Motion or amendment: Special Educational Needs and Disability - Investment and Transformation - Amendment 3

Motion or amendment by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .

MLA
Mr Daniel McCrossan
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
22 February 2024
Type
Motion or amendment
Business
Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Special Educational Needs and Disability - Investment and Transformation”
Heading
Special Educational Needs and Disability - Investment and Transformation - Amendment 3
Assembly identifier
Document 390211

Read the official Assembly record Open Data source

Text

Special Educational Needs and Disability - Investment and Transformation - Amendment 3

Leave out ‘an action plan that will be implemented urgently’ and insert after ‘produces’:

‘a costed action plan with measurable targets that will be published within the next six months,’

42 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:

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.95).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.99
No identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:50 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification