How well are colleges carrying out the ‘Prevent’ duty, to counter radicalised young people? In the jargon of the inspection world, it’s a ‘work in progress’ – in other words, plenty of shortcomings.
The government published the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011 as part of its overall counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST. Besides detecting terrorists before they strike, and protecting through good site security, the ‘Prevent’ strand of that work is about stopping people from being ‘ being drawn into terrorism’, in the words of the regulator Ofsted, in other words radicalised to commit acts of terror.
Ofsted has responsibility for monitoring the Prevent duty in publicly funded further education and skills providers. As Ofsted says, the official guidance makes clear the important role of further education leaders in stopping extremists seeking to radicalise learners on campuses and in supporting learners at risk of extremist influences. The Chief Inspector commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectors to make a first survey. It covered – as the work against extremism on campus must – monitoring ‘external speakers’, whether jihadi or extreme left or right-wing; training staff so they know what to look out for, and to report, and who to report to, such as the security department of their institution; ‘pastoral care and support’, to keep youths ‘safe from radicalisation and extremism’; and IT policy – as someone may look and sound law-abiding, but be radicalised online.
For the full 20-page report visit the Ofsted website.
The inspectors recommended against a ‘tick-box approach’; rather, the Government wants ‘meaningful ways to reduce the specific risks of radicalisation and extremism’. The inspectors found shortcomings; staff not knowing what the threats were; or an institution with a policy on external speakers, but not applied. And who should teachers, for example, turn to – police? The inspections found the same story with IT – too often, ‘policies and procedures for the appropriate use of IT were poor or did not work in practice’, so that youths could view terrorist propaganda videos of beheadings, for instance.
As for the monitoring of incoming speakers, inspectors noted with approval one unnamed institution that conducts ‘soft’ background checks on all external speakers, including checks with the police and ‘Prevent’ coordinators and an internet search. “They tell potential speakers about this and request all presentation materials in advance of the speaking engagement. One speaker requested an engagement at the provider but objected to background checks, citing infringement of civil liberties.” That speaker was not allowed to speak.
Some good work is going on. The inspectors quoted approvingly an unidentified youth who posted an inappropriate comment on his college’s secure social media site. “A member of the college safeguarding team found the comment during the daily review of the site. The post was removed and the safeguarding officer made an appointment to meet with the learner. After a meeting with the learner, the safeguarding officer spoke to his teachers and pastoral tutors,” who had noticed subtle changes in the youth. They were keeping a ‘watchful eye’ on him and kept a record of concerns. The safeguarding officer contacted the youth’s parents, whowere concerned about their son as he had recently shunned his Christian faith and a copy of the Qur’an had been found hidden in his bedroom. The lad also had a new group of friends who his parents felt were having a negative influence. According to the inspectors, effective staff training at this provider had enabled the early identification of signs of radicalisation. Partnership working and an early referral resulted in the lad and his family receiving support through the official ‘Channel programme’.
However, the inspectors also found plenty of less good practice, such as teachers not trained in the subject or not well, and not knowing what they were looking for nor who to report to. Much the same applied to the IT world as in the physical; youths could bypass firewalls and access ‘inappropriate websites including those promoting extreme Islamic ideology, right-wing extremism and the purchase of firearms’.
Inspectors ended their report by appealing to the further education sector to embrace the ‘Prevent’ duty ‘and ensure robust application to keep learners safe’. The report did not go into why colleges might not be embracing such a duty yet; a duty they share with universities. Briefly, besides some teachers feeling that the duty is more like snooping on young people – making relations with pupils harder – there is a lack of definition of what extremist (or ‘violent extremist’) is. If an unnamed girl – quoted in the report – viewed an ISIS video of someone being beheaded, and was not counselled or reprimanded (and was only spotted because a member of staff was walking through the computer room) – was only watching, and not being violent, was she ‘extremist’ or not? Where to draw the line, on someone being ’drawn into extremism’?
