Counter Terrorism Law and Education: Student Teachers’ Induction into UK Prevent Duty Through the Lens of Bauman’s Liquid Modernity (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.
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...
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.
2017
In July 2015, a legal duty came into force requiring that ‘specified authorities’, including schools and further education colleges (‘colleges’), show ‘due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’ – popularly referred to as the ‘Prevent duty’. Since the Prevent duty was put before Parliament, it has been the focus of extensive and often highly polarised public debate. While the UK government has argued that the duty ‘doesn’t and shouldn’t stop schools from discussing controversial issues’, critics of the duty have maintained that it will have, and is having, a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech on schools and colleges. In addition, while the UK government has insisted that Prevent and the Prevent duty relate to all forms of extremism, critics argue that, whatever the intention of individual policymakers, practitioners and professionals, Prevent and the Prevent duty continue in practice to concentrate overwhelmingly on Muslim communities, thereby exacerbati...
From its inception in 2015, the Prevent Duty has required educators, and other members of the social sector, to exercise "due regard" in preventing pupils from being drawn into terrorism, irrespective of the age of the child. This article explores how primary educators have understood and implemented this preventative security policy in their schools. Analysis is based on a survey of 345 primary school educators and 37 semi-structured interviews with primary school educators and Prevent Education Officers from the West Midlands. Through a lens of governmentality, we shed light on how this mandate has been broadly interpreted and exercised by educators within and outside the school gates. In so doing, we contribute to debates on the puzzling acceptance of Prevent in education, on the process whereby educators identify threats, and on the securitisation of educational spaces in a risk society.
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.
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...
Securitising Education to Prevent Terrorism or Losing Direction?
British Journal of Educational Studies, 2015
This article examines the growing relationship between security and education, particularly in the light of the UK government's Prevent Duty that seeks to tackle radicalisation in a variety of milieus, including universities. However, rather than seeing this process as being merely one-way, through a so-called securitisation of education (in the parlance of the Copenhagen School of International Relations), what is explored here is the dialectic between these two spheres. It is suggested that a heightened sensitivity to the supposed consequences of inflammatory rhetoric on the well-being of supposedly suggestible or vulnerable students has been in existence within education for quite some time. In that regards, the securitising efforts of politicians and officials are pushing against an open door. What's more, it is proposed that the inability of the authorities to hold the line in support of absolute freedom of expression, within academia and beyond, tacitly encourages the very people the government would hope to detract.