PISA tests have revealed that Estonian students perform in international comparison very well in the tested domains while the influence of students’ socio-economic background on educational attainment is relatively small. Yet, the results reflect an ethnic divide between the native Estonian and Russian minority students; e.g. the results in Russian language schools are on average 42 points lower in literacy which is an equivalent of one school year worth of knowledge (Tire at al. 2019, 16). Exact reasons for this gap are unknown. However, one can assume that the PISA tests are just one symptom indicating cultural differences in students’ experiences of pedagogy and, respectively, promotion of student agency. This paper is focused on comparing upper secondary students’ experiences and reflections on agency in Estonian and Russian language schools. The research questions are:

1. How do students in upper secondary schools assess their own experiences of agency?
2. What are the agency differences between Estonian and Russian speaking students?
3. What factors shape the agency of students with different ethnic backgrounds and in different educational institutions (Estonian gymnasia with 100% Estonian language instruction and gymnasia with 60% Estonian and 40% Russian language instruction)?

Despite the remarkable educational success of Estonia in international student achievement tests such as PISA during the last decade, the less known fact is that Estonia has an ethnically divided school system. It can be seen as a relic of the Soviet period when large numbers of immigrants from Russia and other Soviet republics arrived in Estonia to seek employment forming at the end of the Soviet period in 1989 around 40% of the country’s population (by 2021 the number of ethnic Russians has dropped to around 25%). Since Soviet authorities did not deem it for necessary to integrate immigrants with the culture of the native population, the immigrant children were educated separately from Estonian speaking population, in Russian language schools, by teachers who were usually trained in (Soviet) Russia. Russian language schools enjoyed a privileged status until 1991 when Estonia regained its independence and continued with the nation building project which put Russian schools in a minority status.  Russian schools resisted the transformation process of de-ideologization and humanization of the curriculum while creating an Estonian national education “as a road to the loss of their previous dominance” (Zaichenko, 2021, 3).  Soviet pedagogy can still be found in Russian language schools where connections to the developments in Estonian teacher education of the last three decades are weaker due to the language barrier. An interesting question remains as to whether the development of student agency in such conditions is impeded or, on the contrary, enhanced through the development of critical consciousness.

Student agency has been conceptualized „as a means of self-determination, identity-making, pedagogical practice, and as a recursive process central to supporting minoritized youth“ (Vaughn, 2020). Simply stated, student agency can be understood as a student-centred approach to learning (Zeiser et al. 2018) promoting autonomy, motivation, engagement and voice (Goodman & Eren, 2013) which are necessary for the achievement of self-determined goals, as well as happiness and well-being. Student agency and well-being are also mentioned in the new Estonian education strategy for 2035 (Tark ja Tegus Eesti, 2019) which gives this topic political relevance.

In the current research, student agency is conceptualized through the lens of Ecological Agency Theory where agency is understood as an emergent phenomenon which can be achieved under certain temporal conditions if personal efforts, accessible resources, contextual and structural factors come together in a unique way (Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998).

In spring 2021, eight focus group interviews were conducted online via Zoom with students from grade 10 (16-year olds) in upper secondary schools in Estonia. Four interviews were conducted in Estonian language and four in Russian language schools. I conducted the Estonian language interviews myself while in Russian language interviews I used the help of a Russian speaking assistant. Each focus group contained 3-8 students and interviews lasted 1,5-2 hours. In total, 24 students participated from Estonian language schools and 14 from Russian language schools. Since volunteering students were contacted indirectly using school principals and class teachers as gatekeepers, I had little control over the recruitment of students, so most of them turned out to be high-performing and motivated students. As another limitation of the study, only girls participated from Russian language schools while the focus groups in Estonian language schools contained students of both genders. The interviews followed the theoretical concept of chordal triad of Emirbayer & Mische’s conceptualization of agency (1998) which emphasizes the temporal nature of agency where decision-making is always a result of combinations of different orientations to the past, present and future as represented by iterational, practical-evaluative and projective dimension. In the interviews, students were asked to reflect on significant experiences of agency in their education in the context of their school culture in basic school (grades 1-9) and gymnasium (upper-secondary school) and relationships with peers, teachers and family members. They also shed light on significant factors that helped them achieve agency or impeded it. Finally, they revealed their thoughts on their future plans with feasibility. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. The interviews were analysed thematically, using nVivo software. Both Estonian and Russian language interviews were thematically coded in the same coding tree while the themes were joined in categories and the relationships between categories were found by axial coding. When characterizing their school culture, students gave key words which were, by frequency, visualized as word clouds.

Four main categories emerged from the data: achievement of agency, factors that enable or restrict the achievement of agency, school culture in basic school and gymnasium and decision-making in context. The stories of students of their agentic decision-making varied between Estonian and Russian language schools. While one of the most recent life-changing decisions for many Estonian students was the choice of the gymnasium, most Russian speaking students had little choice in this matter due to their geographical location (e.g. living in a small town in a predominantly Russian speaking area in the North-East of Estonia) and language barrier (not having sufficient Estonian language skills to continue their education in an Estonian language school). Many Estonian students reflected on their curricular choices that are possible in upper secondary schools. In smaller Russian language schools which have less resources, elective choices seemed to be limited. The agentic experiences of several Russian students appeared to be in non-formal education as well as extracurricular activities, such as decisions regarding which hobbies to pursue or drop or how to organize school events. A few Russian girls also described decisions regarding their personal resolve to change their behaviour patterns which could be interpreted as part of their maturation process: for example, two girls learned to set personal boundaries and say no to overbearing teachers. The characteristics which are helpful in achieving agency are manifold. Among the top ranking characteristics are persistence, resilience and courage, while fear of failure often appeared as an obstacle. In terms of school culture, there are quite significant differences in the lived experience of Estonian and Russian speaking students. Some Russian students described the pedagogy they experienced as “being stuck in the bubble of the Soviet school of the 1980s.” Furthermore, Estonian students expressed more ambitious future plans than their Russian counterparts.

Biesta, G. J. J., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39, 132–149. Emirbayer, M.& Mische, A. (1998). ‘What is agency?’ The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962--‐1023. Goodman, J. F., & Eren, N. S. (2013). Student agency: success, failure and lessons learned. Ethics and Education, 8(2), 123-139. Zaichenko, L. (2021): Context without future: webs of beliefs structuring the professional agency of teachers in Russian schools in Estonia, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2021.1976620 OECD (2018). The future of education and skills. Education 2030. The future we want. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf Tire, G. Puksand, H., Lepmann, T., Henno, I., Lindemann, K., Täht, K., Lorenz, B., & Silm, G. (2019). PISA 2018 tulemused. Eesti 15-aastaste õpilaste teadmised ja oskused funkstionaalses lugemises, matemaatikas ja loodusteadustes. [PISA 2018 results. The knowledge and skills of 16-year old students in Estonia in reading, mathematics and science.] Tallinn. Statistics Estonia. Population figure 2021. https://www.stat.ee/en/avasta-statistikat/valdkonnad/rahvastik/population-figure Tark ja Tegus Eesti 2035. Eesti haridus- ja teadusstrateegia 2021-2035. Kolme ekspertrühma visioonidokumentide kokkuvõte [Wise and Active Estonia 2035. Estonian education and research strategy 2021-2035. Summary of the vision documents of three expert groups], (2019). Aune Valk [Ed.]. Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. Vaughn, M. (2020). Where to from here: fostering agency across landscapes. Theory into Practice, published online, 04 Febr Zeiser, K., Scholz, C., & Cirks, V. (2018). Maximizing student agency: implementing and measuring student-centered learning practices. American Institutes for Research. https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED592084