An 11-year-old primary school pupil was referred to the government’s controversial counter-radicalisation Prevent programme after a teacher mistook the word “alms” for “arms” during a classroom discussion. The boy’s teacher asked what pupils would do if they found themselves in possession of a lot of money. According to a legal challenge against the school lodged by the boy’s parents, he said he would “give alms to the oppressed”. The teacher interpreted this as “give arms to the oppressed” and made the Prevent referral. When police received the referral they said there was no substance to it, no sign of radicalisation, extremist views or any threat to national security and closed the case. The boy’s parents are taking legal action against the school, accusing it of applying a stereotype about his racial and religious background. It calls for a written apology from the school, the payment of damages and the expunging of the Prevent referral from the boy’s record. Attiq Malik of Liberty Law Solicitors, representing the boy’s family, called for the Prevent programme to be scrapped and said it was simply not working. “Criminal legislation and safeguarding policies have always existed to protect the public and vulnerable members of our society. There is no need for a policy which is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.” The case has similarities to others that have hit the headlines including a nursery worker thinking a four-year-Muslim child had drawn a picture of his father with a cooker bomb when he was referring to a cucumber and a 10-year-old Muslim boy who misspelled the word “terraced” as “terrorist” to describe the kind of house he lived in. The boy’s father, an engineer and company manager, and his mother, a dentist, say they are distraught as a result of the Prevent referral. They are concerned that even though the case was swiftly closed by police in Warwickshire and West Mercia, the referral will stay on their son’s file and the information will be passed on to the grammar school the boy is due to attend in September. “This has had a massive impact on us as a family. My wife hasn’t slept properly since this happened. We want answers and we want justice. All pupils should be treated equally and with integrity,” the boy’s father said. He said it was particularly distressing that the school had not discussed the Prevent referral with the family before making it. The referral the school made, seen by the Guardian, states that the boy “lives with mum and dad – attends a local mosque”. In response to a question on the referral form about whether consent was obtained before sharing the boy’s personal data the teacher who referred the boy wrote: “Work in school – have not contacted parents.” According to government guidance on Prevent, consent from the person involved should be obtained wherever possible before sharing information about them. It adds that the necessity and proportionality of a referral should be assessed taking into account the risk to the individual and to other members of the public. The school has described the child as “a highly intelligent 11-year-old boy”. His father says that he reads widely. The Prevent referral states that his comments are starting to stick out as “non-typical” for a boy his age due to his interest in medieval history, war, siege engines and soldiers. The boy’s father says his son is involved with charity work such as helping him pack food parcels at the local interfaith food bank. He added that he often stayed behind after school to help his teacher clear up the classroom. Dr Layla Aitlhadj, the director of Prevent Watch, said: “Historically, the government response has been to play down such incidents as misapplications and anomalies that can be fixed. However, such cases show quite the opposite: that Prevent injects suspicion and discrimination deep into the imagination of frontline workers to the detriment of Muslims.” The headteacher of the boy’s primary school said: “It would not be appropriate for me to comment publicly on individual children, but as a school, we do everything we can to keep all our pupils safe and well. We have a moral and legal responsibility to seek specialist advice from many different professionals as required.”