copy the linklink copied!2. Strengthening the skills outcomes of students
Developing skills at an early age is a key investment in the economic prosperity and well-being of countries. This chapter assesses students’ skills outcomes in Latvia, and presents four opportunities to strengthen these outcomes: 1) building capacity to improve the teaching workforce; 2) fostering continuous quality improvement from early childhood education and care to secondary education; 3) improving equity between urban and rural areas; and 4) strengthening vocational education and training.
copy the linklink copied!Introduction: The importance of students’ skills outcomes for Latvia
Skills are critical to the success of people and of society as a whole. Higher levels of cognitive skills are associated with a number of desirable outcomes. Across the OECD, adults with higher literacy proficiency are more likely to be employed, earn high wages, trust others, participate in the democratic process and community life, and report good health than their less-skilled peers. For countries, skills are a key driver of innovation, productivity and, ultimately, economic growth, social cohesion and higher living standards (OECD, 2016[1]).
Developing skills at an early age is, therefore, a key investment in the economic prosperity and well-being of countries. Strong skills developed in youth not only pave the way to success in higher education and the labour market, but also help foster a culture of lifelong learning that can shield individuals against technological displacement. Countries whose youth develop strong skills typically have highly skilled adult populations, as skills outcomes in youth are strongly correlated with success in tertiary education (OECD, 2019[2]).
The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows that there is considerable room to improve the skills performance of youth in Latvia, who have below OECD average performance in mathematics and reading, average performance in science, and a low share of top performers in all subjects (OECD, 2015[3]). These results have been stable since 2003, and if this current trend persists Latvia may soon face major challenges such as a large proportion of young people entering the labour market without professional qualifications or skills, and a large share of low-qualified adults in the labour force.
Furthermore, international megatrends such as technological change, globalisation and population ageing, are reinforcing the importance of skills in building economic prosperity. It is therefore crucial to develop a responsive education system that equips students with 21st century skills – including critical thinking, communication skills, adaptability and accountability – and prepares the future working population to develop comparative advantages for participating in global value chains (OECD, 2019[2]).
In this regard, Latvia has demonstrated great commitment to reform the education sector and strengthen students’ outcomes by engaging in several ambitious education reforms according to the Education Development Guidelines for 2014-2020 and its overarching goal of high-quality, inclusive education for the development of personality, social welfare and sustainable development in Latvia (Chapter 1):
-
Transition to a competency-based curriculum
-
Modernisation of vocational education
-
Development and expansion of work-based learning
-
Development of the support system for the skills development of employed adults.
This chapter provides an overview of Latvia’s education system and selected performance indicators. It then proceeds to discuss the four opportunities through which Latvia can enhance students’ outcomes: 1) improving the teaching workforce; 2) fostering continuous quality improvement from early childhood education and care (ECEC) to secondary education; 3) improving equity between rural and urban areas; and 4) strengthening vocational education and training. For each opportunity, the available data are analysed, relevant national and international policies and practices are discussed, and recommendations are given.
copy the linklink copied!Latvia’s education system: Overview and recent performance
Overview of the education system
Main features of the Latvian education system
Early childhood education programmes start early in Latvia. A legal entitlement to ECEC obliges municipalities to provide services in an institution close to their home for all children from 1.5 years old. However, ECEC is only mandatory at ages 5 and 6, with enrolment rates approaching 100% (97.2%). At earlier ages, 89% of children aged 3 and 93% aged 4 are enrolled in ECEC institutions, which is well above the OECD averages of 75% and 88%, respectively (OECD, 2018[4]).
Since the Latvian population is composed of several ethnic groups,1 Latvia has a long tradition of providing publicly funded education from primary to secondary in seven ethnic minority languages: Byelorussian, Estonian, Hebrew, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian. As a consequence, 72% of pupils were enrolled in Latvian education programmes and 28% in ethnic minority languages, according to 2017-2018 Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) data. A gradual transition to education in the state language of Latvian by 2021 is ongoing. Following amendments to the Law on Education and the Law on General Education it is expected that the transition will start in school year 2019/2020 in grades 7-9, with all general subjects at the upper secondary education level taught in Latvian as of 2022/2023. This new regulation seeks to expand opportunities for ethnic minority youth in vocational and higher education, where Latvian is the language of instruction, as well as improve their competitiveness in the labour market.
Starting at age 7, primary and lower secondary are organised as an integrated system that lasts for nine years, from grade 1 to grade 9, including six years of primary and three years of lower secondary education. Transition to the next class is automatic, but there is a final examination in grade 9 that assesses the student’s first language, the Latvian language for students in ethnic minority programmes, mathematics, history of Latvia and a foreign language. Results from this examination lead to the certificate required to enter upper secondary education.
The transition to upper secondary is not mandatory, however, the upper secondary graduation rate for the Latvian population reaches 90%, which is above the OECD average of 87% (OECD, 2018[4]). Upper secondary education starts at age 16 and includes three years of general education, or two to four years in a vocational education track, and ends with a final examination. Successful students in a general education and in a vocational (four-year programme) track are awarded a certificate that allows them to enter tertiary education. Successful vocational education students earn a professional qualification on top of their vocational education diploma. Vocational students who have completed a three-year programme can enter tertiary education under the condition that they fulfil a fourth “bridge” year. The government has been monitoring enrolment in general education vs. vocational education and training (VET) as an indicator of the Education Development Guidelines (Table 0.1), and aims to equalise participation rates between general and vocational programmes by 2020 (Eurydice, 2019[5]).
The higher education sector in Latvia is binary, with the Law on Higher Education Institutions differentiating between academic and vocational higher education. Higher education is provided as academic and professional programmes in three types of autonomous public and private higher education institutions (HEIs): colleges (vocational programmes, up to the first stage of two-stage vocational higher education, see below), non-university (professional programmes, up to master’s degree), and university (academic and professional programmes, up to doctoral degree). In 2017, 41.6% of 25-34 year old Latvians had completed a higher education degree, which is below the OECD average of 44.5% (OECD, 2018[4]).
Latvia’s higher education relies on a three-cycle structure: bachelor, master, and doctoral level studies. Academic higher education programmes are based mostly upon fundamental and/or applied science. They usually comprise a research paper or thesis at the end of each stage and lead to a bachelor’s degree (Bakalaura grāds) and master’s degree (Maģistra grāds). The duration of bachelor’s degree programmes may be three to four years, depending on the study field and educational programme. A master’s degree is awarded after the second cycle of academic education and requires at least five years of university studies altogether (including the three to four year bachelor’s degree). The doctoral degree (Doktora grāds) last three to four years full-time. It includes advanced studies of the subject in a relevant study programme and scientific research towards a doctoral thesis; it awards the title of PhD.
The Law on Higher Education Institutions and the Law on Vocational Education organise professional higher education. A short-track college education (two to three years) leads to an ISCED 5 professional qualification (diploms par pirmā līmeņa profesionālo augstāko izglītību), which is the first level professional higher education diploma. A longer track (four to five years), leads to an ISCED 6 professional qualification and awards students with a professional qualification and vocational bachelor’s degree that can be followed by a further one to two years of vocational master’s degree studies. The master’s degree of professional higher education is awarded after at least five years of studies.
Organisation and funding of the Latvian education system
Compulsory and upper secondary education provided by schools whose founders are municipal or national governments (i.e. public schools) are free of charge in Latvia. As such, the central government covers teachers’ remuneration in public and some private institutions, while the founders (municipalities and private entities) are in charge of the maintenance costs for pre-primary, primary and secondary schools. Municipalities mostly fund ECEC, except for the salaries of teachers working in the compulsory programme, namely for 5-6 year-olds. In these public schools, the funding system relies on a “money follows the student” model, where state funds are allocated according to a formula (OECD, 2014[6]).
The funding responsibility for vocational education institutions is split between the MoES, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Interior Affairs, the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of Health, municipalities and the private sector. The state government also finances the education of children with special needs, including children who go to special boarding schools and those who attend “schools of social correction”.2
The VET school network consists of 46 VET schools providing VET secondary education (data for the beginning of the 2018/19 school year). Most VET schools are under the authority of the state, including those under the Ministry of Education and Science, and the Ministry of Culture. Few are private and municipal (Table 0.2).
Since 2011, the vocational education system in Latvia has undergone a major transition, from a highly centralised model to one that is more flexible and that seeks to promote collaboration between local employers and schools. Because of a declining student population, provision has been consolidated by significantly reducing the number of VET schools in order to:
-
Ensure the implementation of the structural reforms of the VET system
-
Strengthen institutional capacity
-
Develop the modern material and technical provision and infrastructure of VET schools
-
Promote the more efficient use of all types of resources by increasing the quality of vocational education.
Since 2009, larger vocational schools – those with more than 500 students outside of Riga and more than 800 students in Riga – that meet specific qualitative and quantitative requirements can become Vocational Education Competence Centres (VECCs), thus creating regional VET “hubs”. These VECCs provide vocational secondary education programmes, carry out the validation of professional competences acquired outside formal education, and act as regional methodological centres by developing close relationships with employers, identifying skills in demand in the industry, and providing further education (OECD, 2016[7]). A college could also obtain VECC status if it implements VET secondary education programmes and meets further criteria. As of the 2018/19 school year, 23 vocational education institutions had been granted VECC status.
The rules of registration and accreditation for private institutions or education programmes are the same as for public institutions and programmes. However, as they need to be funded, the founders of private institutions are free to set tuition fees. Private pre-primary schools that deliver compulsory education to 5-6 years-olds receive state funds to cover the costs of teaching staff salaries. Similarly, accredited private schools that provide primary and/or secondary education receive funds from the state to cover staff salaries. This amount depends on the cost per pupil, which is set by the Cabinet of Ministers.
Latvia’s commitment to education is illustrated in Figure 0.1. Latvia spends yearly on education almost 1 percentage point of its government budget, which is more than the OECD average. Expenditure in lower and upper secondary is mostly similar, with the discrepancy mainly coming from a larger investment by Latvia in primary education. Driven by a large number of small educational institutions, Latvia has the highest share of capital expenditure in public and private institutions from primary to tertiary education among OECD countries (OECD, 2018[4]). Despite a consolidation process initiated in 2009 to increase the efficiency of spending, the fragmented school network prevents further economics of scale, which is an ongoing debate in Latvia (OECD, 2016[8]).
Source: OECD (2019[9]), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en.
Governance of the Latvian education system
The Latvian education system is administered at three levels: national, municipal, and institutional. Social partners and stakeholders are involved in all stages, from planning to implementing education policy (Chapter 5).
At the national level, the MoES is the main executive body for education, and exerts its power within the framework of Latvia’s Constitution (Satversme) and laws, and under the control of the Parliament (Saeima) and the Cabinet of Ministers. In particular, the MoES is responsible for drafting policy planning documents in education, and supervising the implementation of relevant policies in the state administration institutions and the agencies subordinated to the ministry. The Parliament holds legislative power and determines the national budget, while the Cabinet of Ministers exerts executive power over all administrative institutions.
At the local level, municipalities must provide every child within their territory the opportunity to acquire pre-primary education, integrated primary and lower secondary education (basic education, pamatizglītība), and upper secondary education. The municipality is also responsible for providing education opportunities to adults. To organise education, municipalities can aggregate to fund an Education Board of Municipalities and appoint a head in co-ordination with the MoES. Education boards constitute the link between national and municipal levels of governance as they allocate the funds from the state budget to schools to cover the salaries of educational staff, as well as supervise the implementation of local education policies. Most notably, they assist schools by providing teaching and methodological materials, and are in charge of adult education and professional development for teachers. The establishment of a joint education board between several municipalities is possible, but not widespread practice.
