The relentless circulation of misinformation online has turned the capacity to tell truth from falsehood into a basic survival skill for the young. Opinion is divided over whether cultivating this skill falls to schools or to parents. In my view, although both have a genuine contribution to make, formal education provides the more dependable foundation.
The argument for entrusting the task to schools is compelling. Teachers are trained to present material methodically, and the classroom offers a setting in which pupils can repeatedly practise interrogating sources, tracing claims and recognising manipulation. Most importantly, because schooling is near-universal, embedding media literacy in the curriculum guarantees that every child, irrespective of their family's technological confidence, receives the same grounding. This universality is something the home simply cannot promise, since parental awareness of digital risks varies enormously.
That said, the case for parental involvement should not be dismissed. Parents witness their children's browsing habits first-hand and can respond instantly when something dubious appears, offering guidance that is both timely and tailored to the individual child. Children also tend to model the scepticism, or credulity, of the adults around them.
On balance, however, I regard these roles as complementary rather than competing, with schools carrying the greater weight. A structured curriculum can instil analytical habits consistently across an entire generation, while attentive parents refine and reinforce them at home. Given the speed and sophistication with which falsehoods now spread, relying on families alone would leave too many children exposed; schools must lead, with parents as indispensable partners. Anything less would leave a generation dangerously exposed in an age of unprecedented online deception.