Latvia President Sends Education Law Amendments Limiting Distance Learning for Primary Grades Back to Parliament

RIGA – President Edgars Rinkēvičs has sent amendments to Latvia’s Education Law back to the Saeima for a second review that would significantly limit distance learning in primary education, according to the president’s advisor, Mārtiņš Drēģeris. The move centers on provisions affecting pupils in grades 1 through 6 and how quickly new restrictions are meant to take effect.

The referral follows the Saeima’s adoption of amendments that would significantly restrict access to distance learning for students in grades 1-6. After the vote, the United List and Latvia First factions announced they would ask the president to return the law to parliament for further review, framing the issue as one of both education quality and families’ ability to plan ahead.

What the president says needs to change

The president drew attention to the fact that such significant changes in the legal regulation of education, which directly affect both students and their parents, as well as local governments and educational institutions, must be introduced with particular care, ensuring sufficient legal clarity, predictability and a reasonable timeframe for their implementation, allowing all parties involved to prepare adequately.

Rinkēvičs’ letter notes the current law provides that new rules on distance learning for the first stage of general basic education (grades 1-6) are applicable from September 1, 2026. He points out that this leaves very little time for the government and local authorities to prepare for introducing the changes, including adjusting school networks, informing families and ensuring that schools have the necessary staff and infrastructure for full in‑person teaching.

The president has not called for the amendments to be abandoned, but for them to be made more workable. His objections focus on the transition period, the clarity of exemptions and the need for detailed secondary legislation to be in place before schools and municipalities are bound by the new rules.

Timing and implementing rules at issue

In the president’s view, key elements of the new regulations are still to be set in Cabinet of Ministers regulations. Those include the procedure and criteria for local government assessment, raising concerns about whether changes planned for September 1, 2026 can be implemented in full and to the required standard.

Under Latvia’s education governance model, the Saeima sets the basic framework in law, while the Cabinet adopts detailed regulations that define how municipalities and schools must apply those provisions in practice. Without those regulations, local authorities cannot reliably plan which pupils may continue distance learning, which programs must be moved fully on site, or how exceptions will be assessed.

Key dates and dependencies:
– Applicability date cited in the president’s letter: September 1, 2026.
– Implementing details pending: procedure and criteria for municipal assessment to be set by Cabinet of Ministers regulations.
– Practical impact: schools and municipalities may have less than two academic years to redesign timetables, staffing and support for pupils currently in distance programs.

How the second review works

Because fewer than two-thirds of MPs voted to treat the bill as urgent, the president may refer the law to parliament for a second review. Under the rules governing that step:
– The Saeima, without debate, refers the president’s reasoned objections to the responsible committee.
– The Saeima sets a deadline for submitting proposals and re-examining the law.
– The second review is conducted in accordance with the procedure for reviewing a bill in the third reading.
– During the second review, parliament considers only the president’s objections and proposals related to those objections.
– If the Saeima does not amend the law, the president may not raise objections a second time.

In practice, this mechanism allows the head of state to force a focused political discussion on implementation quality and rights safeguards, without reopening the entire political compromise behind the bill.

What the amendments would do

As adopted by the Saeima, the amendments would significantly restrict access to distance learning for pupils in grades 1-6-the first stage of general basic education in Latvia. The political rationale presented by supporters has centered on ensuring socialization, equal access to classroom resources and closer oversight of younger pupils’ learning.

The precise criteria for when distance learning could still be used are to be defined in forthcoming Cabinet regulations, according to the president’s assessment. Those criteria are expected to cover narrow exceptions, such as serious health conditions, long-term stay abroad or other specific circumstances, but the scope and definition of such exemptions remain unresolved until the Cabinet acts.

Political reaction so far

Following the parliamentary vote to adopt the amendments, the United List and Latvia First factions said they would ask the president to return the law for further review. Drēģeris said the president has now sent the amendments to the Saeima for a second review, effectively aligning the presidency with concerns about the pace and clarity of the reform rather than its overall direction.

Coalition parties that backed the amendments have so far framed the president’s move as part of normal constitutional checks, while opposition deputies critical of the restrictions are likely to use the second review to press for broader exemptions or a longer transition period. The outcome will determine how quickly Latvia can move away from the expanded distance-learning arrangements introduced during the COVID‑19 pandemic, and how much flexibility families and municipalities will retain.

Process status: Upon receipt of the president’s objections, the Saeima will, without debate, refer them to the responsible committee and set deadlines for proposals and re-examination. Lawmakers will then decide whether to adjust the contested provisions or reaffirm the current text, after which the president must either promulgate the law or, if changes are made, sign the revised version.