Debate contribution: SEN Local Impact Teams
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- SEN Local Impact Teams
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4841029
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Since 2022, the Education Authority (EA) has been working towards a new model of delivery for its SEN pupil support services. This involves a network of local impact teams in which all the EA SEN specialists can work together to tailor support around the individual needs of the child or young person and their setting. Each local impact team will be responsible for supporting the settings in their immediate geographical area. Each setting will have a direct contact route to a named officer in its local team. At the start of each academic year, each setting will have a strategic planning meeting with its named officer and its named educational psychologist. Throughout the year, the setting's special educational needs coordinator will also be able to request involvement from the local team, either in respect of a specific child or young person or in respect of training and guidance. Since January of this year, all such requests can be made via a digital portal, allowing schools to track the progress of the request. In September 2024, the EA removed the need for an educational psychology assessment prior to requesting stage 2 support services, and an enhanced support offer was put in place for settings. The network of local impact teams will be overseen by a single regional management unit, which will be responsible for performance management, quality assurance, service development, administrative management and resource deployment across all the local impact teams.
240 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.47 | No |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.89 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:02 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.