REVIEW INTO POSSIBLE WARNINGS to Dfe RELATING to EXTREMISM in BIRMINGHAM SCHOOLS
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REVIEW INTO POSSIBLE WARNINGS TO DfE RELATING TO EXTREMISM IN BIRMINGHAM SCHOOLS Introduction and background I was commissioned in June by the former Secretary of State to review whether or not the Department or its predecessors had received warnings relating to extremism in Birmingham schools, and how any such warnings had been dealt with. This review follows those of Peter Clarke, Ian Kershaw and Ofsted following the receipt of the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter in Birmingham in December 2013. These reviews, amongst other things, noted that warning signs about potential extremism in Birmingham schools had been missed by local agencies over a long period of time. The review was also prompted by a series of media reports and questions in Parliament about specific ‘warnings’ given to the Department, particularly in 2010, but also in 2008/09 and 1994. I have investigated all the instances of ‘warnings’ quoted in the media and elsewhere. I have also sought to identify whether there were any other cases over the last 20 years where the Department was made aware of issues relating to extremism in Birmingham schools. This has involved an extensive search of the Department’s paper and electronic records as well as discussions regarding individuals’ (both within the Department and outside) recollections of events. This report covers my findings and reflections on the handling of the individual instances under review. Where relevant, I have offered some suggestions about potential actions. In conducting the review I have sought to establish whether any warnings were missed, the factors that led to them being missed and therefore whether the right systems and processes are in place in the Department today to avoid similar issues occurring in future. The review has been carried out in accordance with the Civil Service Code, and in accordance with rules governing papers from previous administrations. Scope, conduct and evidence 1. I have focused on a 20 year period between 1994 and December 2013, and any warnings received by the Department for Education relating to alleged extremism in Birmingham schools during that period. This timeframe was selected because: o the earliest media report of a warning related to events in 1994; and o Peter Clarke’s report suggests that issues in Birmingham began to arise in the early 1990s. 2. I have not considered any events after the receipt of the Trojan Horse letter by the Department in December 2013. 3. I have considered: o what, if any, warnings were received; o what the nature of those warnings was; o whether those warnings were dealt with appropriately; and o what follow up actions were taken and whether these were appropriate, given the role of the Department at the time (see paragraph 10). 4. In undertaking the review, I have taken a wide definition of ‘extremism’, and looked into the sorts of issues highlighted in Peter Clarke’s report, including issues with school Governing Bodies and concerns around religious extremism and radicalisation. 5. I have looked in detail at the known instances where relevant information was brought to the Department’s attention about alleged extremism in Birmingham. A thorough enquiry process was conducted to seek to identify any such instances. At the beginning of the process the Department was aware of three instances (dated 1994, 2008-2010-pre election and 2010-post election). 6. The enquiry process involved: o contacting all Secretaries of State and Permanent Secretaries who had been in post since 1994 to ascertain if they had any recollections of the issue of extremism in Birmingham schools coming to light during their period in office; o issuing a call for evidence across the Department’s 3,400 staff, via 150 members of the Senior Civil Service; o commissioning targeted electronic record and email searches; o a search through the Department’s 820,000 pieces of correspondence received since 2003; o a search through the Department’s 250,000 historic paper files; o a search through the 454 consultations on the Department’s consultation database; and o interviews, including with current and former Ministers, Civil Servants, advisers and relevant third parties. 7. Inevitably when dealing with 20 years of records and memory there are some instances where there are discrepancies or gaps in the evidence or recollections are unclear. Where these occur I have taken account of them. Whilst every effort has been made to make the review comprehensive, it is of course not possible to log every exchange relating to Birmingham schools over this period, particularly as not all of them will have been recorded or filed. Some issues have also been identified with the Department’s records management. Steps will be taken to address these issues. Nevertheless, I am clear that the evidence and conclusions are robust. 8. I have not sought to identify instances relating to areas other than Birmingham. However, had the review uncovered issues elsewhere, these would have been investigated. 9. I have only looked at information received by DfE and its predecessor Departments. I have not considered information sent to other Government Departments or Government Offices. 10. Much has changed in the twenty years since the beginning of the period in question. In conducting this work I have taken account of the changing role of the DfE and its predecessor Departments during that time. In particular the period from 1994 to 2014 has been characterised by a shift from a largely Local Authority-managed education system to one in which national Government and the Department have taken an increasingly active role in aspects of the overall system and in individual schools. Findings 11. I have found no instances where direct warnings of ‘extremism’ in Birmingham schools were received by the Department and ignored. On a small number of occasions over the last 20 years the Department received information about these issues, but I have found that largely they were dealt with in line with the procedures in place at the time. I have not found any instances where Ministers, officials or advisers have acted inappropriately. I have found one instance (a letter received by DfE in 2013 about Alternative Provision – see below), where further specific follow-up action was necessary. 12. I have not found evidence of the Department having been warned about violent extremism in particular schools. The issues that have been raised with the Department are, however, similar to those raised in Peter Clarke’s report. They include warnings about, for example, difficult relationships between staff and Governing Bodies in particular schools, or potential narrowing of school curricula, and the fact that these sorts of issues have the potential to cause political, cultural and religious tensions in schools and their communities. 13. Whilst I have not found instances of warnings having been ignored or of individuals having acted inappropriately, I have found that the Department has lacked inquisitiveness about this issue, and that procedures could have been tighter than they were. Whilst this is an easy thing to say in hindsight, there is a marked contrast between, for example, how the Department responds to reports of child protection issues and how it has historically responded to reports of potential extremism. 14. Overall I find that in future the Department needs to be more vigilant, more inquisitive and have more robust systems in place than it has had in the past if in future it is to play its part in preventing and countering the issues identified in the Clarke Report. 15. I have found six instances where concerns were raised with the Department. A brief summary of each is provided below. o 1994 – The Department was contacted by Revd John Ray, who raised concerns with Ministers about extremist infiltration of Birmingham schools. Departmental records show that senior leaders in three schools in Birmingham wrote to education Ministers in 1994, copied to the then Prime Minister1, expressing their concerns about the extremist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir gaining an influence over schools in the city. This was reported by Sky News on 3 June 2014. A copy of the online story is attached at Annex 1. o 1997 – The Department received a letter and attached paper from Revd John Ray, setting out the pros and cons of state funding for 1 Although the letters were copied to the then Prime Minister, the DfE has no record of the letters having been brought to his attention. Muslim Schools. The letter made reference to Islamic radicalism and the role of schools in preventing it. The letter was addressed to the Secretary of State but was assigned to officials to respond to on the Secretary of State’s behalf. o 2008-10 – Records show that from 2008 the Department was aware of problems with the Governing Body of Moseley School in Birmingham, particularly the problematic relationship between governors and staff at the school (including the head teacher). The Sunday Express published a story about this on 8 June 2014. A copy of the story is attached at Annex 2. o 2010 – In May, immediately post-election, an email was received by the Department from a Birmingham resident, who was also an assistant head teacher (of an unspecified school). It reiterated concerns about some of the people who had been on the Governing Body at Moseley School. o 2010 – Post-election, a DfE Minister and officials met a Birmingham head teacher, Tim Boyes, on two occasions in 2010. The then Secretary of State was not aware of these meetings at the time. At both of these meetings, there was a discussion about the challenges that political Islam posed for schools in Birmingham. The discussions covered similar issues to those raised in the Trojan Horse letter.