Member's statement: Shared and Integrated Education Capital Funding

Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .

MLA
Mr Matthew O'Toole
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
26 February 2024
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Shared and Integrated Education Capital Funding
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4230540

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I associate myself with the remarks about Chris Nicholl. I will speak about the news that emerged at the end of last week — shocking and unacceptable news — that shared and integrated education capital funding, totalling, it appears, £150 million, has been removed from 10 schools in Northern Ireland. I should declare an interest: I am a parent of a child who is at one of the affected schools, Forge Integrated Primary School, which was expecting to be funded. As a serving MLA and someone who follows the policy, it was shocking that I and, indeed, other parents found out that the money was being cut because we received emails from the principals of the affected schools. I have been in touch with the principals in my schools in South Belfast, including Millennium Integrated Primary School. That is a brilliant integrated primary school just outside Carryduff that had been expecting to build a new 14-base classroom and a two-class nursery. The school was also expecting to invest in special educational needs provision. This case goes far beyond South Belfast. It is shocking news, and we will seek answers from not only the Minister of Education and the UK Government but other Executive parties, because it comes after a whole range of other bits of information about the agreed financial package has leaked out. Let us face it, this was leaked or sneaked out. It was not based on an official announcement from the Minister or the Department. Boards of governors were contacted in private and given the information. That, in itself, is unacceptable, but it is also unacceptable that £150 million that was designed to be allocated to shared and integrated education — that should be a priority for all of us in the Chamber as something that we are all signed up to support under the agreement and subsequent legislation — is being cut in private and in secret. We need to know how the decision was made to reallocate the funding, which parties and Ministers knew that it was going to happen and why the Assembly was not told and had to wait until the information was sneaked out to parents, via an email, so that they could find out what was happening. What other important projects are going to lose funding as a result of the reallocation? What has been waved through by Executive parties in the rush to deal with these things? It is completely unacceptable. I hope that we get more clarity from the Education Minister on how the decision was taken, who knew that it was being taken and what will be done to support those integrated schools and shared projects that are expecting to build facilities.

454 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.13 (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 (0.89).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.07No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.04No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.07No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.89Yes
Overall judgement0.13At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.01
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Education structures, integration and community division0.98
No identity-related subject0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 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.

Challenge this classification