Syria textbook controversy deepens distrust in government

Evasive response

The ministry's statement also challenged the accuracy of images circulating online without identifying which were false or providing evidence for its objections. Yet the controversy did not rest solely on unverified social media posts. Independent fact-checkers compared older textbooks with digital and printed editions used in the 2026–2027 academic year, confirming numerous alterations. The ministry's explanation did not address the substance of these documented changes.

Its own presentation exposed the weakness of its response. To demonstrate diversity in the textbooks, the ministry shared an illustration of a mother wearing a headscarf. Independent comparisons showed that the image had been altered from an earlier version depicting the same woman without one. The ministry neither acknowledged the alteration nor explained its educational purpose. Nor did it establish what adding the headscarf had to do with removing Assad-era ideology.

The problem was not an explicit denial of every reported change. It was the suggestion that unspecified claims were inaccurate while verified examples went unanswered. That ambiguity allowed the statement to be treated as a rebuttal of findings it had not refuted. If officials could not immediately verify every comparison, they could have said so and announced a review. Casting general doubt on the evidence instead undermined confidence in the ministry's account.

The statement placed particular emphasis on January 2025, before the current education minister, Mohammad Abdulrahman Turko, took office. That distinction matters when establishing who authorised the original revisions. Comparing older books with current editions does not, on its own, establish that a particular change was introduced later.

But a revision's date does not determine whether it was justified or should remain in classrooms. Turko may not have made the original decisions, but his ministry is responsible for the textbooks now in use. That includes examining inherited changes, correcting mistakes and determining whether officials acted within their authority.

Who proposed and approved the disputed edits? Did those responsible have a mandate to go beyond removing Assad-era propaganda? Establishing these facts is not an attempt to assign the minister blame for decisions made before his appointment. It is the basic institutional accountability that his ministry has yet to demonstrate.

Key question

The more consequential question is why earlier criticism did not trigger a thorough review before the textbooks were distributed nationwide. Revisions announced in January 2025 had already drawn objections over changes to historical, scientific, literary and religious material.

During the first half of 2025, human rights organisations raised concerns about the unilateral nature of the revisions and called for an independent review by educational specialists. The ministry therefore had ample warning before the controversy resurfaced.

In August 2026, however, the ministry announced that the curriculum previously used in Damascus would be adopted across all governorates for the 2026–2027 academic year. The following month, Turko said 41 million textbooks had been printed, compared with 28 million the previous year.

What checks were carried out before these editions were approved? Who signed off on their content? The ministry has not explained what substantive review, if any, took place or why disputed material remained. Whatever the date of the original edits, the current leadership decided to print and distribute those editions nationwide.

Syria's education system faces immense pressures, including damaged schools, teacher shortages and the needs of returning children. Those challenges deserve recognition, but they do not remove the obligation to check what children are taught. Nor can promises of future curriculum reform substitute for dealing with the books already in their hands.

Explanation needed

A controversy of this scale demands more than a defensive written statement. Turko should address Syrians directly, acknowledge the verified alterations and explain what his ministry knows about how they were introduced. He should also account for why earlier warnings did not lead to adequate scrutiny before nationwide distribution.

The ministry should publish a record of the changes and commission a transparent review involving independent educators, historians, teachers, civil society organisations and representatives of Syria's diverse communities. It should establish which revisions were authorised, whether they met defensible educational standards and which should be reversed. Its findings, corrective measures and safeguards for future editions should be made public.

That would not require the minister to accept personal blame for decisions made before his appointment. It would require him to assume responsibility for the institution he leads. The distinction matters: accountability is not simply about identifying who made a mistake, but about ensuring the institution can acknowledge and correct it.

The implications extend beyond schools. Syria's transitional authorities have promised a departure from decades in which official narratives were imposed without meaningful challenge. That commitment will be measured not only by how they dismantle the former regime's legacy but also by how they respond when their own decisions are questioned.

An education ministry cannot credibly teach critical thinking and citizenship while refusing to practise those principles under scrutiny. The original revisions may have preceded the current minister. The duty to explain, review and correct them has not.