Debate contribution: Support for Deaf Children
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Support for Deaf Children
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4604159
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the motion from UUP colleagues. It has certainly been an interesting debate so far. In Northern Ireland, children should already have access to a teacher of the deaf — that has been reflected on already — and an educational audiologist, regardless of their level of deafness, where they are educated or when that need is identified. We know, and Ms McLaughlin has just highlighted, that deafness is not a learning disability and that, given the right support and help, children can at least match pace with hearing children and, in many cases, outperform them. The majority of deaf children are educated at mainstream schools, yet it is the undisputed case that many deaf children do not achieve the same academic outcomes as their hearing peers. That is certainly something in which all Members would like to see an improvement. One of the key interventions that ensures that deaf children can succeed is that they are, obviously, taught by very skilled teachers, who can adapt teaching methodologies and materials to accommodate individual strengths and needs. Again — I have reflected on this before in many other speeches — the earlier the intervention, the better the educational outcomes in the end. A further aspect that I noticed when I was preparing this research is that deaf children can achieve better academic results when teachers and families have high expectations of those children. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Helen Ferguson, who is the head of policy and influencing at the National Deaf Children's Society, said:
"Children’s expectations are being limited unnecessarily. Teachers and ... parents have a lot of assumptions ... about jobs that deaf young people can and can’t do. There are deaf doctors, deaf pilots, deaf people working in construction, there are a whole range of jobs open to deaf people. We need to raise expectations, encourage children to follow their passions and not be bound ... by any assumptions."
Northern Ireland has certain advantages over the rest of the UK. It has one single, unified sensory service, which is located within the EA. As has been noted, however, availability of support can be patchy across the Province. I recognise the excellent work done in this field by the previously referenced National Deaf Children's Society, which supports all the deaf children in Northern Ireland and their families. A number of other local organisations work in this area. Action Deaf Youth recently came to my son's school to highlight communication methods with deaf or hearing-impaired children. The read-out that I got was that the session was "really good". I thank every teacher of the deaf in Northern Ireland who works with those amazing children and their families. Today, your work has not gone unnoticed — you are having a really significant impact on children's lives. I welcome the chance to speak in the debate. It seems that the Chamber is wholly united in its support for deaf children and their families.
493 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 (0.83).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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 11:25 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.