Imagine you own a business with ten stores. Eight are performing exceptionally well, while two consistently lag behind. What do you do? Do you change the processes in all ten stores, or do you investigate what is happening in the two underperforming locations and figure out how to help them improve? For most people, the answer is obvious. Unfortunately, this logic all too often fails in Lithuania’s education system.
We saw this very clearly this year when poor exam results were addressed primarily by lowering the passing threshold across all exams—even in subjects where overall results were strong, such as Lithuanian language and literature. The threshold has been lowered for two years in the hope that meaningful improvements can be achieved during that time. The question is whether we will use that time wisely.
The data reveal enormous inequality in Lithuanian education. According to OECD PISA data, nearly half of Lithuanian students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds fail to reach the baseline level of mathematical proficiency. Among their more privileged peers, that figure is just 11 percent. In other words, a child’s social environment makes them more than four times as likely to fail to acquire basic—let me repeat, basic—mathematical skills. Yet these skills are essential not only for accessing better job opportunities but also for making informed decisions in everyday life.
Regional disparities are equally concerning. According to PISA results, the gap in mathematics performance between rural and urban students in Lithuania is 71 points, while the European Union average is only 46 points. Put differently, where a child attends school in Lithuania has a far greater impact on their opportunities than it does in many other EU countries.
When discussing educational inequality, Lithuanian policymakers often focus on one question: how to keep schools as close to students’ homes as possible. However, declining birth rates force us to ask a different question: what matters more—the proximity of a school, or its ability to help every child grow and reach their full potential? Is it more sensible to spend limited resources maintaining and renovating half-empty buildings, or to invest in stronger teachers, specialists, and targeted academic support where it is needed most?
Countries with the highest-performing education systems also tend to have far greater educational equity. And that equity does not happen by accident—it is the result of deliberate policy choices. Ireland, for example, clearly identified schools serving large numbers of socially disadvantaged children and directed targeted support to them. These schools can employ more specialists, maintain smaller class sizes, and offer homework clubs. In other words, targeted support in Ireland goes far beyond free meals or school supplies. It is designed to ensure that all students leave school with the strongest possible knowledge base and more equal opportunities in life.
Parental engagement is another important part of Ireland’s approach. Some schools employ home–school liaison coordinators who work not only with students but also with their families. They visit homes and organize practical activities that help parents become more involved in their children’s education. Ireland does this because it recognizes a simple reality: children from more advantaged families often receive educational support at home, while children from more vulnerable backgrounds frequently do not. In those cases, both children and parents need additional support.
The results speak for themselves. According to 2024 Eurostat data, the share of young people leaving education early is just 2.8 percent in Ireland, compared with 8.4 percent in Lithuania. Moreover, Ireland ranks second in Europe in the academic performance of fifteen-year-olds, while Lithuania ranks only twentieth. Such a gap is not a matter of chance or insufficient funding. It reflects effective management and targeted support where it is needed most. For Lithuania, this means rethinking our priorities. The goal should not be to preserve the existing school network at any cost, but to ensure consistent progress for every child. Decisions should be driven by evidence, and investments should be directed where they can have the greatest impact.
Simply lowering standards without taking targeted action does not help children realize their potential. In fact, it not only fails to equip them with the necessary skills but also effectively accepts that a significant share of students will never receive a high school diploma. Even after lowering exam thresholds, forecasts published by Lithuania’s Ministry of Education, Science and Sport last autumn indicated that around 10 percent of students would still be unable to complete secondary education in 2026. Why are these children being left behind? Lithuania is a small country facing a sharp decline in birth rates. We cannot afford to waste so much human potential.
How can we change this situation?
First, we need a clear goal: every child in Lithuania should have access to the best education in Europe. Not the most attractive classrooms, but the highest-quality opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills that will help them feel confident and succeed in life.
Second, we must base our decisions on data. We should identify where children from similar social backgrounds are achieving better outcomes than elsewhere. There are undoubtedly municipalities and schools where a larger share of students achieve stronger results. What are they doing differently? How can we deliberately transfer those successful practices to other schools—especially those where large numbers of students are making little progress?
Third, we need to act more efficiently so that a greater share of resources and effort is devoted to targeted learning support rather than merely maintaining infrastructure or providing material assistance. This requires strengthening leadership and management capacity at every level—from national policymakers to school principals.
Finally, we should examine why educational equity is stronger in other countries. What are they doing differently, and what could we adapt in Lithuania? For example, in most countries primary education lasts six years, while in Ireland it lasts eight. In Lithuania, by contrast, we suddenly expect children aged eleven or twelve to demonstrate the same level of independence as high school students. Could greater equity be achieved if children spent more years in a safer environment with a teacher who knows them well and can help them with homework and monitor their progress? This is particularly important in schools where many students do not receive such support at home.
There are many possible solutions, and different schools may require different approaches. But the most important thing is that we all believe every child deserves the opportunity to fulfill their potential. Only then will we stop talking merely about improving statistics or renovating buildings and start focusing on support measures that genuinely work for every child. Only when we understand that different children need different “shoes” will we ensure that some of them are not left to walk through life barefoot.