How do UK teachers approach diversity in Russian and Soviet History? Survey Responses (June-July 2026)

In June 2026, I launched a survey with teachers who taught Russian and Soviet history at GCSE (KS4) and A-Level (KS5). The survey ran until July 2026 and gathered a total of 52 responses.

Its primary aim was to establish how UK teachers thought about and approached teaching diversity and 'decolonising' the curriculum in this area of history.

The findings, from this perspective, are interesting. Although this is a relatively small sample of UK teachers which might not be considered fully representative, it indicates that:

1. Many teachers are concerned with a perceived lack of diversity in the KS4 and KS5 curriculum for teaching Russian and Soviet history.
2. A considerable number are actively taking steps through their own teaching and extra-curricular activities to address this.
3. However, a number of barriers remain to teachers who might want to increase the diversity of content and/or 'decolonise' their curriculum, most notably the pressure of public examinations and a lack of time and resources. 

All responses were taken anonymously. They have been reproduced here, with additional analysis. All care has been taken to preserve the anonymity of respondents in their answers.

This is part of a larger research project looking into the resourcing and teaching of Russian and Soviet history particularly from the perspective of diversity and 'decolonising' the curriculum.

Q1

Q1 Analysis: Focus for the survey was on teaching at KS4 and KS5 level. In total, there were 50 valid responses, out of 52 completed surveys. (To complete questions 2-11, a positive answer for question 1 was required.)

 

Q2

Q2 Analysis: Around a quarter of respondents (13 of 50) taught Russian and Soviet history at GCSE. The most popular exam board at GCSE was AQA, closely followed by Edexcel.

 

Q3

Q3 Analysis: A large majority of respondents, 46 of 50, taught Russian and Soviet history at A-Level; some did so as well as teaching it at GCSE. By far the most popular exam board at A-Level was AQA.

 

Q4 Analysis: There was a broad consensus that representing cultural and social diversity and/or decolonisation the curriculum was important (85.7% scored 3, 4, 5/5 for importance; 59.2% scored 4 or 5/5 for importance). 7/49 responses were outliers in this regard (1 or 2/5).

 

 

Q5

Q5 Analysis: There was a broad consensus that exam board specifications and textbooks did not fully represent cultural and social diversity (86% of responses). Nearly half (44% of responses) felt they did represented cultural and social diversity 'little' or 'not at all'.

 

Q6

Q6 Analysis: A slight majority of teachers reported that they did not 'teach beyond the textbook' or specification (57.1%), but a large minority (40.8%) did.

 

Q7

If you teach aspects of Russian and/or Soviet history which do not appear on your exam board specification(s) and/or in textbook(s), why have you chosen to do so?   22 responses

The specification is not the curriculum. Teaching a broader curriculum helps students construct a deeper understanding of the past world they are studying. They become more knowledgeable about the topic and are able to use this knowledge in their arguments. I also believe that showing students a broad range of historical actors is morally important, as well as simply being good history. I don't think a student should leave GCSE knowing only about men like Stolypin, Nicholas and Lenin, without a sense of the achievements of women like Kollontai.   Relevance to students, (i.e. half-Polish student) examining 1H through lense of impact on Poland/Polish for relevance and engagement. Important to address (counter) the Moscow centric and Russian/Soviet/post Soviet narrative for the regions.   I am not a believer in 'decolonising the curriculum'. Nor do I particularly care for phraseology like 'represent ... diversity'. And I think you're unwise to use it: it alienates many people who would otherwise be your allies. Nonetheless I think teachers should do their best to convey to our pupils an understanding of the complexities of Soviet society. The place of (say) Jews or Central Asians in the Soviet Union, including their treatment by the authorities, is well worth teaching: not because it helps with 'decolonisation' but because it is essential to a nuanced understanding of the past. Because the textbooks are outdated vis-a-vis the development of the historiography. You’re leaving the learner with an understanding of Soviet History that is without nuance.   Feminism within the Russian Socialist movement - Important to understand why women were heavily involved in the revolution, causing the February Revolution, political involvement within the Bolsheviks/ Russian society   Mainly as part of my own research and wider learning that has opened my awareness to it. I have taught it for 3 years now but was not a true ‘specialist’ when taking it on so as I have become more expert I have extended beyond the learning spec to investigate more of these groups   I have personal experience of living in and researching Azerbaijan. I felt students would benefit from some of the insights I had gained from that experience. I weave Azerbaijan into quite a bit of content to give students an understanding of how central policies translated into experience in the republics. When teaching Gorbachev, we go into some depth about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. You could of course achieve the same thing by looking at Latvia, Moldova, or Uzbekistan etc., and I try to show that this is just one of several possible examples.   We focus on Russian/Soviet history for the NEA and students have the opposition of researching the experience of women / Jewish communities which are often less well represented in traditional courses / textbooks. They are encouraged to think about how the experience of these groups may vary further by geographical location / wealth / ethnicity etc.   It answers questions that the board set + any other relevant knowledge. The spec is broad enough to allow this.   Important to show the variety of experiences across the USSR.   I have taught in a context of international students ( eg Ukranians, Polish, Jewish. Far Eastern etc   In context of an A level study trip to Latvia we study the ‘near abroad’ from the context of a nationality subject to Soviet influence (directed from Moscow )   N/A   Because it is important to represent the complexity of the Russian empire accurately, because it helps students to understand the dynamics of political unrest and turmoil, and because it has particular resonance when understanding contemporary Russia and the Ukraine invasion.   I have a number of students from ex soviet countries who are very knowledgeable and want to talk about their and their families experiences   More on Kazaks religious opposition than is in the textbook and religion in Central Asia in general   More depth into the people and experiences of the people   I have focused on the Ukrainian Holodomor in detail compared to what is required in the specification. As a Department, we have opted to focus more on the experience of women.   Because I do not think I am giving my students a fair representation of Soviet history without this important element. It also enables them to make much better sense of some exam questions.   Extra detail& context   With our Y9s, to give them a background to the Cold War, we teach a unit on the Russian Revolution in which we discuss the diversity of the Russian Empire and the impact of the laws of Russian Empire on cultural and religious identities in those colonised countries.   I find delving into women in Russia esp interesting and important

