Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs Coordinators
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
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Special Educational Needs Coordinators
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5510306
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I can assure the Member that the Department and the EA will meet the Children's Law Centre. They are arranging to meet in the coming weeks, and that will help to address the concerns that the Children's Law Centre raised. It will also ensure that there is a shared and accurate understanding of the enhanced support model. However, the Children's Law Centre's claims that the legal duties are being transferred to schools as a result of the new model are not correct. The legal responsibility for the delivery of special educational needs provision will continue to rest with the Education Authority, and any changes to the provision will be clearly and transparently set out in a statement of special educational needs. We will meet the Children's Law Centre, and we will provide the clarity, but the claim that it made is not accurate, and the meeting will help to clarify that. If there are other concerns that my officials and the EA can help address for the Children's Law Centre, we are more than happy to do that.
It should not be insurmountable, and that is why the meeting is being organised. We are more than happy to take on board those concerns. However, we know that the status quo is failing to deliver consistently good outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs. I do not believe that Members can, in good conscience, argue for change while simultaneously resisting the reforms that are required to deliver it. The number of children with a statement of SEN is increasing year-on-year, and Members know that. The funding requirement is growing by £5 million every month, and that is also not sustainable, particularly when we know that there are better ways to deliver support. I assure Members that every change that is being made is firmly grounded in the best interests of children and young people, and it will be evidence-based. It will deliver clear and measurable improvement, and it will remain fully compliant within the legal framework. Therefore, while the implementation of the enhanced support model is planned to commence in September 2026, it will be initially taken forward with 150 schools that we know are already using alternative models of support. The Member for North Belfast Nuala McAllister referred to the Boys' Model School, which is one of those schools. She, rightly, highlighted how the school had been pioneering when it changed the way in which it supported children with special educational needs. It meant moving away from the default position of direct one-to-one support, and it was about providing better support for the whole school and not just in one particular way. It speaks to the challenge when others would say that retaining the status quo is the best way, when we already know that 150 schools are taking forward alternative approaches to address the issue, and the Boys' Model School is one of them.
Do I have 15 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker?
I apologise to the Member who is seeking to make an intervention. I want to close out my remarks. If I have time, I will bring him back in. The approaches have been developed collaboratively, working closely with parents and the staff who know their schools and pupils best. Crucially, they are working. We must learn from that success and ensure that effective practice is shared and implemented more widely, including in the school in which the Member said it was not happening. Over the coming years, wider roll-out will proceed on a phased and responsive basis, aligned to individual school readiness and designed to ensure that schools, staff and parents are given sufficient time and support to embed change effectively and sustainably. In closing, I recognise that this is a demanding and uncertain time for many across our education system. Change, even when it is necessary and well-intentioned, can feel unsettling, particularly when it affects roles and workloads. It is right that we acknowledge that reality. We must also be realistic that meaningful change takes time. It cannot, and should not, happen overnight. However, I am confident that SENCOs will begin to see that their voices are being heard, that their concerns are being taken seriously and that positive change is beginning to take shape as a result.
715 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: 0.04 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.