Once again, rapid changes in the educational process found themselves at the epicenter of heated discussions. This time, the reason was the plans of the Ministry of Education and Culture to reduce the number of subjects in the school curriculum as part of a large-scale reform of the senior school. The idea of making learning easier for students looks attractive, but at the same time, it raises many questions: what subjects are considered “superfluous” and what will students lose along with them? Is this a desire for modernization or a step towards the destruction of the educational process? Let’s try to figure out whether the innovations will really help make the school more modern, or whether they will only leave gaps in the knowledge of schoolchildren.
The issue of overburdening schoolchildren has been a concern for a long time. Our children spend a lot of time in lessons and also in online learning. It is clear that preparing well for all lessons and completing homework in all subjects is, as it were, a task only for a superhero. So we observe a picture of a significant deterioration of knowledge. Schoolchildren are simply exhausted both mentally and physically. Therefore, the need to unload the school curriculum is an obvious need and is not subject to discussion.
What subjects have become “redundant” according to the new reform
And the MES proposes the following innovation: starting from 2027, it is planned to remove from the list of compulsory subjects those that, according to officials from the ministry, are not important for Ukrainian schoolchildren. Instead, with the beginning of the reform of the senior specialized school, students of grades 10-12 will study 7 compulsory subjects:
- Ukrainian language
- Ukrainian literature
- History of Ukraine
- English
- Mathematics
- Physical culture
- “Defense of Ukraine”
As the MES notes, these subjects form basic literacy, national identity and physical fitness of young people. Students can choose other subjects depending on the study profile.
In addition, for data MES, the changes will also affect the number of hours allocated to the study of compulsory disciplines, which will gradually decrease in favor of optional subjects.
Thus, the number of hours for studying compulsory subjects will be:
- in the 10th grade – 840 hours;
- in the 11th grade – 630 hours;
- in the 12th grade – 420 hours.
The following number of hours will be allocated for compulsory subjects according to the selected profile:
- in the 10th grade – 280 hours;
- in the 11th grade – 315 hours;
- in the 12th grade – 420 hours.
And for optional subjects:
- in the 10th grade – 140 hours;
- in the 11th grade – 315 hours;
- in the 12th grade – 420 hours.
Students will be able to choose one subject from the list:
- art;
- technologies;
- computer science;
- financial literacy.
According to MES specialists, this will give schoolchildren the opportunity to specialize in areas that are of interest to them or necessary for building a successful career.
At the same time, the following were included in the list of “extra” items:
- Foreign literature
- World history
- Civic education
- Biology/ecology
- Geography
- Physics and chemistry.
Instead, students will be able to choose disciplines that will show a desire to study in depth both within and outside of their major. Such a system of individual selection will compensate for the reduction of mandatory subjects and at the same time will not limit students in comprehensive development. However, the reform will not work immediately. Initially, MES specialists plan to launch a pilot project in 2025 in only a few selected lyceums. Testing should reveal the strengths and weaknesses of this project.
At first glance, proposals to reduce the number of subjects look like an attempt to make life easier for students and teachers. However, this decision provoked a serious discussion: are the above-mentioned subjects really “extra”, or is their removal dangerous for the quality educational process?
Obviously, the main idea behind reducing the school curriculum is to try to make it less overloaded. Students are often faced with an excessive amount of information, a significant part of which does not find practical application in life. It seems that the removed subjects will allow more time to be devoted to key subjects such as mathematics or language learning. A smaller number of lessons can reduce the load on students and at the same time contribute to better learning of the material. In addition, specialists of the Ministry of Education and Culture assure that some of the disciplines subject to reduction do not disappear without a trace, but can be integrated into already existing subjects, which simplifies the educational process.
However, critics of the reform believe that such “cutting” of subjects is nothing more than a banal saving of time, which is far from progress. It is doubtful that children aged 15-16 years can confidently claim that he does not need basic knowledge of physics, biology or chemistry at all. But you see, they have already decided how it will be better.
Suppose that by removing such an apparently unnecessary item as the basics of health, officials really freed up time. But there are many topics that are studied only on the basis of health and not on any other subject. If the basics of health are integrated with biology, the problem will not be solved either. The teacher, by all terms, simply does not have time physically to practice the skills of stopping bleeding. But it is thoroughly worked out on the basis of health. And many such examples can be given.
For some reason, the MES does not notice two separate problems: the quality of teaching subjects and the lack of an opportunity to choose a field of study. And indeed, English is sometimes not taught at the proper level. Sometimes due to the low level of knowledge of the teacher himself, or due to low-quality textbooks. Since the textbooks of Ukrainian authors contain ineffective exercises based on outdated methods and gross grammatical errors. Physics is a difficult subject to understand and teach because it contains many non-intuitive concepts; the preparation for the study of physics should be started early in the course of natural science, and not to completely remove this subject from the program as superfluous. It is advisable to introduce specialized education in senior classes, and in basic school, students should get an idea of many different subjects in order to be able to independently choose the direction of study after completing basic secondary education. Therefore, it is necessary not to change the hours, or to delete subjects from the educational program, but rather to work on the quality and sequence of teaching the material in general.