 

Q7 Analysis: This question gave respondents the opportunity to expand on reasoning for teaching diversified and/or ‘decolonised’ content in their lessons on Russian and Soviet history. Broadly speaking, responses fell into several categories.

1.      Teaching a more diverse and representative history of Russia and the USSR had inherent value in and of itself. This value ranged from a greater appreciation of the complexity of that history to strengthening students’ ability to answer exam questions.

Teaching a broader curriculum helps students construct a deeper understanding of the past world they are studying. They become more knowledgeable about the topic and are able to use this knowledge in their arguments. I also believe that showing students a broad range of historical actors is morally important, as well as simply being good history.

I think teachers should do their best to convey to our pupils an understanding of the complexities of Soviet society. The place of (say) Jews or Central Asians in the Soviet Union, including their treatment by the authorities, is well worth teaching: not because it helps with 'decolonisation' but because it is essential to a nuanced understanding of the past.

Because I do not think I am giving my students a fair representation of Soviet history without this important element. It also enables them to make much better sense of some exam questions.

 

2.      Teaching broader and more representative histories has value in relation to students’ own personal experiences and backgrounds, which includes family backgrounds from the former Russian Empire, USSR, and Eastern Europe.

Relevance to students, (i.e. half-Polish student) examining 1H through lense of impact on Poland/Polish for relevance and engagement.

I have taught in a context of international students ( eg Ukranians, Polish, Jewish. Far Eastern etc

I have a number of students from ex soviet countries who are very knowledgeable and want to talk about their and their families experiences

 

3.      Teachers are able to make use of their own subject expertise and/or teaching practice, which allow them to expand their teaching of groups not always covered in detail in textbooks or specifications.

Mainly as part of my own research and wider learning that has opened my awareness to it. I have taught it for 3 years now but was not a true ‘specialist’ when taking it on so as I have become more expert I have extended beyond the learning spec to investigate more of these groups

I have personal experience of living in and researching Azerbaijan. I felt students would benefit from some of the insights I had gained from that experience. I weave Azerbaijan into quite a bit of content to give students an understanding of how central policies translated into experience in the republics.

In context of an A level study trip to Latvia we study the ‘near abroad’ from the context of a nationality subject to Soviet influence (directed from Moscow )

 

4.      It is important to counter dominant narratives in textbooks which may not reflect scholarship and which marginalise certain groups and experiences.

Important to address (counter) the Moscow centric and Russian/Soviet/post Soviet narrative for the regions.

Because the textbooks are outdated vis-a-vis the development of the historiography.

 

5.      One response explicitly challenged the narrative of ‘diversifying’ and ‘decolonising’ the curriculum.

I am not a believer in 'decolonising the curriculum'. Nor do I particularly care for phraseology like 'represent ... diversity'. And I think you're unwise to use it: it alienates many people who would otherwise be your allies.

 

Q8

Q 8 Analysis: Of those who felt they were not teaching beyond the textbook or specification, nearly 2/3 (64.9%) were interested in doing so in the future. Less than 1 in 5 (18.9%) were not, while slightly less again were unsure (16.2%).

