ABSTRACT

There is considerable conflict between Romani Gypsy child socialization and education processes and mainstream education practices. In Romani communities children are encouraged to show initiative and independence at an early age. They learn participating in the communities' economic activities and observing adult verbal and non-verbal communication skills. In mainstream education, by comparison, they learn in an enclosed classroom where they are rarely able to initiate or create their own learning experiences. Due to the increasing demands of industrialized societies, literacy is vital for Romani people. However, education systems are at present failing to meet the needs of these children. Structural inequalities such as poverty and racism, coupled with differing viewpoints on the benefits of education, continue to contribute to the low participation rates of Romani children in mainstream schools.

INTRODUCTION

A child's identity is shaped by the norms, values, and behaviors of the culture in which he or she is raised. In Romani Gypsy society socialization occurs via the extended family network. This network provides Romani children with emotional and physical support. Despite the great diversity which exists between Romani Gypsy groups, a number of generalizations can be made about traditional Romani child socialization processes. For example, Romani children are encouraged to show independence from an early age, they rarely receive physical punishment, and they learn to understand and read the verbal and no-verbal communications signals of adults in their community at a much earlier age than their non-Gypsy counterparts. Traditional Romani education is community education. Children participate in the communities` day-to-day activities and it is here that they learn by watching, listening and observing, the economic, social, linguistic, political and moral codes of their society.

Romani education differs considerably from mainstream education. In most westernized education systems young children are educated in structured, competitive environments, where each hour of the day is regulated according to timetables and specific learning activities. Teachers have certain expectations of children and their parents. They imagine that all parents view school as important, that parents are literate and, therefore, able to understand the nature of their children's school work, they believe that parents will provide children with adequate time and space to do homework, and they often assume that money is available for school uniforms, books, and school activities.

For many Romani children these ideal conditions do not exist. Poverty, racism, and a lack of access to essential services are considerable barriers to equitable participation in mainstream education. The highly-structured nature of mainstream education does not compare favorably with traditional Romani child socialization and education processes. Many Romani parents do not see mainstream education as either practical, essential, or necessary for their children; instead they imagine it to be a means of controlling their own, and their children's lives (Grosso-Nicolin & Osella, n.d.; Lee & Warren, 1991). The conflict which exists between mainstream education and traditional Romani Gypsy education is located in the opposing structures, values and interests which are used to support and maintain social cohesion in two very different societies.

Despite these problems, most Romani people recognize that mainstream education is the only possible route to literacy for their children. Literacy is imagined to be vital in today's society where even the most basic needs such as obtaining a drivers' license, filling in a social security form, or requesting a residence permit require literacy. A common ground is, therefore, sought between traditional Romani education and mainstream education. Previous attempts to discredit Romani education and socialization, in favor of replacing it with the values of the dominant culture, have not worked. Romani people strongly believe that they have the right to determine the course and direction of their children's education, and that educational decisions should not be imposed upon them by an outside authority.

In this paper, therefore, a critical approach (Gibson, 1986; Fay, 1987) to the discussion of education for Romani children is adopted. This approach favors the exposure of the historical, political, cultural and social processes which influence the access Romani children have to equitable education. Information in this paper has been compiled using published material on Romani education and child socialization processes from a range of disciplines, my own experiences as a Romani Gypsy person, and my own understandings, through conversations and educational work with Romani people, of the educational, needs and concerns of our people.

Romani people left their homeland in India over 1000 years ago and scattered throughout the world. Since that time they have incorporated into their lifestyles a diverse range of religious, linguistic, social and economic practices. Many Gypsies of today are sedentary, However, other groups such as those in the United Kingdom, France and in some parts of Spain continue to practice traveling lifestyles. Gypsies in the United Kingdom, for example, are often compared to Irish and Scottish Travelers with whom they share some connections through mixed marriages, and the adoption of similar economic activities and traveling routes.

Many Romani people see themselves a belonging to a diverse nation of Romani people who, although dispersed throughout the world, share similar historical, cultural and linguistic ties which set them apart as a nation of people. The Romani Nation is, therefore, a political, cultural and social symbol (rather than a geographical construct) through which the world is divided into two spheres, the Gypsy and the non-Gypsy people, or Roma as they are often referred to, with a sense of national unity through which they can make claims, at forums such as the United Nations, for equal rights, social justice, and cultural recognition. In keeping with this symbolic representation of Romani identity, issues such as education are addressed in this paper from a global perspective.

A global approach to education carries with it a tendency to generalize. Generalization in connection with Romani education issues is inevitable, due to the dearth of research in this area. There is a lack of reliable, well-constructed case studies, which would enable the author to focus more closely on one particular Romani group, or the relationship a group has with a national education system. In areas such as Australia, the Middle East, India and much of Eastern Europe, for example, there has been little research conducted into Romani education issues. In other areas such as the United Kingdom, Western Europe and North America Romani education research is fragmentary, and rarely addresses wider social issues such as poverty and racism. The author has, therefore, searched for areas of common ground on Romani education and child socialization issues, between academic research and my own practical experience as a Romani educator.

