Over the past two decades, Lithuania has made significant progress in strengthening inclusive education to ensure equitable access to learning for all students.  With an amendment to the Law on Education, starting on September 1, 2024, all Lithuanian schools and kindergartens have to accept all children to the mainstream classrooms, if parents and specialists decide it would benefit the child. Nevertheless, the inclusive education goals in Lithuania are still hindered by various barriers, such as insufficient teacher training, lack of resources, infrastructure, etc. Even though many reforms have been implemented, the long-term effects of the Soviet legacy are still evident, manifesting in attitudes and systemic and contextual barriers to inclusion.

Soviet educational models had a lasting effect on Lithuanian education.  During the Soviet occupation, the Lithuanian educational system was characterized by an alignment with dominant political doctrines, standardization, and centralization (Leišytė, et al., 2018; Želvys, 2017). Additionally, teachers had little independence and had to follow a pre-set curriculum which made it difficult to adopt innovative and inclusive practices of teaching (Zelvys, 2004). Since the system placed greater emphasis on academic performance rather than the development of the whole person, little concern was shown for the unique abilities and needs of children with special needs (Kugelmass & Galkiene, 2003). Therefore, such children were often segregated into separate schools, which created a culture of exclusion, still existing in some forms today (Lakkala, et al., 2019; Ruškus, 2020).

Since Lithuania gained independence, many changes occurred in the Lithuanian educational system to align it with international standards (Leišytė, et al., 2018; Pranevičienė & Margevičiūtė, 2015). Thus, there was a considerable transition from being disorder-centered to focusing on the needs of the students (Alisauskiene & Harju-Luukkainen, 2021). Also, efforts to learn from the best international practices of inclusive education to improve teacher training are ongoing (Teresevičienė, et al., 2018).

The results of this scoping review identified that early research was dominated by an emphasis on the medical diagnoses and segregated schooling of students. Topics of studying attitudes toward students with disabilities, legislative reforms, and the integration of students into the mainstream education system were also prominent. Later research has transitioned to addressing systemic barriers to inclusion, teacher professional development, policy implementation, and inclusive educational practices. Common problems identified in the research were inadequate teacher training and professional development, lack of support systems, and gaps in early interventions.

Methodologically, early studies employed more quantitative approaches to research, which identified inequalities in resource allocation, and explained an ingrained resistance to inclusion within educational communities. In the second decade of the century, mixed methods became more common, combining teacher surveys, school enrolment data, and narrative approaches to inclusive education.

Despite the struggles that inclusive education faces in Lithuania, new practices have emerged. For example, the literature shows evidence of many partnerships with European Union agencies, co-teaching practices, and community advocacy campaigns that aid educational and inclusive research. In addition, participatory approaches involving students with disabilities in co-designing inclusive practices and interventions are also used (Alisauskiene, & Harju-Luukkainen, 2021). Nevertheless, more holistic reforms are needed to equitably distribute resources, modernize infrastructure, support and train teachers, and promote public awareness about inclusive educational issues. Looking through Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the interdependence of micro-, meso-, and macro-level systems illustrates that even though Lithuania’s European Union integration has reshaped national policies, the local implementation still lags.

