Updated: 17 September 2026 la 11:17. Articolul a fost revizuit pentru a reflecta informațiile disponibile la această dată.
Child allowances could fall from RON 292 to RON 100, according to a bill submitted to the Senate. It proposes amendments to Law No. 61/1993 on the state allowance for children and the introduction of an attendance scholarship for preschool children and pupils. However, the measure is not currently in force and has no immediate effect. Parents should not understand this to mean that payments will be cut tomorrow; it is an initiative at the start of the parliamentary process.
As submitted, the bill provides that, from entitlements for September 2027, the state allowance for children aged between 3 and 18 would be RON 100, while the proposed amount for children under 3 and children with disabilities would remain RON 719. For children over the age of 2, the standard amount currently used to pay the allowance is RON 292, as shown in official AJPIS reports. This explains why the proposal is publicly seen as a possible reduction from RON 292 to RON 100.
Allowances are not being cut now: this is a legislative proposal
One important point comes first: allowances have not currently been reduced. The Senate bill must go through parliamentary debate, receive the necessary votes, then be promulgated and published in the Official Gazette before it can become law. Until then, the current system remains unchanged. That is why the accurate wording in a news article is that allowances could fall, not that they have already fallen.
At the same time, the issue touches a sensitive nerve in society, because any discussion of children, education and money comes in an already socially tense context. In recent years, the vulnerability of minors has been evident not only in statistics but also in specific cases that have shocked public opinion, such as the one reported in the article about the 10-year-old child abandoned at Barcelona airport. The story brought renewed attention to how precarious some children’s situations can be when support systems and adult responsibility fail.
What the bill exactly proposes: a RON 100 allowance and an attendance scholarship of at least RON 250
The document submitted to the Senate does not stop at reducing the basic allowance for children aged 3 to 18. It also introduces an attendance scholarship, which the bill says would be at least RON 250 per month, indexed annually by the average inflation rate. In other words, the initiators are not saying that total support for a child should disappear, but that part of the current amount should move from a universal entitlement to support conditional on participation in education.
More specifically, the bill provides that the attendance scholarship would be awarded to all preschool children and pupils who attend classes and achieved a 10/10 conduct grade or a “very good” conduct rating at the end of the previous school year. For preschool children, the proposed text allows an exception of up to 5 unexcused absences per month without losing the scholarship. The bill also states that the scholarship could be paid during school holidays, with certain exceptions.
In practice, if the bill were adopted in its current form, an eligible child could receive a RON 100 allowance + an attendance scholarship of at least RON 250, or at least RON 350 per month. By contrast, a child who does not meet the scholarship conditions would be left with only RON 100. This is the central issue in the debate: the total amount could increase for some children, while guaranteed support would be sharply reduced for others.
In political and budgetary terms, supporters may present the idea as a tool to encourage school attendance. Socially, however, the situation is far more complicated. Families already dealing with poverty, lack of transport, health problems, absences for objective reasons or family instability could end up precisely in the group that loses the most. The discussion is therefore not just about figures, but about how the state chooses to distribute risk and responsibility between institutions and families.
The current economic context makes the debate even more tense
The timing of this proposal is far from neutral. According to the National Institute of Statistics, Romania’s annual inflation rate was 9.9% in March 2026. That means pressure on family budgets remains high, and any discussion of reducing a monthly income intended for children is perceived much more harshly than it would be during a period of price stability.
In addition, Eurostat data show that, in 2024, 33.8% of children in Romania were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, one of the highest shares in the European Union. In such circumstances, even a change presented as a “reform” can cause fear, because many families already know what it means to depend on every leu coming into the household.
The real cost of education also weighs heavily on parents. A Save the Children Romania study finds that the average annual cost borne by a family for a child’s education reaches RON 9,818, and increases as the child gets older. In this context, the allowance is seen not simply as a symbolic benefit, but as a component of the household’s actual budget.
For this reason, parents are also concerned about other economic issues at the same time. For example, many are following the effects of the minimum-wage increase in July 2026, since family income, school costs, inflation and any changes to the allowance affect one another.
Education in Romania: the real problem is not only attendance, but social vulnerability
Those who support the bill may argue that it aims to reduce absenteeism and school dropout. But European data show that the problem runs much deeper. According to the European Commission’s Education and Training Monitor 2025, Romania’s early school-leaving rate was 16.8% in 2024, the highest in the European Union; in rural areas, it rises to 26.3%.
Another warning sign comes from Save the Children Romania, which reports that in 2024, 440,734 children aged 7 to 17 were outside the education system—18.7% of the resident population in that age group. Any serious public policy on children and school must therefore be assessed against an already very harsh reality.
The discussion about school is not merely theoretical. Behind every statistic are real children, with stories, effort, shame, deprivation and hopes. This is why it is worth revisiting the story of the pupil from Caracal who moved Romania: such cases clearly show that access to education depends not only on a child’s willingness, but also on the support available around them.
