logo
Segregated classrooms are not a thing of the past – look at what is happening in Slovakia

Segregated classrooms are not a thing of the past – look at what is happening in Slovakia

The Guardian29-05-2025

It may come as a surprise to many, but racial segregation in schools exists today in several countries in the EU. In Slovakia, more than 60% of Roma children attend schools where they are in the majority. Worse still: segregation is being rebranded, not removed.
In nearly a quarter of all primary schools, Roma children are separated into 'Roma schools' or 'Roma classes' – often in overcrowded buildings, with lower academic expectations, higher drop-out and grade repetition rates, and with little or no clear path to equal participation in life. Furthermore, Roma pupils are often placed in schools and classes for children with mental disabilities.
As activists, we are told it's about language. Or behaviour. Or parental choice. Or mental disability. Or because Roma often live in spatially segregated neighbourhoods. We are told it's temporary. However, as the years (and decades) go by, the situation remains the same.
Roma in Slovakia, like elsewhere in Europe, have been pushed to the margins of society. As a result of centuries of antigypsyism (the specific form of racism towards Romany people), Roma have long been treated with suspicion and hatred. This has resulted in Europe's largest ethnic minority group also arguably being the most discriminated against. In Slovakia, there are many Romany communities living in such poor conditions (often without access to even running water or electricity) as to be unrecognisable to most Europeans as places to live.
The level of discrimination at every level of society is sometimes overwhelming. But among the many barriers to Roma in this informal apartheid, education can offer a small chance for new generations to escape. It is a cornerstone of equality – the place where inclusion begins. Yet in Slovakia, school remains one of the many institutions where they are systematically separated from the rest of society. As the US supreme court ruled in 1954 in the Brown v Board of Education case: 'Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'
Despite legal guarantees at national and EU level, decades of pressure from civil society and international human rights bodies, judgments issued by courts and even proceedings initiated against Slovakia by the European Commission, segregation continues to define the educational experience of tens of thousands.
For several years, the Slovak government denied discriminatory treatment of Roma pupils. They justified the overrepresentation of Roma children in the special education system by stating that Roma in Slovakia have a higher occurrence of genetically determined disorders because of 'the highest coefficient of interbreeding' in Europe. It was only in 2020 that the Slovakian government finally openly acknowledged the existence of the segregation and undertook steps to eradicate it.
Several reforms have been introduced. A legal definition of segregation has been added to the School Act. Legally binding standards on desegregation have been published. Legal entitlement to kindergarten has been expanded. Introductory grades were introduced in place of the previously criticised 'zero grade classes' (catchup school years to allegedly bring students to the mainstream level), which were attended largely by Roma pupils. A pilot project branded as a 'Roma national school' was announced that would rebrand segregated schooling under the guise of minority rights to learn in your own language and cultural environment, while in effect changing nothing about the segregated schools.
Taken in isolation, and without context, some of these measures may appear constructive. But implemented without clear safeguards, oversight and coordination, they often reinforce the very segregation they claim to address. The new desegregation standards focus primarily on classroom-level inclusion within segregated schools, rather than addressing school-level segregation. Similarly, the creation of Roma national schools could lead to institutionalised segregation at the school-level under the pretext of minority rights.
The shift in name from 'zero grade classes' to 'introductory grades' is another example. Though meant to improve school readiness, these classes often replicate the same segregated logic – delaying Roma children's access to mainstream education and streaming them into separate pathways.
Slovakia must stop managing segregation and start ending it. We already know what works: diverse classrooms, mixed environments, early and emphatic support. These are not radical ideas.
Responsibility lies not only with Slovakia. The persistent segregation of Roma children constitutes a longstanding violation of the race equality directive and the EU charter of fundamental rights. Meanwhile, European Commission targets of reducing segregation of Roma in primary schools by only 50% by 2030 not only give a free pass to segregationists across the bloc, but undermine the illegality of segregation in the first place. The EU cannot afford to look away. Allowing segregation by repacking it undermines the credibility of its commitment to equality and human rights. Segregation, by any other name, remains segregation. The EU must respond to this systemic failure now, before yet further generations of Romany children are denied a future.
Kamila Gunišová is a researcher at Amnesty International Slovakia and Michal Zálešák is a legal consultant for the European Roma Rights Centre and attorney-in-law working in Slovakia

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Macron visits Greenland to show European support for strategic Arctic island
Macron visits Greenland to show European support for strategic Arctic island

