Ofsted has responsibility for monitoring the ‘Prevent’ duty in publicly funded further education and skills providers. The Chief Inspector commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) to undertake this survey to establish how well providers are implementing the duty. The survey focused on key matters outlined in the ‘Prevent’ duty guidance. Are providers ensuring that external speakers and events are appropriately risk assessed to safeguard learners? Are the partnerships between different agencies effective in identifying and reducing the spread of extremist influences? Are providers assessing the risks that their learners may face, and taking effective action to reduce these risks? Are learners being protected from inappropriate use of the internet and social media? To what extent are staff training and pastoral welfare support contributing to learners’ safety? The evidence in this report is based on survey visits to 37 further education and skills providers, combined with findings from 46 full inspections or monitoring visits between November 2015 and May 2016. HMI found considerable variation in how effectively providers have implemented the ‘Prevent’ duty. General further education and sixth form colleges, where the majority of learners were enrolled, had made more progress than the other types of providers visited. The majority of providers had implemented the ‘Prevent’ duty guidance well. However, some providers viewed the duty as a list of conditions just to comply with and have adopted a ‘tick-box’ approach. This goes against the spirit of the government’s guidance, which seeks to promote meaningful ways to reduce the specific risks of radicalisation and extremism for learners and the local community. In 13 of the providers visited, inspectors judged that the implementation of at least one aspect of the duty was slow when compared to other providers, or was well behind schedule. In two of the eight independent learning providers visited, not a single aspect of the ‘Prevent’ duty had been implemented. In these providers, learners’ safety was potentially at risk as leaders and managers lacked the understanding to develop risk assessments that identified accurately the possible threats to learners and the local community. Six of the providers visited had no arrangements in place to check the suitability of external speakers. Even in some of the 31 providers that had appropriate policies and procedures to check external speakers and events, these did not always work well in practice. Nine providers allowed external speakers onto the premises without following their own monitoring procedures. Too often, learners were potentially at risk because leaders had not ensured that suitable checks had been completed.
Ofsted has responsibility for monitoring the ‘Prevent’ duty in publicly funded further education and skills providers. The Chief Inspector commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) to undertake this survey to establish how well providers are implementing the duty. The survey focused on key matters outlined in the ‘Prevent’ duty guidance. Are providers ensuring that external speakers and events are appropriately risk assessed to safeguard learners? Are the partnerships between different agencies effective in identifying and reducing the spread of extremist influences? Are providers assessing the risks that their learners may face, and taking effective action to reduce these risks? Are learners being protected from inappropriate use of the internet and social media? To what extent are staff training and pastoral welfare support contributing to learners’ safety? The evidence in this report is based on survey visits to 37 further education and skills providers, combined with findings from 46 full inspections or monitoring visits between November 2015 and May 2016. HMI found considerable variation in how effectively providers have implemented the ‘Prevent’ duty. General further education and sixth form colleges, where the majority of learners were enrolled, had made more progress than the other types of providers visited. The majority of providers had implemented the ‘Prevent’ duty guidance well. However, some providers viewed the duty as a list of conditions just to comply with and have adopted a ‘tick-box’ approach. This goes against the spirit of the government’s guidance, which seeks to promote meaningful ways to reduce the specific risks of radicalisation and extremism for learners and the local community. In 13 of the providers visited, inspectors judged that the implementation of at least one aspect of the duty was slow when compared to other providers, or was well behind schedule. In two of the eight independent learning providers visited, not a single aspect of the ‘Prevent’ duty had been implemented. In these providers, learners’ safety was potentially at risk as leaders and managers lacked the understanding to develop risk assessments that identified accurately the possible threats to learners and the local community. Six of the providers visited had no arrangements in place to check the suitability of external speakers. Even in some of the 31 providers that had appropriate policies and procedures to check external speakers and events, these did not always work well in practice. Nine providers allowed external speakers onto the premises without following their own monitoring procedures. Too often, learners were potentially at risk because leaders had not ensured that suitable checks had been completed.
How_well_are_further_education_and_skills_providers_implementing_the__Prevent__duty.docx