Introduction

The turn of the millenium saw global discourse on terrorism increase exponentially, with Governments around the world scrambling to respond to the increased terror threat, post 9/11.  For the British Government, this looked like the introduction of the CONTEST scheme in 2003, of which Preventing the radicalization of individuals is apart of. In 2015, was extended beyond a form of non-statutory advice, to a legal duty imposed on all public bodies, including schools. Thus, schools are now under legal obligation to identify potential terrorism in individuals, and report them to the relevant authority, with the aim of deradicalizing them. By early 2016, 415 children age 10 and under had been reported. From the Government’s perspective, this was a ‘bottom up’ approach, aiding transparency and encouraging communication in the process, acting as a bridge between higher counter-terrorism forces, and local communities.

However, the Prevent Duty is one of the more complex, controversial pillars of CONTEST, and has been highly criticized. Existing academic commentary is overwhelmingly negative regarding the Prevent Duty. Firstly, there has been concern raised over the risk that it has created a ‘state surveillance’, with communities monitoring their own individuals, and infringing on free speech. Furthermore, there is a concern for increased Islamaphobia, as the duty could encourage racist stereotyping, and division within communities. Finally, teachers themselves have voiced opposition to the Prevent Duty, with the National Union for Teachers rejecting it in 2016, with the key arguments being that it is a counter-productive method for preventing terrorism, leading only to polarisation and isolation of the Muslim community.

Method

Whilst there is academic research to support these points, there is a lack of direct data from schools that actually addresses the complexities of the Prevent Duty. The research proposal is that, using an Excel spreadsheet, data will be collected from the websites of Durham County Council Schools of their Prevent policy, safeguarding requirements, and their definitions of ‘extremism’, ‘radicalisation’, and ‘terrorism.’ In addition, I will collect similar data from the UK Government’s 2015 and 2023 guidance regarding the Prevent Duty. I will then analyse the similarities and differences between the schools within the County, and also in comparison with central government guidance, using the data to build a picture of whether there is any coherency and uniformity of the implementation and operation of the Prevent Duty in County Durham.

Due to the nature of the project involving local schools, it would be difficult to collect data in a more personal way, such as through interviews with the schools. The ethical aspect of this, as well as the highly sensitive nature of terrorism and deradicalization, and the controversies of the Prevent Duty means that there would be limits to collecting data more directly. Thus, using the policies available online would be much more practical, and allow me to fully analyse the data I do collect.

Research Questions

1. What are schools expected to do under the Prevent duty?
2. Are schools abiding by this guidance?
3. What does this mean for the implementation of Prevent as an effective counter-terrorism policy

What do I Hope to Achieve? 

Terrorism and radicalisation are evidently a global threat, but the management of these issues needs to come from ground level, from the bottom up. Whilst Governments can release endless guidance and policy on how they plan to combat the terrorism threat, it is essential that this is adequately communicated to the local communities, as it is the smaller departments that truly have the responsibility to implement the policy. However, the Prevent Duty does not seem to be working. Since its inception in 2015, it has received almost entirely negative press, from a wide range of social groups, who disagree with its divisive, contentious nature. My research could be extremely valuable to demonstrate how the Prevent Duty needs to adapt, to ensure that it can achieve its goal of deradicalisation. This research will help show where the issue lies; is the government guidance regarding the Prevent Duty clear, or is the Prevent Duty too controversial, does it place too much of an onus on schools? And, in finding the answer, I hope that my research can bring change to the Government’s counter-terrorism policy.