Open Letter to UK Government opposing the use of Netflix's Adolescence in schools

Dr Jess and Jaimi Shrive set out their arguments against the use of viral Netflix drama series 'Adolescence' in schools and call for signatures to support

Re: Netflix’s Adolescence as a School Resource

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Jaimi Shrive, Director of VictimFocus, a doctoral researcher in politics and criminal justice, and an active Labour Party member. I write this letter alongside psychologist, Dr Jessica Taylor, CEO of VictimFocus (PhD, CPsychol, FRSA, AFBPsS), with the support of a wide range of professionals across education, safeguarding, youth services, psychology, and the violence against women and girls (VAWG) sector.

We are writing to express serious concern regarding the proposal to roll out Netflix’s Adolescence as an educational resource in secondary schools across the UK.

We recognise and support the Labour government’s commitment to addressing online misogyny, radicalisation, and male violence. These are critical issues affecting the safety and wellbeing of women and girls, children and young people, and we welcome a government that is prepared to confront them. Adolescence is a powerful, thought-provoking piece of drama that has ignited important national conversations. However, its value lies in its dramatic impact, not its appropriateness, effectiveness, or safety as a classroom resource.

We respectfully urge the government to reconsider this proposal for the following reasons:

1. Ethical and developmental concerns about exposing children to this content
Adolescence is rated 15 by the BBFC for good reason. Graphic and distressing content should not be shown to pupils as young as 11, yet this would be the case under a blanket secondary school rollout. Due to the complexity and style of the drama, even older pupils may not be developmentally ready to engage with this material meaningfully or safely. In the series itself, students respond to police and teacher-led discussions with shock, dismissal, mockery and distraction, which reflects the reactions we see regularly in real classrooms when children are faced with traumatic, disturbing, confronting, or overwhelming content. At present, the roll-out of Adolescence in schools has no ethical or safety considerations, which contradicts trauma-informed schools and evidence-based teaching.

2. Potential for harm, re-traumatisation, and classroom disruption
Students may laugh, joke, minimise, ignore, mock, bully, or disengage when exposed to Adolescence, and while this is often a defensive or self-protective response, it has the potential to deeply harm peers who relate to the storyline through personal experience (as victims or as perpetrators). Victims and survivors could be retraumatised, silenced, targeted, or alienated if the content is delivered without trauma-informed support and skilled facilitation. The risk of further victimisation is very real and must not be underestimated. This is similar to the risks and real impacts of previously rolled-out ‘CSE films’ in schools, which did not increase disclosures, or improve responses to exploitation and abuse of girls – but did increase traumatic responses in students who struggled to process the distressing and disturbing storylines and imagery. Our work in 2017-2019 led to the withdrawal of these films nationwide, and showing traumatic films and resources is now widely considered to be poor practice.

3. Lack of guidance, structure, or testing as an educational resource
There is no framework, no evidence-base, no guidance pack, no expert-led materials, and no structured approach to delivering this series in schools. It has not been trialled in educational settings, nor has it been evaluated for safety, impact, or effectiveness. There is no evidence that this approach will work, and teachers have not been supported or trained to undertake this complex intervention with millions of students. No consultation has taken place with teachers, schools, parents, psychologists, or safeguarding professionals. Its rollout appears to be based on public sentiment rather than sound educational policy.

4. Teachers are not equipped or resourced to manage the impact
Schools are under immense strain. Teachers are not specialists in male violence, trauma, radicalisation or abuse, and yet they would be expected to handle disclosures, emotional distress, defensive and triggered responses, and controversial discussions following this content. This is neither fair nor safe. The use of Adolescence places an unreasonable burden on educators, many of whom are already overwhelmed with safeguarding responsibilities. Further, this ignores the psychological and emotional impact on the teaching staff, who will also be impacted by the repeated roll-out of disturbing imagery without training, and without support for potential vicarious trauma caused not only by the drama itself, but by the reactions, disclosures, and behaviours of students.

