Debate contribution: Integrated Education: North Down
Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Question for Urgent Oral Answer
- Heading
- Integrated Education: North Down
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4738510
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Some Members want to put up quite the defence that says that 3% is a reasonable number of pupils from a minority community in an integrated school. Does the Minister agree that, if we were to abandon the test of reasonable numbers entirely, some would say that it would become difficult to identify why exactly the "integrated" label was attached to many schools — many good schools carry that label — relative to our other very good schools that are, as the Minister has pointed out, diverse, tolerant and working in all communities?
93 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: 0.25 (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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.67).
- 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 | 0.23 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.15 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.25 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.67 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.29 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.98 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:43 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.