Written question AQW 18878/22-27
Written question by Mrs Cathy Mason on .
- MLA
- Mrs Cathy Mason
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 27 November 2024
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 18878/22-27
- Department
- Department of Education
- Business
- To the Minister of Education
- Assembly identifier
- Document 419398
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Education (i), in order to assess the areas of objective need, whether his Department calculated the average deprivation points of the wider catchment area of each Sure Start provider or used the multiple deprivation measure to determine need based on the address of the Sure Start provider; (ii) to detail the formula used to determine the Sure Start providers that were eligible for the expansion; and (iii) for a comparable list of the average multiple deprivation points for each provider when (a) the average points of the catchment area is taken into account; and (b) when only the address of the Sure Start provider is used.
111 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: 0.04 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.81 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.17 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 02:28 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.