23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Navigating the Pathways of Privatisation: A Cultural Political Economy Analysis of General Education Sector Reform in Georgia
Nikoloz Maglaperidze
Maynooth University, Ireland
Presenting Author: Maglaperidze, Nikoloz
Research Question:
This is a work in progress. The research question probes the complex dynamics at the intersection of global economic trends and Georgia's distinct socio-political landscape. Specifically, it seeks to unravel how these factors collaborate and conflict to direct the course of pro-privatisation policies within Georgia's education system since the fall of the USSR. The query is poised to uncover the processes through which educational reforms are not only proposed and adopted but also sustained or discarded over time. It places particular emphasis on the Georgian response to global neoliberal influences in the wake of significant socio-political upheaval, thereby examining the country's educational evolution as a case study for broader post-socialist transformations in Eastern Europe. This question illuminates the nuances of policy adaptation and resistance within a national context, acknowledging the powerful sway of international agencies and financial institutions, while also highlighting local agency and the inextricable influence of cultural and historical factors.
Theoretical Framework:
The Cultural Political Economy (CPE) approach, as conceptualised by Jessop and further elaborated by Verger et al., serves as the theoretical backbone of this study. This framework is pivotal for its integrative analysis of both the semiotic (discursive, ideological) and the material (economic, institutional) dimensions of privatisation policies. By applying CPE, the study delineates how the narratives and rationalities of privatisation gain prominence, translating into concrete educational reforms that reflect a blend of global neoliberal doctrines and Georgia-specific socio-political conditions. The research critically examines established pathways to privatisation, such as those propelled by systemic shocks (‘privatisation through catastrophe’) and comprehensive state reforms ('privatisation as a state structural reform').
Moreover, this study contributes to the CPE discourse by proposing a new pathway: 'Educational Privatisation in Post-Soviet Eastern European States.' This pathway contextualises the privatisation process within the unique historical trajectory of post-Soviet nations as they transitioned from centralised economies to market-oriented systems. It accounts for the persistence of Soviet-era educational legacies and the influence of European integration aspirations, thereby offering a nuanced understanding of Georgia's educational privatisation journey.
This theoretical scaffolding allows for a multifaceted analysis that addresses the complex interdependencies between global policy prescriptions and local realities. The CPE perspective enables the study to move beyond the surface of policy adoption, delving into the strategic and discursive actions of varied actors—including governments, international organisations, and local stakeholders—engaged in the contestation and construction of educational policies. It also facilitates an understanding of how such policies are variably institutionalised, resisted, or reformed, providing a rich tapestry of the socio-political interplay that defines Georgia's educational landscape in a global context.
By intertwining the theoretical insights of CPE with empirical data from Georgia's education sector, this research aims to make a significant contribution to the discourse on policy analysis and education reform, with implications that reverberate far beyond the Georgian context. The resulting synthesis promises to deepen our comprehension of educational privatisation as a phenomenon occurring at the confluence of global ideological currents and entrenched local practices, offering valuable lessons for policymakers, educators, and researchers alike.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
A systematic literature review (SLR) will be employed to clarify the scope and characteristics of processes of privatisation in Georgia's general education sector. The SLR aims to identify, systematise, and synthesise existing knowledge on a chosen theme (Robertson & Dale, 2015). Within the context of this study, this approach will facilitate the organisation of available knowledge according to the three CPE pathways of privatisation outlined previously, thereby enabling us to present the information in a coherent and insightful manner. Guided by our research objectives and the characteristics of CPE, this systematic review adopts a configurative approach. Thus the emphasis here is on exploring, interpreting, and understanding information, which is then configured according to the specific CPE pathways previously discussed. As opposed to the aggregative approach, this study is not aimed at proving a hypothesis by adding up empirical data and drawing testable empirical conclusions. Instead it embarks on an exploratory quest to meaningfully analyse and interpret a complex issue (Gough et al., 2012).
