What do the proposed amendments to the LPSE say about educational integration?

On the eve of the Bulgarian Education and Culture Day, 24 May, the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) published for public consultation a draft set of amendments to the Law on Pre-school and School Education (LPSE). The draft contains numerous clarifying points and sub-paragraphs, as well as several broader themes. Among these are desegregation, prevention of secondary segregation, language integration, full enrolment in kindergartens and schools, and educational integration. In this respect, the draft introduces provisions that were not addressed (or were mentioned only in passing) in the original version of the law adopted in September 2015. What, more specifically, do the proposed changes and additions envisage?

The LPSE currently in force does not practically contain the terms “segregated schools and kindergartens” or “desegregation,” nor does it use “language integration.” “Educational integration” is mentioned only partly in a few sub-paragraphs, without explanation or detailed elaboration. The mechanisms for ensuring full enrolment, the catchment areas and the overall policy guaranteeing that more children and pupils are in classrooms are likewise absent from the current law and are instead laid down in acts of the Council of Ministers (e.g. CM Decree 100/2018). The proposed amendments are not merely terminological; they also include articles and sub-paragraphs that develop relatively comprehensive policies in these directions. They will doubtless attract both support and criticism and will likely be supplemented or modified. What is certain is that they will lead to more significant changes in educational policy than some of the other hotly debated topics at present.

 

Segregation and desegregation in pre-school and school education

Educational segregation is one of the most severe problems hindering the development of Bulgarian education. A study by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights shows that 60 % of Roma children in Bulgaria study in classrooms composed solely or predominantly of Roma peers. A 2020 survey by the Amalipe Centre and the MES found 120 segregated mainstream schools operating in urban areas and a further 64 in the process of segregation. Added to these are 152 vocational high schools, almost half of which are already segregated, with the rest heading in that direction.

The education law adopted in September 2015 bans the formation of “segregated” classes and groups in ethnically mixed schools and kindergartens—Article 62, paragraph 4 for kindergartens and Article 99, paragraph 4 for schools. Even these texts do not use the word “segregated”; they were achieved through active advocacy by civil-society organizations. Their inclusion was an important step toward overcoming intra-school segregation—i.e. the still-encountered practice of separating children and pupils into different classes within the same institution on the basis of ethnic background. Law-makers at the time did not find the resolve to introduce analogous provisions banning or limiting single-ethnicity schools in towns where representatives of different groups live.

The proposed amendments are an important step toward tackling inter-school segregation. For the first time, the bill offers terminological clarity about which educational institutions are segregated and what “segregation” and “desegregation” mean. Until now, lawyers at the MES—and especially at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—avoided these terms, sometimes with almost comical arguments that there was no legal barrier preventing majority-population pupils from enrolling in such schools… Sub-legal acts issued by the MES did contain the notions of “segregation” and “desegregation” (e.g. the Strategy for the Educational Integration of Children and Pupils from Ethnic Minorities, the Education Development Program 2030, the Education Program, etc.), but these documents were at best regulatory in a subordinate sense and carried no binding force for municipalities, which are the principal founders of mainstream schools.

“3a. ‘Secondary segregation’ is the process by which the share of pupils from vulnerable groups, or pupils whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian, increases in a given school as a result of other pupils withdrawing.”

“31a. ‘Segregated schools’ are schools with pupils from vulnerable groups, or pupils whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian, in which the high concentration of such pupils makes it impossible to implement an effective educational-integration policy.”

The proposed changes supplement Articles 62 and 99 with the requirement that municipalities where segregated schools exist and where desegregation is feasible must implement such a policy. It is correctly clarified that this applies to schools and kindergartens located in settlements with more than one educational institution. Currently, almost all rural schools educate a high percentage of students from vulnerable groups: 750 out of a total of 800 schools that are the only ones in their respective villages or small towns are included in the list of educational institutions with a concentration of vulnerable groups (in accordance with Article 52a of the Financing Regulation). It is unjustified to consider these schools as segregated, since there is no alternative school in the area. (It is a fact, however, that in many of these cases, a trend toward segregation still exists, as ethnic Bulgarian families increasingly enroll their children in nearby town schools…)

In any case, the proposed amendments to the Law on Preschool and School Education (LPSE) do not concern rural schools, but rather educational institutions in settlements with more than one school or kindergarten.

