A recent image in a sixth‑grade social studies textbook stopped me cold. A statue of a renowned ancient Egyptian scribe had been digitally altered so that a shirt now covered its chest. Whoever made this change clearly acted from specific religious and ethical convictions. Yet the alteration raises a deeper question: what scientific or moral value is conveyed to students who will inevitably encounter the original image in an age defined by the internet and artificial intelligence? The implicit lesson is troubling. It suggests that falsifying reality for ideological motives is permissible, leaving one to wonder whether any other lesson is being taught.
Over the past two days, the issue of school curricula and their unconventional modifications has become a major public controversy, dominating social media platforms. The debate was sparked by a journalist who produced a research‑based report on Syrian curricula, extracting images and texts that illustrate recent revisions. Titled New Syria: Education Under al‑Sharaa’s Rule, A Review of Syrian National School Curricula 2025–2026, the report was published on October 19, 2026. It examined 130 textbooks across all educational stages, comparing new editions with previous ones to track the transformation of Syrian education following the fall of the Assad regime. The report was issued by IMPACT‑se, an Israeli research institute known for using educational curricula as a tool of political pressure.
The report documents the removal of Assad‑era symbols, Baathist slogans and glorifying content. Such changes are, in fact, an essential educational and political necessity during a period of transition. Yet the report argues that the most consequential shift lies in the redefinition of national identity. According to its authors, the curriculum grants Sunni Islam and the Islamic nation a central status at the expense of concepts that historically shaped Syrian identity, Arabism and civic nationalism. Terms such as homeland, national duty and citizenship are increasingly replaced with religious vocabulary such as religious law, consultation and the community of believers. Certain civic and nationalist duties are reframed through the language of religious struggle and divine obligation. Content relating to religious tolerance and equality before the law has been removed.
The fundamental issue does not stem from the presence of Islam in Syrian curricula. Islam is a foundational component of the nation’s history and culture, and writing Syria’s modern or ancient history without it would be neither possible nor desirable. For decades, its standing was diminished in favour of a hollow nationalism. Yet any disruption of the balance between fostering national belonging and respecting Syria’s pluralistic cultural identity undermines the country’s recovery.
The scale of these curricular changes remains unclear to me, but the texts highlighted in the report clearly indicate an imbalance. It is uncertain whether the curriculum acknowledges Syria’s other religious and cultural communities. If such recognition is absent, the omission risks reducing citizenship to a hierarchical religious framework in which Syrians are not treated equally. A student who does not see their community reflected in the national narrative, or who encounters only a distorted depiction of it, receives an implicit message about their place in the state and their future sense of belonging. In a nation emerging from civil war and profound internal divisions, building national unity becomes extraordinarily difficult when recognition of diversity is diminished rather than embraced.
The report also notes an intensified critique of Israeli policies and a heightened focus on the Palestinian cause. According to its findings, textbooks continue to portray the State of Israel as a permanent enemy of the Arab and Islamic nation and as an ongoing occupier engaged in killing and destruction, accompanied by the glorification of Palestinian resistance.
In addition, the report highlights the removal of texts concerning equal rights and public participation for women. Images of women and girls have been removed or altered by adding the hijab, sometimes even to historical artistic renderings and ambiguous statues. This is accompanied by a more conservative framing of traditional domestic roles and guardianship. Having reviewed several of these examples myself, I found them accurate. One must ask whether curriculum designers intend to impose their worldview on society, what model of womanhood the curriculum seeks to promote, and whether this model reflects social reality. Where will other segments of society see themselves in a governmental curriculum ostensibly designed to represent social diversity? What purpose is served by deleting an image of a young girl at play or by erasing women from the public sphere?
The report further notes that biology lessons related to the theory of evolution and natural selection have been removed, with scientific texts modified to eliminate references to them. Personally, although I do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, removing it entirely rather than presenting it as a principal scientific theory does not help our children understand global scientific discourse. Students will not abandon their beliefs merely by reading about a theory, and omitting it from formal curricula will not prevent them from encountering it elsewhere. Instead of bans, scientific criticisms and religious perspectives could be integrated. The foremost priority should be cultivating critical thinking rather than restricting access to global knowledge.
The report observes that while previous curricula contained extensive glorification of armed resistance, martyrdom and sacrifice, the new shift lies in recasting national concepts through the language of jihad and religious duty, embedding conflict into the definition of identity. Cultivating a sense of sacrifice within political and religious awareness requires balance. Linking sacrifice to religious values is natural, as people seek existential answers regarding meaning and the afterlife. Yet this must not dissolve the concept of the homeland, and equilibrium between national and religious duties must be preserved.
Furthermore, the report notes that the curriculum softens tensions with Türkiye in certain contexts, sometimes at the expense of historical accuracy. The Ottoman period is redefined as Ottoman rule rather than Ottoman occupation. Descriptions of the Arab Revolt and resistance to Turkification policies have been altered, and the martyrs of May 6 are described as traitors. Materials concerning the Sanjak of Iskenderun have been amended. Praise for Iran and Hezbollah has been removed and replaced with negative depictions of their roles in Syria. Although some of these shifts may carry positive political implications, certain modifications warrant serious concern.
These curricular changes raise profound questions about who holds the authority to write national history. History encompasses both the national narrative and the political‑ideological frameworks that shape collective memory. Who determines the model citizen the educational system seeks to produce, the political culture in which they are nurtured and the worldview they inherit? Who decides how marginalized groups see themselves represented in the curriculum? Do officials in a transitional government possess the sole mandate to determine all of this without the input of scholars, historians and experts?
Syria urgently needs a modernized educational system. The existing framework has grown obsolete and deteriorated, even if many of us take pride in the scholars it produced in the past. Until a comprehensive new system is built, the nation must establish a transparent national mechanism for curriculum review. This body should include historians, educators, scientists, legal experts and representatives of Syria’s diverse communities. It should operate under publicized standards that encompass documentation, scientific accuracy, equal citizenship, freedom of research and respect for pluralism.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