There are also subjects that often have general educational value and form a broad worldview. For example, the history of arts or the basics of ethics cannot be called “superfluous”, because they develop cultural and moral consciousness. Combining several subjects can turn them into a chaotic conglomerate of information, where there will be no time left for deep immersion in the topic. And the schoolchildren themselves, who by studying such subjects could find their vocation in a certain field, are deprived of this chance due to the lack of basic knowledge of a specific subject.
It is worth thinking about what is the goal of modern school education. If it is only a minimal set of practical skills, then cutting subjects may be appropriate. But if the task of the school is to educate a comprehensively developed personality, then such changes look like a simplification for the sake of convenience.
Reducing the load can be beneficial, but only if there is a balance between practicality and comprehensive development. The question is not the number of lessons, but the quality of the approach to education, because only a reasonable reform will be able to raise an educated, cultured and competitive youth. It is necessary to understand that education is not just a collection of knowledge, it is the foundation for the development of society. Therefore, any changes should be based on careful analysis, and not on attempts to quickly “solve the problem”, which is what the experts of the Ministry of Education and Culture have been doing lately. After all, instead of relief, we can get serious gaps in the education of future generations.
The practice of reducing school subjects in the education of foreign countries
The practice of reducing or removing subjects from the school curriculum has long been discussed in many countries. This is usually explained by the desire to lighten the academic load, adapt education to modern needs or optimize resources. However, each approach has its own characteristics, consequences and causes an ambiguous reaction.
Finland is known for its radical approaches to education. Back in 2016, the country announced the gradual withdrawal of traditional subjects, such as history, geography or chemistry, and the transition to phenomenon-based learning.
Students study integrated topics, such as Climate Change or the European Union, which combine knowledge from several disciplines. This provides an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills and prepare children for real life situations by teaching them to analyze information. Students demonstrate high results in international rankings, but the reform also causes criticism among teachers who fear the loss of specialized knowledge.
In the US, many schools are cutting liberal arts subjects such as art, music or work studies to focus on so-called STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math). Such an approach makes it possible to prepare students for a high-tech economy, to contribute to focusing more attention on exact sciences, and to prepare young people for the modern labor market.
But, as critics point out, the reduction of artistic disciplines deprives children of the opportunity to develop creativity and cultural awareness.
In Britain, subject cuts are linked to teacher shortages and funding shortages. For example, many schools pay less attention to foreign languages or reduce them to a basic level. Some schools combine subjects such as history and geography into a single social studies course. It is obvious that time is saved, but the students themselves, who do not receive full teaching of individual subjects, risk having gaps in knowledge.
In Australia, flexibility in the choice of subjects is traditionally encouraged. In high school, students can choose courses that match their interests and career plans. Subjects of art, labor training, ecology become electives. But the basic program focuses on mathematics, English and science. Thus, students have more freedom to shape their own educational trajectory. But at the same time, the lack of interest in certain disciplines can lead to a loss of knowledge in society.
China removed the “unnecessary” for the sake of maintaining discipline. In general, the country often changes the educational program, removing or reducing subjects that are considered “impractical”. For example, in 2021, it was decided to reduce the volume of homework and exclude subjects that do not contribute to high test results. Yes, indeed, high-quality preparation of students for tough university entrance exams was ensured. But this approach significantly limited the development of students’ creative abilities and interests.
In Germany, the curriculum varies depending on the type of school (Gymnasium, Realschule, Hauptschule). In some schools, more emphasis is placed on core subjects such as mathematics and the German language, and humanities subjects such as philosophy become optional.
As you can see, reducing or removing subjects from the program is always a compromise between adaptation to modern requirements and the risk of losing important knowledge. Foreign experience shows that the success of such reforms depends on their balance. Flexibility and practicality should not overshadow cultural and general educational value. Integration, electives and modern teaching methods can be effective alternatives, but every change must take into account the long-term consequences for society.
Educational reforms always cause ambiguous emotions in society, so the reduction of the school curriculum was no exception. The discussion about “extra” subjects raises important questions: what is the basis of quality education, and can it be achieved through simplification? On the one hand, the desire to reduce the load on students seems logical and even necessary. But on the other hand, there is a risk of losing important elements that shape worldview, culture and critical thinking.
It is necessary to understand the simple truth that the reform should be deliberate and not hasty. The reduction of key disciplines such as foreign literature, world history, civic education, natural sciences and geography is an alarming signal of the degradation of the education system. These subjects not only form basic knowledge, but also educate critical thinking, environmental awareness and civic responsibility. Their absence leads to the narrowing of the young generation’s horizons, the loss of understanding of global processes and the connections between society and nature.
The devaluation of science, culture, and history lays the groundwork for manipulation, indifference to environmental challenges, and loss of state competitiveness. In the long term, this threatens social stability, economic development and the country’s ability to face global challenges. Education is an investment in the future, and cutting such disciplines is tantamount to giving up on that future.
