Curriculum and Civil Society in

Afghanistan

ADELE JONES
Arnold Bergstraesser Institute for Socio-Cultural Research

Although research has traditionally discussed the ways in which societies in conflict
develop educational practices, only recently have scholars begun to examine the role
of education in creating or sustaining conflict. In Afghanistan, changing regimes
have had an impact on state-sanctioned curricula over the past fifty years, drasti-
cally altering the purpose and ideology of education. In this article, Adele Jones traces
the changing nature of Afghan curricula since the 1960s, highlighting the conflict
surrounding curricula during the Soviet regime. She posits that resistance to state-
sanctioned curricula was seen as resistance to the state regime, often putting schools
at the center of conflict. This continues today, as Taliban groups resist the West-
ern-influenced curricula of modern Afghanistan. Jones argues that understanding
this cycle of resistance is critical for Western agencies aiming to support educational
efforts in the country.

Research traditionally has focused on how societies develop educational prac-

tices, but recent studies have examined the role that education itself plays
in supporting or resisting dominant authorities. Curriculum is also receiv-
ing closer attention as a factor that deters or leads to conflict (Ahmad, 2004;
Gasanabo, 2006; Stöber, 2007; UNESCO-IBE, 2004). Although curriculum
development is usually presented as an objective and technical process, ide-
ologies and economic interests underpin this process (Jones, 2007a). Often
dominant powers dictate the direction of new curriculum to reflect national
ideology.
In Afghanistan since 2001, the new government has emphasized educa-
tional access and equity, specifically focusing on education for all—girls as well
as boys. However, schools are increasingly on the front line of a war between
the Afghan government and Taliban insurgents and allies. In the 1980s, some
Afghans opposed government-backed schooling as a means of rejecting the
Soviet regime; today, many continue to see resistance toward schooling as a

Harvard Educational Review Vol. 79 No. 1 Spring 2009

Copyright © by the President and Fellows of Harvard College

113
Harvard Educational Review

way to defeat the government. Specifically, citizens have questioned the under-
lying ideologies of government-backed curricula. This essay examines curri-
cula in Afghanistan, first providing an overview of curriculum development
over the past three decades, and then focusing on the new primary school
curriculum that teaches the current government’s espoused “realization of
democracy” (The Constitution of Afghanistan, art. 6). It concludes by ques-
tioning the relevance and usefulness of this curriculum for the Afghan people,
and its ability to address the challenges they face.

Influences on the Curriculum Prior to 2001

Diverse international efforts have supported educational developments
in Afghanistan for decades. In the 1960s, the boost for Afghan education
came from divergent sources. The United States, for example, concentrated
on teacher training and curriculum development as a new generation of
Afghans (many of whom were educated in the Soviet Union) joined the gov-
ernment bureaucracy (Easterly, 1974; Samady, 2001). France, Germany, the
Soviet Union, and the United States all provided financial assistance to uni-
versity faculties, and in 1967 the Soviet Union established the first polytech-
nic institute. By the early 1970s, Soviet advisers and experts trained 90 per-
cent of Afghan armed forces, and thousands went to the Soviet Union for
training. In addition, graduates from higher education institutions won fel-
lowships to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations. As successive Afghan
governments leaned more toward socialism, more technocrats and university
students favored “modernity” and harbored socialist sympathies. In time, the
education system reflected the Soviet approach to education (Sadat, 2004).
By the middle of the 1970s, Soviet educational ideologies permeated Afghan
educational institutions.
In 1979, Soviet tanks entered Afghanistan. Under President Babrak Kar-
mal (1980), literacy courses and health and technology programs flourished.
Over the next few years, the Soviet-backed government established pedagogi-
cal research centers and centers for retraining teachers (building on earlier
efforts in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), Russian replaced English as the interna-
tional language, and academic exchanges were established with Eastern Bloc
countries.
Education in the Soviet period was a mix of older Afghan curriculum and
Russian textbooks. Soviet educational trends heavily influenced Afghan curri-
cula, with its focus on “communist internationalism”—spreading communist
ideas and connecting with other communist nations. This affected the way ref-
ugee groups viewed the country’s education and curriculum; refugees often
saw educational developments as anti-Islamic and anti-Afghan. As the Afghani-
stan Education Committee (1984), a nongovernmental organization (NGO)
for refugees established in Peshawar (in the North-West Frontier Province,
Pakistan), expressed it:

