Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

It emphasizes the crucial role of the knowledge-based economy and the integrated development of education, higher education institutions, and science. Adopting a critical tone, it condemns the government’s plans to reallocate funding to address teachers’ salaries, stressing that this undermines the entire system. It demands specific goals, a broad, cross-party consensus, and an investment strategy for education and science based on solid evidence (1.5% of GDP for higher education, 3% for research and development, 2% sourced from the private sector). It views investments as the primary driver of economic growth and advocates for a comprehensive, long-term political agreement, rather than short-term cuts.

A demonstrable knowledge base regarding education and science funding: the 120% salary target, higher education funding at 1.5% of GDP, and total R&D expenditure at 3% (2% from the private sector, 1% from the state). It references international examples (Finland, Sweden, Germany, Singapore) and underscores the necessity of private sector involvement. It refers to Margit Sutrop’s ideas concerning the development of legal innovation mechanisms and expresses a desire to reintroduce them for discussion. This demonstrates the ability to connect data and policy recommendations effectively in the pursuit of a knowledge-based economy.

The tone is decisive yet constructive; it uses emotional references (the poster “No teacher, no engineer, no economy”) combined with fact-based argumentation. It combines semantic and visionary rhetoric and emphasizes the need for consensus and cooperation. The text is formal and systematic, while the emotional undertone remains prominent regarding the themes of education and future security.

One speech was given at the plenary session on January 23, 2024; it referred to earlier demonstrations regarding teachers and discussions about the budget. There is no data concerning other events or regular visits during this period.

A critique aimed at the government and ministers, particularly regarding plans to reallocate funding across various sectors to cover teachers' salaries—a move presented as potentially damaging to general education, science, and higher education institutions. It highlights specific objections concerning the failure to deliver on promises and the segmentation of budgets; the tone of the address is critical but non-populist, aiming for a broad-based consensus.

Most clearly, it focuses on the necessity of cross-party agreements and partnerships with the private sector and research institutions. It highlights the need for cooperation and the creation of joint platforms, and is prepared to continue or restore previous initiatives (e.g., the Sutrop bill) at the legislative level. It expects and actively promotes cooperation among various stakeholders.

National, focused on the Estonian level; it refers to the results of national comparisons and the financial base of the Estonian education system. It does not address specific regions or attention directed toward local projects.

Economic development must stem from investments in education and science. It emphasizes a balanced role for both the public and private sectors and calls for robust tax incentives for corporate research and development activities. A clear objective is established: 3% of GDP dedicated to R&D investment, with 2% sourced from the private sector and 1% from the state. Furthermore, the preference is that these funds are not diverted to other sectors but are added directly to education and science. This approach requires greater private sector participation and a competitive salary structure within higher education and research institutions.

The central topics are the accessibility and quality of education, along with the preservation of higher education taught in Estonian. It is stressed that the underfunding of education and science impacts the future of society, highlighting the necessity of ensuring sustainable human capital. Furthermore, it emphasizes societal and economic well-being through the development of skills and scientific competencies.

Prefers legal mechanisms that stimulate corporate innovation and research investments; seeks the revival of these bills and a broad-based coalition for their implementation. At the legislative level, priority steps are seen to secure funding for education, higher education, and science; emphasizes specific funding requirements and ensuring the legal basis for cooperation between these levels. Mentions the need for the movement to be jointly adopted and consistent.