an EU competence since 1997 (Guiraudon 2009).
- 2.
The lack of success of rights-based approaches that draw on identity politics, ethnicity politics and cultural movements has sparked lively academic discussion (Mutua 2007). Questions of representation, of advocacy and the legitimation of particular interests at state and transnational level are all implicated in how human rights discourses frame an issue and construct a minority. Still, this is the most comprehensive conceptual approach to equality policy. In relation to the Roma see Xanthaki (2005).
- 3.
The term ‘Roma’ is used here to refer to different groups (Roma, Sinti, Kale, Gypsies, Romanichels, Boyash, Ashkali, Egyptians, Yenish, Dom, Lom), without denying the varieties of lifestyles and situations of these groups (European Commission 2012). This is an umbrella term that is officially used by the EU following the approach of the Council of Europe. There is extensive legal and academic literature on ‘who the Roma are’ and how they can be identified for purposes of research and policy. It is recognized that the Roma are a heterogeneous group, diverse in terms of ethnicity, language, cultural practices and religion (Hancock 2006). Both official sources and academic researchers recognize the significance of legal definitions of the Roma as determining “popular perceptions” and “providing the basis of the official treatment of the group” (Mayall 2004: 200), as well as the importance of policy framing and the “problematizing of Romani minority identified as ‘European’” (van Baar 2011, p. 15).
- 4.
The 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam declared that the basis of the EU includes fundamental human rights as these are defined by the European Convention of Human Rights, and fundamental social rights as these are developed by the European Social Charter and the Community’s own Charter of Social Rights. This brings Council of Europe definitions of rights within the EU framework.
- 5.
The term ‘positive action’ refers to the legal duty to promote equality, which has been discussed as “the most innovative provision” in the EU law. It addresses past discrimination and “takes into account … dignity, restitution, redistribution and democratic participation” (Guiraudon 2009, p. 538).
- 6.
For example, quotas for Roma students in HE exist in Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Romania, Serbia.
- 7.
European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004.
- 8.
The original Lisbon Strategy was launched in 2000 “as a response to the challenges of globalization and ageing”. In its mid-term evaluation, it was deemed as too complex and with unclear division of responsibilities, and was re-launched to focus more on growth and jobs. For a discussion on the rationales of the Strategy, and the governance mechanisms used (the Open Method of Coordination), see European Commission (2010b) Staff Working Document. Lisbon Strategy evaluation document. SEC (2010) 114 final.
- 9.
The EU has a budget for social policy. The so-called Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) provides for spending over the period 2014-2020. It is allocated “less than 1% of the Gross National Income of the whole EU” [European Commission (2014) Final Simplification Scoreboard for the MFF 2014–2020. Communication. Brussels, 3.3.2014. COM(2014) 114 final].
- 10.
Education and Training 2020 (ET 2020) provides common strategic objectives for member states, including a set of principles for achieving these objectives, as well as common working methods with priority areas for each periodic work cycle [Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) (Official Journal C 119 of 28.5.2009)].
- 11.
The figures for the report come from an analysis of the 2011 UNDP/World Bank/EC Regional Roma Survey, regarding the educational situation of Roma in twelve central-southeast European countries (Brüggemann 2012). The survey was based on household data in areas of high poverty—so the data should not be seen as representative of the total Roma population in these countries. The political nature of ethnic definitions and data gathering is addressed in all the major recent surveys, as is the recognition that the data can be skewed in representing the most marginalized communities where there may be large concentrations of Roma groups (FRA 2014).
- 12.
The countries of central and eastern Europe that have high numbers of Roma minorities (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania) were required to improve the conditions of life for Roma, as a pre-condition for their accession to the EU. But, the EU enlargement process was positive for the situation of Roma minorities before the 2000s. For instance, Greece in the 1980–90s launched education initiatives to emulate European developments in dealing with minority populations (Zachos 2006), following accession to the EU, and not as a precondition requirement.
- 13.
The European Court of Human Rights has a host of cases dealing with the education rights of Romani children, summarized in European Commission (2014) Report on discrimination of Roma children in education. Lilla Farkas. European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field. European Commission—Directorate-General for Justice.
