Estonian teacher defends multiperspectival history lessons, citing Narva students' views

A debate has broken out in Estonia this summer over multiperspectival history teaching, with critics arguing the approach glosses over difficult topics and weakens national identity. History education specialist Kersti Kivirüüt rejects this criticism, insisting the method has always aimed to teach history as an academic discipline rather than an ideological tool.

Kivirüüt explains that acknowledging multiple perspectives does not mean facts disappear or that occupation becomes merely "one opinion." Instead, students are taught to ask who is speaking, what claims are based on, and what is omitted — a form of source criticism, not relativism.

What Narva students think

During the 2024/2025 school year, Kivirüüt anonymously surveyed 10th- and 11th-grade students at Narva Estonian High School about commemorating World War II and Victory Day, receiving 36 responses. Some students expressed a clear Estonian civic identity, valuing freedom and democracy. Others showed the influence of what is described as "pobedobesie" — the Russian cult of victory — naming May 9 as their favorite holiday or comparing restrictions on its celebration to being deprived of religion. Most responses, however, fell into a gray area, with students emphasizing the war's end or their own family's story rather than "victory" itself.

Kivirüüt notes that in Narva, a student's family can hold both nostalgia for the Soviet era and genuine respect for victims of Stalinist repression without perceiving any contradiction. She argues a teacher's role is not to scold such students but to ask critical questions that lead them to their own conclusions, rather than having them recite prescribed phrases.

The article also addresses the word "liberation": while accurate for families from Belarusian or Ukrainian villages, it does not fit Estonia's 1944 experience, since Soviet occupation replaced German occupation rather than restoring Estonian independence.