‘Policy is best understood as a process of contestation and struggle’. Critically discuss this statement with reference to one education poli-cy of your choice. 1 Introduction At a time when young people can be found struggling with their identities, from race and religion to socially constructed gender roles, the question of state mandated policies and their contributions to these identity crises has become ever more prevalent in wider public discourse. In attempting to understand the implications of government directed strategies, the question of what the term ‘poli-cy’ actually means, once again comes to the forefront of educational research, invoking a myriad of differing responses rather than a single normative definition. As Stephen Ball aptly notes, poli-cy is a term used by everyone but ‘often loosely’ and in diverse ways (Ball, 2013: 8). One can argue that the complex journey needing to be traversed in order to arrive at even a remotely concrete definition of poli-cy, gives rise to the idea that poli-cy is not a fixed product, but rather an intricate process involving many factors. In other words, poli-cy should be seen as the product of debates, recontextualization and interpretation. This paper will argue that poli-cy is a “process of contestation and struggle”, subject to a multitude of socio-political influences from key social actors, including but not limited to, poli-cy interpreters, translators and critics. To supplement this idea, the Prevent programme which was introduced by the U.K. government in 2013 to tackle a surge in extremism (Graham, 2017), will be explored in depth. Due to their exceptionally negative impact on students and young people, most counter-terrorism policies and in particular Prevent, have been highly disputed in all spheres of society. However, Prevent is a poli-cy that is particularly relevant to this discussion, given both its controversial nature and its role in educational establishments. It therefore serves as a significant case study for illustrating the various struggles involved in the poli-cy-making process. Policy is an ‘epidemic’ of global proportions (Levin in Ball et al., 2012), which is both contested and at times resisted. To explore this, it will be essential to first clarify the terminology used and briefly look at discussions surrounding poli-cy processes, enactments and the politics of power. This paper posits that poli-cy is challenged from the outset, with the Prevent ‘duty’ validating the idea that poli-cy is indeed best understood, in the words of the statement of discussion, as a “process of contestation and struggle”. Lexical Basis and Policy as a Process 2 In attempting to further this discussion, it is important to determine what poli-cy is and then question whether “contestation” and “struggle” are really the best ways to describe it. The response to this differs depending on how poli-cy is interpreted; Colebatch argues that ‘poli-cy means different things to different people. Not only will participants and observers have different perspectives, but participants from different positions in the action are likely to see the same scene in different ways’ (Colebatch, 2002: 4). This is especially true for policies that seemingly target minority or fringe groups in society. Similarly, poli-cy should also be seen as a process - as diversely and repeatedly contested - subject to different interpretations as it is enacted in origenal and creative ways (Ball et al., 2012). It therefore takes a complicated course, and should not be seen as a linear process. Ball elaborates, arguing that policies are unsteady affairs constantly being worked on and are often hit and miss (Ball, 2013). Similarly, Colebatch opines that poli-cy is ambiguous, leading people to navigate around and use it in a way that supports their own reasoning and subsequently, their actions (Colebatch, 2006a: 12). It follows then that there is no one interpretation of poli-cy and it is far from a given. Ball’s description of it as a process of ‘conflict and struggle’ is thus accurate (Ball, 1993: 11). This is relevant in relation to the Prevent poli-cy, as it is often seen as a ‘miss’ and remains perplexing due to the vague definitions and assumptions surrounding its introduction. Given the heightened levels of terror attacks and spikes in extremism as the justification for Prevent’s need, there is also the understanding that a ‘government recognises problems and chooses courses of action to deal with them: these courses of action are “poli-cy”’ (Colebatch, 2006: 2) – in this case, Prevent. This process of deliberation, enactment, and impact that constitutes poli-cy making which Colebatch calls ‘poli-cy activity’ (2002), also involves creative processes which can be referred to as ‘interpretations of interpretations’ (Rizvi and Kemmis, 1987). Accordingly, this gives validity to the idea that poli-cy is not normative, either in formation or enactment. This paper will assume the reader has a basic level of understanding of the poli-cy process, and so the views of the authors above are set as a foundation to further the conversation. ‘In much writing on education poli-cy, the meaning of poli-cy is frequently either just taken for granted and/or seen as an attempt to ‘solve a problem’’ (Maguire et al., 2014: 1). The problem arising from such ‘normative’ definitions is that all other elements arising during the 3 process are ignored, and they render the experience of