1 Introduction
In 2001, England was in shock at riots that had broken out in three towns in the north of England. Arguably the result of a failure of multiculturalism, the shock reverberated around a country that held its breath: how had it come to
In the two decades since 2001, the United Kingdom (UK) has evolved a litany of policies drawn from counterterrorism legislation that now informs the practice of education professionals and the quotidian experiences of pupils in schools. Similarly, technologies of immigration have been developed that construct the citizen as border enforcer. Such societal securitization saw expression in the Home Office’s hostile environment campaign and the more recent Windrush scandal. And in a time when migration requires a particular global response, the UK has voted to withdraw from the European Union. This chapter explores the policy requirements and cultural influences that impact the construct of the citizen in contemporary Britain and asks what this means for teaching practice.
The rest of the chapter is divided into three sections. Section 2 sets out the education policy context that relates to radicalization and extremism in schools in the UK. The Counter Terrorism and Security Act (2015), the Prevent strategy (Home Office, 2011b) and the Teachers’ Standards (Department for Education [DfE], 2011) are analysed one in relation to the other. A consideration of the genesis of these policy initiatives provides a depth of understanding of the political and cultural roots that determined the resulting policies, including a loss of faith in multiculturalism and the introduction by Prime Minister David Cameron of muscular liberalism, which has arguably contributed to a securitized discourse, raising issues of orientalism and othering.
Section 3 situates these education-related issues within a wider sociopolitical context in which the then home secretary launched the hostile environment (Kirkup & Winnett, 2012) and subsequent Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016; these shaped the context and intensified the securitized discourse within which education policy has been encoded and decoded in practice.
Section 4 considers the implications of this complex backdrop in terms of key issues for teachers in classrooms; the Trojan Horse affair sets the scene in terms of the relationship between government, schools, and marginalized communities; and the chapter concludes by identifying key themes that have the potential to influence significantly the inclusive, safe classroom spaces within which young people can be supported to develop.
2 Radicalization, Extremism, and Schools
In July 2011, the policy document Contest was published by the UK Home. Contest was designed to address the threats of terrorism, radicalization, and
Pursue (to stop terrorist attacks);
Prevent (to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism);
Protect (to strengthen protection against a new terrorist attack);
Prepare (to mitigate the impact of a new attack).
Following the publication of Contest and the implementation of the 2011 Prevent strand, the UK Counter-Terrorism and Security Act was published in 2015. Stating that schools must show ‘due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act introduced the Prevent duty. The Prevent duty applies to all members of school governing bodies, school leaders, and staff in all education settings, from registered childminders and early years settings to colleges of further education, including all schools; the Prevent duty is articulated under four themes, namely: risk assessment, working in partnership, staff training, and IT policies.
The Prevent duty requires that all professional educators are ‘able to identify children who may be vulnerable to radicalisation, and know what to do when they are identified’ (Home Office, 2015, p. 5). From a structural perspective, schools are now likely to have information on their websites setting out who their Prevent and safeguarding leads are and the approach they take to prevent radicalization and extremism.
The Prevent duty states that educators should ‘build pupils’ resilience to radicalization by promoting fundamental British values and enabling them to challenge extremist views (Home Office, 2015, p. 5) by providing ‘safe spaces’ where extremist views can be challenged. The consequence of this is a proliferation of support materials to aid educators in this endeavour. Subject associations, unions, dioceses, and publishing companies have produced myriad materials to aid teachers in countering radicalization and extremism, and schools now show on their websites, in fine detail, the ways in which they endeavour to fulfil their Prevent duty in curriculum areas.
Since 2012, the Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2011), influenced by the Prevent strategy (Home Office, 2011b), have stated that teachers should promote fundamental British values within and outside of school in order to enable pupils to develop a counter-narrative to the narratives of radicalization and extremism. Thus, teachers and other educators have been identified as key players in the fight against extremism and radicalization; significantly, the development of the Teachers’ Standards in 2011 was for the first time informed by the counterterrorist Home Office document, Prevent. Similarly, the revised Prevent duty states that teachers should ‘protect children from the risk of radicalisation’ (Home Office, 2015, p. 4).
