The Prevent Duty: What Every School Must Understand About Radicalisation

Approx. 2,800 words*

Introduction

In 2015 the United Kingdom became the first country in the world to place a statutory duty on all schools, registered early years childcare providers and further education institutions to have due regard to the need to prevent pupils from being drawn into terrorism. This duty, known as the Prevent duty, sits within the broader Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and has been updated most recently through the Prevent duty guidance for England and Wales (2023), which came into force on 31 December 2023.

For school leaders, the Prevent duty is not a specialist counter-terrorism function grafted awkwardly onto educational life. It is, by deliberate statutory design, a safeguarding measure. It operates through the same frameworks, the same relationships and the same professional culture that governs all other aspects of child protection. Understanding it deeply is essential to fulfilling it well.

This article explains what radicalisation is, how it happens, who is most at risk, what the Prevent duty requires of schools in practice and how schools can fulfil their obligations in a way that genuinely protects children without creating the culture of suspicion or hypervigilance that critics of poorly implemented Prevent practice have rightly identified as a risk.

Defining Radicalisation

Radicalisation is the process by which an individual is drawn towards extreme religious, political or moral ideologies to the point where they become hostile towards those who hold different views and may, in the most serious cases, be willing to commit or support acts of violence. The Prevent duty guidance (2023) defines radicalisation as the process by which a person comes to support terrorism or extremist ideology associated with terrorist groups.

It is important that school staff understand radicalisation as a process, not a state. Nobody is radicalised instantaneously. The pathway from a vulnerable young person to someone who holds or acts on extremist views typically takes place over months or years, through a series of exposures, relationships and incremental shifts in belief and identity. This process-based understanding is what makes early identification possible: the signs of emerging radicalisation are visible, if staff know what to look for and feel empowered to act on their concerns.

The 2023 Shawcross Independent Review of the Prevent Strategy found the duty to be particularly effective in schools, noting that awareness of radicalisation risk had been successfully embedded within safeguarding practice in the education sector. The education sector has accounted for approximately 40 per cent of all Prevent referrals in recent years, more than any other sector, reflecting the sustained and daily contact schools have with young people.

> Source: Shawcross Independent Review of Prevent (2023); Home Office, > Individuals Referred to and Supported Through the Prevent Programme > (2023).

How Radicalisation Happens

Understanding the mechanisms of radicalisation is essential for effective identification. Research identifies several distinct pathways through which young people are drawn towards extremism, many of which mirror the grooming processes associated with other forms of child exploitation.

Mind corruption and desensitisation

In this pathway, a groomer or radicalising influence exposes a young person to increasingly extreme material over time until they become desensitised to content that would initially have disturbed or repelled them. This process of normalisation is gradual and often begins with material that appears provocative or edgy rather than explicitly violent or extreme.

Online grooming

Online platforms, including social media, gaming environments, encrypted messaging applications and video-sharing sites, provide radicalising actors with unprecedented access to young people. Groomers seek out isolated or vulnerable individuals, build relationships through shared interests or perceived understanding, and use those relationships as a conduit for introducing extremist ideas. Research published in the journal Critical Studies on Terrorism (2024) found that secondary school teachers and Prevent practitioners differed significantly in their understanding of online radicalisation pathways, with teachers requiring stronger and more targeted training to identify online-facilitated risk.

> Source: Critical Studies on Terrorism (2024), 'An educational > response to the Prevent duty in England and Wales'.

Coercion and threat

Some young people are radicalised through direct or implied threats of harm to themselves or their families. This coercive pathway is particularly relevant to gang-affiliated radicalisation and certain forms of far-right and Islamist recruitment, where loyalty is secured through a combination of belonging and intimidation.

Psychological manipulation

This is perhaps the most insidious pathway, and the one most relevant to the schools context. Radicalising actors frequently target young people who feel purposeless, marginalised, unloved or disrespected, offering them a sense of identity, purpose, community and significance that they have not found elsewhere. The emotional appeal of belonging to a cause, of having found a community that understands and values them, can be extraordinarily powerful for a young person who has not found that belonging in family, school or peer relationships.

Who Is Most at Risk: Vulnerability Factors

The Prevent duty does not require schools to treat all children as potential terrorists, nor to apply surveillance-style monitoring to specific communities or faith groups. What it requires is professional awareness of the vulnerability factors that research and practice experience have identified as predictors of susceptibility to radicalisation. These include:

> • Easily influenced or impressionable children who have not yet > developed robust critical thinking in relation to identity, ideology > and authority > > • Isolated children who lack peer relationships and are therefore more > susceptible to the offer of community and belonging made by > radicalising groups > > • Children with low self-esteem or a fragile sense of identity, > particularly those navigating difficult transitions such as > adolescence, bereavement or family breakdown > > • Children who are experiencing significant grief or loss and are > therefore more susceptible to ideological frameworks that provide > explanatory narratives for suffering > > • Children who feel marginalised, excluded or discriminated against > and who may be receptive to ideologies that frame their experience as > part of a larger injustice requiring a decisive response > > • Children who are struggling with questions of identity, belonging or > faith and who may be targeted by groups offering clear, certain and > prescriptive answers

It must be emphasised that vulnerability does not imply inevitability. Many children who display these characteristics are never radicalised. Vulnerability factors identify who may need additional support and closer attentiveness, not who should be treated as a suspect.