To conduct this systematic literature review, a systematic research process that entailing several key steps is being followed. To begin with, the research question and the criteria for study inclusion and exclusion have been established. A comprehensive search of academic databases, journals, and other relevant sources are being conducted to identify studies that meet these criteria. After having undergone initial screening, selected studies go through a quality assessment to ensure their reliability and validity (Gough et al., 2017; Gough et al., 2012). The data extracted from these studies are being analysed and synthesised to determine which of the three CPE pathways of privatisation emerge as prominent or contextually pertinent. Throughout this process, we will iteratively adapt our methods as needed to better explore and understand the complexities of privatisation in Georgia's general education sector. This approach allows us to not only aggregate data but also to configure it in a way that provides new insights into the phenomenon under study.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe anticipated outcomes of this study on the privatisation of the general education sector in Georgia through the lens of Cultural Political Economy (CPE) are multifaceted. Firstly, it aims to deepen the theoretical understanding of educational privatisation within post-Soviet contexts, contributing valuable insights to academic debates on global influences and local socio-political dynamics in education policy-making. The research will provide a nuanced exploration of Georgia's specific pathways to privatisation, highlighting the interplay between external neoliberal pressures and internal cultural-historical forces.
In terms of policy implications, the study is expected to offer a critical perspective on the adoption of market-based reforms in education, serving as a guide for policymakers navigating similar transitions. By revealing the complex repercussions of such reforms and the significance of context, it advocates for more sensitive approaches to policy adoption and adaptation.
The research will also serve as a foundational reference for international organisations and local educational authorities, reflecting on the outcomes of neoliberal policy advice and its alignment with local realities. By tracing the evolution of educational policies in post-Soviet Georgia, the study underscores the critical role of historical legacies and cultural nuances in shaping education systems.
Ultimately, the outcomes are expected to stimulate a critical re-assessment of current practices, encouraging a dialogue that could lead to the formulation of more equitable and sustainable educational strategies. The study aspires to influence a broad spectrum of stakeholders, from local communities grappling with the practicalities of educational reforms to international bodies shaping global education policies.
ReferencesBall, S., & Youdell, D. (2008b). Hidden privatisation in public education.
Chankseliani, M. (2014). Georgia: Marketization and Education Post-1991 (pp. 277–302). https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472593474.ch-014
Dale, G., & Fabry, A. (2018). Neoliberalism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In The SAGE Handbook of Neoliberalism (pp. 234–247).
Gough, D. (2017). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. 1–352.
Gugushvili, D. (2017). Lessons from Georgia’s neoliberal experiment: A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 50(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.11.001
Gunter, H. M., & Fitzgerald, T. (2013). New Public Management and the modernisation of education systems 1. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(3), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2013.796914
Janashia, S. (2016). The introduction of per-capita education financing in former USSR countries [Ed.D., Teachers College, Columbia University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1803309285/abstract/FABBEBADA909471DPQ/1
Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Polity. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/63371/
Jessop, B. (2010). Cultural political economy and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3–4), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171003619741
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing Education Policy. Routledge.
Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. (2015). Towards a ‘Critical Cultural Political Economy’ Account of the Globalising of Education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(1), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.967502
Sayer, A. (2001). For a Critical Cultural Political Economy. Antipode, 33(4), 687–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00206
Skerritt, C., & Salokangas, M. (2020). Patterns and paths towards privatisation in Ireland. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 52(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2019.1689104
Verger, A., & Curran, M. (2014). New public management as a global education policy: Its adoption and re-contextualization in a Southern European setting. Critical Studies in Education, 55(3), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2014.913531
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016b). The Privatization of Education: A Political Economy of Global Education Reform. Teachers College Press.
Matiashvili, A. (2008) On Being First: The Meaning of Education Reform in Georgia. In Silova, I., & Steiner-Khamsi, Gita. (2008). How NGOs React: Globalization and education reform in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Mongolia. Bloomfield, Conn.: Kumarian Press.
