Among teachers and headteachers, concerns about the influence of misogynistic online content, including violent pornography, are widespread. So last week’s call by Daniel Kebede, the head of the National Education Union, for an inquiry into misogyny in schools is important – although the government is unlikely to act on it. Even during the pandemic, Conservative ministers failed to cultivate the kind of constructive relationship with teaching unions that would lead to such proposals being taken seriously.
Currently, 79% of young people encounter material depicting degrading or pain-inducing sex acts online before they are 18, while a growing body of research points to the damage that this can cause. This is one of the problems that the government’s online harms bill was designed to address. It imposes new duties on tech firms to protect under-18s, while stopping short of compulsory age verification. Ofcom is working on the guidance that will underpin the laws.
Given this new regulation, Mr Kebede’s comment that ministers have “completely failed” to address the issue is, in a sense, unfair. But he is right that schools have not received sufficient support up to now, and also that the impact on young people of the underregulated internet of the past decade needs to be taken seriously. Making the online world safer in future is important, but so is the wellbeing of the generation who were the guinea pigs.
In February, Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, said that government guidance recommending a ban on the use of mobile phones in schools would empower headteachers. But as was widely pointed out, most schools already have such policies. And discussions about phone use can be a diversion, when the problem being raised is not when and where material is being viewed, but that it is being viewed at all.
Increasing and intense reliance on handheld electronic devices, and the addictive quality of algorithmically generated prompts and nudges, are undoubtedly issues worthy of attention. Further regulation will be needed as technology including artificial intelligence develops. But debates about screen time, and the importance for young people’s development of offline socialising and activities, must be distinguished from discussions about the dangers posed by certain kinds of content. These are the risks highlighted by Mr Kebede, and also by Esther Ghey, the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, and other bereaved parents who have become campaigners.
Further investigation of the impact on girls as well as boys of their online experiences would be worthwhile, as Mr Kebede suggests. Refreshed guidance on relationships and sex education should clarify the importance of digital as well as emotional literacy – and take on board the influence of politics, for example new restrictions on women’s reproductive rights in the US and elsewhere. Already, some schools have peer-mentoring projects, which Labour has promised to expand if elected. It hopes positive role models can help schools counteract the impact of sexist influencers. Teachers, too, should be supported with up-to-date training and materials created with expert input.
Digital tech has transformed sexual culture. Helping teenagers to cope with this, as they mature, is not only a task for schools. Parents and other adults (for example youth workers) have crucial roles to play. But teachers see more of young people than most of us. Their observations and concerns about attitudes and behaviour should be heard.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
