Debate contribution: Controlled Schools: Managing Authority

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 23 February 2026.

MLA: Mr Paul Givan
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 23 February 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Oral Answers to Questions
Heading: Controlled Schools: Managing Authority
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5400054

Text

Last month, I returned to Executive colleagues with an updated paper seeking agreement to legislate to establish a managing authority for controlled schools. I did so following the clear mandate that I received from my Department's public consultation on proposals to improve management arrangements for the controlled sector. The 744 responses included over half of all controlled school leaders, governors, teachers, support staff, parents and education bodies. Some 91% of respondents agreed that support for controlled schools must improve, and 84% backed the creation of a new, dedicated organisation. The consultation substantiates the findings of the independent review of education that management arrangements are suboptimal, particularly for controlled schools. The evidence also points clearly to the need for improved support. There is a 10% difference in GCSE outcomes between controlled and Catholic maintained non-grammar schools; 62% of schools that enter the formal intervention process are in the controlled sector, compared with 26% in the Catholic maintained sector; and only one of the 13 post-primary schools that were identified by the independent review of education as overperforming, relative to the proportion of free school meal entitlement, was in the controlled sector. Public support for a dedicated managing authority is unequivocal. Indeed, the consultation response from the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) articulated that with striking clarity. It stated:
"Establishing a dedicated organisation with an ethos, skill set and statutory authority comparable to CCMS will enable controlled schools to access the high-quality, bespoke and compassionate support that has proven so effective elsewhere, ultimately improving outcomes for children and young people across Northern Ireland."
Such an organisation cannot be established without legislation. This is becoming time-critical. With Executive agreement, I will bring forward the necessary Bill at pace.

286 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: 0.10 (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 (0.93).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
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	0.08	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.04	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.04	No
Controversy escalation	0.05	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.93	Yes
Overall judgement	0.10	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.94
Reports or questions it	0.01
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.05

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Education structures, integration and community division	0.79
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)	0.20
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.01
No identity-related subject	0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:58 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