The contemporary approach to addressing radicalization and extremism in the UK has its roots in three terrorist attacks, one in the USA in 2001, and two in England in 2001 and 2005. These attacks arguably changed forever the interface between education and security and, perforce, education policy, teacher practice, and the curriculum.
3 Three Catalysts
The initial catalyst for UK government action in response to radicalization and extremism was the attack by al-Qaeda against the United States on 11 September 2001; the concept and discourse of radicalization began to be developed and used more widely following this series of attacks. The Home Office counterterrorism document Prevent was first crafted in 2003 by the former Director of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) Sir David Ormand as a means by which the concept and practice of security in a post-9/11 world could be articulated; this was an early version, and revised editions were subsequently published in 2006 and 2011.
The second catalyst for current policy and practice in relation to radicalization and extremism was the attack in London on 7 July 2005, which subsequently became known as the 7/7 London bombings. These attacks took place on the London Underground and on a double-decker bus in the heart of the city. The London bombings were perpetrated by four ‘home-grown’ suicide bombers, that is, young men who had been born in the UK and had been educated in the Western, liberal state school system; and yet they bombed the
The third catalyst for contemporary policy and practice in relation to radicalization and extremism in the UK also took place in 2001. Unrest and riots in Oldham, Bradford, and Burnley, towns in the north of England, resulted in formal investigations and three major reports: Community Cohesion: The Report of the Independent Review Team (known as The Cantle Report, Cantle, 2001); Building Cohesive Communities: A Report of the Ministerial Group on Public Order (The Denham Report, Denham, 2001) and the Oldham Independent Review (known as The Ritchie Report, Ritchie, 2001). All three reports highlighted the problems caused by the segregation of communities, the lack of economic opportunity, the role of the far right in inciting violence, and the roles of the police and community leaders in supporting cohesion. The notion of community cohesion was questioned in these reports and the premise of multiculturalism was subsequently increasingly seen as problematic as it arguably devalued shared identity and instead ‘contribute[d] to ethno-religious isolation’ (Pfalzgraff, 2017, p. 107).
4 The Loss of Faith in Multiculturalism
Some have argued that the riots in Oldham, Bradford, and Leeds were the result of the failure of multiculturalism (Ragazzi, 2015). Indeed, the former Prime Minister David Cameron (2011) stated that:
under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.
The concern over the perceived weakness of multiculturalism was expressed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in an interview with the BBC in 2010 in which she suggested that there were inherent problems in ‘living side by side’ (BBC News, 2010). In fact, as far back as 2004, Trevor Philips, chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, suggested that ‘multiculturalism suggests separateness’ (Baldwin & Rozenberg, 2004). Such a public questioning of multiculturalism by the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality ‘marked a new stage in the attacks on multiculturalism as a tool for negotiating diversity and equality’ (Revell, 2012, p. 22). Multiculturalism, it has been argued, has
5 The Emergence of a Muscular Liberalism
The Munich Security Conference in February 2011 provided Prime Minister David Cameron with a platform for addressing some of the issues that had been simmering continually and erupting sporadically since 2001. Cameron (2011) opened his speech with a commentary on liberalism, democracy, and freedom:
I believe a genuinely liberal country … believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex, or sexuality. It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe in these things.
Cameron’s tone changed, however, when he began to articulate the issues relating to extremist ideology, including the problem of people living ‘apart’, in what he stated were ‘segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values’. Cameron’s proposal was to move towards a new and rather different form of liberalism, stating that ‘frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism’ (Cameron, 2011).
