Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs Coordinators
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 28 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Special Educational Needs Coordinators
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5510289
Read the official Assembly record
Text
No one in the House will need persuaded of the importance of special educational needs coordinators. SENCOs sit at the centre of our education system's ability to deliver for some of the most vulnerable children in Northern Ireland. In most of our schools, SENCOs are not operating in a dedicated role; they are full-time teachers with full-time classroom responsibilities. On top of that, they are expected to manage complex caseloads of pupils with statements and pupils with individual educational plans, liaise with parents, coordinate with external agencies, oversee safeguarding concerns and, in many cases, act as de facto welfare leads in the school. That is not sustainable. It is no surprise that we hear more and more about burnout, pressure and the risk of losing experienced staff from the system altogether. Teachers tell me that, in some classrooms, there are multiple pupils with statements and many more with additional needs but without formal statements, all requiring support. That is the context in which SENCOs operate. So, yes, a review of workload is necessary. Yes, we should consider whether, in some cases, the role should be non-teaching, but let us be clear: this cannot be approached with a one-size-fits-all mentality. Workload varies by school size, level of need and complexity of cases. A blanket policy imposed from the centre will miss the reality on the ground. What is needed is flexibility based on need and properly resourced. There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the current policy. On the one hand, we acknowledge the rising need; on the other, there are proposals that would reduce the number of one-to-one classroom assistants. You cannot acknowledge increased need but reduce support and expect outcomes to improve. Ultimately, it is the child who will pay the price. Before the debate, I talked to a parent whose child receives one-to-one support in the classroom that has resulted in remarkable progress in the past 12 months. That followed a number of years when, even with one-to-one support, their daughter struggled significantly. You cannot ignore the reality that there are children who need that support and that its life-changing benefits may take years to manifest themselves. Classroom assistants are an integral part of the support system alongside SENCOs and teachers, yet many classroom assistants face disparities in pay that do not reflect the vital role that they play. If we are serious about supporting children with special educational needs, we must be serious about valuing the staff who deliver that support day in, day out. You cannot build a system on goodwill alone. Fair pay is not an optional extra; it is a foundation. I previously tabled an amendment calling for classroom assistants to receive pay over the summer months. The Education Minister supported that amendment, yet here we are at the end of April. Many classroom assistants will get only two weeks' pay this month because of the Easter break. They look forward to the summer months, when they will be paid at the end of June and will not see another pay packet until the end of September. No one should be expected to live like that, yet classroom assistants face that reality again this year. It is not good enough; it needs to change. If, as the Minister said this morning, the issue needs to be addressed on a UK-wide basis, I trust that he will ensure that the Executive actively pursue it.
571 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: 0.02 (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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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 15:31 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.