Debate contribution: Schools: Mobile Phone Pilot Scheme
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 1 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Schools: Mobile Phone Pilot Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5581160
Read the official Assembly record
Text
OK. I had intended to group my answers to questions 6, 10 and 12. I do not think that I will get to respond to all the Members — apologies — but, because the three questions relate to the latest position on the Department's mobile phone pilot scheme, my response will address them together. The mobile phone pilot in nine post-primary schools across the Province formally concluded at the end of March this year. I sincerely thank all the school leaders who engaged in it. Their feedback was hugely positive. King's College London is carrying out an independent evaluation. I believe that the benefits of that important scheme will be clearly articulated.
When I attended the official opening of St Ronan's College in Lurgan, which, with 1,800 pupils, is one of the largest schools in Northern Ireland , the principal and the staff highly commended the intervention and spoke about its transformative impact, for many different reasons, on the school environment. I am conscious of time, Mr Deputy Speaker.
169 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.37 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.80 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.14 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:43 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.