Debate contribution: Programme for International Student Assessment
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Programme for International Student Assessment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4498486
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In comparison with other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, results in Northern Ireland were significantly above those of Wales and not so different from those of Scotland. However, Northern Ireland's scores fell significantly below the average scores in England. Scores in England have dropped across all subjects since 2018, but the differential was less than in other UK regions. An OECD analysis of the PISA 2022 results across the 81 participating countries found that, in spite of challenging circumstances, 31 countries and economies managed to at least maintain their performance in mathematics since PISA 2018. Among those, five countries maintained or further raised already high levels of student performance. Those systems, which were in Australia, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Switzerland, showed common features, including shorter school closures, fewer obstacles to remote learning and continuing teacher and parental support, and they can offer further insights and indications of broader best practices that can be addressed in the future. We have performed well, but my ambition for the next 10 years is that Northern Ireland will be the best-performing country in the United Kingdom. I want to see that change to how we deliver our curriculum so that, 10 years from now, we will be the best-performing country in the UK. That is my ambition and, I trust, the ambition of the House.
221 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: 0.03 (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 (0.69).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.90 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.10 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:55 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.