5. A repeat of the harm caused by withdrawn CSE films
The use of disturbing imagery in schools is not new. In several reports, including ‘After CSE Films’, Dr Jessica Taylor documents the well-known harms caused to children and teens by previous attempts to show graphic content in the name of prevention: re-traumatisation, disengagement, increased fear, and inappropriate disclosure with no follow-up support. We are at risk of repeating the very same mistakes on a national scale. Due to the highlighted harm to children, and lack of evidence base, CSE films were withdrawn by large organisations and charities including The UN, Barnardo’s and NSPCC, and regionally by local authorities, police forces and abuse support services between 2017-2019. It is vital that we learn the lessons from using shock tactic and distressing imagery with children, and do not engage in this approach again.

6. Fear, shame, and shock do not change behaviour
There is no evidence that distressing content changes student behaviour. Research consistently shows that shame and fear-based messaging is ineffective and counterproductive. It may alienate those who most need support, rather than bringing about self-reflection or change. What works is relational, strengths-based education grounded in empathy and engagement, which many experts and organisations already endorse or provide.

7. The series could normalise radicalisation rather than prevent it
Adolescence only briefly touches on online radicalisation, including incel ideology and misogynistic online communities, but offers little in the way of critique or deeper analysis. These references are not unpacked, contextualised, or meaningfully challenged. Without structured deconstruction, viewers may identify with the character of Jamie or internalise the logic behind his actions. The risk of this content being interpreted as sympathetic to the murderer, or even instructional, cannot be dismissed. Adolescence was written and produced as a drama, not as an educational resource. The lack of depth may lead to children who are not familiar with any of these terms or cultures using the internet to explore, research, or find these communities, to understand what the terminology or arguments mean. As a drama, this is very intelligently presented, but as an educational resource for children, this lack of clarity presents a risk of radicalisation, mirroring, and escalation.

8. Misinformation and digital confusion
The series relies on the use of symbols, emojis, and codes to show how radicalisation spreads. These are niche and largely irrelevant to the digital cultures most children and teenagers actually participate in. For example, many children use coloured heart emojis in their communication, without assigned meanings. Similarly, many children also use the red ‘100’ emoji to mean agreement, compliments, or to mean ‘100%’ – not to reference the 80:20 statistic used in incel ideology. The risk is twofold: students may misunderstand what radicalisation really looks like in their own lives, and parents and professionals may be misled into false assumptions about young people's behaviour online. Further, there is a risk of alienating children who watch Adolescence, who do not relate to the use of these niche emojis and concepts. Adults, including educators, parents, and professionals – may unintentionally appear out of touch or even laughable by taking these fictional representations at face value. When adults react strongly to misunderstood or exaggerated online behaviour, they risk becoming figures of ridicule, undermining their credibility and authority (as portrayed in this series). More worryingly, by focussing attention on obscure digital references, we may miss the real, more nuanced warning signs of radicalisation and alienate the children we are trying to protect.

9. Disproportionate focus on the perpetrator; the victim remains voiceless
Katie, the murdered girl in the drama, is repeatedly framed as a bully and is denied any real voice. Her family are absent. Her suffering is largely excluded. Meanwhile, the boy who kills her is portrayed with emotional depth, vulnerability, and complexity. This imbalance risks reinforcing harmful narratives about victim blaming and male suffering. It sends a dangerous message that violence is understandable or excusable if a perpetrator feels bullied, isolated, or misunderstood. Many conversations, narratives, and blogs online have already argued that Katie deserved to be harmed, brought the violence upon herself, or that Jamie was justified in his anger due to her comments.

10. The portrayal of teachers is negative and counterproductive
Teachers in Adolescence are depicted as incompetent, uncaring, passive, and out of touch. One of the clear critiques raised by the drama is that educators disengage from meaningful learning by simply showing videos instead of actively teaching. By asking schools to show this very video as a national resource, the government risks mirroring and reinforcing the exact critique in the drama. This not only contradicts the message of the drama itself, but further undermines the professionalism of educators, reduces complex safeguarding issues to a passive experience, and may deepen mistrust among students. It also risks perpetuating the stereotype that teachers are detached and uninterested in the lives of their pupils - damaging an already strained dynamic in many classrooms.

