Prevent Strategy and Fundamental British Value

Prevent Strategy and Fundamental British ValueThe direct governmental form _or_ system of government response to terrorist attack, because, near of the terrorist attacks, be believed to have been perpetrated by G1Islamist terrorist (fundamentalist), does give the impression that government has a significant Moslem problem in relation to attractions to fiery extremism.G2G3G4The Labour government, in 2003, came up with a strategy to counter terrorism,G5G6 with the principal aim of protecting the public, vetoing radicalisation, in response to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.G7G8 The strategy in addition contains measures to groom for an attack and pursue attackers.G9 This was before, the coordinated multiple bombing that led to the death of 56 state in London, termed 7/7, because, it happened on the 7th of June 2005, Islamist terrorist were believed to be cigarette the G10attackso11. However, afterward the 7/7 bombing the government launched the specific prevent st rategy, schools and pedagogicsal institution were brought into it, more funding was everyocated to it. The avocation of preventing violent extremism and a duty of care to students at risk of radicalisation was given to schools. In 2011 Prevent Strategy was transformed with late power and detailed tasks for schools and universities, by the coalition government. Prominence was magnanimous to safeguarding schools giving the duty of promoting balanced and wide-ranging curriculum. Part of the changes to the prevent strategy is the power giving to Ofsted to inspect schools and sanction staff with extremist views.G12G13G14G15The government issued the revise instructors standard, with the term fundamental British value (FBV), making its debut, in 2012. Clarke believed FBV came or so, because of suspected penetration of Birmingham schools by a politicized strain of Sunni Islam. G16In 2014, schools received guidance on promoting FBV in conjunction with students, spiritual, social and c ultural development. FBV stands for democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.G17G18Education institution, not intelligence gathering organizationG19G20Based on the British journal of Education, we should be less rather, worried about the fact that it might be, therapeuticizing of security that is going on. This suggests that various, governmental policies linking security and education are an examine to appear to the public, as applying the right mediG21G22cine to terrorism and security. The government wants to G23be seen to be singing the right song, in the process using educational institution, and the concern is not about the frequent association of security and resulting legislation with education, but rG24G25 system as a political jibe to pacify the publicG26 (Durodie 2016). G27G28The idea that was chuck forward finished the Prevent agenda G29is that the danger the UK is from vulnerable peopl e who may be radicalized (vulnerable to violent extremism), this is yet to be challenged (Richards 2011). The oral sex that arises is, what are the criteria for ascertaining those that are susceptible to violent extremism, as well as why they are pr ane to it? There is no straight forward answer to this questions. Since, this a difficult question to answer, it is and then subject to different interpretation by different people, for instance in January 2016 a G3010-year-old Muslim male child was questioned G31by the constabulary after misspelling terrace as the terrorist in an essayG32 (BBC, January 2016). This arises because there is no clear-cut way of determining who is vulnerable to radicalization, hence it was subjective from the school point of view. The question I like to ask, is would this boy had been subjected to this ordeal if he were white, and if he is not a Muslim? The action was taken by the school and the police also raise the question of pen and can lead to the idea that only Muslims are sympathetic towards an extremist idea. Going back to the Irish terrorism, the response from the government was completely different. G33G34G35This type of policy tends to suggest that, those, who will yield to extremist ideology can be taught out of it, and can never get involve in extremism on their accept will. Recent experience completely contradicts this ideology, for example, the person who carried out the attack on the house of common in London on March 22, 2017, acted alone the metropolitan police said, they could not pass any evidence that he was radicalized, how was he supposed G36to have been educated out of it? Also, can we say all the people who had carried out the terrorist attack are vulnerable people?G37 The government idea involving schools in the fight against extremism ideology is merely therapeutic at best, base on the evidence available people who intend to join the course of violent extremist are not always vulnerable, but, are usua lly disgustn by a passion of fighting against passive injustice and marginalization.G38G39G40Prevent strategy does have inadvertent penalties, for instance, G41a 15-year-old Hampshire schoolboy was subjected to interview by the anti-terrorist team. His teachers reported him to the police claiming they had safeguarding concerns when it was discovered that he visited an extremist website on his computer. An expert in the unit set up to deter young people from becoming a member of Izal interviewed Joe and his father. It was surprising to find out that, he was not watching beheading video, he had logged on to Ukip home page. But his misguided teacher, probably, he was overzealous or lack sufficient training, considered Ukip to be an embodiment of evil. In Joes G42words, he had visited the site as well as a film of an English Defence League rally after a debate about extremism in the classroom. The problem with the who process is the fact that both father and son were subjected to terr orist treatment. It is not unconceivable that a program set to prevent radical Islam became the tool that hounded those who are guiltless (Richard). Making schools and teachers agents of anti-radicalization and extremism is an unsettling issue, teachers and schools already had safeguarding duty, to give them extra power can always lead to misuse of power.G43The police also play a pivotal role in executing prevent strategy in schools, this, does appear to damage the confidence of the Muslim communities in police and professionals in the education sector (Awan 2012). In December 2009, local police officers visited a nursery in a mainly populated Muslim world of Birmingham, because, it was thought that the children may be at risk of extremism, as part Local police in Birmingham. This is certainly an unwelcoming development, as far as the conjunction involved are concerned G44(Casciani 2009). This and other incidents mentioned