State Education Quality Service decision on Evrika school, 2017

State Education Quality Service

November 6, 2017

No. 275-V

Re. Refusal of accreditation

Addressee of the decision

Founder of the educational institution: Foundation “Vecāki bērniem”

Name of the educational institution: Riga Private General Secondary School “Evrika”

Legal address of the educational institution: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga, LV-1029

Educational Institution Registration Number: 3813800960

Applicant’s Request

The educational institution “Riga Private General Secondary School “Evrika”” (hereinafter referred to as the Educational Institution) has submitted to the State Education Quality Service (hereinafter referred to as the Quality Service) Application No. 600717 “For Accreditation” (hereinafter referred to as the Application)1 dated July 6, 2017 and a self-assessment report2 requesting for accrediting the Educational Institution and its Educational Programmes “Minority Basic Educational Programme” (Code 21011121. License No. V-8425, site: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga) and “Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education” (Code 31011021, License No. V-8426, site: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga).

Footnote 1 Received in the Quality Service on July 6, 2017, Registration No. 3-08/70

Footnote 2 Received in the Quality Service on July 6, 2017, Registration No. 3-10/61

Statement of Facts

  1. According to the Cabinet Regulation dated December 20, 2016 No. 831 “Procedure for accrediting educational institutions, examination centres and other institutions, general and vocational education programs specified by the Law on Education, and for evaluating the professional activity of heads of secondary schools affiliated to state higher education institutions and heads of state and municipal educational institutions” (hereinafter referred to as the Cabinet Regulation No. 831) Paragraph 7.1, Paragraphs 10 and 11, by issuing Order No. 1-06/159 “On the Establishment of an Accreditation Expert Commission” of August 30. 2017 and Order No. 1-06/165 “On Amendments to the Order No. 1-06/159 “On the Establishment of an Accreditation Expert Commission” of August 30. 2017″ of September 6, 2017, the Quality Service established an accreditation expert commission so that it could evaluate from September 18, 2017 to September 22, 2017 the quality of the educational institution activity and implementation of the Educational Programmes “Minority Basic Educational Programme” and “Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education”.
  2. The Accreditation Expert Commission, having evaluated the quality of the educational institution activity and implementation of the Educational Programmes “Minority Basic Educational Programme” and “Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education”, prepared the Accreditation Expert Commission Report and submitted to the Quality Service on October 10, 2017 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Report) stating that the quality of the educational institution activity and implementation of the said educational programmes was assessed at the following assessment levels:
    1. “insufficient” in the following criteria: 22.1. “Education Content – Implemented Educational Programmes of the Institutions”, 22.6.2. “Human Resources”;
    2. “sufficient” in the following criteria: 22.2.1. “Teaching Quality”, 22.2.2. “Learning Quality”, 22.2.3. “Assessment as an Integral Part of the Learning Process”, 22.4.5. “Support for the Differentiation of Teaching Work”, 22.5.2. “Physical Environment and Accessibility of the Environment”, 22.6.1. “Equipment and Material and Technical Resources”, 22.7.2. “Educational Institution Management Work and Personnel Management”;
    3. “good” in the following criteria: 22.4.2. “Ensuring the Safety and Security of Learners (Security and Workplace Safety)”, 22.4.3. “Support for Developing Personality”, 22.5.1. “Microclimate”, 22.7.1. “Self-assessment of the Educational Institution’s Work and Planning of Development”;
    4. “very good” in the following criteria: 22.4.1. “Psychological Support, Socio-Pedagogical Support”, 22.4.4. “Support for Career Education”, 22.4.7. “Co-operation with the Learner’s Family”, 22.7.3. “Cooperation of the Educational Institution with Other Institutions”.
  3. Regarding the the Educational Programme “Minority Basic Educational Programme” implemented by the Educational Institution, the Report states that:
    1. The Educational Institution implements the licensed Minority Basic Educational Programme, the updated version of which approved by the Director of the Educational Institution V.Buhvalovs on April 21, 2017 and by the founder of the Educational Institution J.Pliners on April 21, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the April 21, 2017 Minority Basic Educational Programme), which was not submitted to the Quality Service for evaluation in accordance with the procedure specified in Paragraph 12 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 775 of July 14, 2009 “Procedure for Licensing of General and Vocational Education Programmes” (hereinafter referred to as the Cabinet Regulation No. 775).