114
 Curriculum and Civil Society in Afghanistan
adele jones

[Afghan] teachers are forced to teach the students in such a way . . . against their
culture and belief. . . . They introduce several new subjects of communism and
socialism in various faculties and schools. They, directly or indirectly, have been
forced to learn Russian languages. Every day teachers should say in classes some-
thing in favor of Russian friendship with Afghanistan. (p. 1)

The Afghanistan Education Committee (1985) also argued that “the Rus-
sians coordinate all their efforts to educate and train . . . [with curricula] void
of Islamic studies and Afghani culture to pave the way for Russian coloniza-
tion and exploitation” (p. 4). Even displaced Afghans living in Pakistan were
often resistant to schools for refugee children, as some of them associated
these schools with a communist regime that played down the importance of
the Qur’an and encouraged atheism (Jones, 2007a).
In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. and European NGOs provided assistance to
nationalist, mujahideen, groups1 for education and curriculum. These groups
also received assistance with textbook development from an American univer-
sity (Stephens & Ottaway, 2002).2 As factional education “departments” were
established by mujahideen groups (in opposition to Soviet educational prac-
tices), textbooks proliferated, and the language of war or jihad was incorpo-
rated throughout the curriculum. In the social sciences, texts focused predom-
inantly on Saudi/Muslim history and geography and the cultures of Spain,
Africa, and Afghanistan. Math textbooks included questions such as: “One
year a group of mujahideen spent 124,800 Afghanis. What was their monthly
expenditure?” (Interim Curriculum, 1986, grade 4); and “If three mujahideen
need 3000 bullets, 2 need 2000 bullets, how many bullets do 9 mujahideen
need?” (Interim Curriculum, 1987, grade 8).
After Soviet troops pulled out in 1989, the Afghan government was faced
with civil war for the next three years. It was finally defeated in 1992 when vari-
ous mujahideen groups took over Kabul. Continued fighting between factions
finally ended when the Taliban took control in 1996. During this period, educa-
tion continued without central organization. Schools used whatever textbooks
were available, and often they were mujahideen “opposition” textbooks.3
Under the Taliban, the first real semblance of a government was established
in the wake of peace. Education saw changes that controlled what was taught
and, eventually, who could attend schools. By 2000, a circular from the Taliban
Ministry of Education (MOE) in Kabul issued a directive removing social stud-
ies (the 1980s mujahideen book included science, history, and geography for
grades 4 to 6 under one title, “social studies”) from the curriculum because
certain ideas were said to be against the teachings of Islam. By removing social
studies, the Taliban began to create a curriculum that supported their views of
what “good” members of the new Islamic Emirate should know and the prin-
ciples by which they should live.
The Taliban MOE also mandated that schools use opposition textbooks
(originally developed in Peshawar, Pakistan, during the 1980s, with the sup-
port of international and Western organizations). These textbooks continued

115
Harvard Educational Review

their promotion of resistance, orienting students politically and reinforcing

violent jihad through language. Use of these resistance textbooks continued
beyond the Taliban period and into 2002, compensating for textbook short-
ages that accompanied massive reenrollments under the new regime.4

Government, Ideology, and Curriculum after 2001

Following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, an interim government
was established. This U.S.-backed government established free elections and a
new constitution in 2004 based on ideals of national unity, human rights, and
democracy:
The state is obliged to create a prosperous and progressive society based on social
justice, protection of human dignity, protection of human rights, realization of
democracy, and to ensure national unity and equality among all ethnic groups
and tribes and to provide for balanced development in all areas of the country.
(The Constitution of Afghanistan, art. 6)

