Debate contribution: Academic Selection

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 3 February 2026.

MLA: Mr Jon Burrows
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 3 February 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Academic Selection
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5362542

Text

Those schools feel that they need someone to champion them, and, as a unionist representative, I am happy to do that. We also need to talk about the stigmatisation that we bring about by having this discussion on selection. The notion that selection is bad reinforces the fear that, if you do not pass the 11-plus, you are somehow lesser than the people who pass it. Many non-selective schools in systems around the world still have streaming. That can involve a degree of informal selection that lacks the objectivity and fairness of a selection process. It also comes down to choices. We are spending our time debating selection. Whenever I speak to parents and pupils in schools around the country, that is not what they talk about. They talk about the state of their schools. They talk about the buildings and the crisis that we have due to the number of pupils with special educational needs. They talk about the fact that we cannot attract males into the teaching profession. You talk about stress: the biggest stress that children face these days is from social media and screen time. That is what we should be discussing today, not this false debate on academic selection. We should give people maximum choice: levelling up, not levelling down. This debate is, at its heart, an ideological one. It looks down on schools that are not grammar schools, instead of saying that all schools can be excellent schools and there are many different pathways through life that give people the choice and the opportunity to reach their full potential. We need to better support children who go through selection, offer them more pastoral support and destigmatise the issue of passing or failing. It is not about that; it is just a different pathway in your life.
No — yes, I will give way.
I thought that I recognised the voice.
Yes, absolutely. Anything that we can do to remove the cliff edge on selection will remove the stress. That is why I have concerns about removing AS levels, which come later in secondary schools. The cliff edge can be detrimental to well-being in the school. For all those reasons, I oppose the motion. I support choice. We can better serve all our pupils and their parents across Northern Ireland and give them that choice.

390 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.14 (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 (0.80).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.10	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.03	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.06	No
Controversy escalation	0.10	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.80	Yes
Overall judgement	0.14	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.86
Reports or questions it	0.01
Criticises or condemns it	0.08
Adopts it	0.05

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Education structures, integration and community division	0.67
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.20
Another identity-related subject	0.06
No identity-related subject	0.02
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.02

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:26 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.

Challenge this classification