Counter Terror Business - Prevent

Implementing the Prevent Duty - a whole school approach

Meghan Shaw — Wed, 08 Jan 2025 16:50:43 +0000

Mubina Asaria, safeguarding consultant, at edtech charity LGfL - The Notional Grid for Learning - look at effective implementation of Prevent Duty in schools

Effective implementation of the Prevent duty requires consistency, transparency and a whole school approach to ensure appropriate support is available for individuals who may demonstrate vulnerabilities to radicalisation. This is ultimately an extension of the safeguarding process, in the same way that schools can help to safeguard young people from child sexual exploitation, drugs and other forms of harm. So what can schools do to help meet compliance and overcome typical issues and challenges?

Please see here some practical steps to support an effective, sustainable approach.

Planning

The key to a successful strategy is planning, involving the whole school community. Schools can nominate a staff member as the school Prevent lead and set up a Prevent working group to set out a clear and shared vision. This could include your senior leaders (SLT), designated safeguarding lead (DSL), PSHE/RSHE lead, CPD lead and a member of the Governing body. If this is logistically challenging, you could consider asking the SLT or an existing safeguarding forum to incorporate Prevent into their regular meetings as an ongoing agenda item.

Whilst it may not always be practical for everyone to always attend, the key lies in effective communication, ensuring all stakeholders are regularly updated on developments and given opportunities to share progress. A good starting point could be carrying out a baseline survey to identify aims – e.g. to build staff confidence around current vulnerability or promoting an understanding of British values – and get your team to complete the new ‘Prevent quiz for staff’ to identify knowledge gaps to shape your training, available for free at prevent.lgfl.net.

Policy and practice

It is important to consider the findings from your discussions to ensure your strategy is embedded into the school culture. As well as reviewing your school policy and practices around Prevent, you should also undertake a risk assessment, informed by engagement with your local authority Prevent team to assess the local risk. This need not be Prevent specific and can be incorporated into your wider risk assessment. Remember that implementing the Prevent duty is not a tick-box exercise, which is why we’ve worked with colleagues at the Department for Education to develop a Prevent Self-Assessment Tool for Schools to provide a practical overview of areas to consider throughout the school year. By encouraging a cycle of continuous review, the tool can help you self-assess how well your Prevent policies and practices are embedded, and identify any challenges and areas of weakness.

Promoting British values

Ofsted will be looking for evidence of how British values permeate throughout the school. Many schools will already be addressing these through subjects such as PSHE, RE and Citizenship, combined with extra-curricular initiatives via assemblies, circle time, school councils and debating clubs to promote student voice and opportunities to discuss topical issues in a safe space.

Adopting a contextual safeguarding approach is also an effective way to embed the foundational knowledge and skills essential to manage risk. This could involve conversations with young people to reflect on their context and any risk factors they could experience – online or through association with peers or adults – combined with cross-curricular opportunities to build on key safeguarding themes. There are several free resources to help facilitate discussion, build resilience to extremism and teach about fundamental British values, including Going Too Far – an interactive resource for primary and secondary schools to help understand extremism and promote critical thinking with videos, case studies and scenario-based activities.

Schools could also consider mapping their British values across and beyond the curriculum to provide a snapshot and identify any gaps.

Online safety

With the Prevent Duty Guidance: for England and Wales requiring schools to ensure children are safe from terrorist and extremist material when accessing the internet in school, including by establishing appropriate levels of filtering, it is important to remember that no filtering solution is fool proof. Schools should therefore consider a holistic approach to online safety, e.g. ensuring policies and user agreements are updated and signed, monitoring pupil/staff activity, embedding an age-appropriate curriculum and promoting parental awareness. An annual online safety audit can be helpful to reflect the fluid realities of technological change, evolving harms and user behaviours.

Communicate, review and monitor

Remember that clear communication and consistent messages will sustain awareness of your strategy across the school community: ensure all staff have had training and that this is logged; designated safeguarding leads receive more in-depth training, including on ideologies; provide regular updates at
staff briefings; encourage governors to attend safeguarding and any relevant staff training or assemblies and to scrutinise policy and practice; and invite parents to a safeguarding session to raise awareness of Prevent as part of wider safeguarding issues including online safety. Do factor in time to review, monitor and evaluate your strategy through regular meetings with your Prevent or safeguarding team.

Independent Review of Prevent - what did we learn?