At the end of 2002, during a national workshop organized by USAID,

­ NICEF, and UNESCO, members of key NGOs and an education consult-
U
ing company working in Afghanistan developed a draft of the new curricu-
lar framework reflecting these ideological changes. The draft curriculum was
produced through consultation with senior members of the interim govern-
ment’s Ministry of Education. The MOE Compilation and Translation Depart-
ment approved the Curriculum Framework Afghanistan in 2003. The preface to
the Framework emphasizes that “when young people enter the world of work,
as a result of the implementation of the new curriculum, they will be good
Muslims, civilized human beings and true, self-reliant Afghans” (MOE, 2003,
p. 11). Significantly, the preface highlights the need to “foster national unity
and social cohesion” in an effort to cultivate Afghan identity so that “students
will reinforce and broaden the Islamic vision and religious principles in a non-
extremist way” (p. 21). While this language may reflect the involvement of
international writers, it also highlights a new direction toward peace and
unity for the Afghan officials and ministers who were part of this consultative
process.

Resisting Change
Despite progress in raising awareness among Afghan officials, resistance to
government-influenced curricula continues in Afghanistan. The Taliban Lead-
ership Council, threatening to attack schools over curriculum issues, has pub-
licly stated:
Present academic curriculum is influenced by the puppet administration and
foreign invaders. The government has given teachers in primary and middle
schools the task to openly deliver political lectures against the resistance put up
by those who seek independence . . . . [U]se of the curriculum as a mouthpiece

116
 Curriculum and Civil Society in Afghanistan
adele jones

of the state will provoke the people against it. If schools are turned into cen-
ters of violence, the government is to blame for it. (Human Rights Watch, 2006,
p. 34)

In 2007, the Taliban earmarked one million U.S. dollars to establish schools
in southern Afghanistan that would use the 1980s’ mujahideen curriculum,
including history, geography, physics, chemistry, and Islamic subjects (BBC,
2007). Amnesty International (2007) interviewed a Taliban spokesman who
claimed they were “closing” schools whose “books have been printed in the
USA” with “curriculum . . . developed by foreigners.” In fact, the new curricu-
lum was developed in Afghanistan with assistance from UN agencies, interna-
tional NGOs, and textbooks were largely developed by Afghans with assistance
in elementary social science subjects from an American university.
Opposition to the new curriculum continues with anonymous “night letters”
delivered clandestinely to school officials. In 2004, senior staff of Baghlan Pro-
vincial Education Office told us that these letters threatened reprisals to any-
one who changed the curriculum, and Human Rights Watch (2006) reported
similar night letters threatening schools in Kandahar, Kapisa, Wardak, and
Zabul provinces. In a recent report, the Senlis Council (2008) printed a copy
of a night letter delivered to a Helmand Province principal that said, “We are
requesting . . . girls’ school to immediately close . . . . [T]hey are teaching
infidel books to girls and we don’t want these girls to become infidels” (pp.
70–71). Though authorship is vague, these statements clearly show their dual
orientation: religious and fundamentalist, expressed through words like infi-
dels, and also political and oppositional, including terms such as puppet admin-
istration, foreign invaders, resistance, and independence. These letters precipitate
destruction to local schools, teachers, and children, thus making curriculum
opposition a critical concern.

Promoting Change
Nevertheless, the Ministry of Education, backed by international assistance,
moves forward with new primary curricula and in developing secondary cur-
ricula officially committed to “peace education that helps children and adults
understand how conflicts arise and how to work towards peaceful non-violent
solutions to the underlying problems” (UNESCO, 2003, p. 18). Revised pri-
mary school textbooks are now clear of references to war, unlike older muja-
hideen textbooks. New subjects—life skills (grades 1–3) and social studies
(grades 4–6)—focus on and incorporate peace and civic education themes.
This new focus was introduced in the Curriculum Framework under the objec-
tive of “Social and Civic Education,” which highlights the theme of “living
together,” advocating that “students will be supported in their development
as members of a family, and of a local, regional, national, and international
community” (MOE, 2003, p. 22). According to a rationale paper developed
for the life skills curriculum, “children must . . . learn mercy, empathy, per-
sonal responsibility, social tolerance and pride in self and others,” and by

