In brief
- High schools will be able to put two new optional subjects in the timetable, approved at national level. The first is called „Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital citizenship” and can be taught in grade IX, X, XI or XII. The second is called „SustenAbilitate 2.0”, a coined title that joins sustainability and ability, and is built for grade XI. Both are covered within one school year, at one hour a week.
- The first possible lesson is in the 2027-2028 school year. The order has been in force since 26 October 2026, but Article 3 postpones the application of the syllabuses to the 2027-2028 school year, that is 310 days after publication, counted up to 1 September 2027.
- Optional here means a double choice. CDEOȘ is the Romanian abbreviation for the curriculum chosen by the student from the school’s offer: the subject comes before the pupils only if the high school puts it in its own offer, and into the timetable only if the pupils choose it. The order obliges no school to propose it.
- All the substance is in the annexes. The operative part has 6 articles on a single page, while the two syllabuses take up 24 pages in the bis edition. The artificial intelligence syllabus has 3 general competences, 9 specific competences, 49 examples of learning activities and 3 content domains. The sustainability syllabus has 4 general competences, 8 specific competences, 21 examples of activities, 5 learning units and one integrative project, and its content covers all 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
- The two annexes are not written to the same rules. The first rests on the artificial intelligence literacy framework drawn up in 2026 by the OECD and the European Commission and on the UNESCO competence framework, it has two scientific consultants from the National Centre for Curriculum and Assessment and four teachers in the working group. The second has a single teacher in a group of nine members, it has no scientific consultant at all, and the sources in its bibliography were last consulted in June 2024.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 894 of 26 October 2026, page 12, with the annexes in no. 894 bis of 26 October 2026, pages 3-26
In force from: 26 October 2026, the date of publication, because the order sets no later date
The national offer of optional subjects for high school gained two titles on 26 October 2026: artificial intelligence together with digital citizenship, one hour a week in any of grades IX, X, XI or XII, and sustainability, one hour a week in grade XI. Order of the Minister of Education and Research no. 5.808/2026 continues the series opened twelve days earlier, when the same national offer took in the military physical education syllabus for the military profile of the vocational track. The difference between the two moments shows in the title: there the order named exactly the track, the profile and the specialisation the subject is addressed to, here it names none of them.
The operative part has 6 articles and fits on one page. Article 1 approves the school syllabus for the optional subject „Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital citizenship”, set out in Annex no. 1. Article 2 approves the syllabus for the optional subject „SustenAbilitate 2.0”, grade XI, set out in Annex no. 2. Article 3 fixes the moment of application, the 2027-2028 school year, and makes it conditional on the framework curricula and on the CDEOȘ methodology applicable to the level of education. Articles 4, 5 and 6 make the annexes an integral part of the order, name the structures that are to carry it out, from the Directorate-General for Equity and Performance in Pre-University Education and the National Centre for Curriculum and Assessment through to the county school inspectorates and the schools themselves, and order its publication.
The legal basis is given by Article 86 paragraphs (3) and (4) and Article 88 paragraph (11) of Pre-University Education Law no. 198/2023, by Article 4 letter d) of Government Decision no. 251/2025 on the organisation and functioning of the National Centre for Curriculum and Assessment, by the Methodology on the development of the curriculum chosen by the student from the school’s offer, approved by Order of the Minister of Education and Research no. 3.454/2026, and by Article 13 paragraph (3) of Government Decision no. 731/2024 on the organisation and functioning of the ministry. The approval memorandum bears no. 2.976 and the date 7 October 2026, the order was signed in Bucharest on 14 October 2026 by the Minister of Education and Research, Mihai Dimian, and publication followed on 26 October 2026.
