Written question AQW 40210/22-27
Written question by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 February 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 40210/22-27
- Department
- Department of Education
- Business
- To the Minister of Education
- Assembly identifier
- Document 470524
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Education, pursuant to AQW 39043/22-27, to detail (i) any research, including any international evidence, his Department has considered regarding the impact of widespread use of digital technologies, including AI and generative language models, on pupils’ foundational literacy, critical thinking and core skills; (ii) whether he has taken account of recent policy developments in countries such as Sweden, where government reports and international assessments have noted digital screen use and over-reliance on classroom technology as correlated with classroom distractions, and declines in performance that have led to renewed emphasis on traditional literacy materials; (iii) any specific measures his Department has put in place to ensure technology in schools does not inadvertently undermine pupils’ development of core skills in reading, writing and critical analysis; and (iv) whether guidance, issued or planned, will explicitly address risks to basic literacy and numeracy associated with digital over-reliance.
147 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.93 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 05:50 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.