Freya — Tue, 25 Apr 2023 16:11:06 +0000

Prevent

William Shawcross’s much anticipated and previously leaked Independent Review of Prevent was published in February. While the government has said it is committed to implementing the findings of the review, there have been widespread criticisms In his foreword to the review, Shawcross says: “No counter-terrorism programme will ever be able to shield us from all harm, but every society has a duty to try to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. “Prevent seeks to divert people away from being radicalised into terrorism and back towards lawful life within society. This is a far more humane approach than waiting until someone has crossed a criminal threshold and then bringing punitive action. In the last 20 years, Prevent has evolved and adapted as we have learned more about how to counter radicalisation effectively.” He continues: “I found a programme that is broadly right in its objectives, admirable in its intentions and that fulfils many of its functions to good effect. However, there is room for improvement. “Prevent must return to its core mission – countering all those ideologies that can lead people to committing or supporting acts of terrorism. This can only be done if Prevent properly understands the nature of these ideologies and how they attract and suborn individuals. “It is correct for Prevent to be increasingly concerned about the growing threat from the Extreme Right. But the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues.” The review was commissioned in 2019 – it is now 2023 – and since then, Shawcross claims six terrorist attacks have taken place in the UK: Fishmongers’ Hall (November 2019), Whitemoor Prison (January 2020), Streatham (February 2020), Reading (June 2020), Southend (October 2021), and Liverpool (November 2021). As Shawcross points out, “All these attacks were Islamist in nature.” However, Shawcross does not mention the October 2022 Dover firebomb attack, which was led by right-wing ideology. This happened more than three months before publication of the review, so could have been included in his list. Delay It is worth mentioning the delays to the review, which was published two-and-a-half years after its original deadline. The parliamentary �鶹�� Affairs Select Committee launched an inquiry into the government’s counter-extremism strategy to examine Prevent in 2015. David Anderson, the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation at the time called for an independent review of Prevent. The committee’s final report also called for an independent review of the decision to place the Prevent duty on a statutory basis. In 2018, Neil Basu, then deputy assistant commissioner in the Met, and others including Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Liberty called for an independent review of Prevent. In January 2019, security minister Ben Wallace said that the government would accept an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill which committed the government to commission an independent review of Prevent. The bill became law in February that year and required the government to appoint a reviewer within six months (by 12 August 2019) and present the report and the government’s response within 18 months (by 12 August 2020). Lord Carlile, a former reviewer of terrorism legislation, was appointed to the role on 12 August 2019. However, this appointment was criticised as he had provided independent oversight on a previous review of Prevent by the �鶹�� Office in 2011 and was a member of a �鶹�� Office committee responsible for enforcing the implementation of the Prevent duty by public bodies. Carlile himself said: “I admit I played a part in it, so I may be somewhat biased towards it.” Legal action was launched by Rights Watch (UK) contesting his appointment. Carlile was dropped as reviewer in December 2019. In April 2020, the government launched an “open” competition to recruit an independent reviewer. With the deadline for publication approaching, legislation was introduced and a new deadline of August 2021 was set. Shawcross was announced as the reviewer in January 2021 (five months after the original deadline for publication). Shawcross, a journalist and author, was previously chair of the Charity Commission and former director of the Henry Jackson Society think tank. However, this appointment was also criticised, when comments Shawcross made in 2012 as director of the Henry Jackson Society surfaced: “Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future.” In February 2021, a group of human rights and civil liberties organisations including Amnesty and Liberty, announced they would boycott the review. In a statement, they said: “Shawcross’s appointment, given his well-known record and previous statements on Islam… brings into question the good faith of the government in establishing the review and fundamentally undermines its credibility.” The deadline was pushed back again, with Shawcross set to deliver the review to parliament by the end of September 2021 and the report and the government’s response set to be published by 31st December 2021. Then on 24 December, the government announced another extension into 2022, with no final deadline given. In February 2022, an alternative review known as The People’s Review of Prevent, which was supported by many of those who had boycotted the official review, found that Prevent “leads to the stigmatisation of certain communities as suspect and even dangerous, regardless of how carefully they seek to stay within the law”. Then there were leaks. In May 2022, the Guardian reported that it had seen extracts of the report and that it would call for renewed focus on Islamist extremism and criticise the inclusion of far-right extremism. In September that year, the Telegraph reported that Suella Braverman (in her first short stint as �鶹�� Secretary) was planning an overhaul of Prevent based on Shawcross’s findings, again mentioning that the focus should be more on Islamist extremists and less on far-right extremism. In December 2022, The Times reported that publication was delayed due to legal concerns over the naming of individuals and organisations accused of spreading Islamist extremism. The review was finally published on 8 February 2022. Testimonies Shawcross said: “Prevent has a noble ambition: stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. I heard time and again about how Prevent saves lives, helps tackle the causes of radicalisation, prevents individuals from potentially carrying out an act of terrorism, and assists others to disengage from extremism. The government should be proud of Prevent’s positive impact in this regard. Prevent’s architecture is sophisticated and impressive. The caricature of Prevent as an authoritarian and thinly veiled means of persecuting British Muslims is not only untrue, it is an insult to all those in the Prevent network doing such diligent work to stop individuals from being radicalised into terrorism.” Required Improvement However, Shawcross also points out that often those who commit terrorist acts have previously been referred to Prevent and seeks to demonstrate how these failings may be addressed. Areas that require improvement are addressed: “Prevent must return to its overarching objective: to stop individuals from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”. Shawcross criticises the safeguarding of those referred to Prevent: “i.e. an emphasis on protecting those referred into Prevent from harm and addressing their personal vulnerabilities”. He says: “Prevent too often bestows a status of victimhood on all who come into contact with it, confusing practitioners and officials as to Prevent’s fundamental purpose.” The main conclusions of Shawcross’s review seem to be: “Prevent is not doing enough to counter non-violent Islamist extremism” and “Prevent has a double standard when dealing with the Extreme Right-Wing and Islamism”. By way of explanation, Shawcross claims that “Prevent takes an expansive approach to the Extreme Right-Wing, capturing a variety of influences that, at times, has been so broad it has included mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation. However, with Islamism, Prevent tends to take a much narrower approach centred around proscribed organisations, ignoring the contribution of non-violent Islamist narratives and networks to terrorism. The review lists 34 recommendations, ranging from exploring the prevalence of anti-semitism in Channel cases to moving away from vulnerability language. Shawcross recommends revising the first objective to “tackle the ideological causes of terrorism”; resetting thresholds to ensure proportionality across Prevent workstreams; improving the understanding of ‘blasphemy’ as part of the wider Islamist threat; and revising the Prevent Duty to ensure that the scheme meets its revised objectives. Shawcross also recommends extending the Prevent Duty to immigration and asylum and job centres; lengthening the Prevent funding cycle to between two and five years; and improving Prevent datasets by revising how referrals are categorised. Other recommendations include encouraging referrals from friends, family and community cohorts; investigating whether there is an imbalance in thresholds applied to Islamist and Extreme Right-Wing Channel cases; and developing a new training and induction package for all government and public sector staff working in counter-extremism and counter-terrorism. The government has accepted the recommendations. �鶹�� secretary Suella Braverman said: “I wholeheartedly accept all 34 recommendations and am committed to quickly delivering wholesale change to ensure we are taking every possible step to protect our country from the threat posed by terrorism.” “Prevent will now ensure it focuses on the key threat of Islamist terrorism. “As part of this more proportionate approach, we will also remain vigilant on emerging threats, including on the extreme right. “This independent review has identified areas where real reform is required. This includes a need for Prevent to better understand Islamist ideology, which underpins the predominant terrorist threat facing the UK.” Reception In the government’s official response to the Independent Review of Prevent, Braverman said: “The Independent Review, led by William Shawcross, is a vital part of ensuring Prevent is fit for purpose and agile enough to meet the threat we face. I would like to thank William Shawcross and his team for their hard work and dedication in completing such a thorough piece of work. In his report, the reviewer is clear that while Prevent is a crucial element in our armoury against terrorism, it needs to refocus on its core mission of stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. This includes Prevent placing greater emphasis on tackling ideology and its radicalising effects, rather than attempting to go beyond its remit to address broader societal issues such as mental health.” Counter Terrorism Policing’s National Prevent lead, Detective Chief Superintendent Maria Lovegrove said: “Counter Terrorism Policing has long held the view that our delivery of the Prevent Duty is one of the most important things we do in our mission to keep the public safe. “We are pleased that William Shawcross has recognised the vital work Prevent does, particularly how the Government, Counter Terrorism Policing and our many partner agencies are tackling the radicalisation of young people and reducing the risk of violent extremism. “The terrorist threats we face now are very different to when Prevent began, and a strong collective approach is absolutely vital if we are to keep up with this changing landscape and its growing dimensions. “We will now work