What the Prevent duty means for schools and colleges in England
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’.
The report ‘What the Prevent duty means for schools and colleges in England: An analysis of educationalists’ experiences’, published 2 years after the introduction of the Prevent duty, seeks to get beyond the, at times, polarised public debate about the duty to explore, in a systematic and evidenced way, the experiences of ‘front line’ education professionals in schools and colleges (that is, teaching staff, school/college leaders, support staff and technical staff).
The report addresses four key questions:
- How has the new Prevent duty been interpreted by staff in schools and colleges in England?
- How confident do school/college staff feel with regards to implementing the Prevent duty?
- What impacts, if any, do school/college staff think the Prevent duty has had on their school or college, and on their interactions with students and parents?
- To what extent, if at all, have school/college staff opposed or questioned the legitimacy of the Prevent duty?
Our findings include the following:
- While there has been widespread engagement with key government messages about understanding Prevent as part of ‘safeguarding’ and the Prevent duty applying to all forms of extremism, there was less certainty about, and even resistance to, the requirement on schools to build resilience against extremism amongst their students by promoting ‘fundamental British values’. We found considerable discomfort and uncertainty around the focus on the specifically British nature and content of these values and concern about how this can be translated in to inclusive curriculum content and practice;
- While confidence in implementing the Prevent duty is generally fairly high, it is, on average, significantly lower among less experienced members of staff and those who are not part of institutional safeguarding teams;
- There was relatively little support among respondents for the idea that the Prevent duty has led to a ‘chilling effect’ on conversations with students in the classroom and beyond. We believe this is in large part due to initiatives undertaken by schools, colleges and individual educational professionals to pre-empt such outcomes;
- There were, however, widespread – and in some cases very acute – concerns about increased stigmatisation of Muslim students in the context of the Prevent duty;
- While we did find some criticism of, and scepticism about the efficacy of, the Prevent duty, particularly among senior leaders and BME respondents, very few respondents directly questioned the legitimacy of the duty or expressed wholesale opposition to it.
The research is based on a combination of in-depth qualitative interviews with 70 education professionals across 14 schools and colleges in 2 areas of England (West Yorkshire and London); in-depth qualitative interviews with 8 local authority level Prevent practitioners working in different local authority areas to support schools and colleges; and a national online survey of educationalists (n=225).
You can download a copy of the report here. For more information, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
The research was undertaken by Joel Busher (Coventry University), Tufyal Choudhury (Durham University), Paul Thomas (University of Huddersfield) and Gareth Harris (Coventry University).
The research was funded by the Aziz Foundation, with support from the Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations at Coventry University, and additional support from Durham University and the University of Huddersfield.
Politics, policies and diplomacy of diaspora governance: new directions in theory and research
The institutional or factual relationships between home states and their emigrants have always existed, at least in the traditional form of consular protection, or in very specific areas, such as the economy (i.e. remittances). However, the last decades have witnessed a large expansion of institutions, policies, and other state-sponsored mechanisms all around the globe, linking home states and emigrants / diasporas well beyond the traditional areas.
In recent years there has been a marked increase in the number of referendums and public votes. Here in Britain, we have held some of the most headline-grabbing ones; the Brexit vote and the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. More recently, there have been votes on immigration in Hungary, gay marriage in Australia and abortion in Ireland. Why have governments turned this form of public involvement? Is it a sign of populism? And what does it mean for representative democracy? Professor Matt Qvortrup will presents his findings based on more than 30 years of research in the field and his new publication Government by Referendum.
Life on the Breadline: Christianity, Poverty and Politics in the 21st Century city
The aim of the ‘Life on the Breadline…’ project is to understand how the social context resulting from the 'age of austerity' has affected Christian engagement with poverty in the UK and the theological motivations, which underpin it, in order to facilitate the development of better informed government policy and more effective faith-based activism thereby reducing urban social exclusion and inequality.
Rukshanda Naz Alumnus Reflection
I am an activist in the Pakistani women’s movement since the early 1990s. A lawyer by profession, I also worked with a number of NGOs on issues of violence against women and children and on women’s empowerment programs. My work for peace started with issues of Afghan Refugees and peace movements for India and Pakistan. As a professional, I have served one of the country’s leading civil society organizations for women’s rights, Aurat Foundation, as Resident Director from May 1993-May 2008 and Chief Operating Officer May 2008-Oct 2009.