1. Title:
162. English and Serb language tuition for children and adults in Ada, Vojvodina/Serbia, FR Yugoslavia, organised by the Centre for Antiwar Action, Ada branch (local NGO, hereinafter: CAA)
a) English language, workshop-type course for kindergarten, elementary school aged children and adults in Ada (1996).
b) Serb-language education of ethnic Hungarian children in the kindergartens of Ada (1995/1996).

1.1. Keywords:

2. Author Information
2.1 Author’s Name:
Tibor Tajti

2.2 Institutional Affiliation and Contact Details:
Central European University – Budapest
Legal Studies
Oktober 6^th street, No. 12, 7^th floor
1051 Budapest
Hungary

Fax: 36 1 327 3198
E-mail: ttajti@excite.com or lphtat01@phd.ceu.hu

2.3 Date recorded:
24^th September 2000

3. Good Practice Information Sheet
3.1 Local Level Good Practice:
a) English-language initiative: teaching English language to pre-school and elementary school age children as a tool for improving the development and overall prospects of minority children and maintenance of interethnic relations, and building of democracy and civil society.
b) Serb-language initiative: Provision of means for intensive teaching of Kindergarten-age children the language of the other majority population (i.e., Serb). This is an example of the local government failing to fulfil its duties and the task being performed by a NGO.

3.2 Location:
The practice took place at two qualitatively distinct locations. One part of the programme (a) ran in the Institution for Pre-School Education ‘Cika Jova Zmaj’ Ada, Serbia, FR Yugoslavia (hereinafter: the Kindergarten). The other part of the programme (b) was conducted in the premises of the local government of municipality Ada, encompassing elementary school age children and adults (primarily ethnic Hungarians).

3.3 Minority/Target Groups:
Minority: ethnic Hungarians

a) English-language initiative: kindergarten age children; elementary school age children’ and adults (including secondary, university and employed individuals)
b) Serb-language initiative: kindergarten-age ethnic Hungarian children and their families.

3.4 Major Actors Involved

3.5 Budget allocated by local government authorities and/or by other actors:
a) English-language initiative: the local government contributed to the programme indirectly, by not charging anything for the use of premises in its ownership/possession (e.g., rent, electricity, cleaning etc.);
The two NGOs financed the voyage (Sweden – Ada) and all the costs of the English teacher’s stay in Ada and of the stationery necessary to run the programme.
The Kindergarten provided the facilities and covered the related costs of the Kindergarten’s part of the programme.

b) Serb-language initiative: the local government was not in a position to allocate funds for the programme, however, its responsibility was (and is) to provide considerable funds for the functioning of the institution itself notwithstanding the drastic economic decline in the country. As the central government does not adhere to its obligations in providing means for the proper functioning of all educational institutions (despite the heavy centralization and collection of all taxes, imposition of other fiscal charges etc.) local governments are de facto forced to provide more support to local educational institutions than is currently provided for. This is particularly so when one takes into account the role of local government in collecting taxes and other fiscal duties within its territory.

The competent ministry allocated no funds, but granted its approval for the programme to be implemented after a long process of persuasion.

3.6 Timeframe:

a) The English-language initiative was first proposed in August 1996 and was officially announced later the same month. The part of the programme that concerned the Kindergarten was put into practice in September 1997 and was still active at the time of writing. The rest of the programme was put into practice in August 1996, and came to an end in December 1996.
b) The Serb-language initiative was first proposed in September 1995, announced in October and put into practice in November the same year. The programme continued until June 1996, when it came to an end due to the absence of further financial support.

3.7 Local level good practice relation to national level ethnic policy:

a) English-language initiative: the practice was a completely local initiative, that was moreover directly opposite to the regime’s interests and an activity which supported openness towards the world in whatever form. Thus, the running the programme has carried with it the risk of prohibition and of somebody having to suffer the consequences at any time. The programme was supported by the local government.

b) Serb-language initiative: the programme was completely a local initiative, as essentially there was no Serb language education in Kindergartens at all (though children are taught mathematics). Considering the fact that the collection of all taxes is centralised and the central Serbian government decides on who’s going to get what, the funds should have been provided by the government. As the majority of the population of the municipality of Ada consists of ethnic Hungarians, it is also in the interests, and thus the duty, of such local governments to support such programmes. However, as local governments are practically at the mercy of the central government, and contrary to the law are de facto forced to find the means to run the local educational institutions, objectively the local government could not been blamed for this. Eventually, the local government gave its full support for the programme, while a long period of persuasion and negotiation was necessary to get an approval from the competent ministry representative.