previously, highlighted, the difficulty and the danger of executing Prevent in schools, because, of the unintended consequence of stigmatizing young children. Schools should be left scarcely as the institution that makes learning possible, provide education and allows creativity, they should not be turned into a government policing agency, making teachers acting like detectivesG45, monitoring signs of extremism in students. The outcome of a survey carried out by Ipsos MORI shows that some schools are not in agreement Prevent Strategy (Phillips, Tse et al. 2011)G46Fundamental British set (FVB)The (DfE, 2012), does give teachers the directive not to destabilize fundamental British values, the statement is problematic because it originated from counter-terrorism prevent strategy, and leads to the following questions, what is Britishness, value as well as high spot the relationship between the state and the teaching profession. Including such term in a document that regulates the teaching profession, does, implies that teachers are now dete ctives, the state political tool G47as well the custodial all that is British. This role as well making teachers role more complex, is also a distraction and may have the effectiveness of taking away valuable teaching time. The idea of fundamental British seems wrong as it was introduced without any debate and so was the sinister racializing consequence as identified by teachers. It would have more appropriate to have a professional dialogue with all the stakeholders in the education sector, before coming up with such policy, it might be that the government sees teachers as a political puppet, and as such, they can be ordered and imposed uponG48G49G50. Smith suggested that the government system is maintaining status quo by blatantly approving equality by an assimilationist program (Smith 2013). This is contrary to the idea of FBV, that is meant to promote democracy and inclusiveness. It is fair to argue that not all the teachers that teach and work in schools are British if the FB V is exclusive to British, how are they supposed to protect a value that is alien to them, that bring back the question of what is Britishness? are fundamentals British values exclusive to the British? Since FBV and prevent strategy were imposed on teachers, it is impossible for, both, to be teachers and in-service to understand the appropriate system to use in promoting such values and be clear about them without appearing to be programmingG51 or encouraging jingoism in schools and classrooms (EltonChalcraft, Lander et al. 2016)G52G53G54G55The key drive of DfE direction is to inspire head teachers to enthusiastically encourage British values, British law and reject observance of spectral law if it G56contradicts the law of the land, on one hand, the government is trying to promote diversity and multicultural Britain, and on the other trying to suppress religious law, which might be fundamental to people religious beliefs, this can cause problem in homes where they hold their reli gious belief very dearly. It gives the impression ofG57 a totalising discourse of civic G58jingoism that presents itself as willing to put up with diversity and plurality.G59The modified prevent agenda in 2015, sought to oversee the compliance of the education sector and place the requirement on schools to tense online content as well as put in place policies aimed at preventing a student from being drawn into terrorism. This move is an infringement on an individual G60G61fundamental human right, as it limits the expression of religious views and opinion that may be different what is defined as FBVG62.G63Although the government try to link extremism and enabling student through the medium of education, there is no direct connection (DCSF, 2008), and the use of traditional, political and military method to deal with the Irish terrorism 20 years ago is completely contrary to the method being used, because, the actors are different, the educational institution was not considered to b e part of the therapy than.G64G65The introduction of FVB in the new standard does change the way in which teachers competency are measured from using observable parameters to attaching more importance to values, hence, teachers will now be assessed based on the quality their conceptual interaction between student and the school. G66ConclusionTheresa May, when she was she was the Home Secretary, did admit that early edition of Prevent policy fell in short of identifying threat from extremism it was not adequate in dealing with extremist ideology that is the biggest challenge the society faces and not measures up to reaching those who might be in danger of radicalization G67(Gardham 2011), the evidence available is yet to proof otherwise, despite involving education institution in the process of eliminating the risk of radicalization.G68ReferencesAwan, I. (2012). I Am a Muslim Not an Extremist How the Prevent Strategy Has Constructed a Suspect Community. Politics policy (Statesboro, Ga.) 40(6) 1158-1185.Casciani, D. (2009). Nursery visited by counterterrorism police officer. BBC News 11.Durodie, B. (2016). Securitising education to prevent terrorism or losing direction? British Journal of Educational Studies 64(1) 21-35.EltonChalcraft, S., et al. (2016). To promote, or not to promote fundamental British values? Teachers standards, diversity and teacher education. British Educational Research Journal.Gardham, D. (2011). Universities complacentover Islamic Radicals, Theresa May Warns. The Telegraph.Phillips, C., et al. (2011). Community cohesion and PREVENT how have schools responded?.Richards, A. (2011). The problem with radicalization the remit of Preventand the need to refocus on terrorism in the UK. International Affairs 87(1) 143-152.Smith, H. J. (2013). A critique of the teaching standards in England (1984-2012) discourses of equality and maintaining the status quo. Journal of Education Policy 28(4) 427-448.G1Inserted The dG2Inserted s aG3DeletedDG4Deleted veG5Inserted withG6Inserted LG7Inserted ,G8Inserted oG9Inserted n aG10Inserted dso11Paul ThomasG12DeletedlG13DeletedaG14DeletediG15Deleted-G16Inserted zG17Deleted,G18DeletedsG19Inserted zG20DeletedsG21Inserted areG22Inserted sG23Inserted sG24Inserted is notG25Inserted al institution, and theG26Inserted aG27Deleted,G28DeletedisG29Inserted PG30Inserted sG31Inserted edG32Inserted theG33Inserted anG34Inserted theG35Inserted wasG36Inserted ,G37Inserted theG38DeletedpG39Deleted,G40DeletedsG41Inserted ,G42Inserted anG43Deleted,G44Inserted rG45Inserted theG46DeletedsG47Inserted zG48Inserted ,G49Inserted aG50Inserted sG51Inserted mG52DeletedsG53Deleted,G54Deleted,G55Deleted,G56Inserted rG57Inserted ,G58Inserted aG59DeleteddG60Inserted anG61Inserted aG62Inserted sG63DeletedsG64Inserted aG65DeletedeG66DeletedsG67Inserted sG68DeletedtheG69Inserted a