The ‘Prevent Duty’ (Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015) and its impact on English secondary schools and colleges: A view from Leadership

In July 2015, a legal duty, popularly referred to as the ‘Prevent Duty’, came into force requiring that ‘specified authorities ’in England, which included schools, show ‘due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’. Prevent, developed by the Home Office in 2003 outside of full public scrutiny, and only fully operationalised following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, has consistently been the most contentious element of the UK Government counter terrorist strategy CONTEST. An examination of the literature about the development and impact of the ‘Prevent duty ’ and on educational institutions showed a lack of research on how the Duty has been received, appropriated, and implemented by school and college leaders. There are studies on the ‘Prevent duty’ and teachers but not specifically on school leaders. This led to the key research question of the thesis: How has the ‘Prevent duty’ been interpreted and enacted in selected secondary schools and colleges in England by school and college leaders? Data was collected through face to face, recorded, semi-structured interviews with school leaders in a range of schools and colleges in three geographical locations, Greater Manchester, London and the South, Kent, and Sussex. This was augmented by relevant document analysis of school policies. Drawing upon Stephen J. Ball’s work the thesis analyses policy enactment in this case of a contemporary statutory education policy. Applying Foucault’s toolbox of methods, concepts and perspectives as a theoretical lens, the thesis seeks to make sense of policy, leadership, and policy enactment within the phase of ‘muscular liberalism’ and within the global context of an ‘Age of Anger’. The data revealed different views and responses to the ‘Prevent duty’ by school leaders, some positive some critical; the over-arching influence of safeguarding; the rise of ‘securitisation 'in education; the growth of the ‘responsibilisation’ of school leaders; the surprising effects on free speech; the ongoing tension between school leaders ’autonomy and accountability; school leaders ’ agency as ‘sense-makers ’in enacting policy and the need to reconsider school leaders ’ professionalism and their training both in relation to the ‘Prevent duty’ and their wider role. The significance of this study is that it informs our theoretical understanding of the ’Prevent duty’, policy enactment and school and college leadership and provides important empirical data as well as key recommendations for policy makers, school leaders and educationalists moving forward designing and implementing counter terrorism policies for schools and colleges