From the 2027/28 school year, first-year high school pupils, as well as pupils in the first and fifth years of elementary school, are expected to follow new curricula. At the same time, the introduction of new national textbooks for these year groups has also been announced for the same school year.
Alongside these changes, Minister of Education Dejan Vuk Stanković has announced the possibility of shortening classes to 30 minutes, as well as expanding the programme of enriched single-shift schooling across all primary schools. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Đuro Macut has stressed that secondary education is inadequate and that, as he claims, changes are also necessary at that level.
In Serbia, the need for education reform has long not been a new topic. It has been discussed for years, yet changes are rarely adopted and even more rarely implemented in a planned and consistent manner. For that reason, statements from the highest levels of government and the series of announced innovations do not give the impression of being mutually aligned. They merely create confusion.
It is still not known with certainty whether first-year grammar school pupils will begin following the new curricula from the 2027/28 school year or from the following one. The amended Rulebook published on 2 December 2025 states that implementation will begin in the next school year, but this would clash with the year announced for the introduction of national textbooks, so it is assumed that the changes will begin in 2027/28. Amendments to the Law on Textbooks were also adopted in the National Assembly of Serbia on 2 December last year.
Instead of six national textbooks, as originally stated in the Draft Amendments, Members of Parliament ultimately voted to introduce only two (in history and geography), as the text was changed in the meantime through amendments. The changes, together with 57 other legislative proposals, were adopted without parliamentary debate. Critics mainly pointed out that the public had been left without answers to key questions about the reasons for introducing textbooks of “national importance” and that the entire matter had been carried out without genuine public consultation. The timing was also called into question.
A similar stir was recently raised in the public over the announcement of the possibility of shortening classses to 30 minutes, with the explanation that today’s pupils do not have the attention span for 45 minutes. In addition to the observation that shortening lessons cannot solve the problem of reduced attention, the manner in which the proposal was presented to the public was also criticised. It seemed more like an idea being tested through the media than part of a carefully considered education policy.
Also, we should mention the end-of-elementary-school exam, once announced as one of the most important reforms in education. Although presented as something that would fundamentally change the system of assessment and university admissions, after multiple postponements, the topic has almost fallen into oblivion.
It is precisely in such an approach that the problem lies, as it does not inspire confidence that those in charge know which direction they want the education system to take.
What might the new curricula bring?
Speaking about the innovations in the curricula from the 2027/28 school year, history teacher and president of the Edu Forum association, Aleksandar Markov, told NIN that they are familiar with the changes which, as he says, were expected given the introduction of national textbooks.
Changes to the curricula are therefore most anticipated in the subjects linked to the new textbooks. Asked what exactly will change, Markov replied that, for now, everything is based on assumptions, as much of it is “shrouded in secrecy”.
“In previous years, when curricula were changed, amendments were introduced successively. I do not know whether that will be the case now,” he points out.
Markov believes that, given the way innovations in the education system are announced and introduced, it appears that decisions are being made ad hoc, often depending on the socio-political moment.
“For example, national textbooks had been discussed for a long time, but they were suddenly and hastily introduced in the context of last year’s social developments. Without parliamentary debate and without consultation with teachers, which would have been the most natural and most important thing. The new curricula are also being prepared at the level of the competent bodies within the Ministry of Education. That is essentially normal, but it would be entirely natural for teachers to be consulted more, as the people who work with pupils and are in the classroom,” Markov explains.
He says that the impression is that curricula are being dealt with by people from the administration. He adds that he is aware that the person heading the ministry has the final say, but that it is necessary to involve all stakeholders if quality is to be achieved.
“Of course, there are colleagues at the Institute for the Improvement of Education and Upbringing who have previous classroom experience. But when such major changes are being made, it is essential to obtain feedback from teachers as well. And to cascade everything down to a lower level, instead of imposing something, as is currently the case. That would also motivate teachers more, knowing that they had been consulted and had in some way contributed to the change,” Markov emphasises.
At this moment, Markov believes that is not the path being taken.
How should education reform be approached?
Asked where Serbia should begin with reforms in the field of education, Markov says that he absolutely agrees that it is necessary to revise the curricula. However, he adds, the only way to do this properly is through cooperation with teachers.
“In other words, curricula should be revised on the basis of feedback that the competent bodies within the Ministry of Education would receive from teachers. The material is too extensive for pupils. Whichever subject we take, everything is conceived according to the principle of ‘covering as much as possible’, leaving little time for discussion or consolidation of knowledge,” Markov points out.
He stresses that, in addition to revising the curricula, it is necessary to allocate greater funding to education in order to improve the technical capacities of schools.
“I am not talking about teachers’ salaries, because they are not decisive. I am referring to working conditions. In some schools we have over 30 pupils in classes in popular schools; it is simply not possible to work properly in such circumstances,” he assesses.
After revising the curricula, attention should be devoted to the assessment system which, in Markov’s view, has remained in the “distant past” in Serbia. According to him, the current grading system does not meet either the needs of the labour market or the context in which children are being educated.
“It is therefore no surprise that grades have been devalued and no longer represent a true reflection of pupils’ knowledge. So the key steps are greater investment in education, followed by revising and lightening the curricula, which would probably lead to a reduction in the number of subjects. And finally, redefining the way assessment is carried out. In that domain we can talk about introducing external testing and the end-of-elementary-school exam, which was once discussed, but nothing further has ever come of it,” Markov concludes for NIN.
Similar views have previously been expressed by NIN’s interlocutors. Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, Dragica Pavlović Babić, recently emphasised that it is high time “to deal seriously with the issue of education and to think carefully about all the decisions we make”, while Kristina Mojović Zdravković, a researcher at the Institute for Psychology and a teaching associate at the Faculty of Philosophy, speaking about the proposal to shorten lessons, highlighted the importance of basing decisions on major changes on empirical data and dialogue among all stakeholders in the education system: pupils, teachers, parents, decision-makers and education policy creators.
(NIN, 18.02.2026)