Debate contribution: Curriculum Review
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
- Curriculum Review
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4841143
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As we take forward the review of the curriculum, one of the areas that I want to build on primarily is a review of literacy and numeracy. Those are the two key areas of any education system that provide the basic building blocks. Unless you are proficient in literacy, you will not be able to read your history or geography books. Therefore, it is critical that we maximise the number of young people who are competent in literacy and numeracy. However, that is also one of the key drivers for closing the educational gap that exists between those who have and those who have not. For young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, the opportunities that our schools provide are their only hope. We need to make sure that we provide the right support to every single school in Northern Ireland. If we can do that right, we will be supporting the life opportunities for those young people. Of course, where there are issues on which I need support from Executive colleagues to carry out the Department of Education's work, I will seek it. There are, however, many pieces of work that I am able to take forward in my Department that fall within my purview. I am determined to continue to drive forward that progressive review of our curriculum that I am carrying out.
223 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: 0.03 (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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.61 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.33 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:03 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.