I share some of your concern around the unavailability now of BTEC in some schools. It strikes me that the decision to discourage the availability of BTEC, which is what the performance measures do, really is sending a message about vocational qualifications that is not helpful, actually, to many young people for whom vocational qualifications may be perfectly suitable. Is that something with which you concur?

I think it's one of the unintended consequences, and what I'm trying to say is that, almost inevitably, there will be unintended consequences. So, you can sympathise with the original decision to change the performance indicators in such a way that it encouraged more pupils to do GCSEs, for example, but it does have that unintended consequence. In theory, there's nothing stopping a school entering pupils now for those qualifications.

Okay. Michelle, we need to move on at this stage, so we'll move on Julie Morgan.

Yes, thank you very much. I wanted to ask you about looked-after children and adopted children, and how effective the PDG has been for those groups of children. So, to begin with, how well do the schools know that the PDG does exist for looked-after children and adopted children?


I think it's one of the unintended consequences, and what I'm trying to say is that, almost inevitably, there will be unintended consequences. So, you can sympathise with the original decision to change the performance indicators in such a way that it encouraged more pupils to do GCSEs, for example, but it does have that unintended consequence. In theory, there's nothing stopping a school entering pupils now for those qualifications.

Okay. Michelle, we need to move on at this stage, so we'll move on Julie Morgan.

Yes, thank you very much. I wanted to ask you about looked-after children and adopted children, and how effective the PDG has been for those groups of children. So, to begin with, how well do the schools know that the PDG does exist for looked-after children and adopted children?

I think what we found—we did a review of looked-after children fairly recently, and we found there was some confusion about where the grant was, who had the grant and how it was spent, and what the priorities of regional consortia were, because I think the grant goes to regional consortia now. I think previously it went to local authorities. So, I think schools aren't quite sure about how it's spent and what the priorities are.


Okay. Michelle, we need to move on at this stage, so we'll move on Julie Morgan.

Yes, thank you very much. I wanted to ask you about looked-after children and adopted children, and how effective the PDG has been for those groups of children. So, to begin with, how well do the schools know that the PDG does exist for looked-after children and adopted children?

I think what we found—we did a review of looked-after children fairly recently, and we found there was some confusion about where the grant was, who had the grant and how it was spent, and what the priorities of regional consortia were, because I think the grant goes to regional consortia now. I think previously it went to local authorities. So, I think schools aren't quite sure about how it's spent and what the priorities are.

I think we've seen a bit of improvement there. Meilyr was right; there was a lack of clarity. Schools weren't always aware of the grant and the possibility of using it to support those learners. But the consortia are now using the grant, and there's some training being offered to schools around emotional behaviour and attachment training. There's some school-to-school work that is now being funded by the grant to share best practice, and there are some individual bursaries to support the work. So, from quite a concern, some action now is appearing to be done.


Yes, thank you very much. I wanted to ask you about looked-after children and adopted children, and how effective the PDG has been for those groups of children. So, to begin with, how well do the schools know that the PDG does exist for looked-after children and adopted children?

I think what we found—we did a review of looked-after children fairly recently, and we found there was some confusion about where the grant was, who had the grant and how it was spent, and what the priorities of regional consortia were, because I think the grant goes to regional consortia now. I think previously it went to local authorities. So, I think schools aren't quite sure about how it's spent and what the priorities are.

I think we've seen a bit of improvement there. Meilyr was right; there was a lack of clarity. Schools weren't always aware of the grant and the possibility of using it to support those learners. But the consortia are now using the grant, and there's some training being offered to schools around emotional behaviour and attachment training. There's some school-to-school work that is now being funded by the grant to share best practice, and there are some individual bursaries to support the work. So, from quite a concern, some action now is appearing to be done.

And on other developments, regional consortia, they've have appointed regional LAC co-ordinators, which has been helpful—


I think what we found—we did a review of looked-after children fairly recently, and we found there was some confusion about where the grant was, who had the grant and how it was spent, and what the priorities of regional consortia were, because I think the grant goes to regional consortia now. I think previously it went to local authorities. So, I think schools aren't quite sure about how it's spent and what the priorities are.

I think we've seen a bit of improvement there. Meilyr was right; there was a lack of clarity. Schools weren't always aware of the grant and the possibility of using it to support those learners. But the consortia are now using the grant, and there's some training being offered to schools around emotional behaviour and attachment training. There's some school-to-school work that is now being funded by the grant to share best practice, and there are some individual bursaries to support the work. So, from quite a concern, some action now is appearing to be done.

And on other developments, regional consortia, they've have appointed regional LAC co-ordinators, which has been helpful—


I think we've seen a bit of improvement there. Meilyr was right; there was a lack of clarity. Schools weren't always aware of the grant and the possibility of using it to support those learners. But the consortia are now using the grant, and there's some training being offered to schools around emotional behaviour and attachment training. There's some school-to-school work that is now being funded by the grant to share best practice, and there are some individual bursaries to support the work. So, from quite a concern, some action now is appearing to be done.

And on other developments, regional consortia, they've have appointed regional LAC co-ordinators, which has been helpful—

Yes. It has happened since July 2016 and they're now in post and beginning to work. And, as Claire said—she gave some of the spend that the regional consortia are using, targeted spending. It's an improving area of regional consortia's work. They are improving their tracking of looked-after children. There's an issue about adopted children, I think, because, currently, the pupil-level annual school census data doesn't differentiate whether children are adopted or not. So, they're more difficult to track. But looked-after children are being tracked by the consortia. So, it's an improving area, as Claire mentioned.


And on other developments, regional consortia, they've have appointed regional LAC co-ordinators, which has been helpful—

Yes. It has happened since July 2016 and they're now in post and beginning to work. And, as Claire said—she gave some of the spend that the regional consortia are using, targeted spending. It's an improving area of regional consortia's work. They are improving their tracking of looked-after children. There's an issue about adopted children, I think, because, currently, the pupil-level annual school census data doesn't differentiate whether children are adopted or not. So, they're more difficult to track. But looked-after children are being tracked by the consortia. So, it's an improving area, as Claire mentioned.

Could you give some examples of some work that's been done with looked-after children that you feel has been effective?


Yes. It has happened since July 2016 and they're now in post and beginning to work. And, as Claire said—she gave some of the spend that the regional consortia are using, targeted spending. It's an improving area of regional consortia's work. They are improving their tracking of looked-after children. There's an issue about adopted children, I think, because, currently, the pupil-level annual school census data doesn't differentiate whether children are adopted or not. So, they're more difficult to track. But looked-after children are being tracked by the consortia. So, it's an improving area, as Claire mentioned.

Could you give some examples of some work that's been done with looked-after children that you feel has been effective?

I think we'd probably need to go away and get that from our evidence base. That would be helpful.


Yes. It has happened since July 2016 and they're now in post and beginning to work. And, as Claire said—she gave some of the spend that the regional consortia are using, targeted spending. It's an improving area of regional consortia's work. They are improving their tracking of looked-after children. There's an issue about adopted children, I think, because, currently, the pupil-level annual school census data doesn't differentiate whether children are adopted or not. So, they're more difficult to track. But looked-after children are being tracked by the consortia. So, it's an improving area, as Claire mentioned.

Could you give some examples of some work that's been done with looked-after children that you feel has been effective?

I think we'd probably need to go away and get that from our evidence base. That would be helpful.

