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

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 (0.96).
  • 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

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 scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Education structures, integration and community division0.56
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 subject0.05
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.04
Another identity-related subject0.04

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.

Challenge this classification