This study employed a scoping review methodology to analyze the existing research on inclusive education in Lithuania from 2000 to 2024. Scoping reviews are typically chosen to explore the scope of the coverage of the literature, identify knowledge gaps, and clarify key concepts (Munn et al., 2018). It serves as an initial step for systematic reviews by refining the research questions and determining inclusion and exclusion criteria. The current scoping review followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR, Tricco, et al., 2018). The objective was to identify research trends, challenges, and practices in Lithuanian inclusive education. The following three key questions guided the review: 1) How have research themes and methodologies on inclusive education in Lithuania evolved from 2000 to 2024? 2) What systemic and sociocultural barriers impede inclusive education in Lithuania? 3) How can future research address existing gaps in inclusive education in Lithuania? Academic databases Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and Lituanistika were searched for peer-reviewed articles about inclusive education. The search strategy involved keywords such as “inclusive education Lithuania,” “special educational needs,” “teacher training inclusion,” and “educational equity.” Boolean operators (AND/OR) were used to refine search queries, ensuring broad coverage of relevant literature. The search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles in English or Lithuanian. Following initial screening, the search yielded 200 articles. After reviewing the full texts of the articles about the topic and methods, articles that were not relevant to the study objectives and lacked depth or empirical basis were excluded. After removing duplicates, the remaining studies were screened based on titles and abstracts. Full-text screening was conducted for studies that met the inclusion criteria. Finally, 30 articles were selected for final investigation. The final sample was representative of the topics, matched the goals, and was manageable to analyze. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes in Lithuanian inclusive education research. Studies were coded based on emergent themes, including teacher attitudes and training, resource allocation, barriers, and methodological trends. Studies were further categorized according to their methodological approach: quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. The analysis was guided by Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, which examines inclusion through micro-, meso-, and macro-level perspectives. This scoping review seeks to present findings based on the existing research about inclusive education in Lithuania and highlight future research, policy, and practices needed to move closer toward more inclusive education in Lithuanian schools.

Over the past two decades, research on inclusive education in Lithuania has evolved significantly as the country transitioned from post-Soviet educational models to globally aligned practices. The Soviet educational model left a legacy of systemic barriers to inclusive education. In research Lithuanian scholarship has moved from small-scale and descriptive studies to more systematic and comprehensive research influenced by international frameworks. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of nationally representative data that addresses issues of students with disabilities. The most recent trend noticed is the rise in mixed-methods research that brings out the perspectives of teachers, parents, and students. Such studies emphasize the need for holistic reforms to align Lithuanian inclusive education with global standards that also meet local needs. 2014 Action Plan for Inclusive Education has brought policy changes and innovative practices like co-teaching and community advocacy into Lithuanian inclusive education. Nevertheless, there is still much to be done to overcome challenges such as barriers to the implementation of inclusive education, lack of funding and insufficient infrastructure, and limited availability of specialists. Even though pre-service teacher training about inclusion is mandatory in Lithuania, many teachers often self-fund their continued professional development efforts. Furthermore, it is important to understand the issues of intersectionality, especially concerning socioeconomic factors and special needs, and how more support is needed for more diverse students in inclusive educational settings. Suggestions for further research could be geared more toward longitudinal research to understand the changing faces of Lithuanian inclusive education over time. Employing a variety of methodologies to study diverse groups involved in inclusive education, and fostering collaboration with different sectors and countries can help create more equitable practices in the classrooms.

Alisauskiene, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2021). Changes towards inclusion in the Lithuanian education system. In Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives (pp. 188–200). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367810368-15 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press. Kugelmass, J., & Galkiene, A. (2003). Democratic reform and the emergence of special needs education in Lithuania. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625032000042311 Lakkala, S., Juškevičienė, A., Česnavičienė, J., Poteliūnienė, S., Ustilaitė, S., & Uusiautti, S. (2019). Implementing inclusive education in Lithuania: What are the main challenges according to teachers’ experiences? Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 43, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.15388/ActPaed.43.3 Leišytė, L., Rose, A.-L., & Schimmelpfennig, E. (2018). Lithuanian higher education: Between path dependence and change. In Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education (pp. 285–310). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_11 Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Pranevičiene, B., & Margevičiute, A. (2015). Challenges to the implementation of institutional reform in the Lithuanian general education system. Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, 8(1), 106–138. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2015-0013 Ruškus, J. (2020). Right to inclusive education for children with disabilities at stake in Lithuania. Special Education, 1(41), 10-52. DOI:10.21277/se.v1i41.526 Teresevičienė, M., Trepulė, E., & Trečiokienė, E. (2018). The impact of Nordic adult education ideas on the development of a democratic society in Lithuania. International Review of Education, 64, 443-463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9627-4 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 Zelvys, R. (2004). Development of education policy in Lithuania during the years of transformations. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(5), 559-571. Doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2004.04.004 Želvys, R. (2017). Transformations of teacher education policy in Central and Eastern Europe. In D. Jakavonytė-Staškuvienė & E. Sakadolskienė (Eds.), Mokslu grįsto švietimo link (pp. 16–26). Lietuvos edukologijos universiteto leidykla