Tangiashvili, N., & Slade, G. (2014). Zero-tolerance schooling: education policy, crime, and democracy in post-Soviet Georgia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 30(5), 416-440.
Tabatadze, S., & Gorgadze, N. (2018). School voucher funding system of post-Soviet Georgia: From lack of funding to lack of deliverables. Journal of School Choice, 12(2), 271-302.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Exploring ‘Failing’ Schools and Turnaround Policy: Impacts on Urban Educators
Katie Kilian
University College London, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Kilian, Katie
This paper aims to explore how teachers and school-based staff experience policy and navigate instability in urban schools labeled as failing and placed into ‘turnaround’. Urban public schools in the United States have been impacted by perpetual uncertainty and precarity as cities transform and schools are subjected to frequent policy churn. These schools are sites of both stability and instability during times of change and upheaval such as the coronavirus pandemic and current cost-of-living crisis. Urban schools provide stability through social services for families (e.g.: food banks, Wi-Fi hotspots) and safe spaces for students in addition to schooling; however, many urban schools simultaneously experience increased surveillance, turbulence, and intervention through accountability policies that label them ‘failing’ and in need of ‘turnaround’ (school takeover or intervention), or closure. This instability is further compounded by local contextual factors (rising intakes of English learners and special education students amidst budget constraints, competition with charter schools, local school choice policies) as well as national and international trends (privatization of education, displacement of families due to gentrification, financial crises and widening inequalities). Schools are on the frontlines of navigating societal and local instabilities, but there is limited research exploring how school-based staff respond to these challenges while experiencing school accountability interventions.
Since the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, a significant focus of American education policy centered on ‘corrective action’ designed to turnaround ‘underperforming’ schools, in common with other neoliberal systems. Turnaround policies vary by state and include options such as firing school staff, appointing private management, restructuring the school, or closure. The decision to intervene in ‘failing’ schools is determined by student performance on standardized tests and other metrics such as graduation rates. The goal of turnaround is rapid change and improvement in school performance. Similar policies exist internationally such as ‘special measures’ in England (Perryman, 2006), ‘turnaround’ in China (Tao, 2023) and Malaysia (Harris et al., 2017), and ‘failing schools’ interventions in some German states (Dedering, 2018). Turnaround policies connect to the governance turn (Ball, 2009) in neoliberal education policy and frequently involve public-private partnerships, consultants, and philanthropic actors in schools. In America, after two decades of turnaround policies, there are “very few examples of permanent school turnaround” (Meyers, 2020), but many students, teachers, and communities have been impacted as thousands of schools experienced turnaround- mostly in urban, low-income, Black and Latinx communities (Lipman, 2011).
Accountability systems often center ‘teacher-deficit’ views (Ingersoll, 2011) even as teachers are central to school improvement work. Furthermore, the experiences and perspectives of teachers are frequently underrepresented in research on turnaround policy. The limited scholarship on teachers in turnaround schools highlights the uncertainty and stress at the heart of their experiences. Cucchiara et al.’s (2015) study on working conditions under turnaround shows teachers experienced rigorous workloads, long hours, chronic instability, and frequent turnover of leadership and staff. Peck and Reitzug’s (2018) case study contributes portraitures of four primary teachers in turnaround schools and highlights the “dizzying nature of change” and high teacher attrition rates. The pandemic has exacerbated these conditions and Harbatkin et al. (2023) found that turnaround schools were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and experience greater educational inequities.
In exploring teachers’ experiences, this study will pay particular attention to contextual factors, issues of equity, and teachers’ identities. Ultimately, this paper examines the relationship between accountability policies and teacher experiences in neoliberal systems and can act as a cautionary tale of the impacts of policy interventions and labels, especially when these interventions ignore context and substitute control for support.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study will address the questions:
1) How does ‘school failure’ impact on school communities?
2) How do school turnaround policies impact on teachers, school-based staff, and students?