    2. According to Paragraph 8 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 468 “Regulations Regarding the State Standard in Basic Education, the Subjects of Study Standards in Basic Education and Model Basic Educational Programmes” of August 12, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Cabinet Regulation No. 468), the use of the Latvian language and the minority language in minority basic educational programmes shall be laid down in model minority basic educational programmes included in this Regulation. The April 21, 2017 Minority Basic Educational Programme curriculum and lesson plan specify the implementation of individual subjects bilingually (i.e., in the Latvian language and in the minority language) in all grades (“Information Science”, “Geography”, “History of Latvia”, “World History”) and implementation of individual subjects bilingually in definite grades (“Mathematics” in grades 7 to 9; “Natural Science” in grades 4 to 6; “Social Science” in grades 5 to 9; “Housekeeping and Technologies” in grades 4 to 9; “Sports” in grades 4 to 9; “Music” in grades 4 to 9; “Visual Arts” in grades 4 to 9), but not includes the distribution of classroom hours for implementation in the Latvian language, which does not conform to the model basic educational programmes provided in Annex 25 to the Cabinet Regulation No. 468 and the provisions of Paragraph 10.2 of this Annex stating that the learning of subjects in grades 7 to 9 in the minority language or in the Latvian language and in the minority language should provide no more than 40% of the total classroom hours. This also means that the teachers of the Educational Institution do not have clearly defined and unambiguous information about the language in which a definite subject shall be taught, and it has a direct negative impact on the quality of education, including the learning and evaluation of education content.
    3. It was established in the process of accreditation that in the subjects which in accordance with the provisions of Annex 25 to the Cabinet Regulation No. 468 should be learned in the Latvian language, in the Latvian language and in the minority language, i.e. bilingually, for example, “Social Sciences” in grade 8, the classes were conducted in Russian, communication with the learners was in the Russian language, and the learners used only the Russian language. Some bilingual elements were observed, that is, individual keywords related to the lesson topics were written on the blackboard, the task was translated. It is pointed out in the Educational Institution’s Application No. 136/09-17 4 dated September 20, 2017 submitted to the Quality Service for licensing the Minority Basic Educational Programme (submitted during the accreditation process, when detected the fact that the educational programme submitted for accreditation and implemented in 2017 has not been updated and implemented in accordance with the laws and regulations) that it will be implemented in accordance with Model 2 of Version 2 of Annex 25 to the Cabinet Regulation No. 468. According to the general assessment, the Educational Institution implements the Minority Basic Educational Programme not regarding the provisions of the Law on Education Article 32 Part Two, Article 40 Part Two, Article 41 Part One, and the Law on General Education Article 17 Part One and the Cabinet Regulation No. 468, which directly indicate insufficient quality of education, directly affecting the conformity of the study process of the learners with the requirements of laws and regulations, including the achievement of educational objectives, acquisition of knowledge and grades, which is the basis for the assessment “insufficient”.
  4. Regarding the Educational Programme “Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education” implemented in the Educational Institution, the Report states that:
    1. The Educational Institution implements the licensed Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education, the updated version of which approved by the Director of the Educational Institution V.Buhvalovs on April 21, 2017 and by the founder of the Educational Institution J.Pliners on April 21, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the April 21, 2017 Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education), which was not submitted to the Quality Service in accordance with the procedure specified in Paragraph 12 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 775.
    2. According to the provisions of Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 281 “Regulations Regarding the State General Secondary Education Standard, Subject Standards and Sample Education Programmes” of 21 May 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Cabinet Regulation No. 281), at least five subjects should be studied in the Latvian language (not including Latvian language and literature) each school year within the minority educational programmes, and the study of the education content in the minority language may provide up to two fifths of the total hours in the school year. Taking into account that the April 21, 2017 Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education curriculum and lesson plan specify the implementation of individual subjects bilingually (“Mathematics”, “Latvian and World Elistory”, “Physics”, “Chemistry”, “Biology”, “Economics”, “Geography”, “Cultural Science”, “Politics and Law”, “Health Education”), and for the subjects “Information Science”, “Sport” and “Music” there is no indication of the language of implementation of these subjects, it can be concluded that the Educational Institution does not set the learning of at least five subjects in the Latvian language, and the learning of the educational programme in the minority language is provided with a significantly higher proportion than two fifths of the total hours, since only the subject “The Latvian Language” is implemented in the Latvian language. Thus, it can be concluded that the Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education is not implemented in accordance with the Law on General Education Article 15 Part Two stipulating that the state standard of general education is mandatory for anyone who develops and implements general education programmes, and the Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 281 stipulating the use of the state language in minority programmes of general education direction of general secondary education. The minimal use of the Latvian language was observed in all the hours during the accreditation process, for example, the explanations of the teacher on the subject “Latvian and World History” in grade 12 were given only in the Russian language, and the communication of the learners with the teacher was conducted only in the Russian language. The subjects “Information Science” and “Sport” are implemented in Russian and “Music” bilingually. Thus, the Educational Institution disregards in its activity the provisions of the Law on Education Article 32 Part Two, Article 40 Part Two, Article 41 Part One, and the Law on General Education Article 17 Part One, Article 18 Part One, Article 43, and Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 281, which directly indicate insufficient quality of education, directly affecting the conformity of the study process of the learners with the requirements of laws and regulations, including the achievement of educational objectives, acquisition of knowledge and grades, which is the basis for the assessment “insufficient”.