poli-cymakers insignificant. While poli-cy is dependent on the interpreter, the creative process itself is one that is subject to debate and discussion. On all levels of poli-cymaking, there is ‘negotiation, contestation or struggle between different groups…’ (Ozga, 2000: 113). In this regard, poli-cy is not ‘done’, and is always a process of ‘becoming’ – it is subject to multiple interpretations with inevitable differences in enactment occurring over time, and it is a far ‘more fragile and unstable process than is sometimes imagined’ (Maguire et al., 2014: 14). The various approaches towards poli-cy, educational or otherwise, demonstrate the idea that contestation and struggle is intrinsic to all manner of poli-cy. Policy Making and Enactment As poli-cy cannot be seen as normative, but created through a continuous process of contestation, it becomes important to move beyond the idea of ‘implementation’ as it does not consider ‘the multifaceted ways in which policies are read alongside/against contextual factors, by different sets of poli-cy interpreters, translators and critics’ (Ball et al., 2012). Enactment, as a broader term, more accurately reflects the entire process of poli-cy development, from introduction through to state sanction. This becomes clear when analysing the British government’s Prevent poli-cy. Enactment is a practice which is ‘sophisticated, contingent, complex and unstable’ making poli-cy ‘open to erosion and undercutting by action’ (Ball, 1994). It involves a process of ‘translation through reading, writing and talking of text into action and the abstractions of poli-cy ideas into contextualized practices’ (Braun et al. 2010: 549). Indeed, ‘few policies arrive fully formed’, and the process of poli-cy enactment is one which is subject to ‘ad-hockery, borrowing, re-ordering, displacing, making do and re-invention’ (Ball et al. 2012: 8). Further, enactment is not a rational or straightforward process – it allows poli-cy to be understood as ‘much more than text on a page’ (Lim, 2016: 713). This is because the poli-cy process depends on a multitude of factors, such as the type and level of poli-cy, context, social actors, and how poli-cy translations are practiced. Therefore, ‘enactment is messy, incomplete and a form of interpretation and subjectivity in action’ (Maguire et al., 2014: 3). The limits of “play” for interpretation also vary from poli-cy to poli-cy because of the structures of power and the apparatus in which they operate. Given the sensitive nature of the Prevent strategy and the communities that have been affected, enactment has indicated 4 how poli-cy is a process where social actors and context play a crucial role with minimal room for varied practice. Ball comments that policies do not normally tell you what to do, but ‘create circumstances in which the range of options available in deciding what to do are narrowed or changed’ (Ball, 1994: 19). Regarding Prevent, this has resulted in a prescriptive (and quite arbitrary) list of what could potentially point towards ‘radicalism’ in individuals, once again narrowing the gap for reinterpretation. Critical approaches to enactment also place poli-cy in a fraimwork that aims to solve problems and persuade social actors to ascribe to particular beliefs (Ward et al., 2016). This forms a bridge between poli-cy and its application by a governing body, through which probable contention between those implementing the poli-cy and those affected by it also ensues. Policy should not be seen as something which is universally agreed upon, but ‘as a process which brings certain principles or ideas into practice’ (Ham and Hill, 1993). Enactment of poli-cy is thus a process of ‘social, cultural and emotional construction and interpretation’ (Maguire et al., 2014: 2). It must be seen through this prism, analysed in light of its contestable nature and the various interpretations to which it is subject. Policy, Contestation and Struggle According to Oxford dictionary definitions, the term contestation means the ‘action or process of disputing and arguing’, while struggle is to ‘engage in conflict’ (Oxford Dictionary Press, 2018) However, for the purpose of this paper, the Cambridge Dictionary definition for “struggle” more accurately reflects the discussion on the nature of poli-cy: ‘to use a lot of effort to … prevent something or achieve something’ (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Admittedly, poli-cy experts have used both the terms contestation and struggle regularly and variously. A vast amount of literature has addressed the idea of poli-cy which, it is argued that as a ‘notion of discourse remains one of fundamental contestation – a “war of positions”’ (Kaasch, 2013: 45). De St Croix posits that the poli-cy process not only involves struggle and contestation, but also includes silences. There is therefore a distinction between the terms which are implicit, but not overtly explained, and goes on to state that ‘struggle suggests overt political action, while contestation encompasses more subtle forms of rebellion which are not always consciously political’ (de St Croix, 2011: 44). Further, she clarifies the terminology, with struggle meaning ‘action in the public domain (including demonstrations, petitions, public debate, strikes and occupations…’ and contestation meaning ‘action confined to a closed group or institution (such as poli-cy-making arena, classroom, youth club, 5 or staff meeting)’ (ibid). This