Social media literacy should be a required school subject

What's this about?

People disagree about whether schools should require a class about using social media wisely.

The evidence supports teaching these skills, but the best school setup remains unclear.

What supporters say

• Lessons can help students spot false claims and avoid sharing them.
• A required class could teach safe, kind, and useful ways to join online talks.
• Many students struggle to tell ads from news or check if online sources deserve trust.

What critics say

• Studies support teaching these skills, but they do not prove a separate class works best.
• Teachers need good training before they can teach these skills well.
• A required class could add school work and make unfair gaps between schools or students worse.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; strong proof matters more.

The bottom line

Schools should teach every student how to check, question, and use online information.

But we are not sure yet that this needs its own required class.

The claim is that schools should make social-media literacy a required subject. The evidence strongly supports giving every student these skills, but is less conclusive about whether they must be taught in a separate course.

The case for

Many students struggle to judge what they see online. Research has found difficulty distinguishing advertising from news, assessing whether a source is trustworthy, and identifying credible evidence. These problems point to a clear need for direct teaching, including practical habits such as checking who produced information, seeking other sources, and comparing independent evidence. 1

There is also evidence that instruction can help. A review of media-literacy programs found that they generally improve students’ media-literacy skills, while a separate randomized study found that digital-literacy lessons improved people’s ability to respond to misinformation. Other research suggests that effective programs involve not just memorizing rules, but learning to interpret, participate and reflect critically online. 2

Making instruction universal could also improve fairness. If lessons are optional, access may depend on a student’s family, school priorities or prior experience with technology. A required program could ensure that all students learn about source-checking, privacy, consent, harassment, algorithms, civic discussion and responsible sharing. It could also help students take part in online life more constructively, including in civic debate (see Figure 2). 3

The case against

The strongest objection is that the evidence supports teaching media and digital literacy, but does not show that a standalone compulsory subject is the best way to do it. Studies have examined particular lessons and programs, not whether a separate course works better than teaching these skills through English, civics, computing, health or a combination of subjects. A review supports structured education but does not identify one universally superior format. 4

Implementation is another major concern. A mandate would work only if teachers had the training, materials and institutional support to deliver a coherent program. Research on educators’ media-literacy knowledge and readiness to use digital media suggests that professional development may be essential. Without it, a new legal requirement could produce occasional, superficial or inconsistent lessons rather than a strong sequence of instruction. 5

A new subject could also increase pressure on already crowded school timetables and budgets. Schools differ in access to devices, internet connections, staff support and students’ previous experience. Unless those gaps are addressed, a compulsory course could deliver uneven benefits and deepen existing inequalities. 6

The research also leaves important questions unanswered. Improvements on tests do not necessarily mean that students will change their behavior in everyday online life. Effects vary by program design, outcome and follow-up period, and some studies focus on older students or controlled activities rather than primary and secondary schools. More evidence is needed on whether students continue to verify information, protect privacy, share responsibly and participate constructively over the long term.

The bottom line

The evidence strongly favors universal, systematic teaching of social- and digital-media literacy. It supports making sure every student receives these competencies, rather than leaving them to chance or family resources.

But the evidence is only moderate on the need for a separate required subject. It has not shown that a standalone course outperforms a well-designed program spread across several subjects or combined with dedicated units. The most defensible policy is therefore a standards-based requirement covering every student, with standalone courses added where they improve coherence and schools have the staff and resources to support them.