  5. The Report states that the Educational Institution disregards in its activity the provisions of Paragraphs 9, 10 and 30 of Annex 1 “Necessary Teacher Education and Professional Qualifications, and Procedure for the Improvement of Professional Competences in В Programmes” to the Cabinet Regulation of October 28, 2014 No. 662 “Regulations on Necessary Teacher Education and Professional Qualifications, and Procedure for the Improvement of Professional Competences” (hereinafter referred to as Annex 1 to Cabinet Regulation No. 662), as:
    1. The teacher’s [name, surname] education and professional qualification do not correspond to the subject “Visual Art” teaching.
    2. The teacher’s [name, surname] education and professional qualification do not correspond to the subject “Cultural Science” teaching.
    3. The teacher’s [name, surname] education and professional qualification do not correspond to the subject “Health Education” teaching.
    4. The teacher’s [name, surname] education and professional qualification do not correspond to the performing librarian’s duties at an educational institution.
    5. The teacher’s [name, surname] education and professional qualification do not correspond to the subject “Social Science” teaching.
    6. The teacher’s [name, surname] education and professional qualification do not correspond to the subject “Information Science” teaching.
  6. It was found out in the process of accreditation that the Educational Institution established on August 21, 2017 employment relationship with [name surname] without requesting information from the Punishment Register and not having ascertained the person conformity to the requirements set forth in the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Child Article 72 and the restrictions to work as a teacher set forth in the Law on Education Article 50 Paragraph 1, though he was subject to the restriction to work as a teacher set forth in the Law on Education Article 50 Paragraph 1 and he had not acquired and would not acquire pedagogical education. Besides, [n. surname] continued to perform his duties as a teacher, even after the information about the restriction for him to work as a teacher had been found out in the process of accreditation, thus threatening the rights and interests of the learners, which indicated that the director of the Educational Institution, V.Buhvalovs, failed to comply with the responsibilities of the head of an educational institution set forth in the Law on Education Article 30 Part One and the Law on General Education Article 11.
  7. Having studied the documents related to the employment relationship of the teachers of the Educational Institution and the data available in the State Education Information System (hereinafter referred to as the SEIS), the Accreditation Expert Commission has concluded that the Educational Institution does not comply with the requirements specified in Paragraph 24 of the Cabinet Regulations No. 788 of August 17. 2010 “State Education Information System Content, Maintenance and Updating Procedure” – to enter or update the SEIS information immediately, but not later than within 10 working days from the receipt of the information or the date of its generation, as the SEIS does not contain updated information on the education, professional qualifications, etc. of the following teachers: [names surnames]. Consequently, the director of the Educational Institution, V.Buhvalovs, has not complied with the requirements of the Law on Education Article 30 Part One.
  8. The Accreditation Report states that, when communicating with the teachers and other staff, experts of the Accreditation Commission have had doubts about the actual use of the state language by the staff and the compliance of the level of command with the requirements of the State Language Law. Thus, the Accreditation Expert Commission has initiated the provision of information to the State Language Centre in order to check the actual command of the state language of the persomiel of the Educational Institution. According to the Letter No. 4-1.2/1104 of the Riga Branch of the Language Control Department of the State Language Control Department of the State Language Centre dated October 24, 2017 “On the Examination in the Riga Private General Secondary School “Evrika””5, the State Language Centre earned out an examination in the Educational Institution on October 18th and 19th and found that the highest level of the 1st degree (Cl) required for the fulfilment of professional and official duties was not met in the use of the state language in total by nine out of 35 teachers employed by the Educational Institution at the decision-making date – [names surnames].Taking into account the fact that these teachers do not use the state language in the extent necessary for the fulfilment of professional and official duties their ability to teach the subjects included in the Minority Basic Educational Programme and the Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education in the Latvian language, in the Latvian and minority language or bilingually is questionable, and in the most direct way it has a negative impact on the quality of education, including learning process, acquisition of knowledge and grades, especially in circumstances where the content, conduct and passing of state examinations are determined to be in the Latvian language6. Consequently, actually, these teachers do not comply with the obligation stipulated in the Law on Education Article 51 Part One Paragraph 1 to participate responsibly in the implementation of the educational programme, while the head of the Educational Institution does not comply with the obligation stipulated in the Law on Education Article 30 Part One. At present, there are reasonable doubts about continuing the activity of the Educational Institution in accordance with the requirements of laws and regulations and the ability to provide the learners with high-quality education.