In addition to the requirement for mandatory municipal-level desegregation policies, the draft law also introduces a significant new authority for the Regional Education Departments (RED): the ability to restrict or reduce enrollment in segregated schools and kindergartens. In practice, this would mean that fewer classes or groups would be formed in these institutions. Currently, segregated schools in some regional cities (Sliven, Yambol, Plovdiv, etc.) have the largest student intake starting from first grade. When including preparatory classes, even primary schools with such profiles are among the most heavily populated.

The proposed text requires that the head of the RED and the mayor of the municipality determine which schools will enroll children who are not to be placed in segregated educational institutions.

It should be noted that many Roma parents actively seek to enroll their children in schools outside of Roma neighborhoods. At the same time, many others hesitate due to fears of discrimination, low grades, and other concerns. If adopted, the proposed amendments to the LPSE would support the gradual transfer of children out of Roma neighborhoods and into ethnically mixed schools.

A serious challenge will be preventing the receiving schools from becoming secondarily segregated—in other words, preventing parents from the majority population from withdrawing their children from these schools, which is a widespread issue. Local authorities and REDs can develop solutions tailored to their specific contexts. For example, a few years ago, Gabrovo Municipality successfully integrated students from the closed segregated school “Tsanko Dyustabanov” into all other schools in the city, thereby preventing the formation of a new segregated school. The situation varies from place to place, so it is justifiable to allow locally tailored solutions.

Just as the current LPSE provisions prohibiting segregated classes and groups did not fully eliminate the practice, the new, much stronger legal clauses are also unlikely to bring about immediate change. Nevertheless, they represent a legal requirement that will open the door to desegregation policies that are sensitive to local contexts.

 

The Mechanism for Coverage

One area of full public and political consensus in Bulgarian education is the need to ensure full student coverage (enrollment and attendance). For many years, schools and civil society organizations have invested serious efforts in this direction, and since 2017, these efforts have been supported at the national level. The Mechanism for Joint Institutional Work on Enrollment, Inclusion, and Dropout Prevention was introduced through Council of Ministers Decree No. 100 (2018).
Following its initial implementation, the mechanism has been sustained mainly by educational institutions, teachers, and educational mediators, while the engagement of social workers, the police, and other institutions remains mostly symbolic.
The proposed changes to the LPSE would turn this mechanism into a legal obligation—both at the national and local levels. This is reflected in Articles 264a through 264c. Whether this will lead to greater commitment from non-educational institutions remains to be seen. In any case, including it in the law is a prerequisite for more systematic implementation.
In addition, the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) is proposing an update to the fines for parents who fail to ensure their children’s regular attendance in class. The changes in Article 347 reflect inflation, which has reached nearly 50% since the LPSE was adopted. While the update is reasonable, it raises the question of whether specific monetary amounts should be fixed in law, which might require frequent changes in response to inflation.
A particularly problematic amendment to Article 347 is the requirement for fines on parents to be imposed by the principals of schools/preschools in whose catchment area the parent resides. It is already evident that this change will not be effective. It is a fact that many mayors do not impose or pursue these fines. But it is even harder to believe that a school principal—who has significantly less authority to impose or collect any fines—would begin doing so. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the absent student is enrolled in a different school, in which case the principal has absolutely no relationship with the student or their parents. Even when the absent student is from the local school, the desire to fine the parent is unlikely to be strong—at the very least because the principal has no real power to collect the fine, and also because doing so risks pushing the parent to transfer the child to another school. Assigning this responsibility to the principal instead of the mayor resembles the analogy of looking for lost keys not on the street where they were lost, but on the next one because it’s better lit: it may be easier, but it’s entirely ineffective.
The draft law also proposes something long-awaited by teachers—reducing the suspension of child benefits due to five unexcused absences from one year to three months. As early as March 2019, when a change to the Law on Family Benefits for Children extended the suspension period from one to twelve months, it was clear that this would be counterproductive. At that time, the Center Amalipe sought the opinions of principals from the Intercultural Education Network “Every Student Will Be a Top Student,” and most of them expressed skepticism toward this overly restrictive measure. (See more here.) It later became evident that the measure indeed did not work—on the contrary, it discouraged parents from any engagement for the following year.

