The transition to Estonian-language instruction aims to achieve Estonian proficiency among students, but leaves intact ethnically Russian schools, where Russian principals oversee Russian teachers and the Russian language and often mindset continue to dominate informally, writes Mart Rannut.
In July, several key results emerged that define the success — or lack thereof — of the transition to Estonian-language instruction in Russian schools: 70 percent of fourth-grade students failed to master the required curriculum and the same percentage of teachers who had received an extra year for language training failed their exams. That sounds bad — catastrophic, even, to some. A scapegoat was also found and sent in search of new challenges.
I would venture to disagree with some of the prevailing expectations. It was known from the start that for fourth grade — where there’s a major leap in abstract thinking and the introduction of academic language — significant reforms would be needed in the core areas of language instruction: curriculum development, learning materials and teacher training. These changes are necessary to ensure the smoother integration of the additional burden that comes with second-language learning.
The University of Tartu’s Narva College even proposed a school monitoring program to identify and address gaps and delays from the outset, but the Ministry of Education and Research (HTM) showed no interest. I personally spent a year trying to find a way to observe classes in a Russian school for feedback purposes. I was never able to, as I was told repeatedly that “students need a peaceful learning environment.” In that context, the results were entirely predictable — and in line with this “peace.”
I would give the entire process a schoolboy-style grade of “satisfactory,” because a significant shift has taken place, and from here on out, things should gradually improve, both in terms of results and ease for those involved.
Teaching materials are now widely available and have been tested. The driving force has been schools already familiar with language immersion and there were no major issues in the first grade.
Perhaps the greatest challenge has been oversight — relying solely on external evaluations by the HTM, which failed to identify linguistic or methodological shortcomings and largely settled for vague confirmations that “classes were conducted in Estonian.” The situation in kindergartens was even more erratic, with reports that Estonian was hardly heard at all in some cases.
Fortunately, there have also been many positive examples. In any case, it must be acknowledged that students learning under the Estonian-language curriculum and in an Estonian-language environment this year are at a clear advantage compared to their peers in previous years. They are likely to be more competitive and capable in the future.
That said, I must point out that the reform so far tends to be half-baked, slow-moving, wasteful of money and resources and flawed at its very foundation. The current reform aims for Estonian-language proficiency among students but retains ethnically Russian schools, where Russian principals manage Russian teachers and the informal dominance of the Russian language — and often Russian mindset — remains.
At the same time, there is now intense pressure on the first grades of Estonian-language schools, where students with inadequate Estonian skills can pose a serious challenge — especially when they make up a large portion of the class. The HTM rejected alternative solutions to this issue and is not addressing the matter at all.
That the reform, according to current plans, will not be completed until the next decade is simply irrational. Transitioning the upper secondary level to Estonian could happen in parallel with the basic school — and even faster — by adopting Latvia’s one-year transitional model, where instruction in the state language reaches 80 percent.
We are still stuck in a pre-World War II pedagogical mindset, where you first learn and only later apply. The modern approach — immediate application of knowledge — doesn’t seem to apply in the case of the language reform.
Another deeply entrenched myth is that the transition from one language of instruction to another must occur suddenly, on a fixed date, inevitably bringing great difficulties and surprises. Instead, the transition could have been phased in gradually. If we had started small three years ago, both students and teachers with weak language skills might already have put those growing pains behind them.
Let me also remind everyone of the broader goal of the reform: it’s part of building a unified and loyal citizenry through intergenerational integration. Language and its general use is only one component — alongside cultural awareness and shared civic identity — which manifests in attitudes and behaviors.
The current attitudes — where Estonian news, entertainment and cultural discourse don’t interest the target group, support for Russia in the war against Ukraine is common, NATO is seen as an aggressor, the Soviet occupation of Estonia is denied and there is ambiguity about who to take up arms against if Russia were to attack Estonia — must all change. That change can only be achieved through systemic, status-based methods.
Our language problem — that a large segment of the population cannot or does not want to communicate in Estonian — is a national security threat, a brake on the economy and a sign of cultural segregation. But we can barely begin to treat this issue until the HTM itself recognizes the situation, clarifies its understanding and starts acting rationally. Otherwise, we’ll continue down a path of wasteful, childish and unscientific tinkering.