 

 

Q9

Q 9 Analysis: Of 37 responses to this question, the main reason for not including content outside of the specification of textbooks, cited in 86.5% (32) of responses to this question, was the limited time available to teach the content, according with very widespread teacher concerns of a ‘content overload’ in the current A-Level and GCSE curricula. Slightly under half of responses, 48.5% (18) cited a lack of available resources to teach the additional content, while 43.5% (16) expressed concern that the additional content was not relevant to students’ final exams. Overall, most teachers did not appear to lack the confidence or feel they lacked the knowledge to teach additional content, although one outlier raised objections to the premise of including more diverse or ‘decolonised’ content, stating ‘I do not believe that History teachers are in the business of making cultural judgements. Our job is managing and presenting relevant facts, not pushing our own gender political [sic] viewpoint.’

 

Q10

Q 10 Analysis: Most responses here reflected a desire to see changes to both teaching resources and the specification in order to enable more diverse or ‘decolonised’ teaching. Of 47 responses to this question, the 83% (39) cited having appropriate textbooks and/or additional resources as important to teaching more diverse or decolonised histories. 74.5% (35) cited the importance of changes to exam board specifications to reflect these histories, while 61.7% (29) said that more teaching time would be needed to teach the additional content. One respondent suggested the importance of a direct correlation between potential exam content and any additional content taught, stating ‘If the exam boards start including it in questions, then I’ll include it in my teaching.’ Another raised ‘reservations about the whole “decolonising” narrative’ arguing that ‘the discourse around “decolonising” can be extremely judgemental and presents with a tendency to downplay actors who are genuinely important to understand the period because they happen to be white or male or both.’

 

Q11

Do you have any other thoughts relating to reflecting the diversity of Russian/Soviet culture and society and/or decolonising the curriculum in this area?   20 responses

As the question of diversity in Soviet society is only touched upon briefly in the Cambridge curriculum, there is little appetite for additional content. Students, parents, and leadership prefer me to ‘teach to the test’; this would likely be represented as efficiency and value for money.   It is really important, and given more time and resources, it would be great to do it! Queries would be raised about how this would be effectively integrated into exam questions. Edexcel currently has a small focus on 'national minorities' and Jewish people between 1894-1905 and then a small part on the impact of 'national minorities' on the Provisional Government but this has never been a stem of a question and only briefly mentioned as indicative content on questions based around the causes of the 1905 Revolution/ biggest problem Nicholas faced in 1905.   I don't think this is a relevant problem.   I am a sceptic about the term 'decolonisation', which it seems to me has become far too canonical and carries with it massive ideological baggage. In my view, it is not the same thing as diversity: after all, imperialism and colonialism are often precisely the phenomena that create cultural diversity, for example through settlement, intermarriage, trade etc. The celebrated diversity of the Caucasus, for example, is a result of layer upon layer of colonisation throughout history. The Soviet experience is particularly problematic since the USSR saw its project as inherently anti-colonial (the Baku Eastern People's Conference in 1920 is the classic expression of this). I also think that attempts to 'diversify' history on ethnic/cultural grounds carry risks in terms of students projecting onto the past contemporary diversity-related ethics of the type represented in, for example, British values. In a Soviet context, it is crucial that students understand that this was a highly centralised state and there were serious limits to how far cultural and ethnic diversity was expressed, an ethic which - crucially - was often internalised by people themselves, including in high levels of intermarriage. Nonetheless, I would broadly welcome these initiatives as long as they take into account the complexities and paradoxes of the Soviet context.   It’s a time issue. Very few easy resources.   Is the study of Soviet history colonised?   This is an excellent area to add more depth to our subject, I believe that removing the coursework element of the A-Level course would provide much more scope in terms of time to enable the delivery of more relevant content depth.   No   You cannot 'decolonise' another country's history. Unless you fully understand its values and attitudes, you are just forcing a modern/western agenda on someone else' past.   The trip to Riga gives students a fantastic experience to see the USSR’s impact on its neighbour with excellent museums, KGB buildings and walking tours that focus on Russification in action. The AQA textbooks could always incorporate more of these areas as case studies in action.   I think it is incredibly important and try to include as much focus on this as I teach the year 9s so they can acknowledge this. The time in GCSE is incredibly tight to include anything that is not on the specification unfortunately.   This is an area where the exam board specification seems to have fallen well behind current academic research on Russia - the course is very much focused on events in St Petersburg with Russians at its heart. Diversity is given surface attention at best - the Jews were persecuted, the nationalities resented russification, the cossacks were feared, and the women were either long suffering victims or novelty battalions fighting for hopeless causes. The focus on Bolshevism side lines the debates on nationalism, ethic identity, zionism and anarchism that were taking place at the time and have deep resonance with the contemporary world.   It’s an area I’d like to develop but it is hard with limited time to cover things in a meaningful way as it is   I would love to do this, and would welcome any help, guidance or changes that would make it possible.   It would be ideal to see the specification updated to focus more on the diversity of Russian History and to see questions that focus more on this. I think it is important that additional resources are made available by exam boards, different publishing houses. Additional CPD would be great as well.   There are significant problems with the way ‘Russia’ is presented in the Edexcel A Level syllabus and its conflation with the USSR. Minority groups barely get a look in between 1917 and 1985 and then students are suddenly expected to assess the importance of nationalism in the collapse of the USSR. I have had to address this problem in my own subject knowledge by reading well beyond the textbooks and exam board materials and providing students supplementary reading material. I’m interested in what the historiography is throwing up. But worry this ends up being like doing lots on Rasputin- popular but not actually relevant- or at least not worth the time when there’s so much else to get through.   Current educational ‘fashion’ and trust policies allows very little leeway to cover material outside of the syllabus or to use different sources/techniques other than those approved/mandated.   I think I would like to see the specification changed to reflect the diversity of Russia more and the role of women in society. I am wary of teaching things that stray from the specification too much. I mark papers for AQA and you often run into students who have evidently had a really interesting lesson on something that is tangentially relevant which has really stuck in their mind but it has ended up dominating a section of their response to their detriment and likely missed grades. Personally I would rather not teach to the exam but at the same time I am aware that this can have big impacts on students lives with things like university choices etc... As such I tend to try to make the best of what is within the specification but agree that this could be expanded to include a more diverse and interesting history.