Cameron set out what muscular liberalism should look like by listing features such as speaking English and being educated in a common culture and curriculum. This is arguably a significant moment in British political history in which muscular liberalism takes shape, bringing to the fore a discourse on Britishness, religion, the secular state, cultural values, and social mores. And of course, the Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2012) set out previously play into this new muscular liberalism by requiring teachers to promote fundamental British values within and outside of school. So, too, does the Prevent duty, which builds on the notion of muscular liberalism to place a statutory duty upon education (and health) professionals to act as key agents in countering radicalization
6 A Securitized Discourse
It has been suggested that 9/11, 7/7, and the Madrid bombings of 2004 were the catalysts for an emergent discourse of securitization. Gearon argues that religion in education is now employed in a securitized manner to link the political to the religious; there is now a new interface in education between security, education, and religion that has given rise to what Gearon terms the ‘counter terrorist classroom’ (2013, p. 129). The post-9/11 world, Gearon suggests, has witnessed a growing interest in the politics of religion and the place of religion in governance globally (Gearon, 2013). Civic and moral educators in schools are now required to address issues of radicalization and extremism, surveillance and freedom, and, as mentioned above, there has been a proliferation of resources to support those educators and other education professionals in enacting their Prevent duty. Arguably, however, such resources are not simply neutral teaching aids for the classroom; rather, they, too, are crafted within such a securitized discourse—are ‘in and of themselves, securitized’ (Lundie, 2019, p. 265).
Such resources and artefacts are arguably the ‘micro-technologies and representations of policy that serve as meaning makers and controls of meanings in the social-material world of the school’ (Ball et al., 2012, p. 121). The securitized discourse also affects the ways in which educators construct pupils, and Heath-Kelly’s concept of the ‘pre-crime space’ is helpful here. Heath-Kelly refers to the pre-crime space as an ‘anticipatory form of policing’ (Heath-Kelly, 2017, p. 298); applied to education, this is the space in the classroom or the more general school setting where teachers or other education professionals will now, post-9/11, view pupils as having more or less propensity for radicalization, as more or less inhabiting a pre-crime space. This, of course, has a significant effect on the psychological contract between the teacher and the learner in which trust is the cornerstone of such relationships in the quotidian exchanges of the school. In essence, this equates to a post-9/11 discourse of surveillance in the classroom. The problematic nature of such a context of suspicion and surveillance is characterized by the following extract from the revised Prevent duty policy, which states that:
schools and childcare providers can … build pupils’ resilience to radicalisation by promoting fundamental British values and enabling them to
(Home Office, 2015, p. 5)challenge extremist views. It is important to emphasise that the Prevent duty is not intended to stop pupils debating controversial issues. On the contrary, schools should provide a safe space in which children, young people and staff can understand the risks associated with terrorism and develop the knowledge and skills to be able to challenge extremist arguments.
The contradictory nature of this statement is drawn out by Ramsay (2017), who notes that the concept of a ‘safe space’ is hardly possible in a context where teachers are required to report young people who may express ‘extremist’ views to the Home Office referral programme for those who are suspected of having been radicalized (Home Office, 2012). The notion that resilience to radicalization can be built through a discourse on fundamental British values is equally contested. Some suggest that the concept of fundamental British values has ‘insidious racializing implications’ (Elton-Chalcraft et al., 2017, p. 29) and that the teaching of fundamental British values has the potential to alienate learners and is incompatible with pluralistic approaches to curriculum subjects such as religious education (Farrell, 2016, p. 280). The potential for a ‘reductive notion of Britishness and a risked sense of alienation’ is highlighted by Lockley-Scott (2019, p. 354), and the issue of teachers who do not themselves believe in the contentions of British values and, perforce, worry about how to teach these values is raised by Maylor (2016).
Let us take stock of the UK’s education policy landscape in relation to radicalization and extremism. So far, this chapter has set out the policy context in the UK in relation to education and extremism and has drawn out key issues that have evolved in recent years. The chapter has tracked the evolution of a securitized discourse that was given particular shape by Prime Minister David Cameron’s promotion of muscular liberalism and has considered this concept in relation to the crisis in multiculturalism. The chapter has shown how the Prevent duty has positioned teachers as key players in countering radicalization such that they are the embodiment of counterterrorist policy as both policy subjects and policy actors. The chapter has also demonstrated how resources produced to support teachers in countering radicalization are in and of themselves micro-technologies of policy, subject to a securitized discourse, and one of the vehicles through which this discourse is promoted. Considered, too, has been the problematic nature of fundamental British values and the potential for the pre-crime space to take root in the mindset of teachers, thus compromising the contract of trust between the learner and the teacher with the ambiguous proposal that there will be a safe space in which pupils can explore and articulate issues and concerns.
