What the Prevent duty means for schools and colleges in England: An analysis of educationalists’ experiences (original) (raw)
Related papers
Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2019
The enactment of the counter-terrorism 'Prevent duty' in British schools and colleges: Beyond reluctant accommodation or straightforward policy acceptance When Britain imposed the 'Prevent duty', a legal duty on education, health and social welfare organisations to report concerns about individuals identified as atrisk of radicalisation, critics argued it would accentuate the stigmatisation of Muslim communities, 'chill' free speech, and exacerbate societal securitisation. Based on 70 interviews with educational professionals and a national online survey (n=225), this article examines their perceptions of how the duty has played out in practice. It then provides an explanation for why, contrary to expectations, not only has overt professional opposition been limited, but there has been some evidence of positive acceptance. It is argued that these findings neither simply reflect reluctant policy accommodation nor do they simply reflect straightforward policy acceptance, but rather they comprise the outcome of multilevel processes of policy narration, enactment and adaptation. Three processes are identified as being of particular importance in shaping education professionals' engagement with the duty: the construction of radicalisation as a significant societal, institutional and personal risk; the construction of continuity between the Prevent duty and existing professional practices; and the responsibilisation of first-line professionals. The conclusion reflects on the wider public and policy implications of these findings.
Resisting Radicalisation: A Critical Analysis of the UK Prevent Duty
2018
In response to the threat of terrorism and radicalisation, the UK government introduced the counterterrorism strategy CONTEST and its four strands ‘Prepare, Prevent, Protect, Pursue’. As one of these four strands, the ‘Prevent’ strategy dates back to 2003 and is tailored to avert radicalisation in its earliest stages. What stands out as particularly controversial is the statutory duty introduced in 2015 that requires ‘specified authorities’ to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism” (Home Office, 2015a, s. 26). Based on a critical analysis of the so-called Prevent Duty in educational institutions (excluding higher education), I argue that it not only has the potential to undermine ‘inclusive’ safe spaces in schools but may also hold the danger of further alienating the British Muslim population. Certain terminology such as ‘safeguarding’ students who are ‘vulnerable’ to extremist ideas is misleading and conveniently inflated in order to legiti...
Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 2017
The ‘Revised Prevent Duty Guidance for England and Wales’ presents statutory guidance under section 29 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This guidance states that ‘Schools should be safe spaces in which children and young people can understand and discuss sensitive topics, including terrorism and the extremist ideas that are part of terrorist ideology, and learn how to challenge these ideas. The Prevent Duty is not intended to limit discussion of these issues’. The Prevent Duty also requires schools to identify pupils at risk of radicalisation and have in place ‘robust safeguarding policies’. Schools that are unable to satisfy Office for Standards in Education will be subject to ‘intervention’ (maintained schools) or ‘termination of funding’ (academies and free schools). This article explores the interplay between the statutory requirement to provide opportunity for pupils to debate and explore issues relating to citizenship in the public sphere in the light of religio...
