Estonian education is a remarkably resilient phenomenon. No matter how many times it is reformed, it always manages to find itself in such poor shape ahead of the next election that it needs rescuing once again. And then along come the politicians with their solutions.

Some suggest reorganizing the school network, others promise to give teachers the recognition they deserve, while still others argue that money is being spent in the wrong places. Meetings with school principals are also essential because how else could politicians later claim to have listened to them? It all sounds promising. About as promising as it did during the last election.

I have worked in education for nearly 30 years, more than a dozen of them as a school principal. I have seen wise decisions and dedicated people, but also reforms that simply gave old problems new names. The trouble is that the power to make decisions and the obligation to take responsibility do not reside at the same address.

A politician can make a decision, an official can approve it and the next government can reverse it. But come Monday morning, the school principal still has to make sure there is a teacher in front of every class, every child has a place to learn and the school is running. You cannot hang a sign on the school door saying, "Classes are suspended until political accountability has been established."

Historic schools had courageous leaders

The history of Estonian education is also a story of people who dared to think beyond the immediate future. Jakob Westholm and Hugo Treffner, for example, had a vision of the kind of person a young student could grow into and the kind of school they would need.

We tend to label historic schools as elite schools and expect them to deliver excellent results, uphold traditions and offer innovative teaching. Preferably without spending too much money.

Jakob Westholm High School waited nearly 30 years for an extension. Governments and promises came and went, children grew up, but the need for more space remained. The school, operating across multiple locations, was expected to deliver ever-better results. In December 2025, construction finally got underway. That deserves recognition, but it does not erase the preceding decades.

Now we are once again hearing representatives of several political parties argue that too much education funding is being spent on concrete. Of course, every investment must be justified and an impressive building is no substitute for a good teacher. But nobody expects a surgeon to perform a world-class operation while insisting that what matters is the doctor, not the operating room.

Yet in education, we somehow manage to have an entirely serious debate about whether the environment needed for teaching is part of educational quality or merely an unnecessary luxury. The cost of construction is clearly visible in the budget, but the cost of failing to build, particularly over 30 years, is far harder to calculate.

Half an hour of listening followed by four years of silence

Through school leadership organizations, I have met with representatives of political parties. We have discussed teachers, the responsibilities of school principals and unnecessary restrictions. Some discussions have been substantive, while others have been half-hour meetings with everyone's eyes fixed on their phones and calendars. Then come the thanks, assurances that it was all very interesting and everyone goes their separate ways. The meeting took place and the box has been checked.

But what changed? Which proposal made it into a party platform or legislation? Which unnecessary obligation was eliminated? When were school principals told, "Your reasoning was better than ours, so we're changing our plan"? I have received fewer answers than invitations to further meetings.

Politicians do not always have to agree with us because school principals make mistakes too. But listening that has no potential to change anything is more of a courtesy ritual than genuine engagement. It is easy to prove that a meeting took place, but harder to show what was learned from it.

A school principal must be a strategist, a human resources manager, a crisis manager, sometimes a lawyer and a psychologist and solve by morning a problem that has been under review elsewhere for years. Responsibility is at the heart of leadership, but it only makes sense when you have the power to influence the outcome.

The public sector needs rules and oversight, but oversight must not become an end in itself. Sometimes it seems that the more we document something, the more convinced we become that it actually exists. Meanwhile, the problem at school may quietly persist.

We call teachers professionals and expect them to be creative, then ask them to demonstrate in ever-greater detail exactly how they exercise that creativity. No reporting form has ever sparked a child's curiosity. That takes a teacher who has the time and freedom to put their knowledge to use.

Who should manage education?

The school network needs to be reorganized because student numbers are declining in some areas, while others face a shortage of school places. Politicians should set the goals and provide the funding, while professionals must be allowed to develop the solutions. A wise politician must know how to consult those who understand the work and then do something with their answers.

The state, local governments and education professionals should agree on goals for the school network, teachers and learning environments that span an entire student's school years. Publicly established deadlines and clearly assigned responsibilities would prevent each new administration from starting from scratch.

School principals must be able to make decisions about staffing, work organization and budgets within agreed limits. In return, they should be evaluated on results, not the number of approvals they obtain. Every reform needs an impact assessment establishing who will do the work, with what funding and within what timeframe and which existing task will be eliminated. Finally, the results of stakeholder consultations should be made public, showing which proposals were accepted and why others were rejected.

Ahead of the 2027 Riigikogu elections, I would like political parties to answer a rather uncomfortable question, in addition to making their usual promises: What decision-making powers are you prepared to give up so that teachers can teach and school principals can lead?

Jakob Westholm and Hugo Treffner are not remembered for how obediently they followed regulations. They are remembered for the schools and opportunities they managed to create. They dared to make decisions and take responsibility for them. Why do we regard such courage as exemplary in historical school leaders, yet tend to restrict it today?

Politicians come and go. School principals remain. To shoulder the responsibility. But perhaps it is finally time to entrust them with the authority to lead as well.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!