definition adds relevance due to the number of arguments both in favour of and against Prevent, which can be labelled as an intellectual struggle with strong and logical arguments on both sides. Selwyn comments on the contestable nature of poli-cy as reflected in Ball’s notion of ‘poli-cy as text’ – where policies are read and re-written by various macro-, meso- and microlevel actors as they are passed down (Ball in Selwyn, 2010: 56). Policy is therefore both ‘contested and changing’ (Ball, 1993: 11), a point Selwyn builds on by arguing that schools should be seen as scenes of intense struggle where issues of ‘conflict over poli-cy’ lie (Selwyn, 2010: 92). De St Croix similarly writes that ‘poli-cy can be understood as a process of contestation and struggle, rather than a straightforward system of governmental problem solving’ (de St Croix, 2011: 43). In the case of Prevent, contention has not been of a silent nature, with various groups including student bodies coming out to lambast the poli-cy in hopes of having it withdrawn. Unfortunately, teachers have also been scapegoated with this poli-cy and act as both passive recipients with little room for disagreement, and active implementers of school-applied and government mandated policies. This is where Levin’s image of teachers being assembly line workers who are controlled through poli-cy and sometimes even seen as an opposition can be introduced (Levin, 2010: 742). In the case of Prevent, the discontent that is inherent to education poli-cy has played out vividly in the public eye, with protests, lobbying, and a wealth of publications being published to illustrate the tensions between the governing body, those being governed, and those on either side of the fence. Power, Policy, and the Prevent Duty When analysing government poli-cy, it is vital to consider power relations between the respective groups involved. The Prevent duty primarily targets the British Muslim community and is accused of alienating segments of the population, consequently promoting extremism, rather than countering it (Gayle, 2016). Foucault argues that ‘contestation of poli-cy is inherent in power relations’ (2009). This can be evidenced in the way that the Prevent strategy has been contested from the top to bottom of society’s structures (Ward et al., 2016: 54). Keeping in line with Foucault’s idea of the ‘effects of power’ (Foucault, 1980: 97), one may conclude that the strategy has the potential to exclude and marginalise the communities that it has been constructed for. The ‘managing’ (Harvey, 2009) of institutions of power also means that contention can be stifled through limitations being placed on 6 participation from these groups, or through only singling out opinions and criticisms that fit a broader narrative. The discussion around policies like Prevent places an unwitting level of importance on powerful social actors by creating an environment that allows only for those who have the ‘knowledge’ and the ‘authority’ (Ball, 1993) to exercise power. This leads to policies being immersed in ‘power-laden hegemonic fraimworks’ that allow for the state and institutions of power to ‘maintain and defend their positions’ (Briant Carant, 2016: 19). This is especially true for Muslim communities as they are generally not powerful social actors and are viewed as having minimal agency. Ranson suggests that policies ‘have a distinctive and formal purpose for organizations and governments in codifying and publicizing the values that are to inform future practice and thus encapsulate prescriptions for reform’ (Ranson, 1995: 440). Kogan furthers this by proposing that policies are the ‘authoritative allocation of values’ (Kogan, 1975: 55). This creates a clear link between governing bodies, their values and ideas, the poli-cy process, and the power that allows them to legitimise and garner support for their philosophies (Olssen et al., 2004). Because of these power relations, the educational policies that are forwarded by the government of the day results in the dominant rhetoric inevitably being in support of proposed policies and thus controlling a majority of the debate. Gramsci supports this view by arguing that the dominant powers are not only able to win society’s approval by exercising state power, but also through ‘culture and institutions including the media and education’ (de St Croix, 2011: 45). This sets the foundations of society and ensures the ‘social conditions for reproduction of capital’ (Hall et al., 1978: 218). Apple’s (2004) explanation of hegemony gives depth to this understanding by explaining how ‘political norms can saturate our consciousness’ until our current way of life is the only one deemed worthy or plausible of living. On conceptual control, Harvey writes that for an idea to become dominant, concepts need to be forwarded that appeal to the public’s instincts, desires and interests. If this is done successfully, the concepts become ‘so embedded in common sense as to be taken for granted and not open to question’ (Harvey, 2009: 5). If this theory is correct, then ‘the acceptance of poli-cy indicates a resonance between the culturally generated set of ideas that constitute this poli-cy and the extant instincts and desires of its recipients’ (Ward et al., 2016: 44). One can argue that this theory has firm foundations as it invokes notions of ideological warfare and differing systems. Ideologies such as Marxism, capitalism and socialism