Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs: Crisis in Provision
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 8 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Special Educational Needs: Crisis in Provision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5068890
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. As we heard in the debate, one in five pupils has special educational needs. In the past decade, the number of children with a statement of SEN has increased by 85%, but, unfortunately, the funding has not increased to match that need. That is the crucial point. The lack of planning and investment in our education system is failing children, families, communities and, crucially, education workers. The Minister tried to do a lot of deflection. He needs to take responsibility and act on those issues. I support Mr Gaston's amendment, as I said at the start of the debate. It recognises the important and undervalued work of classroom assistants. It calls for more-secure employment contracts, fair pay and better terms and conditions. I am still unclear as to why it is not compatible with my amendment. If classroom assistants were fairly paid and their working conditions were safer and more sustainable, every child could have the support that they need. If the Executive were properly to invest in education rather than firefighting, we might avoid the same old crisis that we have witnessed year after year. People simply do not buy the excuse that there is not enough money to repair the schools that are crumbling around us or to pay teachers, classroom assistants, cleaners, caterers and transport workers a decent wage. Contrast that with the fact that the head of the Civil Service recently had her pay and pension hiked with no performance review. Today, the news broke that she is set to get a further £16,000 pay increase. Most classroom assistants earn just above that, despite the increase that they received. There is plenty of money for who and what the Executive consider to be important. Refusing to invest in SEN provision is a political and moral failure. Empty words and consultations, in which the responses of the workforce and families are ignored, mean absolutely nothing. I urge the Minister to listen to the experience of pupils, their families, teachers and classroom assistants. Research from SEN Reform NI and Caleb's Cause found that just 47% of parents who were surveyed received their child's statement within the legal time frame. That is totally unacceptable. Some 77% said that their child with SEN did not have equal opportunities in the education system compared with their peers without special educational needs. That is a crucial point that the Minister fails to grasp. It touches on the heartbreaking example that Danny Baker gave about twins in West Belfast. We have plenty of plans, strategies and roadmaps — we are roadmapped up to the ears — but there is little by way of action. The message from the experts by experience is resounding. We need to reverse the damage that was done by a decade of chronic underfunding. We need systemic reform, and that does not mean fewer classroom assistants. The Minister should focus his energies on that instead of trying to poke trans and non-binary pupils and people in the eye by removing guidance. He talked about having a political focus and about distractions; I think he is quite distracted by trans people and those who do not fit his narrow view of the world. I will move on. It is worth reminding the Member for North Down that it is a political issue and, of course, a political Chamber, not some apolitical chamber for a bit of craic. Members from his party talked about how classroom assistants may not be the best-case scenario or needed in every situation.
Maybe not, but the drive and the motivation behind their points and those of their Minister is about cutting costs and scaling back. I trust the experts, education workers and families rather than any party that tries to scale back on the basis of those points. I join others in welcoming the Member for North Antrim to the Chamber. I might well be one of the people who blocked him on Twitter. It was probably warranted and required, but, hopefully, if I extend that nice welcome to him, he will support my amendment.
691 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: 0.27 (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 (0.90).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.53).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.27 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.45 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.27 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.34 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.53 |
| Adopts it | 0.11 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.73 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.24 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
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.