Teachers on the Gypsy Culture

By: András Hegedus T. - Katalin Forrai
Source: Cigány gyermekek szocializációja [The Socialization of Gypsy Children], Aula, Budapest, 1998

"Gypsy people have no culture that we should respect. Actually, they are the ones who had better adapt and change."

"Gypsy culture needs much more publicity, their values should be made better known. By this, their non-Gypsy companions, i.e. the society would be able to accept them to a much larger extent. The points where the two cultures meet should be detected."

Both opinions represent existing views, they are at opposite poles. We cannot call them the extremities, as, unfortunately - especially as far as the negative aspects are concerned - one can find more impatient and ruder remarks even in the material that we have gathered. We do not know how frequent the certain views are among teachers and can only hope that it is those of the second type that are to spread. It is but doubtless that teachers' views (especially if reflected in their actions) weigh more than those of many other professionals. First of all, teachers - especially in a village-like environment - are still regarded as authorities, their views are formative concerning for the local public opinion and thus they are public figures. Their utterances in a sense are public utterances. Apart from this, they have explicit power within the school, which means that if they want their views on the parents and families of the children belonging to different ethnic groups can be expressed in their actions.

By no means do we wish to get entangled in the theoretical discussion about the correlation of opinions, attitudes and behaviors. Naturally, we do not think that everybody that speaks about Gypsies with reserve or aversions is ready to take action against them. But we claim that the negative opinions of teachers who teach Gypsy children concerning Gypsy people weigh more than those of other people. The reason is, apart from the above-mentioned factors, that teachers themselves are aware of all this and in the course of an interview, where there exists a certain incentive that pushes the speaker towards the direction of the responses that society expects, a teacher who expresses prejudice against Gypsies openly defies the social requirements.

In the material that we have collected one can find more shades of opinions than expected and the teachers' impatience is usually rather hidden. We were not mainly interested in general opinions but in those on Gypsy children's relationship with education or educational organizations. Still it was impossible to avoid talking about the teachers' attitude towards the Gypsy community as a whole or the local Gypsy community as a whole even by asking straight questions. We did not intend to ignore this aspect and it would have been impossible, too. Every teacher ready to answer our questions found it necessary to define the Gypsy issue and their own relationship with the Gypsy community, for their own sakes and for the sake of the interviewers.

Moreover, as it has already been made clear - teachers themselves find it difficult to mentally isolate Gypsy children from the Gypsy ethnic group. (We even met people who furiously argued against the classification of Gypsies as an ethnic group as such, but their readiness to argue itself can only be interpreted as the acceptance of the classification to at least a certain degree.)

The teachers were asked in what sense they regarded Gypsies as a homogenous and in what sense they regarded Gypsies as a heterogeneous group. Most of them, similarly to Gypsy families themselves, see differences among Gypsy people as far as their lifestyle, work ethics and consequent living standards are concerned. It is difficult to assess the extremely frequent occurrence of this attitude (in the first case three quarters of those asked, while in the second case two thirds of those asked mentioned it). In itself it would only indicate that according to teachers it is work and material goods that separate the different layers within the Gypsy community just like in the whole of the society. But the teachers' further comments very often contained elements of just the opposite views. Namely, that work ethics and living standard have such an essential role in the human quality that they do not define layers within the Gypsy community but very simply divide it into two parts. Firstly, there exist the orderly ones (who can "hardly be called Gypsies") and then those who are responsible for their own misery. Secondly, there are the well-off ones, the millionaires and the outcasts. Although we share the opinion that integration at work and an endurable living standard are important milestones and the social and material prerequisites of integration into modern society, we find that setting this dimension as absolute can easily create the overly simplified black and white picture which majorities often use to justify their views on minority cultures.

While 71% and 42% of those interviewed could see differences within the Gypsy community in the above two respects, it was only a third of them who were aware of any ethnic and traditional professional differences. Only a slight proportion of those asked (6%) judged the differences according to the time that had elapsed since the settlement of the families to be essential. Although aversions to the Gypsies emerged in the answers throughout the interview, here - although the interviewees were not instructed to set an order of importance - they did so, probably unconsciously, and as a result the difference between emigrants and original settlers seemed slight when compared to the more important differences of work ethics.

Eleven of the teachers said that the Gypsy community is homogeneous in all respects. This response definitely indicates indifference, if not rejection. Were they not teachers, and teachers who are in the closest relationship with the Gypsy community, we could even find the number of those sharing a view of indifference and/or rejection rather low.

Education in a Gypsy language and the education of the Gypsy culture cannot be conducted against the will of teachers. This is the reason why we considered it very important to find out about their opinions - and their reasons - on these issues. In view of the answers, we do not find the introduction of these subjects impossible even though rejection and hostile opinions were also expressed.

