Innovation Case Study 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Study on Supporting School Innovation Across Europe Case study 2 – Estonia Estonia Maria Erss EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture Directorate B – Youth, Education and Erasmus+ Unit B.2 – Schools and multilingualism Contact: Viktoria Bolla E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels EUROPEAN COMMISSION Case study 2 - Estonia Estonia The case study was prepared as part of the Study on Supporting School Innovation Across Europe implemented by PPMI for DG Education and Culture of the European Commission. Fieldwork was conducted between November 2016 and May 2017 Author: Maria Erss The author would like to thank to the interviewees and workshop participants for their active discussions and inputs to the fieldwork. Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 2018 Education and Training EN Disclaimer This document has been prepared for the European Commission. However, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 ISBN: 978-92-79-81475-4 DOI: 10.2766/24232 © European Union, 2018 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Image(s) © [Pressmaster + image 398203735]. Source: [shutterstock.com] Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction and context: what, where and why? ....................................... 6 1.1. Understanding the selected region: key characteristics .......................... 6 1.2. Getting to know selected schools for the field study: brief profile ............ 7 1.2.1. School 1 - The Jõgevamaa Gymnasium .......................................... 7 1.2.2. School 2 - The Kiviõli I Secondary School ....................................... 8 2. Two perspectives on the school innovation process: what supports and what limits innovation? ....................................................................................... 9 2.1. The Jõgevamaa Gymnasium ............................................................... 9 2.1.1. Presenting the innovative approaches practised in the school ............ 9 2.1.2. Main enablers for innovations ...................................................... 11 2.1.3. Main barriers for innovations ....................................................... 12 2.1.4. Main achievements .................................................................... 13 2.1.5. Sustainability of innovative practices ........................................... 13 2.1.6. Monitoring, evaluation, learning loops and planning of innovative approaches ........................................................................................ 13 2.1.7. Stakeholders’ engagement ......................................................... 14 2.1.8. Mainstreaming and transferring innovations .................................. 14 2.2. The Kiviõli I Secondary School .......................................................... 15 2.2.1. Presenting the innovative approaches practised in the school .......... 15 2.2.2. Main enablers for innovations ...................................................... 17 2.2.3. Main barriers for innovations ....................................................... 17 2.2.4. Main achievements .................................................................... 17 2.2.5. Sustainability of innovative practices ........................................... 18 2.2.6. Monitoring, evaluation, learning loops and planning of innovative approaches ........................................................................................ 19 2.2.7. Stakeholders’ engagement ......................................................... 19 2.2.8. Mainstreaming and transferring innovations .................................. 20 3. Innovation in schools: lessons learned and policy pointers ......................... 21 3.1. Understanding the barriers: what hinders the school innovation process?21 3.2. Spotting the supporters: what facilitates the school innovation process? 22 3.3. Reflecting on the transferability of school innovations into the local contexts and their sustainability .............................................................. 22 3.4. Policy pointers ................................................................................ 23 Annex I: A short review of the field work ..................................................... 27 Annex II: Photos from the two schools ........................................................ 36 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 39 5 1. Introduction and context: what, where and why? 1.1. Understanding the selected region: key characteristics Towns from two regions of Estonia were chosen for this study: Jõgeva, in Jõgevamaa, which is located in the middle of the country, and Kiviõli, in Ida-Virumaa, in the North- Eastern part of Estonia (see Figure 1). Both are small towns of less than 6,000 inhabitants, and are situated in poorer regions of the country. With this background in mind, an exploration will be made into mainstreaming innovation in two selected schools. Figure 1. The counties of Estonia The Estonian school system comprises of a non-compulsory kindergarten (ages 1.5-7), the compulsory basic school (years 1-9) and the non-compulsory upper secondary school, called “gymnasium” or “secondary school” (years 10-12)1. While gymnasiums primarily prepare students for higher education, vocational schools offer a practical alternative education for students after either basic school or gymnasium. Depending on the programme, vocational education can simultaneously offer secondary education or even be geared towards students without basic education.2 Practical training at a workplace is also one form of vocational education. The general education is offered in primary schools (years 1-6), basic schools (years 1-9) or gymnasiums (years 10-12). However, the most common type of school in Estonia is a full-cycle gymnasium with years 1-12 where students are aged 7-19. In the period 2005-2008, Ida-Virumaa was one of the most problematic regions in the country for dropouts at years 7-10 (IVEK, 2009, 31)3. In 2005, 46% of the national dropouts came from Ida-Virumaa. Although the rate fell in 2008 to 27% it was still higher than the national average. In 2008, there were 36 students dropping out from the 1 See: https://www.hm.ee/et/tegevused/alus-pohi-ja-keskharidus 2 See: http://www.innove.ee/et/kutseharidus/kutseharidus-ee 3 There is a lack of current statistics on school dropouts for each county. 6 Ida-Virumaa county, from a national total of 131 students. However, the situation has much improved since then. Nationally, the dropout rate from basic schools was 0.5% (ca 150-200 students) in 2014 and 1.1% from gymnasiums. The highest drop-out rate in 2014 was in vocational education with 25.6% (Ministry of Education and Research, 2015, 17). In comparison, the percentage of students who did not continue their education after basic school was in 2015 slightly higher in Jõgevamaa (5%) than in Ida-Virumaa (3%) (HaridusSilm, 2015). Jõgeva is a small town with 5,418 habitants4 and three schools: Jõgeva Basic School (years 1-9), Jõgevamaa Gymnasium (years 10-12) and the Adult Secondary School (years 8-12). Jõgevamaa is not the poorest region of Estonia, but in comparison with the 15 counties, Jõgevamaa county has one of the lowest average salaries in the country: 800-845 Euros gross salary per month in 2015, versus 1,185 euros in Tallinn (Statistics Estonia 2016). Jõgevamaa county ranks fourth from the lowest based on the relative poverty index (31% of the population), and first based on absolute poverty (12%), with the biggest percentage of people living in deep poverty. Single parents are at the greatest poverty risk, followed by single persons, mainly elderly, and families with many children (Statistics Estonia 2014). The unemployment rate in Jõgevamaa county is not high, (approximately 7%) but the participation rate in employment market is below the national average (Statistics Estonia 2016, p. 17). Jõgevamaa Gymnasium is located close to the town centre in a recently renovated school building. It is one of the three upper secondary schools in the county and the only one that specialises in upper secondary education (forms 10-12). The school has students from other parts of the county as well as neighbouring counties. The county of Jõgevamaa is certainly representative of other relatively disadvantaged regions. While the population of Jõgeva have income from various sources such as retailing, service and lumber industry, Kiviõli is predominantly a mining town in the North-East of Estonia, also with less than 6,000 habitants. As part of the Ida-Virumaa county, it is the most socially deprived area in Estonia. The local population are heavily dependent on the oil shale mining and chemical industry represented by three companies: Kiviõli Keemiatööstus, Viru Keemiagrupp and Eesti Energia. Due to the low oil prices