Using a qualitative methodology, I explore how school staff experience turnaround interventions designed to drive improvement of ‘underperforming’ schools. To answer the research questions, I conducted 30 semi-structured interviews and a focus group of school-based staff and students in 8 secondary turnaround schools in a large urban district in the northeastern United States. This study uses the term ‘turnaround’ to describe schools subject to state interventions due to falling in the bottom 10% of accountability metrics in the state. The schools differed in their size, type, and length of time in turnaround status. The participants comprised a range of job titles (teachers, school leaders, social workers, instructional coaches) and represented diverse racial groups, gender identities, ages, and experience levels in the field of education.
The interviews and focus group were conducted between October 2023 and January 2024. The focus group and some interviews were conducted in person in the United States, while other interviews were conducted online. The interviews lasted approximately 40 to 155 minutes and explored how school-based staff experienced turnaround policy and how this manifested in their professional practices and identities. The interviews were audio recorded, verbatim transcribed, and coded using NVivo.
The theoretical framework for the study draws on policy sociology (Ozga, 2021) and Critical Race Theory (Gillborn, 2005) to situate turnaround policy within a wider context of global neoliberal education reform while analyzing localized impacts of policy on racially segregated and disadvantaged urban schools. This study draws on Bradbury’s (2020) framework using policy sociology and Critical Race Theory to analyze how regimes of truth surrounding policy problems are constructed and how policy can perpetuate inequities. This study also uses Perryman’s (2006) theories of ‘panoptic performativity’ to analyze how accountability discourses and technologies can become internalized by educators. In an era of policy borrowing and policy mobilities, drawing on research from European and international contexts can illuminate the flow of discourses and policies (high-stakes testing, inspection regimes, teacher deprofessionalization) across national contexts and expose how they play out in localized contexts such as hyper-segregated American urban schools.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary findings show that the day-to-day context of teaching, learning, and management in turnaround schools is increasingly complex, especially since the coronavirus pandemic. School-based staff are tasked with navigating the complex needs of students while responding to various stakeholder demands, accountability pressures, and local politics and policies (plans to merge and close schools, changing service models for English Learners, moving towards full inclusion models). Additionally, turnaround schools have disproportionate numbers of English learners and special education students but lack the necessary budgeting, staffing, and support to equitably serve those populations. Many families are living in increasingly precarious situations (homelessness, food insecurity, community violence, need for mental health services) and more pressures are placed on schools to meet students’ social-emotional, mental health, and physical health needs in addition to meeting academic benchmarks.
As schools are tasked with increasing demands, teachers are subjected to deficit models of accountability policies that blame them for ‘low performance’. Accountability policies do not take the impacts of segregation, poverty, and context into account when labeling and intervening in schools. Furthermore, turnaround policies often position English learners and special education students as policy ‘problems’, but do not provide specialized support or funding to address equity issues. Turnaround teachers expressed feeling ‘set up’ to fail, and highlighted the ‘vicious cycle’ of policy, practice, and their context. Turnaround policies had a significant impact on teacher identity and emotions. Teachers struggled with feelings of deprofessionalization through mandated curricula and pedagogical directives while being subjected to surveillance and performativity through inspections. Teachers expressed the paradox of performativity in having to choose between serving their students’ needs or meeting the increasing pressures of the turnaround accountability system. This study aims to provide a nuanced picture of the complexity of policy enactment and the impacts of ‘failing schools’ policies on school communities.
