Member's statement: Special Schools: Nursery Provision
Member's statement by Mr Nick Mathison on .
- MLA
- Mr Nick Mathison
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 October 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Special Schools: Nursery Provision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5180512
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Over a year ago, I was contacted by a group of concerned special school principals regarding removals that had taken place and planned removals of nursing provision in their schools. That progressive chipping away of an essential service is happening at a time when we are hearing, more and more, about the increasing complexity of need, particularly medical needs, in our special schools. Nursing provision in special schools is essential. The suggestion that classroom assistants can simply take over those duties — duties that were previously undertaken by a medical professional — as proposed by the Public Health Agency (PHA), is simply unfair. Principals have been clear about the incredible amount of stress that that places on all staff in special schools and about the fact that while classroom assistants provide fantastic support in the classroom, they are not medical professionals with the clinical expertise that is required to deliver that kind of specialised support. It also places them in an incredibly vulnerable position with their personal liability when care plans do not go to plan. Following engagement between the Health and Education Ministers, the Health Minister gave an assurance that the issue would be considered as part of a wider PHA review of the population health needs of children attending special schools in Northern Ireland. A response to a question for written answer from the start of September assured me:
"An assessment of nursing provision in Special Schools forms a key element of the review."
While aspects of the report, which has been published, are encouraging, particularly on the need to listen to the lived experiences of children and young people and the need for better cross-departmental collaboration between Health and Education, the report gives no clarity on whether nursing provision will be restored in the settings in which it has been lost or protected in those that still have it. Parents and principals were left in limbo for almost a year waiting for the outcome of the review, and, following the report's being published, they are still no clearer on what the Minister will do. It is also concerning that only six families from two of the five trust areas were interviewed on the issue to inform the evidence for the report. Given the seriousness of the issue, I would have hoped that more effort could have been made to ensure that there was broad and wide consultation with the families affected by the decisions, since it was about the care of their children. Significant questions remain regarding the future of nursing provision in special schools. I urge the Health Minister to provide urgent clarity on how he will address those. It is a vital service, which, at times, can provide life-saving interventions. Its need must not be underestimated, and full nursing provision in special schools must be reinstated as soon as possible.
475 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: 0.04 (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 (0.97).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.97 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| 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 13:35 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.