That would be great if you could do that and send something in to us. I've mentioned before in this context that this previous committee, in the previous Assembly, did an inquiry into adopted children, where we met with a lot of adoptive parents. And one of the big issues that did come out was the fact that there was a great deal of concern about some of the insensitivities in the schools in dealing with adopted children, asking for pictures of when the children were born and things like that that didn't show a degree of sensitivity. Do you feel that those sorts of issues are being addressed on a wider basis now, and are they being addressed through this grant, through the PDG grant?


Could you give some examples of some work that's been done with looked-after children that you feel has been effective?

I think we'd probably need to go away and get that from our evidence base. That would be helpful.

That would be great if you could do that and send something in to us. I've mentioned before in this context that this previous committee, in the previous Assembly, did an inquiry into adopted children, where we met with a lot of adoptive parents. And one of the big issues that did come out was the fact that there was a great deal of concern about some of the insensitivities in the schools in dealing with adopted children, asking for pictures of when the children were born and things like that that didn't show a degree of sensitivity. Do you feel that those sorts of issues are being addressed on a wider basis now, and are they being addressed through this grant, through the PDG grant?

We probably do need to come back to you with some more evidence on this. This is certainly on our radar. We've got two pieces of work currently that we're doing, which will give a little bit more evidence on this. We're doing a piece of work on managed moves and I think that will be helpful because a lot of these pupils are subject to managed moves, and that's the sort of thing we'll be looking at in that report: what information is transferred from one organisation and from one school to another. I think that generally hasn't been very helpful, and there isn't necessarily a good system for exchanging particularly their educational needs—some of the basic things about their date of birth and whatever are transferred, but their educational needs, when children move from one school to another. So, we've got a report coming out on that. The other piece of work we've been doing is on children who have had adverse experiences in their childhood and how schools deal with those traumatic backgrounds.


I think we'd probably need to go away and get that from our evidence base. That would be helpful.

That would be great if you could do that and send something in to us. I've mentioned before in this context that this previous committee, in the previous Assembly, did an inquiry into adopted children, where we met with a lot of adoptive parents. And one of the big issues that did come out was the fact that there was a great deal of concern about some of the insensitivities in the schools in dealing with adopted children, asking for pictures of when the children were born and things like that that didn't show a degree of sensitivity. Do you feel that those sorts of issues are being addressed on a wider basis now, and are they being addressed through this grant, through the PDG grant?

We probably do need to come back to you with some more evidence on this. This is certainly on our radar. We've got two pieces of work currently that we're doing, which will give a little bit more evidence on this. We're doing a piece of work on managed moves and I think that will be helpful because a lot of these pupils are subject to managed moves, and that's the sort of thing we'll be looking at in that report: what information is transferred from one organisation and from one school to another. I think that generally hasn't been very helpful, and there isn't necessarily a good system for exchanging particularly their educational needs—some of the basic things about their date of birth and whatever are transferred, but their educational needs, when children move from one school to another. So, we've got a report coming out on that. The other piece of work we've been doing is on children who have had adverse experiences in their childhood and how schools deal with those traumatic backgrounds.

That would, of course, be much wider than looked-after and adopted children.


That would be great if you could do that and send something in to us. I've mentioned before in this context that this previous committee, in the previous Assembly, did an inquiry into adopted children, where we met with a lot of adoptive parents. And one of the big issues that did come out was the fact that there was a great deal of concern about some of the insensitivities in the schools in dealing with adopted children, asking for pictures of when the children were born and things like that that didn't show a degree of sensitivity. Do you feel that those sorts of issues are being addressed on a wider basis now, and are they being addressed through this grant, through the PDG grant?

We probably do need to come back to you with some more evidence on this. This is certainly on our radar. We've got two pieces of work currently that we're doing, which will give a little bit more evidence on this. We're doing a piece of work on managed moves and I think that will be helpful because a lot of these pupils are subject to managed moves, and that's the sort of thing we'll be looking at in that report: what information is transferred from one organisation and from one school to another. I think that generally hasn't been very helpful, and there isn't necessarily a good system for exchanging particularly their educational needs—some of the basic things about their date of birth and whatever are transferred, but their educational needs, when children move from one school to another. So, we've got a report coming out on that. The other piece of work we've been doing is on children who have had adverse experiences in their childhood and how schools deal with those traumatic backgrounds.

That would, of course, be much wider than looked-after and adopted children.

It is wider. It is wider. That is wider. But, if you don't mind, we'll try and get you something specifically on—


We probably do need to come back to you with some more evidence on this. This is certainly on our radar. We've got two pieces of work currently that we're doing, which will give a little bit more evidence on this. We're doing a piece of work on managed moves and I think that will be helpful because a lot of these pupils are subject to managed moves, and that's the sort of thing we'll be looking at in that report: what information is transferred from one organisation and from one school to another. I think that generally hasn't been very helpful, and there isn't necessarily a good system for exchanging particularly their educational needs—some of the basic things about their date of birth and whatever are transferred, but their educational needs, when children move from one school to another. So, we've got a report coming out on that. The other piece of work we've been doing is on children who have had adverse experiences in their childhood and how schools deal with those traumatic backgrounds.

That would, of course, be much wider than looked-after and adopted children.

It is wider. It is wider. That is wider. But, if you don't mind, we'll try and get you something specifically on—

If you could, because there does generally seem to be a lack of knowledge about how effective this work is with looked-after and adopted children. You don't have any information about exclusion rates, for example, with looked-after children, and the way this grant has been used to address those sorts of issues?


That would, of course, be much wider than looked-after and adopted children.

It is wider. It is wider. That is wider. But, if you don't mind, we'll try and get you something specifically on—

If you could, because there does generally seem to be a lack of knowledge about how effective this work is with looked-after and adopted children. You don't have any information about exclusion rates, for example, with looked-after children, and the way this grant has been used to address those sorts of issues?

I think there is some data available. I don't think exclusions have gone down particularly for that group more than any other group. But there has to be quite a bit of caution used with data on exclusions. The Welsh Government's statistics on that come with a big cautionary note, because that data is subject to a lot of variation—exactly what you're talking about, I think: different counties and different authorities do things differently. And I think the work we're doing on managed moves is very pertinent to that because managed moves don't count as part of the exclusion. So, the exclusion rates will differ from area to area, depending on the policy on managed moves.


It is wider. It is wider. That is wider. But, if you don't mind, we'll try and get you something specifically on—

If you could, because there does generally seem to be a lack of knowledge about how effective this work is with looked-after and adopted children. You don't have any information about exclusion rates, for example, with looked-after children, and the way this grant has been used to address those sorts of issues?

I think there is some data available. I don't think exclusions have gone down particularly for that group more than any other group. But there has to be quite a bit of caution used with data on exclusions. The Welsh Government's statistics on that come with a big cautionary note, because that data is subject to a lot of variation—exactly what you're talking about, I think: different counties and different authorities do things differently. And I think the work we're doing on managed moves is very pertinent to that because managed moves don't count as part of the exclusion. So, the exclusion rates will differ from area to area, depending on the policy on managed moves.

Right. And what about attendance? Anything about attendance with looked-after children? Any evidence of—


If you could, because there does generally seem to be a lack of knowledge about how effective this work is with looked-after and adopted children. You don't have any information about exclusion rates, for example, with looked-after children, and the way this grant has been used to address those sorts of issues?

