Debate contribution: SEN Reform and Classroom Assistant Provision
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- SEN Reform and Classroom Assistant Provision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5453558
Read the official Assembly record
Text
A good classroom assistant is worth their weight in gold, but their pay and conditions are very much not golden. It is vital that we support them, recognise them and ensure that their vital contribution is acknowledged in our education system. With the significant rise in special educational needs in our schools, we need more classroom assistants, not fewer. I want to make a couple of key points. First, although our institution is often glacial in its pace when producing legislation and outcomes, I recognise that Minister Givan has the bit between his teeth and is pushing things forward. I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts, and I call it as it is. I pick up consistently from teachers, principals and others that they feel that the pace of change is overwhelming and they need more time to adjust to that change. I hear that in every school that I go to. The second thing is that we can, I think, afford to pay our classroom assistants more, and we need to do that. There is a big issue with the retention of classroom assistants, and that is because they do not get the pay that they deserve. They reach the end of their pay point abruptly. In England and Wales, they do things such as giving classroom assistants extra money for taking on extra responsibilities. It is sometimes not a huge amount of money, but it acknowledges their continuing professional development. It is vital that that then leads to more retention, which saves money and prevents disruption. We need to ensure that they are given support and are not being injured in schools. I know of many classroom assistants who are being injured, particularly by young children in P1 and P2 who have become dysregulated. We need to ensure that our classroom assistants have the right equipment and training, such as Team Teach, to enable them to deal with those difficult situations well. If we are going to have children with special educational needs in mainstream schools, which many schools and classroom assistants support, we need those schools to have facilities such as sensory rooms and the right number of staff. I will return to the issue of cost. We have enough money if it is used wisely. Unfortunately, procurement in schools is an absolute rip-off. Head teachers tell me that painting a room costs four times as much through procurement than it does through getting in a local trusted trader to do it. I know of a case in which it cost hundreds of pounds to change a light bulb, because it was over a certain height and could not be done by the caretaker. If we were to have more common sense, we could find more money to support our classroom assistants.
469 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:06 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.