The education system of any country is of course nested within a wider policy context, and in the UK, the securitized discourse was also evolving in relation to government attitudes towards immigration and constructs of citizenship.
7 A Hostile Environment
Theresa May had been home secretary for two years when, in 2012, she declared in an interview with The Telegraph that
the aim is to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration. … What we don’t want is a situation where people think that they can come here and overstay because they’re able to access everything they need.
(Kirkup & Winnett, 2012)
May wished to discourage potential immigrants from coming to the UK, to ensure that those who were in the UK did not overstay their permitted time allocation, and to stop those who had no permission to be in the UK (irregular migrants) from accessing heath care, housing, and other essential public services. First announced in 2012 under Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, the hostile environment is a set of administrative and legislative measures aimed at migrants with no leave to remain and is designed to make staying in the UK so challenging that migrants will leave voluntarily. The hostile environment is enacted through measures to limit housing, access to work, and health care. The coalition government’s Immigration Act of 2014 made these proposals law, and they were further enforced by the subsequent Conservative government’s Immigration Act of 2016.
The Immigration Act (2014) required landlords to check the immigration papers of both potential and existing tenants against a Home Office approved list. Landlords could refuse tenancy or even evict tenants who could not produce the required documentation. The subsequent Immigration Act (2016) placed further requirements on landlords such that they could be charged with
In terms of bank accounts, Sections 40–42 of the Immigration Act (2014) required banks and building societies to check the status of those applying for an account against anti-fraud data. As with the case of landlords above, the subsequent Immigration Act (2016) required banks and building societies to check the status of existing customers where requested and to notify the secretary of state if irregularities were found. The Immigration Act (2014) also introduced the requirement for registrars to report sham marriages and to extend the marriage notice period from fifteen to twenty-eight days. Indeed, the Home Office posted this tweet in February 2013:
Home Office [ukhomeoffice]. (2013, February 14). #Rosesareredvioletsareblue, if your marriage is a sham we’ll be on to you: flic.kr/p/88ZNcq #happyvalentinesday [Tweet]1
Similarly, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) was empowered to revoke the licenses of those without leave to remain as a result of the Immigration Act (2014), and the subsequent Immigration Act (2016) gave powers to law enforcement officers to enter and search a premises for a driving license where it was suspected the owner was in the UK without leave to remain; both the person and the vehicle could now be detained.
In this way, immigration control has been embedded into aspects of everyday life, to be undertaken by a range of citizens. This went on to create an atmosphere in which migrants across the UK were regarded with suspicion: ‘everyday bordering practices that drive immigration controls into micro-settings of everyday practices and quotidian spaces’ (Lewis et al., 2017, p. 187). Citizens were effectively given the mantle of immigration enforcement officers: landlords, required to check the passports of tenants; doctors, required to check the status of patients before treatment. In essence, immigration supervision was outsourced to citizens. The expectation that citizens would undertake immigration checks on fellow citizens is a new feature of this environment in which such checks are normally carried out by trained immigration officers. Private citizens are now required to check the immigration status of fellow
Research into the impact of the hostile environment on health workers explored the impact of data sharing, finding that this policy places health professionals in an ‘unworkable position, both practically and in terms of their duties to patients around confidentiality’ (Hiam et al., 2018, p. 107). In addition to the Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016, Operation Nexus was initiated, posting immigration officials in police stations across the UK in order to check the status of those brought in, including witnesses; the immigration officials have the power to detain those who fall under suspicion.
