Motion or amendment: Restrictive Practices in Educational Settings
Motion or amendment by Mr Nick Mathison on .
- MLA
- Mr Nick Mathison
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 June 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Committee Motion
- Heading
- Restrictive Practices in Educational Settings
- Assembly identifier
- Document 443506
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Restrictive Practices in Educational Settings
That this Assembly acknowledges the painful, ongoing debate and campaign for minimisation, if not eradication, of restrictive practices in schools and other education settings; applauds parents for bringing this subject to the awareness of the Assembly and the public; commends the efforts of the Department of Education, Department of Health and partners in working to establish guidance for use in both health and education settings; calls on the Minister of Education to commit to guidance and training that is non-discriminatory, person-centred and in the best interests of the child, namely from a human rights perspective; further calls on the Minister to repeal Article 4(1)(c) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, and make other appropriate legislative changes, to respond compassionately to the difficult circumstances which can arise due to pupils’ challenging behaviours; calls on the Minister to undertake data gathering and monitoring and to review the special school and wider school estate to address the environmental factors which exacerbate distressed and dysregulated behaviours by pupils; and further calls on the Minister to commission an update to the 2013 Education and Training Inspectorate report on persistent and challenging behaviours in special schools and to provide a safe school environment in which the human rights of everyone in the school community are respected and avoidable harm liability is not a concern.
224 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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: 0.06 (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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:07 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.