It has been obvious for some time that the course and results of the both the broader social and educational transformation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries do not meet the expectations from early 1990s. Moreover, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 marks a turning point when not only the post-socialist and post-soviet states entered new uncharted waters (Novotný et al., 2023). The dramatic changes in the political situation that CEE countries have undergone and are undergoing in recent decades have (with all the risks) one advantage for research: they allow for a comparison of how different political regimes and styles of governance influence the making of national curriculum documents. Diachronic comparison for individual countries allows us to analyze the influence of political changes on the mezzo-processes of curriculum making, and synchronous comparison between countries in the region allows for replication or, conversely, falsification of initial hypotheses.

To interpret the mechanisms of national curriculum development, we use the conceptual frameworks of „curriculum making“ (e.g. Hizli Alkan & Priestley, 2019; Priestley et al., 2021) and also the "narrow corridor" theory (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2019). The latter one, stressing the need for balance of capacity between state and civil society in various political arenas (see also Dvořák, 2023; Wermke & Prøitz, 2019), is still to be further validated in economic research (Murphy & O’reilly, 2023). It is, however, a promising tool for the analysis of curricular development at national level. The following postulates cafrom this theory that are relevant for our research: 1. For successful curriculum development at the national/meso level, a balance between a competent state and a strong society (non-state sphere) is important. The state is often represented in this process by ministries and/or curriculum agencies. The non-state sphere is often represented by associations of teachers, employers, trade unions, or other non-governmental bodies, including pressure groups or churches. 2. The relationship between the main actors is dynamic, their capacity types develop over time, and both must constantly build their competences to maintain the balance. 3. If state regulation is weak, schools may not gain free space, but on contrary may find themselves under the domination of tradition and other informal institutions effectively constraining the teachers in “cage of norms”. 4. If state regulation is too strong, despotic system may quicky draft and enforce curriculum changes, but it will limit the freedom for teacher creativity, school innovation and experimentation with long-term negative consequences.

Our research questions are: What do curriculum making processes have looked in selected CEE countries during the different phases of transformation? At what sites of activity did curriculum making take place, who were the main state and non-state actors at the meso level? How did their relative capacity change during the transformation? What were the consequences for the curriculum? To what extent are these findings explained by / congruent with the assumptions derived from the theoretical models of "curriculum making" and "narrow corridor"?

This study looks at the curriculum making in “Visegrad” Central European countries (Janík et al., 2020) as well as Southern Caucasus nations, where some internal and externa political forces seek to establish illiberal and authoritarian regimes, and have succeed to some extent. More specifically, in our presentation we compare Czechia (a “Visegrad” country) and Georgia (South Caucasus post-soviet nation). The case studies use the process tracing method (Beach, 2017; Yin, 2018), which aims to provide a detailed theorized description of the development of curricula for initial compulsory education in these countries during the post-socialist transformation. By rigorously examining one or a small number of cases, the process tracing method allows us to uncover the multitude of operating variables and interconnected causal mechanisms and brings us closer to the reality of the social world. The first step is descriptive and includes a detailed chronology of the processes of curriculum development, followed by exploration (examination of the structure and relationships within the process) and finally explanation of the mechanisms using two pre-selected theoretical models. The research is based on several data sources: official information about the institutional framework of macro- and mezzo-level curriculum making, the texts of the present and past national curricula and other relevant documents, and discussions about the curriculum in traditional and social media. Qualitative interviews were also conducted in both countries with selected actors involved in curriculum development at the mezzo level, particularly within ministry, curricular agencies, and subject expert groups (approx. 10 one-hour interviews for each country). From this data, categories are created through coding, which then form the framework of analytical stories. Coding and category creation is both open/inductive; and deductive - informed by two theoretical models. Researchers are insiders to varying degrees in relation to the macro-level frame and the mezzo-curriculum processes, which requires constant reflection on their position and possible influence on interpretation. The final step is to compare both cases and analyze the similarities and differences between them, and the degree of agreement with the predictions of theoretical models.

The CEE nations controlled by the Soviet Union shared the same, highly centralized curriculum model based largely on the continental tradition. During the post-socialist transformation of the state and society, they went through several phases, each of which created specific conditions for curriculum making. The use of the "narrow corridor" model allows for the classification of these conditions and their influence on the process and product of curriculum development. The curriculum of social science subjects and civic education reflects the changes particularly well. In CEE countries, the need to define oneself against the legacy of Soviet rule and education model is analogous to the post-colonial situation in Ireland, as described in the paper by O’Reilly and Dempsey at this conference. The old Soviet-era curriculum was rejected, but a new one was not created for a long time as there was lack of both professional expertise in curriculum-making and knowledge of modern social sciences. Where the drive for participatory democratic curriculum making meets the low professional capacity of national agencies or other mezzo-level actors, curriculum revision becomes a painful process with an uncertain outcome. The newly rising illiberal governments, on the contrary, can easily mandate the revisions of official curriculum, however, at the cost of destroying democratic culture both at the mezzo level of the national agencies and at the micro level in individual schools. This study contributes to elaboration of the theory of curriculum making by extending it to transforming and illiberal states and by reflecting the specifics of different subjects. At the same time, it shows the possibility of using institutional models of other social sciences (in this case, the original economic model by Acemoglu et al.) to enrich the theories created specifically for the study of curriculum making processes.

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2019). Non-modernization: Power–culture trajectories and the dynamics of political institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-103913 Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2019). The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty. Penguin. Beach, D. (2017). Process tracing methods in the social sciences. Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.176 Dvořák, D. (2023). Curriculum development. In R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. Erkican (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (4th ed., Vol. 7, pp. 149-154). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.03024-4 Hizli Alkan, S., & Priestley, M. (2019). Teacher mediation of curriculum making: The role of reflexivity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(5), 737-754. Janík, T., Porubský, Š., Chrappán, M., & Kuszák, K. (2020). Curriculum changes in the Visegrad Four: three decades after the fall of communism. Waxmann. Murphy, R., & O’reilly, C. (2023). The expansive corridor: Testing Acemoglu and Robinson (2019). The Journal of Development Studies, 59(7), 1060–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2023.2197707 Novotný, P., Dvořák, D., & Dvořáková, M. (2023). Czech school reforms: Between East and West. In J. B. Krejsler & L. Moos (Eds.), School Policy Reform in Europe (s. 213–235). [Educational Governance Research, vol 22]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35434-2_10 Priestley, M., Philippou, S., Alvunger, D., & Soini, T. (2021). Curriculum making: A conceptual framing. In Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts (pp. 1-28). Emerald Publishing Limited. Wermke, W., & Prøitz, T. S. (2019). Discussing the curriculum-Didaktik dichotomy and comparative conceptualisations of the teaching profession. Education Inquiry, 10(4), 300-327. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.