The importance of the family in a Romani child's life is mentioned in many studies conducted throughout the world. It is also a subject raised frequently by Romani families. In most Gypsy communities the family and the extended kinship network are the primary influences in a Romani child's life. However, the media, school, and the culture of the dominant society also contribute to a Romani child's understanding of their world. Family members teach Gypsy children to respect other adults, themselves (Lee & Warren, 1991, p.315) and the group (Liegeois, 1987, p.46; Berthier, 1979, p. 383) by including them in the day-to-day activities of the community.

In traditional Romani communities children are encouraged to be independent from an early age. This prepares them for the social and economic responsibilities of adolescence when they will be expected to marry, work full-time, and raise a family of their own. Independent behavior is reinforced in a number of ways such as encouraging children to seek and prepare their own food, dress themselves, put themselves to sleep without supervision (Berthier, 1979, pp. 380-381), and care for younger children. A child's sense of autonomy is further reinforced by a lack of physical punishment (Adams et al., 1975, pp. 97-99; Liegeois, 1986, p. 68.). Conformity is encouraged using "joking" or mocking (Grosso-Nicolin & Osella, n.d., p. 27) as a way of making children feel embarrassed or foolish.

Unlike mainstream Western societies, where milestones such as walking, starting school and turning 21 are accorded much importance, Romani families view the stages from infancy, to childhood, to maturity, with relatively little anxiety. There are no timetables for crawling, cutting teeth, walking, etc. (Berthier, 1979, p.383). However, families are interested in their children's development and the acquisition of skills such as baby talk (Reger & Gleason, 1991, p.604) is often greeted with interest and delight.

When babies are born into Romani society they are considered to be signs of prestige, good luck and God's blessing to the family. They are accorded special care during their first 6 weeks of life when they are considered to be ritually impure and in danger of illness. In some North American and European Romani communities, babies are kept away from the adult men (Sutherland, 1975,pp. 151, 154, 263, 284) until they have been baptised, a rite which removes their impurity (Berthier, 1979,p.379).

From 5 to 12 years of age, children are regarded as free from impurities and innocent of defilement. They are, therefore, unaffected by the Romani hygiene laws. A Gypsy childhood, in comparison to adolescence, is characterized by few social responsibilities and a lack of political status (Wood, 1973, p.73; Sutherland, 1975,p. 134). Children are free to explore, experiment and observe the everyday activities of their community. Romani children are, however, expected to assume some economic responsibilities such as child-care or small jobs. Young children will often enthusiastically mimic the economic activities of adults in the community.

Four-year-olds have been observed watching the men engaged in dismantling some item of scrap and ten moving off to their own scrapping situation. This may emerge as a practical exercise in dismantling and stripping and it is not unusual for the child to dismantle some toy with whatever tools are available, possibly a hammer. This play that seems destructive and inconclusive to the casual observer may in reality be play to some purpose and be strongly role-orientated. (Adams et al., 1975,p.97)

Adams et al. (1975, pp. 96-97) further comment, in their study of Romani economic activities in the United Kingdom, that children by the age of 5 or 6 can differentiate between ferrous metals of high value and non-ferrous metals of a cheaper value. Most children by this age can also clean, retrieve and identify spare parts (Adams et al., 1975,p.96).

The roles which young Romani adults adopt at puberty are gender-related. For example, boys acquire more rights and fewer obligations than girls (Berthier, 1979, p.382). In some traditional communities, such as those in North America, the parent's search for a suitable wife for their son is a symbol of his approaching manhood. Parents might judge a young woman as suitable if she has a good reputation, family background, personal character and temperament. Skills considered to be important include her ability to care for children and the home, her courtesy towards guests, and her aptitude for earning a living (Yoors, 1967, p. 183). Once married, a young Romani man takes a greater role in the community's economic, social and political activities.

Romani Gypsy girls, once they reach puberty, are expected to adopt a series of socially responsible behaviors. The family becomes more protective of young woman. In traditionally-orientated families adolescent girls may no longer be allowed to sleep with other children, let their hair down in front of men, take their shoes off in front anyone, nor wash, hang out, or exchange their clothes with children or men (Wood, 1973, p. 73; Sutherland, 1975, p. 28). Shop-bought clothes are often exchanged for the longer traditional Gypsy skirts, and young women usually wear a headscarf one they are married. Young married women are responsible to their mother-in-law, whom they are obliged to help with cooking, cleaning and child-care.

Changes in the behavioral patterns of Romani adolescents seems inevitable in communities where children are spending more and more time in non-Romani schools with children near or of their own age-group. Increasingly the intrusion of outside influences such as the television, videos, the radio and school affect the willingness of Romani adolescents to accept traditional practices and gender-assigned roles. Adolescents and children once spent most of their day with Romani adults and children from a range of age-groups, often up to three generations. Young couples, who were married at puberty, stayed with their parents until they had several children. In this way, cooking, economic activities, and the care of young children were shared, and cooperation between family members ensured equally in business dealings and harmonious social relations.

