Tomorrow, 29 October, is the day of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia’s 11th International Conference* “Environment and sustainable forest and land management – current solutions”. Ahead of it, a short interview with Sigita Alksne, one of the conference speakers, regarding education, knowledge, and the battle for “souls”.

Is it possible to name the areas in which young people starting their university studies could have better knowledge?

In my work with school pupils and university students, I have noticed another important thing that we do not discuss loudly enough: the motivator for choosing a profession. One of the motivators that young people from the 5th to 12th grade choose when thinking about the future is money – specifically, how much it is possible to earn in a given profession. When I talk about the opportunities in the forestry sector and what kind of knowledge is required for them, I often encounter genuine surprise: “Really?”

A certain stereotype about our – the forestry – sector has often taken root precisely in the regions. Why? A young person has a parent or close relative, or another well-known person, working in the sector or in connection with it. Seeing their living conditions and the hardship of the daily work, a conclusion is reached, whether one likes it or not, that it is not particularly rosy. When I explain that the situation is different in manufacturing (wood processing), which, of course, requires the appropriate knowledge, I again encounter surprise.

When visiting schools in Riga, I often have to conclude that some young people already know what they want in their future lives, and, unfortunately, I have observed a trend where one of the options is to head outside of Latvia, seeing that the quality of education there is higher.

Why?

University rankings are assessed very carefully and attentively; they have heard something from others, read something, etc. For example, I know secondary school pupils in several Riga schools who are waiting for their centralised exam results in order to submit them to a foreign university; all they need is a plane ticket.

Currently, the so-called top countries where our young people go to study are the Netherlands and Denmark. When asked why they do not want to study at a local university, the young people reply that the education obtained abroad is incomparable to the local one. This, of course, does not apply to all young people, and often the cost of living in those respective countries is not taken into account regarding their studies...

I suspect I am not the only one who, since 4 May 1990, has associated our education sector with only one single word – reforms, rather than education or knowledge. There are probably not as many reforms as there is talk and deliberation about them.

When travelling to schools, communicating with teachers, and hearing the sufficiently contradictory and often sharp, Skola 2030 assessment, one really has to start thinking about what exactly is meant by this strategic initiative, how it is implemented in reality, how it is assessed, measured, etc. Teachers say that something has to be changed almost incessantly; one reform follows another, and so on. In the end, the teacher concludes that no one is clear about which reform works, which should be considered useful, or what is better to forget; in the whirlwind of changes, it is never clear what is functioning and what is not.

Here, it must definitely be emphasised how significant (often decisive) a role human nature plays in these processes. There are those who accept change easily and, by delving into it even a little, understand both what it means and that nothing needs to be changed too radically. At the same time, there is a part of society that takes almost every reform sharply: “Oh dear, again!” Communication is not appropriate, action is not clear, resistance sets in, and, importantly, there are not many good examples to characterise the changes, or they do not always reach the teacher in a clear and understandable way. A reform does not always mean a radical change of the system; it can also be something small or even a detail.

Reforms do not bother me, because my previous work experience and specialisation at the university have clearly justified the necessity of change – I cannot use the same teaching materials every year; I have always had to change them because I teach about the market economy, where data is always changing. In my opinion, the goals of many reforms are good, but what could certainly be improved is how (how accurately and clearly) teachers are informed about them.

What is bad in relation to change? It must be understood that not all 9th-grade youngsters are “destined” for universities (due to both knowledge, willingness to engage, and other reasons). The Ministry’s target is 50:50.

It must be remembered that every school is fighting for survival, which depends on the number of pupils; as a result, situations arise where, without evaluating what is best and most suitable for them, a young person is directed to a classical secondary school rather than a vocational school. In my opinion, no one speaks about this loudly, but the fight for secondary school pupils is a harsh enough reality both in Riga and in the regions. It is a pity that throughout this entire process, we forget about the individual young person and what would be best for them. Perhaps in this fight, we are losing more than one future employee who would work here in Latvia instead of leaving.

One often hears about the radically different knowledge that young people from Riga schools and regional schools have about forests, the countryside, meadows...

For a pupil in the regions, nature and wood as a material are undoubtedly closer and more familiar, and the understanding of these things is greater than in Riga schools. Going to schools in the capital and talking about forestry sector issues is neither easy nor simple; there are filters...

In an elite school, is the breadth of knowledge less important, and is the dosage of knowledge with a filter more important?

The “filter” exists in the policy of the respective school. Just as there is a specific policy and priorities in the Ministry of Education and Science, a school also has a principal who decides what they believe pupils need or do not need. Such a choice is becoming increasingly pronounced. For example, schools evaluate activities, choosing those that they believe steer young people toward the goal of entering a university, even if they are not Latvian universities. The story of traditional processing industries in Latvia might pass the young people by. The motivation? Why take up a young person’s time talking about forest matters if...?

Do the leaders of such schools live in Latvia, or do they run the school remotely?

Of course, they live in Latvia. It must be added that from our sector’s side, not too much work has been invested in this regard either. If we look at what “Latvijas valsts meži” is doing, having worked purposefully with teachers for many years, where a truly excellent connection is formed and it works perfectly – that would be a good example.

Regarding deep wood processing, green chemistry, or green technologies, the sector does not really have information to share in a convincing way or to interest anyone. In the last three years, the association “Latvijas koks” has started to do this more purposefully. There are other organisations trying to do this, but, in my opinion, it is fragmentary, episodic, from project to project, without a clear and unified long-term vision for informing young people and society about the processes and results of the forest and wood product value chain. We still have a lot to do here if we want to do it. The fight for every person attracted to the sector will become increasingly fierce.

The association “Latvijas koks” is currently working hard to share information about the further wood value chain. Over two years, we have conducted ~500 lessons for 11 thousand pupils. I will add that this year, in cooperation with the Riga City Council, we took 20 teachers from Riga schools on an educational excursion. I will repeat myself, but they were surprised by what they experienced and learned.

The conclusion is brief – a false notion still prevails among both teachers and school management that there is a lot of cheap labour in the forestry sector, and we still hear “instructive” remarks – “if you don’t study well, you’ll only be a carpenter”. All of this has become quite deeply rooted in society. Teachers have also admitted more than once that they lack knowledge. Of course, it is good that they admit it, but much more must be done to change the situation. It is important to remember that teachers are one of the groups capable of influencing or convincing young people. A teacher must be able to see the “big picture”.

* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/lmsp-11-starptautiska-konference-vide-un-ilgtspejiga-meza-un-zemes-1