Motion or amendment: Fresh Start Funding for Integrated Education Capital Projects - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 March 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Fresh Start Funding for Integrated Education Capital Projects”
- Heading
- Fresh Start Funding for Integrated Education Capital Projects - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 393137
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Fresh Start Funding for Integrated Education Capital Projects - Amendment 2
Leave out all from ‘duty to’ and insert:
‘aim to meet the demand for the provision of integrated education within the context of area planning and 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 the extension of parental choice to the option of attending an integrated school or a jointly managed community school within a multi-sectoral context; believes that integrated and shared education are fundamental to our education sector, with societal benefits, and are 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.’
183 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: 0.10 (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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | 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 08:52 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.