In some Romani Gypsy communities these practices continue. However, Romani communities, like many other traditional non-western communities, are being placed under increasing pressure to conform to mainstream social norms in areas such as education. In an unfamiliar environment such as the classroom children are no longer taught by community members, their time is structured and their success and growth is judged according to a predetermined psychological, academic and developmental criteria which extends from early childhood through to late adolescence and beyond.

The people-orientated learning environment in which Romani children are educated is, therefore, a distinctive feature of the Romani education system. This education system incorporates a number of values associated with maintaining social cohesion. For example, the needs of the Romani community, are considered to be more important than an individual's need for social mobility. Family and the extended kinship network provide children with a sense of security, permanency, and confidence. These things are particularly important for children who move frequently. A child's acquisition of work skills is vital, due to the important contribution children make to their family's economic activities. Romani children accompany family members on jobs such as flower selling, tarmaccing, scrap metal collecting, or fortune-telling. Many young girls have acquired fortune-telling skills by the time they are 14 (Silverman, 1982, pp. 392-393) by listening to readings, observing customers and watching the methods of divination their mothers, aunts or grandmothers use with customers. Grosso/Nicolin & Osella (n.d.,p.20) suggest that the main reason Romani children "do not know how to play" and give up games easily in order to please others is because Romani children from an early age have looked after younger children. Caring for younger children, whilst adults work in other areas, provides the community with a valuable service. Romani children are thus encouraged to believe that they are able to, and capable of, contributing to the real-life economic activities of the community. Playing, by comparison, seems to lack purpose and value.

In addition to this, a Gypsy child's active participation in the adult world of the Romani community has any intangible educational benefits. Children learn to read and understand verbal and non-verbal adult communication skills such as language, gestures, postures, facial expressions, whistling signals, vocalisations and hand signals at an early age. Patrins or trail-signs, for example, are coded messages usually constructed from items found in the natural environment such as sticks, pebbles and branches. These messages are left at particular points along the road by nomadic and semi nomadic Romanies. They usually represent warnings, directions, or details of such things as how many people are camped at a certain place, or which family camped where (Wood, 1973, p.63.). Children learn about the preparation of trail-signs by watching adults creating them and observing where they are placed. This form of non-verbal communication helps children to remember certain landmarks and features of the surrounding landscape, and it familiarizes them with the particular routes along which the group is traveling.

The Romani language is the primary means of communication for most Romani children. However, levels of language acquisition vary between groups. For example, some Gypsy children speak Romanes as their first language, some are bilingual, and others use a diluted form of the Romani language which has been mixed with local non-Gypsy dialects. In addition to this, there is an increasing group of Romani children who will learn very little of their language, due to the amount of time spent at school, rather than in the community. Children have traditionally acquired the Romani language through contact, rather than through direct instruction.

Story-telling is an example of a verbal communication skill which is still practiced by many Romani communities today. Story-telling is used to educate and entertain, and to reinforce moral and religious values. Some stories deal with the adventures of the old Rom who traveled to many distant and exciting places (Wood, 1973, p.64.), others are "songs of youth and manhood, epic and sorrow songs" (Yoors, 1967,p. 113). Ghost stories or tales of the supernatural are also popular, as are personal stories, which glorify or exaggerate recent adventures, or situations where a Gypsy outwitted a non-Gypsy.

Children are introduced to this form of verbal communication at an early age. For example, Reger & Gleason (1991 pp. 601-617), in a study of language acquisition skills amongst Romani children in Hungary, found that children were introduced to "lengthy and dramatic stories during early infancy". The story-teller frequently used the child's name and told the story "with exaggerated (sometimes chanted) intonation, slow rate vowel lengthening, and other baby talk features". Story-tellers in the groups they studied would often stop and ask babies of even a few months old if they understood.

Reger and Gleason found that children by 10 to 12 years of age had become good story-tellers and used "jokes", "anecdotes" and "surprise endings" in their stories. By the age of 13 to 14 years children had adopted adult narrative features such as "formulaic endings and beginnings; elaborate role play" and situations based on events from everyday life. Reger comments that: "Unlike the school role play with which we are familiar from the developmental literature, Gypsy role play is lengthy, carefully structured, and remarkably realistic" (Reger et al., 1991, p.613). This example demonstrates the educative role verbal communication skills play in Romani societies. Children acquired story-telling skills by listening, observing and participating in story-telling activities. Small babies were seen as important enough to be accorded a place in the stories told.

Verbal and non-verbal communication skills are important features of the Romani education system. These skills, plus associated social skills, enable Gypsy children gradually to familiarize themselves with the adult world. This makes the transition for a Romani childhood to adolescence to adulthood relatively easy. In addition to this, Romani children from an early age are encouraged to listen, imitate, observe, co-operate and attempt adult tasks.

