A summary of our submission to the UN outlining how Prevent makes school an unsafe space especially for targeted children, with serious implications for children’s well-being.
This submission addresses how Prevent undermines the right to safety in education under International Human Rights law.
Download Prevent Watch’s full final 2025 submission to the UN on how Prevent violates the right to a safe education.
The issues raised are framed in response to specific questions posed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education in her call for contributions.
We have published this as the UK government approves the Children’s Well-being and Schools BIll that seeks to “break the link between young people’s background and their future success”.
A Prevent referral – even when it is determined to be unnecessary as in 85% of cases – can follow a child through their life, seriously impacting their well-being and success.
Since Prevent sits within the counter-terrorism strategy, many will argue that it is there to keep children safe. However, this often rests on a politicised and Islamophobic and/or racist perception of “safety”, and Muslim children are particularly scrutinised.
Our submission is drawn from our evidence and analysis of over 700 cases, which shows that since its inception Prevent means national security has usurped educator’s skills and role as caretakers, and compromised children’s safety to express their concerns and beliefs safely.
The harms to the child, to the integrity of the classroom and to the child’s family as a result of a Prevent encounter are detailed in The People’s Review of Prevent.
Question 1.a: Child, gender and disability sensitivities
Our case evidence attests that Prevent’s framework of suspicion around certain groups and ideas fundamentally conflicts with efforts to create child-, disability-, and gender-sensitive environments that are safe, inclusive, and non-violent.
More recently, the indicators supposedly identifying possible radicalisation include autism.
As a result, children with disabilities have been disproportionately referred to counter-terrorism via Prevent compared to their non-autistic peers.
Parents have told us this has disregarded and even worsened their child’s condition.
Another target of Prevent is young boys, particularly if they are Muslim and of colour; at the end of this year (2024) males accounted for 89% of all Prevent referrals.
Again, our cases indicate that Prevent’s indicators of extremism discriminate against what is often ordinary adolescent development, belief testing and ideals formation, especially in boys.
Question 1.b: Security personnel in schools
Although Prevent does not directly encourage the presence of security personnel in schools, it is part of the broader securitisation of schools.
This is done through the integration of a state-defined concept of Fundamental British Values (FBV), and the prerogative to teach FBV as part of the curriculum.
Being first defined as part of the counter-terrorism CONTEST strategy, these values are tied to national security, rather than being humanities-based.
The presentation of them as “British” implicitly “others” different value systems rather than seeking commonalities.
Certain political issues such as Palestine, are leveraged to further securitise the classroom. In October 2024, the government actively instructed education staff to adhere to Prevent.
Expressions of support for Palestinians became a security issue, which shut down the safe and open space for debate that schools should provide to diffuse children’s concerns.
This creates a deeply securitised and unsafe school environment for children, particularly those of targeted groups, and especially after an atrocity occurs.
Question 1.f: Data privacy issues
The association of the child with terrorism/extremism via Prevent means it negatively impacts not only the individual but also their future study, work and even their family.
The most likely place they will enter the counter-terrorism matrix is through their school.
Several civil society reports, including by Rights and Security International (RSI) and Open Rights Group (ORG), have documented concerns around data privacy and Prevent at school.
They include:
- Prevent-related data is stored across at least 10 police databases, with no distinction made between adults and children, or between convicted offenders and children.
- This data is retained for a minimum of six years before being reviewed for deletion, but data is typically retained for 25 years after the child’s 18th birthday.
- Due to Prevent being part of counter-terrorism, data can be stored for up to 100 years.
- Removing a child’s data involves an arduous, costly and uncertain legal process.
- The Prevent environment created by its data gathering function has led to self-censorship in schools, which creates a pressure-cooker effect.
Prevent’s approach to data privacy is inconsistent with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
Question 1.i: Mental health resources
Individuals, especially children, can find the Prevent process extremely traumatising, whether it has happened via social services or via counter-terrorism officers questioning them at school.
