Bell Review another expansion of Prevent?

Two weeks back I received a steady stream of messages and emails all asking what the Bell Review might mean and whether this is yet another expansion of Prevent.

Contents

When one form of racism is singled out When a mention of Prevent is enough When children’s views are treated as a risk When Prevent only looks one way Where this leaves families Also read

BACKGROUND

This latest 'independent review' was led by Professor David Bell, the former Chief Inspector of Ofsted
Its terms of reference extended beyond anti-Semitism to examine political impartiality in schools and the influence of campaigning organisations
Bell's first recommendation was embedding the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism more firmly into school guidance and training
The review faced criticism over its limited survey sample and its endorsement of the IHRA definition, which has long been contested over its treatment of criticism of Israel
Bell himself attracted controversy after suggesting that Muslim schools could put Britain's social cohesion at risk, raising further questions about the review's approach to faith schools
Despite the government's stated commitment to tackling both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hostility, Muslim pupils have not been afforded a comparable review into the racism and hostility they face in schools

The review was commissioned by the Department for Education in March 2026 to look at anti-Semitism in schools and colleges in England, after the Community Security Trust recorded 204 school-related anti-Semitic incidents the year before. [1] It was published in October; the government accepted all 27 of its recommendations, and Recommendation 8 names Prevent explicitly. Taken as a whole, though, the review is a problem for reasons that go well beyond Prevent alone.

Every child has the right to be safe from racism at school, whatever their faith, ethnicity, or ability, and schools are already legally bound to make that happen. The Equality Act 2010 requires them to tackle harassment and foster good relations between pupils of different backgrounds, and they must have behaviour, anti-bullying, and safeguarding policies that deal with prejudice of every kind. [2a] [2b] [3] Even the duty to promote “fundamental British values” — a label we have long criticised because these are shared values with nothing specifically British about them — includes “mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”. [4] If schools apply these duties properly, they already protect Jewish children, Muslim children, and every other child in the building.

When one form of racism is singled out

So why a separate review for one form of racism? In fact, it was announced in the same week as Protecting What Matters, the government’s social cohesion plan under Sir Keir Starmer, which committed to tackling both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hostility. [5]

At a time when anti-Muslim hate is at record levels [6], the decision to commission a schools review into only one of the two sends its own message about whose safety is treated as a priority. The answer to that is not a matching review for Muslim pupils. Separate rules for separate groups would only deepen the divide, when what children need is the single anti-racism duty schools already have.

The more immediate concern is that much of what Bell proposes takes guidance written for all pupils on “racism and discrimination” and adds “including anti-Semitism”. [7] When guidance meant for every child singles out one form of racism, teachers can only conclude that some racism matters more than others, which is exactly the kind of hierarchy against which the National Education Union has warned. [8]

The review has drawn criticism on other fronts too, from its small survey sample and its backing for the IHRA definition to Bell’s own remarks when the then Ofsted chief stated in 2005 that Muslim schools could put “our coherence at risk”. [9a] [9b] [9c] For Prevent Watch, the pressing question is what the review means for Prevent, and for children.

When a mention of Prevent is enough

Recommendation 8 asks the Home Office and the Department for Education to “expand Prevent advice” on when anti-Semitism “may be indicators of radicalisation risk”. It creates no new powers or duties, and Bell surrounds it with caveats, recording evidence that “Prevent does not work effectively for anti-Semitism” and accepting that it “becomes relevant only when there are signs of potential radicalisation into terrorism”. [7] Bell also stopped short of recommending a ban on political symbols, which in practice usually means Palestine badges and flags, leaving it to school leaders to judge the “time, place, and manner” of political expression. [7] On paper, then, nothing in the review supports referring a child to Prevent for showing support for Palestine, which was the fear behind so many of the messages I received.

But we have seen this pattern many times before. A concern is raised in a review or inquiry, often with careful caveats, and over the following months it trickles down into guidance, training, and inspection until it shapes what happens in classrooms across the country.

The Trojan Horse Affair is the clearest example. In 2014 an anonymous letter claimed there was an Islamist plot to take over a handful of schools in Birmingham. The letter is now widely regarded as a hoax, and the professional misconduct cases later brought against senior teachers collapsed. [10] But by then the damage was done. Within months, every school in England was required to promote “fundamental British values”, Ofsted began inspecting schools against them, and by 2015 the Prevent duty had placed a legal duty on all schools to prevent pupils from being drawn into terrorism. [4] [11] An unproven allegation about a few schools in one city became a national framework that still shapes how Muslim children are seen in the classroom.

The same thing happened with William Shawcross’ review of Prevent in 2023. It claimed the programme had not taken Islamism or anti-Semitism seriously enough, and within months that framing had been written into new Prevent guidance for schools and other public bodies. [12a] [12b] Recommendation 8 of the Bell Review now picks up where Shawcross left off, and there is no reason to think it will stay confined to the cautious wording of the report.

