concern primarily the longstanding disadvantages Roma pupils face also in the field of education. The effective implementation of the basic principles of tolerance and intercultural dialogue, of dissemination of knowledge to minorities as well as majorities, of equal access to education, and of free and compulsory education requires also that many other elements of identity, such as religion, geographical location, gender, are taken into account. The core task is to organise the education system in a way which allows for interaction between persons from various groups in order to encourage mutual understanding and tolerance, while at the same time ensuring the successful maintenance and development of the elements of the identities of members belonging to various groups. How can the structures and content of education ensure the balance between the two aims outlined above in order to achieve ‘integration in diversity’? The first methods discussed below apply to linguistic minorities for which language teaching and training is a key issue. In practice, a great part of the information in State Reports, and as a consequence also in the Opinions of the Advisory Committee, relates to the role and position of language in education. Among the most common methods and structures reported in primary education with regard to the role and position of language are: 1. Schools where the minority language is dominant and where the majority language is taught only as a subject; 2. Schools where the minority language is dominant and some more or less limited teaching for specific subjects takes place through the medium of majority language (e.g. in addition to language also some other subjects such as history, religion and sometimes geography) are taught in the minority language; 3. Schools where the majority language is dominant and where only some classes are taught in minority language and/or through the medium of minority language; 4. While all the above types can be described as bilingual schools, the term should preferably be saved for schools trying to keep both languages (minority and majority) at a similar level of importance, spread across curricula and different classes, and where classes are to the extent possible composed of pupils and teachers from different groups. Some countries, such as Austria, Hungary and Poland, have provided in their Reports extensive information on different types of schools and education, the number of schools, pupils, and in some cases teachers as well as on the regional coverage of such institutions.26 In general, the information available to the Advisory Committee through the first cycle State Reports indicates that the third method dominates (majority schools with few minorityoriented classes or subjects). The fourth method (bilingual schools) is still much less applied in spite of the spirit of bilingualism and even plurilingualism permeating the Framework Convention. The principle position of the Advisory Committee has been that all aspects and elements of education should ensure ‘a climate of tolerance and dialogue’27 Such dialogue is hardly possible if persons belonging to different groups never meet even when they live in the same city, village or region. Nor can tolerance be promoted if majorities and minorities know nothing about the everyday experiences and about the elements of identities of each other. 26 27 The State Reports of Austria ACFC/SR(2000)3, Hungary ACFC/SR(99)10 and Poland ACFC/SR(2002)2. See above on Article 6 and the wording in the Explanatory Report, paragraph 71. 16