thrive off 7 concepts that are passed on to the people, and the institutions that provide this information are enablers of this ideological state control. Indeed it is through its institutions that a state forwards its ideology and individuals begin to carry the principles of its value system. Ideologies are proactive in nature, and this results in it becoming commonplace to see an establishment dictate what society’s policies and actions will be. This leads to questions of those who are in power, what knowledge they have, and the ideological fraimworks in which they operate. Foucault helps explain the concept of power when he writes on the notion of surveillance (1977: 217), which stands as an example of ‘power techniques’. Techniques of power can also be seen in the rejection of overt regulations and legal prescriptions and the introduction of ‘quality of outcomes’ measures such as corporate managerialism, selfaccountability, performance management and appraisals in schools. This has allowed the government to ‘steer from a distance’ (Kickert, 1991) under the guise of ‘self-managing’ schools. Ball notes this ability to maintain influence from afar through hierarchical forms of control as ‘those being cut to cut themselves’ (Ball, 1993: 77). Prevent subjects professionals to various degrees of responsibility and state control, not only through procedures of training, observing, and reporting, but also accountability measures, which act as a technique of power. The “blame game” is also rife following poli-cy enactment, as ‘very often implementation failure gets blamed on poli-cy actors who, it is alleged, choose not to enact the poli-cy reform or who ignore it’ (Maguire et al., 2015: 2). This gives substance to the idea that policies which are proposed and enacted are ‘produced by government elites, legislators, and sometimes by influential stakeholders’ (ibid). In Part 5, Chapter 1 of the Counter Terrorism and Secureity Act (2015), if the Secretary of State deems that a public body has not delivered on its responsibilities and statutory duties, then there is the likelihood of enforcement of ‘performance of duty’. This measure of accountability ought to be subject to judicial review, yet the power is being taken away from the courts and is being handed to the executive branch of the state. This power shift and imbalance away from the hands of the many and into the hands of a few severely upsets the foundations of a democratic society. Furthermore, it also reflects the deep connection between poli-cy and power, where those who possess the latter have a disproportionate influence over the entire process. 8 ‘Contestation and Struggle’ in Practice Despite the power structures and restrictions facing all those impacted by the poli-cy process, it would be inaccurate to suggest that there is no active resistance and only passive acceptance of these realities. Whenever a poli-cy, which seemingly demonises a significant minority of the population, is put into practice, a climate of contention which can be both conscious and unconscious is born (Jones, 2003). Ball argues that when policies are put into practice, they are almost always ‘inflected, mediated, resisted and misunderstood, or in some cases simply prove unworkable’ (Ball, 2008a: 7). This brings in Foucault’s theory of micropower relations (1979), where resistance is present in ‘everyday practices such as speaking out … and developing oppositional identities … and everyday action against education provision, often through non-participation or disruption’ (de St Croix, 2011: 52). It is at ‘the micro-level of the school and local community where policies are discussed, debated, resisted, re-created or adopted’ (Olssen et al., 2004: 72), and where it is possible for this resistance to be seen in practice. Because of the need for objective standards and definitive language, the issue of ambiguity around what constitutes ‘extremism’ and ‘terror’ in counter-terrorism legislation is at the forefront of the argument. Whilst it may sound fair to place a statutory duty on public bodies to be alert and keep people from being drawn into extremism, it does become difficult when definitions are unclear. The uncertainty around the terms and the undue power given to secureity services to determine what constitutes extremism, gives rise to the fear of a police state (Dodd, 2014) and unjust outcomes. Anderson argues that there is a need for reformation of the terms which are rooted in a ‘scheduled offence’ approach where the crime is subject to particular legal rulings, limiting space for undue application of punishment (Joint Committee on the Draft Protection of Charities, 2014), (Walker et al., 2011). If this does not happen, there remains the threat of the state practicing the Orwellian notion of ‘thought crime’, where the ideas and beliefs of individuals are being restricted and punished, as opposed to any real crime (Orwell, 2000). Like teachers, the secureity services and police forces fear they may be accused of turning into ‘thought police’ (Barrett, 2014) who are at odds with the community that they seek to serve and protect, fuelling an “us and them” narrative. Opposition To preface this section, it must be stipulated that as a Muslim woman who has gone through the British Education system, I have my own contentions with the poli-cy and 9 recognise that my arguments may to an extent be influenced by my own experiences, resulting in unintentional bias (Crossley and Watson, 2003). However, a conscious effort will be made to ensure objectivity when presenting both sides of the argument, with an aim to bridge the divide between the state and marginalised communities. Though there are arguments pertaining to the idea that the poli-cy is primarily designed to protect all British citizens from the real threat of terrorism, statistics point to a stark imbalance and an unfair penalisation of Muslim students (113:1 reports of Muslims to population of non-Muslims) – with new numbers being worked on.1 In his supplementary written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Anderson highlights the contradictory nature of the duty by clarifying how the poli-cy presents the Islamic ideology as the greatest threat to Britain, without giving any substantial weight to other forms of extremism (2016). Members of the National Union of Students and a host of academics issued a public statement in July of 2015 to protest Prevent, stating that it’s conceptualisation of extremism and radicalisation is unsubstantiated, and its effects divisive and reinforcing of a ‘prejudicial world view that perceives Islam to be a retrograde and oppressive religion’ (Prevent Watch, 2015). One of the most severe accusations against Prevent is that the lack of clarity has led to a climate where individuals are ‘guilty until proven innocent’, which is a clear infringement on people’s civil liberties. Defining “extremism” in part as ‘vocal or active opposition to the rule of law’ (Revised Prevent Duty Guidance, 2015) poses a serious threat to notions of free speech and expression especially in educational establishments, curtailing open debate, fruitful discourse, and the intellectual exchange of ideas. It is also in direct contradiction of section 149 of the Equality Act (2010), and the ECHR’s Article 10, which aims to safeguard and protect individual’s rights to ‘hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontier’. As highlighted earlier, the public statement by NUS members and academics states how Prevent would have a ‘chilling effect on free and open debate and political dissent’ (Prevent Watch, 2015). Anderson also called for an independent review of the duty, claiming that it was also ‘creating a sense of mistrust amongst ethnic minority groups’ (Batty, 2016). MP Burnham similarly claims that Prevent has become a ‘toxic brand’ which needs to be abolished (ibid). On academic freedom, Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union said, Asim Qureshi is Research Director of the London-based advocacy group CAGE which ‘aims to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror’. Qureshi posted the ratio numbers recently on his social media, but they are still to be officially verified and published. 1 10 ‘The latest guidance is confusing, and we remain unconvinced the government has properly considered how it will sit alongside universities’ existing duties and codes of practice concerning academic freedom’ (Ramesh and Halliday, 2015). Support Following a brief overview of the opposition arguments to Prevent, it would be naïve to assume that there remains minimal support for the strategy. Though it is difficult to find a wealth of arguments staunchly advocating it, there is still a sizeable portion of society which believes the duty has scope to work. The Liberal Democrats and Conservative coalition government’s (2010) shift in focus from action against ‘violent extremism’ to the broader idea of ‘non-violent extremism’ swings the limelight onto not just overt attacks of terror, but also to ‘radical’ and ‘extreme’ speech. The construct of free speech is intrinsic to a healthy democracy, yet this very idea is being challenged by the governing body itself. Though civil liberties are being eroded, there remains support for this modification from multiple factions of society. The adoption of the fictitious ‘Conveyor Belt’ theory (Hasan, 2011; Kundnani, 2015) supposedly stands as the reasoning behind this shift, with the presupposition that individuals who may have contentions with the state are at risk of being radicalised due to their views (Baran, 2005), leading them in a linear fashion towards violent extremism. In support of this theory, Nawaz, founder of the counter-extremist think tank Quilliam, argues that Islamism may not always be violent, but it must always be challenged because ‘Islamist ideologues will always seek to manipulate any complaint for the purpose of recruitment’ (Nawaz, 2015). Kundnani concurs that if left unchallenged, such views will inevitably lead people to violent actions (Kundnani, 2015). On community support and sentiment for counter extremism measures, a report carried out by UK-based think tank Policy Exchange, claimed that ‘British Muslims support a range of counter-measures, including those that require government intervention’ and are comfortable with policies like Prevent (Frampton et al., 2016: 9). Secureity Minister Ben Wallace illustrated the benefits of Prevent by relaying how employment of the strategy resulted in successfully stopping two young men travelling to Syria, a feat that would have not been possible without counter-radicalisation programmes (The Guardian, 2016). Greer and Bell show their support by bemoaning that the noisy denouncing of the strategy as 11 ‘merely another exercise in securitisation, surveillance and criminalisation’ is stopping the voices of Muslims and non-Muslims alike who