In classrooms and corridors across the UK, prejudice is not always as visible as many assume.Beyond the familiar conversations about racism sits a quieter, more insidious bias: colourism – discrimination based on the shade of a person’s skin within the same ethnic or racial group. From playground jokes about being “too dark” to teachers’ unconscious expectations of certain pupils, colourism is shaping the experiences and outcomes of young people in schools and colleges, often without being named.
While the issue has been widely discussed in the United States and parts of the Global South, research suggests that colourism in the UK remains under‑examined and frequently misunderstood. Young people report that their treatment by peers and staff can shift subtly with their skin tone, affecting everything from mental health and self‑esteem to academic confidence and aspirations. Yet policies and anti‑racism initiatives in education rarely address colourism directly.
At King’s College London,researchers,students and educators are beginning to unpack how colourism operates in British education – and what can be done about it. Drawing on emerging studies, lived experience and on‑campus initiatives, this article explores how colourism manifests in UK schools and colleges, why it matters, and the steps being taken to confront it.
Mapping the hidden hierarchies of shadeism in UK classrooms
In many UK learning spaces, bias operates less through explicit slurs and more through subtle, everyday negotiations of whose features are seen as “professional,” “presentable,” or “disruptive.” Seating plans that consistently place darker‑skinned pupils closer to the teacher’s desk for “monitoring,” dress‑code warnings disproportionately directed at Black and South Asian students with natural hair, and classroom displays dominated by lighter‑skinned historical figures and role models all help to normalise a quiet hierarchy of visibility. These patterns rarely appear in policy documents, yet they surface in corridor conversations, behavior logs, and the informal language of “good fit” or “low‑level concern” that staff use to describe students.
These hierarchies are also reinforced by peer cultures that mirror, and sometimes magnify, the biases of the wider society. Within student groups,humour about skin shade,lunchtime seating clusters arranged along lines of perceived desirability,and who is chosen to represent the school at public‑facing events form an informal ranking system. Educators and leaders seeking to challenge this dynamic can begin by auditing everyday practices that appear “neutral” on the surface but produce unequal experiences in practice:
- Behaviour policies that result in harsher sanctions for darker‑skinned pupils.
- Praise and recognition that more frequently centres lighter‑skinned students.
- Curriculum choices that limit darker‑skinned representation to trauma‑based narratives.
- Pastoral interventions that pathologise students’ families or cultures instead of addressing institutional bias.
| Classroom Practice | Hidden Effect | Equity‑Focused Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| “Neutral” dress codes | Policing of natural hair and skin‑tone makeup | Co-produced guidelines with diverse student input |
| Teacher-led seating plans | Darker students clustered as “behaviour risks” | Rotating seats with transparent criteria |
| Assembly speakers and posters | Lighter‑skinned role models dominate | Purposeful inclusion of shade-diverse representation |
How colourism shapes student experiences attainment and mental health
Within classrooms and corridors, judgements about skin tone can quietly dictate who is seen as “presentable”, “disruptive” or “academic”. Pupils with darker skin frequently enough report harsher discipline for similar behaviour, reduced access to leadership roles such as prefect or head student, and fewer invitations to showcase their talents in public-facing events. Meanwhile, lighter‑skinned students may be perceived as more “approachable” or “articulate”, gaining subtle advantages in teacher attention, mentorship and predicted grades. These patterns are rarely named outright,but they shape everyday interactions: who is believed when bullying is reported,whose cultural references are dismissed,who is encouraged to apply for Oxbridge or competitive apprenticeships,and who is told to “be realistic”.
Such dynamics take a toll on self-worth and mental health,notably for young people already navigating racism,gendered expectations and class inequalities. Internalised colour hierarchies can fuel isolation, anxiety and perfectionism, as students feel pressured to prove they belong in spaces that implicitly favour lighter complexions. The consequences reach far beyond the classroom, influencing aspirations, subject choices and long‑term outcomes. In many UK schools and colleges, students and staff describe a hidden curriculum where appearance, tone and texture are quietly graded alongside academic work:
- Subtle bias in praise, sanctions and expectations
- Peer hierarchies around beauty, popularity and “professionalism”
- Curriculum gaps that erase or stereotype darker‑skinned communities
- Silencing of complaints, with pupils told they are “too sensitive”
| School Space | Colourist Impact | Student Response |
|---|---|---|
| Classroom | Lower expectations for darker‑skinned pupils | Withdrawing from participation |
| Corridors & playground | Jokes about shade and hair policed as “banter” | Normalising everyday humiliation |
| Pastoral support | Disclosures minimised or misread | Reluctance to seek help |
Inside institutional practices that reinforce or challenge colour bias in education
Within classrooms, corridors and staff rooms, subtle routines often determine whose experiences are centred and whose are sidelined.Behaviour policies that treat “neat hair” or “natural tones” as the norm can penalise Black and Brown students whose features and styles fall outside an unspoken white standard, while disciplinary data on uniform or “professionalism” is rarely scrutinised through the lens of skin tone.Curriculum choices can compound this bias: darker‑skinned figures appear mainly in narratives of slavery, conflict or poverty, while lighter‑skinned or white protagonists dominate stories of innovation and leadership. These patterns are reinforced by staffing structures where senior leadership teams remain overwhelmingly white, and where concerns about colour‑based bullying are too often downgraded to “friendship issues” rather than recognised as part of a wider pattern of discrimination.
