Debate contribution: Supporting Learning Pathways for our Young People

Debate contribution by Mr Nick Mathison on 4 February 2025.

MLA

Mr Nick Mathison

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 February 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Supporting Learning Pathways for our Young People

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4779607

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We could summarise what has happened in the debate by saying that there has been broad agreement in the Chamber, from the signatories to the motion — I thank them for tabling it — to the Members who spoke to the DUP amendment, as well as from the Minister. There is not a lot between everybody's contributions. We probably all want to get to the same place, where we are offering a genuinely broad range of pathways for our young people in order to give them the opportunity to succeed. We are therefore into questions of emphasis at this stage. I understand from Sinn Féin's motion that it was keen to focus on one particular thing: how we fund provision at sixth-form age to ensure that schools are not incentivised to hang on to pupils, thus closing certain pathways for them. It was proposed as a first step in a process that we need to follow. The DUP amendment expands the motion to look at the Department for the Economy's role, which is absolutely essential. I suggest that our amendment broadens the motion most fully. The motion and amendment No 1 do not reference the 14-19 framework. There is a real need for collaborative working and to get to grips with the task of how to deliver on the aspirations of the 14-19 framework. The funding model is part, but not all, of that. I therefore hope that our amendment will get support on that basis. We do not have any great desire to divide the House, but, on balance, we will not be supporting the DUP amendment, purely on the basis that we think that ours offers the broadest possible approach to the issue. It has been a refreshing debate. We are all on the same page, which is not something that we can say about every issue. I will speak to the 14-19 education and training framework specifically, as that is the main focus of our amendment, which broadly aligns with everyone else's views on the other issues. That is crucial if we are going to deliver meaningful progress on offering a diverse range of educational and career pathways for our young people, but I think that everybody here would agree that progress on the delivery of that has been frustratingly slow. If we are going to deliver on it, we really need joint action from Education and Economy. Looking at some of the objectives that are set out in the framework, we would probably all agree that, as was highlighted in the independent review, we have not delivered progress on them. Some of the key objectives that were set out include the need to address the lack of parity between academic and vocational qualifications; to agree clearly the role and purpose of post-16 provision; to create access to qualifications that facilitate progression; and to have access to quality careers advice, which has been referenced by nearly every contributor. It seems as though we are still struggling to see any real progress in that regard. Schools and FE, as has been referenced, often compete for scarce resource. The post-16 landscape is still, unfortunately, dominated by progression to A levels and university as the preferred pathway, with FE, apprenticeships and other options seen as the poor cousin. That is not a healthy ecosystem in which to find ourselves, or in which to place our young people. We need to ensure that we offer pathways that are right for our young people and our economy. We are not in that space right now. The gateway review of the 14-19 framework came out in January 2024. Very clear issues were highlighted around ineffective governance, unclear objectives, misalignment between the programme and the stakeholders' objectives, the duplication of effort between Economy and Education, limited management of how we were going to monitor delivery — the list goes on. Things have improved — the situation has shifted from a red rating to an amber one — but we are still very far from where we need to be. The focus on the funding model is important, but that, on its own, is not going to be enough. Our call in our amendment is for the Economy and Education Ministers to take up the challenge together and set out a really clear vision, which the independent review called for, of what we actually want from our post-16 provision. It should be broad and ambitious. It should not be competitive. It should be collaborative. That is the space in which we need to end up. I hope that, on that basis, the House supports our amendment.

776 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 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