Deciding to engage: Understanding teachers’ justifications for addressing unplanned controversial issues

When faced with an unplanned controversial issue, teachers must decide whether to engage with it or leave it unaddressed. This study examines how 60 primary and secondary school teachers from 13 European countries justified their decision to engage. Drawing on post hoc justifications generated through structured reflection, the study identifies five forms of justification: safeguarding and harm prevention; moral boundary setting; challenging prejudice and stereotyping; democratic, civic, and critical formation; and educational legitimacy and professional responsibility. Teachers' justifications were shaped less by the topic itself than by how the situation was interpreted in the moment and what teachers perceived to be at stake. Across cases, teachers’ reasoning was oriented towards both immediate classroom dynamics and anticipated consequences, including concerns about what students might come to accept, reproduce, or contest beyond the classroom. The study advances understanding of how teachers justified engagement in ethically consequential moments under conditions of uncertainty.