Motion or amendment: Fresh Start Funding for Integrated Education Capital Projects
Motion or amendment by Mr Nick Mathison on .
- MLA
- Mr Nick Mathison
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Fresh Start Funding for Integrated Education Capital Projects
- Assembly identifier
- Document 390735
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Fresh Start Funding for Integrated Education Capital Projects
That this Assembly reaffirms its commitment to the facilitation and growth of integrated education as set out in the Good Friday Agreement; notes the Department of Education’s duty to meet the demand for the provision of integrated education within the context of the overall sustainability of the school estate as set out in the Integrated Education Act 2022; welcomes the support of the Independent Review of Education for expanding integrated education; believes that integrated education is fundamental to transforming our education sector, with both societal and financial benefits, and is vital to building a more shared and reconciled community; regrets the UK Government’s decision to remove ring-fencing from £150m in Fresh Start funding for new build integrated education projects; further notes the Minister of Education’s letter to the Secretary of State requesting funding for Fresh Start projects; calls on the UK Government to reverse its decision; and further calls on the Minister to seek to recommit capital funding to support new build integrated education projects as a matter of priority.
178 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
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: 0.08 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:51 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.