Debate contribution: Schools: Resilience and Self-worth
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Schools: Resilience and Self-worth
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244293
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member highlights the challenges of mobile phone devices in our schools. That is why, last summer, I produced clear departmental guidance that primary schools should not even have phones coming in, and, in post-primary, phones should not be used between the hours of 9.00 am and 3.00 pm, when pupils have left the school. That is why I have taken forward a pilot scheme in nine schools. I was in St Ronan's College, Lurgan, one of the largest schools in Northern Ireland with 1,600 pupils, and the feedback that the school provided to me was appreciation for the opportunity to have magnetic sealed pouches. It has been the single most transformative act that the school has taken to address issues around behaviour, concentration and the well-being of young people. When we get the evaluation, which is being carried out independently by King's College London, and if my instincts are right and the initial feedback is reflected in that report, it will demonstrate that that is something that we will need to take very seriously because the benefits that will come from minimising mobile phone usage in schools will be transformative, particularly when it comes to the well-being of children and young people.
203 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.85 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.10 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:56 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.