This is even more evident in some of the separate, or even segregated, methods of education discussed below. Other reported structures address the needs and situation of specific groups which for various reasons are not accommodated, or can - for various real or perceived reasons - not be accommodated, in the ordinary educational system. Some of these structures are legitimate, while others are unacceptable, especially if they impose segregated education and have discriminatory effects, as is often the case for the Roma. 1. So-called “special classes” or even “special schools” (which are sometimes meant for mentally disabled pupils but have often been used disproportionally for Roma children due to an erroneously generalised perception of their inability to follow instruction in the ‘regular’ school system); 2. “Supportive” or “additional” or “remedial” classes in order to permit the integration of minority pupils (often Roma) to other “integrated” classes later on; 3. Sunday-schools (which in a few States, such as Moldova, are seen as an integral part of the public educational system, while in other countries fall completely outside this framework). The Advisory Committee has expressed its appreciation of supportive pre-school classes if they are aimed at enabling Roma pupils or others concerned to follow the regular curriculum, but, at the same time, the Committee has indicated that there is a dangerous grey zone between the first two methods described above (segregating special classes and supportive/remedial classes). In the Opinion on Sweden, the Advisory Committee said that it had received reports according to which in some Swedish municipalities the measures taken with respect to Roma pupils have led to the establishment of specific classes for Roma, often with support from a number of Roma parents. The Advisory Committee considered that ‘even when such initiatives are designed as a way to provide additional support for the pupils concerned, specific classes devoted to one national minority as such (rather than, for example, to the teaching in/of their language and of their culture) risk placing the children concerned at a disadvantage and harming the implementation of Article 12 and the principle of intercultural dialogue contained in Article 6 of the Framework Convention’. Finally, the Advisory Committee urged the authorities to analyse the local situations and take measures, in consultations with the persons concerned, ‘with a view to enabling and encouraging Roma children to stay in the regular classes’. 28 In other cases, however, a separate teaching, in whole or in part may be more appropriate, or even the only possible solution. Thus in the Opinion on Cyprus, the Advisory Committee noted that “the leaders of the Maronite community repeatedly requested their own schools and housing areas or villages. The Advisory Committee therefore welcomes the recent decision taken by the Government to establish an elementary school for the Maronites”. The Advisory Committee expressed the wish that the authorities in Cyprus will adopt further measures aimed at preserving and developing the culture and the identity of the Maronites. 28 See further under Section 2.1.2 the discussion on equal opportunities for access to education, including access to education for Roma. 17