If we want students to feel safe at school, we can’t encourage teachers to spot potential extremists

But identifying the key components for preventing and addressing radicalization towards violent extremism in schools remains under-researched. It’s fraught with negative consequences – such as further marginalizing and stigmatizing vulnerable students – if not delivered cautiously and sensitively.

The U.K. government, for instance, has faced significant difficulties when connecting CVE initiatives to schools. In 2016, the U.K. teachers’ union backed a motion to reject the government’s counter-radicalization strategy, Prevent. This obliged teachers to refer to police pupils they suspected of engaging in some sort of terrorist activity or radical behavior. The union claimed Prevent targeted Muslim students.

Data certainly supports such concerns. Between 2007 and 2010, 67 percent of referrals under the program were Muslims. Between 2012 and 2013, that figure was 57.4 percent.

One study argued such programs undermine the dignity of many Muslim children, which has a significant effect on the “mental health and emotional well-being of Muslim children and young people and their families”.

The toolkit given to teachers under the Prevent strategy was said to contain poorly constructed definitions of “extremism” and “radicalization”. These then shaped and informed equally problematic CVE practices that appeared to be directed at Muslim students.

The toolkit was therefore seen as extending the U.K.’s monitoring capabilities into classrooms, which can inhibit Muslim children’s ability to become active and equal members of society.

This can contribute to a young Muslim person’s sense of isolation, marginalization and alienation, as well as potentially reinforcing and perpetuating racism and Islamophobia in schools.

What about Australia?
The Australian government has largely modelled its CVE strategies on the U.K.’s, even though there has been no empirical evidence to support their effectiveness. This has translated to several school programs that focus specifically on CVE.

The NSW program, for example, is conducted online and was designed primarily to educate teachers about violent extremism. It encourages teachers to promote awareness of CVE and develop family and school environments that promote resilience among youth.

It also encourages parents to be cyber-aware, to encourage open and honest communication at home, and to model positive behavior.

Another program runs in Western Australian schools, where teachers and support staff are trained to identify changes in the behavior of all at-risk students, assess potential concerns, and provide appropriate support when needed. If a concern is raised about a student, the level of risk is assessed and follow-up action is provided.

A few years ago, the federal government sent out toolkits to the nation’s schools. This enables teachers and other frontline workers to identify students who might be at risk of radicalization and intervene as early as possible. Follow-up training courses have been provided to teachers to educate them about radicalization and risk factors in students.

Outside these specific program, there is little public information about how many students have been identified as at-risk or reported to police and government agencies. Most of the work is being conducted under government confidentiality.

There is also little data available to evaluate these initiatives. But I know first-hand of cases in which students have been falsely reported to police. One particular case significantly affected the student’s school grades, resulting in him missing out on a university placement, as well as creating issues around his identity and sense of belonging.

I will not speculate on what would have happened if there hadn’t been a supportive family and community network around him.

t is paramount that any program developed to protect young people from radicalization does not contribute to the underlying issues that make young people vulnerable to it. Research shows school connectedness and belonging, and student-teacher relationships are critical aspects of a school environment that impact on the well-being of its students. It is crucial the development of CVE programs does not disrupt the relationships schools and teachers have with students and families.

CVE and national security have very little place in schools. If any new programs are to be introduced, they must be sensitive to these relationships and be very cautious not to damage individual, family or community connectedness with schools.

Clarke Jones is Research Fellow, Research School of Psychology, Australian National University. This article is published courtesy of The Conversation.