Belief in conspiracy theories. The canary in the coal mine?

Last week, we attended the launch of the first report from the Commission into Countering Online Conspiracies in Schools. Funded by the Pears Foundation, the project began in April 2024 with the aim of exploring how online conspiracy theories are emerging in the classroom. Below, we share some key takeaways.

• Marginalisation, feeling that the world has been set up in ways that discriminate or marginalise the respondent had the strongest link with receptiveness to conspiracy theories.

• A belief that the lives of ordinary people are getting worse, that the world is becoming a scarier place, along with concerns around free speech were also key factors for susceptibility.

• Adolescents are not necessarily more susceptible to conspiracy theories because of their developmental stage or age but rather due to their high social media usage.

• 41% of 11-18 year olds rely on word of mouth and 38% on social media as their main source of information.

• Psychological factors were better predictors than demographic indicators but girls, those with older siblings and young people in receipt of free school meals were shown to be more receptive.

• 57% of young people aged 11-18 believed that their parents were accurate sources of information, followed by 48% for scientific research and 43% for teachers.

• What researchers perceived to be conspiracy theories differed from what young people, parents and teachers identified, with young people often confusing them with true crime and celebrity news, and showing less concern about their impact.

• Young people with autism may be particularly vulnerable but more research needs to be done.

The researchers call for expert-led sustained CPD for teachers to tackle this in the classroom and for the curriculum to include lessons in media literacy and critical thinking. This is certainly necessary and will support young people to become both wiser consumers and better communicators. 

Along with CPD targeted at improving media literacy, schools must ground their approach to learning in supporting the development of self-efficacy and agency. Young people are concerned by societal issues but are not often given the opportunities to express them, the political education to understand them or the tools and resources to feel empowered to engage with them.

A National Centre for Social Research survey, carried out last year, showed record levels of disaffection with 72% of those who are struggling financially saying they almost never trust politicians, compared with 49% of those who felt they were living comfortably. Turnout at the 2024 general election was the lowest since 2001 with only 41% of 25-34 year olds casting their vote, a drop of 14 points since the 2019 general election. This is not a ‘youth’ problem. Marginalisation, under-representation and inequality quite logically lead to a lack of trust for those experiencing those obstacles. 

If young people are currently seeking information from parents and older siblings, any school-led approach must actively involve families. This includes equipping parents with the confidence to address these issues with their children and providing broader support to help counter the growing sense of marginalisation in our communities.

A lack of agency has a profound impact on well-being and individuals who feel powerless often have a heightened need for control along with a tendency to seek activities that restore it. Belief in conspiracies is more logical than it seems at first glance - it represents an attempt to make sense of reality when mainstream narratives do not align with personal experience, even if this leads to a potentially harmful misinterpretation of reality.

It must be noted that stereotypes around the groups most vulnerable to conspiracy theories were not borne out by this research. As such, targeted approaches that feed from our own bias and preconceptions cannot and will not work to address this issue.

In schools, we first need to embed our response to harmful attitudes and behaviours in the universal offer, for all students. Second, we must all be willing to engage with ideas that may make us uncomfortable in order to recognise harms and offer students the earliest support. The Difference’s Inclusive Leadership Course is underpinned by these 2 core approaches to whole-school inclusion: built up from a universal offer and developing all staff expertise. 

We need to be unafraid and willing to engage with our students in order to meet the needs that make them susceptible to ideas that can cause them harm. Contrary to expectations, when the canary sings, it signals that we should confront the danger rather than avoid it.

You can find out more about the course HERE.

Oludolapo Irene Ogunseitan, Programme and Communications Lead @ The Difference

Educational exclusion is a four-sided problem: we need to address school, system, service and societal factors

The Who is Losing Learning Coalition has raised urgent questions about both school exclusion and attendance. Their report, Who is Losing Learning? The case for reducing exclusions across mainstream schools, drew attention to the wide-ranging forms of educational exclusion affecting far too many school students in England today.  From formal exclusions to inadequate provision for additional needs to less easily categorised problems such as educational alienation, the exclusions continuum described in the report makes clear the various gradations of exclusion experienced by students who are too often set on a one-way path of escalating educational marginalisation.

Debates about these pressing national problems can be polarised. This was exemplified by the furore that erupted last summer following the publication of an Observer piece on behavioural policies. The tension within these debates is exacerbated, of course, by the social media platforms on which they often play out. But it’s also fuelled on a more fundamental level by how difficult it is to work in education today: toxic stress is reverberating around staff teams in our schools and within adjacent services.

One of the least helpful features of discussion around educational exclusion is the tendency towards situating ‘The Problem’ and ‘The Answer’ within one domain. To simplify, this can consist of arguments along the lines of:

- "Some schools just have an exclusionary culture" (blame the schools)

- “The education system incentivises exclusion – the DfE/Ofsted effectively encourage it” (blame the system)

- "All the services around schools are crumbling, so what are they meant to do?" (blame services)

- “Societal problems like poverty and mental health crises are deepening, so obviously exclusions will get worse"(blame society)

All of these statements may contain elements of truth, but by themselves place inordinate focus and responsibility on one side of a complex problem. Simplistic school blame, society blame, services blame or system blame is not a fruitful starting point for progress. (Of course, there’s also straightforward 'student blame', but even then, there’s usually some awareness that at least one of those other four Ss play a role of some form.)

In reality, I think that everyone working in and around schools – ranging from arch abolitionists pushing for zero exclusions, to the most tentative reformers – can recognise that all four domains are consequential, and that they are interwoven. None of the four should be 'let off the hook', but neither should any one side be seen to contain either 'The Problem' or 'The Answer'.