4. Good Practice Description
i) About the location: Ada is the biggest settlement in the municipality (lowest level of government, i.e., local government in Yugoslavia) also named Ada, located approximately 80 km south of the Hungarian border (Szeged), on the right bank of river Tisza. Its population is around 25,000 inhabitants, more than 70 per cent of whom are ethnic Hungarians with the remainder primarily comprised of Serbs. In the period between the first multi-party elections (1990) until 1996 the majority of the seats in the municipal parliament were held by the biggest Hungarian party called the Democratic Community of Hungarians of Vojvodina (in Hungarian: VMDK – Vajdasagi Magyarok Demokratikus Kozossege). After a split within the party, the strongest new party called the Union of Hungarians of Vojvodina ( in Hungarian: VMSZ – Vajdasagi Magyarok Szovetsege) continued to run the municipality until 1997. Due to forced mobilisation during the war in Croatia (1991) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992) and the raging of Serb chauvinism a lot of ethnic Hungarian were forced to flee abroad, while those who could not do that were forced to face the economic decline, hyperinflation in the last months of 1993 and substantially deteriorated interethnic relations.

The two programmes proved to be successful (together with some other local practices and programmes) when the publicised and unpublicised information about atrocities against Hungarians and other non-Serbs and non-Montenegrins were a part of everyday life. Even so, the programme should not be understood to be the exclusivity of a wartime environment.

ii) About the initiative/preparatory work: The programme offering an English language workshop-type course for kindergartens was the result of co-operation (the joint effort aiming at building civil society in Yugoslavia) of the local NGO called Centre for Antiwar Action, branch Ada (hereinafter: CAA) and the Swedish NGO ‘Peace Quest’. The idea was to profit from the local population’s interest in learning English and from the antiwar/anti-regime attitude of, primarily, ethnic Hungarian part of the town’s population. (E.g, to most of ethnic Hungarians it was from the very beginning clear that a war for a Great-Serbia targeting all the neighbouring nations in a row, could not benefit their community in any way. Eventually, they would become the target of Serb nationalism.) These momentum were meant to be used for launching programmes on building civil society, democracy and conflict resolution; all to be part of the English language education. It was clear to everybody from the very beginning that to start any programme having these points as their main aim would not be allowed by the authorities, nor would people be willing to partake meetings with such – in Yugoslavia – dangerous topics. In the first step the plan was to start with workshop-styled meetings in the Kindergartens and elementary schools. The Swedish partner would provide an English language volunteer teacher also trained for conflict resolution and civil society related questions, who would then run the programme together with the CAA’s activists. Also, the intention was to enrol some of the refugees residing on the territory of the municipality to allow the participants to make contact more easily. Unfortunately, the director of the elementary school refused any co-operation, while the Kindergarten director was not allowed by the government to employ foreigners. Consequently, the Kindergarten part of the programme was only started, with local people, a year later (the programme’s start date was postponed until the next school year). The English language course has continued ever since due to the support of parents, though not fully in accordance with the aims and technique initially planned. The other stream of the programme – of bigger importance to us here – however, managed to proceed exactly as foreseen, though without the co-operation of the elementary school. After the refusal of co-operation by the director of the elementary school, contact was made with the local government, who had more understanding and put some of its premises at the disposal of the organisers free of charge. Upon settling all details an open advertisement was publicised in the local media (newspapers, local radio and TV) calling upon interested parties to enrol. As the Kindergarten programme could not be launched immediately, instead groups for elementary school age (8–14) and groups for adults have been formed. Due to the big interest the programme ran each afternoon and Saturday morning for a full five months (August – December 1996).

b) Serb-language initiative: the director of the Kindergarten, while conducting consultations with parents to seek their views and consent for the English language workshop type course (it was necessary to do that because of the war-time atmosphere in the society backed up by the Serb xenophobic propaganda), was asked to see if a similar Serb language programme could have been run. Preparations followed which included (1) provision of financial support by ACC; (2) acquiring of written permission from the competent Serbian ministry and (3) from the local government’s competent body (municipal council). The programme required also some rearrangements to be made within the institutions itself, calling for the support of the Kindergarten’s staff itself. Eventually, both the Serbian ministry and the local government approved the project, even though they belonged to opposing political forces (i.e., the Serbian ministry controlled by the nationalistic Milosevich party v. the municipal government in the hands of a Hungarian party). Undoubtedly, much is to be attributed to the director of the Kindergarten (she was also ethnic Hungarian), because she was both willing and courageous enough to risk her employment and to find a way of involving the right people. In Serbia under the burdens of international economic sanctions and after two wars, with abnormal interethnic relations, much wisdom and courage was required from those getting engaged in any programme touching upon directly or indirectly on ethnicity-related issues, not to speak of the fact that a NGO was also involved (with directly anti-war, therefore, anti-government activity). Fortunately, both levels of the government, the parents and the Kindergarten’s employees have given their assent to the programme.

a) English-language initiative: the programme focused on learning English on a non-traditional way, with emphasis put on active participation and themes/techniques covering certain topics related to building civil society and conflict resolution. These elements have not become part of the Kindergarten programme.