Resisting Radicalisation: The Impact of the Prevent Duty on Teacher-Student Relationships
Abstract: Following the introduction of the UK government’s Prevent strategy in 2002/3 (repealed) and then reintroduced in 2011, classrooms which were supposed to be ‘safe spaces’ for students of all backgrounds, have become places where Muslim students are simultaneously treated as at risk, and as a risk (Ramsay, 2017: 153). The classroom has become a place where extremist sentiment is thought to thrive, rather than an arena for constructive debate and students’ intellectual and critical development. Given the role of teachers as influential and authoritative classroom figures, teacher-student relationships are crucial in impacting academic and social outcomes. Therefore, studying the effect of Prevent on this relationship is essential. Through employment of qualitative research methods analysed under an interpretivist paradigm, this study seeks to answer three primary questions: has Prevent influenced teacher-student relationships, if so, how? How does this affect how both parties view each other? What does this tell us about the effectiveness of Prevent as a counter-extremism policy? The overarching objective of the research is to understand how educators engage with the Prevent policy and how they believe policy influences their pedagogical practice and relationship with students. This small-scale study offers a modest yet detailed insight into the effectiveness of British counter-radicalisation policies. It concludes by arguing that the importance of teacher-student relationships cannot be ignored, and any policy that negatively impacts this dynamic needs to be revisited and readjusted. The research found that teachers saw a stifling of debate within their classrooms, with students attributing this to Prevent. There was also a clear impact on relationships as teachers began to see students as prone to radicalisation, and students began to view teachers through a more securitised lens. A distinction was also made between the arts/humanities, and STEM subjects and the questions that arose in different classrooms. Participants were worried that Muslim students were feeling targeted, and concurred each other in their initial opposition to the policy. The issue of evolving language and the power processes born out of this also came to the fore. It is acknowledged that reworking policy is not so simple, and in the meantime an actionable alternative is required. It is therefore recommended that educators use their position as influential classroom figures to spearhead academic values of 3 discussion and maintain free speech within their respective domains. By doing so, they are able to identify and challenge radical thought, and prevent it from festering and manifesting as something far more problematic.
Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2018
The UK Counter Terrorism and Security Act (2015) calls for a partnership between the government, individuals, organisations and communities to prevent the radicalisation of people and to prevent their participation in terrorist and illegal activities. As part of this strategy universities have a statutory duty placed upon them to remain vigilant to signs of extremism. Based upon 20 interviews with UK university lecturers the paper examines reactions of the academic community to this governmental mandate. Key to our understanding is the deputisation of lecturers into a security regime and how they perform the duty of identifying and monitoring extremism. Equally, forms of lecturer resistance are evident in how lecturers understand their new roles, and for universities themselves a conservative approach to risk may be gaining traction. We argue there is confusion around the duty based upon its ambiguity and that this has instructed conservative and defensive reactions that have subsequently produced concern amongst lecturers and a debilitating effect within UK universities.
Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2017
The UK Counter Terrorism and Security Act (2015) (CTSA) calls for a partnership between the government, individuals, organisations and communities to prevent the radicalisation of individuals and to prevent their participation in terrorist and illegal activities. As part of this strategy, universities have a statutory duty placed upon them to remain vigilant to signs of extremism. Based upon 20 interviews with UK university lecturers, the paper examines reactions of the academic community to this governmental mandate. Key to our understanding is the deputisation of lecturers into a security regime and how they perform the duty of identifying and monitoring extremism. Equally, forms of resistance are evident in how lecturers understand their new roles and for universities themselves a conservative approach to risk may be gaining traction. We argue there is confusion around the CTSA based upon the ambiguous language in which it is presented and the conservative and defensive reactions that have subsequently produced concern amongst lecturers and UK universities.
Race Ethnicity and Education, 2021
This article reports on the results of a mixed-methods survey of 152 self-selecting Muslim university students sampled across a range of higher education institutions across the UK in late 2019. The study explores perceptions of the impact of the new Prevent Duty among UK Muslim students, especially concerning questions of selfcensorship and self-silencing for fear of referral to Channel (a multiagency board tasked with early-state support). Beyond clear evidence of self-censorship and self-silencing in response to Prevent, this study also highlights the damage done to the staff-student relationship and the mental health of individuals targeted by Prevent.
2020
This chapter reflects on the key conclusions from across the previous chapters. First, it discusses how the Prevent Duty has become normalised in schools, colleges and early years provision, as professionals incorporated it into existing structures and processes—both in the curriculum and through safeguarding. Second, it discusses how, whilst some professionals might have unconsciously reproduced potentially harmful stereotypes and simplistic assumptions about terrorism and extremism, others have consciously worked to mitigate the possible negative effects of the Duty, and have used the curriculum to further develop values education and opportunities for critical discussion. Third, the chapter reflects on the implications of the apparent banalisation of Prevent within education, and how this may or may not intersect with processes of securitisation.