Mainstream education contrasts considerably with traditional Romani education. The enclosed classroom environment, where the majority of learning experiences take place, differs significantly from a Gypsy community education. A Romani child spends most of its day in the family camp, at the home of a family member, or accompanying a member of the family on a job, where he or she may or may not interact with non-Gypsy people and their environments. The classroom, by comparison, is a place which children must attend every day, where they will be surrounded by children who are not related to them, and where they are taught by a teacher who is not a family member. In most mainstream classrooms children rarely et to choose activities, spend as much time as they like on these activities, or determine who they will complete these activities with. Children are expected to remain seated in a closed environment where rules exist about orderly behavior, attentiveness and discussion.

Discipline, routine, the ability to be quiet, to learn abstract facts--these are the things which differ in the daily life or a Sinti child from that of another child. The teachers do not know about the way of life of these children and so misunderstandings arise. The children cease to want to go to school (Lenner, 1993, p. 58) [the Sinti are a Gypsy group]

For many Romani children mainstream education lacks relevance and value. Educational activities such as hypothetical problem-posing (Keeffe & Schmeider, 1988, p. 12; Harris, 1990, p.5.) and philosophizing do not, for any Romani children, appear to result in any concrete, tangible outcomes. An example of this is found in a study by Grosso-Nicolin & Osella (n.d., pp.28-29) who set up a school for research purposes in a "Gypsy camp" in Italy. Romani children, they suggested, were initially "fascinated" by school, and worked hard to gain the acceptance of the teacher. However, when children were asked to do unfamiliar activities, or to use abstract concepts, they became uneasy and often lost interest. The activities, which the group found most successful were those linked to camp-life.

Cunnington (1991, p. 12) suggests that Australian Aboriginal children experience a similar loss of interest in school in the late primary and early secondary years. He proposes that this is because they feel that "what is learned in school has little relevance to their lives outside school". Grosse-Nicolin & Osella (n.d., pp. 24-25) suggest that for Romani children also the "real school of life is in the camp" where a child is taught "activities which enable him to live". The authors suggest that the Romani child does not feel any personal attachment to school life, because it lacks that solidarity of camp life, where the community is "never sure of anything", if there will be money for food or a job, or when the community will have to move on.

Conflicting interests and values exist not only between Romani and mainstream educational environments and practices, but also between the way knowledge is used in each situation. In Romani society decisions which affect the whole community are usually reached by consensus; however, age, gender, and kinship obligations also carry weight. Dominant Westernised societies, by comparison, operate through large-scale bureaucracies, where decisions can be made with little or no community support. The use of time in Romani society is described by Yoors (1967, pp. 44-45) as being without "apparent goal outside of plain survival and self-perpetuation" and without the security associated with routine. In Westernized systems, the use of time is future-orientated (Harris, 1990,p. 35), learning towards progress and the evolution of time.

Knowledge in traditional Romani society is passed on orally. It is usually associated with the wisdom of the elderly, who remember traditional customs and stories and who have gained insight and intelligence through life experiences. Knowledge in Westernized societies is, by comparison a "bundle" of ideas (Keeffe, 1992,p. 9) constantly being disputed and investigated (Harris, 1990, pp. 22-24) and nearly always available in a written format.

The use and application of knowledge in Romani and non-Romani societies, therefore, is also a site of conflict. The most dramatic difference between the two education systems, however, is the content of the different learning systems. While participating in their community's day-to-day activities Romani children learn about their culture, history, political, social and economic life. At school, the are likely to learn only about mainstream culture, history and politics. This is reflected in the following comment:

Our children have never learned anything about their own history, culture and customs. Instead, every reference to Gypsies is bad. They hear only negative stereotypes everywhere they turn. I believe many Gypsies have learned to look at themselves in that same way. Our children should learn instead to feel pride in the rich heritage of the Gypsy people. (Helsinki Watch, 1991, p. 75)

In a mainstream classroom a Romani child is unlikely to learn the same skills, nor to develop the same sense of independence and confidence associated with his or her valuable role in Romani society. As demonstrated in the above examples, it is extremely difficult to locate a common ground between mainstream educational practices and traditional Romani education. The creation of Romani schools has yet to become a reality. At present, very few Gypsy schools exist anywhere in the world, and many of those that do are dubbed remedial schools or schools for the "socially handicapped". Despite these difficulties, most Romani children will, by necessity and a lack of choice, attend non-Gypsy schools. In order for Romani children to participate successful in mainstream schooling they must learn to reconcile two very different educational systems. Further to this, they will have to overcome structural barriers which make equitable participation in mainstream education extremely difficult. The most prominent of these barriers are poverty and racism.
Many teachers bring racist attitudes with them into the classroom. Some imagine that Romani children are inferior, insignificant and incapable of being taught, and so they either ignore the children or, alternatively, harass them. An example of this is found in the following comment:

They call me "Gypsy" and treat my children poorly. The teachers don't pay any attention to the children. They say, "You are a Gypsy and have no business sending your children here". They seat the children together in the back benches of the class. (Helsinki Watch, 1991, p. 74)