The first syllabus starts from a finding it writes into its own introductory note: according to Eurostat, in 2023, 27.73% of people in Romania aged between 16 and 74 had at least basic digital skills, against roughly 56% in the European Union, while the European target for 2030 is 80%. The syllabus sets out to move the pupil from the position of technology consumer to that of a citizen who understands how an artificial intelligence system works, what happens to the data he or she feeds into it and how far an automatically generated answer can be relied on. The three content domains are the fundamentals of artificial intelligence and human control, the responsible use of generative artificial intelligence tools and, third, ethics, social impact and digital citizenship.
The sustainability syllabus is built on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, spread over five learning units and one integrative project: education, equality and justice, with goals 4, 5 and 16; environment and climate change, with goals 13, 14, 15 and 6; nutrition, food and food security, with goals 1, 2 and 3; sustainable communities and energy, with goals 7 and 11; entrepreneurship and the circular economy, with goals 8, 9, 10 and 12; while the final project, built in partnership with local actors, covers goal 17. The introductory note also explains the name: „Susten” comes from the Romanian sustenabilitate, sustainability, „Abilitate” means ability and marks the formative side, and „2.0” points to the threshold of global temperature rise above the pre-industrial level discussed in the international climate commitments.
The order is not the only one of the minister of education and research in the issue of 26 October 2026: beside it appear Order no. 5.831/2026, which sets the calendar for admission to upper secondary education for the 2027-2028 school year, with the computerised placement on 22 July 2027 and Order no. 5.832/2026, which introduces a 400 lei fee for entering an assessor of professional competences in the National Register of Assessors.
What it changes in practice
The order produces legal effects from 26 October 2026, yet it imposes no obligation on anyone on that day. It adds two titles to the national offer of optional subjects, and from there the decision is local: the high school’s board of directors chooses what goes into its own offer, and the pupils choose from that offer. By the very construction of the curriculum chosen by the student from the school’s offer, a syllabus approved at national level takes up no hour of the timetable until a school proposes it and a class asks for it.
For pupils, the concrete effect appears in the 2027-2028 school year. Anyone in grade X in the 2026-2027 school year can meet the artificial intelligence subject in grade XI, and anyone in grade IX can meet it in grade X, XI or XII, because the syllabus is written with the same set of competences for all four grades and is covered only once. The sustainability optional subject is tied to grade XI, so its window is narrower: the pupils who are in grade X in the 2026-2027 school year are the first cohort that can have it.
For teachers, the effect is a set of methodological requirements written fairly tightly. In artificial intelligence, the discussion of data confidentiality must come before any practical content-generation activity, the teacher checks in advance the terms and conditions of every platform used in class, including the minimum age of use and the requirements on parental consent, institutional or test accounts are recommended instead of the pupils’ personal accounts, and pupils are explicitly instructed not to enter personal data in the prompts they send to artificial intelligence tools. Ethics is not taught as a separate module; it runs across all three content domains.
For schools without equipment, the order has an escape valve written into both annexes. In the artificial intelligence syllabus, most of the activities under the first and the third general competence, that is classifications, debates, case studies and the ethical matrix of the stakeholders involved, can be run entirely on paper, while for the activities under the second general competence demonstrations on a single device can be organised. In the sustainability syllabus, the use of technology is not a condition for attaining the competences, and simulations can be run through role play. In practice, neither of the two subjects requires a computer lab place per pupil.
The effect on assessment is just as explicit. Both syllabuses recommend continuous assessment through project, portfolio and oral presentation and discourage fixed-answer tests. In artificial intelligence, the recommended summative assessment is the final project under the last specific competence: the pupil designs and presents an educational initiative of his or her own about artificial intelligence, aimed at a clearly defined audience, preferably from the school community, with no obligation to publish it online. In sustainability, authentic assessment is carried out through measurable indicators of the action taken, from the quantity of recyclable materials collected to the number of participants involved.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
Until 26 October 2026, a high school that wanted to teach artificial intelligence as an optional subject had to write its own syllabus and put it through the approval route for an optional subject proposed at school level. Since the order was published there is a syllabus approved at national level, with general competences, specific competences, content, methodological suggestions and a bibliography, which the school can take as it stands. The same holds for sustainability, with the proviso that Annex no. 2 explicitly compares its own purpose with what existed before: unlike the one-off activities of „Săptămâna Verde”, the Green Week, or „Școala Altfel”, the week of school done differently, the optional subject provides a structured curricular path, with progression of competences and systematic assessment across the whole school year.
