Education and research minister Jürgen Ligi (55) underlines he will function as trade union for teachers and will stand for a rise in their pay. Even so, he admits state budget lacks money for utilities of private schools, and parallel to free higher education it is again being pondered how universities might ask students for extra euros.
You’re the rare minister, if not the only one, who said before entering office that you did not want this portfolio. What was the portfolio you wanted?
I did not say I did not want it, but that it was unexpected, and I had been counting on becoming finance minister. But that was my first day statement.
Critics outside and inside your party have said that Taavi Rõivas was not authoritative enough as negotiator. What do you say?
The opposite is true. His opponents who left the talks said he was caring and considerate and created a good atmosphere. Rather, the problem there at the table was the election results. Too large a part of the parliament is unfit for parquet.
Centre Party in issues related to Ukraine and other such stuff. They have not made any changes of essence among them. And EKRE with its Nazism story, to say nothing about the telephone. The choice is very narrow.
In the great expectations for variety, what we have achieved is a fractioned Riigikogu. Maneuverability is low, the pressure to agree is great.
For a while, human disappointment was a hindrance, and the need to prove the opposite. It was not about Mr Rõivas.
Why is your predecessor Jevgeni Ossinovski still «clicking» at you and the entire government?
I don’t know. I have been reading his comments about me personally for four days in a row, I think, on the headline level and personally regarding me. Indeed he was not the only soc dem who addressed the topic of me, but it is he that has been... fatherly. I don’t understand why can’t quiet down as between ourselves we have long been reconciled.
For you, these must have been the fifths negotiations – at least this is the fifth government you are a part of. Comparing with other negotiations – there have been difficult situations before?
I have not been used at negotiations every time, but in the more recent times yes.
The previous two coalition negotiations were between two partners and it must have been a lot easier.
Yes, between two it is easier and even the moods have been better. It can’t be denied that this time two partners have had a greater need to prove themselves, the more so that public pressure has been applied to chairmen. Meanwhile, we have more faith in parties that are professional, not in such that have been helped over the threshold just for the sake of fun. The more so, we have had to be considerate of feelings of others.
Your role has undergone cardinal change: as finance minister, your task was to keep the state coffers tightly shut; as education minister, you are tasked to prise them as open as possible. Or what is your stand: does Estonian education need extra money or is the money enough and just needs to be spent more prudently?
Both, actually. There is not enough money. I inherited a situation in which my predecessor was unwilling to continue.
There has been a leap in salaries of teachers and total costs, but the reserves have been strongly depleted. In a couple of years, the salaries have been lifted above the average. Further steps from now will be much more complex.
What I inherited was a declining trend of educational costs percentage. The building period was one which boosted educational costs of GDP higher than is sustainable according to current plans. I knew that.
Due to fiscal rules, I felt compassion towards Jaak Aaviksoo as education minister (in 2011–2014) but I couldn’t prefer him. Without great governmental preference, I have kept the state coffer keeper job.
In redirecting the money, my ideological goal is quality of education and rewarding the burden bearers. The society has begun to understand the need to optimise schools network. The turn has been slow in coming, the turn towards teachers’ salaries and quality, and this takes a lot of willingness on behalf of local governments.
In local governments, salaries for teachers greatly vary, depending on whether they themselves have optimised their schools or not. Where not, the wage level is lower.
Do you see other ways to economise in education?
Of course I do. Talking about the big picture, it would definitely be real estate which does not correspond to the numbers of children. There also is economy in number of students per teacher. No national level lay-offs are planned, but the system needs to be optimised together with local governments.
The stakes are on wages and quality. In OECD comparison, Estonia’s wage costs percentage is low, and that of real estate is high for instance. Meanwhile, by teachers’ wage level we are rather in the middle, but of course we’d like to be among the better. In higher education, the keywords perhaps would be duplicating and fragmentation, but I have not had time to discuss that with rectors yet.
When might teachers’ salaries get so high as to make a normal living, by decent clothes and not depend on a husband making more money?
I’m not promising anything – except that I am deeply interested in raising salaries for the teachers. Also, raising the average wages for teachers has been promised by all parties. This is what I repeatedly reminded them of, in the government, as state budget was being discussed.
While unable to predict anything, we will continue to squeeze the inner resources. All will not like it, but for the teachers something will be available.
So you are optimistic.
We will surely do something. A dream of a double wage rise would be vain, but rest assured that the education minister will be a teachers’ trade union who will stand for their salaries.
Let’s talk about private schools. Supreme Court found that local governments should not pay for private school utilities, this should be a task for the state. What is your view on private schools future?
This is a very painful question. The added costs which were unexpectedly, by court decision, rolled from local governments unto the state as if, the state budget cannot afford. Till now, local government was responsible for the settlement of accounts; not, the state should cover the fullness of it. At the same time, the state covers most of the educational costs anyway: teachers’ salaries, teaching aids, school food etc.
If now the state should cover everything, a new contradiction arises. Local governments are relieved from obligations and a great stimulus will be created for private education to replace free education – if the state pays everything off, as if. Plus the right of private schools to ask for tuition fee which state and municipal schools cannot ask.
We can’t talk about equality here, and for the state this is not affordable.
But we could talk about equality in the sense that the state and the local governments pay just as much for all students.
But with the private schools, the state lacks any part in optimising and controlling the costs. A child is a child and up to now the view was that local governments covered private school utilities just like in their own school. If these sums would not move into state budget, this would exclude wage rise. Personally I’d prefer for us to find some sound solution, maintaining the current balance.
Then there is the separate problem that while – due to the shrinking number of students – the state and local governments are under pressure to optimise educational network towards cuts, but private schools are geared towards expansion. It’s not like the private schools just have the added opportunities – this will push up the price for the entire system which is double burden regarding distribution of capitation fee.
Thus, there is no black and white solution. Together with culture committee at Riigikogu we are now thinking how to solve the situation – essentially, they birthed the court decision by their decision in 2011.
About the free higher education. Have things gone well with free higher education regarding full-scale study?
The time will tell, as will the fruits. The good in the system is the pressure to study, in order to abstain from paying. But, as a slogan, free education as such is not what OECD advises, or what Jaak Aaviksoo used to advise as rector [of University of Tartu]. With higher education, some level of own responsibility is advised as later in life those highly educated are more prosperous and happy.
But the decision has been made and now we have a problem how to get more private money which exited higher education. To a degree this is reflected in the coalition treaty and will probably concern the students in senior levels, whether with in-service training or retraining where we want to also involve universities.
At any rate, I’d like to also bring extra private money into higher education. We’ll need to see how to improve the system so that people could also pay themselves if they so desire.
-------------------------------
Jürgen Ligi
Born July 16th 1959, in Tartu
Tartu State University, economic geography (1977–1982); University of Tartu, foreign economy (1989–1993); EBS, MBA programme (1994–1996)
Reform Party founding member, currently its vice chairman
Elected to VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII membership of the Riigikogu; 2005–2007 defence minister, 2009–2014 finance minister, since April 2015 education and research minister