  9. Although the information available to the Quality Service and the information entered in the SEIS on October 23, 2017 indicate that the Educational Institution has eliminated the unconformity of the education and qualifications of the teachers involved in the implementation of the educational programmes as identified in the accreditation process (see Paragraph 5 of this Decision), and the employment legal relationship with [n. surname] has been terminated since October 20, 2017 (see Paragraph 6 of this Decision), this has not eliminated the long-term threats to the quality of education and the rights and interests of the learners, as the activities of the Educational Institution are aimed at the improvement of the educational process and the work of teachers in the future.
  10. The Report proposes to refuse accrediting the Educational Institution and the Educational Programme “Minority Basic Educational Programme” (Code 21011121, License No. V-8425, site: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga) and the Educational Programme “Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education” (Code 31011021, License No. V-8426, site: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga) in accordance with the Cabinet Regulation No. 831 Paragraph 38, which stipulates that the accreditation of an educational institution and educational programmes shall be refused, if any of the criteria referred to in Paragraph 22.1, 22.2.1, 22.4.2, 22.6.1, 22.6.2 and Sub-paragraph 22.7.2 is evaluated at the quality assessment level “insufficient”.
  11. The Accreditation Commission of Educational Institutions, Examination Centres and Educational Programmes (hereinafter referred to as the Accreditation Commission), established in accordance with the Cabinet Regulation No. 831 Paragraph 27 by the Quality Service Order No. 1-05/22 dated September 27, 2017 “On the Establishment of the Commission for the Accreditation of Educational Institutions, Examination Centres, Educational Programmes and Evaluation of Professional Activities of Educational Institutions and their Alternates” and Order No. 1-05/29 dated October 19, 2017 “On Substitution at the Meeting of the Accreditation Commission of Educational Institutions, Examination Centres and Educational Programmes”, at the meeting on October 25, 2017 (Subparagraph 1.1 of the Minutes No. 12 of the meeting on October 25, 2017), in accordance with Paragraphs 32 and 38 of the Cabinet Regulation No. 831, evaluated the Report and the proposal, as well as the set of circumstances and conclusions specified in the section of the Statement of Facts hereof, and heard the arguments and explanations of the Director of the Educational Institution V.Buhvalovs, the founder of the Educational Institution J.Pliners, the lawyer of the Educational Institution A.Kuzmins, including those specified in the Letter No. 149/10-17 7 dated October 10, 2017 to the Accreditation Commission, in the Letter dated October 23, 2017 to the Accreditation Commission “On Section 1 of the Report of the Accreditation Expert Commission Regarding the Riga Private General Secondary School “Evrika””, in the Letter dated October 25, 2017 to the Accreditation Commission “On Section 6.2 of the Report of the Accreditation Expert Commission Regarding the Riga Private General Secondary School “Evrika””8, as well as a petition in the Letter dated October 20, 2017 9 to the Quality Service and the Accreditation Commission from a number of parents of the learners of the Educational Institution. However, the statements in the above letters and in the publicly stated opinion of the founder of the Educational Institution J.Pliners that:the granting accreditation for two years or the extension of the accreditation period to six months is irrelevant to the particular case, since the Quality Service as a state administration institution must comply with the principle of state administration included in the State Administration Structure Law Article 10 Part One, which stipulates that the state administration is subject to the Law and acts within the limits of the competence specified in laws and regulations, therefore, the granting accreditation for two years or the extension of the accreditation period is not allowed in this situation.
    1. a private educational institution has the right to choose the language of the implementation of minority education programmes is to be considered unfounded as, according to the statements in this decision, any educational institution has a duty to comply with the national standard for basic education and the national standard for general secondary education, including the certain requirements to the use of the state language in the implementation of the minority education programmes.
    2. the granting accreditation for two years or the extension of the accreditation period to six months is irrelevant to the particular case, since the Quality Service as a state administration institution must comply with the principle of state administration included in the State Administration Structure Law Article 10 Part One, which stipulates that the state administration is subject to the Law and acts within the limits of the competence specified in laws and regulations, therefore, the granting accreditation for two years or the extension of the accreditation period is not allowed in this situation.

