Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs Provision: South Down

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on .

MLA
Mr Andrew McMurray
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
14 May 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Adjournment
Heading
Special Educational Needs Provision: South Down
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4490447

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank my associate Member for South Down for bringing this item forward for debate. At the outset, we must keep education and welfare outcomes for children at the forefront of our thoughts. I think that we would all, to a person, speak about trying to ensure that every opportunity for education is maximised. Also of note is the dedication of the staff involved and how they best deal with the complex needs of individual children to ensure that they have positive educational experiences. From a personal point of view, I certainly associate myself with the comments that Cathy made about St Malachy's and the other schools too. In my previous role — I have referenced it before — I worked as an instructor in an outdoor learning centre. Primarily, we dealt with schools that wished to avail themselves of a residential outdoor centre for their pupils. As such, I worked with many a school that had children with special educational needs in their mainstream classes and those which had special educational needs classes on their own, and I also worked with special schools that came to the centre. That was always very rewarding work. Indeed, when I read the Hansard report from when the issue was debated previously — it was tabled by a party colleague — I noticed that some of the schools that were referenced were schools that I have worked with. In fact, coincidentally, I know that it is not in South Down, but I was due to be working with Lisanally Special School before my career took a very abrupt turn, but anyway. It is hard to know where to start when it comes to SEN provision because it is such a gigantic and wide issue, but perhaps the simplest place to begin is to say that it has been known for a number of years, as was noted by the Department of Education in response to a question, that:

"Future years are the problem, based on the extent of underfunding that is proposed in the draft Budget. It is a concern, which is the case right across our budgets."

The underinvestment in special education and complex needs has been commented on since 2009. Indeed, I have a constituent whose professional career has involved being in the special school education system, and these issues have been highlighted to me for a long time. We have the best intentions of providing education for children with more-complex needs, but the practical provision and training for that is sometimes lacking. Indeed, the first remark that one teacher of a special school made to me when learning of the capital investment plan that the Minister recently announced was, "Whilst it is good news, it is now just a small matter of getting the staff to work on it". We appreciate that. Once in the system, it is extremely challenging for parents to navigate that system. As described to me, it is a very prolonged and arduous process. As one parent put it to me, "Nothing has been given. Everything that we have received has had to be fought for", and it got to the point where that parent essentially established their own informal forum to help other parents navigate the system. There is a direct correlation between early assessment and the gaining of a statement, which leads to positive educational outcomes for the child in question. Again, I quote:

"insufficient access to Educational Psychology Services has a negative impact on the early referral process".

The practical outworkings of that are that a school will receive an educational psychologist for a grand total of 22 hours a year, yet a single assessment might take up to nine hours to complete. It is a finite resource. Once that assessment and need has been established and accounted for, the process of getting the child to school can prove difficult, as Diane Forsythe touched on, when the means of transport is not available. I touched on capacity in the system. Schools have had their numbers increased, yet they remain on a site that was not designated for such a number. Schools have essentially reached capacity to the point where they can no longer accept new admissions, which, in turn, means that children have to be transported out of their area to receive schooling adequate to their needs. As with many issues, there needs to be an inter-agency approach and cross-departmental working to achieve positive outcomes. Inclusion and diversity are important for children in the education system, but, to achieve that, the system must be given the resources, training and funding. The difficult part, given the pressures that we are under, is that we need time to get it right. I thank the Member for South Down for securing the Adjournment debate. The outcomes for young people with complex educational needs must be kept to the forefront of our efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues in other parties to help achieve that.

831 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: 0.03 (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).
  • 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

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 framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.99
No identity-related subject0.01
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 10:27 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