alongside the �鶹�� Office to respond to the recommendations, and continue our contribution to the Government’s refresh of the CONTEST strategy.” Criticism However, as we have already touched on, there are others who have voiced strong criticism. Ilyas Nagdee, Amnesty International UK’s racial justice director, said: “This review is riddled with biased thinking, errors, and plain anti-Muslim prejudice - frankly, the review has no legitimacy. “William Shawcross’ history of bigoted comments on Muslims and Islam should have precluded his involvement in this ill-starred review in the first place. “There’s mounting evidence that Prevent has specifically targeted Muslim communities and activists fighting for social justice and a host of crucial international issues – including topics like the climate crisis and the oppression of Palestinians. “There is growing evidence that Prevent is having disastrous consequences for many people; eroding freedom of expression, clamping down on activism, creating a compliant generation and impacting on individual rights enshrined in law. “A proper independent review of Prevent should have looked at the host of human rights violations that the programme has led to - but these have largely been passed over in silence.” Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said: “We all want to live safe and flourishing lives, but Prevent is a fundamentally misconceived and oppressive policy that stops us from doing so. It embeds discrimination against Muslims in public services, erodes carefully cultivated relationships, and fosters a culture of fear and mistrust. “In 2019, Liberty along with 16 other human rights and community groups made the decision to boycott the Shawcross review. Shawcross’s appointment as chair of the review, following his history of Islamophobic comments, made it clear that the Government did not intend to conduct an impartial review of the strategy, but instead sought to whitewash it. “The publication of today’s long-delayed report – and the fact that its recommendations have already been accepted in full by the Government – shows that the Government is not committed to engaging meaningfully with Muslim communities but instead targeting them further. Muslim organisations are singled out for their criticisms of Prevent, despite the fact these concerns are shared widely among human rights organisations, as well as frontline workers.  Instead of addressing the human rights issues raised by the Prevent duty, the review proposes to extend the reach of Prevent to more public sector bodies, entrenching its harmful effects.” Zara Mohammed, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “What we see in the so-called independent review is a rehashing of divisive talking points determined at stigmatising Muslims and Muslim civil society.” Incel ideology The Guardian recently reported that there has been a rise in Andrew Tate related cases referred to Prevent by schools, and there has also been criticism that Andrew Tate and other misogynist and incel ideology has been overlooked by Shawcross. Reports include incidents of verbal harassment of female teachers or pupils and outbursts which reflect Tate’s views. One practitioner told the Guardian: “From September he’s just accelerated from nowhere to become a primary issue for schools that I have been dealing with. He obviously doesn’t fit within the Prevent sphere but incels do. He is parallel to them and has a crossover. When I’m in schools I find myself describing him, effectively, as toxic misogyny on steroids. “It may have been the delayed effect off the back of young people talking more about him after he lost access to some of his social media platforms, but we started to see a rise before Christmas, in terms of schools telling us about pupils really challenging staff, such as cases where pupils have said to female teacher: ‘What do you know, you’re a woman, you can’t teach me anything. Your place is in the kitchen.’” Shawcross concluded that the “Incel” culture was not a counter-terrorism matter, stating in the report: “However, the country’s deputy senior national co-ordinator for counterterrorism policy has said that Incel is not a terrorist ideology. I agree.” This is despite cases in the UK such as the terrorism conviction of Gabrielle Friel who “expressed affinity with and sympathy for one incel-motivated mass murderer” and the mass shooting in Plymouth, which was carried out by a man involved in incel ideology. The Plymouth attacker had been referred to Prevent. Across the world, incel ideology has also been a factor in killings in Isla Vista, California, in 2014; in Toronto in 2018 and 2020; and in Tallahassee in 2018. Dr Tim Squirrell of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) told the Guardian: “Tate clearly represents a risk of radicalising young men into misogynist extremism. This kind of extremism is not currently considered for support under Prevent unless it is accompanied with a recognised ideology, e.g. incel/extreme rightwing/Islamist. That’s a problem.” Squirrell added: “Incel ideology isn’t the only misogynist ideology, or even the one that causes the most damage in absolute terms, but claiming that it is not and shouldn’t be considered a terrorist threat is misguided.” “It also cannot be dealt with under hate crime because – and you would hope that Shawcross would know this – misogyny isn’t included in hate crime legislation.” Conclusion Shawcross’s 192-page Independent Review of Prevent has faced a lot of hurdles, including delays, changes in reviewer, criticism and even legal action. The government and counter terror policing have committed to working on the recommendations. On the other hand, the review has been criticised by human rights groups, experts and others for not being independent, for focussing too much on Islamist extremism and not enough on far-right extremism.