Leader Live

time12 minutes ago

  • Leader Live

Macron visits Greenland to show European support for strategic Arctic island

Mr Macron reiterated his criticism of Mr Trump's intention to take control of the territory. 'I don't think that's something to be done between allies,' he said as he was greeted at the Nuuk airport by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen. 'It's important to show that Denmark and Europe are committed to this territory, which has very high strategic stakes and whose territorial integrity must be respected,' Mr Macron said. He was making a stop on his way to a summit of the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations in Canada that will also be attended by Mr Trump. Mr Macron, who is visiting Greenland for the first time, said: 'It means a lot to me … to convey a message of friendship and solidarity from France and the European Union to help this territory face the different challenges: economic development, education, as well as the consequences of climate change.' In a speech last week at the UN Ocean Conference, Mr Macron also mentioned Greenland and the deep seas, saying they are not 'up for grabs' in remarks that appeared directed largely at Mr Trump. Mr Macron, in recent months, has sought to reinvigorate France's role as the diplomatic and economic heavyweight of the 27-nation European Union. The French president has positioned himself as a leader in Europe amid Mr Trump's threats to pull support from Ukraine as it fights against Russia's invasion. Mr Macron hosted a summit in Paris with other European heads of state to discuss Kyiv, as well as security issues on the continent. Sunday's visit will also be the occasion to discuss how to enhance relations between the EU and Greenland further when it comes to economic development, low-carbon energy transition and critical minerals. The leaders will also have exchanges on efforts to curb global warming, according to Mr Macron's office. Later Sunday, Mr Macron, Mr Frederiksen and Mr Nielsen held a meeting on a Danish helicopter carrier, showing France's concerns over security issues in the region. Last week, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary, but refused to answer repeated questions during a hotly combative congressional hearing on Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations. Mr Hegseth's comments were the latest controversial remarks made by a member of the Trump administration about the Arctic island. The president himself has said he won't rule out military force to take over Greenland, which he considers vital to American security in the high north. The Wall Street Journal last month reported that several high-ranking officials under the US director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had directed intelligence agency heads to learn more about Greenland's independence movement and sentiment about US resource extraction there. Mr Nielsen said that US statements about the island have been disrespectful and that Greenland 'will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone'.

NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs

Telegraph

time31 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs

Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'

Labour needs to make its priorities clear to everyone
Labour needs to make its priorities clear to everyone

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Labour needs to make its priorities clear to everyone

Martin Kettle quotes a former Whitehall mandarin saying that 'the government has still not made clear what kind of Britain it is trying to create' (Rachel Reeves seized her moment – whatever the future brings, Labour's economic course is now set, 12 June). He has a point, not wholly answered by Rachel Reeves. It's the vision thing, and the ability to communicate it. It's about describing what Labour is for, in a general sense, beyond a list of policy deliverables. Growth is important, but only as a means, not an end. 'Securonomics' is interesting, but has no public resonance. If people are now unsure what Labour stands for, it is because the task of ideological self-definition has been neglected. This is unlike 1997, which was preceded by a process of rethinking that produced New Labour and the 'third way'. Something similar is needed now. There is a rich tradition of social democratic thinking in Britain to draw on, including RH Tawney's argument for equal access to what he called 'the means of civilisation' as the basis for a common culture. Pragmatism is valuable, but it is not enough. An argument should be constructed around the three pillars of security, opportunity and community that would pull together all that the government is trying to do, and the kind of Britain it wants to create. And in a way that people might WrightLabour MP, 1992-2010 I agree with Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah that the focus on investment alone will not work (Has Rachel Reeves made the right choices? Our panel responds to the spending review, 11 June). New public investments are pointless if the operation and maintenance of what already exists isn't adequately funded. After years of austerity, the quickest and surest way to raise GDP and improve public services is to ensure that we realise the full potential of what we already have. The highest priority should be to relieve the financial pressure on those delivering services, especially our severely cash-strapped local authorities. This will deliver more broad-based and higher economic growth quickly, in contrast to the central allocation of investment funds to mega-projects that will take decades to deliver results. Entrepreneurs want to live and invest in safe areas with good health and education, well maintained roads and pleasant amenities. Properly funded local authorities can encourage higher private investment by delivering that. Unfortunately, they are instead expected to implement an expensive and disruptive reorganisation and find the money to pay higher minimum wages and national insurance while receiving a settlement that implies a real-terms cut in funding. Labour needs to think FosterChelmsford According to Rachel Reeves, the NHS has been 'protected' and will receive 'a 3% rise in its budget' (Spending review 2025: who are the winners and losers?, 11 June). But will it in practice? In a recent meeting with the chief executive of the Nottingham University hospitals trust, he told us that he had been instructed to make £97m of cuts in this financial year. This would mean leading to the loss of about 750 jobs and the closure of some wards. Further, these massive cuts are the trust's contribution to the even bigger ones imposed on the integrated care board for our county: a £280m reduction in the provision for all local health services. So, which is it really, protection and a 3% rise, or enormous cuts?Mike ScottChair, Nottingham & Notts Keep Our NHS Public Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store