Netflix Adolescence as School Resource
Table of Contents
- Update and Signatories Overview
- Re: Netflix’s Adolescence as an Educational Resource
- Key Arguments Against Rollout
- Urgent Government Requests
- Closing Signee Details
- Signatories and Supporters
- About VictimFocus
---
Update and Signatories Overview
UPDATE: More than 1800 professionals and parents have signed this letter as of 08/04 12:00 BST
Re: Netflix’s Adolescence as an Educational 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.
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,
m 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)
ADD YOUR SIGNATURE HERE: https://forms.gle/49ZT78hotXWQawai9
Supported by:
Dr Liz Dalgarno – Senior Lecturer and Academic in Domestic Abuse
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
From Open Google Docs (updated every few hours)
Dr Laura Jenkins – Lecturer in Politics (with expertise in feminist political theory)
Dr Sam Brooks – Psychologist (specialising in trauma)
Nicola Greenwood – Child & Young Person Counsellor MBACP 337402
Dr April mangion – Psychologist
Joey Flower – Trauma Psychotherapist
Catherine Doyle – Lead Child Protection Practioner
Anna Boocock – Therapeutic Support Worker
Kauser Parveen – nurse
6
Janine Bohen – Ms
E Sharp – Ms
Jayne Sheppard – Parent
Joanne Baxter – Notts County Council - Family service - Edge of Care team ( Stronger Families team. )
Melanie Berry – SENCo / Primary school teacher
Jamie Allinson – Deputy CEO Rape Crisis Tyneside Northumberland
Louise Griffiths – Ex-police
Jennifer Constantine – Therapist
Graham Letham – Parent
Emma Wells – Founder and Director, Unseen Victims
Sarah Gresty – MA Education. Owner of a preschool. Parent of 3 boys
Dr Rachel Evans – PhD, CPsychol, AFBPsS
Pamela Rubin – Registered Counselling Therapist, Nova Scotia College of Counselling
Therapists
Amy Chadwick – Occupational Therapist
Camille Unemploymed – [Name truncated]
Laura Couzens – Miss
Marion Preston – Integrative Trauma Informed Counsellor
Jessica Woodward – Specialist addiction team leader
Winifred Dickens – RMN – [Role truncated]
Julie Robinson – Chief Officer
Rachael Burton – Teacher
Emma Johnson – Parent / midday Supervisory Assistant
Angela McMillan – Young person’s accredited psychotherapist
Stacey Gibson – Mental health nursing associate
… (The signatory list continues on subsequent pages with numerous professionals and lay supporters.)
Re: Netflix’s Adolescence as an Educational 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. The value of this resource must be considered in the context of safeguarding and trauma-informed education.
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. 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 online have argued that Katie deserved to be harmed 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)
ADD YOUR SIGNATURE HERE: https://forms.gle/49ZT78hotXWQawai9
From Open Google Docs (updated every few hours)
- Dr Laura Jenkins – Lecturer in Politics (with expertise in feminist political theory)
- Dr Sam Brooks – Psychologist (specialising in trauma)
- Nicola Greenwood – Child & Young Person Counsellor MBACP 337402
- Dr April mangion – Psychologist
- Joey Flower – Trauma Psychotherapist
- Catherine Doyle – Lead Child Protection Practioner
- Anna Boocock – Therapeutic Support Worker
- Kauser Parveen – nurse
- [Many more names listed across pages 7-110 of the source document]
Key Arguments Against Rollout
- Ethical and developmental concerns about exposing children to this content (reiterated)
- Potential for harm, retraumatisation, and classroom disruption (reiterated)
- Lack of formal guidance, structure, or testing as an educational resource (reiterated)
- Teachers are not equipped or resourced to manage the impact (reiterated)
- Historical harm from earlier shock tactics in schools (reiterated)
- Lack of evidence that distressing content changes behaviour (reiterated)
- Risk of normalising radicalisation rather than preventing it (reiterated)
- Misinformation and digital confusion around the content (reiterated)
- Focus on the perpetrator at the expense of the victim’s voice (reiterated)
- Negative portrayal of teachers and education professionals (reiterated)
- A one-off gesture rather than a strategic prevention plan (reiterated)
Urgent Government Requests
- Withdraw endorsement of Adolescence as a classroom resource
- Invest in positive role modelling programmes in all schools
- 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 VAWG sector to design safe, preventative, empowering alternatives
- Invest in long-term, relational education strategies centred on children’s rights and safety
- Support and equip schools to take effective action against children who demonstrate or use violence
We fully acknowledge the government’s mission to protect young people from misogyny, violence, and online harm. However, without robust testing, trauma-informed planning, and expert consultation, a rushed rollout risks harm and misinforms policy.
Closing Signee Details
Yours sincerely,
Jaimi Shrive
Director, VictimFocus
Doctoral Researcher in Politics and Criminal Justice
Labour Party Member
Dr Jessica Taylor
CEO, VictimFocus
(Chartered Psychologist)
ADD YOUR SIGNATURE HERE: https://forms.gle/49ZT78hotXWQawai9
Signatories and Supporters
From Open Google Docs (updated every few hours) — signatories listed include professionals across education, safeguarding, psychology, and the VAWG sector, as well as parents and members of the public. The full list spans numerous pages with hundreds of names and titles.
(For complete list, refer to the source document pages 7 through 110 showing the full roster of signatories.)
About VictimFocus
VictimFocus is a charitable organization and research group focused on preventing violence against women and girls, safeguarding, trauma-informed education, and related policy. The letter reflects collaborative input from researchers, clinicians, educators, and safeguarding professionals.
---
Additional details and signatures continue across the extended pages of the source document, including supporters from a wide range of backgrounds such as clinicians, educators, social workers, researchers, and members of the public. The letter underscores concerns about classroom safety, trauma-informed pedagogy, and the potential for negative impacts when deploying powerful dramatic content as a universal school resource without appropriate testing, guidance, or professional support.