Material Support

In this section, I present the opinions of the participants on the sufficiency of the material support they receive for their studies. Estonian students do not have to pay for tuition but there are still living expenses that the children and young people must account for when planning their full time studies. Therefore it is a critical aspect for sustaining their educational pathway.

As it turned out, the participants are rather positive about the educational funding system. There were a few complaints which I mention below in this section. The participants said that education is something that the residential care homes prioritize and they have never felt that there are limited choices due to the lack of material support. Some of the participants even claimed that they have more opportunities than many of their classmates who live with their biological parents.

R10V: How to say...I do not need anything more really. When I am provided...I have an opportunity to study and they pay my school expenses...and therefore I do not have any complications, then I think that this is enough to motivate someone to study. R3U: I have a feeling that with the life here I have better opportunities than those people who maybe live with their parents, those who are the average Estonian people. Sometimes I have even had bad feelings because I have so much more and they have hard time and they cannot afford some things. [---] Regarding education there is nothing I have not been able to achieve.

The researchers of the international YiPPEE project and in the UK claim that inadequate financial support for continuing in education is a system level barrier and can cause great uncertainty for the young people in out-of-home care (Brodie & Morris, 2010; Jackson et al,

58

2005; Jackson & Cameron, 2011). The cited authors say that it is important that children and young people in out-of-home care are informed about available funding opportunities. The participants of the present study know quite well about different funding opportunities and are guided by the residential care homes when needed. They did not seem worried or uncertain about the financial support. These thoughts are different from other research findings in Europe.

However, a few participants did not completely agree with the others. They claimed that even though they can continue with their studies, there is not much pocket money and therefore it might be more appealing to go to work. One participant highlighted that young people who decide to go to vocational school after high school are not favoured by the current funding system and it could be improved.

R8H: [---] In a way the state could not do anything for me to go to high school or not. But at the same time it would be great if there were scholarships for high school students also. Or even that in vocational school there is such kind of system that if you go there after basic school you get meal allowance, but if you go there after high school then you do not get it. Why should I have more money to eat there than the person who goes there after basic school? I do not get why the high school students are so poorly supported.

In terms of student support, vocational and secondary education are treated partly in similar ways. For both, the students are applicable to meal allowances. A difference is related to scholarships as high school students do not get similar opportunities to financial support as vocational education students do. Therefore, R8H points attention to the lack of money received for personal use. Some residential care homes have begun to solve the problem by providing more pocket money to young people in high school. This is however not a general practice of all residential care homes. From the government perspective it makes sense, because the state support is rather prioritised to vocational students as indicated in the strategy of lifelong learning, described in chapter 2.

Most of the young people, who participated in the study, did not seem to worry too much about the rigidity of the financing system. Osila et al. (2016) mentioned that the care system is inflexible in relation to educational pathway for young people over the age of 18. When the young person stops to study, he/she has to move out from the residential care home. When the person decides to continue after a study break, the state does not cover the expenses of his/her studies (ibid). The participants were aware of this requirement, however the way they saw it was different. Some of the participants knew about the requirement, but had not thought about how it affects their decisions. For others it was clear that they need to work hard in school to ensure the place in the residential care home. In a way, the requirement worked like a motivator for the young people. R3U thought it is unfair to push young people from residential care to continue with their studies without any breaks. She added that most of the young people need some time to think and experience life outside the school system before they decide about further education. Fortunately, as Sepp (2017) and many participants mentioned, some KOVs might be ready to continue with the funding if the young person shows great self-motivation to go back to school.

To conclude, it can be said that overall, the participants are satisfied with the material support they receive for their studies. Young people claimed that there are socioeconomic advantages for children and young people in residential care. Masten (2001 & 2007 cited by Goldstein &

59

Brooks, 2013) name socioeconomic advantages as a family level characteristic which can increase resilience. Nevertheless, some of the participants felt that there is a lack of money for more personal expenses. The inflexibility of the financing system for young people over the age of 18 was also mentioned as a barrier of educational pathway. The participants are well aware that they need to continue with their studies without any gaps in order to keep their place in the residential care home.