8 Where Did the Hostile Environment Originate?
The UK relationship with Europe and with issues of migration had been in the public imagination and media for many years. In 2010, as David Cameron became prime minister (2010–2016) and Theresa May was appointed home secretary (2010–2016), there was continued concern around Poland and Lithuania entering the European Union in 2004 and Romania and Bulgaria in 2007. Against this backdrop, Cameron, with the support of the home secretary, announced the intention to reduce net migration in the UK to below 100,000 per annum, to be achieved by 2015. The 2010 Conservative Party election manifesto set out new reduced net migration targets and increased outward emigration targets. The hostile environment policy is thus linked to the net migration target (reduced inward migration and increased outward emigration target).
However, the uneasy relationship with the European Union in relation to immigration was aggravated by the fact that the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP), led by Nigel Farage, had fared unexpectedly well in the 2010 general election. On a tide of growing anxiety about immigration, UKIP, appealing to largely working-class constituencies, called for harder measures. The rise in the appeal of UKIP caused the Conservatives to respond with their own hard line and this, in turn, coincided with Theresa May announcing the hostile environment policy. An expression of this harsh new attitude was Operation Vaken, an immigration enforcement campaign that took place in London in 2013 whereby vans, painted with police-style livery, displayed along their sides the message ‘Go Home or Face Arrest’, and were driven through six ethnically mixed London boroughs. Eight minority ethic newspapers carried the same message, and places of worship began to offer immigration surgeries. After accusations that this incited racial hatred and aggravated tensions within communities, the operation was
9 The Windrush Scandal
The most apparent expression of the hostile environment was what has become known as the Windrush scandal. The Windrush generation arrived in the UK between 1948 and 1973. The HMT Empire Windrush ship delivered one of the first groups of British subjects from the Caribbean in 1948. The British Nationality Act (1948) had secured free movement to Britain for those living in UK colonies, although the subsequent Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 introduced a series of distinctions in relation to status that became increasingly complex. However, as members of the British Commonwealth, those arriving were British subjects and, perforce, could work and live in the UK.
By 2017, members of this generation were reporting that they had been detained and, in some cases, been deported as illegal immigrants because they did not have documentation to show that they had permission to reside and work as British subjects in the UK. Older Caribbean-born residents were wrongly classified as illegal immigrants. Although this issue was raised with Philip Hammond, then foreign secretary, at the biannual UK-Caribbean forum held in Freeport, Bahamas, in 2016, matters did not improve. The hostile environment legislation placed the burden of proof of their right to reside in the UK on individuals. This generation had variously arrived on their parents’ passports or had their landing cards destroyed on arrival. The new Home Office legislation required at least one official document for every year each suspected illegal immigrant had resided in the UK. Unable to provide such evidence, many were placed in immigration detention centres or deported. In the case of those who were deported, they had not seen the country to which they were deported since they were children. The House of Lords research briefing Impact of ‘hostile environment’ policy debate on 14th June 2018 reported that ‘63 individuals may have been wrongfully deported’ and that ‘there are occasions
Wendy Williams, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Constabulary, was commissioned to undertake a review, which was published on 19 March 2020, titled Windrush Lessons Learned Review (WLLR) (Williams, 2020). The WLLR calls for, amongst other things:
- –a full review and evaluation of hostile environment policies, emphasizing how warnings and evidence about their discriminatory effect were ignored by policymakers at all stages;
- –better systems for monitoring and evaluating all immigration policies from design to delivery with a greater emphasis on adherence to equalities and human rights legislation;
- –reviewing and expanding the role of the Independent Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) and creating the post of Migrants’ Commissioner to be a voice for migrants and help to identify systematic risks and failures.
10 Schools and the Hostile Environment
Schools, too, became embroiled in the technology of surveillance of the hostile environment. The Education (Pupil Information) (England) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016 came into effect in September 2016. This required mainstream schools to collect data on nationality, country of birth, and proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing in English through the annual school census and for the data to be stored in the national pupil database. However, by 2018, the Department for Education ceased collecting school data on nationality and country of birth.
