Debate contribution: RAISE: Failure to Tackle Educational Underachievement
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew McMurray
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 5 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- RAISE: Failure to Tackle Educational Underachievement
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4631629
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the RAISE programme. Educational underachievement is a serious challenge for Northern Ireland, and it is correct that the Department is taking steps to tackle it. The substantial funding that has been set aside for the programme is appropriate. The RAISE programme is an important step on the road to raising achievement for all learners in Northern Ireland, and there are many things that are good and excellent about it. First, I am pleased to see that the programme broadly reflects the recommendations made by the expert panel on educational underachievement. Evidence-based interventions are effective interventions. I am always ready to support policies that are based on independent expert advice and high-quality evidence. Another positive about the RAISE programme is its whole-community and place-based approach and its emphasis on community-based partnerships. The expert panel strongly recommended a place-based approach because it is an effective model that has been applied successfully within and outside Northern Ireland. That is based on two important insights: first, that drivers of underachievement interact in unique ways in different places; and, secondly, that underachievement cannot be tackled successfully without involving the wider community in which it is happening. Place-based, whole-community programmes promise greater cooperation at a local level and create greater collective impact. I also like the fact that the eligibility criteria for RAISE are based on a multiple deprivation model. The drivers of underachievement in Northern Ireland are incredibly complex. Research has shown that many factors are involved. Gender, free school meal entitlement, religion, special educational needs (SEN) status, school type and area deprivation are all associated with differences in achievement, and different factors can amplify one another. At the same time, it is true that associations with socio-economic status are particularly well supported by evidence. A recent report on child poverty by the NI Audit Office found that, at every stage of education, poorer children experience poorer outcomes. The NI Executive's children and young people strategy states:
"social disadvantage has the greatest single impact on educational attainment."
The attainment gap between pupils in receipt of free school meals and other children also remains substantial, according to another NI Audit Office report. In light of that evidence, it is puzzling to see some very deprived areas excluded from the list of RAISE locations. For example, the list of RAISE areas includes not a single area in my constituency of South Down or the neighbouring Strangford constituency. That means that a huge area of south-east Down is getting zero investment under the scheme. Newcastle, Downpatrick, Ardglass, Kilkeel and Warrenpoint are areas in my constituency with high levels of deprivation compared with other areas of NI, yet they are currently excluded from the RAISE programme. Those areas also have high percentages of children in low-income households. As a whole, South Down ranks among the five constituencies with the highest percentage of child poverty in Northern Ireland. It is fantastic to see such a state-of-the-art programme implemented to benefit our children across Northern Ireland, and scrapping it outright would be an absolute shame and akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Developing a whole new programme would further delay the support that our children in the most deprived areas so urgently need to thrive. I cannot support that. However, it seems to me that the eligibility formula may need some tweaking. In its current form, the resulting allocation does not seem equitable. I therefore call on the Minister to urgently review the criteria for targeting the RAISE programme. Those criteria must ensure that funding is directed to benefiting the children and young people who are most impacted by socio-economic deprivation and who experience the highest level of underachievement. Eligibility must be based on objective need.
620 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.56 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.26 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
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.