117
Harvard Educational Review

“deliberately incorporating these aspects of character building into the formal

school curriculum” (Teachers’ College, 2004, p. 1), young Afghani citizens
will achieve peace, justice, and equality. Despite these desirable outcomes, the
new subjects still do not fully represent a peace education curriculum. The
rationale paper also uses terms such as continuity of violence and social irrespon-
sibility implying, as Wahab explains, “less communalism. This is the . . . dam-
age done to the culture, the spirit, the character of the people. It has become
a different place” (Savage, 2002, p. 1). One might argue that any peace cur-
riculum cannot succeed in an environment of poverty and continuing war, no
matter how well designed.
By including life skills in the first through third grades, though, the MOE
(and international advisers) can be sure that many children are at least
exposed to peace ideology. As the preface to the grade 1 book (MOE, 2003)
states, life skills prepare children for both “building a society in which they can
solve their problems and aversions by becoming responsible thinkers, recog-
nizing the worth of others, [and] being sympathetic and open-minded” and
also “promoting and enhancing a culture of tolerance and negotiation” (p. i).
The focus is on social relationships, respect, and negotiation, and it highlights
mutual understanding and fosters cooperation. Ideally, life skills play a part in
integrating children into a society where principles of peace and negotiation
are the norm.
Certain themes play a prominent role in the life skills curriculum. In the
second grade, lessons introduce “rights of self and others”—for example,
“insulting, deriding, and beating are against human rights [because] it weak-
ens the child’s attitude”—as well as the civic ideal “to build . . . our homeland”
(MOE, 2003, Lesson 14, p. 28). Language in some lessons refers to “individu-
alist” concepts, such as being “a self-supporter and not to need others’ help,”
a departure from traditional Afghan culture (MOE, Lesson 14, p. 28). While
the curriculum aims to teach from a cultural stance, evidenced in references
to “Muslim benevolence” (MOE, Lesson 34, p. 68), lessons on kindness, cheer-
fulness, communicating, interacting, apologizing, and accepting mistakes are
more universal in terms of language and traits. Another theme in the third-
grade book relates to peaceful communication and interaction, with lesson
elements including expressing ideas constructively, listening to others, “dis-
cussing disputes and reaching mutual agreement” (MOE, Lesson 1, pp. 1–2).
Children, for example, learn to identify problems so that they may “solve prob-
lematic” situations without “anger and rudeness” as they learn “forgiveness
and reconciliation” (MOE, Lessons 2–5, pp. 3–12). Throughout this curricu-
lum the words respect, happiness, together, share, help, love, and rights appear fre-
quently. Such words reflect strong themes in both the grades two and three
books. In all, there is a clear emphasis on social cohesion and intercommu-
nication, perhaps reflecting the vision of developers for a united Afghanistan
with common values after many years of war.

118
 Curriculum and Civil Society in Afghanistan
adele jones

The new social studies curriculum, taught in fourth through sixth grades,
has certain elements in common with the mujahideen curriculum. However,
peace and civic topics are incorporated randomly. For example, both empha-
size people working together in groups in order “to fulfill their needs which
arise at different times for various reasons” (MOE, 2005, Lesson 1, pp. 1–2). A
new emphasis in the fifth-grade textbook is community and human rights as
a part of harmonious life (reflecting the concern about the past breakdown
of what might be described as “civic” community in Afghanistan). In this text-
book, topics include humans as the creators of community; cost of community
relationships in improving human community, peace, and civil rights; peace
and life; providing peace; civil rights; and human rights. Specific lessons in the
fifth-grade book introduce the idea of civil society, defined as “government-
sponsored community services and administrative units and legal responsibili-
ties” (MOE, 2003, Lessons 37–40, pp. 70–82). Lessons see “community” as part
of the repeated theme for nation building and praise the Bonn Agreement5
for “finishing these endless wars” and providing “the beginning of peaceful
life [so Afghanis can] . . . enjoy their human rights” (MOE, Lesson 37, pp.
70–72). Lessons also assert that the “existence of justice” is the best way to
maintain lasting peace in a community, while “the existence of a military is
able to define the rights of all its citizens without any privileges” (MOE, Les-
son 38, pp. 73–75). Thus, with Afghanistan’s weak judiciary, young children
learn that military presence is necessary for peace, even if this military is just
as weak. The rights discussed throughout the curriculum refer to both the
Qur’an as well as “civil rights world announcements” (MOE, Lessons 39–40,
pp. 76–82). and include equality, right to live, right to freedom, right to say
whatever one wants as long as it is not insulting or abusive, right to select an
activity/pastime according to ability, right to education, right to have a clean
environment, and right to move and travel freely within the country and all
over the world.
This curriculum is intended to interest and stimulate young Afghans and to
open up the possibility for Afghan society to move toward a unified, peaceful
state. Unfortunately, for the classroom or specialist teachers who teach these
subjects, the curriculum offers little direction as to how to actively involve stu-
dents and does not provide ample time for students to explore each of the top-
ics. As a result, it is far from where most Afghans find themselves.