Teachers formulate expectations of Romani children based on their own beliefs, assumptions and knowledge or lack of knowledge of Romani society. Many teachers have taken-for-granted assumptions about their students which are reflected in classroom practices. Teachers, for example, rarely acknowledge the differences between a society based on oral communication and one based on written communication. Cunnington (1991, p. 9) mentions this point in regard to Aboriginal society when he suggests that teachers imagine that all children are "aware" of the printed word an find it "meaningful and useful" before they start school. In addition to this, it is often taken for granted that children will have space, time, quiet areas to study in, and parental support for doing homework. Teachers who have no knowledge of how a Romani household operates in regards to cooperation and shared responsibilities, nor of how poverty affects the lives of Romani children, will often fail to make allowances for a child's inability to meet these criteria. The differences between a Romani child's life and those of other children at school, however, are usually all too obvious to the children themselves. As Munivra, an 11-year-old Romani girl currently living in Germany, comments:

They live well. Everyone has their own room. Everything is clean. They have simply everything... They sleep really well. They got to school, but when they come back from school they do their homework. There's no noise. When the need peace and quiet they go into their own rooms to write. Nobody makes noise or disturbs them.
...When I get in from school, I have lots to do. I have to help with the housework, tidying up, minding my little brother, going to the supermarket to do the shopping. (Munivera in Hartmann, 1994:, p. 19)
Poverty is experienced by Romani children in most countries in the world, particularly in Europe where many Romani people live without adequate housing, employment, health care, and access to essential services. Finding money for school uniform, books, excursions, and school lunches is often impossible (Forray et al., 1989, p. 519), as this Romanian Rom comments:

Many Gypsy families didn't have the means to dress their children well. It is normal that if you have large families you will have bigger economic problems. So parents had to send their children to school poorly dressed, with hand-me-down clothes. During Ceausecu's time, these children were viewed differently by the teachers. The teachers, seeing the children poorly dressed, put them in the back of the class where they wouldn't be seen. They also looked at their clothes and thought poverty was the same as stupidity. The children felt this animosity, and, as a result, they often left school.

Poverty is thus equated with "stupidity", and children are not given the extra attention they need in order to overcome educational barriers. For example, Romani children are often enrolled in "special" schools, created for children with physical or mental disabilities, simply because they come from poor neighborhoods or settlements (Ladanyi, 1993, p. 32). The number of Romani children placed in schools for the mentally handicapped or socially disadvantaged is unknown. However, statistics for Romani and nomadic children from 19 years ago for the Federal Republic of Germany show that 50 % of Romani children were in such schools (Reetsma in Liegeois, 1987, p. 69.). In France, during the same period, 80 % of Romani children were in "socially handicapped" classes (L`Ecole Liberatrice, in Liegeois, 1987, p. 69.). In some countries in Eastern Europe a single Romani child cannot be found who has attended a normal school throughout his or her entire school career (Bremer Volkshoschcule, in Liegeois, 1987, p. 68).

Romani children are thus subjected to forms of institutional racism which erode their self-confidence and independence. Anti-Romani racism is particularly prevalent in Europe, where children may be denied school places simply because they are "Gypsies" and are not considered deserving of a place. Nomadic and semi-nomadic Romani groups are particularly vulnerable to this form of discrimination. In the United Kingdom, for example, there is a lack of safe stopping places for Romani and Traveler groups, and a plethora of rules, regulations, and by-laws which make traveling lifestyles extremely difficult.

A prime example of the kinds of problems Romani children face in the United Kingdom is provided by Waterson (1993, pp. 132-139). Waterson describes the plight of a group of Romani families in South Wales. In 1977 41 caravans, threatened with eviction, occupied three unauthorized stopping places. The children of these families were being taught by two teachers in a poorly-equipped ex-school meals van. Five years later an unheated classroom, segregated from the rest of the school, was set up in the local school grounds and was used by two teachers as a base for teaching children ranging in ages from three and a half to 16. In 1986 an anti-Gypsy committee protested outside a Gypsy encampment of 60 caravans proclaiming that they did not want Gypsy pupils attending the local school. In 1987, after a BBC film and television crew and the Advisory council for the Education of Romany and Other Travelers had drawn public attention to the Romani and Traveler education problems in Swansea (Waterson, 1993, pp. 132-139):

The children were offered segregated education in the room used five years earlier. They were not allowed to play or eat with the other children, there were even complaints because the Travelers used the same dining room as the others. (Waterson, 1993. P. 138)

In 1989 Traveler and Romani children in the segregated classroom were finally permitted to play and eat with the other children (Waterson, 1993, p. 139). The racist attitudes of the local settled community, non-Gypsy parents, and the education authorities involved in this case provide an example of the kinds of problems Romani families encounter when attempting to gain access to mainstream education.

A Romani child's sense of exclusion is further reinforced by the ridicule of non-Gypsy schoolchildren. Egan (1980, p. 21) notes that in North America this has been particularly damaging for children who have never attended school before and who commence school late in childhood. The types of attitudes which non-Romani children hold in regards do Gypsy children are reflected in the results of sociograms conducted in Italian schools. These studies have demonstrated that non-Romani children do not consider a Romani child as a possible partner in or out of school (Karpati, 1993, p. 79.)