I think there is some data available. I don't think exclusions have gone down particularly for that group more than any other group. But there has to be quite a bit of caution used with data on exclusions. The Welsh Government's statistics on that come with a big cautionary note, because that data is subject to a lot of variation—exactly what you're talking about, I think: different counties and different authorities do things differently. And I think the work we're doing on managed moves is very pertinent to that because managed moves don't count as part of the exclusion. So, the exclusion rates will differ from area to area, depending on the policy on managed moves.

Right. And what about attendance? Anything about attendance with looked-after children? Any evidence of—

I'll have to look that up as well I think.


I think there is some data available. I don't think exclusions have gone down particularly for that group more than any other group. But there has to be quite a bit of caution used with data on exclusions. The Welsh Government's statistics on that come with a big cautionary note, because that data is subject to a lot of variation—exactly what you're talking about, I think: different counties and different authorities do things differently. And I think the work we're doing on managed moves is very pertinent to that because managed moves don't count as part of the exclusion. So, the exclusion rates will differ from area to area, depending on the policy on managed moves.

Right. And what about attendance? Anything about attendance with looked-after children? Any evidence of—

I'll have to look that up as well I think.

I think, Chair, if we can have some more information on all of this, it would be great.


Right. And what about attendance? Anything about attendance with looked-after children? Any evidence of—

I'll have to look that up as well I think.

I think, Chair, if we can have some more information on all of this, it would be great.

Okay, yes, we'll look forward to receiving that further information from you. Mark.


I'll have to look that up as well I think.

I think, Chair, if we can have some more information on all of this, it would be great.

Okay, yes, we'll look forward to receiving that further information from you. Mark.

Could I just ask a follow-up to a response that we had last week when we had the EAS consortium in, amongst others? They told us that the specific grant—the pupil deprivation grant—principally for looked-after children, they were responsible for, and that certainly the vast bulk of that was spent on a specific programme, aimed not at LACs specifically, but at all children considered vulnerable at times of transition, particularly into year 7. Does that strike you as an appropriate use of that grant?


I think, Chair, if we can have some more information on all of this, it would be great.

Okay, yes, we'll look forward to receiving that further information from you. Mark.

Could I just ask a follow-up to a response that we had last week when we had the EAS consortium in, amongst others? They told us that the specific grant—the pupil deprivation grant—principally for looked-after children, they were responsible for, and that certainly the vast bulk of that was spent on a specific programme, aimed not at LACs specifically, but at all children considered vulnerable at times of transition, particularly into year 7. Does that strike you as an appropriate use of that grant?

I think transition is appropriate—that's quite sensible, but clearly if the grant is for looked-after children, it should be spent on looked-after children.


Okay, yes, we'll look forward to receiving that further information from you. Mark.

Could I just ask a follow-up to a response that we had last week when we had the EAS consortium in, amongst others? They told us that the specific grant—the pupil deprivation grant—principally for looked-after children, they were responsible for, and that certainly the vast bulk of that was spent on a specific programme, aimed not at LACs specifically, but at all children considered vulnerable at times of transition, particularly into year 7. Does that strike you as an appropriate use of that grant?

I think transition is appropriate—that's quite sensible, but clearly if the grant is for looked-after children, it should be spent on looked-after children.

Are there any other comments on that approach? I think, to take up what EAS has said, there were difficulties about having particular programmes aimed specifically at individual looked-after children, and it was felt that they would benefit vulnerable children, who had more transitions between schools perhaps than others. Is that a sufficient link to justify how that grant is spent? I think this is really in the wider context of how much schools need to make sure this grant goes towards the group it's specified for, and to what extent it is acceptable to blur the boundaries of that and perhaps this is just an example of a higher degree of blurring than some others.


Could I just ask a follow-up to a response that we had last week when we had the EAS consortium in, amongst others? They told us that the specific grant—the pupil deprivation grant—principally for looked-after children, they were responsible for, and that certainly the vast bulk of that was spent on a specific programme, aimed not at LACs specifically, but at all children considered vulnerable at times of transition, particularly into year 7. Does that strike you as an appropriate use of that grant?

I think transition is appropriate—that's quite sensible, but clearly if the grant is for looked-after children, it should be spent on looked-after children.

Are there any other comments on that approach? I think, to take up what EAS has said, there were difficulties about having particular programmes aimed specifically at individual looked-after children, and it was felt that they would benefit vulnerable children, who had more transitions between schools perhaps than others. Is that a sufficient link to justify how that grant is spent? I think this is really in the wider context of how much schools need to make sure this grant goes towards the group it's specified for, and to what extent it is acceptable to blur the boundaries of that and perhaps this is just an example of a higher degree of blurring than some others.

I don't know enough about this particular initiative to comment, but I would have thought that looked-after children is a very small group and if you were to blur it that much, then it wouldn't be very targeted. I would have thought that if the grant is specifically for looked-after children, it should be more targeted, but I don't know the details.


I think transition is appropriate—that's quite sensible, but clearly if the grant is for looked-after children, it should be spent on looked-after children.

Are there any other comments on that approach? I think, to take up what EAS has said, there were difficulties about having particular programmes aimed specifically at individual looked-after children, and it was felt that they would benefit vulnerable children, who had more transitions between schools perhaps than others. Is that a sufficient link to justify how that grant is spent? I think this is really in the wider context of how much schools need to make sure this grant goes towards the group it's specified for, and to what extent it is acceptable to blur the boundaries of that and perhaps this is just an example of a higher degree of blurring than some others.

I don't know enough about this particular initiative to comment, but I would have thought that looked-after children is a very small group and if you were to blur it that much, then it wouldn't be very targeted. I would have thought that if the grant is specifically for looked-after children, it should be more targeted, but I don't know the details.

Just following up on another point, I think you said that the 'PLASS' data—. I apologise that I'm not familiar with the abbreviation, but could you explain if anything was being done to address previously looked-after children who are now adopted and seeking to ensure that they are measured to that data to allow proper tracking. Is that work that's in hand, do you know? Could you just clarify for me the 'PLASS' description and what information system that that refers to?


Are there any other comments on that approach? I think, to take up what EAS has said, there were difficulties about having particular programmes aimed specifically at individual looked-after children, and it was felt that they would benefit vulnerable children, who had more transitions between schools perhaps than others. Is that a sufficient link to justify how that grant is spent? I think this is really in the wider context of how much schools need to make sure this grant goes towards the group it's specified for, and to what extent it is acceptable to blur the boundaries of that and perhaps this is just an example of a higher degree of blurring than some others.

I don't know enough about this particular initiative to comment, but I would have thought that looked-after children is a very small group and if you were to blur it that much, then it wouldn't be very targeted. I would have thought that if the grant is specifically for looked-after children, it should be more targeted, but I don't know the details.

Just following up on another point, I think you said that the 'PLASS' data—. I apologise that I'm not familiar with the abbreviation, but could you explain if anything was being done to address previously looked-after children who are now adopted and seeking to ensure that they are measured to that data to allow proper tracking. Is that work that's in hand, do you know? Could you just clarify for me the 'PLASS' description and what information system that that refers to?

That's the information that schools give formally to Welsh Government and every so often, the data that is collected formally by Welsh Government is improved and expanded. Exclusions is a good example. Previously, exclusions weren't collected through PLASC—the pupil level annual school census—and so we had no proper data at all on exclusions. Now that's been improved, but I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here.