Final Thoughts
Analysis of old and new curricula reveals some common elements. Both curri-
cula reflect a theme of conflict. While mujahideen curricula emphasized jihad
and violent struggle against external enemy forces, new curricula introduce
conflict resolution and peace-building ideas. Western organizations influ-
enced curricula from both periods; thus, one might ask whether the new cur-

119
Harvard Educational Review

ricular emphasis mirrors the values of Afghans or those of international agen-

cies. This question seems especially relevant given that Afghanistan’s major
conflicts have been with foreign, rather than ethnic, enemies. In itself, the
social sciences curriculum is a reasonable blueprint for a modern education
system, although some may consider it a luxury in a country where other edu-
cational needs go unmet.
Afghan citizens experience a myriad of difficult circumstances. They have
no infrastructure or government services. They live at the forefront of violence
(especially at the behest of a new government), and face unemployment, mal-
nutrition, and early death. Because of these conditions, Afghans may feel that
they have little choice but to support those who can bring them better services
and protection. Governments should offer peace programs to school staff and
families in order to help build a climate based on respect for human rights
and democratic principles that reinforce classroom teaching; however, peace
building remains a bigger issue than this curricular change. In fact, surveys
show that Afghan people remain worried about their economic well-being,
as well as their security, and state that peace must also involve bringing about
a better socioeconomic situation for all people (Jones, 2007b). Both conflict
and peace building are part of a very complex situation, one that government
and civil society organizations must address together on many levels in order
to achieve peace. Clearly, Afghans who face multiple threats to their survival
may feel as though their only option is to support those who can bring them
better services and protection. A curriculum promoting a “civic” culture (see
Almond & Verba, 1989) is part of this complicated scenario.
Thus, we must ask: Is school curriculum the place to address issues of con-
flict that are built into the sociopolitical environment and the result of “action
of different social forces” (MOE, 2003, p. 10)? Or, does Western “peace” educa-
tion bring with it aspects that might, in fact, contradict the cultures of Afghani-
stan? While lessons teach children to speak their own minds, this may not be
appreciated in a culture that emphasizes the respect of parents, teachers, and
elders through formal and polite language. When it comes to conflict resolu-
tion techniques in the new social studies curriculum, “discussing disputes and
reaching mutual agreement” (MOE, p. 4) reads well, but conflict resolution
may in fact be best achieved through the traditional Afghan way, even though
it is different from a Western approach. Given this, the next step may be a
discussion with parents and religious and community leaders about the new
curriculum and new textbooks. Getting children educated is one important
part of providing services. What form that education takes may be another
question.
Perhaps this is an inopportune time to overemphasize civic values. There
may also be the potential for values and processes that seem harmless from
a Western perspective to create tensions and further conflict in a completely
different sociopolitical environment. While the great ideas of democracy are
inspiring to those who have really experienced them, the ways in which politi-

120
 Curriculum and Civil Society in Afghanistan
adele jones

cal/community leaders at all levels make decisions and the norms and atti-
tudes of ordinary people in relation to government and fellow citizens are
culturally bound. Perhaps it is time to reexamine the principles of grassroots
decisionmaking when it comes to education.