Indicators of Radicalisation

The following behavioural indicators may suggest that a young person is being drawn into extremist ideology. No single indicator is sufficient grounds for a referral; it is patterns and combinations, considered in the context of the individual child's baseline, that should prompt professional concern:

> • Spending increasing amounts of time in online or offline > communications with individuals who hold or promote extreme views > > • A significant change in style of dress or personal appearance that > appears connected to ideological affiliation rather than peer fashion > > • A sudden disengagement from previous friendships, activities and > interests that are not associated with the emerging ideology > > • The possession or display of material or symbols associated with > extremist causes, whether online or in the physical environment > > • Attempts to recruit or persuade peers to share their views or join a > cause > > • Expressions of support for violence as a legitimate or necessary > response to perceived injustice > > • A marked change in communication with teachers or other trusted > adults, characterised by secretiveness, hostility or an unusual > certainty about political or religious matters

What the Prevent Duty Requires of Schools

Under the Prevent duty guidance (2023), schools are required to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. In practical terms, this means schools must:

> • Assess the risk of children being drawn into terrorism, including > support for extremist ideas that are part of terrorist ideology, using > the vulnerability indicators listed above > > • Ensure staff receive training that equips them to identify and > respond appropriately to signs of radicalisation > > • Provide a safe space in which children, young people and staff can > understand the risks associated with radicalisation and develop the > knowledge and skills to challenge extremist arguments > > • Promote fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of > law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with > different faiths and beliefs > > • Refer children who are identified as being at risk of radicalisation > to the Channel programme, the multi-agency support mechanism through > which tailored intervention is offered > > The Prevent duty does not require teachers to act as > counter-terrorism agents or to report children on the basis of > speculative concern. It requires the same professional curiosity and > the same proportionate response that applies to all other safeguarding > risks.

Building Resilience Through Education

The most durable protection against radicalisation is not surveillance; it is resilience. Schools that provide genuine opportunities for young people to debate controversial issues, engage with diverse perspectives, understand how to influence change through democratic participation and develop a secure sense of identity and belonging are building the very qualities that make radicalisation significantly less likely.

Assemblies, displays, personal social and health education curricula and the embedded values of daily school life are all opportunities to promote the messages of tolerance, inclusion and community cohesion that counteract the divisive narratives on which radicalising actors depend. Staff and student role models who demonstrate respect across difference, who handle controversy calmly and who respond to grievance through dialogue rather than confrontation, are among the most powerful Prevent resources a school has.

Inclusion of tolerance, acceptance and civic agency within social studies and citizenship curricula is not simply a values exercise; it is a direct and evidence-supported mechanism for building resistance to extremist messaging.

The Risk of Hypervigilance

Research based on evidence submitted to the UK Parliament has identified a concerning tendency in some schools towards hypervigilance: the over-referral of pupils for behaviours that reflect ordinary adolescent curiosity, frustration or identity exploration rather than genuine risk of radicalisation. Written evidence submitted to the House of Commons found that, within schools, there is a significant proportion of students flagged for concerning behaviour relating to extremism who do not get formally referred through the Prevent pathway, and that where formal referrals are made, many transpire to be without foundation.

> Source: Written evidence submitted by Dr Jane Horton to the House of > Commons Communities Committee (COM0045), citing Home Office data > (2024).

The duty does not require or encourage the reporting of pupils too readily. It requires informed, proportionate professional judgement. A student who expresses anger about geopolitical injustice is not necessarily radicalised. A student who wears religious clothing is not radicalised by virtue of doing so. Effective Prevent practice is grounded in knowledge of the individual child, in professional curiosity and in the relational quality of the school's pastoral culture, not in anxious compliance with a surveillance framework.

The Channel Programme

Channel is the multi-agency safeguarding programme through which individuals identified as being at risk of radicalisation receive a tailored package of support. It is chaired by the local authority and attended by representatives from education, police, health services, housing and other relevant agencies. Schools are not required to determine whether a child needs Channel support; they are required to refer concerns to the DSL, who will liaise with relevant agencies and, where appropriate, make a Channel referral. Referrals are voluntary and do not result in a criminal record for the child referred.

Conclusion

The Prevent duty, properly understood and thoughtfully implemented, is not a threat to children's rights or to the open intellectual culture that good schools embody. It is a safeguarding measure that takes seriously the real and documented risk that some children face of being manipulated by adults or groups who wish to use them as instruments of harm. Schools that fulfil it well are schools where children feel safe, where difficult questions can be explored honestly and where no child who is beginning to be drawn towards extremist ideology falls through the net unnoticed.

That is exactly what good safeguarding looks like.