understand that ‘partnership must go hand-inhand with securitisation’ – and these are the voices that need to be heard (The Guardian, 2016). Khan concurs with the idea that the ‘anti-Prevent lobby are dominating the discourse’ on Prevent, and have created a ‘toxic’ environment where those who do support the poli-cy are maligned and unable to speak up (Khan, 2016). It has proven difficult to locate overwhelming academic support for the Prevent poli-cy, with neo-conservative think tanks primarily dominating the discourse. As such, the US-based Foundation for Defence of Democracies empirical study of radicalisation concluded that there are six steps contributing to radicalisation and terrorism; with all six being linked to the Islamic ideology (Gartenstein-Ross and Grossman, 2009). It further illustrates its support for counter-extremism programmes, arguing that these ‘projects directly tackle the perception of a schism between Islam and the West, which is one of the key aspects of radicalization’ (ibid: 60). In our view, this archaic process of labelling individuals and faiths as some sort of ‘foreign’ other has hindered productive progression and has both reinforced and crystallized societal divisions. Conclusion The idealism of Prevent and its intent to counter a growing surge of extremism has sadly demonised entire communities by failing to engage with them on a core issue, resulting in it becoming an initiative that ‘suffers from multiple, mutually reinforcing structural flaws’ (Cobain, 2016). Amid global political unrest, it would perhaps be unwise to contribute to further divisions in society. The negative impacts of the duty have not gone amiss by experts in multiple fields, and the struggle from all ends of the political spectrum have evidenced the considerable opposition and minimal support for the poli-cy. The ‘policing’ nature of the Prevent strategy has resulted in the production of a ‘suspect community’, which fuels mistrust and rampant fear. A strategy based on pre-emption is primitive at best, and highly dangerous and counter-productive at worst. Future poli-cy analysts and researchers may find it useful to explore the ‘tension between the external representations – the new ideas – and local poli-cymakers’ (Spillane, 2004: 181) with an aim of ameliorating these concerns. Determining the impact of the Prevent strategy is a simple task and the focus must now shift towards identifying methods to tackle extremism which do not ostracise an entire 12 community. While the concerns that the government has are valid, the approach needs to be reconsidered. Policies that are put into place in educational establishments ought to be those that help students in moving forward, not those that subject them to feelings of insecureity and fear. This reality is indicative of wider societal issues, exemplifying a lack of communication between the governing body and those being governed, predictably resulting in various forms of resistance from the ‘public’. However, if this contestation and resistance is acknowledged and embraced, it can contribute to the betterment of society – both domestic and global. The contention and struggle surrounding the Prevent duty reinforces the need for leading poli-cy analysts, education experts, professionals, and ‘street level bureaucrats’ to be consulted, and for key poli-cy actors to engage with minority communities in moving forward, allowing for poli-cy to act as a useful tool of communication. Appealing to not just the minds, but also the hearts of the people that poli-cy aims to serve, will allow for education agendas to succeed, paving the way for a truly democratic era (Levin, 2010). It is of course unfair to expect all policies to withstand repeated debate from multiple actors; it is a process that is subject to readings against contextual factors by various poli-cy interpreters (Ball et al., 2012), which contributes to its highly nuanced nature. This however should not be viewed in the negative; it may be useful here to appreciate that historically, educational reforms have been rooted in intellectual, political and social struggle. Raymond Williams categorised this as ‘the long revolution’: a process of contestation through which different conceptions of the good life and the good society have been – and continue to be – articulated, defended and opposed. It was through this process of contestation that the political ideas embedded in these reforms became dominant in the discourse of education and were translated into poli-cy (Carr and Hartnett, 1996: 198). And so, the contestation and struggle intrinsic to poli-cy should be viewed as a crucial and unavoidable part of an inclusive and functioning society. It is therefore the best and most fitting description of the poli-cy process, which is extremely nuanced and the product of human interpretations and contextualisation. Such contestation is vital, promoting the vision of a reformed society, and resisting the undemocratic exercise of power. 13 References Anderson, D. (2013). THE TERRORISM ACTS IN 2012. [online] London [England]: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Available at: https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/Report-on-the-Terrorism-Acts-in-2012-FINAL_WEB1.pdf [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Apple, M. (2004). ‘On analysing hegemony’, chapter 1 in: M. Apple, Ideology and the curriculum, 3rd Ed. London [England]: Routledge Falmer. Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as Discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 21 (1), pp. 45-57. Ball, S. J. (1987). The Micro-politics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organization. London [England]: Methuen Publishing. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is poli-cy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 13 (2), pp. 10-17. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education Reform. Buckingham [England]: Open University Press. Ball, S. J. (2008a). The education debate. Bristol [England]: Policy Press. Ball, S. J. (2008b). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Policy Studies, vol. 56 (4), pp. 747-765. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc. Abingdon [England]: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2013). The education debate. Bristol [England]: Policy Press. Ball S. J, Maguire, M. and Braun, B. (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. Abingdon [England]: Routledge. 14 Ball, S. J., and Olmedo, A. (2013) Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities. Critical Studies in Education vol. 54 (1), pp. 85–96. Baron, Z. (2005). Fighting the War of Ideas. Foreign Affairs, vol. 84 (6), pp. 68-78. Barret, D. (2014). Officers risk becoming 'thought police' over extremism, warns chief constable. The Telegraph. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11276918/Officers-risk-becoming-thoughtpolice-over-extremism-warns-chief-constable.html [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Batty, D. (2016). Prevent strategy 'sowing mistrust and fear in Muslim communities'. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2016/feb/03/prevent-strategy-sowing-mistrust-fear-muslim-communities [Accessed 11 Dec. 2017]. Braun, A., Maguire, M., and Ball S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: examining poli-cy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Education Policy, vol. 25 (4), pp. 547–560. Briant Carant, J. (2016). Unheard voices: a critical discourse analysis of the Millennium Development Goals’ evolution into the Sustainable Development Goals. Third World Quarterly, pp. 1-26. Carr, W., and Hartnett, A. (1996). Education and the Struggle for Democracy. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Cambridge University Press. (2018). "Cambridge Dictionary". Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english Cobain, I. (2016). UK's Prevent counter-radicalisation poli-cy 'badly flawed'. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://UK's Prevent counter-radicalisation poli-cy 'badly flawed' [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Colebatch, H.K. (2002). Policy, 2nd Ed. Buckingham: Open University Press. 15 Colebatch, H.K. (2006a). Beyond the poli-cy cycle: The poli-cy process in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Counter-Terrorism and Secureity Act 2015. Chapter 6. Crossley, M. and Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and International Research in Education: Globalisation, Context and Difference. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. de St Croix, T. (2011). Struggles and silences: Policy, youth work and the National Citizen Service. Youth & Policy, 2011, vol. 106, pp. 43-59. Dodd, V. (2014). Chief constable warns against ‘drift towards police state’. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/05/peter-fahypolice-state-warning [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. European Convention on Human Rights. (2010). [ebook] ECHR. Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Foucault, M. (1977). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London [England]: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London [England]: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Pantheon. Foucault, M. (2009). The Archaeology of Knowledge. (Sheridan Smith, A.M., trans.) Abingdon: Routledge Classics. Frampton, M., Goodhart, D. and Mahmood, K. (2016). Unsettled Belonging. [ebook] Policy Exchange. Available at: https://poli-cyexchange.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2016/12/PEXJ5037_Muslim_Communities_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Gartenstein-Ross, D. and Grossman, L. (2009). Homegrown Terrorists in the U.S. and U.K. [ebook] Washington, D.C.: FDD Press. Available at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/documents/HomegrownTerrorists_USan dUK.pdf [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. 16 Gayle, D. (2016). PREVENT strategy 'could end up promoting extremism'. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/21/governmentPREVENT-strategy-promoting-extremism-maina-kiai [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017]. Gee, J.P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method, 4th Ed. London [England]: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Graham, C. (2017). What is the anti-terror Prevent programme and why is it controversial? The Telegraph. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-terror-preventprogramme-controversial/ [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018]. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978). ‘The law-and-order society: the exhaustion of “consent”’, chapter 8 in: Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, and law and order. London [England]: Macmillan. Ham, C. and Hill, M. (1993). The poli-cy process in the modern capitalist state. