An unexpected confrontation unfolded during a regional assembly session in the Wielkopolska Voivodeship, centering on whether the history of the Greater Poland Uprising should remain a core part of the school curriculum. The debate intensified when Minister Barbara Nowacka suggested removing the uprising from the curriculum, prompting a collective response from members of the regional council and allied parties. In a televised program, PiS councilor Adam Bogrycewicz described how, after a lengthy discussion, there was a broad, though conditional, call to the ministry to defend the legacy of the uprising at the critical turn of 1918 and 1919. The condition attached to the appeal reflected a broader concern about how national memory is presented in schools and how such memory policies are shaped at the regional level.
The roundtable discussion included Aleksandra Prorok from the Warsaw-Wola District Council and the previously mentioned councilor, along with Jakub Maciejewski as a moderator. They outlined the obstacles they face when discussing with members of the PO, who themselves are part of the government coalition. The speakers stressed that some politicians in power find it difficult to honor the victims of the German massacre in Wola, which occurred in August 1944, a point they viewed as essential to preserving historical truth and local identity.
One of the councilors spoke directly about the opposition to removing the Wola massacre from the list of compulsory historical topics taught in secondary schools and technical schools. According to opponents, including the PO, such a move would be seen as political maneuvering by a local government that seeks to steer historical memory for partisan ends. The speaker described the situation as perplexing and noted that the Law and Justice club had submitted a formal position to the full district council. This position argued, in a balanced manner, against erasing the Wola massacre from the curriculum, framing the issue as part of both regional and national identity that should be retained in educational programs.
The discussion also touched on a comparable incident in Poznań, where a consensus was eventually found against scrapping the Greater Poland Uprising from educational material. In that city, representatives were able to reach a unified stance opposing the removal, illustrating how local consensus can differ from broader political currents. The Law and Justice club asserted a firm commitment to acknowledging the significance of the Greater Poland Uprising and to supporting the funding and resources allocated to the Museum of the Greater Poland Uprising. In response, the Platform proposed a set of amendments; for instance, it argued against including the Prime Minister’s name in the district council position as a donor to the museum project. A compromise was eventually reached, reflecting a willingness to balance different political priorities while still recognizing the uprising’s role in Polish history.
The ongoing debate raises a pointed question about how a political party can defend national identity in a way that does not exhaust the merits and narratives supported by rival groups. The conversation highlighted the tension between preserving historical memory and the shifting political landscape that accompanies education policy. Advocates argue that the weight of history should not be diluted, while opponents express concern over potential politicization of school content. In Wielkopolska, as in other regions, the discourse centers on the responsibility of regional authorities to steward memory in a way that informs younger generations while respecting diverse perspectives within a democratic framework.
These discussions reflect broader questions about how regional councils navigate the delicate balance between commemorating shared historical events and ensuring that curricular choices remain inclusive, accurate, and educationally meaningful. By examining both the Greater Poland Uprising and the Wola massacre within the same conversation, officials underscored the importance of grounding educational content in verifiable history and in the lived experiences of communities affected by these events. The outcome of such debates may influence how museums, memorials, and other institutions are funded and how exhibits are interpreted for future learners. The overarching aim, repeatedly emphasized by participants, is to preserve a coherent national narrative while accommodating regional memories and diverse viewpoints.
The exchange underscores a broader civic process: regional legislatures acting as stewards of cultural memory, and political actors negotiating the boundaries between education, commemoration, and identity. While opinions diverge on the best means to achieve these goals, the discussions consistently return to the core idea that the past should be accessible to students, researchers, and the general public in a way that fosters understanding rather than division. In Wielkopolska and beyond, the debate over how to present history in schools remains a live, evolving conversation with implications for how history is taught, remembered, and valued by future generations. [Attribution: wPolityce]