Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs Coordinators
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Special Educational Needs Coordinators
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5510249
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Members who tabled the motion for doing so and allowing the Assembly to recognise the amazing work that SENCOs do in Northern Ireland. For clarity, I say that my party will support the motion. Anyone who has a working knowledge of education in Northern Ireland will realise how crucial SENCOs are. I have written in my notes that they are the glue that holds together the support network for our most vulnerable pupils, but the proposer of the motion was probably more eloquent than I am on that. Everyone — teachers, parents and even politicians — will realise that SENCOs are under enormous pressure. That pressure is being generated not just because of some of the system pressures that the proposer of the motion mentioned but because of the sheer number of children who are presenting with special educational needs in Northern Ireland. At the outset, I want to acknowledge that I accept the motion and that SENCOs need additional support, along the lines that the proposer suggested. When we look at some of the numbers and drill down into where the pressure is coming from, we know that one in five children in the school-age population in Northern Ireland have some level of special educational needs. However, I came across an even more striking figure, which is the number of children who are attending specialist provision in mainstream schools. If you scope that out over the past 10 years, that number has increased from around 1,600 children to 5,300 children. To put that figure into some context, that is an increase of some 213% over that 10-year period. SENCOs and principals will agree that what school life looked like in 2015 was very different from what it looks like now. The proposer of the motion mentioned the local impact teams. Those teams were introduced in September 2025 and have certainly made an impact. There is a change in the code and in how that code is being delivered. I am pretty sure that I have heard at the Education Committee — the EA has also stated it — that those teams need to be better resourced. The proposer mentioned that in her opening remarks. I think that other members of the Education Committee will accept that, and the EA has agreed to do that and has taken that on. On the issue of wider reform, which both contributors so far have touched on, we are cognisant of the letter from the Children's Law Centre and other signatories that was sent to the Committee last week. I have to make it clear that I do not agree with it and neither does my party. I will quote directly from the letter, which states:
"The implementation of the revised SEND framework must now stop".
Most of us will agree that what we have in place currently to support special educational needs children in Northern Ireland is very far from ideal and is certainly not aligned to either the numbers of those children or the complexity of their cases. However, we do not have the luxury of doing nothing in this situation. Children with SEN in Northern Ireland need better support, and the system needs reform. We simply must do better for those children. The SEN reform agenda that the Minister is taking forward is the right way to go, and we will see its outworking in due course, as more support is placed in the system. We cannot maintain the status quo, because maintaining the status quo is not fair to the SENCOs who are under that pressure and live with it daily. To SENCOs across Northern Ireland, I say this: you are amazing; you are valued; and thank you.
622 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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.87 | 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 | 0.97 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| 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 15:30 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.