Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The speaker draws attention to the problems concerning the funding of higher education institutions and the threats arising from the school provisions of the Language Act, while being critical of EKRE's radical draft bill. He/She emphasizes the preservation of Estonian-language higher education and calls for a coordinated financial model and a greater state contribution (at least 1.5% of GDP) in a manner that ensures the competitiveness of universities and encourages students to remain in the country. The style is conventional and prioritizes the sustainability of funding and language policy as core values, rather than fleeting populist reform.

The key issues highlighted are the funding of higher education, the language of instruction, and questions concerning migration and the labor market. This analysis draws upon a report by the National Audit Office and statistical data (such as the increase in foreign students, the burden on Estonian-language curricula, and the alleged funding deficit). Furthermore, the role of fees and tuition in ensuring financial sustainability is addressed, alongside the possibility that every 1 euro invested in higher education institutions could yield a multiple return to the economy.

The emphasis is placed on a sense of fulfillment and a legalistic style: the concern raised within the context of democracy and security, a direct reference to the National Audit Office, and personal experience regarding the higher education reform. The text merges data and narrative, employing cautious yet impactful rhetoric, and highlighting the importance of financing as a key mechanism.

Two speeches were delivered on the same day (2024-02-07) concerning the same draft bill. The individual stresses that the discussion remains open and that a consensual approach will be adopted if necessary. They refer to their involvement in the reform and offer examples drawn from their personal historical context. There is a repeated reference to the National Audit Office report and consistent participation in the debate.

The core opposition is directed at EKRE's radical approach: restrictions stemming from language requirements and rushed quotas are unacceptable. The speaker is critical of EKRE's draft bill and emphasizes that what is needed is not so much restrictions, but sustainable financing and a consensual solution. At the same time, they do not support sweeping, short-term criticism, but rather call for the development of funding mechanisms and a strategic model.

He/She demonstrates a willingness to cooperate, stresses the importance of a consensual agreement, and points to the need for a solution reached through inter-party consensus (1.5% of GDP). He/She also shows readiness to be part of the sectoral reforms and emphasizes that compromise is necessary.

National in scope, it focuses broadly on Estonian higher education and uses examples to highlight the situation of Estonian universities (University of Tartu, Tallinn University). The focus is on the national level and funding models, not on specific regional projects.

The funding of higher education institutions and the economic return on these investments are vital for the economy: allegedly, every euro invested in higher education yields a return of up to four euros in value. He/She stresses that underfunding endangers the economy, leads to a skills deficit in the labor market, and the funding model must guarantee that the qualified workforce stays within the country. He/She wants a sustained contribution of at least 1.5% of GDP.

The initiative focuses on language policy, access to education, and the defense of democracy and security. Emphasis is placed on preserving the tradition of Estonian-language instruction, the development of the language at the academic level, and the state's capacity to ensure that higher education fosters linguistic skills and builds a strong society.

The focus is on the first reading of the draft amendment to the Higher Education Act (291 SE); the speaker is critical of the bill but offers an alternative, finance-based solution. He emphasizes the need to define the financial model and ensure the competitiveness of higher education institutions and that young people remain in the country, mentioning progress and cooperation with various parties.