11. A one-off gesture, not a strategic prevention plan
The speed and manner in which this decision has been announced suggests an emotive, reactive response to public interest rather than a strategic, evidence-based plan. There is no long-term prevention model surrounding this decision. It risks being viewed as a public relations gesture rather than a meaningful step toward prevention of harm. Real safeguarding and prevention work takes time, infrastructure, and professional leadership. We recognise that responding quickly whilst there is a national conversation about VAWG, misogyny, and incel ideology is effective and important, especially as tackling these issues have featured heavily in Labour pledges and manifestos, but the approach must be considered and evidence-based.

In light of these concerns, we urge the government to:

• Withdraw endorsement of Adolescence as a classroom resource

· Invest in the development of positive role modelling programmes in all schools, to demonstrate to children how to live non-violent, compassionate, supportive, positive lives for boys and girls, rather than graphic depictions of murder, violence, abuse, and trauma as a deterrent

• Commission a multi-agency review into trauma-informed, evidence-based educational materials on misogyny, anti-violence, radicalisation, and VAWG

• Collaborate with professionals in education, safeguarding, psychology and the VAWG sector to design safe, preventative, and empowering alternatives

• Invest in long-term, evidence-based, relational education strategies that centre children’s rights and safety

• Support and equip schools to take effective action against children who demonstrate or use violence, abuse, and bullying, to protect victims in the school population, and to stop the escalation and development of their behaviours into adulthood

We fully support the government’s mission to protect young people from misogyny, violence, and online harm. But this approach carries several significant risks. Without adequate testing, trauma-informed planning, or meaningful consultation with experts, the decision to roll out Adolescence in schools feels rushed, performative, and lacking in due care. It is vital that we act with wisdom, strategy, and evidence when dealing with issues as serious as misogyny, radicalisation, peer-on-peer abuse, and male violence.

Yours sincerely,

Jaimi Shrive
Director, VictimFocus
Doctoral Researcher in Politics and Criminal Justice
Labour Party Member

Dr Jessica Taylor
CEO, VictimFocus
Chartered Psychologist (PhD, CPsychol, AFBPsS, FRSA)

SIGN HERE: LINK TO OPEN LETTER AND SIGNATURES

Supported by:

Dr Liz Dalgarno – Senior Lecturer and Academic

Amy Forrester – Director of Behaviour, TES Behaviour Columnist

Nicky Brennan – VAWG Activist

Dr Ashley Morgan – Masculinities Scholar

Dr Jon Rees – Associate Professor of Health innovation Research

Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore – Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

Dr Christina Cocchiola – Expert in coercive control

Dr Kathy Weston – Specialist in evidence-based parenting and education

Dr Emily Setty – Associate Professor specialising in harmful behaviours in young people

Leanne Patrick QN – Queen’s Nurse, Domestic and sexual abuse specialist

Karen Whybro – Specialist consultant and doctoral researcher in VAWG

Kate Phelps – Accredited Counsellor

Jess Davies – Presenter and Women’s Campaigner

Dr Jenny Turner – Clinical Psychologist

Lisa Macdonald – Art Therapist

Victoria Telfer-Smith – Psychotherapist

Neelam Heera-Shergill – Sex educator and Founder of Cysters Group on Health Inequality

Isla Brown – Youth Activism Expert and Safeguarding Consultant

Kate Smurthwaite – Comedian and Activist

Nicola Greenwood – Child and Young Person Therapist

Natasha Tiwari – Psychologist

Dr Natasha Colley – Educational Psychologist

Sharon Jackson – Consultant children’s social worker

Dr Christina Winters – Psychologist and Researcher

Issy Vine – Police Whistleblower and Activist

Deborah Crozier – Counsellor

Jeanine Connor – Psychodynamic Psychotherapist

Rob Scarrow – Detective Sergeant

SIGN HERE: LINK TO OPEN LETTER AND SIGNATURES