Agenda Profile: Helle-Moonika Helme

The political stance is strongly opposed to the Ministry of Education and Research's plan to merge seven schools designated for students with special educational needs. This position is value-based, stressing the importance of the children, the teachers, and their established collective relationships over the goals of reducing bureaucracy and saving state funds. The speaker demands that the objective must be the well-being of the children, not the bureaucratic streamlining of management.

The speaker demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how schools for students with special educational needs (SEN) operate, as well as the practical issues arising from their reorganization. Particular emphasis is placed on the specific nature of the governing structures (the school board and the teachers’ council) and the curriculum (specifically, the life skills curriculum). Furthermore, the actual impact of the financial savings (300,000 euros) proposed by the ministry is called into question. This expertise is further substantiated by a reference to the minister's earlier claims regarding the quality of the service, made on February 17th.

The rhetorical style is critical, indignant, and forceful, combining emotional appeals regarding children's welfare with detailed logical argumentation concerning the impracticality of the management structures. The Minister's responses are dismissed as bureaucratic platitudes, and the execution of the process is labeled unethical, citing the individual coaxing of the directors. The speaker employs rhetorical questions to underscore the absurdity of the planned reorganization.

The speaker is an active proponent, having submitted the inquiry as early as January 27th and carefully monitoring the ministry's activities, including meetings with school staff. It is known that the speaker is in contact with concerned teachers and stakeholders who are following the discussion remotely via screens.

The primary opponent is the Ministry of Education and Research and the Minister, who is being criticized both for policy (the ideology of inclusive education) and procedure (lack of engagement, and individually persuading principals). The criticism is intense and centers on the Ministry's alleged self-contradiction regarding the quality of instruction. The speaker accuses the Ministry of attempting to circumvent collective resistance.

The collaborative approach focuses on mobilizing the support of colleagues and stakeholders (teachers, parents) in order to exert pressure on the ministry. The speaker thanks colleagues present in the chamber and those joining remotely, emphasizing that the interpellation was submitted due to a shared concern. There is no indication of the government seeking a compromise.

The focus is nationwide, involving seven educational institutions scattered across Estonia. It is stressed that each school possesses a distinct identity and operates according to the specific characteristics of its local community, contrasting sharply with centralized management that fails to account for regional distances.

Economic observers are skeptical about the government's alleged savings, which is one of the stated justifications for the reorganization. There are doubts whether the 300,000 euro saving will actually be channeled into specialists' salaries, given that instead of making directors redundant, four new central positions are being created, which could actually end up increasing wage costs.

A strong focus on the social needs of students with special educational needs (SEN). The speaker is a staunch opponent of the ideology of inclusive education, emphasizing that SEN children require a special learning and development environment, and that supporting their schools is vital. The problem of teacher workload in mainstream schools, caused by the placement of SEN students there, is also highlighted.

The legislative focus centers on the interpellation process, which is being utilized to hold the Ministry of Education and Research accountable and demand detailed explanations concerning the merging of schools. The speaker is the initiator and a critical representative of the opposition to the ministry's reorganization plan, attempting to elicit a broader explanation beyond the scope of the written responses.