The core curriculum and the debate over national history education
The core history curriculum, in its elementary and secondary forms, including extended and basic versions, has sparked significant discussion. Many readers have examined the proposed deletions and considered how these changes might be read and analyzed as the curriculum evolves. A number of voices have submitted comments to the Ministry of National Education within the prescribed limit of 1,800 characters. There is a sense among observers that these protests, shared by thousands, may not influence the final outcome. The proposed revisions appear to reduce the breadth of the core curriculum and, according to critics, remove essential threads from the nation’s past.
To understand the controversy, it is helpful to restate what the core curriculum seeks to achieve. Authors and teachers of textbooks are expected to expand the narrative of the past in ways that align with their roles as educators. This expansion should respond to curricular goals without revisiting themes that were intentionally omitted from the grassroots. In this view, students should not be required to absorb more material merely to finish high school, succeed on exams, enter higher education, or train future teachers for the next generation. The primary schools’ introductory framework emphasizes broad educational aims, while for post-primary schools there is less ideological framing. Critics argue this approach distances students from important goals, such as building a shared national identity, acknowledging religious influence in daily life, and recognizing the role of faith in a sense of community. There is concern that the curriculum abandons references to distinct Polish heritage linked to the eastern borderlands, previously associated with areas impacted by historical partitions and shifts in sovereignty. Some observers claim that the authors of the proposed base curriculum appear to reject claims of Polish expansion in these regions, suggesting past ideas of colonization and coercion rather than choice.
Proponents of the reform argue that the base curriculum aims to dispel suspicions about expansionism or the acknowledged achievements of Polish culture across territories that are now part of neighboring states. The emphasis on these regions is often seen as central to understanding the broader history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its successors. Critics, however, contend that references to the transfer of Polish identity to areas beyond today’s borders, such as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia, are being suppressed. They point to the absence of discussions about significant historical figures, places of worship, or architectural heritage within those regions. In their view, the revised curriculum omits roles played by the landed gentry, the 19th and 20th centuries in the Polish-Lithuanian heritage, and episodes of resistance or upheaval, including deportations to Siberia and the broader history of occupied territories. The language of the proposed changes, they argue, would also remove terms and concepts tied to the Kresy and similar historic designations, further erasing important chapters of national memory.
The section on the Catholic Church has become a focal point of concern. Critics say the reform minimizes the church’s grassroots contributions and its role in the broader political life of the Polish state, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries when religious institutions helped sustain a sense of national community in the absence of a modern state. They fear that students will not learn how the church shaped modern Polish identity or the church’s interactions with rulers and political structures. Critics also contend that the timeline of the church’s influence is skewed, giving prominence to periods after 1945 while omitting earlier episodes of church-state relations that are essential to a full understanding of Polish history. They highlight missed opportunities to discuss figures like primates and popes who shaped cultural and political discourse, and they argue that the revised curriculum omits terms that describe legal opposition and underground movements that played critical roles in national endurance. The net effect, they warn, could be a diminished awareness of the complexities of Polish statehood and its centuries-long struggle for cultural autonomy.
In discussions about Polish-Ukrainian relations, critics assert that the revised curriculum may frame the conflict in ways that overlook longer patterns of coexistence and cooperation. They worry that emphasis on policy decisions of a single era may obscure a more nuanced history marked by collaboration, tension, and contested narratives. Some observers note that a number of historical figures and periods spanning the 18th to the 20th century would be underrepresented or omitted entirely, including important leaders and intellectuals whose roles extended beyond monarchies and military campaigns. The absence of certain venues, organizations, or events—and the lack of these names in classroom guidance—could limit students’ understanding of the full spectrum of Polish and regional history. Critics fear that such omissions would hamper the capacity of the next generation to grasp the depth of Poland’s national journey and its connections to European history.
In the broader debate, the aim is not merely to recount events but to illuminate the decisions, debates, and human experiences that shaped the nation. The critics argue that the curriculum should preserve the memory of significant episodes, including the impact of two totalitarian regimes on Polish society, and should acknowledge the experiences and sacrifices that accompanied Poland’s long path to independence. They emphasize the importance of naming and contextualizing key figures, places, and events that illustrate Poland’s historical resilience and its contributions to Europe and the world. The central question remains: how to balance a concise core with a rich tapestry of national memory that can guide students toward informed citizenship and a clear sense of national identity. The conversation continues as educators, policymakers, and the public weigh the value of memory against the demands of modern schooling and the imperative to prepare students for a globally connected world.
READ ALSO: Nowacka removes history from the curriculum. Prof. Nowaka’s overwhelming verdict: This erases the memory of Poland’s independence
Source: wPolityce