At the institutional level, according to the education law, the head of a pre-primary school or of a compulsory education and upper secondary school takes human resource decisions, manages financial resources, and monitors the implementation of regulatory enactments concerning education. A school is independent in developing and implementing education programmes, and its council usually includes the head and the founder of the institution, as well as representatives of pedagogues, parents and students (students are not involved in pre-primary education institution councils). The head of the council needs to be a parent representative. The council only plays a consultative role for the drafting of the school development plan, but is in charge of organising school social life activities and accounting donations.
The MoES is directly in charge of most public vocational education institutions. Municipalities are in charge of how public special needs education institutions function as they are founders, but the teacher salaries and maintenance of education institutions are funded by the state. As specified by the education law, the head of such institutions is responsible for the operation of its institution, as well as for setting remuneration levels and ensuring the adequate use of resources.
Higher education institutions are highly autonomous. State institutions receive funds from the basic state budget, from tuition fees and from other sources (grants, donations, etc.), according to the regulations on non-profit organisations. An election determines the heads of the three highest administration units of the institution – the constitutional meeting, the senate, and the rector – and the Cabinet of Ministers appoints the rector. Aside from this process, HEIs can define their own organisational procedures, internal rules and regulations, take human resource decisions, and allocate funding.
The MoES is supported by a number of subordinate agencies that contribute to the development of education in Latvia. These are charged with the following tasks:
-
The National Centre for Education (Valsts izglītības satura centrs, VISC, established in 2009) is involved in development and co-ordination activities that include curricula and examinations for pre-school, basic and general secondary education and vocational education. VISC co-ordinates the development of textbooks, of a support system for learners with special needs, and of teachers’ continuing professional development. It also co-ordinates organisation of extra-curricular activities.
-
The State Education Quality Service (Izglītības kvalitātes valsts dienests, IKVD, established in 2009) monitors education quality and is responsible for inspecting the education system from primary to upper secondary level and tertiary education level, including all public and private education institutions. It registers education institutions, licenses education programmes and carries out school (re)accreditation.
-
The State Education Development Agency (Valsts izglītības attīstības aģentūra, VIAA, established in 2012) has very diverse functions within the sectors of education and science, including international co-operation, and oversees all activities related to European Union (EU) programmes, such as the Lifelong Learning Programme. It also co-ordinates the implementation of the career development support system, and is responsible for the implementation of project SO (specific objective) 8.4.1. “Development of the professional competencies of employees”.
-
The Latvian Language Agency (Latviešu valodas aģentūra, established in 2009) aims to enhance the status and promote the sustainable development of the Latvian language. The agency implements the state language policy as formulated in the Guidelines of the State Language Policy for 2015-2020.
-
The Agency for International Programmes for Youth (Jaunatnes starptautisko programmu aģentūra. established in 1999) promotes youth activities and mobility (e.g. within the EU). The agency implements non-formal learning and information programmes and projects targeted at youth and those working with youth, and supports the link between non-formal learning and lifelong education.
-
The Latvian Council of Science (Latvijas Zinātnes padome) and the Latvian Academy of Sciences (Latvijas Zinātņu akadēmija) fulfil advisory and representative functions regarding research issues. The council also funds research and development projects.
-
The Council of Higher Education consists of twelve members proposed by the MoES and validated by the Parliament. The council aims to develop higher education and promote an equal and harmonised development of all kinds of HEIs.
-
The Rectors’ Council co-ordinates educational activities in HEIs to promote scientific, educational, cultural and economic co-operation between Latvian HEIs. It also develops legislative proposals.
-
The Study and Science Administration (Studiju un zinātnes administrācija) participates in the development of students’ loans policy and provides students’ loans from the state budget. The institution is also responsible for coordination and administering of state-guaranteed study and student loans to students.
Aside from these main actors, a number of consultative bodies also influence education and participate in stakeholder engagement in Latvia:
-
Local associations of pedagogues all around Latvia discuss the development of the curriculum, teaching and assessment methods, and state examination.
-
In schools, the council of education consists of representatives of teachers, the local authority, parents and pupils from all education levels. Parents compose the majority of the council and the head is a parent representative. As the school board, the council has an advisory status, but can also endorse certain decision-making functions (Eurydice, 2019[5]).
Overview of Latvia’s performance
Student outcomes in Latvia are close to the OECD average in the three domains assessed by PISA, mathematics, science and reading, and these results have been stable over time. The strength of the socio-economic gradient is weaker than the OECD average, meaning that the system is equitable. However, the share of high performers remains low in relation to international standards, and discrepancies between urban and rural areas in terms of student achievement are a major concern.
Student outcomes are close to the OECD average and stable over time
Student performance in Latvia is slightly below the average, according to international comparison, and has been stable since 2003. The OECD’s PISA provides benchmarks for average student performance in science, mathematics and reading across education systems. Latvian students performed around the OECD average in PISA 2015 (Figure 0.2).
Note: Only a sample of countries participating in PISA is presented.
Source: OECD (2015[3]), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, www.oecd.org/pisa/.
The average score in science is not statistically significantly different from the OECD average, but average scores in reading and mathematics are much lower (OECD, 2016[10]). The average science score of Latvian students is comparable with that of students in the Czech Republic, the Russian Federation and Sweden. However, students in Denmark, Finland, Germany and neighbouring country Estonia outperform Latvian students significantly.
Equity is relatively high, but there is a low share of top performers
The socio-economic status of students and schools can have a strong influence on learning outcomes (OECD, 2016[10]). Figure 0.3 sorts countries based on the strength of their socio-economic gradient and their average science performance. Equity and high performance are not mutually exclusive, with countries such as Finland, Estonia and Japan performing high in both dimensions. They have a large share of top performing students, including those with disadvantaged backgrounds.
If student outcomes in Latvia are close to the average, the strength of the socio-economic gradient is weaker than the OECD average. This implies that the education system is relatively equitable. Furthermore, 12% of Latvian disadvantaged students are “resilient”, meaning that they beat the odds of their low socio-economic background and perform among the top quarter of students in all participating countries. This is in line with the OECD average of 11.3% (OECD, 2018[11]).
At the same time, Latvia could improve in raising performance of students. The share of top-performing students, who are defined as achieving level 5 or 6 in at least one of the three PISA subjects, is low. During the latest PISA cycle, only 8.3% of Latvian students were high performers, compared to 15.3% on average across OECD countries. Conversely, more than 10% of students were low performers who scored below level 2 in all three subjects. This share was below the OECD average of 13%, but significantly above leading countries like Estonia, where only 4.7% of students are low performers (Figure 0.4).
Source: OECD (2016[10]), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, Figure I.6.6, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.
Source: OECD (2015[3]), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, www.oecd.org/pisa/.
Strong disparities persist between rural and urban areas
Despite a weak socio-economic gradient in Latvia, there is a significant performance gap between students in rural and urban areas.3 According to PISA data, students attending school in rural areas (fewer than 3 000 people) score on average 46 score points lower than students attending school in the capital city Riga (OECD, 2015[3]). In Latvia, one-third of the population lives in Riga, one-third lives in cities or towns, and one-third lives in rural areas.
The most recent PISA survey (Echazarra and Radinger, 2019[12]) found that across all OECD countries, students in cities score on average 31 points higher in science than their peers in small towns, which is the equivalent of 1 year of schooling. In Latvia, this difference reaches almost 50 points, which is the equivalent of more than 1.5 years of schooling (Figure 0.5). Rural areas in Latvia also have a higher share of low performers. On average, 25% of students who attend school in rural areas of Latvia, and 15% of students in cities or towns, perform below level 2 in mathematics (OECD, 2016[10]).
Note: Cities are defined as with people 100 000 or more, towns as 15 000 -100 000 and rural areas fewer than 3 000 people.
Source: OECD (2015[3]), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, www.oecd.org/pisa/.
Ensuring equity between urban and rural areas is not only important for the regional development of rural areas, but also benefits the whole education system. Evidence from PISA in 2015 shows that countries with a small urban-rural gap in student performance show higher academic performance on average (Echazarra and Radinger, 2019[12]).
In Latvia, rural schools have higher drop-out and grade repetition rates. Figure 0.6 shows that the share of early leavers from education is 14.3% in rural areas, compared to 5.3% in urban areas. A report analysing expert interview results and a quantitative survey of 300 early school leavers concluded that the risk for early school leaving occurs during the transition from lower to upper secondary (Aptauju centrs, 2015[13]), which is common across countries where compulsory education is until the end of lower secondary education. Regarding grade repetition, although the share of students having repeated a grade dropped by 15 percentage points between PISA 2009 and 2015, over 5% of children in rural schools repeated at least one grade in primary education compared to 1.6% of children in Riga (OECD, 2016[14]).
Source: Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (2018[15]), “NBG370. Early leavers from education and training aged 18-24 in urban and rural areas by sex (%)”, Centrālās statistickas pārvaldes datubāses (database), https://www.csb.gov.lv/en/statistics/statistics-by-theme/social-conditions/education/tables/nbg370/early-leavers-education-and-training-aged-18.
copy the linklink copied!Opportunities to improve Latvia’s performance
To strengthen the skills outcomes of students, this Chapter describes four opportunities for Latvia. This selection is based on input from literature, discussions with the national project co-ordinator, and discussions and remarks made by government and stakeholder representatives (participants) in a workshop and several meetings. The four key opportunities selected are:
-
1. Building capacity to improve the teaching workforce
-
2. Fostering continuous quality improvement from ECEC to secondary education
-
3. Improving equity between urban and rural areas
-
4. Strengthening vocational education and training (VET).
Opportunity 1: Building capacity to improve the teaching workforce
Teachers have been found to be the most important school-related factor explaining student outcomes (Schwartz, Wurtzel and Olson, 2007[16]). Any country aiming to keep its education system internationally competitive needs to recruit, retain, develop and nurture a high-quality teaching force. In its 2005 report, “Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers”, the OECD comprehensively reviewed teacher policies in 25 countries, and confirmed how prevalent the concern is across nations about the supply and quality of teachers (OECD, 2005[17]).
In Latvia, the teaching workforce is mostly female (100% in pre-primary, 93% in primary, and 83% in all secondary) and ageing. In primary and secondary, the average age of teachers increased by three years between 2010 and 2016, and 46% of teachers are over 50-years-old, while the OECD average is 34% (OECD, 2018[4]; OECD, 2019[18]). As the government is introducing a new competency-based curriculum in September 2019, starting with pre-school education, it will be key for Latvia to recruit and train the best candidates and upskill the existing teaching workforce to implement it successfully.
Attracting and selecting the best candidates to build a skilled pool of new teachers
Providing quality teaching in schools requires that motivated people with high-level knowledge and skills choose to become teachers. The teaching profession needs to be competitive with other occupations to attract talented people.
The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) is an international, large-scale survey of teachers, school leaders and the learning environment in schools. TALIS uses questionnaires administered to teachers and their school principals to gather data and generate internationally comparable information relevant to developing and implementing educational policies.
Compared to the TALIS average of 70%, almost 80% of lower secondary teachers in Latvia (strongly) disagree that the teaching profession is valued in Latvian society (OECD, 2014[19]), which implies that teaching is not considered as an attractive career choice. To select the best candidates, Latvia needs to start by designing appealing career prospects.
