Who wouldn’t want to see public discourse move beyond controversies over removals like Katyn, Maksymilian Kolbe, the Greater Poland Uprising, or the Grunwald from the core curriculum? That question, posed by former Prime Minister Beata Szydło on the X platform, frames a wider debate about who the Polish school is for and what history deserves emphasis in its textbooks.
The Volhynian Massacre in textbooks. Nowacka’s attempt to calm the fire
Recently, reports surfaced that the approach to Volhynian crimes could be revised in the new base. An excerpt that explicitly labeled the actions of Ukrainian nationalists as genocide might be removed from the text.
In the chapter “Poland under German and Soviet occupation,” the assignment would still ask students to explain “the causes of the Polish-Ukrainian conflict in Volhynia and eastern Lesser Poland.” Yet, compared with the 2022 core curriculum, the clarification that this included “the genocide of the Polish people” would disappear.
— described by Onet.
The head of the Ministry of National Education, Barbara Nowacka, attempted to quell the controversy, emphasizing that a preliminary consultation allows experts to present proposals and for the public to offer substantive feedback. She stated a commitment to speak plainly and to ensure accuracy, adding that the massacre in Volhynia should be named for what it was: genocide.
— the minister wrote then.
An expert from the Ministry of National Education speaks
Wirtualna Polska published an interview with Aleksander Pawlicki, a lecturer at the postgraduate School of Education of the Polish-American Freedom Foundation and the University of Warsaw. He was among five experts who suggested changes to the history curriculum.
When the Volhynia massacre is discussed, Pawlicki pointed to the classroom realities teachers face today. He noted that many schools already teach in mixed Polish-Ukrainian classes, where two sets of memories coexist on the same benches across generations and across the 20th century—from the 1940s to the interwar period. He framed it as a pedagogical challenge: in a classroom where Ukrainian and Polish students share the same space, how does a teacher handle language that names a genocide without inflaming tensions or undermining classroom community?
He described the difficulty of dictating a topic as charged as “genocidal massacre in Volhynia,” arguing that such labeling could impede the sense of unity in a diverse student body. The overarching goal, in his view, should be to facilitate understanding while avoiding gratuitous harm to pupils who may be connected to those historical memories in different ways.
— said the expert from the Ministry of National Education.
Szydło: “Who is the Polish school for?”
Beata Szydło weighed in again on the matter, echoing concerns about the direction of the curriculum on X. There has been visible friction within the ranks about how to balance historical truth with the sensitivities of today’s classrooms.
Recent criticism from the ministry, and by some authors of the proposed changes, has highlighted worries that removing certain historical episodes could put Ukrainian students in an awkward position while also attempting to avoid discomfort for Polish students with painful memories of the past. The debate has circulated around the very purpose of a national school system and what kind of history should be taught to future generations.
Beata Szydło framed the issue with a pointed question about the audience of the Polish school. The question touched a nerve in a country where history education is often used to shape civic identity and interethnic understanding. The discussion has thus taken on a broader political hue, reflecting competing visions for national memory and inclusive education.
The exchanges underscored a broader struggle: how to present a nuanced, multi-voiced history that acknowledges atrocities while building a sense of shared community among students with diverse ancestral backgrounds. The exchange also highlighted how political figures and curriculum designers balance accountability, pedagogy, and national memory in the classroom.
In sum, the evolving conversation about Volhynia, along with other charged historical events, continues to fuel debates about what belongs in the core curriculum and how best to foster informed, thoughtful citizenship in a plural society. The outcome remains to be seen, but the dialogue itself signals a commitment to ongoing reassessment and improvement in history education, guided by professional input and public accountability.
Source: wPolityce