By 2017, Home Secretary Sajid Javid disowned the term hostile environment in favour of compliant environment. This is also the period in which fifty-two per cent of the British public voted to withdraw from the European Union following a UK-wide referendum, and in March 2017, the British government began what has become known as the Brexit process, invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. After forty-seven years of membership of the European Union, British citizens voted to leave the union of twenty-seven other countries. This was by no means a straightforward referendum; where Wales joined England in returning a 52.5% vote to leave, Scotland voted to remain by 65%, and Northern Ireland by 56%. The referendum was underpinned by tensions between social classes, age, and demographic divisions. With a rise in nationalism characterized by the emerging popularity of UKIP, contemporary Britain is far from a united kingdom.
suitable for study in the academy, for display in the museum, for reconstruction in the colonial office, for theoretical illustration in anthropological, biological, linguistic, racial and historical theses about mankind and the universe, for instances of economic and sociological theories of development, revolution, cultural personality, national or religious character.
(Said, 2003, p. 8)
The essence of Said’s thesis is that over the course of centuries, the West has constructed a totalizing vision or version of the non-Western that has become
11 Education in Securitized Times
It has been argued that since 9/11, civic and moral educators have been negotiating complexity in terms of surveillance and freedom and how surveillance and freedom are presented in classroom contexts (Lundie, 2019). Others have suggested that moral education is now viewed through a securitized lens (Conroy, 2003). There is one example of how trust between schools and government has had a particular impact in recent years. The Trojan Horse Affair of 2014 encapsulates the ways in which national identity and British values play out in schools and represents a turning point in securitization in education (Farrell, 2016). In 2013, the Department for Education received an anonymous letter allegedly written by governors and teachers in academies in Birmingham that set out how to promote Islamist and Salafist ideas in these schools. The letter was also leaked and published in the press.
Birmingham City Council subsequently received hundreds of letters stating that such activities had been taking place for many years. Tahir Alam, former chair of Park View Educational Trust, was accused of writing the document for the Muslim Council of Britain as a blueprint for the Islamization of schools. Alam and thirteen teachers were initially banned from the profession but had their bans overturned after investigations that took a number of years. The Trojan Horse Affair led to widespread fear about religious freedom and public education (Arthur, 2015). However, the events that followed caused a significant aftershock when, in 2014, Ofsted conducted thirty-five no-notice inspections and reported that eleven schools had failed to prepare pupils for life in Britain as a result of a limited curriculum and had not promoted tolerance of other communities or offered pupils an opportunity to learn about other faiths (Revell & Bryan, 2018). The complexity of the secular liberal state interfacing with minority faith schools highlights the way in which government inspection can quickly turn to interference through the use of swiftly changing
In post–Trojan-Horse times, then, and in the context of Brexit, the hostile environment, the Prevent duty, and anti-immigrant tensions, how should teachers, including teachers of citizenship and religious education, approach classroom discussions? How should teachers open up safe spaces for negotiation and conflict? From a statutory perspective, schools have responded to the Diversity and Citizenship Curriculum Review, a revised national curriculum in 2008 that included the theme of Identity and Diversity: Living Together in the UK (Qualifications and Curriculum Agency, 2007), and an updated national curriculum in 2014 that promotes political, legal, and economic knowledge. Research shows that global citizenship education (GCE) has been reoriented to meet the statutory requirement to promote fundamental British values (Bamber et al., 2018). Osler (2017) identifies three specific challenges facing teachers seeking to integrate minority groups and to implement policies based on social justice: first, the high numbers of migrants and refugees seeking to live in Europe; second, issues of multiculturalism and its success or failure, integration, and diversity; and third, the securitization of education policy. Osler suggests that the assimilationist orientation in current education policy brings national values to the fore and has the potential to target Muslim students through the securitization discourse.
