In principle, teaching children how to ‘read’ information is an excellent idea, but comments from the minister in charge of a new project aren’t encouraging.
Children will be taught how to spot extremist content and fake news online in a revamp of the curriculum following last week’s riots.
Schools will use lessons such as English, ICT (information and communication technology) and maths to “arm” pupils against “putrid conspiracy theories”, the Education Secretary has said.
Bridget Phillipson told The Telegraph that pupils as young as five would be given the critical thinking skills to identify misinformation online under the new plans.
The trigger for this move was charging of a 13-year-old with violent disorder during the recent rioting.
In principle, teaching children how to “read” information is an excellent idea.
One of the most valuable lectures I have ever attended (not, I should say, as a child) was on how to look at statistical data published in the press. To give a simple example, percentages without hard numbers don’t tell the reader very much. A story that cases of a virus have “rocketed” by 100 percent in a week looks worrying. That rocket looks more like a damp squib if that percentage jump reflects an increase from one to two cases.
But comments from the minister in charge of this project do not inspire much confidence:
Ms Phillipson said: “It’s more important than ever that we give young people the knowledge and skills to be able to challenge what they see online.
“That’s why our curriculum review will develop plans to embed critical skills in lessons to arm our children against the disinformation, fake news and putrid conspiracy theories awash on social media.
Where to start?
Perhaps with the way that Phillipson directs her attention toward social media. Presumably that’s because it’s in the news. More generally, however, to the authoritarians in the British ruling class (who are by no means confined to the Labour Party) social media is regarded as a refuge for heterodoxy in an era in which that has become suspect.
Phillipson is correct that “disinformation, fake news and putrid conspiracy theories” flourish on social media. As does “extremist content.” It can be unpleasant, and it can be weaponized by the likes of the Kremlin, but it beats the alternative: a “curated” social media in which only viewpoints, information, and news within the “opinion corridor” are permitted.
But “disinformation, fake news and putrid conspiracy theories” can be found in the press, in books, on the radio, on TV, online in places other than social media, in movies, and in just about any other medium in which people are sending their message out to other people. If schools are going to teach their pupils how to be on the lookout for such phenomena, they should also teach them that disinformation and its kin are not confined to social media. But will they?
Pupils should be taught that some sources of information are more reliable than others. For example, a tweet from a pseudonym with no followers should be regarded with more suspicion than one from a someone who identifies him or herself and has a few followers. And the latter should be treated more carefully than something posted by a national newspaper. But pupils should also be taught to be wary of relying too heavily on hierarchy or credentials. The fact that a newspaper has a good reputation (among whom?) does not mean that it will always avoid publishing or tweeting disinformation, fake news, and putrid conspiracy theories. And will pupils be taught that when something is posted by a scientist, a relevant qualification is of significance, but it does not mean that it is necessarily true or something that cannot be debated? Will they be taught that science often advances over the ruins of yesterday’s orthodoxies?
There’s a presumption — maybe even a strong presumption — that, when it comes to the facts, at least, statements issued by democratic governments are accurate, but it should be no more than that. Governments lie, too. Will that be taught?
The list could go on.
Will pupils be taught that it is possible for there to be disagreement over highly contentious topics between well-intentioned people? Will they be taught that someone can favor, say, immigration restrictionism without being a monster whose every word is evil-intentioned? Will they be taught to look behind labels such as “extremist” and to ask who is handing out that designation, and on what basis and with what bias? Will they be taught who decides what news is “fake” and encouraged to learn about their biases?
Pupils should learn about conspiracy theories and the poison they frequently contain, and (as far as one can) how to recognize them — and it. But will they also be taught that some ideas, once dismissed as conspiracy theories, turn out to be (in whole or in part) true?
Will pupils be taught to research and consider the biases, ideological or otherwise, of the source they are reading, whoever or whatever it is? Will they be taught that even sources with which they are inclined to agree can mislead and that sources they detest can be accurate? Will they be taught that is perfectly acceptable to challenge what someone claims to be “their” truth? Will they be taught to look for the biases of those (above all, perhaps, camouflaged propagandists passing themselves off as fact-checkers) who loudly proclaim their objectivity?
Looking at these questions (again, I could add many more) and based on what the Starmer government has already revealed about itself, the answer to many of them is likely to be . . . unsatisfactory.
Taken too far, skepticism can devolve into paranoia and conspiracism. Nevertheless, the aim of a program such as this should be to inculcate a healthy skepticism, as well giving pupils the intellectual tools with which they can judge for themselves the quality of the information they are receiving on social media and elsewhere.
Such training should not teach undue deference to either the orthodoxy of the day or to information from sources that a leftist (or any) establishment deems trustworthy. Sadly, I suspect that’s just what the Starmer government has in mind (without the “or any”). That Britain’s teachers typically vote overwhelmingly for the left will only make that task easier.