The caveats rarely survive that journey. When government links Prevent to a subject, referrals go up because staff who are unsure tend to refer rather than risk being blamed later. We saw this after October 2023, when the Metropolitan Police reported around 70 referrals in London in six weeks, including many young people and first-time referrals, while the Home Office described the same period as showing “little difference” and still does not record how many referrals concerned support for Palestine. [13]

Behind those figures are the families we support. Children have been referred for wearing a Palestine badge or having a flag painted on their face. One 10-year-old was referred for an essay he wrote about Palestine, and although the referral was closed as unnecessary, it took his family more than a year to get his data removed. [14] Families tell us their children stop talking about Palestine at school afterwards, and Amnesty International has found the same fear of being flagged more widely. [15] So when parents and organisations write to me worried about the Bell Review, they are going by what they have already seen happen to children they know.

When children’s views are treated as a risk

That fear is made worse by Bell’s call for new guidance on political impartiality, because it is easily misunderstood. The impartiality duty falls on schools and teachers, not on pupils. [2a] [2b] [16] Children are entitled to hold strong views about Gaza and Israel and to say them out loud, and the government’s own guidance says schools “should not prohibit conversation” about political issues. [2a] [2b] A pupil’s view can be discussed and challenged, but it is not something to report, and a pupil who says the occupation is unlawful is simply repeating what the Foreign Secretary told Parliament on 8 September 2026. [17]

Where the impartiality duty does apply is in what schools present to pupils and who they invite in to present it. The government’s guidance allows schools to work with outside organisations, but says that “under no circumstances” should those organisations try to engage pupils in political activity. [2a] [2b]

That raises questions nobody seems to be asking. StandWithUs UK, for example, offers programmes to schools and youth groups for 14- and 15-year-olds and sixth formers, which it says are designed to develop “young advocates” for Israel. [18] Training children to advocate for a state whose occupation the UK government now calls unlawful is, on any reasonable reading, engaging them in political activity. Yet there has been little concern about this from those who worry most loudly about political influence in schools.

In addition, the review’s terms of reference asked about the “influence of campaigning organisations” on schools, and the debate around it has focused almost entirely on pro-Palestinian parents, staff, and campaigners. [19] A child wearing a badge is treated as a possible safeguarding concern, while a structured programme to turn pupils into advocates for one side of the same conflict goes largely unremarked. Bell himself notes that nearly 70 per cent of Jewish children are now taught in Jewish schools. [7] Those schools are bound by exactly the same impartiality duty as every other, in how they teach about Israel and in which outside organisations they invite in.

When Prevent only looks one way

This one-sidedness runs through Prevent itself. Prevent is meant to cover any ideology that can lead to terrorism. [12a] [12b] In that same statement on 8 September, the Foreign Secretary said there is ethnic cleansing in parts of the West Bank “perpetrated by settler terrorists”, and the UK has already sanctioned settler groups such as Hilltop Youth and Lehava as extremist. [17] [20] These groups are driven by an extreme Zionism, and if the government calls their violence terrorism, then on Prevent’s own logic that ideology falls within its remit.

Yet while pressure groups urge the government to classify anti-Zionism as extremism, no one has asked the same question the other way. [21] Prevent Watch is not calling for Prevent to be turned on Jewish children, or applied more evenly, because we oppose it for every child. The point is that Prevent has never been the neutral safeguarding tool it claims to be. Who it focuses on is shaped by politics, and on Israel and Palestine its attention has only ever fallen on one side.

Where this leaves families

So, to answer the question I have been asked so often this past fortnight: the Bell Review does not give schools any new power or duty to refer children to Prevent. But that is not the whole story. A review like this puts schools under pressure to be seen to act, and in our experience that pressure rarely produces careful judgment. Since October 2023 we have seen schools react to pupils’ conversations about Palestine, and about Israel’s genocide in Gaza with suspicion, sanctions and, in too many cases, Prevent referrals. Nothing in the law required any of those responses. They happened because staff felt they had to be seen to do something.

There is a real risk the Bell Review will lead to more of the same. A child who wears a Palestine badge or speaks about Gaza has done nothing the review, or the law, treats as a sign of terrorism. If your child’s school responds as though they have, whether through a referral, a sanction, or being told to stay silent, we encourage you to challenge it and to tell us about it. Recording these cases is how we show the pattern, and how we hold schools and government to account for it.

Racism against any child should be dealt with through the duties schools already have. Prevent has nothing to add to that, and we will keep saying it has no place in schools.

If your child has been referred to Prevent, or you are worried they might be, contact Prevent Watch for free and confidential support.