ReferencesBall, S. J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the ‘competition state.’ Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83–99. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1080/02680930802419474
Bradbury, A. (2020). A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), 241–260. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13613324.2019.1599338
Cucchiara, M. B., Rooney, E., & Robertson-Kraft, C. (2015). “I’ve Never Seen People Work So Hard!” Teachers’ Working Conditions in the Early Stages of School Turnaround. Urban Education, 50(3), 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913501896
Dedering, K. (2018). Consultancy in ‘failing schools’: Emerging issues. Improving Schools, 21(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480217753515
Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500132346
Harbatkin, E., Strunk, K. O., & McIlwain, A. (2023). School turnaround in a pandemic: An examination of the outsized implications of COVID-19 on low-performing turnaround schools, districts, and their communities. Economics of Education Review, 97, 102484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102484
Harris, A., Jones, M., Adams, D., Sumintono, B., & Ismail, N. (2017). Leading Turnaround and Improvement in Low Performing Schools in Malaysia and Indonesia. THF Working Paper, Working Paper Series No. 2. http://headfoundation.org/publications-papers/
Ingersoll, R. (2011). Power, Accountability, and the Teacher Quality Problem. 236. https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/34990
Lipman, P. (2011). The New Political Economy of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the City. Routledge.
Meyers, C.V. (2020). An Urban District’s Struggle to Preserve School Turnaround Change. Urban Education, 0(0), 1–30. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1177/0042085920966031
Ozga, J. (2021). Problematising policy: The development of (critical) policy sociology. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2019.1697718
Peck, C. M., & Reitzug, U. C. (2021). “My Progress Comes From the Kids”: Portraits of Four Teachers in an Urban Turnaround School. Urban Education, 56(10), 1836–1862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918772623
Perryman, J. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: Disciplinary mechanisms and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500500138
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Transformations of the Romanian Strategies to Integrate the Roma People in Education from 2012 to 2027 and Their Persistent Disadvantages
André Barros, Maria do Carmo Gouveia, Sofia Pais, Pedro Ferreira
University of Porto, Portugal
Presenting Author: Barros, André
In Europe, the overwhelming majority of the Roma population lives at risk of poverty and suffers from intense discrimination and segregation. Historically, the Roma people endured five centuries of slavery, became victims of genocide during the Holocaust, and suffered from strategic governmental acculturation attempts. Consequently, the Roma population’s socioeconomic status and educational success are below the average for the non-Roma European population. The social inclusion of the Roma community is among the most important topics on the European Union’s agenda; therefore, in 2011, the European Commission adopted an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies, which was reviewed in 2020. The framework is followed by a guide on how each Member State of the European Union should develop their own strategies to promote the social inclusion of the Roma people. However, the lack of significant evolution in the Roma situation regarding socioeconomic exclusion, education, employment, health, and housing in the past decade led the 2020 EU framework for national Roma integration to consider the past integration Strategies as a failure. Romania faces the challenge of integrating the Roma people as well, with low improvement in the Roma minority’s educational and socioeconomic situation and with the maintenance of a strong gap between the Roma ethnic people and the non-Roma Romanian population. Not only do Roma students have lower levels of educational attendance, but they face a system where high levels of school segregation and discrimination against the Roma minority remained present in the last decade. The 2022-2027 Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Roma Minority states that there was no progress in compulsory education and that access to upper secondary education for Roma students in Romania in the last decade has even worsened.
In this paper, we analysed the educational aspect of the Strategies of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Roma Minority from 2012 to 2027. Looking at the transformations of the Strategies over time will contribute to a better understanding of the causes of the limits and failures they faced and the present situation of Roma educational exclusion in that country, drawing possible implications for understanding the persistent educational disadvantage that Roma people face in education at a European level.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper is supported by a qualitative documental analysis performed between April 2023 and August 2023 in the context of SCIREARLY (grant nr: 101061288). SCIREARLY is an EU Horizon Europe-funded project looking into how to reduce underachievement and early school leaving in Europe (https://scirearly.eu/).
The analysis focused on policy documents from the Romanian Government that were considered relevant to understanding the educational inclusion of people belonging to Roma populations and used as primary data the following documents: The Romanian Government Decisions nº 1221/2011 and its Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian Citizen Belonging to Roma Minority for the period 2012-2020; the Government Decisions nº 18/2015 and its Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian Citizen Belonging to Roma Minority for 2015-2020; and the Government Decisions nº 560/2022 and its Strategy of the Romanian Government on Inclusion of Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Roma minority for the period of 2022 to 2027.