In addition to an assimilationist orientation in policy documentation, the concept of vulnerability is dominant in counterterrorist documentation; however, this is arguably conceptualized in ways that are resonant with ‘colonial discourses of contagion and immunity, and it risks silencing and even pathologizing the person labelled vulnerable’ (O’Donnell, 2016, p. 53). Education, O’Donnell (2016) argues, should not be ‘subordinated to security and intelligence agendas on pragmatic, educational and ethical grounds’ (p. 53). In navigating the complexity of opening up discussions in classrooms, teachers without a grounding in processes of radicalization or extremism can find themselves engaging in a ‘lost boys’ discourse whereby the individual can be positioned as vulnerable and therefore a legitimate figure for surveillance in school.
12 Conclusion
In the classroom context there are likely to be pupils from differing religious and cultural backgrounds—foregrounds, in fact. In such a diverse context, teachers must find ways of opening up discussions that give voice to differing
Note
Retrieved from: url no longer available.
References
Arthur, J. (2015). Extremism and neo-liberal education policy: A contextual critique of the Trojan Horse Affair in Birmingham schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(3), 311–328.
Baker-Beall, C., Heath-Kelly, C., & Jarvis, L. (2016). Counter-radicalisation. Routledge.
Baldwin, T., & Rozenberg, G. (2004, April 3). Britain ‘must scrap multiculturalism’. The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-must-scrap-multiculturalism-mt2vhmfpgwd
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy. Routledge.
Bamber, P., Bullivant, A., Clark, A., & Lundie, D. (2018). Educating global Britain: Perils and possibilities promoting ‘national’ values through critical global citizenship education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(4), 433–453.
BBC News. (2010, October 17). Merkel says German multiculturalism society has failed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451
British Nationality Act. (1948). c. 56. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/enacted
Cameron, D. (2011). Speech by the Rt Hon David Cameron, Prime Minister, to the Munich Security Conference. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130102224134/http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference/
Cantle, T. (2001). Community cohesion: A report of the Independent Review Team. Home Office.
Commonwealth Immigrants Act. (1968). c. 9. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/9/contents/enacted
Conroy, J. (2003). What rough beast …? On reading Arendt after the Twin Towers. In M. Peters, C. Lankshear, & M. Olssen (Eds.), Critical theory and the human condition (pp. 84–100). Counterpoints.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. (2015). c. 6. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/6/contents
Denham, J. (2001). Building cohesive communities: A report of the ministerial group on public order and community cohesion. Home Office.
Department for Education. (2011). Teachers’ standards. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665520/Teachers__Standards.pdf
Department for Education. (2013). National curriculum in England: Citizenship programmes of study for Key Stages 3 and 4. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-citizenship-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-citizenship-programmes-of-study-for-key-stages-3-and-4
Elton-Chalcraft, S., Lander, V., Revell, L., Warner, D., & Whitworth, L. (2017). To promote, or not to promote, fundamental British values? Teachers’ standards, diversity and teacher education. British Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 29–48.
Farrell, F. (2016). Why all of a sudden do we need to teach fundamental British values? A critical investigation of religious education student teacher positioning within a policy discourse of discipline and control. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(3), 280–297.
Gearon, L. (2013). The counter terrorist classroom: Religion, education and security. Religious Education, 108(2), 129–147.
Heath-Kelly, C. (2017). The geography of pre-criminal space: Epidemiological imaginations of radicalisation risk in the UK Prevent Strategy 2007–2017. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 10(2), 297–319.
Hiam, L., Steele, S., & McKee, M. (2018). Creating a ‘hostile environment for migrants’: The British government’s use of health service data to restrict immigration is a very bad idea. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 13(2), 107–117.
