By Plenary Sessions: Liina Kersna

The criticism is directed against the Ministry of Education and Research, citing an inconsistent budgetary process in which the scale of the transition to Estonian-language education is simultaneously being reduced and increased. The criticism is aimed at the procedure and the logic of policy implementation.

The main opposition is directed at the Centre Party (Vadim Belobrovtsev), whose draft legislation is being criticized both procedurally (the wrong legislative path) and substantively (the wrong priority). Furthermore, he/she sharply criticizes EKRE, pointing out that during their time in government, teachers’ salaries were not raised at all, despite this having been stipulated in the state budget strategy. The criticism is policy-based and intense, particularly concerning budget priorities.

The opposition is directed at the practice of screening for the first grade and the current law, which creates unreasonable situations during the organization of gymnasium entrance exams. The criticism is procedural and policy-based, not personal, and focuses on the need for legislative amendments.

The main opposition is directed at the Centre Party, which is being criticized for the lack of organization and capacity in the Riigikogu's work. The criticism is procedural and is expressed through astonishment, raising the question of why the Centre Party is not prepared to work in the main chamber of the Riigikogu.

There is no direct criticism aimed at political opponents or groups. The focus is instead directed towards solving systemic problems within education, rather than engaging in political confrontation.

No criticism is being expressed regarding the current draft, nor are any opponents being named. It is only mentioned that the previous version of the bill was met with significant criticism from universities and private research institutions during Tõnis Lukas's tenure, implying that those earlier objections have now been resolved.

Not enough data.

There is no criticism directed at political opponents or groups. Instead, the criticism focuses on structural shortcomings (e.g., the low proportion of people holding doctoral degrees and the rate of obtaining higher education compared to the OECD average).

There is no direct political confrontation, but the speaker indirectly criticizes all Riigikogu factions for their collective inaction regarding the failure to observe gender balance when appointing members to the ERR council. The criticism targets a procedural and values-based deficiency, rather than political policy itself.

Direct political opponents are not named, but the speaker criticizes the current horizontal management structure of language policy, citing its inefficiency. He also rejects views that grant international organizations the authority to make administrative decisions, stressing that these decisions are made in Estonia (a reference to UNESCO).

There is no direct attack from the opposition, but the speaker is fulfilling an oversight role, questioning the minister about the implementation of specific actions and plans. The criticism is aimed at the lack of action or the slowness of implementation, rather than against the substance of the policy itself.

The opposition is aimed at the government's inaction or insufficient measures regarding the achievement of a higher value-added economy. The criticism is policy-driven, questioning what else the state could do to increase the size of the skilled workforce and reach the necessary level of PhDs.

The speaker takes a factual stand against colleague Jaak Valge, correcting his views regarding the contribution of companies to research and development. The criticism is policy-based and factual, not personal.

The primary criticism is directed at the actions of the Ministry (or the Minister), specifically faulting them for inadequate public outreach and a potential decline in service quality. The criticism focuses on the concrete implementation and effectiveness of the policy, not on a personal level.

There is no direct political confrontation or criticism; the speaker focuses instead on the neutral mediation of disagreements between interest groups (such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry) and the ministry (HTM). Regarding rejected proposals (for example, reducing the state levy), the ministry's rationale is explained, emphasizing the need to cover costs in order to save the taxpayer money.

Opponents are neither directly criticized nor named; the focus is on the political and financial challenges associated with the implementation of the reform. The concern referenced by Tõnis Lukas is mentioned, which rather points to a shared framing of the issue.

There is no objection. The speaker is not criticizing any group or individual, but is neutrally presenting the questions raised by colleagues within the committee concerning the content of the draft legislation, treating these questions as necessary clarifications.

There is no criticism; the focus is on improving the system and identifying the sources of problems.

The primary criticism is aimed at the current government concerning the negative supplementary budget and the resulting plan to cut research and development (R&D) funding. The critique is policy-based, questioning the wisdom of the government's decision to reduce investments in a sector crucial for economic development. The intensity of the criticism is moderate, as it presents an alternative strategy to the government's actions (utilizing borrowed funds).

There is too little data.

The main confrontation is with the EKRE faction, who are being criticized for procedural obstruction, which manifested in the submission of 200 amendments. The criticism is aimed at hindering the work of the Riigikogu, even though the speaker notes that the opposing side essentially supported the content of the draft bill.

He/She does not directly criticize the opponents, but rather redirects the issues contained in the bill initiated by the opposition (Isamaa) into the framework of the ongoing education agreement negotiations being conducted by the government. He/She acknowledges the importance of the topics raised by the opposition (the career model), but emphasizes that these are already being addressed and require consensus among all parties involved.

The direct criticism is aimed squarely at the government’s actions in preventing and resolving the teachers’ strike, which is viewed as a mistake that undermines its credibility. Opponents are not being personally attacked; rather, the focus is on procedural and management failures, with warnings against "breaking" the sector entirely.

Insufficient Data

The criticism is directed at the current legislation and the practices of local governments (school operators) who distribute per capita funding for the purpose of an equalization fund. The criticism is policy-driven, as it prevents more successful schools from raising teachers' salaries.