Debate contribution: RAISE: Failure to Tackle Educational Underachievement
Debate contribution by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 5 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- RAISE: Failure to Tackle Educational Underachievement
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4631625
Read the official Assembly record
Text
For too long, our children from the most deprived economic backgrounds have been failed by our education system. The reality of the divide between grammar schools and secondary schools means that those with the ability to give their children private tuition tend to do so. We already know from research at home and internationally that those at the lowest end of the socio-economic divide begin to lag behind their more affluent peers at an early age and that the gap in attainment only widens as their education progresses. The RAISE programme proposes an intervention model to help lift those at risk of underachievement, and it is a most welcome scheme. I understand that the expert panel that drafted the proposal did so in good faith and sought to tackle the problem in this jurisdiction. However, serious questions are apparent and have echoed around the Chamber today. How is it that a school that educates overwhelmingly middle-class children from aspirational, well-heeled and high-income homes has been designated for inclusion in the scheme while some of our most struggling and challenged schools have not? It is still unclear how that has happened. It simply does not make sense that a fee-paying prep school that charges £5,000 a year in fees has been included whilst a school in west Belfast where over 70% of the students receive free school meals has not. When researching the matter, I came across information about some schools that have not been included, such as West Winds Primary School in Newtownards, where 71% of pupils receive free school meals, and Holy Cross College in Strabane, an area that I used to represent, where 35·3% receive free school meals. Universally, as discussed, it is recognised that economic background is the biggest determining factor for educational achievement and career prospects. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are delivered on the basis of objective need. It cannot be the case, especially in these challenging times when budgets are so tight, that millions are allotted to schools when every normal indicator suggests that they are not in acute need of those funds. We have heard from some school leaders that, as it stands, the RAISE scheme punishes poverty and rewards wealth. There are profound issues about how the money has been allocated. It is of the utmost importance that some kind of reassessment of eligibility is done. The Executive must be seen to take action and lift up those who are objectively most in need first, not those who come from wealthy backgrounds in the North and clearly do not require the intervention that is provided by the programme. The SDLP supports the motion and the amendment, as we feel that it calls for change, enhanced transparency and collaboration with the Minister at the Education Committee. I am of the firm belief that the Committee is a fantastic tool for scrutinising effectively and learning more from the Minister. I think that we all agree that having the Minister there so that we have the ability to ask questions and seek answers will be beneficial for us all. I hope that we can agree today to remodel the RAISE scheme in such a way that it delivers for our most vulnerable young people. Beyond that, it is crucial that we ensure that the funds that we have are adequately spent on those who are most in need.
569 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: 0.07 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:30 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.