Most students in British universities support Prevent

Michael Lyons — Fri, 14 Aug 2020 08:40:22 +0000

Prevent

The Prevent programme, by far the most controversial component of the UK’s domestic counter terrorist strategy, aims to stop people from becoming, or supporting, terrorists. It does so by countering relevant ideologies and challenging those who promote them (‘counter-radicalisation’), assisting cooperative individuals considered particularly vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism (‘de-radicalisation’), and working with sectors and institutions where the risk of radicalisation in this sense is deemed high. Several key institutions, including the NHS, schools and universities, are also under a legal obligation to ‘have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’ (the ‘Prevent duty’).

An independent review of Prevent is currently stalled until a suitable chair is found. Proposals about its future have, nevertheless, been well-rehearsed in a public debate which has already spanned over a decade. Some advocate enhanced transparency, legal clarity and accountability, plus the instigation of regular independent reviews. Others – including the University and College Union (the trade union for university staff) and the National Union of Students – support a boycott until the programme is scrapped. In their view, Prevent is driven by official racism and Islamophobia which subjects harmless, law-abiding Muslims to intelligence-gathering and spying, systematically criminalises, victimises, and stigmatises them, turns them into a ‘securitised/suspect community’, and blames them for the jihadi threat. These critics also allege that it legitimises Islamophobia in society at large, violates human rights, chills public debate, seriously threatens academic freedom, stifles campus activism, requires university staff to engage in racial profiling, and undermines safe and supportive learning environments.

New insights
Until recently there has been no reliable information about how representative the ‘rejectionist’ view is on campus. However, a survey of student opinion about a wide range of issues relating to Islam and Muslims in UK universities – funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council, and soon to published as a monograph by Oxford University Press – now provides some surprising insights (Guest, M., Scott-Baumann, A., Cheruvallil-Contractor, S., Naguib, S., Phoenix, A., Lee, Y. and Al Baghal, T., Islam and Muslims on UK University Campuses: Perceptions and Challenges, July 2020).

The authors found, for example, that 59 per cent of respondents had never heard of Prevent. However, 40 per cent of those with no prior knowledge were, nevertheless, willing to express an opinion about it. Of those who said they had heard of it, a total of 75 per cent agreed that it is either ‘essential to protecting the security of our universities and combatting terrorism’ (30.1 per cent), or that it ‘can be helpful in tackling these issues but can be damaging to universities if not implemented sensitively’ (44.9 per cent). (But who could seriously advocate insensitive implementation?) Less than 10 per cent of those surveyed – and less than 15 per cent of Muslim respondents, who the study also found are more likely to have heard about Prevent than their non-Muslim peers – unequivocally condemned the programme. Sixteen per cent of all respondents were ‘don’t knows’.

Although more professionally conducted than is common in the anti-Prevent field, the study, nevertheless, suffers from a number of serious flaws which fall into three main categories. Some of these may be addressed in the forthcoming monograph. But it is difficult to see how this will be convincingly achieved without either additional evidence, which could and should have been included in the report, or a major retreat from the more contentious assertions.

One problem is that the executive summary includes several highly speculative claims which are either unsupported by any data in the report at all, or by none that is statistically significant. Two underlying and interconnected core issues in this respect are the failure to distinguish more sharply, on the one hand, between cause and effect, and, on the other, between perceptions about how Prevent works and hard evidence about how it in fact operates.