There were only two people interviewed who did not answer the following question: "Do you find it appropriate that Gypsy children should attend separate classes at school?" That means that there is only a slight difference between the number of those asked and those who answered. Two-thirds rejected the idea of "Gypsy classes", 26% were definitely for it and 10% had reasons for as well as against it. Twenty of those asked were for it because this would make it possible for the rather backward Gypsy children to receive special support that would make it possible for them to catch up. Three were for it because it would be easier to keep discipline among the Gypsy pupils in that way and - unfortunately - four teachers would favor this solution because Gypsy pupils could thus be isolated from the Hungarian pupils.

The reasons for rejecting the idea of separate "Gypsy classes" were quite varied, too. Five of them argued that "teachers would break down if they had to teach Gypsy-only classes"(!) -, which must be the reason why their answer to the first question was "partly". One of them hinted that Gypsy people and their political leaders would not allow it to happen, however favorable it otherwise would be.

The other reasons are already well-known from the answers of those concerned. 23% of the teachers considered mixed classes important and mentioned learning through following a model, 17% said that establishing separate classes would be discriminative, 16% feared that this organizational solution would strengthen the existing separatist tendencies among the Gypsies. (This anxiety is justifiable, remember, it is their desire for separation that motivates the want of separate classes among the children, too.)

Four teachers were unable to answer the question concerning the opportunity to learn a Gypsy language at school. Three quarters of those who answered rejected the idea, while one quarter were for the introduction of teaching Gypsy languages at school - with or without certain conditions. One quarter is not so low a proportion if we consider that the estimated proportion of Gypsies speaking a Gypsy language is even lower and in the sample examined, i.e. the teachers' surroundings the proportion is even lower that the estimate above. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that few of those who gave a definite answer wanted or were able to give detailed reasons for their choices. And it also becomes apparent how delicate an issue the education of the language (i.e. a minority language) at school is: representatives of the majority society often feel that providing such extra service for minorities would mean that Hungarians deprived themselves from something.

Few people gave reasons why they were for the introduction of the education of the Gypsy language. Five said it was the mother tongue of Gypsy people, five mentioned the prevention of the dying out of the language, four said it was a valid reason that, as they were convinced, Gypsy people themselves would like it to be introduced.

Those rejecting the education of the Gypsy language mostly argue that it is not any more the mother tongue of the Gypsy people (i.e. of those living in their region or in Hungary) and they should also learn it as a foreign language (40%). 13% of those answering the question consider the Gypsy language (as such) to be unnecessary, two feared that Gypsy people would regard such a measure as discriminative and would protest against it anyway. (As we have seen, this viewpoint does exist and those who decide in favor of the introduction of teaching a Gypsy language at school should be cautious indeed!) Finally, seven people (7.5%) argued that the teaching of the Gypsy language was not one of the responsibilities of the school. Their arguments only slightly differ from those of the Gypsies who do not wish to make their intimate, family language public. The difference is not so much in the logic of the argument but in the power relationships. Obviously, the self-imposed isolation of a minority builds walls similarly to segregation. The situation of the Hungarian minority at the time of the writing of this book makes this way of thinking painfully topical. The impassioned words of a teacher in a Hungarian small town are strikingly similar to those one can hear on the other side of the border: "They have their own clubs, they should maintain their culture there if they wish. And if they want to speak their Gypsy language, let them speak it at home and teach it to their children at home. They live in Hungary and they are supposed to learn the school subjects in Hungarian here."

The topic of the previous chapter was how teachers view Gypsy children. All in all, almost two thirds of those asked said that Gypsy children had certain characteristics that schools should in one way or another tolerate and teachers should adapt to. What seems especially striking in their description of the positive relationship and teachers' competent behavior is that those presumed special characteristics are in fact not at all typical of Gypsies.

Among the special characteristics, teachers mention the need for the otherwise well-known personality-centered behavior, which they apply when dealing with the pupils (and their parents). This is characterized by having to participate in the verbal and non-verbal communication as in situations influenced by the supportive attitude enhancing emancipation rather than showing hierarchic, directive attitudes during interactions. This is how a teacher characterized the behavior that was found efficient when dealing with Gypsy children. "They need special treatment, a special tone of voice. Their personalities should never be hurt and one should not behave in an official way. If I approach them first, their reaction is always positive. A friendly and convincing tone of voice, sincerity - this is the only way to achieve results with them."

Teachers who think like this have discovered the right behavior which psychologists and educational psychologists have theoretically and empirically proved to be efficient and recommend when establishing the teacher-pupil relationship, in an autodidactic way. Why do they feel that this behavior is primarily efficient with Gypsy children? Probably because the teacher and the teacher's behavior is less important for pupils of an "average" background, who are less defenseless in their interactions with teachers and consequently their reactions to this behavior of the teacher are less noticeable.

