Debate contribution: Integrated Schools: Reasonable Numbers
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Integrated Schools: Reasonable Numbers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5068469
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Controlled schools often provide a higher level of integrated status demographically than some integrated schools. They should be given the respect that should be afforded to them.
In reviewing the demographic outcomes for schools that have transformed to integrated status, there are findings that should raise concern. Among six post-primary schools that have transformed, most have not met the year 1 target of 10% minority representation, and none of them approaches the 40:40:20 aspiration articulated by many in the integrated sector. In some cases, the proportion of pupils from the minority community is as low as one tenth of the majority. The picture is similar in primary schools. Of the 25 that have transformed, many still show a significant imbalance, even decades after transformation. Some have fewer than five pupils from the minority community. Those findings suggest that transformation, unlike newly established integrated schools, is not reliably producing the reasonable numbers that define integrated education.
155 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: 0.26 (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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
- 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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.26 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.98 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:01 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.