Debate contribution: Integrated Education: Fresh Start Funding for Capital Projects
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Integrated Education: Fresh Start Funding for Capital Projects
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4267041
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As a preface to my comments, I want to repeat words that I have said in the House many times.
We all aspire to having a Northern Ireland that is more peaceful and more prosperous and where our children can learn and play together; to having a society in which we value education as the means to a good job; to providing for our families; and to having a decent standard of life, irrespective of our perceived religious, social or political background. I am not blind to the need to make changes to our education system so that it can be more inclusive and provide greater opportunity for those who face barriers in accessing education and so that it is more connected to the needs of the modern economy.
Today's motion arises out of the considerable anger at the reallocation of £150 million of Fresh Start funding by the UK Government, and that anger is understandable. There must be disappointment for the schools impacted. It must, however, also be acknowledged that, in the overall funding stream, nine new-build projects will be completed, including New-Bridge Integrated College in my constituency of Upper Bann. There are a number of issues with the motion that I will highlight as being inaccurate. The motion talks about the:
"Department of Education's duty to meet the demand for ... integrated education",
and I see that the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee repeated that inaccuracy. The law states, in section 5(1) of the Integrated Education Act:
"A reference in any provision of Northern Ireland legislation to support for integrated education"
is defined as:
"aiming to meet the demand for the provision of integrated education within the context of area planning and the overall sustainability of the school estate".
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I absolutely agree. Accuracy is really important so that we are not throwing around words but talking about what the law states, law that was made in the House in the previous mandate. The law is clear that the Department must aim to meet the demand. That is extremely important to the need for sustainable schools, area planning and the allocation of capital funding. Schools in the controlled, maintained and Irish-medium sectors are all in significant need of funding, and the Minister has a duty to ensure equality of treatment for those sectors. It is therefore extremely important that we understand what the law states. As I said, this is law that was made in the House in the previous mandate. The motion further:
"welcomes the support of the independent review of education for expanding integrated education",
and there is no doubt that the independent review is supportive of integrated education. It is, however, equally supportive of shared education and, indeed, of community schools with shared ownership. The chair of the independent review of education, Dr Keir Bloomer, told MPs at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently:
"There is a serious problem in the recent Integrated Education Act in that it places new obligations on the Education Authority and the Department of Education that are nearly incompatible with ... fairly dealing with all the sectors for which they are responsible."
We must value all schools equally, and there are many good examples of genuine integration in schools throughout Northern Ireland. That principle of choice and diversity must be respected. The controlled sector is one of the most integrated sectors; in fact, it is more integrated in some schools than the integrated sector.
No, I want to finish, and I am running out of time It is one of the most integrated sectors that we have, but it is really important that we treat our schools equally and that parental choice be respected in how we deal with schools in the House. I have visited many of my local controlled and maintained schools, and their needs are just as great, in many cases greater. One school that I visited recently in my constituency has celebrated its 90th anniversary. It is in exactly the same building that was built for it 90 years ago, with no additional classrooms or facilities. The sensory room in that school is a disused disabled toilet with a screen around the toilet, and that is what children in that controlled school have to use. That is just not acceptable.
722 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: 0.28 (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 (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.92).
- 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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.10 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.28 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.97 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:48 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.