One reason for the levels of stress within education today is the compounding effects of factors across all four domains, which undermine staff wellbeing as well as educational inclusion. Growing destitution across the country combined with ongoing austerity, for instance, leaves all those working with children and young people facing acute challenges. The housing crisis can have pernicious effects on both students and school staff.

The ‘four-sided’ approach doesn't mean everything is equally important, nor that people can't make strong arguments as to what are the most urgent issues to address. In my view, we’ll only be tinkering around the edges unless we address some fundamental problems across the four domains. We have a ludicrously unequal society; endemic racism; woefully inadequate SEND provision; a dearth of relational practice in too many schools; and (relatedly) ridiculous teacher workloads in too many cases. Others may believe that less substantial or different forms of change are needed, but as a ‘minimum requirement’ for any meaningful progress on educational exclusion, we must talk about change across these four domains.

This approach also entails valuing a variety of voices from both within and beyond schools when considering how best to make progress on educational inclusion. Alongside teachers, school leaders, students and parents, we should be listening to family support workers, early years professionals, social workers, youth workers, educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, CAMHS professionals, and more.

The four-sided approach encourages recognition that a range of factors across the four domains play a substantial role in driving – and therefore potentially reducing – educational exclusion. Our best hopes for making British education more inclusive lie in broadening our lens and getting more ambitious about changing our schools, our education system, our services for children and young people, and our society.

Luke Billingham is a youth worker at Hackney Quest and a Research Associate at the Open University, as well as an Honorary Research Fellow at Durham University. In 2022 he co-authored the book Against Youth Violence

The Promise of Internal Alternative Provision: Bridging the Gap in Mainstream Education

It should come as no surprise that interest in internal alternative provision (IAP) is gaining momentum. What is surprising is how long it has taken us to get here.

An exploratory study published by the DfE at the end of January refers to a School and College Panel Survey from June 2023 that revealed that 12% of secondary schools and 4% of primary schools have an IAP, while 9% of secondary schools and 3% of primary schools were planning to open one. Even within this small-scale study of ten mainstream secondary schools, the research highlights a wide variety of uses and approaches. Within the key findings, the authors identify two factors for success: the importance of recruiting staff with the right skills - particularly expertise in SEND and behaviour support - and the significance of pupil-staff relationships. However, as they acknowledge, this research does not provide a clear definition of what best practice looks like.

Suspensions and exclusions have reached record levels, and while absence showed slight improvement in the autumn term, it remains a chronic issue. Current strategies to reduce both absence and exclusion are clearly falling short and the financial cost of external placements, whether respite or long-term, is becoming unsustainable. A 2018 AP market analysis showed that average costs per student ranged from £17,600 for PRUs to £20,400 for independent AP placements. Although internal AP is also a significant financial commitment, in a time of tight budgets and uncertain impact, it’s easy to see why schools are exploring in-house solutions.

However, establishing effective internal alternative provision can be daunting. Schools face considerable obstacles, particularly due to the lack of codified standards and evidence-based practices. From my own experience, I know this is no simple task. I didn’t want our provision to be merely a temporary reprieve from suspension but defining its purpose and structure was a significant challenge. In many ways, I was running a school within a school: a distinct provision serving a separate function, yet one that needed to be integrated to some degree to ensure students could successfully transition back into mainstream classes.

Fortunately, at that time, The Difference was developing a framework for developing IAP, which they later shared with attendees at their first symposium in June 2024. Three key takeaways for me were:

1. It’s essential to clearly define, safeguard, and uphold the purpose, access criteria, and boundaries of your provision.

2. If students referred to IAP were to feel like valued members of the school community and be successfully reintegrated, all staff had to be involved in the process.

3. The space (its location, layout, and appearance) sends a message not just to IAP students, but to all students and staff, influencing whole-school inclusion either positively or negatively.

The good news is that schools already have - or have access to - the fundamental skills and resources needed for effective internal provision. The core challenge for schools introducing or refining their IAP lies in implementing a carefully coordinated approach to allocating and managing these assets and ensuring ongoing professional development for all staff. Many school leaders, like I once was, are still working to decode this. As with many challenges we face in our sector, the answers exist - they just need to be shared.

To address this, The Difference has launched a network bringing together school leaders to explore strategic and operational approaches to setting up, managing, and improving IAP. The stakes are high - no school leader wants to create a provision that becomes little more than a costly, short-term holding space before further suspension or permanent exclusion.

This is why the growing interest in internal alternative provision is exciting. With careful planning, adequate resources, and a whole-school commitment to inclusive practices, IAP offers a promising path to supporting our most vulnerable students while strengthening the wider school community.

At the first IAP Network meeting in December, discussions focused on:

• Curriculum design and timetabling

• Using IAP to build long-term resilience

• Group dynamics

• Post-placement support

• Staffing and professional development

These themes will be explored in greater depth at the next symposium in April. The first symposium, held in summer 2024, brought together 100 school leaders. Since then, the network has nearly doubled in size - thanks largely to word-of-mouth recommendations from members.

Being part of this national network- the first of its kind - offers a unique opportunity to tackle this challenge head-on by collaborating with other school leaders who have faced similar struggles. Together, we aim to establish a robust evidence base that will inspire and guide future practitioners.

Oludolapo Irene Ogunseitan, Programme and Communications Lead @ The Difference

The Difference is hosting the IAP Network for primary, secondary and MAT/LA leaders to explore challenges and share solutions. Contact Mohamed Abdallah, Head of The Inclusive Leadership Course to find out more mohamed@the-difference.com