This paper also benefits from primary data from the European Agency for Fundamental Rights Roma Survey 2021 – Main Results and the OECD Review of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Romania 2017 to access Roma educational data in Romania. Secondary information was derived from published literature that looked at the Roma educational reality.
The analysis of the documents first compared the structure and content of the educational aspects of the Strategies. Results were brought together with other published data and results in order to build a comprehensive perspective on the persistent educational exclusion of Roma populations in Romania and what may illuminate some of the challenges faced by the Strategies.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study shows that the structure of the Strategies has changed over time, becoming more precise, organized and better structured when presenting measures. This may facilitate a clearer understanding and the implementation of the proposed actions. The main obstacle, or at least a central one, hindering the effectiveness of the Strategies is that government institutions commonly do not seem to put the proposed Strategy actions in motion. It is important to highlight that this work found prejudiced and devaluated affirmations against the Roma people in the 2015 Strategy, suppressed in the following Strategy. However, a topic in the same Strategy focuses on including the Roma children through vocational education. This may quickly insert them into the job market. Nevertheless, it hampers their opportunity to achieve higher positions of power in Romanian society and expressive economic ascension. It increases the odds of maintaining the socioeconomic gap between the Roma community and the majority of the Romanian population. Another aspect preventing the development of Roma education in Romania is that all Strategies fail to acknowledge the diversity of the Roma people and their conditions and contexts of living, acting regardless of the specific characteristics of each Roma group and context. Furthermore, there is a lack of monitoring of implementation and results, with an evident lack of data collection on the vulnerabilities of Roma populations, on the contextual factors linked to it, and on how strategy measures were implemented and affected them. Without addressing some of these issues, the urgent need to transform the educational reality of the Roma minority in Romania is likely to be again delayed.
ReferencesAnnex of the Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma minority for the period of 2012-2020, 35 1 (2011a).
Annex of the Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma minority for the period of 2015-2020, 128 1 (2015a).
Approval of the Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma minority for the period of 2015-2020, 4 1 (2015b).
Annex to the Government Decision nº 560/2022 for the Approval of The Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Roma Minority for the period 2022 to 2027, 93 3 (2022a).
European Commission. (2020). Civil society monitoring report on implementation of the national Roma integration strategy in Romania: Identifying blind spots in Roma inclusion policy. Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurydice. (2023). Secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education: Teaching and learning in general upper secondary education (Romania, Issue.
FRA. (2023). Roma Survey 2021 (P. O. o. t. E. Union, Ed.) [Technical report]. Publications Office of the European Union.
Habinyak, E. (2022). The impact of education reform in Romania between 1989-2020 on the regulation and decentralization of early childhood education. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 3(3), 322-332.
Kitchen, H., Fordham, E., Henderson, K., Looney, A., & Maghnouj, S. (2017). Romania 2017. OECD Publishing.
Lazar, T. A., & Baciu, E. L. (2014). Educational inclusion of Roma people: The Romanian policy approach, in an European context International Conference on Economics, Education and Humanities (ICEEH'14) Dec. 10-11, 2014 Bali (Indonesia),
Patache, L., & Neguriță, O. (2020). An Overview on Romanian Strategies regarding Roma Minority Concerning Education and Employment. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 9(2), 12.
Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Roma Minority for the period 2022 to 2027, 41 4 (2022c).
Sava, S. L., CiprianFartusnic, & Nicoleta-AncuțaIacobescu. (2022). Continuity and innovation in the civic and social education curriculum for primary and secondary education in Romania [Country Report]. Journal of Social Science Education, 21(4), 19.
Serban, L.-V. (2022). Roma Community Legislative Elements and Actions by which the Romanian State Supports Their Integration and Non-Discrimination. Editura Universitatii din Oradea, 14, 20.
|
