2026/03/11 by Jacob Astley, Gabe Mythen, JANE LOUISE HORTON · 1 voice
Health Professions · Social Sciences · #Education and Islamic Studies #School Health and Nursing Education #Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
paper · pdf · doi:10.1080/00131911.2026.2637709
openalex publication_date 2026/03/11 · openalex created_date 2026/03/13 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/15
Incorporation of Prevent Duty Guidance (PDG) into existing educational safeguarding processes from 2015 in England and Wales has proven controversial. For some, the integration of counter-extremism measures into extant safeguarding portfolios constitutes a natural extension of anticipatory security strategies, consistent with current trends in new public management and has been comfortably assimilated by educators. For others, the PDG erroneously responsibilises teachers into implementing frontline national security strategy and renders them accountable for preventing radicalisation without adequate training, guidance or support. In this article, we examine the findings of surveys and studies in the field to elucidate how and why such polarised viewpoints have emerged, arguing that a tendency to gravitate in either “accept” or “reject” camps has obscured vital and fundamental issues about the ways in which the PDG is understood, negotiated and enacted by educators. In order to move debates beyond entrenched binaries of whether educators “accept” or “reject” Prevent safeguarding duties, we bring to the surface some of the more complex problems and issues for educators involved in translating security policy into practice in educational contexts. Through an evaluation of Prevent’s evolution, the pressures shaping compliance and some of the unintended consequences of its application, we encourage concentration on the quandaries and dilemmas that arise for educators in “doing” Prevent. Our analysis is designed to promote greater understanding of both the key gaps that have emerged between policy and implementation, and the specific areas of concern that have hampered effective implementation of safeguarding practices to counter-extremism.