The research report “Recognition of Prior Learning and Experience in Latvian Higher Education Institutions” (in Latvian, translation will be available December 2026) was prepared by the Academic Information Centre (AIC), acting as Latvia’s National Coordination Point for the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), within the EQF–Europass Latvia project, from January 2025 to July 2026.
The aim of the study was to analyse the practices of recognising learning outcomes achieved through previous education and knowledge, skills, and competences acquired through professional experience in Latvian higher education institutions (HEIs), providing an evidence-based overview of the current situation and promoting access to recognition services.
Legal framework and types of recognition
The recognition of prior learning and professional experience in Latvia is governed by the Law on Higher Education Institutions (Sections 59.2 and 59.3) and Cabinet Regulation No. 505, Regulations on the Recognition of Competences Acquired Outside Formal Education or Through Professional Experience and Study Results Achieved in Previous Education (adopted on 14 August 2018; effective from 17 August 2018).
The legislation distinguishes between two main types of recognition:
Recognition of learning outcomes (MR): Learning outcomes achieved in other education or study programmes.
Recognition of non-formal and informal learning (ĀF): Knowledge, skills, and competences acquired outside formal education or through professional experience.
Research methodology
The study covered all Latvian HEIs that were licensed and accredited during the data collection period. In cooperation with the SKDS Research Centre, data were collected through surveys, interviews, and a focus group discussion.
The research methods included:
A survey of all Latvian HEIs, resulting in 46 completed questionnaires on recognition practices between 2018 and 2024.
Five structured interviews with HEI representatives concerning the practical implementation of non-formal and informal learning recognition.
A focus group discussion with nine HEI representatives on their experience with recognition of learning outcomes.
An analysis of publicly available information on the websites of 49 HEIs and four state institutions (Ministry of Education and Science, State Education Quality Service, Academic Information Centre, and Quality Agency for Higher Education), as well as 223 study-field self-assessment reports and 216 expert group reports.
Key findings
The survey results indicate that recognition of learning outcomes is well established in Latvian HEIs. It has been implemented by 91.3% of the surveyed institutions, with the number of applications increasing from 2,600 in 2020 to 3,620 in 2024.
In contrast, recognition of non-formal and informal learning is less widespread, being offered by 56.5% of surveyed HEIs, which received 436 applications in 2024.
Most recognition services are concentrated in a relatively small number of institutions: 5–11 HEIs for recognition of learning outcomes and 5–9 HEIs for non-formal and informal learning recognition. The volume of recognition activity in the remaining institutions is relatively low.
Interviews and focus group discussions indicate that the size and structure of HEIs—including the number of departments, staff, students, and study fields—directly influence the efficiency and transparency of recognition procedures.
The analysis of institutional self-assessment and expert reports confirms that both types of recognition are formally established within Latvian higher education institutions. In accordance with national regulations, all HEIs have established commissions to assess applications for recognition of non-formal and informal learning.
However, public awareness of these recognition opportunities remains insufficient. Potential applicants often learn about the service only after commencing their studies.
Only 30% of HEI websites provide general explanatory information about recognition. Similar information is also lacking on the websites of relevant national institutions, including the Ministry of Education and Science, the State Education Quality Service, and the Academic Information Centre.
Consequently, the successful preparation of recognition applications and the implementation of recognition procedures depend heavily on individual consultations provided by HEI staff.
The process is further complicated by insufficient information in previous education documents, particularly regarding learning outcomes achieved and the number of study hours. This creates additional administrative burdens for HEI staff.
Conclusions
Overall, the findings confirm that recognition in Latvian HEIs operates through a decentralised system governed by national legislation.
Although the current legal framework allows HEIs autonomy to develop their own internal regulations and methodologies, this also creates a risk of differing interpretations of legislation and inconsistent recognition practices across the country. It may also increase the administrative workload of institutional staff.
Recommendations
To improve the system for recognition of learning outcomes and non-formal and informal learning, the study proposes the following recommendations:
Develop national methodological guidelines for implementing the legal framework and ensure that they are regularly updated.
Establish a regular platform for information and experience exchange among HEI staff involved in recognition procedures.
Introduce common requirements for information included in educational documents, particularly detailed learning outcomes and the volume of study hours.
Develop digital solutions and databases containing descriptions of study courses to facilitate the recognition process.
Provide clear public information at national level about recognition opportunities and procedures.
Develop communication guidelines for HEIs to ensure that their websites provide accessible practical information about recognition types, procedures, assessment criteria, and fees.
These measures would help improve the consistency, accessibility, transparency, and efficiency of recognition services across Latvian higher education institutions.
The full research report is available in the Library on the website of the Latvian National Coordination Point for the European Qualifications Framework.