The report also shares a flaw common to all research hostile to Prevent: ‘negative effects’ are uncritically blamed on the programme rather than on other factors, including the mythology which surrounds it. This is particularly true of the claim, which the authors repeat several times, that ‘anxieties about the Prevent strategy have had a chilling effect on campus life, especially among Muslim students, some of whom have consciously modified their engagement with higher education in order to avoid being labelled an extremist and subjected to unfair discrimination’. There is no evidence either to sustain the hypothesis that Prevent ‘appears’ to be ‘discouraging free speech’ and compromising academic freedom. While the report recognises that a correlation between support for Prevent on campus and negative attitudes about Muslims does not establish a causal link either way, this insight is not universally adhered to throughout. No evidence is presented, for example, that government policies addressing radicalisation have ‘reinforced’ racial and religious discrimination in the UK. Nor is there any for the claim that Prevent has undermined the mechanisms universities have for subjecting negative stereotypes to critical scrutiny.

Other tendentious suppositions, unsupported by any evidence whatever, include the following: Prevent has ‘arguably helped to embed a form of institutionalised and state-sponsored Islamophobia’ in UK tertiary education, and ‘the strategy is vulnerable to hasty, ill-informed or prejudiced accusations, leading to wasted police time and the stigmatisation of misunderstood minorities’.

Terrorism on campus
A second difficulty is that the authors are shockingly naïve and misinformed about what they refer to as the ‘lack of evidence’ concerning the ‘presumed risk’ of recruitment into terrorism on campus. Other studies show that at least 20 prominent jihadis were educated at British universities, about a third of those who have been convicted of jihadi terrorist-related offences in the UK have been through university, and agitation to join jihad abroad was rife in the tertiary sector in Britain in the 1990s. This risk may, however, have declined since the mid-2000s precisely because of Prevent and other interventions, a possibility Islam and Muslims on UK University Campuses simply ignores.

It is not surprising, therefore, that, although refraining from calling for the abolition of Prevent, generally or in higher education specifically, the authors are, nevertheless, equivocal about it. They recommend instead that it be ‘discontinued in its current form’. In their view, this means that it should be applied openly, critically and with sensitivity to local circumstances, that students and staff should be consulted about how it is being implemented at their own institutions, that clear expert guidance should be available to protect freedom of expression, and that free and frank debate about all ideologies should be encouraged in an atmosphere of critical thinking and mutual respect.

However, thirdly, the most fundamental problem of all is that, by totally disregarding and misunderstanding the legal and regulatory environment, the authors fail to realise that their most contentious conclusions are unsustainable and that all their proposals are already being fully observed. Crucially, although stating the Prevent duty correctly, the report ignores the fact that, in the tertiary sector, it is balanced by two competing and more weighty legal obligations – to have ‘particular regard’ for the importance of academic freedom and for ensuring freedom of speech – implementation of which is monitored by the Office for Students (OfS).

In Prevent review meetings – Findings from the 2019 programme, the OfS reports, for example, that policies and procedures are in place to manage security-sensitive research, Prevent-related acceptable IT usage protocols are clear, and providers continue to engage and consult with students on how safeguarding from radicalisation is being conducted. Nor, according to the OfS, is there any cause for concern that, with respect to external speakers, Prevent is undermining freedom of expression. Of greatest significance, however, is the fact that, based on its system-wide monitoring, the OfS authoritatively expresses its confidence that providers are balancing their Prevent duty with other statutory obligations which, as already indicated, include having ‘particular regard’ for the importance of academic freedom and for ensuring freedom of speech.

Over the past decade and a half rejectionist critiques of Prevent have spun a web of mythology, especially in the higher education context, based on little more than distorted speculation and political prejudice often masquerading as serious social science. If the risk of jeopardising legitimate counterterrorism is to be avoided, there is an urgent need for this to be exposed and challenged. Islam and Muslims on UK University Campuses dispels some. But, regrettably, it also endorses many others which the research upon which it is based conspicuously fails to support. It is not surprising, therefore, that the authors make a series of recommendations, all of which are already firmly in place.

Steven Greer, Professor of Human Rights, University of Bristol Law School.

