Challenging the Prevent duty in securitised schools

Our recent webinar explored the Prevent duty in securitised schools, the recent aspects that further strengthen Prevent and what Prevent Watch can do to challenge referrals.

By Mariam A

Schools in the UK have increasingly become sites of securitisation, rather than safe places for learning and free expression. One of several changes that has facilitated this in the last decade is the introduction of Prevent – part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy CONTEST – as a statutory duty for educators.

This presence of the Prevent duty in education has contributed to the increased security and surveillance in classrooms, which has been flagged as a concern by several human rights groups as well as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education.

These concerns are shared by Prevent Watch. In our recent webinar, we explored how Prevent has contributed to this securitisation and breached children’s rights, and some avenues for challenging referrals.

A brief history of the Prevent duty in education

For a decade before it became a statutory duty in 2015, Prevent operated as an informal policy within education. From the outset, it faced strong criticism from educators and academics who recognised how it discriminated against certain communities and eroded trust between teachers, students, and families.

Despite this backlash, Prevent became politically and emotionally embedded in schools through a series of high-profile events, most notably the Birmingham Trojan Horse Affair and the Bethnal Green school girls case.

The Trojan Horse Affair began with an anonymous letter alleging an ‘Islamist plot’ at Park View School in Birmingham. Although the letter was later proven to be false, the media frenzy and political reaction that followed placed teachers at the forefront of national security concerns. This narrative paved the way for Prevent to be formally incorporated into school safeguarding policy.

Soon after, the Bethnal Green case involving three schoolgirls, Amira Abase, Shamima Begum, and Kadiza Sultana, who travelled to Syria, served to intensify public fear around children and radicalisation. The media’s focus on them as “schoolgirls” shifted debates about extremism directly into the classroom, reinforcing the idea that schools should act as sites of surveillance.

The subsequent adoption and normalisation of Prevent in UK education has led to the securitisation of schools in three key ways: it represses certain beliefs and identities; it increases surveillance of students by education staff; and it facilitates the widespread collection and retention of private data.

Where UK schools are now

Home Office statistics on Prevent referrals have shown that year upon year, the highest number of referrals come from the education sector. This trend is echoed in the cases we see at Prevent Watch, where the majority of our cases involve children referred to Prevent by their school.

Despite the frivolous nature of many of these referrals, the Prevent duty presents a unique challenge for seeking accountability from schools that have breached children’s rights by making such referrals, not least of all because of the way in which Prevent has been crow-barred into safeguarding duties.

More recently, the increase in Academy and Trust schools has further complicated this landscape. At Prevent Watch, we support people impacted by Prevent by challenging referrals and have been doing so since 2015. We found that when schools were under local authority oversight, there was greater transparency and scope to challenge disproportionate actions. Now, with many schools operating as Academies and Trusts, accountability is harder to achieve, even in clear cases of discrimination.

Legal changes and challenging the Prevent duty

Furthermore, recently proposed legislative changes, such as those in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, risk perpetuating the securitisation of schools through higher retention and sharing of private data.

Although data sharing between agencies already takes place when a Prevent referral is made, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risks taking this much further by making it mandatory for information gathered during so-called “safeguarding” or Prevent-related engagements to be shared across multiple services.

This means that a child’s information could travel far beyond the classroom and stay there, even when no formal Prevent referral is made, thus expanding the surveillance aspect of Prevent.

For many families, the impact of Prevent-related data retention only becomes clear years later. In one case, a 16-year-old had his place withdrawn from a high-quality Sixth Form College after the offer was confirmed because his secondary school shared a Prevent referral that had happened two years prior, despite the case having been closed with no further action. What should have been a fresh start became another instance of suspicion and exclusion.

In practice, and as proven, the implementation and consequences of Prevent referrals often breach children’s rights. This creates several possible legal routes for challenge.

One route is to help parents remove or correct their child’s data when a Prevent referral has been made, which is something Prevent Watch has supported many families to achieve. Another step forward is to challenge the referral itself.

Each case is unique, and there are multiple ways to challenge Prevent referrals through existing legal frameworks that protect children’s and families’ rights.

Where there may be grounds for a legal challenge, Prevent Watch can connect you with lawyers experienced in Prevent and the protection of children’s rights. You can contact us at 03333443396 or contact@preventwatch.org.

Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash