The audit of the effectiveness of the State Audit Office regarding unequal opportunities in primary education contains understandable conclusions; however, some of the information presented in the report no longer reflects the current situation, as significant changes have already begun and are being implemented in the education system, according to the position of the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) published on the State Audit Office's website, reports LETA.
The ministry notes that the audit was necessary as it provides factual justification and confirms the information the agency has regarding challenges in primary education. The data and conclusions presented in the audit confirm the need to continue the initiated reforms and implement the planned political initiatives. At the same time, the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) emphasizes that the audit covers the period from 2021 to 2024, while the situation in 2026 is already at a different stage of development.
The MoES reminds that in 2025, six seminars were organized for heads of educational institutions and education management bodies across Latvia. During these events, the quality of previously implemented changes was assessed, challenges were analyzed, and an in-depth examination of the issues included in the audit was provided. Based on these discussions, the ministry prepared an action plan and began developing and submitting the necessary regulations and amendments for 2026 and beyond.
The MoES believes that some conclusions of the audit may create the impression that problems have not yet been addressed; however, some of the identified issues are already in the process of implementation and are being gradually resolved.
Commenting on the recommendations of the State Audit Office, the ministry indicates that they are generally understandable and can serve as a basis for improving the system. The work on their implementation is based on four principles — ensuring access to primary education for every child, establishing systemic quality requirements, strengthening the support system for all participants in the educational process, and adhering to the possibilities of the state budget.
As the most significant reasons for the problems, the MoES cites the previous funding model "Money follows the student," difficulties in implementing the primary education standard during the pandemic, as well as rapid changes in society, the labor market, and technology.
At the same time, the MoES has a strong position on some statements contained in the report of the State Audit Office, including issues of school autonomy, types of assessment work, and the organization of curriculum mastery.
The ministry disagrees with the assertion of unlimited freedom for educational institutions in implementing mandatory content, stating that autonomy is exercised within the framework of the state standard and with clearly defined learning outcomes. It is also emphasized that the quality of education cannot be assessed solely by the traditional format of a school lesson, as the modern pedagogical process includes various teaching methods, including activities outside school premises.
Clarifications are also provided regarding diagnostic and monitoring assessments, emphasizing the difference in their goals and executors. The MoES points out that these concepts are sometimes interpreted incompletely in the report and emphasizes that educational institutions and municipalities have the right to use various assessment tools according to their priorities.
It is also noted that schools have access to a unified methodology for working with gifted students, including specific indicators and methodological recommendations. The main challenge lies in the full implementation of these tools in practice. Support for students with diverse needs is based on differentiation and an individual approach, which requires high professional competence from educators, additional time, and public understanding of the modern educational process.
The MoES also reminds that a differentiated accreditation system has been implemented in general and vocational education, and amendments to the Education Law have been adopted, followed by improvements to subordinate regulations. The increase in the cost of accreditation corresponds to general trends in the education sector, including salary increases for educators and increased funding for the implementation of educational programs.
As previously reported, the State Audit Office concluded that children in Latvia are not provided with equal quality primary education.
Although a unified standard of primary education is in place and schools are accredited, the volume of education, assessment approaches, and support provision in different schools vary significantly, which affects student outcomes and their opportunities to continue education at the next level.
