The aim of this paper is to analyse how selected EU-supported educational policies (reserved places for Roma students in secondary and tertiary education; program for the Roma school mediators) were “translated” to the Romanian context. This “translation” is explored through two axes: (a) regulations; and (b) the experiences of beneficiaries. By examining the legal framework of these policies (‘stock-taking and EU directives’, and, relevant Romanian legislation) we explore how the EU-framed principle of “social inclusion” of the Roma (Sigona & Trehan, 2009:24) is related to the existing Romanian initiatives to provide access to education for the Roma. Were these policies “indigenous” inventions or implementations of previously existing transnational models? The second dimension of our analysis examines the social impact of these EU policies from ‘below’. We conducted in-depth interviews with beneficiaries of the special placements for Roma students. This approach seeks a better understanding of what “social inclusion” of the Roma might mean? How did EU educational policies influence employment opportunities, living conditions, and the social status of their beneficiaries? Did the project on school mediators help to create a new Roma middle-class? Were affirmative actions facilitating educational mobility for the Roma? In line with the research on mobility (Friedman, 2016; Cole and Omari, 2003) we regard social mobility as a problematic process, in which the role of support groups and programmes remains crucial (Nyírő & Durst, 2018). Our findings highlighted that the two policy initiatives (reserved places for Roma; school mediator program) came into being in Romania during the early 1990s, both being “Europeanized” (adjusted to the EU-framework) a bit later, in the context of accession negotiations between Romania and the EU (Surdu & Szira, 2009; Pop & Balea, 2017). Regarding the success of such policies at the individual level, we conclude that the state-implemented policies helped the Roma to become educationally mobile, while their most important achievement, was to reduce the costs of mobility, turning the Roma stigma into a valuable resource. On the other hand –as Durst and Nyírő affirm, due to Roma dependency on the changing policy discourses and (trans)national financing, these policies do not secure the achieved positions on the job market.

Cole, E. R., & Omari, S. R. (2003). Race, Class and the Dilemmas of Upward Mobility for African Americans. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4): 785-802. Friedman, S. (2016). Habitus Clivé and the Emotional Imprint of Social Mobility. The Sociological Review, 64(1): 129-147. Nyírő, Zs., & Durst, J. (2018). Soul Work and Giving Back: Ethnic Support Groups and the Hidden Costs of Social Mobility. Lessons from Hungarian Roma Graduates. Intersections EEJSP 4(1): 88-108. Pop, F., & Balea, B. (2017). SocioRoMap. Anchetă de cercetare mediatori școlari [Research Survey on School Mediators]. ISPMN. Sigona, N., & Trehan, N. (Eds.). (2009). Romany Politics in Contemporary Europe. Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization and the Neoliberal World Order. Palgrave Macmillan. Surdu, M., & Szira, J. (Eds.). (2009). Analysis of the Impact of Affirmative Action for Roma in High Schools, Vocational Schools and Universities. REF – Gallup.