The salary scheme follows a flat wage structure that does not directly recognise seniority or teaching quality, despite low initial salaries. For each school, the state calculates a number of teacher workloads to determine its salary budget and allocates funds to the school. The head of the school then determines each teacher salary. The monthly salary can be increased by up to 50% of the lowest monthly salary rate referred to in the regulation. The head of the school evaluates the teacher’s work intensity and personal contribution to the development of the educational institution, and can thus reward for seniority. The State Audit Office has performed an audit of the implementation of the salary, bonus and premium system in schools in 2018 which indicates several inefficiencies.4
For instance, the starting salary of a primary education teacher in Latvia represents only 28% of the OECD average, and only 21% after 15 years of experience (OECD, 2017[20]). This can potentially trigger attrition, with teachers leaving the profession, as well as adverse selection, as potential teachers who think they would benefit from a higher wage growth in the private sector choose not to enter the teaching profession. The Latvian government started to address this issue by recognising teachers’ preparatory activities and raised the minimum hourly rate from EUR 5 in 2013 (EUR 420 per month/21 hours per week) to EUR 5.67 in 2016 (EUR 680 per month/30 hours per week) and to EUR 6.25 in 2019 (EUR 750 per month/30 hours per week – starting from 1 September 2019 (according to the wage increase schedule).
Part of this has been funded by a reduction in the teacher-student ratio in the classroom, as advised in a previous OECD report (OECD, 2014[6]). However, it would be interesting to measure how much the consolidation of the school network has generated efficiency gains, and how this process could further increase the competitiveness of teachers’ salaries. According to the indicative schedule of gradual increase in teachers’ salaries funding (accepted in January 2018), the optimisation of the school network should be prioritised to support such an increase.
The state provides teacher remuneration for compulsory and upper secondary education by allocating a budget to schools according to the “money follows the student” principle, which ties resources to pupil enrolment. In rural areas, where classes are smaller, teachers may have to teach in various schools as they struggle to reach a full workload.
On average, a primary education teacher with at least a bachelor’s degree earned 20% less than a traditional full-time worker with the same educational attainment in 2016 (OECD, 2018[4]). The MoES’s representatives underlined that this discourages the best students from considering the teaching profession. Diversifying careers by providing clear career paths (bridges towards management positions, mentors of other teachers, creation of specialised teachers, etc.) could also motivate teachers, encourage further growth and increase salaries as teachers take on different duties. This could help meet staffing needs, without taking teachers out of their classroom (OECD, 2016[8]).
Aside from raising the attractiveness of the profession with competitive salaries and designing motivating career paths, selecting the right candidates for the teaching profession is crucial to ensure the quality of education. Entrance examinations should filter candidates and secure skills match. In Latvia, however, there are still no selective criteria for entering initial teacher education or for hiring teachers.
Initial education and training plays a key role in ensuring the quality of teaching staff. Together with other factors, such as the image and status of teaching in society and the working conditions in education, requirements for entry into pre-service training influence the supply of prospective teachers, both in terms of quantity and quality. In 2018, the MoES started developing new concepts for teacher education. Universities are currently working on a new curriculum for initial teacher education programmes that includes standardised entrance criteria and final assessment requirements. The MoES has established a consultative council to supervise progress regarding the implementation of the projects and content related issues. However, the introduction of entrance examinations needs to be carefully balanced with the expected level of teacher salary: in a declining workforce context (OECD, 2019[21]), overly stringent hiring requirements may result in a teacher shortage.
Regardless of the quality of initial teacher education, it cannot be expected to prepare teachers for all the challenges they will face during their first regular employment as a teacher. A range of activities such as induction and mentoring programmes can smooth the transition, inspire potential applicants and contribute to attract the candidates most likely to blossom within the profession. In Latvia, however, only 12.3% of novice teachers are offered a formal induction programme, and only 16% have an assigned mentor, compared to 20% and 22%, respectively, across TALIS countries (OECD, 2019[18]).
Overall, the decline in student numbers associated with the ageing teaching workforce means that the school network must be reviewed and educational staff renewed. This provides a unique opportunity for Latvia to increase the value of the teaching profession in society by shaping a teaching profession that is attractive and selective, and that will therefore attract and retain the best and most suitable candidates.
National Gathering for the Teaching Profession: A bill to attract teachers in Sweden
According to the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), given current recruitment needs and future expected teacher certification, Sweden will experience a shortage of some 80 000 teachers in 2031. Moreover, according to an Attitudes’ Survey conducted by the Swedish National Agency for Education every three years, one in four teachers in Sweden have seriously considered changing profession and/or workplace, and feel stressed at school. To address these issues, the government introduced the National Gathering for the Teaching Profession (Government Bill 2014/15:1), which proposed:
-
A government programme to improve schools through a more attractive teaching profession, which provides suggestions on how to improve the working conditions of teachers and school leaders (e.g. removing administrative burdens).
-
National certification for teachers.
-
Government grants to improve career possibilities for teachers and to improve teachers’ salaries.
-
Alternative pathways to teaching, such as further training for people who work as teachers but do not have a teacher certificate, shortening initial teacher education and providing pedagogical training and financial support for people with a PhD in mathematics and science.
-
An information campaign called “Pass it on” to attract more people to the teaching profession and boost the status of the profession.
Source: Schleicher, A. (2018[22]), Valuing our Teachers and Raising their Status: How Communities Can Help, International Summit on the Teaching Profession, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264292697-en. Ministry of Finance (2015[23]), “Budgetpropositionen för 2015” [Budget bill for 2015], Stockholm, www.regeringen.se/rattsdokument/proposition/2014/10/prop.-2014151/.
Selecting teachers in Finland
Teacher education programmes in Finland are extremely selective as they recruit from the top quartile of upper secondary graduates. Applicants are assessed based on their upper secondary school record, their extra-curricular activities, and their score in the matriculation exam, which is taken at the end of upper secondary school. Applicants must also take an entrance exam, which is a take-home multiple-choice exam that assesses their ability to think critically and evaluate arguments in the education sciences. Having passed this first screening round, applicants are then observed in a teaching-like activity and interviewed; only candidates with a clear aptitude for teaching, in addition to strong academic performance, are admitted.
Source: National Center on Education and the Economy (2017[24]), Finland: Teacher and Principal Quality, http://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/finland-teacher-and-principal-quality/.
Recommendation for attracting and selecting the best candidates to build a skilled pool of new teachers
-
Fully Implement the review of teaching standards and ensure that they align with and promote the implementation of the new competency-based curriculum. Base selection for initial teacher education on a mix of criteria and methods. In line with the ambitions of the new competency-based school curriculum and the (to be redefined) teaching standards, teacher education institutions should explore and pilot more elaborate, well-rounded selection criteria and intake procedures that cover a mix of cognitive and socio-emotional skills.
Promoting a life cycle approach to professional development
For the ambitious transition towards a competency-based curriculum to bear fruit and strengthen students’ outcomes, a careful preparation of the teaching workforce is required. On one hand, initial teacher education needs to be aligned with the new curriculum requirements, on the other hand, the incumbent teaching workforce has to be updated on pedagogical practices and assessment methodology (OECD, 2013[25]).
Initial teacher education is currently being reviewed in Latvia to redefine the content and restructure study programmes, and develop competency-based approaches in teaching. Twenty-three different programmes of initial teacher education are currently being developed, and a supervisory council that includes social partners has been created to monitor how universities work together to develop common standards for study programmes. The structure of the new teacher training system will follow two training routes. The most common, called the concurrent model, is a professional bachelor’s degree programme lasting four years which provides a teaching qualification for a specific level of education (pre-primary, primary or secondary) and, for secondary school teachers, a specific subject area. The second route is a one-year study programme for those who already have a higher education degree, but no pedagogical education.
However, initial teacher education must not only provide sound basic training in subject-matter knowledge, pedagogy related to subjects and general pedagogical knowledge, it must also develop the skills for reflective practice and research on the job (OECD, 2005[17]). Skilled teachers can apply the newest research findings in their teaching and become the first line of researchers in their field. Scientific content and the advances of pedagogical research must enrich the curriculum of initial teacher education and teacher professional development (Sahlberg, 2011[26]). In Finland, teachers receive research-based orientation in pre-service teacher education, which makes them capable of designing school-based projects and of managing their own development in relation to school development (Niemi, 2015[27]).
Latvian researchers from Dynamic University (2016[28]) underline that a competence-based approach to learning is characterised by an emphasis on the use of knowledge, acquisition of skills, greater integration of curriculum content, independent pupil activity and a deeper understanding of topics. However, they observe that the excessive number of subjects, current objectives, content and form of testing currently hinder the full implementation of this approach in Latvia. The MoES plan to align the end of lower secondary and upper secondary assessments to the new curriculum represents an important start, but pedagogical methods and assessment practices also must be updated.
Sustained professional development will play a key role in the successful implementation of the new curriculum, particularly given the ageing workforce. In Latvia, professional development is mandatory, with teachers and school leaders required to undergo at least 36 hours of training every three years; however, the number of hours of training is low compared to many OECD countries. For instance, in Estonia, teachers have to complete 250 to 300 hours of professional development activities every six years for promotion or salary increases, and in Singapore, teachers are entitled to 100 hours per year for professional development (OECD, 2014[29]). These two countries have the highest indices of teacher professionalism5 among OECD countries participating in TALIS (OECD, 2016[30]). Despite the relatively low requirement for professional development in Latvia, teachers report, compared to their TALIS counterparts, an average need for professional development, and significantly lower barriers to participation (OECD, 2019[18]).
Once efforts have been made in raising the quality of teachers by improving the hiring, initial training, professional development and career structure, the MoES could explore the transition from a classical school model towards a “school as learning organisation” paradigm. A growing body of research evidence has shown that schools operating as learning organisations can react more quickly to changing external environments and embrace changes and innovations in their internal organisation. The evidence furthermore shows a positive relationship between the development of a school as a learning organisation and a range of staff outcomes, such as job satisfaction, self-efficacy, readiness for change and experimentation. Schools working as learning organisations create a conducive context for exchange among staff members and promote continuous improvement (Kools and Stoll, 2016[31]).
The MoES could also consider the establishment of a specific body to foster the continuous professional development of teachers. In Ireland, the creation of the Teaching Council in 2004 was an opportunity to increase the morale and status of the profession, and to enhance the teaching profession’s preparedness for the challenges ahead (Coolahan, 2003[32]). The Teaching Council gives the teaching profession in Ireland a considerable degree of control over entry to teaching and over all facets of teacher education. For instance, it advises the minister in relation to teachers’ continuous professional development, promotes engagement in professional development (including induction and mentoring), and conducts research and raises awareness of the benefits of teachers’ learning, among the public and teaching profession alike (Teaching Council Ireland, 2019[33]). When traditional training providers are slow to adapt or reluctant to innovate beyond their teaching and research mandate, a specific body, such as the Teaching Council, can help to more efficiently tackle the specific challenges faced by the teaching profession.
Overall, curriculum reform in Latvia will require a change in teaching and pedagogical approaches, which should not be overlooked by teachers or the MoES. The challenge will be to build the capacity needed to deliver the intentions of the curriculum in the classroom. This will involve teachers being motivated to update their skills and knowledge and to invest significantly in continuous professional development to equip them with the adequate competences. In the long-term term, adopting a more holistic approach that views the school as a learning organisation would strengthen a life cycle approach to professional development.