Apart from the points mentioned above, the following factors were also of importance: (1) the fact that the programme was free of charge; (2) the innovative, non-traditional style; (3) and the involvement of foreigners. (Unlike the ‘countries-in-transit’ of Central and Eastern Europe, where the involvement of foreign nationals has become commonplace even in public educational institutions, in the xenophobic Serbia/Yugoslavia this process has not even started yet). The participants were awarded a certificate issued by the two NGOs after the completion of the course.

The following points need to be taken into account:

a) English-language initiative: the good practice was a completely local initiative. As the universal language of our days, English language is also a window to the world, the most valuable method for becoming acquainted with not just other people, but also with other values, as yet unknown in Serbia, including everything that could be simply encompassed under the term ‘democracy’. Thus, it might be appropriate to rename this programme ‘Through English language to Democracy!’. Naturally, these aims of the programme were not openly spoken of because that could have resulted in banning of the programme and inconvenience, at the very least, to the ones involved. It should be also noted that today – after the NATO strikes in 1999 – it would be much harder, if not impossible, to launch a programme like this, especially with the direct or indirect involvement of foreign or domestic NGOs.

b) Serb-language initiative: due to the proportion of ethnic Hungarians of Ada, as well as the lack of interest or occasional animosity towards anything foreign on the part of the potentially affected Serb population, the programme’s participants were overwhelmingly ethnic Hungarians. Actually the whole idea for the programme came from the realisation that beginning from the 1980s it has been generally recognised that English language proficiency brings with it a lot of benefits from many points of view. Due to the increased pressure exerted by the population English language was finally introduced into elementary school curricula of every second generation beginning from the 5^th year (age 12) of the elementary school. This positive process was halted by the arrival of Serb nationalism promoted by the Milosevich regime. Nonetheless, the interest for learning English could not be suppressed, which was one of the major reasons for the successful implementation of the programme. On the other hand, ethnic communities in their struggle for survival could not succeed with an introvert attitude. In our contemporary world the survival of an ethnic group depends to a great extent to its international contacts (Kosovo is a vivid example). To maintain contacts without being able to communicate is hardly possible. Put it simply: such communication – with certain exaggeration – begins with English language. In Serbia this was and still is a rule that increasingly applies. This being the main goal of the programme, no objections were raised by the local government, though there was a lack of understanding on the part of some of the officials and some concern because of the involvement of a foreign NGO. This has served to prevent the local government from providing more meaningful help to the programme. Eventually, the Kindergarten part of the programme was postponed because of these kinds of problems, but the aftermath of the struggle is that there is still English language thought in the Kindergartens of Ada. The two types of activity are spoken of here jointly because they were initially a part of a single project, with the same participants and aims. The initial idea was to start with English-language workshop-type meetings, and fortunately it ended with extensive courses for adults.

a) Evaluation, English-language initiative
1) The present programme could be launched because of the substantial appeal that learning English had for the local population, primarily, ethnic Hungarians of the municipality of Ada. English represented (and represents) to these people the window to the world out of the darkness of Serbia. Consequently, this programme presumably could not be successfully implemented where such an interest is not present.
2) The programme was only partially successful because of the xenophobia, which has become part of the official central government outlook and was thus adhered to by all those in the system (like some school directors). In addition hate-speech has made a substantial proportion of the population suspicious of everything that comes from or is connected to something non-domestic. This applied especially to the Serb-speaking part of the population not being able to get information from other sources than the official media of the regime. In an ambience where this is not the situation, presumably ‘Democracy through English language’ or ‘To Civil Society through English’ type programmes could be more easily implemented.
3) At any event, this case could be a pattern to be followed elsewhere. However, it should be underlined, that a programme promoting a per se ‘hostile’ language in co-operation with equally ‘dangerous’ and ‘hostile’ foreigners, was also a unique colourful spot on the black screen of Serbia.

b) Evaluation, Serb-language initiative
The programme’s centrepiece was the Serb language intensive course for Kindergarten-age children (2 x 1 hour/per week for each of the total 16 groups of children; with each class having on average 25 to 30 children) running from November 1995 through June 1996. As there was (and still there is) no other pre-school institution in the municipality, essentially the whole generation was covered by the programme. The teacher was of Serb nationality and one of the employees of the institution, thus some rearrangements had to be made in the normal plan of work of the Kindergarten. The curricula included a short presentation to parents roughly every three months. Fortunately, the programme ran smoothly up until the very end of the school year and no fundamental objections were raised by any of those directly or indirectly involved.

