Media Literacy can be discussed and taught in current education structure, but performance goals for teachers and schools have moved the focus from critically t

Media Literacy can be discussed and taught in current education structure, but performance goals for teachers and schools have moved the focus from critically thinking about a topic to getting enough students to remember one correct answer. In elementary school, we learn that you should only speak if you have the right answer and that being wrong is shameful. If the goal is to get people to understand the five pilers of Media Literacy (access, analyze, evaluate, create and act) we have to start by saying right and wrong are not the only fields upon which you can play. My ideas about watching tennis are different than your ideas but because you hold a different view of sport does not equal one party is right and one wrong. Teaching kids to look at big pictures can help them in media literacy. If one child hits another on the playground, we want to hear the reasons behind the altercation but also want the kids to understand that pain is uncomfortable and actions, even inaction, have/has consequences. In this way, we tell them that all sides of the story need to be considered (access). The person hit has one story, the kid doing the action has another and the onlooking parent another (analyze). We express that while the child felt justified they would not like it if someone hit them given that same reason followed by bringing up other alternatives to the action (evaluate). Then we encourage them to, in the future, find different ways to settle differences and/or communicate more effectively(create). The kids then go on their way, and we repeat this process as necessary, or the kids display different actions in similar situations(act). Later in life teachers ask kids how things make them feel, this is important in analyzing media because when we can pick up on emotional cues, we are better able to discern emotionally deceptive advertising. Teachers also encourage kids to express themselves but look at what others are saying. These are great but usually only last a short time before governments, districts, and the like force teachers to cram facts and figures into kids heads so that enough kids fill in enough correct bubbles that will compel the government to provide schools funding they desperately need. Young people are brilliant. When presented with a concept, like deception in advertising, they pick up on countless ploys and manipulative language. We should encourage kids to go beyond asking "What is Shakespeare trying to say in Macbeth Act I Scene V" and also have them do this with print advertising around their town. Studying news clippings published during WWI and then also having them pick apart current news reports about Armistice Day. I sit here knowing that these are hopeful ideas because of the funding structure for the American education system. A more realistic option is for adults to talk to young people like adults. Age does not limit your ability to grasp difficult concepts, lack of conversation about these topics does. Be fearless and call deception as you see it. Watch a movie with questionable morals with your niece? Start the discussion. Two news anchors fighting about a trade war? Mute the TV, express that international trade deals are complicated but shouting doesn't make someone correct. Should media literacy be taught in schools? In some capacity it already is, what will help a great deal is to encourage and promote critical thinking. When we encourage people to tackle big topics, ideas, and analysis we are permitting them to challenge presented convention so that they can establish their own informed opinion. Which is the goal of media literacy.