Footnote 3 Received in the Quality Service on October 10, 2017, Registration No. 3-12/75

Footnote 4 Received in the Quality Service on September 22, 2017, Registration No. 2-16/243

Footnote 5 Received in the Quality Service on October 25, 2017, Registration No. 1-19.1/779

Footnote 6 Cabinet Regulation of August 8, 2017 No. 469 “Amendments to the Cabinet Regulation of December 17, 2013 No. 1510 “Regulations Regarding Procedures for State Examinations””; Cabinet Regulation of August 8, 2017 No. 467 “Amendments to the Cabinet Regulation of April 6, 2010 No. 335 “Regulations on the Content and Procedure of Centralised Examinations””.

Footnote 7 Received in the Quality Service on October 12, 2017, Registration No. 1-24.1/560

Footnote 8 Received in the Quality Service on October 24, 2017, Registration No. 1-19.1/778

Footnote 9 Received in the Quality Service on October 23, 2017, Registration No. 1-24.1/582

At the same time, it must be taken into account that, actually, the Educational Establishment acknowledges the inconsistencies found – inconsistency of the teachers’ education with the requirements of the Cabinet Regulation No. 662, as well as the lack of command of the state language. Furthermore, when submitting an application for the implementation of educational programmes, the Educational Institution has chosen in a free manner an appropriate educational programme, which it is committed to implement in compliance with the national standard for education. Besides, if an educational institution wants to operate in the recognised formal education system of the Republic of Latvia and submits a state-recognised educational document, it is subject to the state- determined state examination procedures, requirements for teachers and the implementation of the study process.

The Accreditation Commission assesses the fact that improvements have been made in the Educational Institution from the start of the accreditation process to the meeting of the Accreditation Commission, for example, in relation to the teachers’ education and professional qualifications, educational programmes have been submitted for licensing, but the application for the implementation of the educational programme does not yet confer the right to implement the licensed educational programme, as a result the Educational Institution still implements educational programmes that are inadequate to the requirements of the laws and regulations, which adversely affects the quality of education. Consequently, in the circumstances when the Educational Institution has ignored lastingly and continues to ignore the requirements set by the state for the activity of an educational institution and the implementation of educational programmes, after the elimination of all identified inconsistencies, it is necessary to re-assess the quality and compliance with the requirements of laws and regulations of activities of the Educational Institution and the implementation of the educational programmes, the Accreditation Commission has proposed the Quality Service to refuse accrediting the Educational Institution and the Educational Programme “Minority Basic Educational Programme” (Code 21011121, License No. V-8425, site: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga) and the Educational Programme “Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education” (Code 31011021, License No. V-8426, site: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga).

