Nigel Farage and Richard Tice (Image: Getty)
Reform UK has accused a chain of English academies of imposing “deep socialist bias” on pupils after politics lessons equated the party’s immigration policies with fascism. The row centres on Orion Education, which runs eight academies in south-east London and Kent. A parent alerted Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice to Year 10 lesson materials that placed the party near the fascist end of a political spectrum diagram, alongside the far-right British National Party (BNP).
As reported by The Telegraph, the PowerPoint presentations linked Reform’s calls for lower immigration, deportation of illegal migrants, and stricter border controls to the spread of “hate, xenophobia, and racism”. One slide read: “Whilst not extreme or ‘far-Right’, Reform has increased public debate around immigration and national identity… however, this has fuelled anti-immigrant feeling across Britain, which extremists have exploited to spread hate… normalising far-Right views.”
Get the day’s biggest headlines in UK and World news and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Mr Tice was pictured on a slide headed “How can political views lead to extremism?”.
The lessons also criticised the St George’s Cross as a “provocative and exclusionary symbol used by far-Right groups” and advised pupils to rely on “trusted” sources such as BBC News, The Guardian, and Parliament.uk, while warning against The Daily Mail and The Sun for their “dramatic headlines” on migrant “invasions” that allegedly fuel fear exploited by extremists.
There was no reference to far-left groups such as Antifa or left-wing extremism.
Reform UK, rebranded from the Brexit Party in January 2021 under the leadership of Clacton MP Nigel Farage, has surged in popularity amid public frustration over immigration and economic pressures. Mr Tice, MP for Boston and Skegness, serves as deputy leader.
St George’s flags were dismissed as ‘provocative and exclusionary symbol used by far-Right groups’ (Image: Getty)
Recent polls show the party ahead of Labour, with particular strength on Channel migrant crossings—36,734 arrivals recorded in 2025 so far, according to Home Office figures. It won five seats in the 2024 general election and eyes gains in next year’s local contests.
Mr Tice described the lessons as a “breach of employment contracts”. He said: “Left-wing teachers are imposing their deep socialist political bias on children.
“They should be neutral in helping students learn all sides of politics.
“It is notable that no reference was made to Antifa, nor violent extremism from the far Left. I am appalled but not surprised by this bias from a primarily Left-wing academic community.”
Education Secretary Bridget Philippson (Image: Getty)
The materials tied Reform’s rise to the “Unite the Kingdom” rally by far-right activist Tommy Robinson in July 2025, which attracted thousands amid unrest over asylum policies.
A slide noted: “Polls show that British citizens are concerned about asylum seekers and illegal migration, which is fuelling anti-immigration sentiment and extremism.”
A staff note, not shown to pupils, stressed neutrality: “This is a very current political issue and public safety concern. It is also important that our own political bias does not impact what we tell students. We are simply stating the facts around what is happening and that far-Right and extreme views are harmful.”
Orion Education has initiated an investigation, first reported by The Mail on Sunday. Chief executive Simon Garrill said: “We have begun an investigation into the lessons…it will be a fair and thorough process after the half-term break.” The trust serves about 5,000 pupils, many in deprived areas where Reform’s “protect British jobs” messaging finds favour.
The episode fits a pattern of Reform complaints about classroom bias, with party officials citing a “rising number” of cases. The Department for Education mandates “balanced” teaching but has been criticised for weak oversight.
In October 2025, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson outlined plans for a schools white paper emphasising national renewal through education.
Reform has called for a government review.
Teaching unions have pushed back. In April 2025, the National Education Union described Reform UK as a “far-right and racist party”.
The dispute highlights deepening fault lines in education ahead of the 2026 locals, with Reform casting itself as a defender against “woke” curricula.
An Orion Academy spokesman said: “We are in receipt of the letter from Mr Tice and are currently investigating the concerns he has raised.”
Reform UK Accuses Schools of ‘Socialist Bias’ After Party Branded ‘Near Fascist’
Reform UK has accused parts of Britain’s education system of displaying what it describes as a “socialist bias”, escalating an increasingly heated argument over political neutrality in schools after the party itself was described by critics as “near fascist”.
The dispute has opened up a much wider debate about what political neutrality should mean in British classrooms, how political ideas are presented to children and whether schools are doing enough to distinguish between education and political campaigning.
For Reform UK, the issue is part of a broader argument about cultural attitudes within public institutions. The party has repeatedly claimed that conservative and patriotic viewpoints are sometimes treated less favourably than progressive ones, while critics argue that such claims risk turning legitimate educational standards into accusations of ideological discrimination.
The disagreement is particularly sensitive because schools occupy a unique position. They are expected to teach children about politics, history, citizenship and society while avoiding the promotion of particular political parties or ideologies.
That balance is difficult.
Teachers inevitably deal with subjects that can be politically controversial. History lessons can involve colonialism, war, immigration and social movements. Citizenship education can involve democracy, human rights, equality and the responsibilities of citizens. Modern social issues can also generate sharply different political opinions.
The question is not whether political disagreement should exist in schools. It is how that disagreement should be handled.
Reform’s latest criticism comes amid a broader effort by the party to challenge what it regards as an established political culture in Britain. Its representatives have argued that young people should be exposed to a wider range of political viewpoints rather than being presented with a predominantly progressive interpretation of society.
That argument has gained greater attention as Reform has expanded its presence in national politics.
The party’s critics, however, have raised much more serious concerns about Reform’s political rhetoric and associations. Some have used descriptions such as “far right” or “near fascist” when discussing the party or elements associated with it.
Such descriptions are strongly contested.
Reform presents itself as a democratic political party advocating policies including tighter immigration controls, changes to taxation and regulation, and greater emphasis on national sovereignty. It rejects characterisations that place the party within fascist political traditions.