I don't know enough about this particular initiative to comment, but I would have thought that looked-after children is a very small group and if you were to blur it that much, then it wouldn't be very targeted. I would have thought that if the grant is specifically for looked-after children, it should be more targeted, but I don't know the details.

Just following up on another point, I think you said that the 'PLASS' data—. I apologise that I'm not familiar with the abbreviation, but could you explain if anything was being done to address previously looked-after children who are now adopted and seeking to ensure that they are measured to that data to allow proper tracking. Is that work that's in hand, do you know? Could you just clarify for me the 'PLASS' description and what information system that that refers to?

That's the information that schools give formally to Welsh Government and every so often, the data that is collected formally by Welsh Government is improved and expanded. Exclusions is a good example. Previously, exclusions weren't collected through PLASC—the pupil level annual school census—and so we had no proper data at all on exclusions. Now that's been improved, but I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here.

Well, I think what you were referring to—. I think you were saying that previously looked-after children who are now adopted, unlike looked-after children, that wasn't tracked by the PLASC data.


Just following up on another point, I think you said that the 'PLASS' data—. I apologise that I'm not familiar with the abbreviation, but could you explain if anything was being done to address previously looked-after children who are now adopted and seeking to ensure that they are measured to that data to allow proper tracking. Is that work that's in hand, do you know? Could you just clarify for me the 'PLASS' description and what information system that that refers to?

That's the information that schools give formally to Welsh Government and every so often, the data that is collected formally by Welsh Government is improved and expanded. Exclusions is a good example. Previously, exclusions weren't collected through PLASC—the pupil level annual school census—and so we had no proper data at all on exclusions. Now that's been improved, but I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here.

Well, I think what you were referring to—. I think you were saying that previously looked-after children who are now adopted, unlike looked-after children, that wasn't tracked by the PLASC data.

That's our understanding. Looked-after children are differentiated, but whether they're adopted or not—whether any children are adopted—isn't picked up in the data at the moment.


That's the information that schools give formally to Welsh Government and every so often, the data that is collected formally by Welsh Government is improved and expanded. Exclusions is a good example. Previously, exclusions weren't collected through PLASC—the pupil level annual school census—and so we had no proper data at all on exclusions. Now that's been improved, but I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here.

Well, I think what you were referring to—. I think you were saying that previously looked-after children who are now adopted, unlike looked-after children, that wasn't tracked by the PLASC data.

That's our understanding. Looked-after children are differentiated, but whether they're adopted or not—whether any children are adopted—isn't picked up in the data at the moment.

But I think for the grant, it's previously looked-after children who have since been adopted rather than all adopted children, isn't it?


Well, I think what you were referring to—. I think you were saying that previously looked-after children who are now adopted, unlike looked-after children, that wasn't tracked by the PLASC data.

That's our understanding. Looked-after children are differentiated, but whether they're adopted or not—whether any children are adopted—isn't picked up in the data at the moment.

But I think for the grant, it's previously looked-after children who have since been adopted rather than all adopted children, isn't it?

Again, perhaps you could clarify that for us in the further information that you will provide.


That's our understanding. Looked-after children are differentiated, but whether they're adopted or not—whether any children are adopted—isn't picked up in the data at the moment.

But I think for the grant, it's previously looked-after children who have since been adopted rather than all adopted children, isn't it?

Again, perhaps you could clarify that for us in the further information that you will provide.

Although, you'd probably be better off asking the Welsh Government directly.


But I think for the grant, it's previously looked-after children who have since been adopted rather than all adopted children, isn't it?

Again, perhaps you could clarify that for us in the further information that you will provide.

Although, you'd probably be better off asking the Welsh Government directly.

Yes, I agree—I think that would be better, but just to clarify finally from me, Chair: is your point that, if that group isn't measured, then it is difficult to target them with this grant, and if we want them to be targeted with this grant, we should ensure that they're tracked through that data system?


Again, perhaps you could clarify that for us in the further information that you will provide.

Although, you'd probably be better off asking the Welsh Government directly.

Yes, I agree—I think that would be better, but just to clarify finally from me, Chair: is your point that, if that group isn't measured, then it is difficult to target them with this grant, and if we want them to be targeted with this grant, we should ensure that they're tracked through that data system?


Although, you'd probably be better off asking the Welsh Government directly.

Yes, I agree—I think that would be better, but just to clarify finally from me, Chair: is your point that, if that group isn't measured, then it is difficult to target them with this grant, and if we want them to be targeted with this grant, we should ensure that they're tracked through that data system?

Okay. Mark, I think you have some further questions on Schools Challenge Cymru.


Yes, I agree—I think that would be better, but just to clarify finally from me, Chair: is your point that, if that group isn't measured, then it is difficult to target them with this grant, and if we want them to be targeted with this grant, we should ensure that they're tracked through that data system?

Okay. Mark, I think you have some further questions on Schools Challenge Cymru.

Yes. Did you consider that the Schools Challenge Cymru programme was a success?


Okay. Mark, I think you have some further questions on Schools Challenge Cymru.

Yes. Did you consider that the Schools Challenge Cymru programme was a success?

It was certainly variable. It lasted for a relatively short period of time, so it's quite difficult to be definitive about the evaluation of it, but it was certainly variable. It varied from school to school. Some were very successful, some didn't make as much improvement. If it had lasted longer, maybe it would have made a difference. Overall, the data made—. There were improvements overall for the 40 schools over and above the general improvement that there was for all schools in Wales. So, you could say that it was successful in that respect. So, it's quite difficult to say whether it was successful, because that was a fairly limited improvement for quite a lot of money. It is, you know, quite a difficult judgment to say whether it was successful or not overall. What strikes one, I think, was the variability in the success of it, and I think that was clear also at an operational level. It was clearly more successful in certain areas where all the various people involved in the work worked together effectively. So, the challenge adviser and the local authority and the regional consortia were all working effectively together. And, in other cases, they weren't, and there had to be changes in personnel and that sort of thing. So, it was quite variable.


Okay. Mark, I think you have some further questions on Schools Challenge Cymru.

Yes. Did you consider that the Schools Challenge Cymru programme was a success?

It was certainly variable. It lasted for a relatively short period of time, so it's quite difficult to be definitive about the evaluation of it, but it was certainly variable. It varied from school to school. Some were very successful, some didn't make as much improvement. If it had lasted longer, maybe it would have made a difference. Overall, the data made—. There were improvements overall for the 40 schools over and above the general improvement that there was for all schools in Wales. So, you could say that it was successful in that respect. So, it's quite difficult to say whether it was successful, because that was a fairly limited improvement for quite a lot of money. It is, you know, quite a difficult judgment to say whether it was successful or not overall. What strikes one, I think, was the variability in the success of it, and I think that was clear also at an operational level. It was clearly more successful in certain areas where all the various people involved in the work worked together effectively. So, the challenge adviser and the local authority and the regional consortia were all working effectively together. And, in other cases, they weren't, and there had to be changes in personnel and that sort of thing. So, it was quite variable.

Of the five schools within the programme that Estyn actually inspected in the last year of the programme, I think that three of those were in special measures and two required significant improvement. Doesn't that suggest that, as far as Estyn engaged with the programme, your evidence was not to suggest that it was being successful?