Racism, poverty and the placing of their children into schools for the mentally handicapped are amongst the may reasons why Romani parents are reluctant to send their children to school (Egan, 1980, p. 23). Some parents feel indifferent or hostile towards mainstream education and the school system in general, others would like to see their children do well at school (Wallbridge, 1972, p. 28; Helsinki Watch, 1991, pp. 73-78). Many adult Romanies and Travelers remember school as a place where they were frequently placed at the lower end of the class, often in fights and "always in trouble" (Wallbridge, 1972, p. 28). Romani parent who suffered similar kinds of verbal and physical abuse as their children during their own childhood will often refuse to force their children to attend school despite considerable pressure from educational authorities for the children to do so (Yung, 1980, pp. 292/294).

Many Romani parents consider school to be a disruptive influence on their children's lives, because it takes their children away from parental guidance and the cultural, social and economic activities of a Romani traditional education and lifestyle (Liegeois, 1987, p. 161; Lee et al., 1991, p. 316). In North America, for example, many Romani families are reluctant to send their children to school because they fear "the Americanizing influences at work there", they sense the hostility towards themselves and their culture, and they feel that the school environment is polluting, because it conflicts with the Romani hygiene laws (Vogel, 1975, p. 126). In North American schools there is little recognition or knowledge about Romani culture, language, or special cultural needs (Vogel, 1975, p. 128). For its reason, some Romani leaders have suggested that school should be run for only two and a half a day, the maximum amount of time that others are willing to be separated from their children (Egan, 1980, p. 23).

This separation of children from families is an important concern for Romani families, who have learnt to be wary of any form of social control involving their children. School is particularly incompatible with the expectations Romani parents have for their children when they reach puberty. Girls, particularly, are unlikely to complete elementary school studies (Forray et al. 1989, p. 515). In Romania, for example, many Romani children are forced to leave school early due to poverty and early marriage, or due to a need to find work or help in the family business (Helsinki Watch, 1991, p. 76). These problems are evident in other Romani communities in Europe. In Spain, for example, the drop-out rate is particularly high after 11 years of age (Yagues, 1993, p. 111) when children have to shoulder responsibilities regarded as more important than school, such as looking after younger brothers and sisters. Boys, in accordance with Romani customs in Hungary, often leave school at 11 years of age to prepare for their future roles as head of the family and to learn a trade (Forray et al. 1989, p. 527).

Statistics demonstrate the dismal inadequacy of current education systems in Europe in regard to meeting the needs of Romani children. For example, the Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education on the Provision of Education for Gypsy and Traveler Children (1991) estimated that only 40 % of European Romani children attend school regularly (the others have never been to school) and that 50 % but in most places 80 % of Romani adults are illiterate. Until recently there has been little coordinated effort aimed at addressing the education needs of Romani children.

The range of difficulties which Romani children face in regard to obtaining an education which is equitable, and which recognises their unique culture and history, seem insurmountable. Romani groups recognize the value of a non-Gypsy education yet they are reluctant to place their children in mainstream educational situations which erode their children's self-confidence and pride in their own culture. In their search for a common ground which incorporates both styles of education Romani people have suggested a number of guidelines. These include the education of Romani and non-Romani teachers at a nationally and internationally recognized Romani teacher training center, the production of Romani teaching materials such as books, language tapes and videos, the introduction of a more equitable assessment scheme, less rigid timetabling at schools (Munoz et al., 1993, pp. 148-153), the use of Romani cultural mediators to help bride the gap between the Romani community and the school, and more participation and collaboration between Romani and non-Romani people on education projects.

A number of programmes aimed at improving the participation rates of Romani children in mainstream schools have been initiated in recent years. For example, the Gypsy research centre in Paris has been actively involved for a number of years in a range of projects aimed at making mainstream education more equitable for Romani children. In Pécs, Hungary, a school has been set up which attempts to find common ground between traditional Romani education and non-Romani education. The Gandhi School teaches Romani children Gypsy "languages, legends, music", "dance" and "traditional crafts" in addition to academic studies (Hooker, 1995, p. 10). In the United Kingdom various Local Education Authorities and schools have initiated creative projects aimed at supporting Romani children. The STEP (Systematic Training and Early Prevention) programme (Chandler & Boglione, 1992) run by the Tacoma Public Schools in North America provides an example of how non-Romani teachers and the local Romani community collaborated on a project to establish a culturally appropriate school programme for Romani children.