The order amends nothing and repeals nothing. It has no repealing article, it does not intervene in the CDEOȘ methodology approved by Order no. 3.454/2026 and it does not touch the syllabuses already in the national offer. It adds two positions and postpones their application by one school year.
The comparison with the previous order in the same offer does show a change of drafting practice, not of substance. Order no. 5.758/2026, published on 14 October 2026 in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 859, wrote the subject’s full address into its own title: high school education, the curriculum chosen by the student from the school’s offer, the vocational track, the military profile, the mathematics-informatics specialisation. Order no. 5.808/2026 writes neither the track nor the profile into its operative part, and the only delimitation appears in the introductory note to Annex no. 1, which is addressed to high school pupils „from all tracks, profiles and specialisations”. What used to be an indication in the title has become an assertion in a note.
The international reference on which the applied informatics curriculum rests has changed as well. The first syllabus draws on the four domains of the artificial intelligence literacy framework developed jointly by the OECD and the European Commission, published in 2026, and matches them to the pillars of the UNESCO competence framework for pupils of 2024, across the understand, apply and create levels. For a Romanian curricular document, a reference to a European framework that appeared in the very year the order was signed is unusually recent.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- Neither of the two subjects needs special equipment. Both annexes expressly provide for the paper-based variant and for the demonstration on a single device, so a high school in a small town is not ruled out from the start.
- The rules protecting the data of pupils who are minors are written at the level of a teaching task, not of a principle: checking the minimum age of use, checking the requirements on parental consent, institutional or test accounts instead of personal ones, and the ban on entering full name, address, contact details or one’s own images in the prompts sent to artificial intelligence tools.
- The artificial intelligence optional subject calls for the distinction between automation and artificial intelligence, with the explicit note that not every automated system is an artificial intelligence system. On a topic the public almost always conflates, that clarification makes the difference.
- The 49 examples of learning activities in Annex no. 1 are framed as classroom tasks, not as generic themes: classifying familiar technologies with the criteria argued, comparing the privacy policies of two different tools, spotting a „hallucination” in a generated answer, the ethical matrix of the stakeholders involved for a chosen platform.
- Assessment is moved onto project, portfolio and oral presentation, with assessment rubrics communicated to the pupils before the activity. In a subject where the correct answer can be had from an artificial intelligence tool in seconds, the fixed-answer test would have been the weakest choice.
- The content of Annex no. 2 covers all 17 Sustainable Development Goals, without skipping any and without repeating one at the expense of another, and every learning unit has its own column matching goal to content.
- The methodological resources recommended for artificial intelligence are published under a Creative Commons attribution share-alike licence, so a teacher can use and adapt them without buying anything.
What remains a problem
- The two annexes are written to two different curricular conventions. Annex no. 1 defines specific competences as acquisitions and performances that are „concrete and measurable” and phrases them with a third-person verb, from „distinguishes” to „evaluates”. Those of Annex no. 2 are phrased as process nouns, from „understanding the concept” to „analysing the impact”, which do not describe observable behaviour. The standard the first document states is not met by the second.
- Density is just as uneven. The first syllabus has 49 examples of learning activities over 10 pages, the second has 21 over 14 pages, so more than twice as few in a larger space. The difference shows in the classroom: in sustainability, a specific competence comes with two activities, sometimes with a single one plus a project.
- The second syllabus has no section for scientific consultants, although the first has two people from the National Centre for Curriculum and Assessment, and the competence of that institution is invoked as the basis for the whole order.