Yes. Did you consider that the Schools Challenge Cymru programme was a success?

It was certainly variable. It lasted for a relatively short period of time, so it's quite difficult to be definitive about the evaluation of it, but it was certainly variable. It varied from school to school. Some were very successful, some didn't make as much improvement. If it had lasted longer, maybe it would have made a difference. Overall, the data made—. There were improvements overall for the 40 schools over and above the general improvement that there was for all schools in Wales. So, you could say that it was successful in that respect. So, it's quite difficult to say whether it was successful, because that was a fairly limited improvement for quite a lot of money. It is, you know, quite a difficult judgment to say whether it was successful or not overall. What strikes one, I think, was the variability in the success of it, and I think that was clear also at an operational level. It was clearly more successful in certain areas where all the various people involved in the work worked together effectively. So, the challenge adviser and the local authority and the regional consortia were all working effectively together. And, in other cases, they weren't, and there had to be changes in personnel and that sort of thing. So, it was quite variable.

Of the five schools within the programme that Estyn actually inspected in the last year of the programme, I think that three of those were in special measures and two required significant improvement. Doesn't that suggest that, as far as Estyn engaged with the programme, your evidence was not to suggest that it was being successful?

Not wildly successful, certainly, but many of these schools would have been in those sorts of categories in the past as well. So, it's not very surprising that many of them still remained. So, it wasn't a huge success, clearly. As you say, many of these schools are still struggling schools, so it hasn't been a panacea.


It was certainly variable. It lasted for a relatively short period of time, so it's quite difficult to be definitive about the evaluation of it, but it was certainly variable. It varied from school to school. Some were very successful, some didn't make as much improvement. If it had lasted longer, maybe it would have made a difference. Overall, the data made—. There were improvements overall for the 40 schools over and above the general improvement that there was for all schools in Wales. So, you could say that it was successful in that respect. So, it's quite difficult to say whether it was successful, because that was a fairly limited improvement for quite a lot of money. It is, you know, quite a difficult judgment to say whether it was successful or not overall. What strikes one, I think, was the variability in the success of it, and I think that was clear also at an operational level. It was clearly more successful in certain areas where all the various people involved in the work worked together effectively. So, the challenge adviser and the local authority and the regional consortia were all working effectively together. And, in other cases, they weren't, and there had to be changes in personnel and that sort of thing. So, it was quite variable.

Of the five schools within the programme that Estyn actually inspected in the last year of the programme, I think that three of those were in special measures and two required significant improvement. Doesn't that suggest that, as far as Estyn engaged with the programme, your evidence was not to suggest that it was being successful?

Not wildly successful, certainly, but many of these schools would have been in those sorts of categories in the past as well. So, it's not very surprising that many of them still remained. So, it wasn't a huge success, clearly. As you say, many of these schools are still struggling schools, so it hasn't been a panacea.

Bearing in mind your remarks earlier over the focus on key stage 4, in particular the C to D grade boundary, what sort of minimum length of time should a programme like this run for if we are to expect success?


Of the five schools within the programme that Estyn actually inspected in the last year of the programme, I think that three of those were in special measures and two required significant improvement. Doesn't that suggest that, as far as Estyn engaged with the programme, your evidence was not to suggest that it was being successful?

Not wildly successful, certainly, but many of these schools would have been in those sorts of categories in the past as well. So, it's not very surprising that many of them still remained. So, it wasn't a huge success, clearly. As you say, many of these schools are still struggling schools, so it hasn't been a panacea.

Bearing in mind your remarks earlier over the focus on key stage 4, in particular the C to D grade boundary, what sort of minimum length of time should a programme like this run for if we are to expect success?

That's a hugely difficult question to answer, and it is at the core of whether this initiative was successful. There has been research, and people have looked at things like the City Challenge and have suggested that two or three years is too short a period to make a proper evaluation of how successful those particular initiatives were. I don't know of similar evaluations to that particular point in Wales for the Schools Challenge Cymru, but with similar initiatives in England, the suggestion has been that you need at least three years to be able to evaluate it properly.


Not wildly successful, certainly, but many of these schools would have been in those sorts of categories in the past as well. So, it's not very surprising that many of them still remained. So, it wasn't a huge success, clearly. As you say, many of these schools are still struggling schools, so it hasn't been a panacea.

Bearing in mind your remarks earlier over the focus on key stage 4, in particular the C to D grade boundary, what sort of minimum length of time should a programme like this run for if we are to expect success?

That's a hugely difficult question to answer, and it is at the core of whether this initiative was successful. There has been research, and people have looked at things like the City Challenge and have suggested that two or three years is too short a period to make a proper evaluation of how successful those particular initiatives were. I don't know of similar evaluations to that particular point in Wales for the Schools Challenge Cymru, but with similar initiatives in England, the suggestion has been that you need at least three years to be able to evaluate it properly.

The Schools Challenge Cymru advisers, I understand that Estyn met with those termly through the programme. Can you explain how useful that engagement was, and also perhaps compare or contrast it to the ongoing engagement you have with the advisers from the regional consortia?


Bearing in mind your remarks earlier over the focus on key stage 4, in particular the C to D grade boundary, what sort of minimum length of time should a programme like this run for if we are to expect success?

That's a hugely difficult question to answer, and it is at the core of whether this initiative was successful. There has been research, and people have looked at things like the City Challenge and have suggested that two or three years is too short a period to make a proper evaluation of how successful those particular initiatives were. I don't know of similar evaluations to that particular point in Wales for the Schools Challenge Cymru, but with similar initiatives in England, the suggestion has been that you need at least three years to be able to evaluate it properly.

The Schools Challenge Cymru advisers, I understand that Estyn met with those termly through the programme. Can you explain how useful that engagement was, and also perhaps compare or contrast it to the ongoing engagement you have with the advisers from the regional consortia?

You know, the engagement we had with local authorities, and regional consortia, and with Schools Challenge Cymru advisers was not really a problem for us. That was fine. I think the engagement with each other was more of the issue, really. I think the challenge for Schools Challenge Cymru was that it was introduced at a time when regional consortia were just beginning. So, you had a period of time when it wasn't entirely clear what the responsibilities of regional consortia were, compared with local authorities. That has developed and clarified over time, but at that time it wasn't entirely clear. Plus, you were bringing in another player to the school improvement landscape. When all of those different agencies worked well together, then that was a positive thing for schools. When they were all saying the same thing, having that extra resource, extra money, extra attention, was a positive thing; but, clearly, in some cases, that relationship didn't always work, and some schools felt that they were being told different things by different agencies. Clearly, that was one of the reasons why that wasn't as successful.


That's a hugely difficult question to answer, and it is at the core of whether this initiative was successful. There has been research, and people have looked at things like the City Challenge and have suggested that two or three years is too short a period to make a proper evaluation of how successful those particular initiatives were. I don't know of similar evaluations to that particular point in Wales for the Schools Challenge Cymru, but with similar initiatives in England, the suggestion has been that you need at least three years to be able to evaluate it properly.

The Schools Challenge Cymru advisers, I understand that Estyn met with those termly through the programme. Can you explain how useful that engagement was, and also perhaps compare or contrast it to the ongoing engagement you have with the advisers from the regional consortia?