There is no process to address the trauma caused by Prevent’s ‘false positive’ referrals, particularly as they never progress to Channel, and should not have been engaged initially.
Recently, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) recommended that Prevent be suspended, and that reparations be considered for abuse caused by Prevent.
For individuals or children with autism referred to Prevent, the impact has also been significant as the referral has led to stress-based reactions and anxiety.
Significantly, we have recorded cases where schools have not been forthcoming with support they have been expected to provide for children with autism but have instead turned to Prevent.
Question 2: Balance of security measures and non-intimidating environment
Under Prevent, the UK educational policy is able to evade students’ privacy rights in the name of national security.
This prioritises the ambitions of the state over the safety of children at school.
Educators have a number of other duties, such as those under the Equality Act 2010, not to discriminate based on protected characteristics including race, religion and disabilities.
However, in Prevent training includes Islamophobic tropes, where staff are encouraged to report on activism, and to rely on their “gut instinct”when thinking about referring a child to Prevent.
This creates an intimidating and unsafe environment for children around important discussions around religion, current affairs and political beliefs.
Question 3: Oversight bodies
Ofsted is the primary oversight body for schools in the UK. However, both Ofsted and the Department for Education (DfE) are integral to advancing Prevent.
The inspection framework of Ofsted includes evaluation of schools’ compliance with the Prevent duty.
When a school is perceived as not complying with Prevent – we suspect this is assessed by among other things, a low referral rate – this can lead to a significant downgrade in ratings.
The Prevent duty in schools means that compliance with national security interests has overridden the traditional considerations for genuinely acting in children’s best interests.
Question 4: Statistics and how they are used to shape policy
Each year, the Home Office publishes its Prevent statistics, which consistently show that the education sector accounts for the highest proportion of Prevent referrals.
Children have consistently represented over two-thirds of the 6000-7000 individuals referred to Prevent every year.
Significantly, as of this year, a massive 85% of individuals referred to Prevent did not go on to the Channel programme, meaning the referral process was completely unnecessary.
This 85%, as well as the many children who are simply considered for referral, have still undergone the experience of an encounter with counter-terrorism police, most of them at school.
For the previous year, statistics showed that 77% of the 6817 Prevent referrals were pointed to other services like health, which is the best evidence of Prevent’s lack of utility.
The most recent Home Office Prevent statistics were deeply problematic.
A new age category of children referred to Prevent was not presented as being a disproportionate targeting of children, but was used to justify that schools be securitised.
There was also a failure to highlight that referrals increased in relation to key events.
High numbers of referrals in October last year related to Palestine were obscured, which contradicted admissions made by counter-terrorism authorities.
At the same time, the statistics consistently ignore the harm inflicted on children.
Lastly, statistics still fail to properly record Prevent data in relation to race and ethnicity,.
This makes it difficult to assess the policy’s impact on equality prerogatives, especially in relation to specific issues, and particularly among children at school.
Question 5: Criminal liability for children and accountability for schools
While children suspected of crimes are afforded certain protections such as those under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), these safeguards can be bypassed via Prevent.
Under PACE, children are entitled to have a parent, guardian, or legal representative present when being questioned by the police.
This is to ensure they are not pressured or their comments misconstrued.
PACE aligns with international standards on the rights of the child, as outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
However under Prevent, counter-terrorism officers and police are able to question children without an adult or guardian present due to its pre-crime approach.
Officers have even admitted having done so, because “no crime has been committed” and they are “not investigating a crime”.
Our cases show at least half a dozen children being questioned by counter-terrorism officers at school under Prevent without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
One Muslim boy of eight years old was asked by counter-terrorism officers acting on Prevent, if he knew the Qur’an and was then asked to recite verses he had memorised from the Qur’an.
In this environment, even the threat of Prevent has made targeted communities perceive educational institutions as unsafe for their children’s religious, spiritual and moral development.
Related…
The People’s Review of Prevent (Report, 2024)
