What does the Draft Amendment to the Preschool and School Education Act (PSEA) proposed by the Council of Ministers offer regarding educational integration: Differences from the proposal of the Ministry of Education and Science (MES)

After “dramatic” hours-long discussions, the Parliamentary Education Committee adopted at first reading the Council of Ministers’ proposal for amendments to the main education law. The debates resembled something between a “storm in a teacup” and “reheating a well-known dish”: dozens of speeches, fervor and high energy (matching the heat of the last days of July), the feeling of being part of a “match with a predetermined outcome”… Predictably, the most “combustible” topic was the introduction of the subject “Virtues and Religions.” Missing – or barely touched upon – were discussions on some of the core issues that had motivated the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) to propose changes to the Preschool and School Education Act (PSEA) on May 23, 2025 – language support, desegregation, full coverage, and educational integration. With this analysis, I want to draw attention precisely to these overlooked issues: they are highlighted by the MES and the Council of Ministers at the top of the list of arguments for amending the education law, and they are indeed crucial for the entire education system. Between May (when the MES proposed the changes) and July (the Council of Ministers’ proposal, after 754 comments and suggestions on the MES draft), amendments were made to these areas that weakened the text, even if they did not alter it fundamentally. Since the debates on the PSEA in the plenary hall are yet to come, I believe further changes can still be made to achieve the goals and expected results outlined in the sponsor’s motives. This could also be achieved by integrating some of the proposals included in the “alternative” draft amendments to the PSEA, submitted by MPs Acad. Denkov and Elisaveta Belobradova.

On May 23, 2025, the MES proposed amendments to the PSEA. Although they did not concern issues such as the educational structure or other fundamental reforms, the proposed texts provoked an exceptionally large number of comments, reactions, opinions, and suggestions – nearly 800. The motives with which the MES proposed, and the Council of Ministers agreed, to submit the draft amendments to Parliament, cover more than 20 different topics. Among them, leading positions are occupied by full coverage (the legal inclusion of the Interinstitutional Mechanism for Full Coverage, introduced through Decree No. 100/2018), language support, desegregation of segregated kindergartens and schools, educational integration, and others. In my May analysis, I pointed out that this part of the proposed texts was strong and deserved support. This applies especially to the provisions supporting inter-school desegregation. “The proposed changes are an important step towards real inter-school desegregation. For the first time, the draft law contains a terminological clarification of which educational institutions are segregated, what segregation is, and what desegregation means. Until now, the lawyers at the MES and especially at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs avoided these terms in every possible way, with arguments that sounded almost ridiculous – claiming that there was no legal barrier for majority students to also enroll in these schools…”

Unfortunately, concerns that there would be pushback against the proposed texts were justified. The main objections once again came from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as partially from the National Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria. Responding to these objections, the Council of Ministers replaced “desegregation,” “secondary segregation,” and “segregated schools and kindergartens” (labeled as unclear and even “illegal” concepts) with the absurd-sounding “separate kindergartens and schools with a concentration predominantly of Roma children and pupils.” I am not a lawyer and do not claim to master complex legal language, but I think this is a precedent – probably for the first time a law explicitly refers to “Roma children and pupils,” i.e., explicitly identifying the ethnic belonging of learners. What is more important in this definition is that it frames as “separation” the presence in educational institutions primarily of Roma children and pupils: “Art. 16a. ‘Separate kindergartens and schools’ are kindergartens and schools with a concentration predominantly of children and pupils of Roma origin, which makes it impossible to implement a policy of effective inclusion in the preschool and school education system.”

For the unbiased reader of the legal text, this would imply that Members of Parliament identify Roma identity itself as the problem for effective inclusion – not the low educational status of parents, poverty, or other ethnically neutral factors, but simply the fact that the children are Roma. This sounds truly absurd, and many would call it “almost racist.” Until now, the MES has always or almost always used the term “children and pupils from vulnerable groups,” defining the latter based on parents’ educational status – those with education lower than secondary. For example, this is embedded in the Financing Ordinance: Article 52a provides for additional transfers to educational institutions with a concentration of vulnerable groups, with this concentration determined by the educational status of parents, recorded through the “environment profile” in the NEISPUO system. No ethnic terms are used here, and it goes without saying that Roma children whose parents have secondary or higher education (and their numbers are growing) are not classified as a “vulnerable group.”

At first glance, the replacement of “segregation” with “separation” and of “desegregation” with “overcoming separation” sounds almost like a mere technical change, made to satisfy the lawyers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), who hardly know the educational reality in detail and clearly lack sensitivity to texts carrying discriminatory implications. In the draft law of the Council of Ministers, the desegregation provisions from the MES draft law of 23.05.2025 are retained: Articles 62 and 99 require the implementation of policies for “overcoming the separation” of kindergartens and schools; the texts remain that allow the Regional Departments of Education to reduce enrollment quotas in “separate schools with a concentration of Roma pupils,” along with the other anti-segregation provisions. But this change is only superficially technical. In practice, it creates the possibility of circumventing these provisions with the argument: “In our school, there is no concentration of Roma pupils, because parents do not identify as Roma.” The fact is that in many segregated neighborhoods, parents prefer to identify as Turks, Bulgarians, Romanians, or not to identify at all. In recent years, this has allowed the principals of schools in these neighborhoods to proudly claim that their schools are ethnically mixed – for example, in the large segregated schools in Stolipinovo, there are “Turks and Roma,” since a small part of the residents there (primarily from the Burgudji group) identify as Roma, while the majority (from the Millet group) identify as Turks. Thus, with a wave of the magic wand, the segregation problem is “solved” – it does not matter that the parents often lack even primary education, that children are absent (sometimes even those abroad receive passing grades “for form’s sake”), or that the results from national assessments are miserably low… None of this matters, because the problem of “separation” and “concentration of primarily Roma pupils” has been overcome! In this way, the legislator would fulfill the proverbial “five-year plan in three years” (a well-known slogan from the not-so-distant past), but this time in just one day – there is no separation, because the pupils are not Roma. It may sound amusing, but it is rather sad. I have no doubt that if the law is passed in this form, and if no one challenges it in the Constitutional Court, once in effect, the principals of segregated schools will even encourage Roma parents to identify in any other way, just to avoid the introduction of “activities for overcoming separation.” Thus, these legal provisions would, in practice, be effectively circumvented.

Leaving aside the problem that the terms “segregation” and “desegregation” have long been established in numerous documents of the MES and the government. Desegregation has been one of the main priorities in the Strategy for the Educational Integration of Children and Pupils from Ethnic Minorities (the first version was adopted in 2004, followed by three others), in the Center for Educational Integration of Children and Pupils from Ethnic Minorities (COIDUEM) Program, in the National Program for the Development of Education, Training and Learning until 2030, in the Education Program, and in many other documents. Every year, the MES approves a National Program “Support for Municipalities for Desegregation…,” and the Education Program also announces calls for desegregation and secondary segregation prevention projects. Desegregation is also one of the priorities of the National Strategy of the Republic of Bulgaria for Equality, Inclusion and Participation of Roma, as well as in its predecessor documents. For many years, teachers, principals, municipalities, and many other institutions have known what segregation and desegregation mean. This does not mean that everyone is happy with them, let alone that they are eager to implement desegregation activities. On the contrary – not only in Bulgaria, but across the EU, implementing desegregation policies is a difficult task. In words, everyone understands the need, but only until Roma children actually start studying alongside Bulgarian pupils: then many majority parents prefer to transfer their children to another school, leading to “secondary segregation” and the rapid transformation of ethnically mixed schools into secondarily segregated ones. Politicians, both municipal and national, also avoid desegregation policies in order not to lose voters.

Thus, the problem of segregation deepens and meets with the “widely shut eyes” of politicians, parents, and society as a whole. According to the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, over 60% of Roma children in Bulgaria are educated in classes composed solely or almost entirely of Roma pupils. According to a study by the Amalipe Center and the MES from 2020, there are more than 120 fully segregated schools in Bulgarian cities, and another 64 are in the process of segregation. To these we can add around 150 vocational schools that are segregated or in the process of segregation. This study also used an ethnically neutral criterion – parents’ educational status – rather than their ethnic self-identification.

By replacing the terms segregation and desegregation, the Council of Ministers overlooks the extremely important fact that they are part of the EU’s so-called “soft legislation.” The Council of the EU Recommendations on equality, inclusion, and participation of Roma from 12.03.2021, as well as the earlier Recommendations from 2013, explicitly use the term segregation and set goals for desegregation in education. These documents are part of the EU’s “soft law,” which all member states, including Bulgaria, have voluntarily committed to implementing. From this perspective, the arguments against these terms on grounds of illegality appear much weaker.

I categorically state that with regard to segregation and desegregation, the draft amendments to the PSEA submitted by the Council of Ministers are significantly weaker than the MES proposal from 23.05.2025. If the current text is adopted, it would likely fall in the Constitutional Court and could certainly be easily circumvented. It would be reasonable to return to the texts of 23.05.2025, possibly supplemented and expanded, but without altering their meaning (especially without referencing the Roma identity of pupils). The initial texts have a far greater chance of leading to positive change and real progress in addressing the serious problem of “educational segregation.” Of course, legal provisions alone are not enough to ensure real progress, but they are still a necessary foundation.

