The enactment of the counter-terrorism “Prevent duty” in British schools and colleges: beyond reluctant accommodation or straightforward policy acceptance

Abstract

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.

Recognising and responding to radicalisation at the ‘frontline’: Assessing the capability of school teachers to recognise and respond to radicalisation

“…Some argue that teachers are unprepared, ill‐suited and under‐resourced to address radicalisation (Bryan, 2017). Others argue that this is an inappropriate expectation on teachers that securitises educational spaces (see Open Society Foundations, 2016; Taylor and Soni, 2017, p. 242; Busher et al ., 2019, p. 2). Concerns about both over‐ and under‐reporting of student radicalisation are common.…”

“…Consequently, efforts by policymakers and practitioners to prevent radicalisation prioritise engagement with schools, including working with students to increase critical thinking and resilience to extremist narratives (Flensner et al ., 2019; Parker and Lindekilde, 2020). This adds to the responsibility of teachers, who are required to recognise signs of radicalisation and handle cases appropriately (Jerome et al ., 2019; Thomas, 2016; Taylor and Soni, 2017), and in serious cases to report concerns to the authorities (Busher et al ., 2017, 2019). In many countries, teachers are trained to recognise signs of radicalisation and understand reporting pathways (Thomas, 2016; Bryan, 2017; Revell, 2019).…”

“…These obligations have sparked widespread debate amongst academics and education professionals (Busher et al ., 2019, pp. 2, 20).…”

Community reporting on violent extremism by “intimates”: emergent findings from international evidence

“…Second, the policy context has failed to fully understand or account for the significant blocks and barriers for community members sharing concerns about someone "intimate" to them, or about how policy and practice modifications might support such sharing, focusing instead on more generalist approaches to bystander reporting. For instance, while in the UK referrals to the Channel anti-radicalisation mentoring scheme have increased significantly, especially since the "Prevent duty" was placed on public servants in 2015 (Busher, Choudhury, and Thomas 2019), only a very small number come directly from community members.…”

“…Alongside this were the effects of the different C/PVE and CT policy environments in each country. In Great Britain, Prevent, Channel and broader policy approaches to "Safeguarding" (Busher, Choudhury, and Thomas 2019) have had context-specific impacts on willingness to report that are not currently present in Australia. Such differences were minor in relation to the broad, cross-national agreements about the meaning and implications of this data for C/PVE policy and practice.…”