Debate contribution: Review of Religious Education: Update
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Review of Religious Education: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5465507
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is something that we have taken forward as a result of the UK Supreme Court judgement. The review of the syllabus is now firmly under way. As Members will be aware, I have agreed the terms of reference for the review and have appointed Professor Noel Purdy as chair and Mrs Joyce Logue as vice chair. The chair and vice chair have commenced a significant programme of engagement with key stakeholders, ensuring that the review is informed by a range of perspectives, with those early engagements shaping the work ahead. In line with the terms of reference, I have established a Church consultative group to provide theological expertise and advice to the drafting group. The group comprises representatives from the four main Churches, and it has held its first meeting. The chair and vice chair will be supported by a drafting group comprising practising teachers of religious education from primary and post-primary schools, with a breadth of experience. There was significant interest in those roles, and I expect members to be formally appointed this week. Furthermore, my Department launched a call for evidence on 24 February, inviting views from the public to support the group of experts, teachers and school leaders taking forward the review. Over 1,000 responses have been received to the call, which closed on 20 March. That represents a vital component of the process and will complement wider engagement as the drafting group develops proposals for a revised syllabus. As I have previously stated, the review represents a significant opportunity to ensure that the future RE core syllabus reflects the needs of learners now and into the future. I look forward to receiving the recommendations arising from the process in due course.
286 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.49 | No |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:07 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.