- Of the 9 members of the working group for Annex no. 2, only one is a teacher in pre-university education, and the column „Institution of affiliation, locality, county” contains, for none of the nine, either the locality or the county. In Annex no. 1, 4 of the 7 members are teachers with teaching grade I, with their school, town and county entered in full.
- The bibliography of Annex no. 2 was last consulted on 28 June 2024, that is 850 days before the order was published, and the most recent work cited is a report from 2023. By comparison, the first syllabus cites a reference framework from 2026 and a European digital competence framework from 2025.
- The artificial intelligence syllabus recommends by name, twice in the normative text, the curriculum of a private foundation and of its partner, with the web address included, while the impact report of the same foundation appears in the bibliography. Three of the 7 members of the working group that wrote the syllabus represent that foundation.
- The introductory note to Annex no. 1 says the syllabus was developed with a time budget of one hour a week „in each of grades IX to XII”, wording that can also be read as a four-year path, whereas Article 1 and the methodological suggestions speak of any one of the four grades, that is of a single year.
Practical advice
- If you have a child in high school and one of the two subjects interests you, ask at the school office or during the counselling class when the offer of optional subjects for the 2027-2028 school year is put together and who approves it. A syllabus approved at national level does not reach the timetable on its own: a school proposes it and the pupils choose it.
- If the high school has a technological track or runs dual education, ask the county school inspectorate in writing for a clarification before you count on the artificial intelligence optional subject. The order identifies the CDEOȘ methodology it rests on as the one for primary, lower secondary and high school education, theoretical and vocational tracks, and Article 3 makes the application of the syllabuses conditional on that methodology.
- For the teachers who will take over the artificial intelligence subject, the resources the syllabus recommends are published under a Creative Commons attribution share-alike licence. That means lesson plans and worksheets can be altered and redistributed, provided the same licence is kept on the derived material.
- Check the terms and conditions of every generative artificial intelligence tool before the first lesson, not during it. The syllabus requires the minimum age of use and the requirements on the consent or authorisation of the holder of parental responsibility to be identified, and in grade IX most pupils are minors.
- If the high school has no computers for all the pupils, do not give up the subject. The syllabus provides that almost everything belonging to the first and the third general competence can be done on paper, while the practical part can be covered by a demonstration on a single device, led by the teacher.
- For the sustainability optional subject, start the list of local partners in the autumn of 2026. Two of the eight specific competences and the integrative project call for organisations, institutions or initiatives in the community to be contacted, and for localities without non-governmental organisations or available experts the syllabus provides for cooperation between classes or between schools in the same locality.
- If the pupil keeps a reflective journal in the artificial intelligence subject, keep it to the end. The syllabus recommends it as part of ongoing assessment, and the last activity of the year asks for the definition the pupil gave artificial intelligence in the first lesson to be compared with his or her understanding at the end of the year.
- Do not expect a mark obtained from a multiple-choice test. Both syllabuses recommend assessment rubrics communicated before the activity, and the summative assessment of the artificial intelligence optional subject is an educational initiative of the pupil’s own, presented before a defined audience.
Frequently asked questions
From which year can these two subjects be taught?
Do the subjects become compulsory for pupils?
How many hours a week does each have?
In which grades can the artificial intelligence optional subject be taught?
What does a pupil learn in „SustenAbilitate 2.0”?
Is a computer lab or a paid subscription needed?
How is a pupil who is a minor protected when using artificial intelligence tools in class?
Can a technological high school put the artificial intelligence optional subject in its offer?
Who wrote the syllabuses?
Where can the syllabuses be found in full?
