Schools and teachers need more support and training to effectively teach children about online harms, experts have told MPs.

Witnesses gave evidence this morning to the second session of the Commons Education Select Committee’s inquiry into screen time, covering how children should be taught about digital literacy and online harm.

The session examined the effectiveness of how online safety and digital literacy are taught, particularly through the PSHE/RSHE curriculum (personal, social, health and economic education/relationships, sex and health education).

Here are five things MPs were told that schools needed:

1. Clearer guidance on digital literacy teaching

Giving evidence, PSHE Association chief executive Jonathan Baggaley said the statutory guidance provided on PSHE/RSHE has improved its position in the curriculum.

However, he added: “There is quite a lot in the RSE guidance about online safety but it is very top level and it is hard for schools at an individual level to translate that into a meaningful curriculum.

“We do not have a clear sense of what we actually want young people to learn at different points, and then we do not have the sense of what competencies we want teachers to have.

“We do need to have a sense of what teachers need to learn.”

Darren Northcott, national officer for education at NASUWT, said teachers would like a bit more guidance in taking on these “really challenging areas of the curriculum”.

2. Teachers need more training

Mr Baggaley also said there is “very limited time” spent during initial teacher education on how to best deliver effective PSHE/RSHE education, with no specialist training.

Mr Northcott added: “In the most part, teachers have not really had any training, either when they were training to be teachers or subsequently, in how they can best engage with these issues, so we are asking teachers to do a lot, perhaps, without the support they are entitled to.”

Both Mr Baggaley and Mr Northcott agreed that teachers need more training at initial teacher education level, and through continuing professional development, on how best to embed effective digital literacy education into the curriculum.

3. The government to ensure equal digital access as online exams begin

Several exam boards have recently announced their plans to offer some online GCSEs from as early as 2025.

The Digital Youth Index 2023 estimated that up to two million young people in the UK lack access to a device suitable for education. Ian Mearns MP asked whether students who have not had access to a laptop, for example, would be disadvantaged in completing online exams if they had little keyboard typing experience.

“If we are in that position, that is part of a child’s core entitlement to access qualifications that relate to their learning. If those qualifications require access to technology it seems fundamental they should all have access to that technology on an equal basis so they are not disadvantaged,” Mr Northcott said.

He added that the state would need to ensure that all children have this access where parents cannot.

“It’s one of the things we will have to keep a very close eye on,” agreed Robin Walker, chair of the committee.

4. More regulations on edtech in schools may be needed

Baroness Kidron, founder and chair of the 5Rights Association, said we have to think more broadly about what the increase in the use of edtech from the pandemic onwards means in the classroom.

She said that the Age Appropriate Design Code (or Children’s Design Code) - a standard that online services are required to follow to protect children’s data - does not apply in school settings and much of edtech “does not adhere to its rules”.

The Online Safety Act is also exempted in school settings, the Baroness said. “We‘ve got into this ludicrous situation where a child on their way to school on the bus has more protections than in the classroom. It is a wrongheaded assumption that schools do safeguarding and this is a safeguarding question.

“Teachers cannot possibly do the kind of work the ICO [Information Commissioner’s Office] or Ofcom does.”

She added that the committee should look at whether the education sector can benefit from regulatory initiatives the government has brought forward on online privacy.

“Schools do do safeguarding but their specialism is not online safeguarding, so there’s a valid point to be looked into there,” said Mr Walker.

A spokesperson for the British Educational Suppliers Association said the Children’s Design Code might not apply to schools directly, but applies to educational websites, and saying that edtech does not adhere to the rules “does not reflect the genuine care and consideration our members have in handling children’s data”.

“All of our members adhere to a code of conduct, which commits them to being open and transparent in their operations and usage of data.”

The spokesperson added: “Edtech has had a profoundly positive impact on the effectiveness of teachers in improving safeguarding measures, such as through the digitisation of recording, managing and reporting concerns as well as digital monitoring and filtering technologies, which make school premises a safe environment for children to explore the internet.”

5. Schools have to be able to make decisions on mobile phones

Both Mr Baggaley and Mr Northcott agreed it was hard to see the benefits of having mobile phones in the classroom, apart from exceptional circumstances such as for access arrangements for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, or when it is helpful to teach about online safety.

“It has got to be a school decision because of the complexities,” said Mr Baggaley.