Yet the same institutions can also become sites of resistance, experimenting with policies and practices that confront shade‑based prejudice directly. Some schools and colleges are auditing their behaviour logs for colour‑coded patterns, revising uniform codes with explicit anti‑bias wording, and commissioning student‑led research projects that expose how comments about “looking too dark” or “too fair to be from here” shape daily life. Staff training is shifting from generic “diversity” sessions to targeted discussions of colourism,diaspora histories and media representation. These interventions are most effective when combined,as shown in initiatives like the ones below:
- Data‑driven reviews of exclusions,detentions and praise to detect tone‑related trends.
- Curriculum redesign that normalises a full spectrum of skin tones in everyday examples, not just themed weeks.
- Clear reporting routes for colour‑based bullying, with published outcomes and follow‑up.
- Student advisory panels that challenge staff assumptions about “appropriate” appearance.
| Practice | Reinforces Bias | Challenges Bias |
|---|---|---|
| Behaviour Policy | Vague rules on “tidy” hair and “extremes” of style | Explicit protection for Afro‑textured hair and cultural styles |
| Curriculum | Darker skin shown mainly in deficit narratives | Inclusive case studies across subjects and success stories |
| Staff Training | Generic equality slides, once a year | Regular, specialist sessions on shadeism and classroom impact |
| Pupil Voice | Token surveys with no feedback loop | Co‑designed policies and publicised changes |
What schools colleges and policymakers must do now to confront colourism effectively
Confronting colour-based bias demands that educational institutions move beyond generic anti-racism statements and into visible structural change. Senior leaders must embed clear definitions of colourism into behaviour policies, staff handbooks and safeguarding guidance, explicitly naming it as a form of racism rather than a “personal issue” between students. Staff training should include scenario-based workshops where teachers practice responding to comments about skin tone, hair and features; recruitment panels should be briefed on how colourism can shape perceptions of “professionalism”, “confidence” or “fit”. Curriculum leads can audit schemes of work, ensuring texts, case studies and visual resources present diverse shades and features in aspirational roles. To track progress, schools and colleges can collect anonymised data on reported incidents, follow-up actions and student perceptions through regular climate surveys, sharing high-level findings with governors and parent forums.
- Embed colourism language in behaviour, uniform and safeguarding policies
- Train all staff, including governors, using real-world classroom scenarios
- Audit curricula, displays and reading lists for shade diversity and stereotypes
- Monitor incident reporting data and student voice on belonging and safety
- Partner with local communities, youth organisations and researchers
| Stakeholder | Concrete Action |
|---|---|
| School & College Leaders | Introduce colourism-aware behaviour & exclusions guidance |
| Classroom Teachers | Challenge shade-based jokes in real time and log patterns |
| Teacher Educators | Make colourism a core element of ITE & CPD frameworks |
| Policymakers | Include colourism in national anti-bullying and equalities policy |
| Inspectorates | Review how institutions prevent and record colour-based harm |
Policymakers and inspectorates in the UK can set the pace by making colourism literacy a requirement rather than a discretionary add-on.National guidance should name colourism explicitly within equality, anti-bullying and mental health frameworks, and allocate funding for evidence-based interventions co-designed with young people and researchers. Regulatory bodies can ask schools and colleges to show how they address shade-based discrimination in safeguarding reviews, student support strategies and staff appraisal systems, ensuring that Ofsted-style judgments consider the lived experiences of darker-skinned students. Meanwhile, local authorities and multi-academy trusts can broker regional networks where institutions share promising practice, from student-led media projects to peer mentoring that centres skin tone and identity. By aligning policy, inspection and funding levers, the system can signal that tackling colourism is not a niche concern but a core measure of educational equity.
To Conclude
Colourism in UK schools and colleges is not an abstract concept but a daily reality shaping students’ experiences, aspirations and sense of self. As the research emerging from King’s College London makes clear, it operates in the classroom, the playground, the staffroom and the curriculum – often in ways that go unchallenged because they are misunderstood or misnamed.
Addressing it will require more than diversity statements or one-off workshops. It demands careful listening to students’ testimonies, sustained training for staff, and a willingness to interrogate long‑held assumptions about behaviour, “professionalism” and what is considered “appropriate” or “acceptable” appearance. It also calls for data collection that recognises the nuances within racialised groups, rather than treating them as homogenous categories.
The work being done at King’s offers a framework, but the responsibility now lies with policymakers, school leaders and teacher‑training institutions to turn insight into action.As debates about race and education intensify, colourism can no longer remain at the margins.How the sector responds will help determine whether the next generation encounters an education system that merely reflects society’s hierarchies, or one that actively works to dismantle them.