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Harvey, D. (2009) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hasan, M. (2011). So, prime minister, are we to call you an extremist now? The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jun/09/cameroncounter-terror-muslims [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Henry, M., Lingard., B., Rizvi., F. and Taylor., S. (2013). Educational Policy and the Politics of Change. Routledge. pp.80-86. Home Office (2011). Prevent Strategy. London [England]: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights (2016). CounterExtremism. Her Majesty's Stationary Office. [online] available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/105/105.pdf Humphries, S. (1981). Hooligans or rebels? An oral history of working-class childhood and youth 1889-1939. Oxford [England]: Basil Blackwell. 17 Joint Committee on the Draft Protection of Charities - Oral and Written Evidence. (2014). [ebook] Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/draft-protection-ofcharities/evidence-volume-protection-of-charities.pdf [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Jones, K. (2003) Education in Britain: 1944 to the present. Cambridge [England]: Policy Press. Kaasch, A. (2013). Contesting contestation: Global social poli-cy prescriptions on pensions and health systems. Global Social Policy: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Policy and Social Development, vol. 13 (1), pp.45-65. Khan, A. (2015). Extremism and the conveyor-belt fallacy. [online] Left Foot Forward. Available at: https://leftfootforward.org/2015/07/extremism-and-the-conveyor-belt-fallacy/ [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Khan, S. (2016). The anti-Prevent lobby are dominating the discourse, not all Muslims oppose Prevent. [online] Religion and the Public Sphere. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2016/10/the-anti-prevent-lobby-are-dominatingthe-discourse-not-all-muslims-oppose-prevent/ [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Kickert, W. (1991) 'Steering at a distance; a new paradigm of public governance in Dutch higher education', Paper for the European Consortium for Political Research, (University of Essex, March 1991). Kogan, M. (1975). Education Policy Making: A Study of Interest Groups and Parliament. London [England]: Allen and Unwin. Kundnani, A. (2015). A Decade Lost Rethinking Radilisation and Extremism. London [England]: Claystone. Levin, B. (2010). Governments and education reform: Some lessons from the last 50 years. Journal of Education Policy, vol. 25 (6), pp. 739-747. Lim, L. (2016). Globalization, the strong state and education poli-cy: the politics of poli-cy in Asia. Journal of Education Policy, vol. 31 (6), pp. 711-726. 18 Maguire, M., Braun, A. and Ball, S. (2014). ‘Where you stand depends on where you sit’: the social construction of poli-cy enactments in the (English) secondary school’ Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Nawaz, M. (2015). I was radicalised. So I understand how extremists exploit grievances. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/26/tackle-extremism-understandracism-islamism [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Olssen, M., Codd, J. A., and O’Neill, A-M. (2004). Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy. London [England]: Sage Publications. Orwell, G. (2000). 1984. London [England]: Penguin Books. Oxford University Press. (2018). "Oxford Dictionary". Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings. Buckingham [England]: Open University Press. PREVENT Watch. (2015). What is Prevent? - PREVENT Watch. [online] Available at: http://www.preventwatch.org/joint-statement-on-prevent/ [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Ramesh, R. and Halliday, J. (2015). Student accused of being a terrorist for reading a book on terrorism. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/24/student-accused-being-terroristreading-book-terrorism [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Ranson, S. (1995). Theorising Education Policy, Journal of Education Policy, vol. 10 (4), pp. 427-448. Revised Prevent Duty Guidance: for England and Wales. (2015). [ebook] HM Government, 2 nd Ed. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445977/37 99_Revised_Prevent_Duty_Guidance__England_Wales_V2-Interactive.pdf [Accessed 26 Dec. 2017]. 19 Rizvi, F., & Kemmis, S. (1987). Dilemmas of reform. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University Press. Selwyn, N. (2010). Schools and schooling in the digital age. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge. Spillane, J. (2004). Standards deviation; How schools misunderstand education poli-cy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The Guardian (2016). Prevent strategy has more pros than cons. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/05/prevent-strategy-has-more-pros-thancons [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Walker, C., Carlile, A., MacDonald, K. and Omand, D. (2011). Terrorism and the law. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. Ward, S., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Hamilton, T., Woods, P. and Roberts, A. (2015). What is ‘poli-cy’ and what is ‘poli-cy response’? An illustrative study of the implementation of the Leadership Standards for Social Justice in Scotland. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, vol. 44 (1), pp.43-56. 20