Mónika Barcsy and Á gnes Vámos

1. The schooling problems and the future of the Serbian minority in Hungary based on an empirical study Mónika Barcsy and Ágnes Vámos

2. Outline

3. The Serbian Minority in Hungary (1) • Settlers from the Middle Ages • Due to the peace treaties made in Versailles (1920), those who lived in compact areas, got beyond the border. • The assimilation of those who stayed in Hungary is slower then that of other minorities mainly because their religion differs from the majority religion.

4. The Serbian Minority in Hungary (2) • Number (2001): • Serbian nationals: 3 816 • Serbian as their mother tongue: • 3 388 • With Serbian cultural identity: 5 279 • Location: • diaspora, minority (2%) 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

5. Education of the Serbian minority (1) • Historical co-existence, common history with the majority, culturalbackground • Formal education on all levels Primary school, Lórév, 1996. Primary school, Lórév, 1916.

6. Education of the Serbian minority (2) Elective programmes: • Serbian as the language of instruction in each subject; • Hungarian-Serbian bilingual education; • Hungarian as the language of instruction, Serb taught as a second language. Most of the primary schools use Hungarian as the language of instruction. Serbian can be learnt as a second language. Serbian is used in two primary schools. One of them is a 12-classes school where students can opt for a Serbian final exam.

7. The problems and questions of the research • What kind of particular pedagogical features exist in the case of minorities targeted by assimilation? • Why and what kind of new problem arises when the school, which has to struggle for students, has more students from migrant families coming from the mother state?

8. Theoretical background • Bilingual schools (Lewis E. G. 1981; Trézeux 1995; Baker 1996; Skuntnabb-Kangas, 1997;Vámos, 2008.) • Minority identity, migration (Cummins 1981; Coste 2006; Vámos 2008.) Baker’s model: the ”strong” forms of bilingual education

9. Language of instructionoftheminority-majorityintheeducation

10. Description of the research • Period: 2009 • Sample: Serbian education in primary and secondary schools • Instruments: interview, questionnaire, source analysis • Hypothesis: a) the inner containment of the Serbian minority is cultural and historical – the consequence in the schools is the fact that the problems are not worked-up; b) the pedagogical effectiveness depends on the approach of the target group; c) migration from Serbia weaken the minoritarian identity of the growing generation.

11. Result (1) • Education has basic problems in the case of the Serbian minority due to their diaspora. There is not enough people and there are few children. On the settlements having Serbian schools: • In Budapest and in Pest county the rate of the population: 0,05-0,10% . • In Békés county rate is 0,10% . • In Csongrád county the rate of the Serbian minority is higher: 0,12-0,18%. 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80

12. Results (2) Hungarian-speaking Serbs and Hungarian-Serbian dominant bilingual children study in most of the Serbian primary schools. 48,1% attended Serbian nursery school, 12,3% Serbian-Hungarian nursery school. 29% declared Serbian as their mother tongue (Hungarian 76%). English on basic and intermediate level: 90%. Upperlevel of languageknowledge Intermediatelevel of languageknowledge Basic level of languageknowledge Donotknowthelanguageatall

13. Results (3) The primary school uses Serbian as the language of instruction. 81% of the secondary school students speak Serbian as their mother tongue. 60% of them can speak Hungarian as if their mother tongue. 10% is the English or other language speakers. • 62,8% of the respondents attended Serbian primary schools, 18,6 % learnt Serbian as a second languge • 81,4% of the respondents were born outside Hungary

14. Results (4) • 7% plans to study Serbian Language and Literature, all of them in Serbia. • 26% wishes to continue their studies in the higher education – but not language and literature. They can do it in the Hungarian higher education.

15. Results (5) • The typical Hungarian-language schools and the Hungarian teachers working there, can effectively enforce the interests of the Serbian minority • Some of these institutions are not „strong” enough in minority identity building, culture preservation, and transmission, including the minority language as well • The presence of Serbian students and visiting teachers in schools made possible the development of the common language, but could not find common features with the tradinional minority culture

16. Conclusion/hypothesis-analysis • The school network of the Serbian minority does not function as a coherent sub-system. Reasons: • The number of the Serbs is decreasing and they are slowly being assimilated • The conservative force of the minority institutions is weak and learning in Hungarian is being dominant • The problem of the minority education is the assimilation process in the case of the target group in diaspora • The existence of the migrant students and the application of visiting teachers is useful, however, they do not share common features with the minority in Hungary. They have majoritarian identity. • Serb minority students in Hungary can choose to migrate to Serbia or to get assimilated in Hungary. It has a strong impact on the minority culture and identity.

17. Outlook • When regulating the minority education, it is not sufficient to start from the language of instruction. • Within a country: the institutional support given for minorities can have different outcomes – what is enough for one minority to preserve its culture and language, for an other one can accelerate the assimilation process. • When the education of ethnic minorities and migrant students is connected due to the common language, the adapted educational programs should consider the cultural and identity differences of the target groups. Otherwise, there is a high risk that the majoritarian identitysuppresses the minority identity-commitment • Since the education of minorities is not possible only with teachers belonging to a given minority, the teacher-training should familiarize the teachers coming from the majority with minority-teaching practices

18. Literature and references • A 2001. évi népszámlálás adatai: http://www. nepszamlalas.hu • Cummins, Jim: (1981): Bilingualism and Minority-Language Children. Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. • Baker, C. (1996): Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon-Philadelphia-Adelaide. • Demográfiai évkönyv, 2007 KSH. • Lewis, E. G. (1981): Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Pergamon Institute of English, Oxford. • Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (1997). Nyelv, oktatás és a kisebbségek. Kisebbségi adattár VIII. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány. (revision and translation into Hungarian of Language, Literacy and Minorities. 93 pp • Trézeux, G. (1995): Einsegnement bilingue et politique linguistique. Revue internationale d’éducation. No. 7. 103-116. • Coste, 2006): De la classe bilingue à l’éducation plurilingue? Le français dans le monde.No. 345. 18-31. • Vámos Ágnes (2008): A kétnyelvű oktatás tannyelvpolitikai problématörténete és jelenkora. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest. • Területi Statisztikai évkönyv, 2007, KSH.

19. Thank you for your attentionvamos.agnes@ppk.elte.hubarcsy.monika@ppk.elte.hu