Home Office. (2011a). Contest. The United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716907/140618_CCS207_CCS0218929798-1_CONTEST_3.0_WEB.pdf
Home Office. (2011b). Prevent strategy 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-strategy-2011
Home Office. (2012). Channel duty guidance: Protecting vulnerable people from being drawn into terrorism. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/928326/6.6271_HO_HMG_Channel_Duty_Guidance_v13_WEB_Engish.pdf
Home Office. (2015). Revised prevent duty guidance for England and Wales. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance/revised-prevent-duty-guidance-for-england-and-wales
Immigration Act. (2014). c. 22. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/22/contents
Immigration Act. (2016). c. 19. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/19/contents/enacted/data.htm
Kirkup, J., & Winnett, R. (2012, May 25). Theresa May interview: ‘We’re going to give illegal immigrants a really hostile reception’. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/theresa-may-interview-going-give-illegal-migrants-really-hostile/
Kundnani, A. (2007). The end of tolerance: Racism in 21st century Britain. Pluto Press.
Lewis, H., Waite, L., & Hodkinson, S. (2017). Hostile UK immigration policy and asylum seekers’ susceptibility to forced labour. In F. Vecchio & A. Gerrard (Eds.), Entrapping asylum seekers. Social, legal and economic precariousness (pp. 187–215). Springer Nature.
Lockley-Scott, A. (2019). Towards a critique of fundamental British values: The case of the classroom. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 40(3), 354–367.
Lundie, D. (2019). Social and civic education in an age of extremisms. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 40(3), 265–268.
Maylor, U. (2016). I’d worry about how to teach it: British values in English classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(3), 314–328.
Miah, S. (2017). The Muslim problematic: Muslims, state schools and security. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 26(2) (Special issue: Youth, Insecurity and Education), 138–150.
O’Donnell, A. (2016). Securitisation, counterterrorism and the silencing of dissent: The educational implications of Prevent. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(1), 53–76.
Osler, A. (2017). Citizenship education, inclusion and belonging in Europe: Rhetoric and reality in England and Norway. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research and teaching (pp. 133–161). American Educational Research Association.
Pfalzgraff, R. L., Jr. (2017). Liberal education, civic responsibility and patriotism. In D. E. Cullen (Ed.), Liberal democracy and liberal education (pp. 97–111). Lexington.
Phillips, T. (2004, May 28). Multiculturalism’s legacy is ‘have a nice day’ racism. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/may/28/equality.raceintheuk
Qualifications and Curriculum Agency. (2007). Curriculum review: Diversity & Citizenship. http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/2007-ajegbo-report-citizenship.pdf
Ragazzi, F. (2015). Policed multiculturalism? The impact of counter-terrorism and counter-radicalization and the ‘end’ of multiculturalism. In C. Baker-Beall, C. Heath-Kelly, & L. Jarvis (Eds.), Counter-radicalisation (pp. 156–175). Routledge.
Ramsay, P. (2017). Is Prevent a safe space? Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 12(2), 143–158.
Revell, L. (2012). Islam and education. Trentham Books Ltd.
Revell, L., & Bryan, H. (2018). Fundamental British values: National identity, radicalisation and Britishness. Emerald Insight.
Revell, L., Bryan, H., & Elton-Chalcraft, S. (2018). Counter terrorism law and education: Student teachers’ induction in UK Prevent duty through the lens of Bauman’s Liquid Modernity. In K. Trimmer, R. Dixon, & Y. Stewart Findley (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of education law for schools (pp. 553–565). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ritchie, D. (2001). Oldham independent review: One Oldham, one future. Government Office for the Northwest.
Sivanandan, A. (2007). Foreword. In A. Kundnani (Ed.), The end of tolerance: Racism in 21st century Britain (pp. vii–viii). Pluto Press.
Said, E. (2003). Orientalism. Penguin Books.
Shaheen, J. (2008). Guilty: Hollywood’s verdict on Arabs after 9/11. Olive Branch.
Taylor, R. (2018, June 11). Impact of ‘hostile environment’ policy debate on 14th June 2018. House of Lords Library Briefing. House of Lords. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2018-0064/
The Education (Pupil Information) (England) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations, 2016 (SI 2016 No. 808). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/808/contents/made
Williams, W. (2020). Windrush lessons learned: Independent review by Wendy Williams. Home Office. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874022/6.5577_HO_Windrush_Lessons_Learned_Review_WEB_v2.pdf