Language Support: “All Quiet on the Western Front”
The title of Remarque’s famous book is fitting when comparing the texts on language support between the July draft amendment to the PSEA submitted by the Council of Ministers and the original MES draft from May. There are some minor editorial additions, but nothing substantial. Of course, Remarque’s title does not apply to the overall innovative idea of introducing special provisions to strengthen language integration. The 2015 PSEA offers almost nothing beyond general support for personal development through additional Bulgarian language modules. These were provided both through systemic projects and by other means from school budgets. They have had a positive effect, but clearly not sufficient – thousands of pupils enter first grade without adequate proficiency in Bulgarian. The draft amendments to the PSEA introduce two new forms of language support – integrational instruction in an individual form and preparatory language classes (Art. 16, para. 4).

Preparatory language classes will be something completely new. The draft amendment provides:
– The possibility for pupils from different grades within one educational stage to participate in them;
– Pupils in these classes do not repeat the grade, even if they perform poorly in other subjects – i.e., a special evaluation regime is provided, focusing on Bulgarian language acquisition. At the discretion of teachers and parents, pupils may also study other subjects such as mathematics, music, or physical education. The idea is that these other subjects should be linguistically light and not graded. They will not be a reason for the pupil to repeat the same language class – the only reason can be insufficient mastery of Bulgarian;
– Certificates will be issued indicating language proficiency level and recommendations for future language support.

In my previous analysis, I expressed concern that despite good intentions, the possibility of repeating the language class could become a “fast track” to student dropout. If we imagine a pupil spending two years in preparatory class and then repeating first grade, that pupil would enter second grade at age 11. This is an extreme case, likely to occur only in rare instances, but it remains a potential risk. It would be reasonable for the draft amendments not to allow repetition of the language class, except in cases of systematic absences. Repeating first grade due to insufficient Bulgarian proficiency should be sufficient.

Another important challenge lies not in the law itself, but in its implementation: the method of providing additional language support. In recent years, additional Bulgarian language lessons (whether financed through systemic projects or otherwise) have often been organized in the same way as standard – dull or even outright boring – Bulgarian language classes. Unsurprisingly, the effect is not “wow.” Pupils who struggle in standard language lessons achieve little more in supplementary lessons that simply follow the “more of the same” principle. The impact is much greater if supplementary lessons are conducted in nontraditional and interactive ways – for example, through theater, games, and other activities that actively use standard Bulgarian. The effect is even stronger when these lessons include intercultural elements, presenting (in Bulgarian) the culture and traditions of different ethnic groups.

Educational Integration: Gone with the Wind
In the current PSEA, the term “educational integration” is not elaborated in detail. It is mentioned in the context of policies for equal access to education. For example: Art. 14, para. 1, item 8 – “supporting the educational integration of children and pupils from vulnerable groups”; Art. 26, para. 1, item 10 – schools may participate in projects for “educational integration and inclusion”; Art. 347 (transitional and concluding provisions) refers to the “integration of children and pupils from ethnic minorities.”

One of the strengths of the MES proposal for amendments to the PSEA of 23.05 was the inclusion of a definition of educational integration: “an institutional process in which educational subjects, bearers of ethnocultural specificities, interact within a unified educational environment, and through the process of instruction, upbringing, and socialization, form intercultural competences and shared civic values, while preserving their ethnocultural identity and receiving equal opportunities for social realization.” This definition corresponds to a similar text from the 2010 Strategy for the Educational Integration of Children and Pupils from Ethnic Minorities. In the July version of the draft amendments, however, the definition of educational integration has disappeared. No explanation for this omission is provided.

The PSEA should reintroduce the proposed definition. This is hardly surprising, since for years interest in educational integration has been overshadowed by the overall paradigm of inclusive education. In Bulgaria (as in other countries), the latter is understood primarily as the inclusion of children with special educational needs (SEN) and those with low grades or learning gaps. Educational integration, however, includes issues such as intercultural education, segregation and desegregation, and the preservation of ethnic identity for children from ethnic minorities. These are not considered part of inclusive education, at least not in the way it is understood in Bulgaria. Without doubt, it is positive that inclusive education is one of the leading principles of the PSEA. Unfortunately, educational integration has been systematically avoided, mainly due to the complexity of its challenges. Clearly, the inclusion of a definition of educational integration in the PSEA would not in itself solve the problem of neglect and avoidance of such policies. Nevertheless, having such a definition in the main education law would be an important first step. Given that between one-quarter and one-third of Bulgarian pupils belong to ethnic minorities, this is undoubtedly necessary for sound educational policies.

Look also:

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

Author: Deyan Kolev