ESTONIA CASE STUDY Maria Erss May, 2017 Case study content 1. Introduction and context: what, where and why? ......................................................................................... 3 1.2. Getting to know the schools selected for the field study: a brief profile .................................................. 4 1.2.1. School 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2.2. School 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 2. Two perspectives on the school innovation process: what supports and what limits innovation? ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1. School 1: Jõgevamaa Gymnasium .................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1. Innovations in school 1: presenting practised innovative approaches ................................................. 6 2.1.2. Innovations in school 1: what were/are the main supporting factors? ................................................ 9 2.1.3. Innovations in school 1: what were/are main barriers encountered? .............................................. 10 2.1.4. Mainstreaming and transferring innovations in school 1 ....................................................................... 10 2.1.5 Innovations in school 1: what were/are main achievements (effects)? ............................................. 11 2.1.6. Innovations in school 1: their sustainability ................................................................................................. 11 2.1.7. Innovations in school 1: monitoring, evaluation, learning loops and planning of innovative approaches .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1.8. Stakeholders’ engagement into innovations in school 1 .......................................................................... 12 2.2. School 2: Kiviõli I Secondary School ......................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2. Innovations in school 2: what were/are main supporting factors? .................................................... 14 2.2.5. Innovations in school 2: what were/are main achievements (effects)? ............................................ 16 2.2.6. Innovations in school 2: their sustainability ................................................................................................. 17 2.2.7. Innovations in school 2: monitoring, evaluation, learning loops and planning of innovative approaches .............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 3. Innovative practices in schools 1 and 2: lessons learned and policy pointers ................................. 18 3.1. Understanding the barriers: what negatively influences the school innovation process? ................. 18 3.2. Spotting the supporters: what facilitates school innovation process? ....................................................... 19 3.3. Reflecting on transferability of school innovations into the local contexts and their sustainability ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.4. Policy pointers.................................................................................................................................................................... 21 4. Annexes ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Annex I: Wrapping-up matrix with closed-ended questions .................................................................................. 23 Annex II: A short review of carried-out field work ..................................................................................................... 25 Annex III: Photos/visuals/other documents from schools representing the essence of practised innovations obtained during the field work (optional) ............................................................................................. 35 Bibliography: ................................................................................................................................................................. 38 2 1. Introduction and context: what, where and why? 1.1. Understanding the selected region/community/town/village/neighbourhood: 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, 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. 3 there were 36 students dropping out from the 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 on the global market, these companies have recently laid off hundreds of workers. There is also a high concentration of people