Project SO 8.3.1 “The competency approach in education curriculum” in Latvia
The goal of this project is to develop, pilot and gradually implement a competency-based curriculum in general education – pre-primary, basic and general secondary education. To reach this goal the project intends to implement a set of activities:
-
Develop and pilot the curriculum content and subject programmes; develop teaching, learning and methodological materials and diagnostic tools; and develop learning materials for children and young people with special needs.
-
Implement professional development activities for teachers; facilitate exchange of experience and organise support activities for the implementation of the new curriculum, including training of teachers’ teams from 100 pilot schools; provide training for all heads of pre-primary, general and vocational education institutions and their deputies; encourage dissemination of good practice by organising seminars and conferences; create a platform for digital learning resources and develop free-access e-learning modules for educators to support their teaching.
-
Create a favourable environment for curriculum implementation by explaining the objectives and methods of the competence approach and by involving education policy makers, local governments and universities in achieving the project goals.
To increase the number of teachers trained for the implementation of new teaching approaches, amendments to the project were introduced in spring 2018. These foresee funding for training an additional 2 450 teachers, including 50 teachers who will be trained as trainers.
Source: Ministry of Education and Science information.
Collaborative learning and working through networks – example from Austria
Schools as Learning Organisation is a central feature of the Austrian New Secondary School reform. The reform started as a relatively small-scale project in 2008, and it has since been a mandated school reform. Central to the reform is the creation of a new leadership position at the school level, the Lerndesigner, a teacher-leader who together with the school's principal and other teacher-leaders (subject co-ordinators, school development teams, etc.) serve as change agents in their schools, driven by the principle of school-specific reform and focused on the national goals of equity and excellence.
The reform strategy lies in qualifying teachers to become teacher-leaders, thereby enabling them and their schools to realise effective shared leadership. Much effort is therefore placed on building social and leadership capital through networking events, which play a central role in the reform, as they provide the venue for learning, peer learning and dissemination of good practice. A specially designed two-year national accredited qualification programme for Lerndesigners and an online platform for sharing ideas and practices form an integrated part of the reform's continuous professional development and leadership development efforts. Responding to the need to connect Lerndesigners, virtual Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) have been in a prototyping phase since the school year 2013/14 and are now being implemented as common practice. The rationale for creating and qualifying and networking change agents was clear, and focused: transformation at all levels occurs when change agents are networked and establish communities of practice.
Source: OECD (2015[34]), Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems, Educational Research and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914-en.
The Teaching Council in Ireland
The Teaching Council was established in Ireland in 2004 and has wide-ranging responsibilities on entry standards, training courses, in-service education, research and professional conduct. It advises the Ministry of Education and Skills on professional standards and entry requirements, and guarantees these standards are upheld, for instance by accrediting initial education programmes, regulating the induction process and contributing to the development of continuous professional development. The Council also oversees teacher registration and the Fitness to Teach process, whereby it investigates complaints about registered teachers. The Council is comprised of 37 members: 11 primary teachers, 11 post-primary teachers, 2 nominated by colleagues of education, 2 nominated by specific third-level bodies, 4 nominated by school management (two primary and two post-primary), 2 nominated by parent associations (one primary and one post-primary), and 5 nominated by the minister.
Source: Teaching Council Ireland (2019[33]), Role of the Teaching Council, www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/About-Us1/Role-of-the-Teaching-Council-/.
Recommendations for promoting a life cycle approach to professional development
-
Consider establishing a separate body to raise the quality of teachers and promote the teaching profession. The scope of action of such a body could extend from defining teaching standards and selection criteria into the teaching profession, to programme accreditation, continuous professional development and career paths. In the short term this body could identify which competences the incumbent teaching workforce is lacking for the successful implementation of the new curriculum and ensure adequate professional development is provided. In the long term it could sustain the continuous improvement of the teaching profession.
-
Develop schools as learning organisations in the long-term to empower teachers to put the curriculum into practice. In such schools, teachers, support staff and school leaders benefit from career-long development that is based on research and effective collaboration. This involves moving away from the current model of delivering professional development through courses away from the school setting towards a more collaborative, practitioner-led experience which is embedded in classroom practice. It also involves reviewing the role and selection of school leaders, as strong pedagogical leadership is pivotal in transforming schools as learning organisations.
Opportunity 2: Fostering continuous quality improvement from ECEC to secondary education
Evaluation and assessment arrangements are key to improvement and accountability in school systems. Governments and education policy makers are increasingly focused on the evaluation and assessment of students, teachers, school leaders, schools and education systems. These assessments are used as tools to better understand how well students are learning, to provide information to parents and society at large about educational performance, and to improve the school, school leadership and teaching practices (OECD, 2013[25]). Latvia is currently reviewing these arrangements to complete the existing framework and align it to the new curriculum requirements.
Reviewing the appraisal system
Teacher and school leader appraisal refers to the evaluation of educational staff in order to make a judgement and/or provide feedback on their competencies and performance. It typically aims to support professional development and/or career advancement, and can also serve to hold teachers and school leaders accountable for their practice.
Due to the increasing complexity of roles, it is crucial to provide adequate feedback and support for all educational staff to continuously develop their skills. In this context, the definition of what constitutes good teaching and leadership, as well as the appraisal of practices in relation to agreed standards of good practice, are crucial elements in developing effective teaching and leadership for the 21st century.
In Latvia, new basic education standards were approved by the government in 2018 and secondary education standards were approved in 2019. However, there are no national standards for ECEC teachers and school leaders to inspire, assess and guide staff in their professional development. Research shows that education systems benefit from clear and concise profiles of what educational staff are expected to know and be able to do in specific subject areas (OECD, 2013[35]).
Since 2017 school leaders are evaluated every six years during the school re-accreditation process by the State Education Quality Service (SEQS), but municipalities evaluate them more frequently to inform decisions on performance and salary allowance.
Latvian law specifies that it is the responsibility of the school leader to organise yearly teacher appraisals; however, there is no specific rule on how they should be done or on how they inform teacher professional development. Moreover, the Assessment System of Teacher Performance, implemented in 2009, is designed as a performance-based pay system, rather than being geared towards supporting teacher development. As part of this system teachers are assessed in five key areas6 and receive a grade from one to five that determines their financial reward as a percentage of the monthly minimum salary (OECD, 2016[8]). In 2017, the MoES introduced a new teacher evaluation model that reduced the number of quality levels from five to three and simplified the process of evaluation. The most important criteria for assessing the quality of teachers’ work is their daily work in the classroom, their co-operation skills and the learning outcomes of their pupils. The quality level can be awarded to a teacher for one, two or three years and is valid only in the education institution where the teacher has been assessed. The assessment is voluntary and the teacher can choose the quality level to which he or she applies.
Due to the upcoming transition to a competency-based curriculum, appraisals should be seen as an opportunity to align teachers’ competence with the new teaching requirements. Embedding professional development in the evaluation and assessment framework can align needs in professional development with school self-improvement, as long as appraisal guidelines closely reflect the ambition of the new curriculum in terms of pedagogical methods. In light of the curriculum transition, the low professional development requirements could be revised both for teachers and school leaders, and the extent to which the rule of 36 hours of training every three years is enforced by school leaders, founders and the SEQS could be explored.
Using appraisal results for performance review and professional development in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Northern Ireland established a performance review and staff development (PRSD) scheme in 2005, which is a systematic process to support all principals, vice principals and teachers with their professional development and career planning. The components of the review process include three stages: planning, monitoring and reviewing.
The PRSD is closely linked to the school’s strategic plan for improvement, known as the school development plan (SDP). The SDP brings together the school’s priorities, the main measures it will take to raise standards, the resources dedicated to these, and the key outcomes and targets it intends to achieve. It sets out the overall “roadmap” for the three years ahead, with a focus on the school’s key priorities and action plans.
It is the duty of each school’s board of governors to ensure that the training and development needs identified through the PRSD are reflected in the SDP, and that corresponding opportunities for professional development are made available to all teaching staff.
Source: OECD (2013[25]), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
Recommendation for reviewing the appraisal system
-
Develop occupational standards for school leaders and ECEC support staff, and ensure that developed standards are aligned with the new curriculum. Develop national guidelines for appraisal, and link it to teachers’ professional development to initiate a life cycle approach to professional development, rather than a mere performance-based pay system.
Strengthening school evaluation
The effective monitoring and evaluation of schools is central to the continuous improvement of student learning: schools need feedback on their performance to help them identify how to improve their practices, and schools should be accountable for their performance (OECD, 2013[25]).
In Latvia, national regulations determine the structure of school self-evaluation at primary and secondary education levels, but each school chooses its method. Self-evaluation has to be conducted every year, include an indicator relative to teacher’s professional development, and be published on the school’s or the founder’s website for transparency. However, the relative quality of school self-evaluation, and to what extent this process feeds into the school development plan, is not clear. In addition, evidence suggests that founders may not have the capacity to follow-up with their schools effectively once accreditation has been granted (OECD, 2016[8]).
External evaluation and accreditation are the legal responsibilities of the SEQS and are carried out by trained evaluators who represent key stakeholders, including experienced and recognised educational experts and leaders from other schools. This expert commission considers multiple sources of evidence, such as the school’s self-evaluation report, classroom observations, documentation and surveys. It uses 19 quality criteria grouped under the following 7 key areas: curriculum; teaching and learning; attainment; support for students; ethos; resources; and management, leadership and quality assurance.
External evaluation is a high-stakes event as a school can lose its accreditation and the ability to deliver a state-recognised document upon completion of an education programme. It happens at least every six years and can provide the opportunity to benefit from the constructive criticism of the trained evaluators. The system is currently being reviewed by the SEQS.
In terms of teacher appraisal, policy coherence is key, and it will be important to consider how the new school evaluation process will form an integrated part of the larger assessment and evaluation framework. The revision of the system also needs to take into account a broader framework that includes the requirements of the new curriculum to be implemented. It is important to explore how the SEQS is engaging with other services and agencies, in particular with the Ministry of Regional Development, to ensure that policy is consistent in terms of school consolidation and territorial reform. In addition, the evaluation framework is mostly qualitative, and it should be considered whether quantitative information should also be included in school evaluation. In this regard, a new evaluation framework that includes quantitative information is currently being developed.
The Guidelines for Pre-primary Education regulate the activities of pre-primary educational institutions and apply to any institution that develops and implements pre-primary educational programmes. These programmes have to be licensed, but institutions do not need to undergo a process of accreditation, which means that the quality of the pre-primary educational institutions is not strictly monitored. A complaint from a parent or another state institution can initiate an external evaluation by the SEQS, but full responsibility for the quality of these institutions has been given to the municipalities. This raises concerns regarding the capacity of different municipalities to monitor, evaluate and manage their institutions (OECD, 2016[8]). An evaluation of the professional activities of heads of educational institutions, initiated in 2018, provides an insight into the quality of pre-primary educational institution activities. However, according to stakeholders met during bilateral meetings of the OECD Secretariat visit, these evaluation activities are relatively superficial, and seldom lead to school improvement processes.
Self-review at the heart of school evaluation in New Zealand
The Education Review Office (ERO), the external review body in New Zealand, aims to place school self-review at the core of the school evaluation process.
Schools are increasingly seen as responsible for providing their own accountability information, with the ERO guiding schools towards continuous improvement. It does not prescribe methods for self-review, but provide tools and offers professional development services. For instance, in guidance documents, school self-review is conceived as a rigorous process in which schools systematically evaluate their practice using indicators as a framework for inquiry and employing a repertoire of analytical and formative tools. Self-review is promoted as something embedded in teachers’ thinking and practice.
