The school network should evolve in line with changes in the number and location of students. Everyone agrees with that. However, the Ministry of Education and Research (MER) and the local authorities have not reached a consensus on issues of the development of the rest of the upper secondary school network. The MER wants to concentrate education and has established state upper secondary schools in county centres. However, many municipalities continue to run small municipal upper secondary schools because there are no clear criteria for the quality and availability of general secondary education as a basis for continuing or closing schools. In addition, local governments question whether their students would be provided with enough student places in state upper secondary schools and whether well-functioning transport and accommodation would be provided.

In the light of these and other problems, streamlining the upper secondary school network, which has lasted for more than a decade, has become a drifting policy process. In other words, development has been slow, and it is far from certain that it will reach its destination when previous approaches continue to prevail. Redesign of the upper secondary school network is hindered by the different views of the state and local authorities on the future of specific schools and the upper secondary school network as a whole. The solution of the problem is also impeded by diffused responsibility – both the state and local authorities are accountable for the upper secondary school network.

1. The need to reform the upper secondary school network has been acknowledged by both the state and local authorities, the goals are in place on paper, but there is a gap between the intentions and their implementation.

• The number of upper secondary schools in Estonia has decreased, but not to the expected extent. In 2014, the goal was set to achieve uniformly high-quality general secondary education that offers ample choice of elective subjects in addition to compulsory subjects in all counties. The intermediate goal of achieving this was to reduce the number of schools offering access to general secondary education from 202 to about 100 by 2020. In the academic year 2020/2021, there were 158 operating schools.
• The target number of state upper secondary schools was to be increased from 5 to 24 (and more recently to 26), but, in the academic year 2020/2021, there was 16 of them. The plan to separate upper secondary schools and basic schools, to transfer upper secondary schools to the state, and to start developing the upper secondary school network and vocational education side-by-side has also not materialised as desired.

2. There are no clear criteria for the quality and availability of general secondary education, which would be the basis for streamlining the upper secondary school network. The MER and local authorities do not have an agreement on how many student places within general secondary education are needed in every county, and how these places will be provided for every pupil interested in obtaining general secondary education in the future.

• There is no common understanding of the upcoming upper secondary school network in Estonia. It is hindered by the uncertainty as to whether the upper secondary schools will be run by the state or local authorities, or whether the current situation will continue, where both are responsible by law, but the state aims to take over the ownership of upper secondary schools. The current situation involves mutual mistrust and postponement of decisions.
• There is a need for more specific criteria for the quality and availability of general secondary education, which would help to prepare and implement decisions on the continuation or closure of schools in co-operation between the MER and local authorities.

3. The experience of setting up state upper secondary schools shows that students are satisfied, although some goals such as the occupancy of student places, efficient use of space and compliance with teachers' qualification requirements have not yet been 100 per cent achieved.

• The MER has paid great attention to the development of the quality of state upper secondary schools, and the reputation of state upper secondary schools is good.
• Local authorities see the advantages of setting up state upper secondary schools as an opportunity for them to focus more on the development of basic education and to receive investment support for the maintenance of school buildings.
• As the further optimisation of the upper secondary school network makes the students' school journey longer, it is important to ensure efficient transport and accommodation conditions, i. e. access to high-quality general secondary education.

The National Audit Office recommends to the Minister of Education and Research

• to decide which level of government is responsible for offering the opportunity to acquire general secondary education, to agree on the organisation of the transition to the system with one responsible body, to prepare the necessary draft legal enactments and submit them to the Parliament for decision;
• to focus the development of the upper secondary school network on provision of uniform requirements for the quality and availability of general secondary education, to agree on these requirements with local authorities, to ensure the necessary counselling to meet the requirements, and to introduce systematic quality supervision (regardless of school ownership);
• to create a detailed plan for streamlining the upper secondary school network, which includes at least the following: the number and locations of upper secondary schools by counties and local authorities, measures to ensure student places and support services (transport, accommodation), a description of the arrangements for integrating vocational and secondary education and implementing amendments.