| 7 mins read
The recent curriculum review, and investigation into ‘media literacy’ by the House of Lords, are signs of a growing unease among educators, writers, and civil society organisations and –at last – politicians about the condition of critical thinking and the evaluation of evidence and argument in the our education system.
How do young people arrive at a view of the world and assess the competing views they are bombarded with? How resilient and capable of independent evaluation are young people in the face of unregulated and overwhelming media online? At The Orwell Foundation we are well-placed to wade into this discussion, having been listening closely to young people for over a decade, which gives us the experience to offer some thoughts on the current condition of political literacy and expression among the next generation.
A civic necessity
The Department for Education and its agencies have become increasingly reliant on prescriptive assessment models, with Ofqual suggesting that exams and other formal assessments ‘give students the fairest chance to show what they know, understand and can do, because the rules are the same for everyone.’ However, this approach has narrowed the space for open-ended thinking and discussion as the dominant modes of teaching and examination prioritise ‘correct’ answers (to questions that can be measured as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’) over argumentation, and memorised knowledge over interpretation. This has consequences not only for academic outcomes but for the health of our national political life. In a context of rising polarisation and mistrust, the ability to reason, challenge, and express — in speech and writing — is not a luxury. It is a civic necessity.
The Oracy Commission’s recent report ‘We Need to Talk’ says that ‘an increased emphasis on oracy education’ is essential not only for academic success but for shaping ‘fulfilled future citizens… to combat increasing polarisation and misinformation.’ The report reframes talk itself — not just the ability to answer a question, but to articulate, reflect, and reason — as a cornerstone of education. Oracy is presented as a foundational competency, underpinning reading, writing, intellectual development, and democratic participation. This view is not confined to the education sector. Even the defence think-tank, RUSI, has echoed similar concerns, highlighting how a lack of critical thinking leaves the public vulnerable to sophisticated misinformation campaigns — including those orchestrated by foreign actors like Russia, whose electoral interference strategies rely on exploiting precisely these weaknesses. In this light, oracy and critical thinking become a matter of national resilience.
We have found many entrants are driven by international concerns, rather than local ones, which is most likely driven by their visibility on social media platforms; where resilience is becoming increasingly important. As more young people come to engage with these platforms, we must be aware that, many are uncertain where to find reliable information, and are exposed to misinformation on social media platforms. Although the Online Safety Bill is grappling to some extent with these issues, the problem is wider, and a renewed focus on critical thinking and expression in our curriculum will better prepare young people for the dangers ahead.
Yet, these trends reveal a more systemic problem, having been exacerbated by the steady decline in students taking arts subjects at every level of education. History, politics, English, modern languages, art history and drama all require the evaluation of different perspectives and have different forms of argument as their key skill, bringing us beyond the identification of misinformation into a space for the informed dialogue that should underpin democratic engagement.
In meetings with other national creative writing programmes — from First Story, the Foyle Young Poets Award, to the Financial Times’ Young Economist of the Year Prize, to the Royal Geographical Society’s essay competitions — we have heard concerns raised about this decline. In response, these organisations have formed a kind of informal alliance. Through the Orwell Youth Prize, what began as a writing prize has evolved into an informal supplement for what is missing in the curriculum.
Every student entrant receives individual, expert feedback — something almost unheard of in national competitions — and our network of judges and readers is made up of teachers, journalists, authors, publishers and academics who are deeply engaged with young people’s writing. The Prize invites young people to write about political and social themes, drawing on their own experience, observation, and imagination. Our winners have gone on to influence education policy, speak on national media, and enter higher education with a clear sense of their voice and power.
Each year, as we review hundreds of entries, patterns begin to emerge. Some are to do with content – what they write about – and some are to do with methods – how they tackle subjects. We know from this work that when young people are given the tools and the trust to explore ideas, they rise to the challenge. They write with insight about climate change, race, class, identity, justice, and their worries in school. Notably, an Orwell Prize winner who wrote about a dystopian world where everything depended on ‘the Grade’ was the victim of the random impact of downgrading results in some schools by the Department of Education algorithm. She then campaigned, successfully, for the sharp reversal of the policy.
Imagining alternatives
Young people draw on Orwell’s legacy to question power and imagine alternatives. Many are more than capable of critical thought; they simply need the space to practice it. We submitted evidence to the recent review of the curriculum and assessment system in England to make this case: that creative, political and critical education must be reimagined as a central purpose of schooling. We must equip young people to live well in a plural, democratic society; where they have the skills necessary to uphold democracy by identifying misinformation and reasoning with their fellow citizens.
Education is not just about acquiring knowledge. It is also about learning how to speak, listen, disagree, and make sense of the world. In George Orwell’s own words, ‘the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.’ In this case, the obvious truth is that young people cannot think politically unless they are allowed, encouraged and, crucially, equipped to think at all. If we wish to safeguard our democracy for future generations, we must act now.