 

Q 11 Analysis: This final question gave respondents an opportunity to expand on the answers they had previously given. A total of 20 responses were submitted. Broadly speaking, they fell into several categories:

1.      A concern that exam and specification structures constrained opportunities to explore diverse and/or decolonised histories in their teaching of Russia and the USSR.

there is little appetite for additional content. Students, parents, and leadership prefer me to ‘teach to the test’; this would likely be represented as efficiency and value for money.

Queries would be raised about how this would be effectively integrated into exam questions.

Current educational ‘fashion’ and trust policies allows very little leeway to cover material outside of the syllabus or to use different sources/techniques other than those approved/mandated.

I am wary of teaching things that stray from the specification too much. I mark papers for AQA and you often run into students who have evidently had a really interesting lesson on something that is tangentially relevant which has really stuck in their mind but it has ended up dominating a section of their response to their detriment and likely missed grades. Personally I would rather not teach to the exam but at the same time I am aware that this can have big impacts on students lives with things like university choices etc... As such I tend to try to make the best of what is within the specification but agree that this could be expanded to include a more diverse and interesting history.

 

2.      A desire for more time and resources in order to teach more diversity/decolonised histories of Russia and the USSR.

It is really important, and given more time and resources, it would be great to do it!

It’s a time issue. Very few easy resources.

I believe that removing the coursework element of the A-Level course would provide much more scope in terms of time to enable the delivery of more relevant content depth.

The time in GCSE is incredibly tight to include anything that is not on the specification unfortunately.

It’s an area I’d like to develop but it is hard with limited time to cover things in a meaningful way as it is

I think it is important that additional resources are made available by exam boards, different publishing houses. Additional CPD would be great as well.

I think I would like to see the specification changed to reflect the diversity of Russia more and the role of women in society.

 

3.      A belief that specifications and resources should better reflect diversity and scholarship.

The trip to Riga gives students a fantastic experience to see the USSR’s impact on its neighbour with excellent museums, KGB buildings and walking tours that focus on Russification in action. The AQA textbooks could always incorporate more of these areas as case studies in action.

This is an area where the exam board specification seems to have fallen well behind current academic research on Russia - the course is very much focused on events in St Petersburg with Russians at its heart. Diversity is given surface attention at best […]

It would be ideal to see the specification updated to focus more on the diversity of Russian History and to see questions that focus more on this.

There are significant problems with the way ‘Russia’ is presented in the Edexcel A Level syllabus and its conflation with the USSR. Minority groups barely get a look in between 1917 and 1985 and then students are suddenly expected to assess the importance of nationalism in the collapse of the USSR.

 

4.      A questioning or rejection of the premise that diversification and/or decolonisation should be pursued in teaching the history of Russia and the USSR.

I don't think this is a relevant problem.

I am a sceptic about the term 'decolonisation', which it seems to me has become far too canonical and carries with it massive ideological baggage.

Is the study of Soviet history colonised?

You cannot 'decolonise' another country's history. Unless you fully understand its values and attitudes, you are just forcing a modern/western agenda on someone else' past.