As a new academic year begins, schools may see family studies enter the conversation. Yet the format of this emerging discipline remains unclear: will it be compulsory, elective, integrated into other subjects, or offered as a series of lectures? The intended audience appears unsettled as well: some proposals imagine speaking to high school students about family structure, while others suggest addressing younger students in the early grades to avert potential crises later. Questions about who would teach the course remain open, with possibilities ranging from psychologists to clergy, or perhaps again relying on classroom teachers. There is a clear emphasis on traditional family values, and one stated goal is to address demographic trends in the country.
The situation of an announced end without a plan for reaching it feels odd. The underlying causes and crises facing the family institution, and the resulting demographic challenges, seem to be overlooked. It is worth noting that sociological data show support for introducing family studies in schools, with many hoping that children will lead better lives than their parents and avoid repeating past mistakes. The ongoing breakdown of families reflected in divorce rates is not presented as a success.
Nevertheless, the discussion should extend beyond narrow definitions of happiness. It is important to analyze the drivers of demographic and family problems, not only within the country but globally. These forces operate on two levels: socio-economic factors and psychological dynamics.
If influencing the first level through schools proves difficult, the second is more amenable to education. A traditional, scientifically grounded approach suggests adding psychology to the curriculum in a way that is accessible and supported by scientific consensus. A dedicated section on family psychology might be valuable, but beginning with fundamentals can help students understand themselves and others, and examine interpersonal relationships more broadly.
There are already several subjects in schools that feel disconnected from their core disciplines and lack practical or moral value. For instance, Foundations of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics appears, on the surface, to address religion and history, but in practice it often does not align with religious studies or historical study. Debates about the potential influence of religious authorities and God’s Law have been loud, yet the critique often points to how humanities or classroom teachers—from math to biology—are tasked with teaching it. Materials are sometimes distributed after short online courses and training manuals.
Similarly, Foundations of the Spiritual and Moral Culture of the Peoples of Russia mixes elements of spiritual and moral education with cultural topics and ethnography. It raises questions about its historical basis, its purpose, and its relevance, while adding hours to the curriculum under the banner of broadening humanities education. The result is a two-year extension for what feels like an overflow of content with unclear outcomes.
There is also resistance to materials like “Conversations About the Important,” which aims to cover a wide range of topics for different grade levels and relies on classroom teachers to become general experts in every subject. The effect is a curriculum that seems unfocused and challenging to fit into a coherent learning pathway.
Many observers see a cadence of odd lessons in modern schooling, where pieces are detached from core sciences, altered hastily, or created without a clear scientific framework. The plan to add another such subject is perceived as a repeat of past patterns. The stated aim to revive traditional family values is not seen as a scientific enterprise.
Science should describe what kinds of families exist, how they organize themselves, and how laws govern family life. Such material is already present in the social sciences course for high school students, offering a framework for understanding social dynamics and legal contexts.
The concern remains about non-traditional family structures, including joint or polygamous arrangements, and how they should be addressed. The focus of analysis in this area belongs to psychology, which is better equipped to explore relationships, boundaries, and personal development than to prescribe normative prescriptions.
A mature individual benefits from understanding personal and relational organization before delving into the meaning of family dynamics. Some educational content in literature classes touches on these questions, but often as a sideline. Much of literary theory concentrates on genres, styles, and allusions, leaving psychology topics like temperament, personality, perception, or attachment less explored. Understanding how information flows and is interpreted helps students navigate social interactions and relationships more effectively.
Today’s teens show a notable interest in psychology, recognizing that many mental processes and social interactions follow certain patterns. This awareness exists even as the broader social environment leans toward introspection, self-discovery, and boundary setting. The reality is that simply labeling issues as psychological ones does not suffice; a nuanced approach is required to avoid further confusion about oneself and others.
Indeed, psychology courses hold significant value when they are lively, debated, and grounded in real-life scenarios involving students. They can explore conflict resolution with peers, parents, and teachers, and extend to career considerations and intimate relationships. Topics such as the role money plays in relationships, and why money matters are worthy of careful examination. Those who favor spiritual or moral frameworks can still benefit from rigorous, evidence-based discussions—yet these remain important only if approached with consistency.
Starting from the end or invoking vague notions rather than building a solid explanatory framework tends to yield confusion. Repeating lectures that aim to paint a universal moral has shown limited practical benefit in classrooms.
It is surprisingly easy to see what students gravitate toward. Some favor physical education, mathematics, literature, fine arts, or music. Yet few express a strong attachment to ORKSE or ODNKNR subjects, whose names alone can feel heavy and uninviting. If policy priorities are pursued in a formulaic way, ignoring causal relationships, the fate of any school subject can mirror a past trend.
In closing, the writer presents a personal viewpoint that may differ from those of editors or schools. The central question remains whether education can responsibly address family dynamics and psychological well-being in a way that is clear, evidence-based, and truly beneficial for students and society alike.