Debate contribution: Curriculum Review: Consultation
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Curriculum Review: Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5638338
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is exactly why there is a 16-week consultation period, rather than the normal 12 weeks or the minimum eight weeks; to allow the public and teaching profession to very much engage in that curriculum, which I commend to all Members. The curriculum was developed through 13 subject working groups: over 70 local teachers, some of whom, I am sure, were from the Member's constituency, from every sector, including controlled, Catholic maintained, integrated, all put forward their support to develop the new curriculum. It is their curriculum, not mine. I was not involved in any of the of the subject working groups or the drafting of any of the curriculum, so there was no political involvement on my part. I therefore commend what we are trying to achieve with the curriculum to the profession and to wider society. The Member is right that the most recent curriculum was published over 20 years ago. It was the wrong curriculum. We took a wrong turn. It was not an effective way of trying to impart the knowledge that we believe ought to be given to our young people. That is why Northern Ireland has gone down in all international measurements. We have poorer outcomes compared with many other countries, not least the Republic of Ireland, where pupils outperform pupils from Northern Ireland in nearly every area. Either we retain the status quo, which is failing, or make the change. The change has been enabled by the teaching professionals who were involved in drafting the curriculum, and now it is open to everybody to present their views before being finalised.
267 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: 0.06 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.93 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:07 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.