Following from the above and the legal evaluation of the circumstances of the case, the Quality Service concludes that the proposal of the Accreditation Commission is justified, as the Educational Institution does not comply in its activity with the Law on Education Article 30 Part One, Article 32 Part Two, Article 33, Article 41 Part One, Article 51 Part One Paragraph 1, the Law on General Education Article 15 Part Two, Article 37 and 43, the Cabinet Regulation No. 468 Paragraph 8, the Cabinet Regulation No. 281 Paragraph 7 and 8.

In accordance with the Cabinet Regulation No. 831 Paragraph 65, the Educational Institution may apply for re-accreditation not earlier than three months after the entry into force of the decision on refusal of accreditation.

Operative Part

Pursuant to the Law on Education Article 32 Part Two, Article 33, Article 40 Part Two, Article 41 Part One, Article 51 Part One Paragraph 1, the Law on General Education Article 15 Part Two, Article 17 Part One, Article 37 and 43, the Cabinet Regulation No. 468 Paragraph 8, the Cabinet Regulation No. 281 Paragraph 7 and 8, the Cabinet Regulation No. 831 Paragraph 38, Paragraph 60.4, 60.7 and 68.5, in compliance with the proposal of the Accreditation Commission, and taking into account the circumstances specified in the section of the Statement of Facts hereof and the actual situation at the time of evaluation of the quality of the Educational Institution activity and implementation of the Educational Programmes and also at the moment of the adoption hereof, the Quality Service decides:

  1. To refuse accreditation of the Educational Institution.
  2. To refuse accreditation of the Educational Programme “Minority Basic Educational Programme” (Code 21011121, License No. V-8425, site: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga).
  3. To refuse accreditation of the Educational Programme “Minority Programme of General Education Direction of General Secondary Education” (Code 31011021, License No. V-8426, site: 74 Apuzes Street, Riga).

The Decision has considered the feasibility of the content of the administrative ruling, and the Decision is based on the following considerations of feasibility:

  1. the decision is necessary in order to achieve the legitimate aim of ensuring that the educational process and the implementation of educational programmes in the Educational Institution are of a high quality and organised in compliance with the laws and regulations, the best interests of the state and society, as well as the rights and interests of learners to a high-quality and lawful education;
  2. the decision is appropriate to prevent activities of the Educational Institution not in compliance with the laws and regulations, including the fact that the educational process and the implementation of educational programmes are provided by teachers whose use of the state language does not correspond to the fulfilment of professional and official duties;
  3. the decision is necessary in order to protect the best interests and rights of persons, including the right to a high-quality education, and to ensure the compliance with the Law on Education Article 32 Part Two, Article 33 and Article 41 Part One, and the Law on General Education Article 15 Part Two, Article 37 and 43, as the unlawful activity of the Educational Institution is not permissible, that is, it is not permissible to implement educational programmes that are actually inadequate to the state standard of basic education and the state standard of general secondary education;
  4. the decision is appropriate because it is adopted in the interests of the state and the majority of society, protecting the rights to a high-quality education that complies with the requirements of the laws and regulations. At the same time, the Educational Institution has the opportunity, in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet Regulation No. 831, to apply for re-accreditation not earlier than three months after the entry into force of the decision on refusal of accreditation.

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Law Article 70 Part One and Two, and provisions of the Cabinet Regulation No. 831 Paragraph 72, this Decision shall enter into force on the day it is notified to the addressee.

Granted or Denied Rights of the Addressee

The Addressee is not entitled to use the rights and obligations established by the laws and regulations of the Republic of Latvia (Law on Education, Law on General Education, etc.) for an educational institution for the implementation of educational programmes.

Procedure for Challenging the Decision

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Law Article 76, 77, 78 and 79, and provisions of the Cabinet Regulation No. 831 Paragraph 72, this Decision may be challenged in the Ministry of Education and Science within one month from the date of its entry into force by submitting a petition to the Quality Service (address: 14 Zigfrīda Annas Meierovica bulvāris, Riga, LV-1050).

Enclosed: a copy of the Report dated October 10, 2017, on 11 pages.

Director [signed] I.Juhņēviča


Document data: 06.11.2017., No. 275-V See the Latvian original (anonymized) below:

Tagged: Tags