Debate contribution: Curriculum Review: Update
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Curriculum Review: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197461
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for that question. I have been very keen to ensure that Northern Ireland looks outwardly towards international experience, as well as making sure that we reform our education system so that it is tailor-made for our local community and reflects our Northern Ireland context. To ensure that the Northern Ireland curriculum remains aligned with international best practice, we need to look at providing for a knowledge-rich and well-structured approach. A number of jurisdictions, including Sweden, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand and, now, some Australian territories have reviewed the former approach to curriculums, which was primarily skills-based, due to concerns about a lack of specificity, commonality and core knowledge.
Internationally, there is a revival of the importance of knowledge in education approaches. It has re-emerged as a prerequisite for improved learning, critical thinking, problem-solving, reading and comprehension and as a facilitator for collective discourse. That evolution is backed by a greater understanding of cognitive science, which now very much indicates that, with detailed knowledge, you empower yourself to develop much greater skill. It is not an either/or, skills-versus-knowledge situation. Rich, detailed knowledge and mastery of a subject area allow you to deploy the skills, so you need that knowledge. It is about ensuring that we have both.
209 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 (0.78).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | 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 | 0.67 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.33 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:32 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.