The support: Neither the competent ministry (Serbian central government) nor any other organ of the central government provided any support for the programme. One could even say that the initiators were happy even to get a written permission/assent to the running of the programme.
The local government, likewise, gave nothing extra, but it has to be taken into account here that the means for the functioning of the institution (buildings/facilities at 8 different locations in the municipality) itself were primarily provided by the local government. Thus, there was no need to budget for costs such as rent, electricity, heating etc.
The collective of the Kindergarten itself contributed by assenting to the programme, as these required rearrangements to be made in the usual workload (one teacher less). Consequently, most teachers accepted extra duties, with financial support not being solely and directly paid to the Serb language teacher, but allocated proportionally to all those accepting extra duties.
The financial support (cash) was provided solely by CAA, because the local government was objectively not in a position to support such a programme, even though its view was also that such programme would be highly desirable. The contract concluded between the CAA and the Kindergarten provided for two types of support:
i) contribution to the salary of the teacher (gross salary = officially fixed price of work x index 3.5 x 0.5% for each completed year of employment by the teacher + 10% bonus); and
ii) contribution to the overheads related to the carrying out of the project (150 DM per month).

Aims: The central aim of the programme was to enable ethnic Hungarian children to communicate in Serb language, as the first official language of the country and that of the majority of population and to get a solid basis for the continued learning of this language. This included the hope that the work & play type of education would bring closer the Serb language to the majority of ethnic Hungarian children (most of them have never before been exposed to such experience), thereby eliminating the fear that this language holds for many. As practice shows a solid Serb language basis could be a valuable tool in the hands of ethnic Hungarians not just in their further education but also in the prospects in life. Thus, the ultimate goal was to enable the members of the community to be fully-fledged citizens of the country, with the capacity to ensure all the rights that current legislation affords them. On the other hand neither democracy nor civil society could become a reality without the ability to communicate with the majority of a society.

Considerations to be taken into account: The following points must be borne in mind when speaking about this programme.

3) The third related interest was/is that of the children affected by the programme. As 70 per cent of Ada’s population is ethnic Hungarian, children have real problems with learning to speak Serb, as Hungarian is spoken within and outside the home environment. The compulsory Serb language course in elementary and secondary schools cannot substantially improve the situation as a result of which ethnic Hungarians face real problems when enrolling in universities (usually only Serb-language courses are offered) and in everyday life, especially if forced to leave the confines of the Hungarian-speaking northern part of Vojvodina. (Vojvodina’s ethnic Hungarian population is around 16 per cent, i.e., 350,000 inhabitants). Thus, the real dilemma involved in the programme is whether members of an ethnic minority group could be fully-fledged citizens of a country without being fluent in the language of the majority and the number one official language of their country? (Serb is a 'number one official language’ because current legislation decrees that in municipalities where the ratio of minority population is above a certain percentage, the language of the minority must be also elevated to the rank of official language in that particular municipality). Could they exercise their constitutional rights without this capacity? Undoubtedly not. Especially not amidst of the raging nationalism of Serbia, which was part of the history of the region during the entire 20^th century and which will hardly subside in the near future. Nonetheless, part of the truth is that the programme was a follow-up to an initiative taken by some parents whose children were in the Kindergarten, which is a proof for the raison d’etre of the programme. The programme was launched precisely to meet such demands. As a parent whose child has been part of this programme and taking into consideration all the expressed views, the programme seemed to be an example to be followed. It is regrettable that the obligatory minority language courses for the Serb speaking children of elementary and secondary schools were removed from school curricula with the arrival of the nationalistic Milosevich regime. It is also regrettable that it was not possible to initiate a Hungarian language course for Serb-speaking children attending the Kindergarten. This was not just because of a lack of further financial means but also due to the resistance of some of the Serb/Montenegrin parents.

Conclusion
The programme was successfully implemented and it is regrettable that no means could be found to continue with it. Undoubtedly, the most sensitive issue involved (in any programme involving directly or indirectly the teaching of a majority language to members of a minority group) is whether such a programme truly serves the interests of the minority group or is just another form of assimilation and repression. The answer might differ depending on the concrete environment, though where a minority makes up the majority of the local population – as in the case of Ada and much of northern Vojvodina –fears from assimilation are far from reality, at least in the foreseeable future. Where, on the other hand, the minority population is also in a minority in a given local environment (like the city of Novi Sad, where ethnic Hungarians currently make up approximately 16 per cent) there is usually absolutely no need to teach the members of the minority group the majority language at all.