Debate contribution: School Refusers
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- School Refusers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4749824
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I do not have the precise figures, but the Member highlights an issue that is of concern and on which we are proactively engaging. If you are not in school, you are not able to gain the benefits of that educational environment. Driving up attendance rates is an important issue for us. The situation has been exacerbated as a result of COVID and the lockdown approach. Those who advocated lockdown, denying children the opportunity to be in a school, have a lot of questions to answer about why they took that approach. We are living with the outworkings of that, where children and families have been impacted on. The attendance figures are significantly lower now than they were pre-COVID. To encourage Members, Knockmore Primary School in my constituency has a scheme called HERO, which stands for here, every day, ready and on time. It is a competitive process by which classes drive up their attendance levels. There are updates every week, with assemblies in which good attendance is rewarded. The measures that that school is taking have increased the level of attendance. I do not have the particular figures, but that is an area that we are actively working on.
200 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 (0.72).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.71 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.27 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:47 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.