Debate contribution: Literacy Development
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Literacy Development
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5139189
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Literacy is the foundation of all education. Proficiency in reading, writing and spoken language is vital for pupils' success in school, training and work. I have signalled my intention to develop a new strategy for literacy that is grounded in international best practice and the latest evidence. The strategy will be developed in parallel with the work of the curriculum task force and will provide guidance to support schools in developing pupils' reading, writing and oracy skills. It will also set out a comprehensive programme of action to support teachers across Northern Ireland. In advance of that, I plan to issue a literacy circular to outline the key principles for effective literacy instruction, alongside practical strategies to enhance literacy development. That will be supported by professional learning opportunities in areas such as the science of reading, spelling, writing and oracy. Through the RAISE programme, I have introduced a "Reading with AI" research project that will provide schools with an opportunity to see how AI tools can support literacy. The study is led by Oxford Brookes University using Amira learning, which is a reading support tool that is aligned with research-informed approaches to early literacy and is powered by AI.
199 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.71).
- 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 | 0.01 | 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 | 0.71 | Yes |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.92 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.04 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:18 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.