The second one is privilege, which means that teachers acknowledge the controversial nature of the issue, but clearly teach towards one perspective, which they think is the right one, and try to influence their students to adopt the same position. One could very easily criticize this committed position as well and it is often stigmatized as brainwashing or indoctrination. Nevertheless, its defenders argue that teaching is a political act and that “the very possibility that neutrality is a pedagogical possibility is naïve, impossible and immoral” (Hess, 2004, p. 259).

Those teachers who opt for the third approach, avoidance, simply do not include controversial issues in their curriculum. Their explanations can be manifold – some teachers feel uncomfortable dealing with controversies, some fear potential uproar from students, parents, and colleagues and some do not want to disclose their opinion to their students.

The fourth approach is called balance and it means teaching about an issue without taking sides. It can also be considered a neutral approach and it is favoured by most teachers, parents, and policymakers. From a pedagogical point of view, it is the best approach one can take as it is built on the premise of exposing the students to different perspectives and getting them to think about the issues critically so that finally, they can take a position.

There are problems with the balanced approach as well, as it is quite difficult for some teachers to remain neutral and there are some situations when it is not advisable at all – there are some views that “should not be given a fair hearing” (Noddings & Brooks, 2017, p. 2), including discriminative language or the endorsement of violence. Bigelow and Peterson (2002) argue that “neutrality is neither possible nor desirable” (p. 5), as teaching always takes place in a world full of injustice. They believe that truth should be promoted in a classroom rather than balancing claims (mostly if one knows that those claims are false). They finish their argumentation by saying that “the teacher who takes pride in never revealing his or her opinions to students models for them moral apathy” (p. 5). They make a distinction between biased teaching and partisan teaching, and they express their inclination to be partisan: a biased curriculum ignores that there are multiple perspectives and does not allow students to question its assumptions; while partisan teaching welcomes multiple perspectives, however, never disregards the original aim of the lessons: “to alert students of global injustice, to seek explanations, and to encourage activism” (p. 5). This is the approach that also encompasses the aims of critical pedagogy: it enables students to be critical thinkers and change agents in their communities (Freire, 2014; Giroux, 1997).

Oxfam (2018) identifies six different roles teachers can take when discussing controversial issues with their groups. They argue that teachers have to be flexible when choosing their approach to a given issue, and they should base their decision on different factors, such as the students’ maturity level, the topic, or students’ prior knowledge about the topic. When the teacher chooses the committed role, they share their own views with the students, but they make it clear that the view is their own and it could lead to a biased discussion. When taking the academic or objective role, the teacher explains all possible viewpoints, but they do not share their own opinion with the group. Teachers can also take the devil’s advocate role when without sharing their own opinion, they take an opposite stance to cover all viewpoints in the classroom. If they take the advocate role, they present all available viewpoints, just as in the case of the objective approach, however, they conclude their argumentation by stating their own position. This role is very similar to Hess’ privileged approach. The impartial chairperson role is similar to the balanced approach: the teacher makes sure that all the viewpoints are heard by facilitating a discussion among their students, however, they do not state their own views. Finally, in the declared interest approach, the teacher states their own views so that the students understand how they can be biased and then they attempt to present the other viewpoints as objectively as possible. All these roles seem to be suitable in the classroom, however, teachers may need to try to vary these roles consciously in order not to come under scrutiny for pushing a certain agenda.