Debate contribution: Independent Review of Teacher Workload Report
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- Independent Review of Teacher Workload Report
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5509670
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am sure that the Member will lead by example in future after that rebuke and will not engage in the very same behaviour that he has accused others of. He does it himself. Indeed, the first Member who had the Floor, Mr McCrossan, engaged in exactly the behaviour for which he has just rebuked others. People will see through that shallowness from the Opposition. The question on the substantive issue is a valid one, and I thank the Member for raising it. There is a balance when it comes to development days — Baker days — and how they are utilised effectively. It is important that, as we go through the transformation, teachers need to be given the opportunity to engage in it at the school level and to work through the issues; that is something that the teaching profession has relayed to me. Therefore, we have to facilitate an opportunity for them to do so. There are, clearly, minimum requirements for the number of days on which schools have to be open, and provision is made when it comes to teaching. I will, in no way, seek to undermine that. I have to listen to the teaching profession, because it has asked for those opportunities to engage in the transformation work, and it is only right that we provide that support to them.
The Member is right to praise the work of classroom assistants, and I join him in that. That is why, as part of SEN reform, I want to be able to provide opportunities for career development and pathways to enhance what classroom assistants are able to provide in our schools and to give them the professional support that will allow them to develop, including when it comes to better pay. I say to the Member that the Executive supported a new business case — it was collectively supported by all the parties in the Executive — that contained a significant increase in terms and conditions for support staff, including classroom assistants as well as a range of different support staff. Significant investment by the Executive was required to provide the financial support for that. Those support staff also sit within the national joint-working agreements at a UK-wide level. We feed into that process. Support staff have had pay rises as a result of the framework that they are engaged in. Teaching pay sits within a Northern Ireland framework and is subject to negotiations at a Northern Ireland level, but support staff are handled at a UK-wide level, and, over the past number of years, they have received pay rises as a result of that. We all want to do more. We all want to give more, recognising the important contribution that they make. That is why, through the reform of the SEN model, I want to identify greater ways in which to recognise our support staff, especially our classroom assistants.
485 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: 0.05 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.45 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.42 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.11 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:27 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.