Two opposite reports on the new Romanian language and literature program for the 9th grade. Critics call for the document to be rewritten, supporters defend it

The project of the new Romanian language and literature program for the 9th grade, which is under public debate at the Ministry of Education and Research, has generated an extensive dispute in the educational and academic environment. Two memoranda with opposing positions were sent to the ministry: a critical one, signed by almost 3,000 people, which calls for a complete rethinking of the document, and a second, supportive one, signed by 100 academics, professors and writers, which defends the return to a diachronic approach to Romanian literature and rejects the accusations made by the protesters.

The new Romanian language and literature program for the 9th grade changes the structure according to which the discipline is taught. Literature is no longer organized by genre, but by its evolution over time, an approach the document calls “diachronic.”

Concretely, the curriculum proposes going through Romanian literature in historical order, from myths, legends and chroniclers, to Pașoptist romanticism, 19th century realism and Junimia literature. Each stage corresponds to types of texts such as myth, fairy tale, chronicle, short story, poetry, novel or comedy – which must be read in their entirety, not in fragments. The list of recommended authors for the 9th grade includes exclusively writers from the 17th-19th centuries, while two writers appear only in the non-obligatory methodological suggestions section, Cella Serghi and Ana Blandiana.

Critical Memo: “Ten Reasons” Why the Curriculum Should Be Remade

The first memorandum sent to the Ministry of Education, entitled “Ten reasons why the Romanian language and literature curriculum project will make students hate reading and will increase functional illiteracy”, contests the new curriculum as a whole and demands the abandonment of the current document and its complete rewriting.

The authors argue that the principle that structures the curriculum – the chronological organization of literature – represents a return to a model considered outdated from a didactic point of view.

In the text, the signatories state that this approach is equivalent to “a simple recycling of the conception and contents of the program of 1987, the last implemented during the communist regime” and consider that “the 'reform' is, in reality, a restoration”.

According to the memo, the predominant application of the chronological criterion would favor rigid teaching, rote memorization, and the use of standardized commentaries, practices that the authors say have contributed over time to functional illiteracy.

“The first grade of high school is crucial for forming a long-term interest in reading”

The memo also claims that the curriculum gives too much space to old literature at the beginning of high school and too little to contemporary literature, which could affect students' relationship with reading: “the first grade of high school is crucial for the formation of long-term interest in reading, and the proposed approach risks alienating the young reader.”

In this context, the signatories warn that the document “will lose even more potential readers” and call for the curriculum to be rethought “from the ground up”, in line with current educational research and the cultural realities of today's students.

The memorandum was initially supported by over 200 signatories, and later the list was expanded, reaching, according to the initiators, almost 3,000 signatures.

Supporting Memo: Defending the Diachronic Approach and the Orientative Role of Ancient Literature

The second memorandum, entitled “Who is afraid of the historical approach to Romanian literature?”, supports the draft program and states that some of the criticisms appearing in the public space are formulated “in ideological terms” and distort the real content of the document.

The authors of the memo claim that the debate was dominated by labels such as “restoration”, “neo-Czeausism” or “ethnocentrism”, which, in their opinion, are not justified by the structure of the program.

The signatories state that ancient literature has “2-3 hours of study” in the curriculum and an orientational role, and a return to a chronological perspective would not mean a return to the curriculum of the 70s and 80s. “The return to the diachronic approach and the 'return of historicity' are not evidence of backwardness,” the document states, but a way to provide students with basic cultural landmarks before the study of modern and contemporary literature in subsequent grades.

The supporting memorandum also contests the idea that the new program would exclude contemporary literature or authors, arguing that the entire high school course is still a work in progress and that “there has never been a more consistent presence of female authors in a Romanian language and literature program” than in the projects prepared for the following years.

Also, the authors claim that the lack of a minimum chronological orientation has contributed, over time, to the “disorientation of students” and that the reduction of the discipline to “reading clubs” or “communication techniques” has affected the understanding of literature as a cultural phenomenon.

Finally, the signatories believe that the curriculum discussion should be linked to a broader reform of assessment and the Baccalaureate examination, stressing that “curriculum reform cannot work without assessment reform”.

The memorandum supporting the program project is signed by more than 100 people, according to the list published with the document. Among the signatories are academics, researchers, high school teachers, writers and students, from several universities and cultural institutions in Romania and abroad.

Radu Vancu: “It is not literary history that is contested, but the risk of losing even more readers”

The writer and university professor Radu Vancu, one of the vocal critics of the project, reacted publicly both to the supporting memorandum and in a debate organized by the Romanian Academy, in which he participated online.

In a post on his Facebook page, Vancu stated that supporters of the program have the right to express their position, but criticized the way they present themselves in the debate: “The only thing unfair, from my point of view, is that they do it by victimizing themselves, the reality being that there have been excessive & regrettable adjectives on both sides”, he wrote, adding that the group supporting the program “holds the symbolic power”, through the academic and institutional positions they hold occupies them.

The writer rejects the idea that opposition to the program is against old literature or tradition: “He invents a false subject, a straw man: the idea that we critics of the program are the enemies of old literature & tradition. No such thing.”

During the debate at the Romanian Academy, moderated by Mircea Martin, Radu Vancu said that there is a need for de-escalation of the discussion and a pragmatic approach: “It is necessary to lower the temperature and understand that a debate, no matter how polemical, does not mean conflict, but a discussion in which we seek what is best for our students.”

Radu Vancu: “Historicism disconnected from the present cannot work”

Radu Vancu also claimed that the historical approach proposed by the program must be balanced with contemporary texts, so that the students “understand that literature speaks about the truths of their world”. He emphasized that the goal of literary education should be to train long-term readers, warning that “this program will further alienate children from reading.”

Vancu links this criticism to the lack of coherent public policies for reading and states that, in this context, the “only chance” is to bring students closer to contemporary literature – “exactly what this curriculum does not do”.

The Ministry of Education is to analyze the comments received in the public consultation and has not announced, so far, whether the project will be modified.