At the same time, there have been controversies involving individual Reform candidates and political figures associated with the wider movement. Previous reporting has examined controversial statements and associations involving some people connected with Reform, while the party has faced pressure over how it handles such cases.
Those controversies have become part of the background to the argument about schools.
Supporters of Reform say the party should be judged on its policies and democratic activity rather than on labels applied by political opponents. Critics respond that the conduct and statements of political representatives are relevant when assessing the wider political movement.
The dispute therefore contains two separate questions.
The first is whether schools should be politically neutral.
The second is whether Reform UK itself is being treated fairly within political and educational discussions.
These questions should not automatically be treated as the same issue.
A school can legitimately teach students about political movements, including controversial parties, without endorsing or opposing them. Similarly, criticism of a political party does not automatically demonstrate institutional bias.
The practical challenge is ensuring that students understand the difference between fact, interpretation and opinion.
For example, teachers can explain what Reform UK says about immigration. They can also explain how opponents respond to those proposals. Students can then examine the evidence and arguments surrounding the issue.
The same principle can apply to other parties.
Political education is strongest when students encounter competing arguments and learn how to evaluate evidence rather than being instructed what conclusion to reach.
This is particularly important for younger generations growing up in an increasingly polarised political environment.
Social media has transformed the way political information reaches young people. Short videos, memes, influencers and political commentary can reach millions without the traditional editorial processes associated with newspapers and broadcasters.
That means schools face a difficult task.
They are not simply competing with other political viewpoints. They are also trying to teach students how to recognise misinformation, distinguish opinion from evidence and understand the institutions of democratic government.
Reform’s criticism of schools can therefore be viewed within a much broader discussion about political education.
What should students learn about Britain?
Should schools emphasise national identity and traditional institutions?
Should they focus more strongly on equality, diversity and social change?
Should controversial political ideas be examined directly?
There are legitimate arguments on all sides.
Supporters of a stronger emphasis on national identity argue that children should understand Britain’s history, institutions and traditions. They may also argue that national symbols and civic responsibilities should have a more prominent role in education.
Others believe schools should place greater emphasis on Britain’s multicultural society and on issues such as discrimination, social inequality and human rights.
These perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
A comprehensive education can teach national history while also examining its more difficult chapters. It can explain democratic institutions while encouraging students to question political decisions. It can discuss immigration while presenting both statistical evidence and competing political interpretations.
The central principle is intellectual openness.
This is where the accusation of “socialist bias” becomes difficult to assess without specific evidence.
A political claim that an entire education system is ideologically biased is much broader than demonstrating that a particular teacher, school or textbook presents a one-sided argument.
To establish a systemic problem, evidence would need to show a consistent pattern across institutions and subjects.
Individual examples may be important, but they do not automatically establish a nationwide pattern.
The same caution applies to claims that Reform UK is “near fascist”.
Political labels can be powerful, but they can also obscure rather than clarify. Fascism has a specific historical and political meaning. Applying the term to a contemporary party requires careful examination of its ideology, political structures, attitudes toward democracy, leadership and institutions.
Criticism of individual statements or policies should therefore be distinguished from broader claims about the nature of an entire political organisation.
That distinction is particularly important in schools.
Students should be encouraged to investigate political claims rather than simply inherit labels from one side of a political argument.
The controversy also raises questions about teachers themselves.
Teachers are entitled to personal political beliefs, just like other citizens. However, when acting professionally, they have responsibilities toward students with different backgrounds and viewpoints.
That does not mean teachers must present every political argument as equally credible. Evidence-based education requires teachers to distinguish between established facts and unsupported claims.
But students should generally be given opportunities to understand genuine political disagreements.
This becomes especially important when discussing parties such as Reform UK.
The party is now part of mainstream electoral competition, regardless of whether people support or oppose its policies. Students studying contemporary British politics therefore need to understand what Reform stands for, why some voters support it and why others strongly oppose it.
The same principle applies to Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and other political movements.
A democratic education should not require students to agree with any of them.
Instead, it should give students the tools to examine political arguments independently.
That is ultimately the most important issue raised by the latest dispute.
The argument between Reform UK and its critics is unlikely to be resolved simply by exchanging accusations of “socialist” or “fascist” bias. Those labels may dominate headlines, but they do little by themselves to establish what is actually happening inside classrooms.
The more useful questions are concrete.
What is being taught?
What evidence is being used?
Are students exposed to competing perspectives?
Are teachers distinguishing fact from opinion?
Are political parties being described accurately?
And are students encouraged to reach their own conclusions?
Those questions are much harder to answer than a political slogan, but they are also much more important.
Reform UK’s accusation reflects a wider concern among some voters that public institutions have become culturally disconnected from their political views. Its critics, meanwhile, worry that attacks on schools and teachers could undermine legitimate education about equality, history and social issues.
Both concerns can be examined without assuming that either side is automatically correct.
Britain’s political debate is becoming more contentious, and schools will inevitably be affected by that atmosphere. The challenge is to ensure that classrooms remain places where political ideas can be examined rather than imposed.
For Reform UK, that means making specific evidence-based arguments about education rather than relying solely on accusations of ideological bias.
For its critics, it means engaging with Reform’s actual policies and supporters rather than dismissing the entire movement through labels.
And for schools, the responsibility is perhaps greatest of all: to give young people the knowledge and critical-thinking skills needed to navigate an increasingly complicated political world.
The debate over Reform and education is therefore about more than one political party.
It is about what political education should look like in modern Britain.
And ultimately, the most important outcome should not be whether students become supporters of Reform, Labour, the Conservatives or any other party.
It should be whether they leave school capable of examining political claims, questioning assumptions, understanding evidence and making their own informed judgments.