Debate contribution: Summer Schemes in Special Schools: Cancellation

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .

MLA
Mr Jon Burrows
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
31 March 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Summer Schemes in Special Schools: Cancellation
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5471167

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will not give way. — we are failing to address them. That failure is because we have failed to fix, reform and focus on things. Let me deal for a second with the issue of special educational needs children. The exponential rise in the number of children with additional needs has still not been properly and strategically addressed. The number is growing for all kinds of reasons. That comes with a huge cost that the Executive must address collectively, but we have not addressed it collectively. The fact that the paper from the Minister of Education — I have been critical of some of his work and supportive of other aspects of his work — has not been put on the Executive table is a fundamental failure, in the same way that other papers do not get on the Executive table because they are vetoed, which is totally inappropriate.

No, I am not going to give way. There are issues for the Education Authority to look at. Those include workforce planning, so that there can be sustainable schemes running throughout the summer, and the EA needs to consider why those who are skilled and trained in term time are not the same people who deliver the summer schemes. We need to look at how we support classroom assistants. As I said in my maiden speech, we say that we value them but that is not recognised in their pay packets or their accreditation. They get to the top of their pay scales far too soon. Retention is a major issue, and because there is sometimes a desperation to get classroom assistants, we have the wrong people doing an important job, although the vast majority of them do it very well. Good classroom assistants are worth their weight in gold. We fail SEN pupils in all kinds of ways. We could not get even two weeks of summer schemes up and running this year. Thankfully, the intervention has been made, but summer schemes should be much longer. Why on earth are special schools shut for nine weeks? That is something that the Assembly needs to deal with. Parents whose children attend special schools tell me that they want to work. They want to contribute to the workforce and have a career but they cannot because they do not get enough support through childcare, respite and summer schemes. It is penny wise and pound foolish because those parents tell me that the progress that their child makes throughout term time is often set back when they are not at school for seven of the nine weeks, and they then have to play catch-up. This is not just about respite for the parents. It is about the opportunity for the special educational needs child to be able to get a job in the future, perhaps, or to live independently. All of that is set back when you have those big gaps: the parents cannot work, and there is desperation because they wait for so long for a diagnosis. That is on all of us, because we have failed to fix things. We could find £600 million — if that is what is required — if we did not have so much waste. How much money are we wasting on procurement that has not been properly sorted out? Why is it that school principals, as well as every other public-sector body, spend 400% more to get a job done than it would cost if a local trader were to do it? That is where the money is going. There is vast waste and a failure to reform. I sit on the Education Committee, and, this year, we have not debated school nurses, but we have debated Gaza. That is a disgrace, but it is what is happening across the piece. We fail to focus on the right things, we fail to fix the right things, we fail to reform this place and then we point-score and finger-point.

I will not give way. I am glad that there will be summer schemes this year. We need to look at getting things sorted for next year, but we also need to look at ourselves. Sackcloth and ashes are in order today. The way in which we are treating the people of Northern Ireland is shameful. I support our amendment No 2.

726 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: 0.09 (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 (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.05No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.08No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.09At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.99
No identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:16 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