You know, the engagement we had with local authorities, and regional consortia, and with Schools Challenge Cymru advisers was not really a problem for us. That was fine. I think the engagement with each other was more of the issue, really. I think the challenge for Schools Challenge Cymru was that it was introduced at a time when regional consortia were just beginning. So, you had a period of time when it wasn't entirely clear what the responsibilities of regional consortia were, compared with local authorities. That has developed and clarified over time, but at that time it wasn't entirely clear. Plus, you were bringing in another player to the school improvement landscape. When all of those different agencies worked well together, then that was a positive thing for schools. When they were all saying the same thing, having that extra resource, extra money, extra attention, was a positive thing; but, clearly, in some cases, that relationship didn't always work, and some schools felt that they were being told different things by different agencies. Clearly, that was one of the reasons why that wasn't as successful.

So, is Welsh Government now trying to do, through the regional consortia, what it was then trying to do through Schools Challenge Cymru?


The Schools Challenge Cymru advisers, I understand that Estyn met with those termly through the programme. Can you explain how useful that engagement was, and also perhaps compare or contrast it to the ongoing engagement you have with the advisers from the regional consortia?

You know, the engagement we had with local authorities, and regional consortia, and with Schools Challenge Cymru advisers was not really a problem for us. That was fine. I think the engagement with each other was more of the issue, really. I think the challenge for Schools Challenge Cymru was that it was introduced at a time when regional consortia were just beginning. So, you had a period of time when it wasn't entirely clear what the responsibilities of regional consortia were, compared with local authorities. That has developed and clarified over time, but at that time it wasn't entirely clear. Plus, you were bringing in another player to the school improvement landscape. When all of those different agencies worked well together, then that was a positive thing for schools. When they were all saying the same thing, having that extra resource, extra money, extra attention, was a positive thing; but, clearly, in some cases, that relationship didn't always work, and some schools felt that they were being told different things by different agencies. Clearly, that was one of the reasons why that wasn't as successful.

So, is Welsh Government now trying to do, through the regional consortia, what it was then trying to do through Schools Challenge Cymru?

Well, what you had then was you had all three: you had local authorities and regional consortia and Schools Challenge Cymru. So, what you have now is a clearer demarcation of who does what. I don't think what Welsh Government are doing now is the same as what they were trying to do in Schools Challenge Cymru, because I think what Schools Challenge Cymru did, and did well, I think, was identify that there are a small number of secondary schools that have particular challenges and they need over and above the normal local authority/regional consortia support, they need over and above that a certain quantum of support and resource. I think that's specifically what Schools Challenge Cymru was trying to do, and that's not quite the same as what the more universal provision of regional consortia is.


You know, the engagement we had with local authorities, and regional consortia, and with Schools Challenge Cymru advisers was not really a problem for us. That was fine. I think the engagement with each other was more of the issue, really. I think the challenge for Schools Challenge Cymru was that it was introduced at a time when regional consortia were just beginning. So, you had a period of time when it wasn't entirely clear what the responsibilities of regional consortia were, compared with local authorities. That has developed and clarified over time, but at that time it wasn't entirely clear. Plus, you were bringing in another player to the school improvement landscape. When all of those different agencies worked well together, then that was a positive thing for schools. When they were all saying the same thing, having that extra resource, extra money, extra attention, was a positive thing; but, clearly, in some cases, that relationship didn't always work, and some schools felt that they were being told different things by different agencies. Clearly, that was one of the reasons why that wasn't as successful.

So, is Welsh Government now trying to do, through the regional consortia, what it was then trying to do through Schools Challenge Cymru?

Well, what you had then was you had all three: you had local authorities and regional consortia and Schools Challenge Cymru. So, what you have now is a clearer demarcation of who does what. I don't think what Welsh Government are doing now is the same as what they were trying to do in Schools Challenge Cymru, because I think what Schools Challenge Cymru did, and did well, I think, was identify that there are a small number of secondary schools that have particular challenges and they need over and above the normal local authority/regional consortia support, they need over and above that a certain quantum of support and resource. I think that's specifically what Schools Challenge Cymru was trying to do, and that's not quite the same as what the more universal provision of regional consortia is.

Okay, that's all we have time for in this session, I'm afraid. There are some questions that we haven't reached that we'll write to you on to obtain further responses, and there are some matters that you've identified where you need to provide us with further information also. May I thank you very much for coming along this morning to give evidence? You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Thank you very much. The committee will now break for just over six minutes until 11:30. Welcome back, for item 3 on our agenda today, scrutiny of Estyn's annual report for 2016-17. We've got a number of areas to cover, but please, Members, feel free to raise whatever issues you think appropriate, because the areas that we've identified are a general guide only. Okay, welcome back to Estyn, our witnesses for this session also. I don't know if we need further introductions. I don't think we do, really; we've already had that on the record. So, we'll move straight into questions then, and Llyr.


So, is Welsh Government now trying to do, through the regional consortia, what it was then trying to do through Schools Challenge Cymru?

Well, what you had then was you had all three: you had local authorities and regional consortia and Schools Challenge Cymru. So, what you have now is a clearer demarcation of who does what. I don't think what Welsh Government are doing now is the same as what they were trying to do in Schools Challenge Cymru, because I think what Schools Challenge Cymru did, and did well, I think, was identify that there are a small number of secondary schools that have particular challenges and they need over and above the normal local authority/regional consortia support, they need over and above that a certain quantum of support and resource. I think that's specifically what Schools Challenge Cymru was trying to do, and that's not quite the same as what the more universal provision of regional consortia is.

Okay, that's all we have time for in this session, I'm afraid. There are some questions that we haven't reached that we'll write to you on to obtain further responses, and there are some matters that you've identified where you need to provide us with further information also. May I thank you very much for coming along this morning to give evidence? You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Thank you very much. The committee will now break for just over six minutes until 11:30. Welcome back, for item 3 on our agenda today, scrutiny of Estyn's annual report for 2016-17. We've got a number of areas to cover, but please, Members, feel free to raise whatever issues you think appropriate, because the areas that we've identified are a general guide only. Okay, welcome back to Estyn, our witnesses for this session also. I don't know if we need further introductions. I don't think we do, really; we've already had that on the record. So, we'll move straight into questions then, and Llyr.

Thank you very much. Just to start with, what's your opinion about the way the Government has been introducing reforms in this area over this past inspection cycle? In general, what is your opinion about how effective that has been and how much of an impression has it had?


Well, what you had then was you had all three: you had local authorities and regional consortia and Schools Challenge Cymru. So, what you have now is a clearer demarcation of who does what. I don't think what Welsh Government are doing now is the same as what they were trying to do in Schools Challenge Cymru, because I think what Schools Challenge Cymru did, and did well, I think, was identify that there are a small number of secondary schools that have particular challenges and they need over and above the normal local authority/regional consortia support, they need over and above that a certain quantum of support and resource. I think that's specifically what Schools Challenge Cymru was trying to do, and that's not quite the same as what the more universal provision of regional consortia is.

Okay, that's all we have time for in this session, I'm afraid. There are some questions that we haven't reached that we'll write to you on to obtain further responses, and there are some matters that you've identified where you need to provide us with further information also. May I thank you very much for coming along this morning to give evidence? You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Thank you very much. The committee will now break for just over six minutes until 11:30. Welcome back, for item 3 on our agenda today, scrutiny of Estyn's annual report for 2016-17. We've got a number of areas to cover, but please, Members, feel free to raise whatever issues you think appropriate, because the areas that we've identified are a general guide only. Okay, welcome back to Estyn, our witnesses for this session also. I don't know if we need further introductions. I don't think we do, really; we've already had that on the record. So, we'll move straight into questions then, and Llyr.

