This presentation was a continuation of a process of comment to regulation changes that Pro Futuro and the Latvian Youth Council had been involved in. Unknown to Pro Futuro and the Youth Council, until the morning of July1, the Ministry of Education and Science had already completed the process to change retention regulations so that a student who does not get a satisfactory grade in even one (of up to 17-18) subjects will be grade retained- forced to redo the entire school year.
In this presentation and in the comments provided to the Ministry in February, Pro Futuro and the Youth Council used LV and international data and local and international research to show that grade retention is not a successful or useful policy option, and in fact harms children, families and has a high cost to society. The Ministry’s responses did not contain any data other than numbers showing a decrease in the number of children being retained. This could easily be interpreted to suggest that, then, current policy was successful and there was no need to change it. The Ministry cited undocumented anecdotes (“teachers and school administrators that we talked to said”) to support their position. Despite the fact that Pro Futuro and the LV Youth Council provided on-the-record, public opposition, the Ministry’s press release about adoption of the regulations said that the public consultation process had only support.
Ms Birzniece presented OECD data about reading and mathematics competency in 15 year olds in LV and other participating countries. The LV data shows that approximately 21% of LV 15 year olds read below basic competency. The Ministry continues to focus on the average score, rather than the considerable fraction that are in trouble with a basic skill while near the end of their mandatory education (9th class). She also showed statements that Ministry representatives have made at conferences (such as the UNESCO Inclusive Education Conference in Riga in February of 2008), which promise students access to quality education in a school close to their homes. Ms Birzniece read out statements by experts from the LV Special Needs Agency that acknowledges the need for adaptive assessment using technology and other accommodations. The presentation included Ministry data that suggests that learning disabilities are grossly under-identified in LV schools. Pro Futuro parent support group members say that even when needs are identified, assistance is not provided. When directly questioned, the head of the State Testing Centre acknowledged that no technology accommodations were used on state exams in 2009. Pro Futuro again requested formation of a work group that would formally address the need for alternatives to grade retention such as: structured, individualized assistance for struggling learners, testing accommodations for students needing them, and the provision of assistance for students with special needs in every school (not only segregated special schools and programmes).
In its response, Ministry representatives attempted to colour the Pro Futuro arguments as somehow calling teachers, school administrators and Ministry workers as incompetent. Other attendees told him that the arguments were not ones of competency, but ones of policy and that personal defensiveness was not appropriate. The Ministry did not dispute the data, but did say that LV’ s average in the test(s) are good. Birzniece reminded them the average may well be good, but that it does not diminish the fact that a significant proportion do not attain even basic competency in essential education and life skills.
In the discussion that followed, no attendees spoke to support grade retention or the Ministry policies that underlie it. The Council directed the Ministry to form a work group in cooperation with Pro Futuro deal with the issues brought up in the Pro Futuro presentation.