The whole system relies on the trust relationship developed between schools and the ERO. Workshops disseminate good practice, reassure school staff and equip them with self-evaluation tools. They have served to demystify self-review and external review, and clarify the links between them.
Source: OECD (2013[25]), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
Recommendations for strengthening school evaluation
-
Consider strengthening the role of the SEQS to support low-capacity education institutions and municipalities so that all education institutions have the capacity to lead and appropriately use meaningful self-evaluation, and so that founders have the capacity to reflect on the school improvement plan. This can take the form of toolkits framing self-evaluation distributed to education institutions, or advisory teams visiting the municipality in needs.
-
Establish a procedure for assessing the quality of education for the pre-primary education institutions, in line with the accreditation process for primary and secondary schools, to ensure the quality of education at all education levels across the country. Devolve the responsibility for external evaluation to a central agency, such as the SEQS.
-
Foster greater policy coherence by embedding school evaluation and external evaluation within a broader evaluation and assessment framework that supports the introduction of the new curriculum.
Strengthening system level monitoring
Due to the increased emphasis on evidence-based policy making, the effective monitoring and evaluation of the education system is central to informing policy planning for improvement. In particular, system evaluation can provide timely and valuable information to monitor quality within the education system and to help focus stakeholders on the major goals and challenges in the education system as a whole.
The absence of a national assessment instrument to monitor child development and ECEC quality raises concern, as the literature has largely documented that benefits from ECEC are conditional on quality (OECD, 2011[36]). It can be questioned why the control on ECEC institutions is so loose once they have obtained their license, and why a national agency, such as the SEQS, has not been charged with the external evaluation of ECEC institutions.
The previous review of the Latvian education system suggested adapting the Early Development Index (EDI) originally developed in Ontario, Canada. Such a tool should reflect cultural and societal needs and match the country’s specific context. The EDI typically measures five areas: 1) physical health and well-being; 2) social competence; 3) emotional maturity; 4) language and cognitive skills (school-based); and 5) communication skills and general knowledge. Data are not reported at the child or class level, which means they are not used as a diagnostic tool for individual children or to assess their school readiness. However, the results of the EDI do allow local authorities, communities or providers to assess how local children are developing relative to other children (OECD, 2016[8]).
The Latvian State Education Information System (VIIS) gathers information on educational institutions at all levels regarding accreditations, educational programmes, student enrolment and completion rates, etc. It produces the Latvian official statistics on educational institutions and is updated by the SEQS and educational institutions. The VIIS provides school founders and the SEQS with quantitative data to evaluate the quality of education. It also serves as an input for school external evaluation, as the SEQS reviews school accreditation based on the aforementioned criteria and data from VIIS, such as the professional development undertaken by educational staff, the attendance of students and the number of early leavers. However, there is no centralised monitoring mechanism that could help determine educational institutions with low student learning outcomes before the regular six-year reaccreditation process, and thus trigger an external evaluation by the SEQS.
A previous OECD review questioned the quality of the data centralised in the system (OECD, 2016[8]), and it would be interesting to know what processes have been implemented to improve the reliability of these data. Furthermore, the review underlined the need to enrich existing datasets with contextual information and develop a systematic tracking of students. Complementary information, such as the socio-economic background of students, can help design more effective and equitable policies, while information on students’ path and performance can help to identify potential learning difficulties early on and be a powerful means of reducing drop-out numbers. The VIIS is currently being updated by strengthening its system alignment with other information systems and databases, and intensifying data exchange, for example with the State Revenue Service, to improve the tracking of students.
The VIIS should be integral to comprehensive quality monitoring that enables the systemic analysis of problematic issues; it should also be an input for national research to spread good practice and ground policy initiatives on sound evidence. Such a system is expected to be implemented in 2023, and the OECD considers that a clear implementation strategy should already be set out and communicated to relevant stakeholders, along with ensuring that sufficient capacity exists at the state government level to lead data analysis and inform the design of evidence-based education policy.
Development of the Education Quality Monitoring System by 2023 (funded by the European Social Fund, ESF) in Latvia
The ESF project on developing the monitoring of education quality began in 2018. The following steps are to be undertaken by 2023:
-
Develop a description of the monitoring system and develop and validate prototypes of education quality monitoring tools.
-
Establish a national research programme in education and, within the dedicated funding, implement studies that will allow an in-depth analysis of the different challenges regarding quality of education, as well as the reasons behind these challenges.
-
Simultaneously carry out strategic communication and a set of training activities aimed at educating, informing and strengthening the analytical capacity of the education experts in the ministry and involved stakeholders.
Source: Ministry of Education and Science information.
The development of indicator frameworks for system evaluation in Australia
A core strength of system evaluation in Australia is the existence of clear standard frameworks both for reporting key performance measures and for general government sector reporting. A common measurement framework including national key performance measures was constituted in 2000 and has been reviewed every three years since 2012 by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. The framework includes “a set of measures limited in number and strategic in orientation, which provides nationally comparable data on aspects of performance critical to monitoring progress against the National Goals for Schooling in the 21st Century”. This framework clearly presents the agreed measures and their source for each of the identified strategic priority areas.
Source: OECD (2013[25]), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
Recommendations for strengthening system level monitoring
-
Develop a common assessment tool to monitor child development and ensure pre-primary education quality. This instrument could support the external evaluation of pre-primary education institutions and inform the MoES regarding early childhood policies.
-
Develop a set of indicators that could flag education institutions in need of support, including low performing education institutions, and trigger an external school evaluation from the SEQS before the normal six-year evaluation cycle. This set of indicators should be defined collaboratively, according to performance and quality of education delivery criteria, in light of the school consolidation process.
-
Finalise and implement a comprehensive monitoring system that ensures alignment between the different evaluation arrangements (teacher appraisal, school evaluation, system level monitoring). Incorporate the systematic use of the VIIS as an input for research to spread best practice and ground policy initiatives on scientific evidence.
Opportunity 3: Improving equity between urban and rural areas
Latvia is a highly decentralised country. There are 110 local governments (novadi) and 9 large “republican cities” (republikas pilsētas) with their own council and administration. Each of these 119 municipalities has significant responsibility and autonomy for public service delivery. They vary considerably in size, ranging from Riga, with about 641 423 residents, to the municipality (novads) of Baltinava with about 1 000 residents. The current administrative structure is the result of a territorial reform in 2009 whereby the number of municipalities was reduced from over 500 through amalgamation (OECD, 2016[8]).
The education challenge for Latvia consists of ensuring equity across a varied country. Equity in education means that schools and education systems provide equal learning opportunities to all students (OECD, 2018[11]). Equity does not mean that all students obtain equal education outcomes, but rather that differences in student outcomes are unrelated to their background, location or to other economic and social circumstances over which they have no control.
Latvia’s education system shows a mixed picture in terms of equity. On the one hand, the compulsory education system is relatively inclusive, for example, the impact of socio-economic factors on student performance is below the OECD average. On the other hand, there are wide regional disparities in student outcomes. Latvian students in rural schools have on average lower skills and are less likely to continue further studies. Rural schools face many challenges, including attracting the most talented teachers and preventing drop-out. Furthermore, the declining student population puts pressure on rural schools to remain efficient with low student numbers.
Reviewing the school consolidation process
The funding system for primary and secondary education changed in 2009/2012 when it began to tie resources to pupil enrolment (the “money follows the student” principle). This reform resulted in a rationalisation of the school network and stimulated small (rural) schools to be consolidated in larger schools. However, as a result of the territorial reform in 2009, the governance of the school network became more fragmented. As explained in Chapter 5, the resources of municipalities are linked to their own tax capacity, which varies greatly across Latvia, and a persistent decline in pupil enrolment due to demographic change creates further financial pressure on municipalities, and hence schools. In 2017, an independent study commissioned by the MoES, “Creation of an optimal model of the network of general education institutions”, was conducted to develop an optimal network of general secondary education institutions. The number of education institutions that form a network differs between municipalities, depending on the size and number of inhabitants in the municipality.
However, there are still small schools that are not being closed because the decision to close an education institution belongs to the municipality – the founder. The average rural secondary school in Latvia has 146 students, less than half the OECD average of 369 (OECD, 2016[14]). Research suggests that small low-performing schools should be closed, especially in rural areas where they are maintained as community centres at the expense of the quality of children’s education (Turlajs, 2017[37]). One way to support founders in their decision to close small low performing schools would be to develop at the national level a set of objectives, transparent criteria, for decisions around consolidating schools. This would strengthen the founder's responsibility in establishing and operating an efficient school network, by alleviating the political pressure on school founders. Freed-up resources following the consolidation of the school network should be invested in improving transportation for students.
Currently, the school founder is expected to evaluate the maintenance of the school network. In municipalities with few students where the salary fund for teaching staff and “support staff”, including school librarians, school psychologists, speech therapists, career counsellors, special education teachers, is low due to the “money follows the student” principle, teaching staff salaries are prioritised in order to meet curriculum objectives. This means that smaller schools lack the support staff who can help increase student success and prevent drop-out due to issues such as bullying, dyslexia and a lack of motivating career objectives.
While the new funding system aims to promote consolidation and efficiency, the inability of local governments to pay could translate into unequal access and quality of education at the local level (Terauda, Reetz and Jahn, 2014[38]). According to PISA, socio-economic background in Latvia does not fully explain disparities between urban and rural areas (Figure 2.3). Krasnopjorovs (2017[39]) finds that these disparities disappear when controlling for school size, teacher wage and teacher age, suggesting they are important explanatory variables as well.
After graduating, teachers are free to choose where they want to work, which makes it difficult for schools in small rural municipalities to attract young talented teachers due to their limited financial means. In PISA 2015, rural school principals in Latvia reported fewer science related resources and fewer qualified science teachers, meaning that rural schools have a lower share of teachers with a tertiary qualification (OECD, 2016[14]). Stakeholders also mentioned that the best students would leave rural schools for urban schools, thus worsening the performance gap between rural and urban schools and depriving rural schools from role models and positive peer effect. This is most common when children transition from primary education, which has to be provided close to the child’s residence, to lower or upper secondary education.
Many OECD countries have implemented financial incentive packages to reduce teaching quality heterogeneity. Salary increases and other types of financial additional payments are often cited as factors for ameliorating unattractive working conditions in disadvantaged schools. For example, many countries provide substantial salary allowances for teaching in difficult areas, transportation assistance to reach remote areas, or additional payments for specialised skills to help ensure all schools are staffed with teachers of similar quality. In Estonia, for instance, new teachers are offered a one-off allowance of more than EUR 12 750, paid in three instalments during the first three years of teaching, to encourage them to work in small towns and rural areas (OECD, 2014[40]).
The importance of professional development for all Latvian teachers has been highlighted in the section Opportunity 1: Building capacity to improve the teaching workforce. According to PISA, science teachers’ participation in professional development activities is not statistically different between urban and rural, or advantaged and disadvantaged areas (OECD, 2016[14]). However, data on the quality of professional development would provide information on the homogeneity of teacher’s support and growth opportunities across the territory.
The state subsidises several professional development activities through the annual state budget programme, and within the framework of ESF projects. Professional development is also funded by highly heterogeneous municipalities, whereas requirements in terms of qualifications and professional development for teachers are equal across Latvia. However, stakeholders reported that access to professional development activities is unequal across Latvia, and that if a municipality does not provide funding it is the responsibility of teachers to undertake and fund their own professional development to meet the requirement of hours/years.
Developing a school map in Latvia
The MoES commissioned an independent study in 2017 to create a geospatial planning platform mapping the different networks of general education institutions. The goal of the project is to develop an optimal network of general secondary education institutions.
