The United States is in a media literacy crisis. Each year, students become more dependent on digital technologies without gaining the proper skills to effectively navigate them. Most educators, academics, and policymakers agree that media literacy is important. Yet, in many states there is no formalized media and information literacy (MIL) curriculum in their public education systems. Over the last year, I focused my research on this topic within the Oregon public education system, which has no required MIL curriculum.
This three-part blog series will explore my research, Oregon’s education policy landscape, and potential policy recommendations. Part-one will cover qualitative findings from interviews with educators in Oregon, part-two will discuss the complex policy landscape in Oregon that impacts media literacy education, and part-three will center the policy recommendations generated from research findings.
For my research methods I wanted to take a bottom up approach to understanding the barriers that exist for media literacy education. I interviewed teachers across several school districts to understand why Oregon has not implemented a media literacy curriculum in classrooms. My original assumption was that if students are lacking media literacy, the easiest solution would be to implement a MIL curriculum that would provide them with tools to navigate the increasingly complex information environment. However, my findings did not lend themselves to an easy solution, but instead, highlighted structural issues existent in the Oregon education system.
The interview findings highlighted six themes:
Finding 1: Confusion/Inconsistency of MIL definitions and expectations
Several teachers did not have a good grasp on what media literacy was or how it related to their course material. Those who knew what media literacy was and why it was relevant were not sure whose responsibility it was to teach MIL. Additionally, several teachers felt their capacity to teach MIL was constrained which will be discussed further in Finding 3.
Additional inconsistencies regarding school media and library studies were reported by the Oregon Department of Education in 2021. Within their resource review they noted that the “results reflect alignment around the value for instruction in library, media literacy, and information literacy; however, the survey results do not reflect alignment around who in the system should be charged with providing instruction” in those subjects.
Finding 2: The influence of technology: Apathy of students and parents
As mentioned above, children and teens are becoming increasingly reliant on digital technologies, this has had a profound impact on classroom instruction. Educators noted that increased access to internet technology like AI chat bots and social media have contributed to what teachers describe as “apathy” or “absenteeism” in school. These technologies are a passive form of entertainment that causes students to become more “insular”.
Additionally, educators noted an uptick in parental apathy toward their children’s education. One educator stated that they have “less students than usual doing [assigned] homework” and that she “equates it with less support at home.” Several teachers speculate that due to increased screen time, students are spending less time at home on schoolwork.
This apathy is reflected in Oregon Department of Education (ODE) reports that despite 85% of children feeling welcome at school, almost 40% of students (grades 3-11) do not “like going to school.” This data reflects educators’ assessment that the lack of students’ investment in their education is partly a result of both student and parental apathy towards education.
Finding 3: Time and resource constraints
Educators lacking sufficient time and resources was a recurring theme throughout the interview process. These constraints included, but were not limited to, a lack of MIL resources and training. Currently there is no compulsory training related to MIL for teachers in the State of Oregon. Educators feel as though they do not have sufficient time to instruct their current course load and they are concerned that adding MIL into the curriculum would be an additional burden to an already constrained system.
Different grade levels experienced different constraints. Elementary educators outlined their strictly dictated schedules, which don’t leave room for adapting to students’ needs. These teachers felt as though they could not deviate from the schedule in a meaningful way to facilitate better outcomes for their students. Middle and high school educators reported having more freedom in how they spend their instruction periods but often must generate their own course materials.
It is important to note that there are materials created by ODE on MIL for teachers like “Navigating Now: А Practical Toolkit for Information Literacy in the Age of Al,” but none of the educators interviewed were aware that it existed. This specific finding is connected to the lack of alignment on whose role it is to teach MIL. Educators are not being instructed on how to incorporate MIL into their current coursework, nor are they being provided the time and resources to do so, and the resources that do exist are under-utilized due to unclear expectations on whose role it is to teach MIL.
Finding 4: Inequities between districts
The interview response highlighted major discrepancies in teacher experience from district to district. Several teachers noted a lack of time, training, and support, however, teachers in higher income districts had more resources to participate in further teacher training. In higher income districts, like Lake Oswego, teachers are allocated thousands of dollars per year for tuition reimbursements to improve their instructional skills. Whereas in lower income districts like Salem School District, teachers receive considerably less. Salem school district is considerably larger (approx. 38,000 students) than Lake Oswego School District (approx. 7,000 students) making the funding disparity in these programs even more significant.
A report published by the Education Law Center highlighted Oregon’s regressive education funding practices. In Oregon, high-poverty districts receive 18% less funding than those with lower poverty rates. According to OECD research, economic disparity in students can lead to reduced cognitive outcomes with gaps widening as students age. This calls into question the efficacy of funding practices in Oregon education and the harmful role that plays in student outcomes.
Finding 5: Budget shortfalls
As mentioned in the findings above, budget constraints were the primary response to the question of why Oregon does not have a required MIL curriculum. As is, Oregon is unable to sustain current levels of instruction and are facing a $120M deficit for the 2026-27 school year. One educator noted that to have an integrated MIL curriculum that “they would have to pay somebody to teach it and they won’t…” They went on to say that this is the same reason Oregon does not have “librarians anymore, because they don’t want to pay somebody to do it.” Unfortunately, how the State of Oregon has focused their budget cuts, massively cutting certified teacher librarians, has hindered school library and media programs to the detriment of academic outcomes.
Finding 6: Responses to why there was no media literacy curriculum varied
Although budget and resource constraints were dominant in interview findings, responses for why Oregon does not have MIL curriculum varied. Two educators discussed the reactivity of curriculum development claiming that “by the time everyone realizes it is such an impactful topic…” it will be “such an issue that we probably need to have some sort of benchmarks or state standards around it.” Another educator thought that the reason for the lack of MIL curriculum was political, that “it would be a political firestorm to teach them media literacy” because of its association to “fake news” and the need to discuss political topics when teaching MIL skills like news literacy.
Overall, findings related to budget and resource constraints were expected, however, their responses questioned my initial assumption that if Oregon integrated a MIL curriculum, students would see better MIL outcomes. After conducting this qualitative research, it is clear that teachers’ barriers to providing MIL education are layered. After decades of budget shortfalls and cuts to education staff & services which depleted school library programs, Oregon cannot fix this issue with a simple solution like a new curriculum.
The good news is that there are recent efforts from organizations like Media Literacy Now and 24th Century Education to build MIL capacity in Oregon public schools. These two organizations are leading the Oregon Media Literacy Coalition to “develop resources, and advocate for policy changes to support media literacy primarily across Oregon schools.” Their advocacy will be critical in urging policymakers in Oregon to reassess current funding and policy practices, while building capacity for educators to teach MIL nationwide.
Leave a Reply