Notes
1. Seven mujahideen groups had “headquarters” in Peshawar, in the North-West Frontier of
Pakistan. Here they were supported financially or militarily by several European gov-
ernments, including Britain and France, as well as China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the
United States.
2. Names of specific organizations are not mentioned in this article to protect their ano-
nymity. These textbooks are informally referred to with names of these organizations.
3. In this period, the libraries at the Kabul University were substantially destroyed, often
used as fuel by student fighters.
4. Jihadi language was removed in the reprinting of books used in the interim period after
2002.
5. The Bonn Agreement was the initial series of agreements intended to recreate the State
of Afghanistan. In December 2001, a number of prominent Afghans met under UN aus-
pices in Bonn, Germany. Here the Afghan Constitution Commission was established to
draft a new constitution in consultation with the public.

References
Afghanistan Education Committee (AEC). (1984). Introduction of Afghanistan Education Com-
mittee. Peshawar, Pakistan: Afghanistan Education Committee.
Afghanistan Education Committee (AEC). (1985). Russification of education in Afghanistan.
Unpublished background paper, Afghanistan Education Committee, Peshawar, Paki-
stan.
Ahmad, I. (2004). Islam, democracy and citizenship education: Examination of social studies
curriculum in Pakistan. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 7(1), 39–49.
Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture revisited. London: Sage.
Amnesty International. (2007). Afghanistan: All who are not friends are enemies. Retrieved June
1, 2008, from http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA11/001/2007en.html
British Broadcasting Company (BBC). (2007). Taleban ‘to build Afghan schools’. Retrieved
January 23, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6291885.stm
The Constitution of Afghanistan, art. 6.
Easterly, E. M. (1974). Impact of the Afghanistan Ministry of Education curriculum and textbook
project on primary school student learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers’
College, Columbia University, New York.
Gasanabo, J. (2006). Fostering peaceful co-existence through analysis and revision of history curricula and
textbooks in southeast Europe. Paris: UNESCO.
Human Rights Watch. (2006). Lessons in terror: Attacks on education in Afghanistan.
Human Rights Watch, 18(6), 34.
Interim Curriculum. (1986). Peshawar, Pakistan. (no publisher)
Interim Curriculum. (1987). Peshawar, Pakistan. (no publisher)
Jones, A. M. E. (2007a). Muslim and Western influences on school curriculum in post-war
Afghanistan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(1), 27–40.
Jones, A. M. E. (2007b). Reconstruction or containment: Perceptions of conflict, control
and economy in Afghanistan five years on. International Quarterly for Asian Studies,
38(1), 7–24.

121
Harvard Educational Review

Ministry of Education (MOE), Department of Compilation and Translation. (2003). Cur-

riculum Framework Afghanistan. Kabul: Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan.
Ministry of Education (MOE), Curriculum Department. (2005). Grade 4 Social Studies.
Kabul: Islamic Government of Afghanistan.
Sadat, M. H. (2004, March). Modern education in Afghanistan. Afghan Magazine. Retrieved
October 20, 2008, from http://www.afghanmagazine.com/2004_03/articles/educa-
tion.shtml
Samady, S. R. (2001). Modern education in Afghanistan. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Com-
parative Education, 31(4), 587–603.
Savage, D. (2002). Education and Afghanistan: An interview with Dr. Zaher Wahab. Open Spaces
Quarterly, 5(1). Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.open-spaces.com/arti-
cle-v5n1-wahab.php
Senlis Council. (2008). Chronic failures in the war on terror: From Afghanistan to Somalia. Brus-
sels: The Senlis Council.
Stephens, J., & Ottaway, D. (2002, March 23). From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad: Violent Soviet-
era textbooks complicate Afghan education efforts. The Washington Post, p. AO1.
Stöber, G. (2007). Religious identities provoked: The Gilgit “textbook controversy” and its con-
flictual context. International Textbook Research, 29(4), 389–411.
Teachers’ College, Columbia University. (2004). Rationale for the life skills curriculum. Unpub-
lished paper presented to MOE Curriculum Department, Kabul, Afghanistan.
UNESCO. (2003). Education in situations of emergency, crisis and reconstruction. Division of Poli-
cies and Strategies of Education. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0013/001323/132305e.pdf
UNESCO-IBE. (2004). Education, conflict and social cohesion. Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO-
IBE.

122