In Spring 2020, due to the rapid spread of COVID-19, all educational institutions in Latvia, including the University of Latvia (UL), transitioned from face-to-face on-site learning to remote learning. After a short period of face-to-face on-site learning in autumn, UL returned to remote learning in November for the second time. This paper investigates the UL students’ perspectives on remote teaching and learning at the UL during the first and second COVID-19 periods. The research assesses several remote study organization aspects, including the lecturer’s and student’s digital skills, their access to information and support during the study process, planning and implementation of the study process, and students’ acquisition of the content. The study used an original questionnaire designed in the Spring 2020 semester. Seven questions from the first questionnaire were included in another follow-up questionnaire distributed in the Spring 2021 semester. A total of 2248 UL students from the Spring 2020 semester and 742 students from the Spring 2021 semester participated in the study, representing 13 faculties across all study levels. The survey responses were collected via a QuestionPro survey platform and then downloaded into an IBM SPSS 28 file for a reliability check. Next, descriptive statistical analyses were conducted for each reported survey item using Microsoft Excel 2016. The research presented here implies that, in general, students perceive positive improvements in almost all the investigated aspects of the organization of the remote study process when comparing the first and second COVID-19 periods, which could indicate a certain level of resilience in students and university lecturers when subject to COVID circumstances. However, the results reveal that students have, in one year, developed a more realistic approach in assessing their digital skills. The results lead us to believe that remote on-line learning is not just a short-term solution but could become a valuable element for providing qualitative education in the long term. It could indicate that the students and lecturers at university are ready for new and sustainable higher education study organization solutions in the future.

Inclusive education means that all pupils, regardless of their ability, gender and race, can study with their peers in the school closest to their place of residence. When enrolling students with special needs in a school, the quality of the student’s academic and social inclusion is equally important. The study aims to analyze the single case of inclusion of a boy with a hearing impairment in a mainstream school X to answer the research questions: how do teachers deal with a pupil with hearing impairment and his needs in the classroom, what are the peculiarities of a hearing-impaired child’s learning, what support (academic and social) is provided to the boy to promote his inclusion in school and the classroom? In the qualitative study, semi structured interviews were conducted with the boy with a hearing impairment and 5 teachers of school X and the boy’s father, they were analyzed using content analysis. Three main categories emerged from the data: (1) support provided by teachers/school; (2) social participation in the classroom, school, friendships, (3) barriers for inclusion. There were two time periods in the first category suggested: (a) before the boy was identified as a child with special needs and (b) after the statement on special needs were received. There were several sub-categories that emerged from the transcripts: support measures provided to a child with a hearing impairment in the classroom, organizational response of the school to a child with a hearing impairment, the visible and invisible aspects in social participation of a child with hearing impairment in a mainstream school. The study highlighted that the academic and social inclusion experience of a child with a hearing impairment in a mainstream school may differ before and after receiving the statement from the Pedagogical Medical Commission on the child’s special needs. The study discusses whether the statement of a pupil’s special needs may become a new barrier to inclusive education that encourages schools to develop new exclusionary practices.

This study investigates university administrative staff perception of inclusion in higher education at the university level. The study uses the University of Latvia as a case to answer the following research questions: What constitutes inclusion in university education, how accessibility is provided? What are the support systems provided for diverse students? What support and training are provided to administrative and academic staff to ensure that the educational needs of diverse student bodies are met? The methodology employed is exploratory and descriptive, and uses the interview method and semi-structured questionnaire. The sample is made of seven administrative staff members representing all levels of administration in the University. Findings suggest that administrative staff members perceive inclusion as a new principle for HE, where diversity is perceived in its broader sense. Findings indicate that support is provided to all students, but that the support is not designed specifically for students with diverse needs. Findings suggested that none of the administrative staff or academics had received training on how to address student diversity.

This paper analyses current research in Latvia to identify key issues related to inclusive education, special education and social pedagogy. A review of Latvian literature since 2004 was undertaken to determine what is known about special and inclusive education, how it is reflected in various research papers and how it related to the current situation in schools. Key findings suggest that teachers need to be better informed about the potential of inclusion. They need to be prepared to teach children with diverse educational needs in a changing educational landscape. Teacher education for inclusion is identified as a 21st‐century priority in Latvia.

No abstract