Children and students with functional disorders are one of the target groups of the inclusive education. Students with functional disorders can adapt in general education schools faster if their intellectual development is within the normal range. This group usually consists of disabled students, but they are able to master general education programmes successfully with an assistant’s support. The purpose of the article is to explore the problems of assistants’ support for students with functional disorders in general education schools. Adaptation of these students to general education schools would facilitate their development and enable them to undertake further studies not only in vocational education, but also in higher educational institutions. Assistant’s support would promote the adaptation of these students to the class environment and ease the daily life of their parents. Having assessed the current situation, the authors conclude that the assistant’s support will be effective if the assistant’s functions and roles are recognized and if training of assistants for students with functional disorders in general education schools is ensured.

The constructivist approach is based on the idea that knowledge can never be passed from one person to another. The only way to acquire knowledge is to create or construct them. The constructivist approach changes also the role of the teacher in the educational process, the task of them is to organize the environment so that the student himself can construct the cognitive forms that teacher wants to give him. In the paper, the nature of the constructivist approach is identified, different aspects regarding mathematics education are analysed as well as the potential impact on the development of mathematical competences in the context of sustainable development is discussed. The study process and learning methods appropriate to constructivist approach also were studied. In order to illustrate the need for a constructivist approach in mathematics education, the survey of students from Latvia University of Life Science and Technologies (LLU) and Riga Technical University (RTU) were carried out, the results of which proved that mathematics learning at universities has to be changed. The current study proved that the constructivist approach radically changes the process of teaching and learning mathematics, connecting it with daily life, rather than teaching only abstract formulas and using a creative approach to mathematical tasks solving. This study shows that using constructivist approach to the teaching of mathematics, the competences needed for sustainable development are boosted.

In this article, common test results over the years 2000 – 2016 are analysed. The test questions for new entrants were based on secondary school mathematics. The students took the test in the first lesson of the higher mathematics course. The test results were analysed by years, by tasks and by specialities, and their differences were found. The test results’ dependence on state-exams score was studied and other types of dependence were looked at. It was found that the test score has a strong correlation with a state-exam but with high school mathematics mark and with later higher mathematics course marks has very weak correlation. During these 16 years, the questions that have been the most difficult for students have not changed. The highest test scores were found among students who had chosen the most popular specialities (with the highest competition).

Since 2014, there have been admission tests in mathematics for applicants to the Estonian University of Life Sciences for Geodesy, Land Management and Real Estate Planning; Civil Engineering; Hydraulic Engineering and Water Pollution Control; Engineering and Technetronics curricula. According to admission criteria, the test must be taken by students who have not passed the specific mathematics course state exam or when the score was less than 20 points. The admission test may also be taken by those who wish to improve their state exam score. In 2016, there were 126 such applicants of whom 63 took the test. In 2015, the numbers were 129 and 89 and in 2014 150 and 47 accordingly. The test was scored on scale of 100. The arithmetic average of the score was 30.6 points in 2016, 29.03 in 2015 and 18.84 in 2014. The test was considered to be passed with 1 point in 2014 and 20 points in 2015 and 2016. We analyzed test results and gave examples of problems which were solved exceptionally well or not at all.