Thank you very much. Just to start with, what's your opinion about the way the Government has been introducing reforms in this area over this past inspection cycle? In general, what is your opinion about how effective that has been and how much of an impression has it had?

Well the seven year cycle encompasses three Governments if truth be told, but there has been a sense of continuity and progress made in the nature of policy work in general, starting with the fundamental things such as literacy and numeracy in the first instance and also behaviour and attendance, as I said earlier this morning. And then they've developed a far more comprehensive scheme that is at the heart of the development of the curriculum and pedagogy specifically. And I think that that general shift from the foundations—of literacy and numeracy—moving towards the curriculum and pedagogy does make sense. And the other trend that we've seen is to promote collaboration and the self-improvement system, as it's called. I also think that there are a number of progressive countries doing the same kind of thing. So, I think that the general direction is right.


Okay, that's all we have time for in this session, I'm afraid. There are some questions that we haven't reached that we'll write to you on to obtain further responses, and there are some matters that you've identified where you need to provide us with further information also. May I thank you very much for coming along this morning to give evidence? You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy in the usual way. Thank you very much. The committee will now break for just over six minutes until 11:30. Welcome back, for item 3 on our agenda today, scrutiny of Estyn's annual report for 2016-17. We've got a number of areas to cover, but please, Members, feel free to raise whatever issues you think appropriate, because the areas that we've identified are a general guide only. Okay, welcome back to Estyn, our witnesses for this session also. I don't know if we need further introductions. I don't think we do, really; we've already had that on the record. So, we'll move straight into questions then, and Llyr.

Thank you very much. Just to start with, what's your opinion about the way the Government has been introducing reforms in this area over this past inspection cycle? In general, what is your opinion about how effective that has been and how much of an impression has it had?

Well the seven year cycle encompasses three Governments if truth be told, but there has been a sense of continuity and progress made in the nature of policy work in general, starting with the fundamental things such as literacy and numeracy in the first instance and also behaviour and attendance, as I said earlier this morning. And then they've developed a far more comprehensive scheme that is at the heart of the development of the curriculum and pedagogy specifically. And I think that that general shift from the foundations—of literacy and numeracy—moving towards the curriculum and pedagogy does make sense. And the other trend that we've seen is to promote collaboration and the self-improvement system, as it's called. I also think that there are a number of progressive countries doing the same kind of thing. So, I think that the general direction is right.

So, you think—and I'd agree—that the focus on pedagogy is correct and that this culture that appears to be putting more emphasis on self-improvement, and so on, is a positive one. Are there aspects that haven't worked as well in your opinion?


Thank you very much. Just to start with, what's your opinion about the way the Government has been introducing reforms in this area over this past inspection cycle? In general, what is your opinion about how effective that has been and how much of an impression has it had?

Well the seven year cycle encompasses three Governments if truth be told, but there has been a sense of continuity and progress made in the nature of policy work in general, starting with the fundamental things such as literacy and numeracy in the first instance and also behaviour and attendance, as I said earlier this morning. And then they've developed a far more comprehensive scheme that is at the heart of the development of the curriculum and pedagogy specifically. And I think that that general shift from the foundations—of literacy and numeracy—moving towards the curriculum and pedagogy does make sense. And the other trend that we've seen is to promote collaboration and the self-improvement system, as it's called. I also think that there are a number of progressive countries doing the same kind of thing. So, I think that the general direction is right.

So, you think—and I'd agree—that the focus on pedagogy is correct and that this culture that appears to be putting more emphasis on self-improvement, and so on, is a positive one. Are there aspects that haven't worked as well in your opinion?

Of course, one accepts that one would like to see development and progress happening far more quickly, but, even in that instance, we need to balance the need that we all have to see progress with the pressures that are on teachers—there are so many things changing. I think that the most striking aspect in looking back over the past seven years is that all aspects of work in the education system—I'm trying to avoid saying 'schools', because it's more than just schools; it's colleges and the system as a whole—have changed. All aspects of that have changed, and I think that we need that—all of those aspects need to be changed and improved—but we need to balance that against the fact that we need to not go so fast, because workload on teachers—. This responsibility of self-improvement means that there is more pressure on teachers and headteachers, ultimately. That's why Estyn was very pleased to collaborate with 15 other bodies to give guidance on workload for teachers, because we have to be very careful to get that right as well.


Well the seven year cycle encompasses three Governments if truth be told, but there has been a sense of continuity and progress made in the nature of policy work in general, starting with the fundamental things such as literacy and numeracy in the first instance and also behaviour and attendance, as I said earlier this morning. And then they've developed a far more comprehensive scheme that is at the heart of the development of the curriculum and pedagogy specifically. And I think that that general shift from the foundations—of literacy and numeracy—moving towards the curriculum and pedagogy does make sense. And the other trend that we've seen is to promote collaboration and the self-improvement system, as it's called. I also think that there are a number of progressive countries doing the same kind of thing. So, I think that the general direction is right.

So, you think—and I'd agree—that the focus on pedagogy is correct and that this culture that appears to be putting more emphasis on self-improvement, and so on, is a positive one. Are there aspects that haven't worked as well in your opinion?

Of course, one accepts that one would like to see development and progress happening far more quickly, but, even in that instance, we need to balance the need that we all have to see progress with the pressures that are on teachers—there are so many things changing. I think that the most striking aspect in looking back over the past seven years is that all aspects of work in the education system—I'm trying to avoid saying 'schools', because it's more than just schools; it's colleges and the system as a whole—have changed. All aspects of that have changed, and I think that we need that—all of those aspects need to be changed and improved—but we need to balance that against the fact that we need to not go so fast, because workload on teachers—. This responsibility of self-improvement means that there is more pressure on teachers and headteachers, ultimately. That's why Estyn was very pleased to collaborate with 15 other bodies to give guidance on workload for teachers, because we have to be very careful to get that right as well.

But is it disappointing, then, in the latest annual report, that you are to all intents and purposes coming to the conclusion that the performance is consistent with how it has been over the past inspection cycle? Would you not expect some kind of progress or something more significant in terms of outcomes?


So, you think—and I'd agree—that the focus on pedagogy is correct and that this culture that appears to be putting more emphasis on self-improvement, and so on, is a positive one. Are there aspects that haven't worked as well in your opinion?

Of course, one accepts that one would like to see development and progress happening far more quickly, but, even in that instance, we need to balance the need that we all have to see progress with the pressures that are on teachers—there are so many things changing. I think that the most striking aspect in looking back over the past seven years is that all aspects of work in the education system—I'm trying to avoid saying 'schools', because it's more than just schools; it's colleges and the system as a whole—have changed. All aspects of that have changed, and I think that we need that—all of those aspects need to be changed and improved—but we need to balance that against the fact that we need to not go so fast, because workload on teachers—. This responsibility of self-improvement means that there is more pressure on teachers and headteachers, ultimately. That's why Estyn was very pleased to collaborate with 15 other bodies to give guidance on workload for teachers, because we have to be very careful to get that right as well.

But is it disappointing, then, in the latest annual report, that you are to all intents and purposes coming to the conclusion that the performance is consistent with how it has been over the past inspection cycle? Would you not expect some kind of progress or something more significant in terms of outcomes?

