As mentioned before, all teachers understand why the government reaches out to schools to counter radicalisation as schools are the one place where all youngsters come together. Teachers feel responsible for spotting signs and to report these signs to external parties but that is where their task ends (respondent 2 & 4). Most teachers think that schools can better stick to the preventative informative side of countering radicalisation, and to let the community, e.g. the police community support officer or a youth worker, take care of the curative side (respondent 1, 2 & 4). Respondent 3 believes the government can better focus on the critical early years in a child’s upbringing. Specifically, in what kind of environment they grow up in. Because “When you are an adolescent and you are in search of your identity, your environment is your frame of reference”. While only society as a whole can diminish the breeding ground for radicalisation and polarisation, schools can ensure youngsters do not fall into anonymity where radical views can develop (respondent 4). “Because you can only start to learn something when you are feeling safe and comfortable, when you know you are being noticed and your strengths and weaknesses are taken into account.” (respondent 1) Respondent 7 adds that a school, within the reach of its influence, needs to maintain an open attitude and to show there is a better way.
When the teachers were asked whether their task is feasible, they all replied that the state is asking too much of teachers. One the one hand, the state requires teachers to address several social problems, ranging from obesity to drug education. On the other hand, these
38
teachers are also expected to cover all the learning material. And, as a third of the teachers point out, the latter often proves to be a challenge in itself, especially with students that follow a low level of education. While all teachers do appreciate the freedom the government gives schools to draw up their own policy and implementation plan regarding the topic of radicalisation, two third of the teachers indicate that they would like to receive more steering from the government in this matter. Respondent 7, a school principal, elaborates: “Freedom is often understood by schools as: should I skip it or should I pay attention to it? In my opinion, that is not an ideal freedom. In this respect, the government can restrict this freedom a bit more by making clear what the priorities are and to provide support services”. This understanding of freedom is reflected in the responses of multiple teachers. “It is a problem of the entire country, so treat it as such and do not let schools figure it out themselves.” (respondent 5) Respondent 8 adds that schools can interpret their task regarding radicalisation differently and it can therefore be hard to determine whether a school actually fulfils its task in this respect. Yet, most respondents who support more steering also want to stay autonomous and decide for themselves on how to fulfil their task (respondent 2, 5, 7, 8 & 9).
Respondent 3 disagrees completely and states that government involvement should only be present at schools where radicalisation takes place. He believes radicalisation is context-specific and what a school needs, can vary from school to school. “A school makes an inventory of what is needed, and acquires it.” (respondent 3) But, as respondent 7 critically points out, most teachers will not choose for a radicalisation training as the issue is too far- fetched for most teachers. As a result there is a chance that some schools do not pay attention to the matter at all, which is regrettable according to respondent 2. While respondent 4 does appreciate the existence of the various online tools that are made available by the state on the topic of radicalisation, he does not believe it is necessary to bring up all the information in his classes. This freedom allows him to focus on the issues and subjects that are more pressing at his school. Respondent 5, on the other hand, was not aware of the online tools the government provides regarding radicalisation and thinks the government lets itself off the hook too easily:
“They can put the tools and information on the Internet, but there is so much written on various subjects related to my field, I cannot read everything. If you want me to pay attention to it, then come up with a plan and don’t shift the responsibility onto me, assuming I will look for it myself. Because I have enough on my plate already: the schoolbooks for next year.”
39
Respondent 2 likes the idea of inviting experts to give workshops to teachers. But this option is also not risk-free.
“The disadvantage of exposing all teachers to the subject, is that some teachers might start seeing things that are not there. For instance, when a Moroccan student, who is a bit of a rascal and in search for his identity, strongly disapproves alcohol usage by non-Muslims in his comments, I am afraid that some teachers will perceive his view as a sign of radicalisation instead of provocation.” (respondent 2)
The majority of the teachers do have the feeling that radicalisation is not something temporary as society is only getting more hectic and segregated (respondent 4). While some teachers mention they have received didactic training in the past, most teachers have not received training focussed on how to discuss sensitive topics such as polarisation, a multicultural society, radicalisation and other social problems (respondent 4 & 9). For that reason, it is important to look at the education of teachers as well. On the one hand, it is a matter for the school as they can facilitate dialogue between teachers to discuss these problems more openly and to share do’s and don’ts with each other (respondent 4, 8 & 9). Respondent 8 adds that the government can support schools by creating a teacher development fund in which teachers can share tips and tricks. On the other hand, the government can scrutinise the teacher education programmes and in that respect provide some guidance (respondent 4). Respondent 4 elaborates:
“When you have your teacher qualification you are able to act properly on a pedagogical and didactic level. This also allows you to deal with the different opinions that exist within a classroom. But it does not prepare you for the current chaos in the world and its societal problems (…) And I think it is important to be prepared that these tensions also emerge at school and how to handle this”.
