Debate contribution: Literacy Model
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Literacy Model
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4793541
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. It is hugely important and relates to what is taught in our classrooms and the approaches that are taken. We need to have a strong focus on literacy and numeracy in particular, because they are the essential foundation for all education. They are essential to allowing our children and young people to succeed in their educational journey. The Count, Read: Succeed strategy was published in 2011. It contained actions and targets up to 2020, all of which are now out of date. Work to develop the strategy commenced in 2007, which means that the research that underpinned the guidance dates back nearly two decades. It was unhelpful for such a strategy to continue to be endorsed as departmental policy. There is excellent evidence on approaches to reading acquisition, and it is clear that we need to set out clear expectations for teaching reading so that all children benefit from an evidence-based approach. The evidence shows that phonics is an extremely strong approach. The evidence for competing models of balanced reading is equally weak. It is vital, therefore, that the teaching of phonics should be explicit and systematic across all schools to support children in learning to read. My officials have therefore commenced work on a new literacy strategy for Northern Ireland that will take account of recent international research in those key areas and set out the support and resources that will be available to our teachers.
244 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: 0.02 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.07 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:58 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.