Funding provided by the European community has enabled some Romani people to become involved in education projects. However, in many cases Romani people are not being employed on these projects, they are not being given decision-making powers, and their ideas and contributions are being overridden by non-Gypsy educators. Many Romani organizations who provide educational support for Gypsy people are run almost entirely by volunteers and must complete with non-Gypsy groups, supposedly providing services for Romanies, for even the most basic funding. The educational needs of traveling Romani children are often met using stopgap measures, rather that with well-constructed educational support and programmes. For example, in the United Kingdom distance education for traveling children is regarded as a stopgap measure provided by Local Education Authorities for children who are expected to attend schools and use distance education only as emergency measure. Compare this to Australia, where Gypsy and Traveler children can receive their pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary education by distance education. This education is provided by specialist distance education teachers and supported by a range of learning materials and technological equipment provided by distance education colleges. Traveling lifestyles in Australia, though not openly encouraged, are supported and acknowledged, and the education which a child receives by distance education is considered to be equal to, if not better in some cases, than mainstream education.

Self-determination is the right of any culturally distinct group to choose their own political, cultural, social, economic, and cultural status (Nettheim, 1992, pp. 118-120). The level of self-determination that a group is able to achieve is subject to the policies of respective governments and the support they have for minority group needs. Minority groups, such as Romani Gypsy people, will not achieve self-determination until they are able to participate more fully in the design, delivery, and implementation of educational programmes.

Education research has an important role to play in seeking creative ways of addressing Romani education issues. Vogel (1975, p. 129) has suggested four areas in need of particular attention - increased research by universities into Romani culture and language, dissemination of information to school personnel and the public about Romani life, school programmes which consider Romani language and culture and encourage traditional Rom to attend schools, and the restoration to non-traditional Rom of a sense of cultural appreciation in order to help bring the Romani people together.

This paper has described the differences between Romani and non-Romani education and child socialization processes using a critical framework. The Romani child socialization and education process is characterised by community education. Romani children develop self-confidence and culturally appropriate values in an environment where they are encouraged to be independent, are rarely punished and where they make a valuable contribution to the community's economic activities. A Romani childhood is characterized by its relative freedom from social responsibilities until the onset of puberty, a time when young Romani adults adopt gender-assigned roles. The transition from adolescence to adulthood is facilitated by a Romani community education, because it is here that Gypsy children learn adult verbal and non-verbal communication skills and participate in the community's economic activities.

An increasing need for literacy has resulted in many Romani people seeking a non-Romani education for their children. Mainstream education, however, fails to meet the needs of Romani children in a number of ways. The controlled and confused environment of the classroom provides little scope for independence, creativity and pride in a Romani cultural heritage. The creation of an education system designed to meet the needs of Romani children is highly unlikely; instead, a common ground needs to be found, one which acknowledges the structural problems which Romani children face at school such as poverty and racism, and one which recognizes the Romani child socialization and education process. Equally important for Romani children is the importance of developing new projects aimed at improving the participation rates of Gypsy children in education. These projects, however, must acknowledge the right of Romani people to be self-determining and to participate fully in education projects which involve their children.

In this paper the conflict between two opposing education systems is described. The importance of identifying a common ground between these two systems is acknowledged. However, no solution is offered. The lack of research in the area of Romani education, the diversity existing between Romani groups, the differences between the complex educational systems operating in various countries, and the widespread distribution of Romani groups throughout the world make it difficult to create valid solutions, or examples of educational systems which may be particularly useful or conducive to Romani lifestyles.

At best, only generalizations can be made about the Romani child socialization and education process. In some cases many, if not all, of the traditional practices described in this paper have been lost. In other cases, all these traditions continue to survive. What can be stated with confidence, however, is how vital it is for non-Romani educators to recognize the distinctiveness of Romani history, language and culture, and for steps to be taken to address the inequalities that Romani people face in areas such as education.

Correspondence: Ms Tracy Smith, Education Representative, Romani Association of Australia, PO Box 824, Prospect East, South Australia, Australia 5082.

• ADAMS, B., OKELY, J.,MORGAN, D. 7 SMITH, D. (Gypsies and Government Policy IN England (London, Heinemann).

• BERTHIER, J.-C. (1979) The socialisation of the Gypsy child, International Social Science, Journal, 4, p. 3.

• CHANDLER, S. & BEGLIONE, R. (1991) The First STEP (Systematic Training and Early Prevention) Programme. A Descriptive Instructional Manual (USA, Tacoma Public Schools).

• CUNNINGTON, (1991) English Literacy for Young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children Living in Isolated Communities in Far North Queensland. Unpublished paper, pp. 1-17.

• DE LURDES, M. & DA SILVA, A.G. (1993) Paper 13, Portugal general information, in: The Education of Gypsy and Traveller Children action-research and co-ordination, pp. 101-105. English translation (United Kingdom, University of Herfordshire Press).

• EGAN, Y.M. (1980) Portland's Gypsies see school in their future, American Education, 16, pp. 20 24.

• FAY, B. (1987) Critical Social Science and its Limits, pp. 66-84 (Cambridge, Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell).

• FORRAY, K.R. & HEGEDUS, A.T. (1989) Differences in the upbringing and behavior of Romani boys and girls, as seen by teachers, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 10, pp. 515-528.

• GIBSON, R. (1986) Critical Theory and Education, pp. 1-19. (London, Hodder and Stoughton).

