Teaching controversial issues in schools – challenges and opportunities

Credit: Cavan for Adobe via Adobe Stock.

20 November 2025

By Carol Vincent

Brexit, migration and the Israel/Palestine conflict are just three issues that have saturated public debate and generated polarised reactions in recent times. Meanwhile, young people in particular are increasingly receiving their news through social media (Internet Matters 2025), and research suggests that, although the relationship is complex, social media does play a role in aggravating ‘destructive’ polarisation (Esau et al 2024).

Schools could provide a space for young people to engage with issues deemed to be controversial. Yet there is significant evidence that teachers are too anxious and feel too vulnerable to parental, community or media backlash to open up discussions around such topics (e.g. Brummer et al 2025; Khan 2024; Jerome et al 2021; Vincent 2019). This is understandable. Discussing emotive political and social issues is challenging, requiring a depth of knowledge about the topics, and considerable skill is needed to develop a space where young people can speak freely whilst maintaining their wellbeing (sometimes referred to as safe and brave spaces).

Citizenship education teachers are trained to do this. However, there are currently only about 30 trainee citizenship teachers in England each year, and the UCL Institute of Education is the only institution offering the Citizenship PGCE as a single subject. Citizenship education is a statutory subject in English secondary schools, although not at primary level. It is often not taught as a discrete subject, nor by specialist teachers. Along with Religious Education, another potential ‘home’ for the discussion of ‘controversial’ issues, citizenship education has been pushed to the margins of the curriculum.

One potential solution for teachers in schools that don’t have access to a specialist colleague is to outsource this demanding and time-consuming work to a third-sector organisation. Recent research funded by the Sir Halley Stewart Trust, that I conducted with colleagues Dr Sherelle Davids and Sophie Kitson from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR), examines the role of these organisations (Report; Teacher Guidance). We studied 17 organisations that offered schools support in teaching topics related to racial/ethnic and religious difference, division and conflict, and peace education. Collecting data through interviews with organisations’ staff and observations of the student workshops and teacher-training sessions that they led, we saw how third-sector organisations could offer schools well-researched and downloadable lesson plans and resources, creative and engaging student workshops, and productive professional development.

Participating organisations’ shared aims were generating empathy and critical thinking in students. These organisations could offer schools their experience and knowledge, built-up and refined over years. Their staff understood their organisations’ work as a vital means of rebutting growing instances of social division (indeed, latest government figures show an increase in hate crimes). As one respondent commented:

What we want to do is change hearts and change minds and change lives […] These comments [by children that we are brought in to address] could just be something, ‘Oh, I’m not allowed to play with you because you’ve got chocolate colour skin.’ But [children] are saying it.

One of the organisations addressing a highly polarised topic had themselves been a target for vocal complaints about what they were or should be teaching:

The tidal wave of distrust and anger coming the other way is so big and we’re an easy target, you know, people need to feel that they’re doing something and it’s so easy to just wallop us.

The challenges that we identified for the organisations themselves and for their school customers are that funding for both parties is limited, which makes planning and engagement difficult. Often schools would opt for short (and therefore cheaper) interventions, which meant organisations had to address complex issues in a limited time frame: as one participant asked, “What kind of supercharged assembly” [can resolve] “hate crime?”. One-off interventions with ‘business-as-usual’ resumed after the team has left the school risks shallow and superficial student engagement. In response, one of our recommendations was that organisations ‘bundle’ their offers to include preparation and supporting materials in addition to student workshops.

The work of these organisations is arguably particularly important in light of the government’s proposal to lower the voting age to 16. In response, several parties have called for an enhanced citizenship programme in schools (Cowan 2025, House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee 2025). In addition to teaching young people about the workings of the Westminster Parliament and devolved governments (necessary but not sufficient), we argue that such education should include space for the discussion of current social and political issues.

Schools are constantly asked to do more, and often to do more with less. Government support is needed if individual schools and teachers are to respond to an uncertain and volatile political and social landscape, including increased clarity around political impartiality, more teacher training, and a greater recognition in the curriculum of the importance for young people to develop skills in critical thinking and dialogue across difference (see also ACT 2025).

This has been recognised in Professor Becky Francis’ final report for the Curriculum and Assessment Review, which recommends strengthening the role of citizenship education in schools, including making it mandatory for primary schools. The new curriculum, to be introduced from 2028, will cover democracy and government, law and rights, media literacy, financial education and climate education. A new emphasis on oracy skills will also be introduced.

Third-sector organisations, like those participating in our research, have considerable expertise that could contribute to developing new programmes of study. Clearly, the final details of those programmes, and the degree of training and support for teachers will be key to the success of these initiatives, but they represent a major opportunity to ensure that young people are not left to navigate polarised public spheres unsupported by the education system.