Member's statement: School Absences
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 March 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- School Absences
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4269465
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. You have left the best to last, I just know it. It has been great to see so many young people and schoolchildren in the Public Gallery of late. Some have just left. I want to talk about chronic school absence. From September 2017 to June 2018, 1,731 pupils had an absence level of 50% or greater. Of those, 523 pupils missed over 80% of school. That was from September 2017 to June 2018, but look at what happens with lockdown philosophy. Figures on absence levels for pupils from September 2021 to June 2022 show that 4,145 pupils had an absence level of 50% or greater. That is 4,145 compared with 1,731. Of those 4,145 pupils, 1,280 missed over 80% of school. It is vital to put those numbers on the record, but they do not show the full picture. Look at the absence level for pupils who missed a lesser degree of school. In 2018-19, 23·6% of pupils had at-risk levels of attendance, which means being absent from school for 5% of the year or more. In 2022-23, that figure rose from 23% to 29%. For pupils suffering from chronic levels of attendance, which means 10% or more, it was 11·8% in 2018-19, but that percentage rose to 19·3% in 2022-23. The proportion of pupils suffering severe chronic levels of attendance, which means being absent for 20% or more — still a significant amount of missed school — was 4% in 2017-18 and 2018-19. In 2022-23, the percentage was 8·7%. Each of those measures has at least doubled. We sacrificed our children's education and development for a "Stay at home" message. That is utterly shameful.
282 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 (0.82).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.78 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.13 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:46 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.