The study was developed on the basis of data on pupil numbers, demographic and migration trends and forecasts in municipalities, access to educational institutions, the socio-economic situation of municipalities, and quality indicators of educational institutions. The geospatial planning platform, named School Map, was published in July 2017.
In 2018, data on School Map was updated to provide information on three school years. The results of the mapping are used for further negotiations with municipalities on the improvement of the network of general education institutions.
Source: Turlajs (2017[37]), Creation of An Optimal Model of the Network of General Education Institutions, https://izm.gov.lv/images/jaunatne/Optimala-visparejas-izglitibas-iestazu-tikla-modela-izveide-Latvija.pdf.
Reconciling incentives for network efficiency with funding for small schools in Estonia
Over half of all Estonian municipalities only operate one school, many of which are small in size. Since the Estonian government is committed to providing primary education close where students live, the formula used to allocate education salary grants to local governments is primarily designed to encourage consolidation at the lower secondary level (years 7-9). Municipalities that close lower secondary schools continue to receive funding for these students for multiple years, while the municipality that takes them on also immediately receives whichever level of funding was assigned to them prior to the consolidation.
Support for consolidation at the upper secondary level is supported through direct investment grants. Local governments that reduce their number of upper secondary schools are eligible for special investment grants, and the national government fully covers the cost of transportation for students who decide to commute to one of the newly constructed state-run gymnasiums.
In addition, to provide local governments with greater long-term financial security when planning the reorganisation of their school networks, the coefficients used to allocate both salary and equalisation grants were fixed in 2015 and are no longer subject to annual changes.
Source: Santiago et. al. (2016[41]), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Estonia 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251731-en.
Recommendations for reviewing the school consolidation process
-
At the national level, define a set of transparent quantitative and qualitative criteria for decisions-making around consolidating schools, in order to strengthen the founder's responsibility in establishing and operating an efficient school network. This would alleviate the political pressure on school founders, and could support the school consolidation process to move forward with certain quality criteria. To establish an efficient network and compensate the closure of schools, the state, in co-operation with municipalities, should develop effective student transportation systems.
-
Consider designing incentives to motivate highly competent teachers to teach in rural areas. These could be financial incentives set by an external evaluation body like the SEQS.
Ensuring equal access to quality ECEC
During the last two decades, Latvia made good progress in expanding ECEC services (OECD, 2016[8]). In 2016, 95.5% of children from the age of 4 up to mandatory school age were involved in pre-primary education. On average, children spend 3.9 years in ECEC in Latvia, which is above the OECD average of 3 years.
However, as in Poland, Finland and Estonia, geographical location is a significant factor in the number of years a child attends ECEC in Latvia. A child living rurally will, on average, attend ECEC for six months less than a child living in an urban area, which is more than double the OECD average (OECD, 2016[14]).
Lower ECEC coverage in rural areas can be related to a number of factors on the supply and demand sides, such as provision at reasonable distance and cost, and occupational patterns and family structures (Echazarra and Radinger, 2019[12]). According to the MoES, lower attendance in rural area is linked to lower demand from families, which may be due to contextual factors and parent choice, traditions and opportunities of employability, rather than a supply shortage. Rural pre-primary education institutions struggle to enrol children due to outward migration flows to cities.
Access to ECEC from the age of 1.5 became a legal entitlement in 2011. In urban areas, especially Riga, this has translated into a shortage of public places and long waiting lists. Private providers rely on relatively high tuition fees, whereas in public institutions, parents only pay for their child’s meals and the learning materials used (pencils, crayons and paper). However, families registering their child in a private institution, while registered on a public waiting list, are subsidised by the local government up to the cost that a family would have to bear of a child in the public system (OECD, 2016[8]).
To support families restricted to enrolling their child in a private pre-primary school, and to allow municipalities to adjust ECEC supply in urban areas, the Latvian state government has established a temporary co-funding procedure. A pilot project, “Childcare support and child-minder service”, took place between 2013 and 2016. Within this project, the state government complemented the municipality’s subsidy for families enrolling their children in private ECEC institutions (OECD, 2016[8]).
However, with this kind of financial transfer there is a risk that the increase in subsidies is captured by private institutions inflating their fees to keep parental contribution constant. In addition developing new public facilities may not be desirable as the forecasted decline of the population may resorb the shortage issue in the near future, and the observed shortage of public places may be upward biased, since parents are likely to register on several public waiting lists to maximise their chance of a place at a public pre-primary school.
In order to increase equity in ECEC access and to raise the use of private institutions by those with low income, Latvia could consider introducing means-tested support from municipalities. Such a measure could reduce the discrepancy in cost between private and public institutions for low-income families, and free some space in the public sector.
Means-tested childcare support in Denmark
ECEC services are offered free to very poor families and at reduced rates to families on moderate incomes in Denmark. Fees are adjusted in line with household income up to threshold of just over DKK 500 000 (Danish kroner), roughly one-and-a-quarter times the average Danish wage. However, means tests on childcare support need to be designed carefully – targeting too sharply can leave parents on moderate incomes with little support and damage work incentives for parents on low earnings.
Denmark has one of the highest enrolment rates in ECEC across OECD countries, and one of the most equitable ECEC systems. Access to ECEC in Denmark neither depends on the disposable income of the household nor the mother’s education attainment. Moreover, low-income families spend roughly the same share of their disposable income on ECEC as high-income families.
Source: OECD (2016[42]), Who Uses Childcare? Background Brief on Inequalities in the Use of Formal Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Among Very Young Children, www.oecd.org/els/family/Who_uses_childcare-Backgrounder_inequalities_formal_ECEC.pdf.
Opportunity 4: Strengthening vocational education and training (VET)
Vocational education and training (VET) plays an essential role in preparing young people for work and responding to the skill needs of the labour market. Latvia estimates that demand for VET graduates will be higher than supply by 2035 (Ministry of Economics, 2018[43]).
In recent years, Latvia has undertaken several reforms to strengthen its VET system (Chapter 1), including a curriculum reform, the development of educational standards and qualifications, modular VET programmes, teacher training and closer co-operation with employers. It has also begun to develop a work-based learning framework based on the results of pilot projects. To respond to the declining population trend, the VET school network has been re-organised and vocational education competence centres (VECC) have been established. While these reforms are significant steps in the right direction, there remain important challenges in the VET system, such as the difficulty to attract candidates, and high drop-out rates (Ministry of Economics, 2018[43]).
Boosting vocational education take-up
Latvia has set a target for 2020 that aims for at least 50% of the total number of pupils pursuing upper secondary education to be studying in vocational secondary education programmes (Ministry of Education and Science, 2014[44]). After completing basic education (grades 1 to 9), most students in Latvia enter upper secondary education (grades 10 to 12) where they can choose between general education and vocational education. At the upper secondary vocational level (known as “vocational secondary education” in the Vocational Education Law) there are three types of programmes:
-
Two- to three-year programmes leading to a certificate of vocational education and a professional qualification (ISCED 3, EQF level 3) in a named occupation, but not granting access to tertiary education.
-
Four-year programmes leading to a diploma of vocational education which grants access to tertiary education and a professional qualification (ISCED 3, EQF level 4) in a named occupation.
-
Post-secondary education, which is primarily for 17-29 year-olds with or without a completed secondary education to help them acquire vocational skills (OECD, 2016[8]).
In the school year 2017/2018, about 39% of students entered vocational programmes after completing basic education, while 61% entered upper secondary general education (Table 2.1). These proportions have not evolved over the recent years despite efforts to make vocational education more attractive (curriculum reform, modular VET programmes, development of a work-based learning framework, etc.). Consequently, first-time graduation rates below age 25 are significantly higher in general programmes than in vocational programmes (Figure 0.7). Only 22% of students graduate from vocational programmes before the age of 25, compared to 31% on average across OECD countries.
Note: Countries are ranked by ascending percentage of students in vocational programmes. EU22 includes Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Source: OECD (2018[4]), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, Figure B3.3, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
The vocational education system as a whole, as evident from various sources, suffers from a lack of prestige (Cabinet of Ministers, 2009[45]). In Latvian society, vocational schools are considered a second best choice for education, designed for those who cannot study in general secondary education or those who do not consider further studies at the tertiary level. According to results from the 2011 Eurobarometer Survey, only 63% of respondents in Latvia perceived VET to provide “high-quality learning”, the second lowest value among EU-27 countries7 (European Commission, 2011[46]; OECD, 2015[47]). This generalised feeling is partly linked to a polarised system, where vocational and general education institutions are clearly distinct, and where students mistakenly believe that secondary vocational education graduates cannot directly access tertiary education. In fact, the majority of secondary VET programmes currently provide a general upper secondary curriculum component that allows students to continue studies at the tertiary level (OECD, 2016[8]).
Accordingly, the attractiveness of vocational education was set as one of the policy priorities for education in the education development guidelines (Cedefop, 2015[48]). In 2009, the Cabinet of Ministers launched a strategy to make vocational education more attractive and to involve social partners more actively.8 This included the creation of 14 sectoral qualification frameworks, the introduction of modular VET programmes and the revision of assessment practices. In 2015, planning began for another round of major reforms, due to take place from 2017-18, that included the development of work-based learning and the further modularisation of programmes. Unfortunately, these measures were not fully rolled out when the 2016 Cedefop survey revealed that over two-thirds (64%) of Latvians tend to agree that general education has a more positive image than VET (Daija, Krastina and Rutkovska, 2018[49]). However, the effect of these reforms will be more tangible in the medium term, as substantial mindset change takes time. Representatives of the MoES have already indicated some positive developments that have been witnessed during discussions with students, teachers and parents in terms of positive changes in the perception of the VET track.
One way to improve VET take-up is to set up efficient career guidance and counselling. Young people, their parents, teachers and other intermediaries often demonstrate insufficient information or poor understanding of some options, and in particular those related to VET, and their potential to support young people into ultimate employment. As young people stay in education and training longer, VET opportunities are often overlooked, despite providing tangible employment opportunities (Musset and Mytna Kurekova, 2018[50]).
Career guidance and advisers in Scotland
Scotland has a well-developed and comprehensive system of career guidance. The Scottish Government funds a national public body, Skills Development Scotland (SDS), to deliver work-based learning; engage employers in learning; and deliver independent and impartial career information, advice and guidance (CIAG). The end goal is to help Scotland’s population create and implement their own personal plans in an increasingly complex and fluid world of work.
The all-age CIAG service is delivered in schools and via a network of local high street centres and local partnership and outreach premises. The skills planning model used by SDS provides career practitioners with the most recent available labour market intelligence in an easily accessible format. Practitioners also have up-to-date information on the full range of routes and pathways that can be taken into those careers, including options for work-based learning.
Scotland recognises that “career guidance is a distinct, defined and specialist profession which demands a unique set of core skills and expects all career guidance practitioners to be professionally qualified” and fulfil a minimum of 21 hours of continuous professional development annually.
Source: Musset, A. and M. Kurekova (2018[50]), “Working it out: Career guidance and employer engagement”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 175, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/51c9d18d-en.
Reducing the drop-out rates of VET students
High drop-out rates have many costs to individuals and society as a whole (Andrei, Teodorescu and Oancea, 2011[51]). In the school year 2017/2018, around 7.5% of students dropped out from upper secondary education, and 19% from upper secondary vocational education (Ministry of Economics, 2018[43]). According to stakeholders, students usually drop out either during the first semester of the first year and go back to general education, or during the last semester of the last year because they have found a job.