- 14.
Evidence from studies by international organizations, NGOs and academics, clearly show that the Roma across Europe (identified through census data—where they exist, national or regional surveys, other available population data sources, NGO sources, and survey-based self-identification) face social and economic exclusion and marginalization disproportionate to the non-Roma population (see, FRA 2014, for discussion on methodology for the identification and conceptualization of Roma populations in surveys).
- 15.
The Fundamental Rights Agency is one of EU’s decentralized agencies set up to provide expert advice to the EU and to Member States: “Through the collection and analysis of data in the EU, the FRA assists EU institutions and EU Member States in understanding and tackling challenges to safeguard the fundamental rights of everyone in the EU” (http://fra.europa.eu/en/about-fra).
- 16.
A ‘Treaty of the European Union’ is a binding legal agreement between the EU and member countries. It sets out EU objectives, rules for EU institutions, how decisions are made and the relationship between the EU and its member countries. The EU can only act within the competences granted to it through these Treaties and their amendments. A Treaty requires agreement and ratification by all the signatories (http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/index_en.htm).
References
Alexiadou, N. (2014). Policy learning and europeanisation in education: The governance of a field and the transfer of knowledge. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational policy-flows in European education Conceptualizing and governing knowledge (pp. 123–140). Oxford Studies in Comparative Education: Symposium.
Arnesen, A.-L., Lahelma, E., Lundahl, L., & Öhrn, E. (Eds.). (2014). Fair and competitive? Critical perspectives on contemporary Nordic schooling. London: Tufnell Press.
Ball, J. S., & Youdell, D. (2007). Hidden privatization in public education. Report prepared for the Education International, 5th World Congress.
Brüggemann, C. (2012). Roma education in comparative perspective. Analysis of the UNDP/World Bank/EC regional Roma survey 2011. Roma Inclusion Working Papers. Bratislava: UNDP.
Bunescu, I. (2014). Roma in Europe: The politics of collective identity formation. Farnham: Ashgate.
Council of the European Union. (2000). Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 Implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. Official Journal of the European Communities. I.180/22.
Council of the European Union. (2011). EPSCO Council Conclusions on an EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020. EPSCO, 19 May 2011. 10658/11.
Council of the European Union. (2013). Council recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the member states employment, social policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council meeting Brussels, 9–10 December.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331–1387.
Crouch, C. (1999). Social change in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daly, M. (2012). Paradigms in EU social policy: a critical account of ‘Europe 2020’. Transfer ETUI, 18(3), 273–284.
European Anti-Poverty Network. (2015). EAPN supports national pilot projects on ‘Europe 2020’ and the European Semester. EAPN. http://www.eapn.eu/en/news-and-publications/news/eapn-news/eapn-supports-national-pilot-projects-on-europe-2020-and-the-european-semester
European Commission. (2010a). ‘Europe 2020’. A Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission, Brussels, COM(2010) 2020.
European Commission (2010b). Commission Staff Working Document. Lisbon Strategy evaluation document. SEC(2010) 114 final.
European Commission. (2012). National Roma Integration Strategies: A first step in the implementation of the EU Framework. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament. The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2012) 226 final.
European Commission. (2014). Report on the Implementation of the EU Framework, on National Roma Integration Strategies. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2014) 209 final.
European Commission. (2015). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Report on the implementation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies 2015. COM(2015) 299 final.
ERRC. (2014). Going nowhere? Western Balkan Roma and EU visa liberalisation. Journal of the European Roma Rights Centre, 1.
Eurostat. (2015). Eurostat File:Youth unemployment, 2013Q4. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Youth_unemployment,_2013Q4_(%25).png
FRA. (2014). Roma survey—Data in focus. Education: the situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
Fraser, N. (2007). Reframing justice in a globalizing world. In D. Held & A. Kaya (Eds.), Global inequality. patterns and explanations (pp. 253–268). Cambridge: Policy Press.
