Written question AQW 41093/22-27
Written question by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 20 February 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 41093/22-27
- Department
- Department of Education
- Business
- To the Minister of Education
- Assembly identifier
- Document 472446
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Education, in respect of Classroom Assistants employed by the Education Authority (EA) to detail, (i) the number engaged on Temporary Engagement Forms, in each of the last five years, broken down by EA region; (ii) of those staff, the number who subsequently became permanent under the Fixed Term Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002; (iii) the number (a) of Classroom Assistants engaged on Temporary Engagement Forms; and (b) subsequently made permanent under the Fixed Term Workers Regulations, who were offered the option to enter into a Term Time Agreement, either at the point of engagement or upon becoming permanent; (iv) any policy and legal basis for any decision not to offer Term Time Agreement options to those cohorts; and (v) a breakdown of the estimated £10 million cost of extending Term Time Agreement options to all affected staff, including the assumptions, staff numbers, grades and time period used in that calculation.
160 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 | 0.88 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.09 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 06:05 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.