How the government can support schools in prevention/countering violent extremism?

What is the best way for the government to support schools in maintaining and

strengthening an overall approach to building resilience? The Radicalisation Awareness

Network (RAN) published a new article on May 2019, seeking to examine this issue from the

government's role in supporting the prevention and combat of violent extremism in EU

member countries. Named “Education and radicalization prevention: Different ways

governments can support schools and teachers in preventing/countering violent extremism”

was written by Lynn Davies and Zubeda Limbada, Co-directors of the social enterprise

ConnectFutures.

Paradoxically, initiatives need to be firmly embedded in government structures and

funding allocations, while remaining flexible to respond to events. Also, they must be rooted

in the school approach and consistent in different curricular and pedagogical activities.

However, the type of government support and its origins is variable and changeable across

the different states of EU nations.

Another topic about government duties in schools regarding violent extremism reveals

a dilemma. On the one hand, schools are expected to favor freedom of expression and to

provide a safe space for debate. By contrast, in some EU states, schools and colleges have

formal obligations to monitor and report possible cases of radicalization.

According to the authors, the needs of education in preventing and combating violent

extremism fall into four areas. (1) Dedicated funding for materials production, expert time

and training. (2) Targeted training to prepare teachers to handle responsibilities, ranging from addressing sensitive issues to identifying concerns related to extremism. (3) Knowledge and information to know what is available, the practices that have been tested and how to apply for intervention and funding. (4) Moral support to morally encourage teachers to carry out activities related to the prevention and combat of extremism.

However, several countries have reported concerns about the strategy still to be

addressed or those with continuing needs. The main areas of precaution are increasing

divisions and polarization, lack of urgency, a host of other concerns, lack of trust, variations

in need and support, and balancing freedom of expression with the duties of reporting behavior. Overall, they all refer to constant care about school safety and the protection of

students across a range of potential threats.

As a result, the authors certify that it is difficult to make generalizations and recommendations as to what constitutes government support to meet these needs. The studyalso reveals that in this field inspiring practices cannot be carried across countries, but it is possible to point out some prerequisites that underpin rigorous effective strategies. These are the need for national action plans, ongoing analysis and understanding of the threat itself, the role of education and the need for school-wide approaches, partnerships, consultation and teamwork at local levels, continuity of funding, protection and early warning and case evaluation.