 

Language Support and Many Open Questions

It is a fact that tens of thousands of students (the exact number is likely unknown, which is part of the problem) enter first grade without speaking Bulgarian well. This is a major obstacle to their success and a key factor behind early dropout. This applies to children of migrants and refugees, returning Bulgarian citizens, and some from traditional ethnic minority families in Bulgaria.

Currently, the extent of the problem is unclear: no institution collects data on students’ proficiency in Bulgarian upon school entry. According to 2019 data from the Ministry of Education and Science (MES), between 25% and 30% of first-graders speak a native language other than Bulgarian. Some face no serious issues with the official language, while others—especially those living in segregated communities—need targeted language support. Currently, this is provided through additional Bulgarian language instruction, as required by the Inclusive Education Standard. Most of the so-called “systemic projects” under the Education Program (e.g., Support for Success, Strong Start in Preschool Education) also provide such support.

The proposed change to Article 16 of the Education Act introduces new forms of language integration. Beyond general support for personal development, the Ministry proposes integrated individual support and even a preparatory language class. Regarding individual integration education for students in grades I to VII, the MES argues this “enables the accelerated initial acquisition of Bulgarian and gradual integration into a mainstream class.” This form will likely be used in special cases, particularly for children returning from abroad.

MES also proposes a preparatory language class in daily, individual, evening, or distance formats for students who do not speak Bulgarian at all. The extent of their proficiency will be assessed at the school level. These students may repeat the preparatory class once if they fail to acquire the necessary competencies. There is no requirement that they must not have attended kindergarten.

In my view, the current wording of the proposed changes on language support could open a “Pandora’s box” and cause further difficulties or even increase dropout among students struggling with Bulgarian. Imagine a student who attended kindergarten for a year (though not the mandatory three). They should have some grasp of the language but could still be placed in and even repeat the preparatory class. As a result, they may enter first grade at age 9, then possibly repeat that year. By the time they reach second grade, they would be 11 years old—compared to their 8-year-old peers. This is a clear setup for dropping out or at least conflict with peers’ parents, not to mention the internalized feeling of “being a failure.”

Of course, this is an extreme case. Still, it is true that Bulgarian children (with Romani or Turkish as a native language) who migrate with their families to Western Europe often do not speak German, Dutch, or French and yet manage to learn the language in a six-month preparatory class provided by the host country. It’s puzzling how these same children, living in Bulgaria and exposed to the language at home to some extent, might fail to acquire basic competencies through kindergarten and a one-year preparatory class. This likely occurs only if the child rarely attends the preparatory group/class. But MES’s proposal doesn’t address this: there is no requirement for a minimum attendance rate before allowing the repetition of the language class. In practice, a student may attend regularly yet still be required to repeat the class.

The provisions on language support, especially the preparatory language class, need refinement to prevent students from repeating a year unnecessarily. That said, there is no doubt that diversified language support is essential and should be provided when genuinely needed.

 

Educational Integration

Currently, the term “educational integration” is not well-defined in the Education Act. It is mentioned in the context of equal access policies, for instance: Article 14, para. 1, item 8: “supporting the educational integration of children and students from vulnerable groups”; Article 26, para. 1, item 10: schools may participate in projects for “educational integration and inclusion”; Article 347 (Transitional and Final Provisions): mentions “integration of children and students from ethnic minorities.” The proposed amendments introduce an explicit definition of educational integration as: “An institutional process in which educational entities with ethnocultural specificities interact within a unified educational environment, and through the processes of learning, upbringing, and socialization, develop intercultural competencies and shared civic values, while preserving their ethnocultural identity and receiving equal opportunities for social realization.” However, this is unlikely to be sufficient for educational integration to be clearly represented at both the school and national level or to emerge from the shadow of inclusive education. Including the themes of segregation and desegregation, full enrollment, and language integration is a promising start in that direction.

Written by: Deyan Kolev