Motion or amendment: Curriculum Mainstreaming and Strategy for Outdoor Learning in Schools
Motion or amendment by Mr Nick Mathison on .
- MLA
- Mr Nick Mathison
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Committee Motion
- Heading
- Curriculum Mainstreaming and Strategy for Outdoor Learning in Schools
- Assembly identifier
- Document 458460
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Curriculum Mainstreaming and Strategy for Outdoor Learning in Schools
That this Assembly commends the Committee for Education’s stakeholder engagement, partnership with the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and research into outdoor education in schools; recognises the many inclusive learning and development benefits of outdoor education; further recognises the urgent need for all schools to have the opportunity to realise these benefits; calls on the Minister of Education, by the end of 2026, to define and embed weekly, progressive and sustainable outdoor learning opportunities as a core component of the curriculum for pupils aged 3-18; and further calls on the Minister to develop, with the sector, an outdoor learning in schools strategy which regenerates this pedagogy by addressing systemic factors within the education system to do with leadership support, time, curriculum, policy and resourcing and to make it easy to go outdoors.
141 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: 0.02 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.78 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.12 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:17 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.