Debate contribution: Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee
Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5508481
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Sheehan has been flogging the dead horse that this is all about ideology for quite some time. I thought that he would have drawn back, knowing that, at the Committee, when accused of going along with Michael Gove's agenda, Lucy Crehan and her colleague told him not only that they were both left-leaning but that one of them was a signed-up member of the Labour Party. Minister, you will have heard the same concerns from teachers as I have about some of the new things that are coming forward. What reassurance can you give teachers that the revised curriculum will support them in their practice rather than increase their workload?
111 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: 0.11 (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 (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.24 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.09 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.48 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.38 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:31 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.