The recent revelation of a ban on personal communication in any language other than the state language for elementary school students at the beginning of the school year has sparked controversy. This condition was documented in the school’s binding „Internal Regulations“ among other „Student Duties.“
According to the regulations, the school is referred to as an „Institution,“ and one of the student duties states that „In the Institution (during lessons, breaks) and at Institution-organized events (excursions, class parties, etc.), as well as representing the school outside of it, the state language – Latvian language must be used.“
These regulations also outline various disciplinary measures for non-compliance with duties – ranging from verbal warnings to notes in personal files and even involving the school board. A copy of the regulations is available to the LSM+ editorial team.
LSM+ reached out to the Ombudsman’s Office to clarify the situation, not limiting the inquiry to a single school but describing the general framework established by Latvian legislation as a rule of law state.
The response was prepared by Laila Grāvere, Head of the Children’s Rights Department at the Ombudsman’s Office:
In the Ombudsman’s understanding, is a student’s private/informal voluntary communication on school premises or in the building (e.g., in the yard, corridor, cafeteria, locker room, restroom, etc.) during breaks, before or after classes, subject to regulation?
No, private communication between students during breaks, before or after classes is left to the students‘ discretion. The school has no basis to restrict the language of communication in these instances. Students, as private individuals, are allowed to do what statutory acts do not prohibit. External statutory acts do not restrict language use in informal communication between individuals who wish to communicate in a specific language. In between classes, students engage in informal communication, so students should be allowed to freely converse in their chosen language during breaks; this issue does not need regulation.
Communication between students and school staff during breaks is not informal communication, so it must be in the state language.
When using a different language for student-to-student communication in school during breaks, it should be ensured that its use does not exclude those students who do not speak or do not want to communicate in that language. In a situation where a conversation partner does not use a foreign language, the use of a foreign language is restricted by the fifth paragraph of the Preamble to the Latvian Constitution, which establishes Latvian as the only state language as the basis of a cohesive society, and Article 54(4) of the Education Law, which stipulates the duty of students to respect the rights and interests of others.
In the Ombudsman’s understanding, is a student’s presence outside the school premises, wearing school uniform or other symbols (emblems, logos, inscriptions on clothing or bags, etc.) by which the school could be identified, considered as „representing the school“?
No, representing the school manifests through students‘ participation in subject Olympiads at the city (district) and state levels, sports competitions, choir and other artistic group concerts, and other events organized for students.
In the Ombudsman’s understanding, is the requirement cited above [school’s internal regulations] considered lawful (compliant with the legislation of the Republic of Latvia, including the Constitution, and Latvia’s international obligations)?
No, the obligation stipulated in the school’s internal regulations to use the Latvian language even in private communication outside of classes is overly restrictive.
In the Ombudsman’s understanding, does Latvian legislation provide parents of a student with the right to request an amendment to the school’s Internal Regulations or a similar normative act? What procedure does Latvian legislation establish for exercising such rights?
Yes, parents of students have the right to propose amendments to the school’s internal regulations. A general education institution is entitled to independently develop internal normative acts. This is stipulated in Article 10(3)2 of the General Education Law. Article 9(1)11 of the same law states that the school’s regulations must specify the procedure for adopting internal normative acts. Therefore, parents must familiarize themselves with the school’s regulations regarding amending internal regulations and act accordingly. The initiative can also be carried out through the school board, where parent representatives are in the majority. According to Article 31(3)3 of the Education Law, the school board has the competence to submit proposals on issues related to the rights and duties of students and school staff.
This clarification sheds light on the controversial issue surrounding the language restrictions imposed on elementary school students and provides insight into the legal framework and rights of parents in such matters. The dialogue between the school, students, parents, and the Ombudsman’s Office plays a crucial role in ensuring a fair and inclusive educational environment for all.