Similarly, the analysis of poor mock-exam results and the risk of school dropout in Romania shows why financial conditionality alone cannot be the only answer. A child who is absent is not always a child who lacks interest. Sometimes it is a child without money for transport, without support at home, without access to social services, without private tutoring, without enough food, or without confidence that school can lift them out of the cycle of poverty.
What relevant organisations say: money, costs and social services matter
Through its data, Save the Children warns that “free” education in practice entails substantial costs for families, from school supplies and transport to devices and private tutoring. This means that any reduction in the guaranteed amount could immediately be absorbed by the real costs of schooling, without the state necessarily addressing the underlying cause of absences.
For its part, World Vision Romania, in a report on child wellbeing in rural areas, identifies the high cost of education (56%), poor school results (51%) and adolescents’ preference to work in order to earn an income (31%) among the reasons for dropping out after eighth grade. These figures do not suggest that attending school does not matter; rather, they show that the issue cannot be reduced to the idea that parents or children “do not want to”.
UNICEF Romania stresses the need for a local-level “safety net” for all children, especially those in vulnerable groups, such as children in rural areas, children with disabilities and those at risk of exclusion. The message is clear: without integrated services, social protection and community support, simply moving money from one budgetary pocket to another does not solve the underlying problem.
Concrete examples: who could gain and who could lose
To understand the proposal’s possible effects, it is worth considering a few simple scenarios. If a family has two school-age children and both meet the conditions for the attendance scholarship, it could receive RON 700 per month in total, or RON 350 for each child. In this case, the family would gain compared with the current standard level of RON 292 per child.
But if the same family has two children and only one meets the conditions for the scholarship, its total income would become RON 450: RON 350 for the eligible child and RON 100 for the other. In such a scenario, the difference between the children would directly become an income gap within the same household, raising an issue of both social and psychological fairness.
The harshest scenario is one in which a family with two children does not manage to secure the scholarship for either of them. The total amount would then fall to RON 200 per month, or RON 100 for each child. For a low-income household, this could mean less money for clothes, shoes, transport, school supplies or food. For this reason, critics of such a measure fear that the most vulnerable families would be the most exposed to losses.
Why the proposal will remain controversial
At first glance, the bill may appear appealing because it links money to participation in education and even promises a higher amount for children who attend classes consistently. But the controversy arises because the allowance is traditionally seen as a universal right of the child, rather than a tool for indirectly penalising families facing difficulties.
There are also legitimate questions about practical implementation. How would cases involving illness, social problems, difficult commutes, seasonal dropout, families unable to have absences excused in time, or children in situations of risk be handled? Without a very clear mechanism and active community social services, a measure designed on paper as an incentive could become, in real life, a form of penalty for the most vulnerable.
What parents need to know now
At this point, parents should keep four essential points in mind. First, no reduction is currently being applied. Second, the bill proposes a RON 100 allowance for children aged between 3 and 18, as well as an attendance scholarship of at least RON 250. Third, the proposed scholarship conditions are linked to class attendance and conduct. Fourth, if the bill were adopted, the date set out in the text is September 2027, not 2026 and not immediately.
In other words, the real debate is not simply whether allowances are being “cut”, but whether the state should turn part of universal child support into a component conditional on school behaviour. The answer to this question will most likely divide two very different views: one that sees the measure as motivation for education, and another that sees it as a major social risk.
The proposal under which the standard allowance for children aged 3 to 18 could fall from RON 292 to RON 100 is one of the most sensitive recent legislative initiatives in family and education policy. It cannot be assessed solely through the lens of budget savings or an idea of school discipline, but in relation to inflation, child poverty, the real costs of education and Romania’s high school-dropout rate.
To complement the information above, readers can also consult Who could be the new prime minister after the Bolojan government is dismissed, an article that develops an aspect directly related to this subject.
For now, this is not a law in force but a bill that will almost certainly prompt intense debate. That is normal, because the stakes are not abstract: they concern how Romania chooses to protect its children and share responsibility among families, schools and the state.
What do you think?
Do you think turning part of the allowance into an attendance scholarship would help reduce school dropout, or would it mainly harm vulnerable families? Share in the comments how you view this proposal and whether you think such a system is fair to all children.
- Should the allowance remain an unconditional universal right?
- Is it fair for school attendance to directly influence the financial support received for a child?
- Could this measure reduce school dropout, or does it risk deepening existing problems?
Frequently asked questions about the RON 100 allowance
Are child allowances now falling to RON 100?
No. No law reducing the allowance has currently been adopted. This is a bill submitted to the Senate.
When could the new rule take effect?
The bill’s text indicates entitlements for September 2027, but the date may be changed during the parliamentary process.
How much would a child receive if they attend school and meet the conditions?
In the bill’s current form, they could receive a RON 100 allowance and an attendance scholarship of at least RON 250, or at least RON 350 per month.
Who could receive the attendance scholarship?
Preschool children and pupils who attend classes and have a 10/10 conduct grade or a “very good” conduct rating at the end of the previous school year, according to the text submitted to the Senate.
Why is the proposal so controversial?
Because it moves part of the universal support granted to children into a system conditional on school attendance, in a context where Romania has high inflation, high education costs and one of the EU’s most serious school-dropout problems.