Errors and inconsistencies in the published text
- Annex no. 1, the introductory note, read against the third indent of the preamble and against Article 3: it cannot be established whether the technological track falls under the rule. The introductory note to Annex no. 1 says that the syllabus „is an educational offer for the curriculum chosen by the student from the school’s offer (CDEOȘ), proposed at national level, addressed to pupils in high school education, from all tracks, profiles and specialisations in pre-university education”. The preamble to the order, however, identifies the methodological basis as „the Methodology on the development of the curriculum chosen by the student from the school’s offer (CDEOȘ), for pre-university, primary, lower secondary and high school education, theoretical and vocational tracks, approved by Order of the Minister of Education and Research no. 3.454/2026”, while Article 3 makes the application of the syllabuses conditional on „the CDEOȘ methodology applicable to the level of education”. The two texts lead to different outcomes for the same school: reading the introductory note, a technological high school or one running dual education can put the subject in its own offer for the 2027-2028 school year; reading Article 3 together with the methodology that the order itself describes as covering only the theoretical and vocational tracks, it cannot. The difference is not theoretical, because the technological track is the largest segment of high school education, and the offer of optional subjects is approved by the board of directors well before the school year begins. The previous order in the same national offer, no. 5.758/2026, wrote its own delimitation into its very title, by track, profile and specialisation, which shows that the clarification was within reach. Annex no. 2 does not have this defect: it names no track and fixes its address on grade XI.
Editorial analysis
The order solves a real problem, and the first of the two syllabuses solves it well. The figure that Annex no. 1 puts in its own introductory note, 27.73% of people aged 16 to 74 in Romania with at least basic digital skills in 2023, against roughly 56% across the European Union and a target of 80% for 2030, is the best possible justification for a syllabus on artificial intelligence literacy. Counted from the reference year, the target asks Romania for an extra 52.27 percentage points in seven years, that is almost 7.5 points a year and almost a tripling of the 2023 level, while the European average would have 24 points to make up. The instrument the order sets against this gap is an optional subject of one hour a week, taken once, which reaches the timetable only if the high school proposes it and the pupils choose it. The proportion between the problem and the means deserves to be said openly, without diminishing the merit of the syllabus.
The next observation comes out of comparing the two annexes of the same order, not out of reading each of them separately. Annex no. 1 sets the standard itself: specific competences „describe the acquisitions, behaviours or performances, concrete and measurable, that the pupil must be able to demonstrate at the end of the study of the subject”, and its 9 competences are written with a third-person verb, from „distinguishes the role of human decision” to „evaluates the environmental impact”. The 8 competences of Annex no. 2 are process nouns: „understanding the concept of sustainability”, „applying the principles of sustainability”, „developing critical thinking”, „analysing the impact of climate change”. A teacher cannot observe „understanding” and cannot mark it against a rubric, and an inspector cannot verify it. The difference shows in volume too: 49 examples of learning activities over the 10 pages of Annex no. 1, against 21 over the 14 pages of Annex no. 2, that is more than twice as few in a space 40% larger. Two documents with an identical legal regime, approved by Articles 1 and 2 of the same order, should not reach the classroom with levels of precision so far apart.
The third observation concerns who wrote what, and why that cannot be seen in the act. Annex no. 1 has, besides the working group, a section of scientific consultants with two people from the National Centre for Curriculum and Assessment, one of them the head of the Curriculum Development Service. Annex no. 2 has no such section, although the competence of the same centre, under Article 4 letter d) of Government Decision no. 251/2025, is invoked as the basis for the whole order, and Article 5 gives the centre the task of carrying the order out. The working group of Annex no. 2 has 9 members, of whom only one is a teacher in pre-university education, and the column „Institution of affiliation, locality, county” contains, for none of the nine, either the locality or the county, only positions and names of organisations. In Annex no. 1, 4 of the 7 members are teachers with teaching grade I, with their school, town and county entered in full. For a document that enters the national curriculum, the proportion between classroom practitioners and representatives of organisations is a matter of public interest, and the order leaves it to be inferred from a table.
