Session Profile: Heljo Pikhof

The political focus is on the educational arrangements for Ukrainian war refugees in Estonia, emphasizing the need to support their rapid return to their homeland, rather than their permanent settlement in Estonian society. Politicians express strong opposition to the forced integration of Ukrainian children into Estonian-language instruction, particularly in the context of the transition to Estonian-only schooling, given that this situation is linked to temporary protection. This position is value-based, centered on the interests of the Estonian nation-state and the prevention of a demographic catastrophe in Ukraine. Opponents, however, simultaneously stress the necessity of avoiding ghettoization and ensuring that compulsory education requirements are met under Estonian law.

The speakers demonstrate expertise in the field of education by referencing the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act (PGS) and the requirements for fulfilling compulsory schooling. Statistics regarding the number of Ukrainian minor refugees in Estonia (18,445) are utilized, along with demographic data concerning the decline in Ukraine's population. The discussion covers technical details, such as the implementation of the 40:60 curriculum and the effectiveness of the Ukrainian e-school system.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, blending logical arguments (such as the waste of resources and legal precedents) with emotional appeals (like describing the situation as "inhumane" or referencing the psychological state of the children). Proponents draw a historical parallel to the experience of Estonian refugees in Sweden between 1944 and 1950. The debate is sharp at times, focusing on opposing viewpoints concerning integration versus segregation.

The patterns of activity focused on intensive work within the Culture Committee, where the draft bill was discussed during three sessions (November 14, December 12, and March 12). The rapporteur describes in detail the content and timeline of the committee discussions. It is also noted that the processing of the draft bill stalled due to a massive number of proposed amendments.

The strong opposition is directed at the government's education policy and the implementation of the transition to Estonian-language instruction for Ukrainians who have been granted temporary protection. The criticism is policy-based, accusing the opposing side (e.g., Tõnis Lukas) of offering impractical solutions and opening a "Pandora's box," which would trigger demands from other ethnic groups for schools in their native languages. Proponents are also accused of procedural obstruction by submitting 200 amendments.

At the committee level, consensus was reached regarding the procedural forwarding of the draft bill to the plenary session and setting the date for the final vote. Substantive cooperation is lacking, as the EKRE faction is accused of deliberately obstructing the proceedings with a massive number of amendments (200). The willingness to compromise is low because the parties view their respective positions (integration versus supporting repatriation) as fundamental matters of principle.

The focus is on the national level (the Estonian education system) and the international level (the demographic situation in Ukraine). Regionally, Tallinn, Tartu, Kuressaare, and Imavere are cited as examples of locations where Ukrainian children have been dispersed across Estonia, complicating the establishment of centralized Ukrainian-language instruction.

Economic viewpoints center on the targeted allocation of state resources, arguing that educating Ukrainian children within the Estonian school system constitutes "a waste of resources" and places an additional burden on teachers. Opposition is also expressed regarding the use of public funds to establish Ukrainian-language schools or mother-tongue schools for other refugee groups.

The main social issue is the integration and linguistic environment of Ukrainian war refugees. Emphasis is placed on the need to avoid social ghettoization and ensure the psychological well-being of children, as they are "in an extremely fragile psychological state." Proponents stress the importance of language proficiency for functioning in society, participating in extracurricular activities, and communicating with Estonian children.

The legislative focus is currently on the draft resolution (Draft 231), which involves proposing to the Government of the Republic the organization of education for Ukrainian children, specifically aiming to allow them to continue their studies under Ukrainian curricula. Significant attention is being paid to the procedural aspects, including the volume of amendments and the requirement to secure a majority vote of the Riigikogu membership (51 votes in favor) for the resolution to be adopted.