Member's statement: Lisneal College: 20th Anniversary

Member's statement by Mr Gary Middleton on .

MLA
Mr Gary Middleton
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
3 February 2025
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Lisneal College: 20th Anniversary
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4773597

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise to speak about an issue that has been raised in the media over the past couple of days in relation to Lisneal College, which is in my constituency. I had already been planning to make a statement in the Chamber on the success of Lisneal College, which has just marked 20 years since its formation. The school has been through a decade of positive transformation and has gone, as one BBC headline put it, from inadequate to award winning. It has been leading the way on new initiatives, most recently the mobile-phone-free initiative, which has received widespread positive recognition. The principal was recently named "Head Teacher of the Year in a Secondary School" in a prestigious UK-wide award. Many pupils go on to continue the school's record-breaking achievements throughout their learning, and the school continues to work closely with the community sector. Those are positive points about Lisneal College. It is deeply regrettable that a small section of the media and some politicians have chosen to try to tarnish that reputation by shining a negative light on Lisneal and calling into question the processes that it, like other schools across Northern Ireland, has followed. As has been stated publicly, Lisneal College continues to grow and develop, having doubled its intake in recent years. With over 1,000 pupils, it is inevitable that facilities must be restored, renewed and expanded. The project in question relates to the provision of sporting and physical educational facilities in the school in a process that began almost six years ago. The process has been through the business case and planning stages, just like all projects would be expected to. The notion that funding was awarded due to some backroom deal is not only inaccurate but completely offensive. It is also a shameful attempt at politicking and slander towards a section of our education community. The comments that have appeared across social media have caused much stress and hurt. The blatant sectarianism of some contributors online has done extreme damage. I ask those who engage in such behaviour to stop. As a former pupil of Clondermot High School, which went on to amalgamate with Faughan Valley High School to form Lisneal College, I remember the days of wearing the uniform in Londonderry and having to keep my head down and cover the badge just because of the school that I went to. Due to the leadership of the school and its teachers and the greater tolerance within the wider city, I am pleased that pupils are now walking with their heads held high. I have a proud record of working with all schools across my constituency. I urge all elected representatives to reach out, to get the facts and to focus on improving all educational facilities so that our children have the best chance in life.

471 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: 0.11 (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).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.98).
  • Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
  • 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 framing0.13No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.05No
Cultural grievance politics0.09No
Dog-whistle messaging0.09No
Controversy escalation0.17No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.31No
Overall judgement0.11At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.02
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.98
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.98
Education structures, integration and community division0.02
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:51 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