In 2017, 70% of 25-34 year-olds without upper secondary education were employed in Latvia (OECD average 59%) compared to 79% of younger adults with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (OECD average 77%). This would indicate that the employment disadvantage of not having an upper secondary qualification is lower in Latvia than on average across OECD countries (OECD, 2018[4]), potentially due to the economy facing a severe shortage of workers, and could explain the high drop-out rate of VET students.
The education drop-out rate is, on average, higher in rural areas. In Latvia as a whole the drop-out rate reached 8.3% in 2018, broken down into 11.4% of men and 5% of women between 18 and 24 years-old. In rural areas, the overall share was 11.3%, broken down into 13.8% of men and 8.3% of women (Eurostat, 2018[52]). A first step for Latvia would be to collect data on the reason for drop-outs so that it can better target its policy response.
A literature review on drop-out in vocational education, led by Cerda-Navarro et al. (2017[53]), identifies the need to update teachers’ skills in order to improve their abilities in teaching and communicating. This could help teachers better understand the cultural and linguistic diversity of students and how diversity relates to drop-out, as well as improve communication between teachers, students and families. Taş et al. (2013[54]) highlight the benefit of creating drop-out commissions, or workgroups, for reducing absenteeism and promoting student attendance. Such groups should involve various stakeholders (teachers, families, communities, counsellors, staff management, etc.) and promote collaboration to prevent drop-out.
From a monitoring perspective, the establishment of evaluation systems for the identification of students at risk can allow intervention to take place earlier, can better attend to students’ needs and provide adequate guidance, and can prevent drop-out until the student acquires a certain qualification level. Fanoiki (2014[55]) proposes the development of early warning indicators that provide educational staff with timely information. Diamond (2007[56]) also recommends enriching databases with students’ academic and family backgrounds; developing questionnaires for newly enrolled or transferred students from other centres; and organising individualised qualitative monitoring, such as follow-up interviews, meetings with parents, etc.
Latvia has already initiated several general policy initiatives to reduce drop-out rates, such as the Youth Guarantee Programme, launched in 2014, that targets young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) aged 15-29 years. Taking into account the specific rural context that seemingly leads to higher drop-out rates, local authorities, and initiatives such as the Youth Guarantee Programme, should build on the innovations and specificities of the VET system (modular programmes, work-based learning, etc.) to motivate and re-enrol general and VET students who have dropped out, while monitoring student performance to identify early on the students at risk, and take the appropriate measures.
SO 8.3.4. of The Guidelines for the Development of Education 2014-2020 “To reduce early school leaving by implementing preventive and intervention measures” in Latvia
The SO 8.3.4 project, which aims to reduce early school leaving, has initiated implementation of the following measures:
-
1. Individual aid (consultations, support for catering, transport, accommodation).
-
2. Institutional activities (teacher training, programmes for reducing early school leaving, supervision for teachers) in:
-
General education – 5th-12th grade students.
-
Vocational education – 1st-4th year students at risk of early school leaving.
-
In total, 665 schools were involved in the project, reaching around 12 000 students every year. The project cost EUR 37.5 million and received ESF co-funding of EUR 32 million.
Source: Ministry of Education and Science information.
The “Blits on drop-outs” programme in the Netherlands
In 2002, the Dutch government committed to halve the number of school drop-outs within 10 years. The government provided local authorities with some good-practice examples developed by Dutch local communities and a series of guidelines to tackle the problem. The main lines of action specified by the central level of government included:
-
Tackle the problem at the source by increasing the number of bridging classes/summer schools and improving support advisory teams in secondary vocational education.
-
Strengthen support for pupils with special needs at the start of secondary education so that they can continue to get the same intensive learning support they are offered in primary education.
-
Monitor school attendance, with the compulsory age of school attendance extended to include pupils under the age of 18 who do not have a basic qualification. At the same time, pupils will not be confined to the classroom, and combining education with work will be made possible.
-
More practical training at school, more practically oriented teaching and more work placements.
By 2012, the number of those dropping out had fallen from 70 000 to 28 000.
Source: OECD (2008[57]), Jobs for Youth/Des emplois pour les jeunes: Netherlands 2008, Jobs for Youth/Des emplois pour les jeunes, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264041295-en.
Recommendation for reducing the drop-out rates of VET students
-
Establish a VET graduate tracking system to improve the tracking of drop-outs. Provide incentives to local authorities to monitor students’ attendance more closely. More stringent requirements could help boost graduation rates. Enrich contextual information of vocational education students and define indicators that identify students at risk of dropping out in order to better attend to students’ needs and provide adequate guidance.
Improving the quality and labour market relevance of VET
The latest reforms in the VET system improved labour market relevance significantly. Employers mentioned that they value the new well-equipped infrastructure in VET schools, the shift from school-based learning to practical learning, and that they feel more involved in the VET system by having possibilities to give classes and to provide input for the VET curriculum through sectoral expert councils (SEC) (Nestere, 2018[58]).9 However, the VET system still heavily relies on funding from the ESF to support work-based learning and SEC activities.
The VET curriculum has been reformed to ensure that vocational education is of high quality and relevant to labour market needs in Latvia. Reforms began in 2010 and included the transformation of the whole VET system through a transition from subject-based curricula to learning outcomes-based curricula and a VET programme modularisation. Furthermore, Latvia introduced sectoral qualification frameworks in the context of upgrading its curriculum by 2022.
The first phase of the reforms (December 2010 – November 2015) focused on co-operation mechanisms and methodology development, as well as exploration of economic sector needs. During this period, comprehensive studies of economic sectors were carried out (2011-2012); 12 sectoral expert councils were established (2011-2012); 61 occupational standards and 19 qualification requirements were developed or improved (2012-2014); 56 modular VET programmes were developed (2014-2015); and 32 VET qualification exams were drafted of (2014-2015).
Reforms continued in December 2016 with the support of EU Structural Funds within the framework of the specific objective (SO) 8.5.2 project: “To ensure conformity of vocational education to European qualifications framework”. The project is co-funded by the ESF (EUR 11 million) and the Latvian state budget (EUR 1.9 million), and is to be implemented by the end of 2021.
SO 8.5.3, “Effective management for VET schools”, also contributed to improve VET quality by upskilling teachers, trainers, vocational school administration and board members. VET schools often struggle to find qualified teachers and trainers as the salary they can offer does not match private sector remuneration.
Latvia has made progress in engaging stakeholders in vocational education and training. The recent creation of the VECC facilitates a closer link between vocational education and regional employers (OECD, 2019[59]). The establishment of Sector Expert Councils (SECs), active since 2011, within the EU Structural Funds programme “Establishing Sector Qualifications Framework and Increasing Efficiency in Vocational Education and Quality” has given key stakeholders a voice to shape the content of vocational education. Currently, the Employers' Confederation of Latvia (LDDK) co-ordinates the work of 11 SECs, and the Latvian Agricultural Organization Cooperation Council (LOSP) co-ordinates the remaining SEC. These 12 SECs represent 14 sectors, but vary greatly in capacity.
A SEC is composed of representatives of employers’ organisations, trade unions and associations, sectoral professional organisations and sector ministries. The Law on Vocational Education defines their function, and their aim is to promote co-operation with other sectors, including the forecasting of sector development and to ensure correspondence between education and labour market demand and supply. For instance, based on sector development and the Ministry of Economics’ medium- and long-term forecasts of the labour force demand and supply, SECs propose to the MoES the number of students in vocational education programmes (state budget funded).
Sectoral expert councils provide an opportunity for employers and employees in the industry, in co-operation with responsible state institutions and representatives of the education sector, to contribute and develop content for the Latvian vocational education system. However, stakeholders pointed out that there is no legislation that guarantees the funding for SECs, which jeopardises their sustainability in the long term.
Work-based learning (WBL) is a relatively new concept in Latvia. Before the start of the WBL pilot project in 2014/2015, vocational education in Latvia was mainly school-based, with a practical learning period of at least 960 hours in a company at the end of a vocational programme (OECD, 2016[8]). The newly introduced work-based learning approach foresees that a VET student will spend at least 25% of the VET programme in a company, starting from the first study year (where possible), according to the individual learning plan. There will also be an employment contract or stipend agreement between an enterprise and student. A recent employer’s survey by the LDDK showed growing support from both employers and students to participate in work-based learning (Cedefop, 2018[60]).
To facilitate work-based learning, Latvia created a legal framework for the organisation and implementation of WBL which determines the rights and responsibilities of the involved parties (mainly WBL providers, VET schools, sectoral expert councils and students). Regulations from the Cabinet of Ministers state that WBL students should receive a stipend or salary according to the agreement with the company. The companies admitting a WBL student within the ESF framework project receive compensation. However, only companies without a tax debt could participate in the project, which is considered to be a challenge. Stakeholders also mentioned that the administrative burden to apply for compensation is very high, which hinders the participation of SMEs in the WBL project.
SO 8.5.3 of The Guidelines for the Development of Education 2014-2020 “Effective management for VET schools” in Latvia
This project aims to ensure the efficient management of VET institutions and improve the professional competence of teachers, trainers, vocational school administration and board members. It also aims to support the improvement of vocationally oriented education programmes and study resources and to strengthen the co-operation of vocational education institutions and enterprises. Outcomes of SO 8.5.3 include:
-
Improvement of general skills and professional competence of VET teachers and trainers.
-
Improvement of pedagogical competence to implement work-based learning.
-
Improvement of how vocational education institutions are managed.
-
Ensuring internships in Latvia and other EU countries for teachers and trainers, etc.
The project is planned to last from November 2016 until the end of 2022. The total planned funding is EUR 6 million, including EUR 5 million from the ESF and EUR 1 million as national co-financing. More than 4 000 participants have been involved in activities from the beginning of the project.
SO 8.3.5. of The Guidelines for the Development of Education 2014-2020 “Career support in general and vocational education institutions” in Latvia
In order to increase career guidance accessibility and to create a systemic approach in general education and VET schools, the career guidance and counselling ESF project was implemented in 2016. As a result, 328 general and vocational education institutions will provide career guidance for students by 2020. The project has piloted the conditions for a career guidance system: additional education and training is being provided to teacher-career counsellors; methodological materials are being developed; and career guidance is being provided for learners through group and individual consultations, events, career information accessibility, etc.
In the academic year 2018/2019, 76 local governments and 17 VECC were involved in the project, 385 teacher-career counsellors were employed and 149 611 pupils in 422 general and vocational education institutions received support for career development. The total planned financing is EUR 21.6 million, including EUR 18.3 million from the ESF.
Source: Ministry of Education and Science information.
Public financing and cost-sharing of VET in Denmark
In Denmark, the public financing of VET is a central trait of the system. The state finances training at colleges, and all employers, public and private, pay an amount into a fund called “the employers' reimbursement scheme” regardless of whether they provide training placements. This fund finances both the Danish alternance model, where training takes place at college and in an enterprise in turns, and vocational continuing education.
In 2012, all employers were obliged to pay an annual contribution of DKK 2 921 (EUR 393) per full-time employee. These funds were allocated to the places of work taking in apprentices so that they do not bear the cost of training alone. These employers receive wage reimbursement for when apprentices are taking part in college-based training.
Source: Cedefop (2012[61]), Vocational Education and Training in Denmark: Short Description, https://doi.org/10.2801/69492.
Recommendations for improving the quality and labour market relevance of VET
-
Mainstream the “Effective management for VET schools” (SO 8.5.3.) project that promotes, among other, teacher and school leader training to strengthen the capacity of VET school administration and the quality of vocational education.
