This year marks 35 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, which became a symbol of the great post-Soviet and post-Cold War transformation of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This change also affected the curricula of CEE educational systems. Unfortunately, it has been obvious for some time that the course and results of the transformation in a number of countries do not correspond to the expectations that stood at the beginning (Ther, 2019). Even where educational transformation appears to be successful, its impact on different groups of pupils varies. Moreover, Terry (2023) argues that Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine marks the end of the post-Soviet / post-Cold war period when Russia as hegemon used its soft power in its former empire. In February 2022 the world, or at least the post-socialist states of CEE and Central Asia, entered new uncharted waters. In this contribution, we therefore seek to describe the changes of curricula in post-Soviet space and beyond and possibly extrapolate it.

Tendencies to authoritarian rule are not limited to successor states of the Soviet Union or its former satelites.The new threats to freedom of education at all levels as a result of the erosion of democracy and the return of illiberal systems all over the world are still little thematized in the educational literature. Thus, the questions we ask about the Central and Eastern Europe today may be relevant for the other areas in the future. Therefore, from the point of view of both educational theory and practical policy, it is very important to analyze how return of illiberal and authoritarian regimes affect school curriculum. At the same time, there is a need to reflect on how educational research on and in countries under authoritarian rule can and should be done. Examining the development of curricula in nations or regions under populist and illiberal governments can, it is hoped, strengthen the resilience of school systems in democratic countries, as well as addressing the practical issues as schooling the pupils coming (perhaps as refugees) of from these areas, recognition of their certificates issued by internationally unrecognized governments, cooperation with researchers from such jurisdictions, etc.

In our study, we try to look back and look forward: How has the curriculum of CEE countries changed during the transition to liberal market society and what changes are being made in countries where different forms of illiberal governments have been (re)establised? As the content (especially history and social sciences) has received most attention (Khavenson & Carnoy, 2016), we ask some other research questions: What do curriculum making processes (Priestley et al., 2021) look like in countries with different outcomes of transformation? How has the structure of curriculum documents changed? How does the impact of transfrormation on different domains of knowledge differ? What are the similarities and differences in curriculum governance across the post-socialist space?

We perform a multiple case study (Yin, 2018) of curriculum making processes in several post-socialist countries with a focus on two regions: Visegrad countries (Central Europe) and South Caucasus. Some of these countries represent standard nation-states in which traditional approaches of educational research can be applied, but some of them are quasi-states and/or under foreign illiberal rule (e.g. Abkhazia in Georgia). Morgenbesser and Weiss (2018) noted that with a high proportion of authoritarian regimes in many areas of the world, it is surprising how little attention is paid to the methodology of conducting social scientific research in these locations. Therefore, our research can also represent a contribution to methodology of research in illiberal terrain. We mainly use desk research - analysis of documents and media releases. Desk research has clear advantages for the researcher in the case of authoritarian systems with hostile governments, but it has also obvious limitations. For the study of some aspects of authoritarian regimes, traditional written sources do not exist or have problematic value (reports produced by corrupt governments). In the period of Soviet rule, local authors tended to uncritically praise the achievements of socialist education and its superiority to Western models. In more recent sources, the previous stance remains to a certain extent, but at the same time the other extreme appears – emphasising problems that are supposed to legitimise the drawing of international development aid. There is a need to pay double attention to the critical analysis of how official sources reflect the real situation and trends. Related to this are questions of positionality and reflection of the authors. Some Western authors come to the post-socialist space in the role of experts, and therefore they are also interested in emphasising the advantages of Western models. Local researchers, in turn, feel threatened by the renewed Russian pursuit of hegemony, so it is difficult for them to assess both the effects of the former central curricular policy and the current demands of the Russian-speaking populations of their countries. In our project, we therefore try to balance an insiders’ view based on intimate knowledge of post-socialist field with the methodological rigour of standards in comparative education (Silová, 2010).

In initial phases of transformation, some curriculum changes were guided by neoliberal ideology rather than educational logic or research evidence (Elliot, 2014). Education reforms in CEE countries that restored their independence also have had an important symbolic function, since national curriculum is one of the attributes of a sovereign state and a cultural nation. Thus, the desired models were to be based on the experience of Western curricula to emphasize the closeness to Western European democratic countries and signal the competitiveness of its skilled workforce. Most recent changes in curricula in CEE countries, however, feature some elements a (neo)conservative "counter-revolution" and recentralisation, but it can also be reframed as "retro-innovations", i.e. the new use of traditional and proven approaches of continental Didactics (Sivesind & Westbury, 2016), such as more detailed centrally prepared syllabuses. Paradoxically, in the Czech Republic, under the populist government of the ANO ("Yes") movement, the well-prepared and widely supported curriculum reform has been launched. In post-soviet space, the current policy of Russia led to the emergence of various quasi-states (or de facto states), e.g. Transnistria in Moldova, the Donetsk and Luhansk “republics” in Ukraine – recently annexed to the Russian Federation, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. The available information and schooling show the impact of the mass emigration from these areas and imposed the policy of russification in curriculum. Finally, in Poland, in 2024, we can observe the new wave of changes in education, which has been under the influence of a conservative nationally (but not pro-Russian) oriented government for quite a long time. Therefore, in addition to recommendations for increasing resilience against illiberal interventions in education, our research also provides some optimistic findings about the renewal of the curriculum after a (temporary) slip to authoritarian rule.

Elliott, J. G. (2014). Lessons from abroad: Whatever happened to pedagogy? Comparative Education, 50(1), 27–44. Janík, T., Porubský, Š., Chrappán, M., & Kuszák, K. (2020). Curriculum changes in the Visegrad Four: Three decades after the fall of communism. Waxmann. Khavenson, T., & Carnoy, M. (2016). The unintended and intended academic consequences of educational reforms: The cases of post-Soviet Estonia, Latvia and Russia. Oxford Review of Education, 42(2), 178–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1157063 Morgenbesser, L., & Weiss, M. (2018). Survive and thrive: Field research in authoritarian Southeast Asia. Asian Studies Review, 42(3), 385-403. 10.1080/10357823.2018.1472210 Piattoeva, N., Viseu, S., & Wirthová, J. (2023). Introduction to the special issue ‘Return of the nation: Education in an era of rising nationalism and populism’. European Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 595-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041231188413 Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S., & Soini, T. (2021). Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts (1st Ed.). Emerald Publishing Limited. Silová, I. (Ed.) (2010). Rediscovering post-socialism in comparative education. In: Silová, I. (Ed.), Post-socialism is not dead: (Re)reading the global in comparative education (pp. 1–24). Emerald. Sivesind, K., & Westbury, I. (2016). State-based curriculum-making, Part I. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(6), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1186737 Terry, G. S. (2023). An obituary for the post-soviet, 1991–2022. In S Šrāders & G. S Terry (Eds.), The Conference on Russia Papers 2023 (pp. 61–71). University of Tartu Press. Ther, P. (2019). Das andere Ende der Geschichte: Essays zur großen Transformation. Suhrkamp Verlag. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th edition). SAGE.