Motion or amendment: Failure of RAISE Programme in Tackling Educational Underachievement - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Failure of RAISE Programme in Tackling Educational Underachievement”
- Heading
- Failure of RAISE Programme in Tackling Educational Underachievement - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 415727
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Failure of RAISE Programme in Tackling Educational Underachievement - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘background’ and insert:
‘is often a significant predictor of educational underachievement; notes the high levels of additional per pupil funding provided to schools through the Common Funding Scheme to specifically target socio-economic disadvantage; acknowledges that a range of targeted interventions across government are required to give children and young people the opportunity to reach their potential; welcomes the allocation of over £20 million from the Shared Island fund to help tackle educational underachievement; further notes the conclusion of the Independent Review of Education Panel in their December 2023 report, that some schools with very high levels of disadvantage achieve excellent outcomes; highlights that the RAISE programme is designed to complement existing interventions and therefore focuses primarily on educational underachievement; further welcomes the fact that communities from right across Northern Ireland will benefit from the programme; regrets the absence of any system wide data at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 to better inform where the greatest educational disadvantage exists; and calls on the Minister of Education to implement the RAISE programme in a way which targets support to the children that, based on objective evidence, need it most.’
203 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 flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (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: Education structures, integration and community division.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.51 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.45 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:58 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.