-
Continue strengthening work-based learning implementation. Review the financial incentives to encourage SMEs to participate in the WBL programme and simplify the process to receive a financial compensation for work-based learning.
-
Develop a co-funding instrument to fund Sector Expert Councils for the medium term. Identify which institutions benefit from SECs, and design a collaborative funding mechanism, such as a mutual fund where all institutions contribute to the cost, to ensure the sustainability of Sector Expert Councils.
References
[51] Andrei, T., D. Teodorescu and B. Oancea (2011), “Characteristics and causes of school dropout in the countries of the European Union”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 28, pp. 328-332, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.062.
[13] Aptauju centrs (2015), Study on developing policy alternatives to tackling early school leaving, Aptauju centrs, Riga.
[45] Cabinet of Ministers (2009), Concept “Promotion of Interest in Vocational Education and Participation of Social Partners in Assuring the Quality of Vocational Education”, http://www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/docs/LRTA/Citi/Concept_-_Promotion_of_Interest_in_Vocational_Education_and...doc.
[60] Cedefop (2018), Latvia: growing support for in-company training, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news-and-press/news/latvia-growing-support-company-training.
[48] Cedefop (2015), Vocational education and training in Latvia: Short description, Cedefop information series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2801/814425.
[61] Cedefop (2012), Vocational education and training in Denmark: Short Description, Cedefop information series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2801/69492.
[15] Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (2018), “NBG370. Early leavers from education and training aged 18-24 in urban and rural areas by sex (%)”, Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Riga., https://www.csb.gov.lv/en/statistics/statistics-by-theme/social-conditions/education/tables/nbg370/early-leavers-education-and-training-aged-18 (accessed on January 2019).
[62] Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (2018), Demography 2018, https://www.csb.gov.lv/en/statistics/statistics-by-theme/population/number-and-change/search-in-theme/301-demography-2018.
[53] Cerda-Navarro, A., J. Sureda-Negre and R. Comas-Forgas (2017), “Recommendations for confronting vocational education dropout: a literature review”, Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-017-0061-4.
[32] Coolahan, J. (2003), Attracting, Developing And Retaining Effective Teachers: Country Background Report For Ireland, Department of Education and Skills, Dublin, http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/Attracting-Developing-and-Training-Effective-Teachers-OECD-Country-Background-Report-for-Ireland.pdf.
[49] Daija, Z., L. Krastina and S. Rutkovska (2018), “Cedefop public opinion survey on vocational education and training in Europe: Latvia”, Cedefop ReferNet thematic perspectives series, http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/country-reports/cedefop-public-opinion-survey-vocational-education-and-training-europe-latvia.
[56] Diamond, M. (2007), Vocational Students’ Engagement And Career Objectives: Assessment Of Engagement Processes In New Vocational Students, University of Pittsburgh, http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7054/.
[28] Dynamic University (2016), Vispārējās izglītības programmu virzienu un vidējās izglītības pakāpes profilkursu sistēmas izvērtējums (Evaluation of the general education curriculum directions and the secondary education system), https://visc.gov.lv/visc/projekti/dokumenti/esf_831/20170922_dyu_izm_petijums.pdf.
[12] Echazarra, A. and T. Radinger (2019), “Learning in rural schools: Insights from PISA, TALIS and the literature”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 196, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/8b1a5cb9-en.
[46] European Commission (2011), Attitudes Towards Vocational Education and Training, Special Eurobarometer No. 369, European Commission, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_369_en.pdf.
[52] Eurostat (2018), Early leavers from education and training, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Early_leavers_from_education_and_training (accessed on 7 August 2019).
[5] Eurydice (2019), Latvia Overview, https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/latvia_en (accessed on 7 August 2019).
[55] Fanoiki, G. (2014), Perceived Social Support and Hidden Drop-out in Junior Vocational High School: the Role of Students’ Ethnicity, Faculty of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/31574.
[31] Kools, M. and L. Stoll (2016), “What Makes a School a Learning Organisation?”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwm62b3bvh-en.
[39] Krasnopjorovs, O. (2017), Why is education performance so different across Latvian schools?, Bank of Latvia, http://www.bank.lv/images/stories/pielikumi/publikacijas/petijumi/wp_3-2017_en.pdf.
[43] Ministry of Economics (2018), Informatīvais ziņojums par darba tirgus vidēja un ilgtermiņa prognozēm (Informative report on medium and long-term labor market forecasts), Ministry of Economics, Latvia.
[44] Ministry of Education and Science (2014), Education Development Guidelines for 2014-2020, Ministry of Education and Science, Latvia.
[23] Ministry of Finance (2015), “Budgetpropositionen för 2015” [Budget bill for 2015], http://www.regeringen.se/rattsdokument/proposition/2014/10/prop.-2014151/.
[50] Musset, P. and L. Mytna Kurekova (2018), “Working it out: Career guidance and employer engagement”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 175, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/51c9d18d-en.
[24] National Center on Education and the Economy (2017), Finland: Teacher and Principal Quality, http://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/finland-teacher-and-principal-quality/ (accessed on 7 August 2019).
[58] Nestere, L. (2018), Profesionālā izglītība darba tirgū kotējas augstu [Vocational education is quoted high in the labor market], https://nra.lv/latvija/izglitiba-karjera/243139-profesionala-izglitiba-darba-tirgu-kotejas-augstu.htm (accessed on 3 April 2019).
[27] Niemi, H. (2015), “Teacher professional development in Finland: Towards a more holistic approach”, Psychology, Society and Education, Vol. 7/3.
[21] OECD (2019), “Labour force forecast” (indicator), https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/c6d4db79-en (accessed on 28 March 2019).
[9] OECD (2019), Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en.
[59] OECD (2019), Evaluating Latvia’s Active Labour Market Policies, Connecting People with Jobs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/6037200a-en.
[2] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Strategy 2019: Skills to Shape a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264313835-en.
[18] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[4] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
[11] OECD (2018), Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility, PISA, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en.
[20] OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.
[8] OECD (2016), Education in Latvia, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250628-en.
[7] OECD (2016), OECD Reviews of Labour Market and Social Policies: Latvia 2016, OECD Reviews of Labour Market and Social Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250505-en.
[10] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en.
[14] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
[1] OECD (2016), Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258051-en.
[30] OECD (2016), Supporting Teacher Professionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264248601-en.
[42] OECD (2016), Who uses childcare? Background brief on inequalities in the use of formal early childhood education and care (ECEC) among very young children, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/els/family/Who_uses_childcare-Backgrounder_inequalities_formal_ECEC.pdf.
[47] OECD (2015), Investing in Youth: Latvia, Investing in Youth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264240407-en.
[3] OECD (2015), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ (accessed on 7 August 2019).
[34] OECD (2015), Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914-en.
[40] OECD (2014), “How Much Are Teachers Paid and How Much Does it Matter?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz6wn8xjvvh-en.
[29] OECD (2014), “Indicator D7 How extensive are professional development activities for teachers?”, in Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-35-en.
[19] OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
[6] OECD (2014), Teacher Remuneration in Latvia: An OECD Perspective, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/edu/policyadvice.htm.
[25] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
[35] OECD (2013), Teachers for the 21st Century: Using Evaluation to Improve Teaching, International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264193864-en.
[36] OECD (2011), Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264123564-en.
[57] OECD (2008), Jobs for Youth/Des emplois pour les jeunes: Netherlands 2008, Jobs for Youth/Des emplois pour les jeunes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264041295-en.
[17] OECD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Education and Training Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en.
[26] Sahlberg, P. (2011), Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland?, Teachers College Press, New York.
[41] Santiago, P. et al. (2016), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Estonia 2016, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251731-en.
[22] Schleicher, A. (2018), Valuing our Teachers and Raising their Status: How Communities Can Help, International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264292697-en.
[16] Schwartz, R., J. Wurtzel and L. Olson (2007), “Attracting and retaining teachers”, OECD Observer, Vol. 261, http://oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/2235/Attracting_and_retaining_teachers.html.
[63] State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia (2018), Kā organizē un apmaksā pedagogu darbu Latvijā [How to organise and pay teachers in Latvia], http://www.lrvk.gov.lv/uploads/reviziju-zinojumi/2018/2.4.1-6_2018/12_10_2018_zi%C5%86ojums_publisko%C5%A1anai.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2019).
[54] Taş, A. et al. (2013), “Reasons for Dropout for Vocational High School Students”, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, Vol. 13/3, pp. 1561-1565, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1017656.pdf.
[33] Teaching Council Ireland (2019), Role of the Teaching Council, https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/About-Us1/Role-of-the-Teaching-Council-/ (accessed on 7 August 2019).
[38] Terauda, V., A. Reetz and D. Jahn (2014), Sustainable Governance Indicators SGI 2014 Latvia Report, Bertelsmann Stiftung, http://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2014/country/SGI2014_Latvia.pdf.
[37] Turlajs, J. (2017), Optimālā vispārējās izglītības iestāžu tīkla (Creation of an optimal model of the network of general education institutions), Kartes, https://izm.gov.lv/images/jaunatne/Optimala-visparejas-izglitibas-iestazu-tikla-modela-izveide-Latvija.pdf.
Notes
← 1. In 2018 it consisted of 62% Latvians and 25% ethnic Russians, with smaller minorities of Belarusians (3.2%), Ukrainians (2.2%), Poles (2%), and other small minorities (5.6%) (Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2018[62]).
← 2. Social correction establishments provide education for young offenders and prepare them for social reintegration. Minor law-breakers can develop the knowledge and skills required for an independent life and are given an opportunity to master professional skills.
← 3. Rural schools are those where the principal answered in PISA that their school is located in “a village, hamlet or rural area” (fewer than 3 000 people), whereas urban schools are those where the principal answered that their school is located either in “a city” or “a large city” (over 100 000 people).
← 4. State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia (2018[63]) Kā organizē un apmaksā pedagogu darbu Latvijā [How to organise and pay teachers in Latvia], http://www.lrvk.gov.lv/uploads/reviziju-zinojumi/2018/2.4.1-6_2018/12_10_2018_zi%C5%86ojums_publisko%C5%A1anai.pdf
← 5. Teacher professionalism is defined as the knowledge, skills, and practices that teachers must have in order to be effective educators.
← 6. With EU funding, Latvia has developed the Assessment System of Teacher Performance, which is a performance-based pay system. A teacher is assessed by a commission in five key areas that are weighted against one another in terms of relative importance: 1) teaching and educational work; 2) individual work with students; 3) the educator’s contribution to the development of the educational institution; 4) accumulation and transfer of experience and knowledge; and 5) introspection of pedagogical activities or analysis of the results of pedagogical activities and self-reflection on the performance. Teachers who have been assessed as performing at levels 3, 4 or 5 (as from 2017 levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively) receive an allowance of 8%, 20% and 25%, respectively, on top of their monthly salary (OECD, 2014[6]).
← 7. At the time of the survey, the EU only had 27 country members.
← 8. Concept: raising attractiveness of vocational education and involvement of social partners in vocational education quality assurance, Regulation No 629.
← 9. In 2011-2012, 12 sectoral expert councils were established. Their main functions include: to propose solutions for long-term human resources development in their respective sectors; to ensure that vocational education provision meets labour market requirements. They participate in the development of: occupational standards, education programmes, quality assessment procedures, and work-based learning.
Metadata, Legal and Rights
https://doi.org/10.1787/74fe3bf8-en
© OECD 2019
The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.