Friedman, E., & Garaz, S. (2013). Support for Roma in tertiary education and social cohesion. In M. Miskovic (Ed.), Roma education in Europe practices, policies, and politics. Abington: Routledge. pp. 149−166.
Gewirtz, S. (2006). Towards a contextualized analysis of social justice in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(1), 69–81.
Gobbo, F. (2009). The INSETRom project in Turin (Italy): Outcomes and reflections. Teacher Training for Roma Inclusion. Intercultural Education, 29(6), 523–535.
Guiraudon, V. (2009). Equality in the making: implementing European non-discrimination law. Citizenship Studies, 13(5), 527−549.
Gulson, K., Clarke, M., & Petersen, E. B. (2015). Education policy and contemporary theory: Implications for research. London and New York: Routledge.
Hammarberg, T. (2011). Human rights in Europe: No grounds for complacency. Commissioner for Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Hancock, I. (2006). On Romany origins and identity. Questions for discussion. In A. Marsh & E. Strand (Eds.), Gypsies and the problem of identities: Contextual, constructed and contested. Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. pp. 69−92.
Herakova, L. L. (2009). Identity, communication, inclusion: The Roma and (new) Europe. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2(4), 279–297.
Jones, K. (2013). Introduction: All change. In K. Jones, G. Dreux, R. Canadell, R. Innes, A. Traianou, & N. Hirtt (Eds.), Education in Europe: The politics of Austerity. Radical Books. pp.1−18.
Kostakopoulou, D. (2015). European Union citizenship and Member State nationality: updating or upgrading the link? In EUDO Observatory on Citizenship. http://eudo-citizenship.eu/commentaries/citizenship-forum/citizenship-forum-cat/254-has-the-european-court-of-justice-challenged-member-state-sovereignty-in-nationality-law?showall=&start=2
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the vernacular: Nationalism, multiculturalism and citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2010). Policy learning and governance of education policy in the EU. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 443–463.
Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2011). New scalar politics: Implications for education policy. Comparative Education, 47(4), 489–502.
Mayall, D. (2004). Gypsy identities 1500–2000, From Egyptians and moon-men to the ethnic Romany. London: Routledge.
McCrudden, C., & Kountouros, H. (2006). Human rights and European equality law. University of Oxford—Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Working Paper 8/2006.
McCrudden, C., & Prechal, S. (2009). The Concepts of Equality and Non-discrimination in Europe: A practical approach. European Network of Legal Experts in the Field of Gender Equality. European Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Unit G.
Meehan, E. (1997). Political pluralism and European citizenship. In P. Leaning & A. Weale (Eds.), Citizenship, democracy and the New Europe (pp. 69–85). London: Routledge.
Messing, V. (2014). Methodological puzzles of surveying Roma/Gypsy populations. Ethnicities, 14(6), 811–829.
Milcher, S., & Fischer, M. M. (2011). On labour market discrimination against Roma in South East Europe. Papers in Regional Science, 90(4), 773–788.
Mutua, M. (2007). Standard setting in human rights: Critique and prognosis. Human Rights Quarterly, 29, 547–630.
Nóvoa, A. (2013). The blindness of Europe: New fabrications in the European educational space. Sisyphus—Journal ofEducation, 1(1), 104–123.
OJEU. (2012). Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union.
O’Higgins, N., & Bruggemann, C. (2014). The consequences of cumulative discrimination: How special schooling influences employment and wages of Roma in the Czech Republic. European Educational Research Journal, 13(3), 282–294.
Oke, N. (2009). Globalising time and space: Temporal and spatial considerations in discourses of globalisation. International Political Sociology, 3, 310–326.
O’Nions, H. (2015). Warehouses and Window-Dressing: A Legal Perspective on Educational Segregation in Europe. Approaches to the Education of Roma in Europe. ZEP—Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 38. Jahrgang, 1/2015.
Osler, A. (2015). Human rights education, postcolonial scholarship, and action for social justice. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43, 244–274.
Parreira Do Amaral, M., Dale, R., & Loncle, P. (Eds.). (2015). Shaping the future of young Europeans. Education governance in eight European Countries. Didcot: Symposium.
