Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs: Crisis in Provision

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .

MLA
Mr Timothy Gaston
Party at the time
Traditional Unionist Voice
Date
8 September 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Special Educational Needs: Crisis in Provision
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5068748

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The Assembly has before it a motion highlighting the ongoing crisis in special educational needs provision, and I commend the Alliance Party for bringing it to the House. It is timely, given that it is the start of another school year. The issue has received quite a bit of focus in the press, but I trust that the debate will result in changes that will be well embedded ahead of next year's commencement. Members, the crisis is real. Children with special educational needs, their parents and the staff who support them face daily challenges. Before the debate, I was contacted by a primary-school principal, who rang the preschool standardisation programme helpline only to be told that there was no money in the budget to address the issues that she highlighted. The issues were those that I attempted to raise during Question Time. The North Antrim primary school to which I refer has a nursery of 26 children. The children are supported, from 9.00 am to 1.30 pm, by two members of staff, one of whom is six months pregnant. Out of those 26 children, two await ASD assessments and require one-to-one support. Those children were referred to paediatrics by their health visitor and still have not been seen. That is alongside a plethora of other needs among this year's intake, such as behavioural problems, medical issues and toileting concerns. In the current set-up, those children cannot safely access their nursery education. The health and safety implications are profound. Urgent attention from an educational psychologist is required so that those children can access the preschool education that everyone is entitled to. The questions from the principal are these: who covers the toilet breaks in her nursery class, and who provides consistent support for children with complex needs? I want to leave those questions with the Education Minister. I hope and trust that he will come back on them. The motion rightly draws attention to the lack of strategic planning, the number of unplaced children at the start of this academic year and the urgent need for clarity on the implementation of a SEN reform agenda, but let us be clear: none of those reforms can succeed without the dedication of the classroom assistants who work daily with children with SEN. They support children with challenging behaviours, those with emotional regulation issues and those who require personal care. Often, support with learning is individualised to meet the needs of the pupil in the classroom assistant's care. My goodness, they often go far and beyond their official duties by becoming a vital part of the classroom experience for all the pupils who are there. Despite their value, those staff face systematic disadvantages. Around 68% of classroom assistants are on temporary contracts, many of them for multiple years. Nearly 14,000 classroom assistants are employed on such insecure terms due to fragile SEN funding arrangements. As we heard, surveys show that 82% feel that they are not fairly paid and that 87% support clear career pathways that are tied to training and experience. A workforce that is insecure, overworked or undervalued cannot provide the stability and consistency that children with SEN need. High turnover and low morale risk the quality of education and the well-being of the vulnerable children in their care. Repeatedly leaving classroom assistants, who are recognised as invaluable members of the school's educational team, without any guarantee, when the school year ends in June, that they will have a job in September is not a situation that would be tolerated in any other field of employment. Tellingly, it is a gender issue too. 'A profile of Classroom Assistants in Northern Ireland', which was produced last year by Ulster University, revealed that 96% of classroom assistants are female. Supporting classroom assistants, therefore, is a matter of fairness, justice and equality for women in the workforce.

Those highly skilled, dedicated, professional ladies must be properly valued and given the stability that they deserve.

Our classroom assistants are asking for what is fair and reasonable: job security, fair and consistent pay, accredited training and defined career progression. Those are not luxuries but are essential for effective SEN provision. Supporting them is inseparable from supporting the children. I commend the amendment to the House.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.06No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.52
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.31
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.17
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:03 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.

Challenge this classification