learner close the webpage. The learner showed no remorse about what she had done. The learner received no support or counselling from the college and was not reprimanded in any way. The college reported the incident as a ‘Prevent’ incident through the Channel process without an internal investigation. The college felt that the issue was the responsibility of the Channel team and did not take any responsibility as to how the learner managed to access the site. The best providers visited had a range of strategies in place to ensure that learners were safe while using IT. These strategies included: closely monitoring IT usage in real time, in order to identify and address inappropriate use of IT, at which computer and by whom tracking IT use on guest log-ins risk-rating learners and sampling IT access daily reports to senior leaders of attempts to access inappropriate websites developing stringent firewalls with external providers sharing data regarding ‘popular’ contentious and blocked websites that learners had attempted to access with police ‘Prevent’ teams as part of local intelligence gathering. More than a third of providers did not liaise with external agencies such as Jisc to develop IT policies and firewalls. Jisc provides guidance and support to further education and skills providers in writing IT policies and in developing firewalls for computer systems. It is named specifically in the ‘Prevent’ duty guidance. The best providers have liaised closely with external agencies such as Jisc and have stringent firewalls in place. In these providers, learners reported that internet safety was strong but sometimes felt frustrated that firewalls were too restrictive. However, learners understood that it was to keep them safe while using IT. Learners could access blocked websites if they provided the IT team with reasons for accessing the sites: for example, research for history, politics, theology or public services. Conclusion The focused visits and routine inspections were conducted at a very early point following the ‘Prevent’ duty becoming mandatory. It is still early days and providers still see the implementation of the ‘Prevent’ duty as a work in progress. Providers now must work more quickly to ensure that learners are protected against the threats of radicalisation and extremism. We have seen through the good practice identified in this survey that proactive providers were fully prepared for the implementation of the ‘Prevent’ duty. The whole of the
learner close the webpage. The learner showed no remorse about what she had done. The learner received no support or counselling from the college and was not reprimanded in any way. The college reported the incident as a ‘Prevent’ incident through the Channel process without an internal investigation. The college felt that the issue was the responsibility of the Channel team and did not take any responsibility as to how the learner managed to access the site. The best providers visited had a range of strategies in place to ensure that learners were safe while using IT. These strategies included: closely monitoring IT usage in real time, in order to identify and address inappropriate use of IT, at which computer and by whom tracking IT use on guest log-ins risk-rating learners and sampling IT access daily reports to senior leaders of attempts to access inappropriate websites developing stringent firewalls with external providers sharing data regarding ‘popular’ contentious and blocked websites that learners had attempted to access with police ‘Prevent’ teams as part of local intelligence gathering. More than a third of providers did not liaise with external agencies such as Jisc to develop IT policies and firewalls. Jisc provides guidance and support to further education and skills providers in writing IT policies and in developing firewalls for computer systems. It is named specifically in the ‘Prevent’ duty guidance. The best providers have liaised closely with external agencies such as Jisc and have stringent firewalls in place. In these providers, learners reported that internet safety was strong but sometimes felt frustrated that firewalls were too restrictive. However, learners understood that it was to keep them safe while using IT. Learners could access blocked websites if they provided the IT team with reasons for accessing the sites: for example, research for history, politics, theology or public services. Conclusion The focused visits and routine inspections were conducted at a very early point following the ‘Prevent’ duty becoming mandatory. It is still early days and providers still see the implementation of the ‘Prevent’ duty as a work in progress. Providers now must work more quickly to ensure that learners are protected against the threats of radicalisation and extremism. We have seen through the good practice identified in this survey that proactive providers were fully prepared for the implementation of the ‘Prevent’ duty. The whole of the
How_well_are_further_education_and_skills_providers_implementing_the__Prevent__duty.docx