Pasias, G., & Flouris, G. (2011). The European citizenship paradigm in a dystopian context: Weak symbolisms, profound deficits and measurable competences. Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 6(2), 189–203.
Pusztai, G. (2015). Pathways to Success in Higher Education. Rethinking the Social Capital Theory in the Light of Institutional Diversity. Higher Education Research and Policy—7. Frankfurt & Main: Peter Lang.
Ram, M. (2010). Interests, norms and advocacy: Explaining the emergence of the Roma onto the EU’s agenda. Ethnopolitics, 9(2), 197–217.
Richardson, J. (2015). The EU as a policy-making state. A policy system like any other? In J. Richardson & S. Mazey (Eds.), European Union—Power and policy making (4th ed., pp. 3–32). London: Routledge.
Robertson, S. (2011). The new spatial politics of (re)bordering and (re)ordering the state-education-citizen relation. International Review of Education, 57, 277–297.
Rorke, B. (2013). Beyond first steps: What next for the EU framework for Roma Integration? Report. Open Society Foundations. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/beyond-first-steps-what-next-eu-framework-roma-integration
Ross, M. (2010). Solidarity—A new constitutional paradigm for the EU? In M. Ross & Y. Borgmann-Prebil (Eds.), Promoting solidarity in the European Union (pp. 23–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rostas, I., & Ryder, A. (2012). EU framework for national Roma integration strategies: Insights into empowerment and inclusive policy development. In J. Richardson, & A. Ryder (Eds.), Gypsies and Travellers: Empowerment and inclusion in British Society. Bristol: Policy Press. pp.187−206.
Rövid, M. (2011). One-size-fits-all Roma? On the normative dilemmas of the emerging European Roma policy. Romani Studies, 21(1), 1–22.
Seddon, T. (2014). Making educational spaces through boundary work: Territorialisation and ‘boundarying’. Globalisation. Societies and Education, 12(1), 10–31.
Sobotka, E., & Vermeersch, P. (2012). Governing human rights and Roma inclusion: Can the EU be a catalyst for local social change? Human Rights Quarterly, 34(3), 800–822.
Souto-Otero, M. (2016). Policies that speak discourses? Neo-liberalism, discursive change and European education policy trajectories. In N. Lendvai & P. Kennett (Eds.), European Social Policy. Forthcoming. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Tambini, D. (2001). Post-national citizenship. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(2), 195–217.
Traianou, A. (2013). Greek education reform: Resistance and despair. In K. Jones, et al. (Eds.), op.cit. pp.86−112.
van Baar, H. (2011). The European Roma: Minority representation, memory and the limits of transnational governmentality. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Verloo, M. (2006). Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 211–228.
Verloo, M., & Walby, S. (2012). Introduction: The implications of theory and practice of comparing the treatment of intersectionality in the equality architecture in Europe. Social Politics, 19(4), 433–445.
Vermeersch, P. (2012). Reframing the Roma: EU initiatives and the politics of reinterpretation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(8), 1195–1212.
Xanthaki, A. (2005). Hope dies last: An EU directive on Roma integration. European Public Law, 11(4), 515–526.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2007). Intersectionality, citizenship and contemporary politics of belonging. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10(4), 561–574.
Zachos, D. (2006). Roma, egalitarianism and school integration: The case of Flampouro. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 4(2), 262–296.
.png){kind=link}
Acknowledgements
The arguments developed in this chapter draw on research partly supported by a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions Project (Research and Innovation Staff Exchange, Horizon 2020), with the title Higher Education Internationalisation and Mobility: Inclusion, Equalities and Innovation. Grant agreement No. 643739. I wish to thank the staff at the Roma Education Fund, the Decade of Roma Inclusion Secretariat, and the European Roma Rights Center, for valuable discussions and analyses in relation to Roma education in Europe.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alexiadou, N. (2017). Equality and Education Policy in the European Union—An Example from the Case of Roma. In: Parker, S., Gulson, K., Gale, T. (eds) Policy and Inequality in Education. Education Policy & Social Inequality, vol 1. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4039-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4039-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4037-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4039-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)