Others feel that deeper understanding would be necessary for dealing efficiently with Gypsy pupils. "We do not know Gypsies well enough. Teachers do not come to work to this school because they are afraid of the many Gypsies and do not know them. Gypsies are also afraid, they are distrustful, and they fear everybody. But it is not so difficult to deal with them. The only thing is, you should not reject their invitation and kindness."

Here again, we do not quote the rudest utterances to illustrate the negative aspects. Teachers of this attitude see special characteristics in connection with morality, work ethics, and lifestyle. "They have different morals - vigorously supporting the wicked ones is very typical of them, they even support burglars - it is difficult to make them understand that there exist such things as sense of duty or sense of responsibility."

The way in which the relationship between the school and the Gypsy families appear in teachers' observations does not seem to characterize the children but the way they see the whole ethnic group. "Gypsy people stick together. If something bad happens, all of them appear immediately. Gypsy parents do love their children. They are more sensitive. If the children are in any way hurt, they are up in arms. This is what one should adopt a more positive attitude towards. And the children being absent for one or two days should not be taken so very seriously. We should accept that they still do not precisely understand what schooling being compulsory means."

We also asked teachers what they consider to be the most important reasons for the backwardness of Gypsy children as far as their school results are concerned. The answers contain some motives mentioned above but interestingly, while answering the questions in the questionnaire, they more frequently referred to Gypsy people's bad financial background than when answering more open questions and during the whole interview. A reason for this may be that when using the questionnaire, we "made the teachers repeat certain notions" that they may have read in newspapers or heard at lectures or different training sessions. Their answers are presented in the table below.

Reasons for the backwardness of Gypsy pupils

Supposed reasons The number of The percentage of
of the backwardness those answering the question
The family's lifestyle 50 53.8
The socio-cultural situation 67 72.0
Non-stimulating surroundings 56 60.2
Bad traditions 17 18.3
Negligence, laziness 61 65.6
Mental backwardness 56 60.2
Lack of interest 43 46.2
The children being physically underdeveloped 11 11.8
Lack of necessary basic knowledge 42 45.2
Linguistic defects 30 32.3
The school being not attractive enough 12 12.9

The most frequently mentioned reasons for the backwardness relate to the families' circumstances and lifestyle. We are hardly mistaken supposing that the teachers also blame the families for the children's defects that are mentioned in the list. It is conspicuous that very few people regard the school as the source of the failures. This is illustrated by the low number/proportion of the answers. Also, as compared to the number of those blaming the families' circumstances, a low number of teachers answered yes when asked about reasons that belong to the school's responsibility, such as the lack of necessary basic knowledge, the children's indifference towards the school and studying, and their linguistic defects. Most teachers have the image of a school that is practically powerless to deal with those who come from disadvantageous socio-cultural background. Even though we are aware of the fact that this is a generally valid statement, proved by sociological research, we find it alarming that the teachers interviewed (with special qualifications and interests) identify with this idea to such a large extent.

This applies to questions about the employment situation of the parents and the families' inclination to have a large number of children. "The majority of the Gypsy people here do their best to live like Hungarians. Women also go to work. We don't have so much trouble with the children either. One thing breeds the other."

"Gypsy people ought to be forced to take jobs. They look into our eyes and laugh at us. They are given flats and laugh at the rest of us who spend 15 years working and have nothing at all."

"I consider the fact that they have been propagating in such large numbers at many places to be the problem and the state even supports them. In our village there is not such propagation but I hear that there is at other places."

Quite in contrast, it is also important to notice that the fact that they cannot fully comprehend let alone solve the problems of the backwardness of sizeable groups of pupils causes unbearable tension for a large number of conscientious and sensitive teachers. There is a strong connection between the situation of the Gypsies and the children's school careers. We quote two teachers:

"A solution should be found about how to involve them more in school work. But research does little good. Support is necessary. Because while the attitude towards them remains that they should stand in a line and be shot with machine guns, there is not much we can do."

"Something should be done and if anyone can, schools can. I swear I do not know what. I would find it right if they could educate a layer of professionals among themselves. If the primary school teacher or the representative of the local guardianship authority is a Gypsy, they are more likely to accept them. It can only be started within the family and by establishing a relationship with the family. They are family-centered to an extent that we cannot even imagine. Surely they come here with innumerable grievances inside. And if they feel that we do not only demand but also consider them to be human beings… But there are cases where the families themselves dissolve, traditions do not function, and then there is no school or research institute that can put the ground back under their feet!"