Respondent 7 suggests to incorporate the subject of radicalisation in the curricula of various school subjects to make sure a school pays attention to the matter.
Another option that is mentioned by two third of the teachers, is to include the radicalisation topic in the new school subject citizenship education (respondent 1, 3, 7 & 8). Respondent 3 thinks the government made a mistake by linking themes such as democracy and the rule of law to the new school subject. According to him, citizenship is, just like
40
radicalisation, context-dependent and the content of the school subject can thus vary from school to school. Respondent 8 adds that the new school subject has more to do with attitude than with the structure of a state and related subjects. “In my opinion citizenship is all about how you handle yourself as a citizen in a globalising world. The attitude you adapt towards yourself and others.” The majority of the teachers agree that the issue of radicalisation can become part of a wider conversation, as long as the distinction between the two is clearly specified (respondent 1, 7 & 8).
However, most teachers are sceptical of new initiatives by the government (respondent 6). Respondent 4 believes citizenship education is just another label for social studies as the aim of both is to prepare students for a global society and the challenges of tomorrow. Several teachers mention a zigzag policy by the government on several fronts in which they launch a new project or policy, and terminate it before it can become effective. Three teachers mention as an example the social work internship for students. They cherished this initiative as it added value to the students’ perception of the world (respondent 1, 4 & 5). Yet, only a couple of years later, the government pulled the plug and schools were suddenly responsible for the costs themselves if they wanted to continue offering social work internships to their students. The teachers state they would rather have the government making clear choices and sticking to them to improve stability, than to renew the educational sector based on the latest trend or political agenda (respondent 1 & 5). “When there is a good, steady structure in the education sector, nowadays’ problems can be embedded within that same structure. This also counts for a social phenomenon as radicalisation.” (respondent 5)
4.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, the teachers’ perceptions on their assigned role in the Dutch state’s counter radicalisation policies have been examined. It became clear that there are different views among teachers about what radicalisation entails. This makes the question to what extent the teachers’ understanding of the phenomenon radicalisation affects their enactment even more pressing. Secondly, the teachers’ willingness to play a role in the counter radicalisation policies has been discussed. Teachers are divided when it comes to who should make such topics as radicalisation discussable among their students. Moreover, the skills of a teacher to make such topics discussable is often overestimated by policy makers as well as by colleagues, and affects the willingness to bring such topics up. The next section described the teachers’ capabilities concerning their role to counter radicalisation. Teachers use various strategies to find out about a student’s well-being and thoughts. Yet, most of them struggle to
41
make discussions with outspoken students constructive and believe their influence is limited. Also, some teachers think that their students are too young to radicalise and believe their students show provocation and adolescent behaviour instead. Nevertheless, when teachers feel out of their depth, they will not hesitate to involve third parties. To conclude, this chapter looked at the government’s support to help teachers fulfil their task to counter radicalisation. Teachers feel the government is asking too much of them and, even though they do appreciate their professional autonomy, believe the government should provide more steering to help them with their task. The next chapter will give an answer to the primary research objective of this thesis: how teachers perceive their assigned role in the Dutch’s state counter radicalisation policies and to what extent this influences the implementation of these policies.
42
Chapter 5: Conclusion
This chapter is divided into four parts. As the focus of this thesis is on the role assigned to teachers in the Dutch state’s counter radicalisation policies, the first section covers the most important results found in this study and provides an answer to the main research question:
“How do teachers at secondary schools perceive their assigned role in the Dutch state’s counter radicalisation policies and to what extent does that influence the implementation?”
Secondly, this chapter will discuss these results and their implications for theory and practice. The third section will discuss the limitations of this master thesis and to conclude, this chapter will look into suggestions for future research.