Motion or amendment: Recognition and Support for Young Carers in School
Motion or amendment by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 31 January 2023
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Recognition and Support for Young Carers in School
- Assembly identifier
- Document 386159
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Recognition and Support for Young Carers in School
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to take forward the recommendations from the Action for Children’s Young Carers’ Education Research; and to update the school admission process to identify young carers to allow for the provision of appropriate recognition and support.
52 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
- Ms Kellie Armstrong – record
- Mr Danny Donnelly – record
- Ms Connie Egan – record
- Mr Peter McReynolds – record
- Mr Nick Mathison – record
- Ms Kate Nicholl – record
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.48 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.28 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:45 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.