Community Cohesion and PREVENT: how have schools responded?

New research conducted by Ipsos for the Department of Education has explored the effect on schools and local authorities of implementing the duty to promote community cohesion and the extent to which schools are aware of, and undertaking activities to contribute to, the PREVENT strategy. Almost all schools (93%) are confident (very + fairly) about their understanding of the duty to promote community cohesion, with nearly three in five saying their understanding of community cohesion is a lot better since the introduction of the duty. In contrast, only 48% of schools say they are confident about their understanding of PREVENT. Confidence appears to be linked to the amount of training received. Selected key findings for the research are summarised below and the full report is available from the Department for Education website.

• Schools say they are doing more to promote community cohesion since the duty was introduced.
• Schools’ awareness of PREVENT is lower than their awareness of the statutory duty to promote community cohesion.
• Although many schools are active on PREVENT, the survey suggests it is seen as a lower priority than implementing the statutory duty to promote community cohesion. A sizeable minority of schools have no-one with formal, named or lead responsibility for PREVENT. By contrast, hardly any schools do not have a specific person responsible for their work relating to community cohesion.
• Differences in the amount of activity related to community cohesion between faith and non-faith schools are limited: perhaps more so than might be expected. Unsurprisingly, issues of faith and religion appear more of a concern for faith schools than for their non-faith counterparts. However, the approaches used to promote cohesion, monitor effectiveness and involve the broader community do not differ dramatically between faith and non-faith schools. Attitudes to PREVENT and approaches used appear broadly similar between faith schools and non-faith schools.
• To some extent, more ethnically diverse schools are more active on community cohesion but the picture is complex. For example, secondary schools’ perceived knowledge of ethnic origins and cultures appears greatest in both the most ethnically diverse schools (where presumably it is seen as a particularly pressing issue) and in the least ethnically diverse schools (perhaps reflecting a view that in a homogenous school there is little complexity to understand). Schools with ‘middling’ levels of ethnic diversity tend to claim the least knowledge.
• Schools in deprived areas and those in urban centres appear most active in promoting community cohesion: the amount that a school is doing varies more in line with these factors than with its degree of ethnic diversity.
• Almost all schools say they are using the curriculum to promote community cohesion. Typically this appears to be across a range of subjects. Use of the curriculum to build resistance to violent extremism is significantly less widespread: it is the third most-cited means of promoting community cohesion, but only the sixth or seventh most-cited means for pursuing the PREVENT agenda.
• Most schools have developed links since the duty was introduced. Most commonly these are with local charities or community groups, the police or another school. Schools in more deprived areas appear more likely to have developed links. Secondary schools are more likely than primary and special schools to say they have developed links with the police since the introduction of the statutory duty.
• Most schools would welcome more training on community cohesion, especially for teaching staff. Only slightly fewer think they need more training related to preventing violent extremism, but schools are more likely to want a lot more training about preventing violent extremism than about community cohesion.

Technical details

• Results are based on questionnaires from 804 schools in England: 321 primary, 348 secondary, and 135 special schools. Overall, 492 schools responded to the survey by post and 312 schools responded by telephone. Fieldwork was conducted from 10th February to 14th May 2010.
• Figures for primary, secondary and special schools have been weighted to match the profile of each phase/type of school in terms of: Index of Multiple Deprivation, faith or non-faith school, proportion of white/BME (Black and Minority Ethnic group) pupils, ethnic fractionalisation and settlement type. An additional weight based on the numbers of primary, secondary and special schools has been applied to the “all schools” data to make it representative of all maintained schools within England.