Debate contribution: CCEA Qualifications
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
- CCEA Qualifications
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197509
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is a really important question. That is why we are asking for feedback, particularly from pupils. The engagement that we have already had indicates that there is high pressure when you go into year 11, because, where you are carrying out the modular approach in some subjects, you are formally tested in year 11. The more linear approach is year 12. The evidence shows that academic results are better for those who follow the linear approach rather than the modular approach. We need to look at what the evidence shows about which approach to follow for the best educational outcomes. The high levels of testing that our young people face are also well documented, and many Members have rightly talked about that. There is a high level of testing in lower sixth. I declare an interest, because I have one daughter who has gone through her AS levels — she does not necessarily agree with the proposal, I have to say — and I have another one who has to do them. I know the pressure that it puts on them. Thousands of young people will repeat the exams that they have just sat in lower sixth in order to try to improve their result in upper sixth. Quite a number of weeks of valuable teaching time is lost. Young people can be off school for a number of weeks to carry out revision and sit mocks, and then they are off for a number of weeks to sit the exams. Some young people in lower sixth may not be in school learning for up to seven or eight weeks. There is a balance to be found between how much learning time there is and how much focus there is on testing and qualifications. I am open to hearing people's views on that.
304 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 | 0.77 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.17 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:33 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.