Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The main positions are increasing funding for higher education institutions and preserving Estonian-language higher education. The EKRE draft bill is viewed as too radical, and he considers the implementation of quotas for English-language curricula impractical. He emphasizes that the state should develop a financial model and guarantee at least 1.5% of GDP for higher education funding, and that these investments must yield returns for the economy and the labor market, ensuring students remain in Estonia to work. He also argues that the underfunding of higher education threatens democracy and security, and that linguistic development relies on funding for higher education institutions and maintaining instruction in Estonian.

He has drawn attention to the National Audit Office's report and the necessity of a financial model for funding higher education institutions, using numerical arguments (1.5% of GDP, 1 euro yielding 4 euros back into the economy). The topics covered include higher education funding, the impact of English-language curricula, and the role of language development. He emphasizes the connections between labor market needs and the workload associated with Estonian-language curricula, as well as the need for a sustainable funding model.

The tone is analytical and somewhat critical, yet it maintains a calm and measured approach when presenting viewpoints. It utilizes references to facts and the National Audit Office report, alongside personal examples of reform experience and illustrations of the importance of language and democracy. The text successfully combines emotionally impactful moments with strong, well-developed argumentation.

The speeches took place on February 7, 2024, during the same plenary session, focusing on issues concerning the funding of higher education institutions. Reference was made to the National Audit Office report and the concerns presented by the universities; the speakers raise these topics regularly and uncompromisingly, demonstrating ongoing discussion within the framework of the same subject.

Juxtaposed criticism is being presented regarding EKRE's draft bill: it is radical due to excessive restrictions and is impractical. The criticism is based primarily on political and policy levels (quotas for English-language curricula), not on personal claims. The intensity is strong, and compromise is not ruled out, though only concerning certain topics.

Emphasis is placed on the need for broad-based consensus and cooperation, with cross-party agreement cited as the desired level. [The subject] is prepared to discuss and seek compromises, but stands firmly behind the fundamental goals (funding and Estonian-language instruction).

National and state-level focus; the broader Estonian higher education system is mentioned, along with references to major institutions such as Tallinn University and the University of Tartu. It does not focus on specific regions as a representation of the local level.

The effectiveness of state funding allocated to education in driving economic growth is highlighted, confirming the profitability of such investment: an investment in higher education returns 4 euros to the economy for every euro invested. The aim is to allocate at least 1.5% of GDP to fund higher education institutions. The effects of underfunding on the economy and the sustainability of the financing system are in direct contradiction.

Linguistic and cultural identity, along with the strengthening of democracy, are crucial social topics; stress is laid upon the prioritization of Estonian-language developments and the dependence of language development on the academic sphere. Other social issues (e.g., abortion, LGBTQ+, anxiety) were not addressed in the presented text.

The legislative framework for higher education funding and language policy; the need to develop a sustainable financial model and ensure funding of at least 1.5% of GDP is emphasized. Reference is made to the National Audit Office report as foundational data, and the importance of parliamentary debate concerning the draft legislation and the funding model is stressed.