Debate contribution: SEND Reform
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- 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
- SEND Reform
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5400154
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Education Authority has developed a model for providing increased support for schools. It includes flexibility to give autonomy to schools. All political parties are represented on the EA, but I have noted some commentary from Sinn Féin Members about the model. They should check with their colleagues on the EA to find out their position, as they are supportive of the model. There was no objection to it at board level. It is about listening to professionals and practitioners. I visited Largymore Primary School in my constituency on Friday. Its principal has very successfully integrated an inclusive model that is providing support to children, not all of whom have statements of educational need. Rather, the school is able to identify the necessary additional support at a whole-school level, and that support is yielding benefits in education outcomes for those young people. There are many examples in Northern Ireland of principals having had to provide that type of support, and they have found it to be a more effective means of supporting children and young people. Ultimately, how we are supporting them is what has to drive the transformation of special educational needs. I therefore encourage Members to engage in the process, not with a closed mind but to test the evidence. I believe that they will come to the same conclusion that I have, which is that transformation is needed.
231 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: 0.06 (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 (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| 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 | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.