• GROSSO-NICOLIN, D.K. & OSELLA, C. (Date unspecified) Gypsy's "School (Italy, Associazione Italiana Zingari Oggi).

• HARKER, R.K. & McCONNOCHIE, K.R. (1985) Education as a Cultural Artefact. Studies in Maori and Aboriginal education (Palmeron North, New Zealand, Dunmore).

• HARRIS, S. (1990) Two way Aboriginal Schooling. Education and cultural survival (Canberra, Australia, Aboriginal Studies Press).

• HARTMANN, F. (1994) An interview with Munivera, an 11-year-old-girl, Interface, 16, November, pp. 18 19.

• HELSINKI WATCH (1991) Destroying ethnic Identity. The persecution of Gypsies in Romania (New York, Helsinki Watch).

• HOOKER, L. (1995) School offers Gypsies hope, The Guardian, European edition, 20th May, p. 10.

• KARPATI, M. (1993) Centre for Gypsy Studies. Italy, General Information and action-research in: The Education of Gypsies and Other Travellers. Action-research and co ordination, pp. 76-79. English translation (United Kingdom, University of Hertfordshire Press).

• KEEFFE, K. & SCHMEIDER, J. (1988) Aboriginal Australian Studies, BASSP Bulletin, 10, pp. 4-19 (Canberra, Curriculum Development Centre).

• KEEFFE, K. 1992) From Centre to the City. Aboriginal education, culture and power (Canberra, Australia, Aboriginal Studies Press).

• LADANYI, J. (1993) Patterns of residential segregation and the Gypsy minority in Budapest, Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 17, pp. 30-41.

• LEE, K.W. & WARREN, W.G. (1991) Alternative education lessons from Gypsy thought and practice, British Journal of Education Studies, 9, pp. 311-324.

• LENNER, K. (1993) Paper 5, Federal Republic of Germany: in The Education of Gypsy and Traveller Children. Action research and co-ordination, pp. 57 59. English translation (United Kingdom, University of Hertfordshire Press).

• LIEGEOIS, J.-P. (1986) Gypsies, an Illustrated history. Translated by Tony Bennett (London, al Saqi Books).

• LIEGEOIS, J.-P. (1987) School Provision for Gypsies and Travelling children (Luxembourg, Office of Official Publications for the European Community).

• McCONNOCHIE, K. (1981) White tests, black children: Aborigines, psychologists and education, in: B. MENARY (Ed.) Aborigines and Schools. Essays in honor of Max Hart (South Australia, Texts in Humanities).

• MUNOZ, P.A., DUBOS, S., GIMENEZ, A., GOMEZ, J., LEE, N., SPINELLI, S. & ZANKO, S. (1993) Gypsies in conference, in: The Education of Gypsy and Traveler children. Action-research co-ordination, pp. 148 153. English translation (United Kingdom, University of Hertfordshire Press).

• NETTHEIM, G. (1992) "Peoples" and "population" indigenous peoples and the rights of peoples, in: J.

• CHAWFORD (Ed.) The Rights of Peoples, pp. 107 126 (Oxford, Clarendon Press).

• REGER, Z. & GLEASON, J.B. (1991) Romani child-directed speech and children's language among Gypsies in Hungary Language in Society, 20, pp. 601-617.

• RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL (1991) Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council of 22 May 1989 on School Provision for Gypsies and Traveler children, Official Journal of the European Communities, 21/6, 89. NOC 153/3.

• SEJDINOV, K. (1995) Mediator profile and function: a European study, Interface, 17 February, pp. 7 10.
  SILVERMAN, C. (1982) Everyday drama: impression management of urban gypsies, Urban Anthropology, VII, pp. 3-4.

• SUTHERLAND, A. (1975) Gypsies the hidden Americans (London, Tavistock).

• VOGEL, A. (1975) The education needs of American Ram, in: Gypsies, Tinkers and other Travelers, pp. 125-130 (London, Academic).

• WALLBRIDGE, J. (1972) The Shadow on the Cheese. Some light on Gypsy education (London, National Gypsy Education Council).

• WATERSON, M. (1993) paper 20. United Kingdom co-ordination, in: The Education of Gypsy and Traveler children. Action-research and co-ordination, pp. 132-139. English translation (United Kingdom, University of Hertfordshire Press).

• WILLIAM, F. (1986) Swiss shame and stolen children, The Sunday times, June 8th, p. 10.

• WOOD, M.F. (1973) In the Life of a Romany Gypsy. J. Brune (Ed.) (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).

• YAGUES, C.G. (1993) paper 15, Spain, a brief critical analysis of the schooling situation of Gypsy communities, in: the Education of Gypsy and Traveler children. Action-research and co-ordination, pp. 110 114. English translation (United Kingdom, University of Hertfordshire Press).

• YOORS, J. (1967) The Gypsies (New York, Simon and Schuster).

• YUNG, P. (1980) L'instruction des enfants, in: MINISTERE DE L`EDUCATION NATIONALE` La Scholarisation des Enfants Tsiganes et Nomads (Paris, Centre des Recherches Tsiganes).