Keir Starmer recently announced that the critically-acclaimed Netflix series “Adolescence” will be integrated into the RHSE curriculum in UK secondary schools. The move seems to be part of a broader conversation linking the show to policy on relationships, health and sex education for children.
At first, this new alignment of government and Netflix struck me as performative, trying to score easy PR points off the back of a piece of TV that’s gripped the public consciousness for the last couple of weeks. But then I thought about it a bit more – and, yes, it’s completely performative. What’s next, business policy based on “The Apprentice”? Military doctrine based on Marvel movies?
We’re at the start of a slippery slope, where commercial media is shifting into the same category as truth – what sells on Netflix is not what should be used in an educational setting.
We had “Mr Bates vs the Post Office” last year, which did help move along the case against the Post Office and the convictions of sub-postmasters. But the clear difference is that series was the retelling of a real-life story, whereas”Adolescence” was created to entertain and to draw a viewership. Yes, it was intended to be thought-provoking – but you’d hope the Prime Minister would have thoughts of his own that don’t require provoking by mass media.
In case you didn’t already know, the four part series deals with a 13-year-old boy, Jamie, who’s arrested for the murder of a girl from the same school. Much of the story relates to social media, with online disagreements triggering real-life crimes. While the show never gives us a 100 per cent answer on whether Jamie was guilty, the consensus is that he is. However, this degree of ambiguity, present throughout the whole series, is part of why it’s not fully suitable for young students who haven’t developed media literacy yet. I’d argue that TV could be used to help develop this in students, but a show that deals with the level of issues that “Adolescence” presents is not an ideal choice.
There’s no doubt it’s an excellent drama that raises questions and provokes debate around issues of masculinity, internet culture, misogynist influencers, mental health, bullying, teacher and parent relationships, class, disillusionment – the list goes on – but it’s fiction. Created for Netflix. Thorne has said: “no part of this that’s based on a true story, not one single part.” Graham, who played Jamie’s bewildered father, said he hopes the show “doesn’t provide easy answers.”
Furthermore, the Netflix age rating for “Adolescence” is 15, which would exclude most secondary school students from watching it – unless it’s the government’s stance that this should be ignored. The rating also underscores that the series was aimed at adults too, not children; and it’s mostly a drama that’s designed to pull at the heartstrings, especially of parents who could imagine themselves as the parents of Jamie.
Starmer has failed to understand some of the deeper messages, and has responded to surface-level emotion and the show’s popularity. I have to question his media literacy because what I saw were teachers who were failing to control classrooms and parents who were out of touch with their kids. At one point, a teacher turns up to class late and puts on a video as an easy way to placate his students (how ironic).
And with the series leaving unanswered questions, teenagers, especially teenage boys, are liable to receive it in a very different way from adults. I, for one, was a surprised that Andrew Tate was namechecked in the show – by giving him the oxygen of publicity, we’re creating the anti-hero status that attracts many boys in the first place.
Also, largely undiscussed is how certain characters in the show were portrayed in stereotypical manners. There’s an angry black female student. We also have a main character, who’s white, working class and disillusioned. We have to consider the demonisation of this demographic is part of what drives them towards influencers like Tate, or extremist political ideologies in the first place. It’s also worth remembering that a survey in 2023 found that only 15 per cent of white respondents viewed Tate positively, compared to 31 per cent of Asian respondents and 41 per cent of black respondents.
The issues at the core of “Adolescence” are complicated and deep. To begin to solve them would demand a shift in the direction of UK society, with a focus on reintegrating marginalized groups like young boys, not pushing them further away. It’s a monumental task, and I don’t think showing this series in schools is in any way going to contribute.
The drama in “Adolescence” is twisted, intensified and extrapolated for maximum effect, as it should be in any good programme, but it’s done to elicit an emotional reaction from adult viewers on Netflix, not to educate children or inform government policy.
That said, I’m sure Netflix and the show’s producers are rubbing their hands at this, and egging on Starmer every step of the way.