Developing a new Prevent strategy

Michael Lyons — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 11:52:59 +0000

Prevent

In recent months both Prime Minister Theresa May and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham have made significant interventions in the debate on counter extremism. In this article, Bob Hindle of Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester, explains why a new Prevent strategy is needed, and how that might develop The UK government’s Prevent duty forms part of its wider CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy. The duty came into force in 2015 and covers schools, colleges, training providers and universities. It requires that staff be trained in preventing young people from being ‘drawn in to terrorism’ and in ‘understanding radicalisation’, developing institutional ‘capabilities’ to challenge this, being ‘aware of what action to take’. Referrals are made to Prevent Co-Ordinators. In schools and colleges, Safeguarding Leads are responsible for aligning procedures to the duty within school systems and collect referrals from staff, making a decision as to whether a case can be dealt with in house or whether the Prevent Co-ordinator needs to be involved. • Policy must consider wider educational responsibilities such as strengthening community cohesion and the commitment to equality and diversity, utilising the expertise of experienced teachers and safeguarding leads in developing greater consistency and in building the trust of young people. • It is now the time to consider more closely how we define ‘extremism’ around religious conservatism to avoid inappropriate referrals to Prevent Coordinators and to support teachers in helping to challenge intolerance. • Any new response must be based around the celebration of increasing diversity, with an acknowledgement that to some such diversity is a threat. Recent months have seen two major interventions connected to the Prevent duty. First the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, called to replace the overly ‘top down’ Prevent strategy in the Greater Manchester region, to incorporate ‘people and communities’. Secondly, prime Minister Theresa May talked of ‘too much tolerance of extremism’, calling for a review of how the UK is responding to the threat posed by terrorism. In this context, if the Prevent duty responsibilities are to remain, how might they be reviewed and how best can the threat from violent extremism of all forms be countered through activities in schools and colleges? Here, I make three interconnected arguments. First, I suggest it is now the time to consider more closely how we define ‘extremism’ around religious conservatism to avoid inappropriate referrals to Prevent Co-ordinators and to support teachers in helping to challenge intolerance. The degree to which we are collectively comfortable with each term will determine uniformity and consistency in any response to Islamist extremism. Second, we must examine the spike in referrals since the 2017 attacks in Manchester and London. Students must be confident in what they are able to say and do – and to ask questions – within a context of mutual tolerance and respect. Teachers must feel confident, willing and able to respond, through training that seeks to more firmly establish their understandings. Can we realistically expect all teachers to deal with questions about UK foreign policy and the middle east? Finally, policy must consider wider educational responsibilities such as strengthening community cohesion and the commitment to equality and diversity, utilising the expertise of experienced teachers and safeguarding leads in developing greater consistency and in building the trust of young people. What is ‘extreme’? A good first step must be to consider how workable and helpful the current definition of extremism is. The Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on Extremism view this as unwieldy; arguably, it is designed with Islamist extremism in mind and a product of both the aftermath of the brutal murder of Lee Rigby and the ‘muscular liberalism’ evident in David Cameron’s 2011 Munich speech and in Michael Gove’s book Celsius 7/7, with the focus on British values. Meer and Modood (2013) note the policy use of ‘Muslim’ as an identity ‘without any unanimity on Islamic matters’. Two recent publications on extremist funding widen the debate. The long-awaited �鶹�� Office report asks for greater challenge of more isolationist religious interpretations and ‘socially conservative literature’, or ‘an illiberal, bigoted Wahhabi ideology’ in the words of the Henry Jackson Society. Wahhabism stems from Saudi Arabia, a country whom the UK consistently appears aligned to and from where funding for UK mosques dominates in Sunni communities. Perhaps the process of reform begun by Crown Prince Salman might provide scope for optimism, with his spoken policy one to return to ‘moderate Islam’. Both reports speak of the damage done by groups inspired by such ideology, including Al-Muhajaroun, active on some college and university campuses until proscribed. But there are problems, with little research supporting a conveyor belt between conservatism and violent extremism. The experience of the Trojan Horse schools – where allegations were made of ‘extremist’ groups seeking to take over governing bodies of some Birmingham schools – makes this a messy business. The Muslim Council of Britain’s response to the Clarke report into the events of Trojan Horse states that ‘it is not for the state to define the theological boundaries of the Islamic faith and to create an approved version of Islam’. This is perhaps the ‘difficult conversation’ both Burnham and May speak of. But they have no ability to stem the cultural and religious flow of Wahhabism unless they speak with the Saudis directly. Such ideology will make its way into schools and colleges in one form or another. A response needs to clearly set out what is merely conservative and what is ‘extreme’, conservatism on its own being an unreliable witness. This