Students do not choose their parents, the language spoken at home or their socioeconomic background, but teachers can choose how they support students and what learning opportunities they provide, writes Janno Jakobson.
The transition to Estonian-language education is one of the most significant changes in Estonia's education system. No one questions its necessity anymore, but are we, as adults, prepared to make enough of an effort to ensure its success? We are demanding increasingly better Estonian-language skills from students learning Estonian as a second language, but are we also creating the conditions they need to achieve this?
In discussions with colleagues from different schools, one point keeps coming up: The problem is not always a lack of skills among teachers, but rather how existing knowledge and skills are applied in everyday teaching.
Imagine a student who spends an entire school day in Estonian-language classes. The teacher speaks Estonian, the textbooks are in Estonian and the student completes exercises in a workbook. By the end of the day, however, the student has spoken only a handful of sentences in Estonian. Does such a school day do enough to support the student's language development?
To acquire a language, students must have opportunities to speak, ask questions, describe, explain their reasoning and make mistakes. Teaching subjects in Estonian requires teachers to set language-learning objectives alongside subject-specific goals and create opportunities to achieve them. Many teachers already have the methodological knowledge needed to do this. Yet when explaining more complex concepts, it may seem easier to switch to Russian. Students understand the material more quickly and the lesson can move forward.
But what happens when a teacher explains an entire topic in the students' native language, while the quiz or test must be completed in Estonian? Can we expect students to achieve a passing grade if they have not been taught the relevant Estonian vocabulary or given opportunities to use it?
In such cases, students may understand the subject matter perfectly well but struggle to understand the questions or formulate their answers. A poor result may therefore indicate a mismatch between the language of instruction and the language of assessment.
Are we grading knowledge of language proficiency?
Recent fourth-grade national assessments highlighted a contradiction in our education system. While the assessment of Estonian as a second language takes students' expected language proficiency into account, the same students faced significantly more complex vocabulary, lengthy texts and multipart questions in the natural science assessment.
Commenting on the linguistic complexity of the assessments, the Education and Youth Board (Harno) explained that the tasks are aligned with the curriculum and use the same terminology. If students' Estonian-language skills are insufficient, the agency recommends choosing the Russian-language assessment.
However, the Harno representative fails to consider that the students who took the natural science assessment have been studying subjects, including natural science, in Estonian for three years and may not even be familiar with the relevant terminology in Russian. I must admit that such a response is frustrating for teachers. Is recommending a Russian-language assessment really the solution to the challenges of transitioning to Estonian-language education?
Of course, students must also acquire subject-specific terminology in Estonian, but fair assessment means giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their actual knowledge and skills. That is precisely why, rather than simply recommending a switch of languages, we should also seek ways to make assessments in Estonian linguistically accessible to students.
Students cannot be responsible for adults' choices
A range of support measures have been established to facilitate the transition to Estonian-language education. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology centers operate at educational institutions, the Institute of the Estonian Language provides support through initiatives including the "Keelesamm" program and teachers in Tallinn can turn to the Tallinn Teachers' House and its methodology and competence center, MEKK. Teachers can attend training courses, receive guidance, explore teaching materials and learn from their colleagues' experiences. However, no trainer or methodology center can put what teachers have learned into practice in the classroom for them.
School leadership also has an important role to play. Schools must have a shared understanding of what Estonian-language education means and what principles should guide it. It is not enough for some teachers to consciously create an Estonian-language learning environment if others consistently switch to Russian during their lessons. Nor can the state's responsibility be limited to setting requirements. We need meaningful oversight that assesses whether Estonian-language education is actually working in practice.
Discussions about the transition to Estonian-language education often focus on students' lack of motivation, the language environment at home and parents' attitudes. These factors affect learning, but they cannot justify prejudging students' abilities.
Students do not choose their parents, the language spoken at home or their socioeconomic background. Teachers, however, can choose how they support students and what learning opportunities they provide. Students learning Estonian as a second language do not need lower expectations. They need high-quality teaching, consistent language support and teachers who believe in their abilities.
The transition to Estonian-language education is not simply about changing the language of instruction. Its goal must be to equip students with sufficient Estonian-language proficiency to continue their education, pursue their chosen field of study and compete on an equal footing with others in the future.
Achieving this requires effort from everyone involved. Students have a duty to learn, teachers have a responsibility to teach with clear intent, school leaders must establish shared principles and the state must ensure realistic expectations and meaningful oversight.
--