The term “media literacy” is not well known, yet it rankled legislators in the statehouse last week, leading to a filibuster, several amendments and a very long conversation concerning teaching students to be critical thinkers.
Most of us know what literacy is -- reading and writing -- and we encourage teaching it in schools to inspire lifelong learning and academic success.
Media literacy is that, and more. It teaches how to critically evaluate what we see or hear in social, print or broadcast media. It is a term I didn’t know existed before the advent of social media, but it has become an important part of civic conversation.
Sometimes, for example, we see misinformation, the inadvertent sharing of false information. It looks right, so people share it somewhere without checking. But we also see disinformation, which is when people share this misinformation, even though they know it is wrong. They believe it should be right, and their friends would agree, so they repeat it.
Two years ago, Rep. Lisa Cutter (D-District 25) sponsored legislation creating a panel of experts to establish a curriculum and resource bank to help educators teach media literacy. The advisory committee produced a 158-page document detailing the reasons why media literacy needs to be taught and how it can be incorporated into a curriculum, as well as a list of vetted and research-based resources, professional development opportunities and possible community partnerships.
This year, I joined Rep. Cutter on a bill directing the Department of Education to incorporate the media literacy materials into grade-appropriate curriculums of civics, reading and writing, whenever the standards are coming up for review. Educators will have the resources to teach media literacy as part of their everyday coursework, encouraging critical thinking and awareness.
The legislation is designed not to steer students in any specific ideological direction, but instead give them tools to analyze all information, then form their own opinions about the facts and evidence presented. Facts and opinion are not the same, and robust civic debate depends on that realization.
Many adults could use this training as well.
One legislator told us this information was coming too quickly, and since no one had enough time to read the document, chose to read it out loud for all of us during a filibuster. The reading was stopped by leadership 24 pages in. The document, actually, has been available for two years on the Colorado Department of Education website: http://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/mlaclegislativereport2020.
Another legislator implied the advisory committee was biased, and therefore produced a biased list of resources. The 12 committee members represented rural and urban school districts, broadcast stations, nonprofit journalism organizations, librarians and parents. No one from the print media was available to join. They represented a wide range of perspectives and regions of the state.
And still another legislator said the bank should be open to the public for additions and deletions. Concerned parents are welcome to discuss any changes they want with their school districts.
The resource bank is extensive, and educators can use any of it to address the needs of their community. It is a suggested list of resources to make an educator’s life easier, but is certainly not required. The document is not static; when standards are reviewed every six years, materials will be reviewed as well, and districts can weigh in, sharing the views of their constituents.
During the testimony phase, we had representatives from the nonpartisan League of Women voters, educators, students, school boards, school executives and rural schools testify in favor. They concurred that the next generation is dependent on social media for their news and, without researching the accuracy, will repeat and share what they see.
The bill is moving through the House, and should head to the Senate next week.
Our decisions are only as good as the information we use to form them.