requires the involvement of a broad church of religious scholars, teachers and academics. Why so many referrals? It is necessary to look at the reasons behind the spike in referrals and ask are schools and colleges identifying a greater number of concerns? In his recent book, Hanif Qadir notes the importance of strong relationships between teachers and students as a means of tackling extremism. He details a number of case studies referred to Prevent where young people in school and college who went on to be radicalised first began by asking questions of teachers- about Israel/Palestine and Iraq- that went unanswered. They then went on to find these online from ISIS material and was picked up by recruiters. Should we be expecting teachers of maths, chemistry and economics to be able to answer these? If so, how are we equipping them with the skills to do so? I’ve previously blogged for Policy@Manchester about a ‘when in doubt refer’ safeguarding culture, built around staff protecting themselves, and a ‘fear of Ofsted’ (in the case of missed referrals and a downgrade to ‘inadequate’). A recent report, from academics at Coventry University, suggested schools and colleges have embedded Prevent within their activities. It also found that referrals are being made which may well have been dealt with previously as pastoral or disciplinary issues. The study found that although Prevent may seek to identify wider forms of extremism beyond Islamism, this wasn’t born out in school/college practice. This also underlined a point from my own research which suggests less experienced staff, with more limited case expertise in safeguarding, pastoral work and an understanding of local communities and cultural and religious practice, may be more likely to refer. More experienced Safeguarding Leads are likely to ‘localise’ a response and deal with them through internal school and college systems, as well as at Local Safeguarding Children Boards and with wider local services. We must use their expertise and experience to support colleagues in wider institutions if referrals are to be appropriate and consistent, involving them in local Prevent and Channel Panels. The key to effective safeguarding is to put the interests of the young person first. Promoting cultural and religious awareness My third argument is that developing the confidence of Black Minority Ethnic (BME) students is critical, answering some concerns that Prevent is not for them. These are young people for whom it is vital to include to help sell the case to those who feel threatened by this diversity itself. A recent Department for Education report suggests BME teaching staff are under-represented in schools in Manchester and elsewhere. The DfE setting and meeting challenging diversity targets would be a start. Is this itself not a threat to community cohesion and common understandings? Until 2008, the promotion of equality and diversity was a ‘limiting grade’ in an Ofsted inspection, a minimum expected level reached before an institution could be rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. Whilst Ofsted have a responsibility to report on an institution’s compliance with the Equality Act [2010], this is a time to make it a higher profile responsibility and to promote cultural and religious awareness training in institutions to underpin staff understandings. Such training is required to dispel misconceptions and fears and to build confidence amongst teachers involved in any referrals, and avoid embarassing media cases. A recent paper from academics at Edge Hill University found that trainee teachers ‘unable and unprepared’ to deal with issues of Britishness, concluding ‘it is likely that the majority of student teachers will struggle to develop a sense of belonging among some BME pupils that engenders feelings of pride and loyalty in being, say a British Muslim, a British Sikh, or a British Hindu’. To support the ability of schools to answer student questions, the focus needs to move away from just themed ‘diversity days’ into global dimensions within curricular; and beyond mere ‘British Values’ into community projects and inter-school practice. Professor Ted Cantle reviewed the causes of the riots in northern towns in 2001 and led the Institute of Community Cohesion. His review of community cohesion initiatives notes the value of ‘encouraging positive relationships’ around ‘real life issues’ rather than fostering civic values. In his study, improving socio-economic prospects is important, alongside work with groups especially vulnerable to disengagement and support for new arrivals. The RadEqual campaign in Greater Manchester has made a good start at using funding to build cross-city initiatives. Towards a new strategy So any new strategy must start at foreign policy level and tackle the causes of religious intolerance. Dump Gove and any suggestion of a Manichean world view through a review of ‘extremism’ and ‘conservatism’ to develop consistency in what we are safeguarding from. Any new response must also be curricular and be based around the celebration of increasing diversity, with an acknowledgement that to some such diversity is a threat. Therefore there is a need to: introduce curricular initiatives in schools and colleges that seek to encourage commonality and acknowledge the barriers of context and difference; add to the capacity of Prevent Co-ordinators through use of the expertise of experienced teachers and safeguarding leads, encouraging discussion of cases and best practice across institutions; build up a bank of shared teaching resources, with accompanying training for new and early career staff in schools and colleges- their diversity must represent the communities they serve; train staff to ensure there are those confident in dealing with key questions about world events; and avoid embarrassing media cases. In all, build the trust of young people that they are being listened to as part of the solution. This is an edited version of a blog that appeared on Policy@Manchester in October 2017.

http://www.seed.manchester.ac.uk/education/