The fourth observation concerns the freshness of the sources and is measured on the act’s own data. All 24 references in the bibliography of Annex no. 2 have an access date in 2024, between 18 April and 28 June, and the most recent work cited is a report from 2023. From the last consultation to the publication of the order, 850 days passed, and by the first possible lesson, in September 2027, almost 1,160 will have passed. A climate simulator is cited with a fixed version, and a comparative report on gender equality is cited in its 2023 edition, although the report comes out every year. The artificial intelligence syllabus, written for a field that moves faster, does exactly the opposite: it cites an OECD and European Commission reference framework from 2026, a European digital competence framework from 2025 and the European regulation on artificial intelligence of 2024. The same day of publication, two documents with bibliographical ages two years apart.
The fifth observation is the one that should worry the issuer most. The artificial intelligence syllabus recommends by name, in the methodological suggestions section and then in the list of resources, the curriculum of a private foundation developed in partnership with a non-profit organisation, with the web address included, while the teacher’s guide and the impact report of the same foundation appear in the bibliography. Three of the 7 members of the working group represent that foundation, among them its executive director. The materials are published under an open licence, so there is no payment from the school to the supplier, and that changes the discussion a great deal. What remains is the fact that a normative act directs every high school in the country towards the materials of a single private supplier, on whose curriculum three of the seven authors worked. The neutral formula was available: a list of open resources, with selection criteria, instead of a single address recommended twice.
A drafting defect that does not reach the threshold of an erratum, but which will raise questions at the inspectorates, is the wording in the introductory note to Annex no. 1, according to which the syllabus was developed with a time budget of one hour a week „in each of grades IX to XII, over one school year”. Read on its own, the sentence suggests a four-year path. Article 1, however, uses „or”, and the methodological suggestions say plainly that the syllabus can be applied „in any one of” the four grades, so the legal meaning remains a single one, one year of study. Since this is not a contradiction of outcome, the place for the observation is here.
What should be changed
- The tracks should be specified in the operative part, not in the introductory note. A new paragraph under Article 1, saying whether the subject is addressed to all tracks or only to those covered by the CDEOȘ methodology invoked in the preamble, would close the only question that stops a technological high school or one running dual education from putting the optional subject in its offer for 2027-2028. Without it, every inspectorate will give its own answer, and the offer of the same optional subject will look different from one county to the next.
- The competences in Annex no. 2 should be rewritten with a verb and an observable criterion. „Understanding the concept of sustainability” becomes, for instance, „explains the three dimensions of sustainable development on a local case, identifying the trade-offs between them”. The practical effect is that the teacher can build the assessment rubric straight from the syllabus, and the pupil knows what attaining the competence means, exactly as already happens with Annex no. 1.
- Annex no. 2 should be filled out with examples of activities up to the level of Annex no. 1. For 8 specific competences, a minimum of four activities per competence would take the document past 30 examples, against the present 21. Without that, a teacher taking the subject on for the first time has, for half of the competences, only two starting tasks for a whole year of one hour a week.
- Annex no. 2 should go through the scientific opinion of the National Centre for Curriculum and Assessment, with the consultants named in the document. The centre is named in Article 5 among the structures that carry the order out, and its competence is a basis of the order. A section of scientific consultants identical to the one in Annex no. 1 would make the intervention of the institution responsible for the curriculum verifiable and would narrow the quality gap between the two syllabuses.
- The bibliography of Annex no. 2 should be updated before the first application. None of the 24 references was consulted after 28 June 2024, and between that date and September 2027 both the reports published every year and the versions of the recommended simulators change. A revision of the list, with access dates from the year of application, would spare the teacher discovering in class that an address no longer works or that the report has changed.
- The recommendation of one supplier by name should be replaced by a list of open resources with criteria for choosing. The syllabus would keep everything that is useful now, since those materials would go into the list, but it would also open the way for other freely licensed resources, and the guidance would no longer send every high school in the country to a single address chosen by a group in which the supplier had three of seven members.
Original text of the legal act
The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.
The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania
Official Gazette of Romania no. 894 of 26 October 2026, page 12, with the annexes in no. 894 bis of 26 October 2026, pages 3-26 32 pages PDF, 176 KB the act starts on page 12
Open the official PDFDownload the PDF
The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.