That's one way of looking at it. Another way, as I said earlier, is that all of these things are changing and, under those particular circumstances, that it's a good thing that teachers and the education system have been able to maintain standards and the quality of education.


Of course, one accepts that one would like to see development and progress happening far more quickly, but, even in that instance, we need to balance the need that we all have to see progress with the pressures that are on teachers—there are so many things changing. I think that the most striking aspect in looking back over the past seven years is that all aspects of work in the education system—I'm trying to avoid saying 'schools', because it's more than just schools; it's colleges and the system as a whole—have changed. All aspects of that have changed, and I think that we need that—all of those aspects need to be changed and improved—but we need to balance that against the fact that we need to not go so fast, because workload on teachers—. This responsibility of self-improvement means that there is more pressure on teachers and headteachers, ultimately. That's why Estyn was very pleased to collaborate with 15 other bodies to give guidance on workload for teachers, because we have to be very careful to get that right as well.

But is it disappointing, then, in the latest annual report, that you are to all intents and purposes coming to the conclusion that the performance is consistent with how it has been over the past inspection cycle? Would you not expect some kind of progress or something more significant in terms of outcomes?

That's one way of looking at it. Another way, as I said earlier, is that all of these things are changing and, under those particular circumstances, that it's a good thing that teachers and the education system have been able to maintain standards and the quality of education.

The sector, of course, is continually evolving. We know that a number of these reforms are still playing out and are still being developed and introduced. Of course, there is a risk that we are in this situation continuously, and therefore settling for managing to maintain, for me, perhaps wouldn't show enough ambition. Is there a risk that we will find ourselves continually—? As you say, the inspection cycle has seen three Governments. There are changes and different policies and priorities being implemented. From what you say, that does prevent the development of the sector.


But is it disappointing, then, in the latest annual report, that you are to all intents and purposes coming to the conclusion that the performance is consistent with how it has been over the past inspection cycle? Would you not expect some kind of progress or something more significant in terms of outcomes?

That's one way of looking at it. Another way, as I said earlier, is that all of these things are changing and, under those particular circumstances, that it's a good thing that teachers and the education system have been able to maintain standards and the quality of education.

The sector, of course, is continually evolving. We know that a number of these reforms are still playing out and are still being developed and introduced. Of course, there is a risk that we are in this situation continuously, and therefore settling for managing to maintain, for me, perhaps wouldn't show enough ambition. Is there a risk that we will find ourselves continually—? As you say, the inspection cycle has seen three Governments. There are changes and different policies and priorities being implemented. From what you say, that does prevent the development of the sector.

We are in the middle of a period of major change, and you're right that there is more change to come. The new curriculum will reach key stage 4 in around seven years again, so we're genuinely in the middle of this period of change. Perhaps 'revolutionary' is too strong a word, but it is the biggest change that I've seen in my career. You have to go back to the 1980s and 1990s to see similar changes. Of course, we all wish to see swifter progress being made, but what that means in practice is that you push more changes through, or that you push through the changes that we currently have more quickly. There was discussion, for example, about when the new curriculum should be introduced. Those are the kinds of practical questions that arise, and you have to remember that, in the classroom, what you will have are individual teachers having to prepare for a new GCSE, a new A-level, and there are new specifications in that regard, and it's a great deal of work. So, we have to be very careful when we say that we need to accelerate that process.


That's one way of looking at it. Another way, as I said earlier, is that all of these things are changing and, under those particular circumstances, that it's a good thing that teachers and the education system have been able to maintain standards and the quality of education.

The sector, of course, is continually evolving. We know that a number of these reforms are still playing out and are still being developed and introduced. Of course, there is a risk that we are in this situation continuously, and therefore settling for managing to maintain, for me, perhaps wouldn't show enough ambition. Is there a risk that we will find ourselves continually—? As you say, the inspection cycle has seen three Governments. There are changes and different policies and priorities being implemented. From what you say, that does prevent the development of the sector.

We are in the middle of a period of major change, and you're right that there is more change to come. The new curriculum will reach key stage 4 in around seven years again, so we're genuinely in the middle of this period of change. Perhaps 'revolutionary' is too strong a word, but it is the biggest change that I've seen in my career. You have to go back to the 1980s and 1990s to see similar changes. Of course, we all wish to see swifter progress being made, but what that means in practice is that you push more changes through, or that you push through the changes that we currently have more quickly. There was discussion, for example, about when the new curriculum should be introduced. Those are the kinds of practical questions that arise, and you have to remember that, in the classroom, what you will have are individual teachers having to prepare for a new GCSE, a new A-level, and there are new specifications in that regard, and it's a great deal of work. So, we have to be very careful when we say that we need to accelerate that process.

But you understand the point I was making about the risk of finding ourselves like this continually and therefore to say, if we were to interpret your conclusion in the recent report, that outcomes have been consistent over the inspection cycle doesn't mean that we are pushing enough or that the reforms happen in a way that allows progress in performance terms.


The sector, of course, is continually evolving. We know that a number of these reforms are still playing out and are still being developed and introduced. Of course, there is a risk that we are in this situation continuously, and therefore settling for managing to maintain, for me, perhaps wouldn't show enough ambition. Is there a risk that we will find ourselves continually—? As you say, the inspection cycle has seen three Governments. There are changes and different policies and priorities being implemented. From what you say, that does prevent the development of the sector.

We are in the middle of a period of major change, and you're right that there is more change to come. The new curriculum will reach key stage 4 in around seven years again, so we're genuinely in the middle of this period of change. Perhaps 'revolutionary' is too strong a word, but it is the biggest change that I've seen in my career. You have to go back to the 1980s and 1990s to see similar changes. Of course, we all wish to see swifter progress being made, but what that means in practice is that you push more changes through, or that you push through the changes that we currently have more quickly. There was discussion, for example, about when the new curriculum should be introduced. Those are the kinds of practical questions that arise, and you have to remember that, in the classroom, what you will have are individual teachers having to prepare for a new GCSE, a new A-level, and there are new specifications in that regard, and it's a great deal of work. So, we have to be very careful when we say that we need to accelerate that process.

But you understand the point I was making about the risk of finding ourselves like this continually and therefore to say, if we were to interpret your conclusion in the recent report, that outcomes have been consistent over the inspection cycle doesn't mean that we are pushing enough or that the reforms happen in a way that allows progress in performance terms.

I would wish to see that we wouldn't be in this position continuously. I think that—


We are in the middle of a period of major change, and you're right that there is more change to come. The new curriculum will reach key stage 4 in around seven years again, so we're genuinely in the middle of this period of change. Perhaps 'revolutionary' is too strong a word, but it is the biggest change that I've seen in my career. You have to go back to the 1980s and 1990s to see similar changes. Of course, we all wish to see swifter progress being made, but what that means in practice is that you push more changes through, or that you push through the changes that we currently have more quickly. There was discussion, for example, about when the new curriculum should be introduced. Those are the kinds of practical questions that arise, and you have to remember that, in the classroom, what you will have are individual teachers having to prepare for a new GCSE, a new A-level, and there are new specifications in that regard, and it's a great deal of work. So, we have to be very careful when we say that we need to accelerate that process.

But you understand the point I was making about the risk of finding ourselves like this continually and therefore to say, if we were to interpret your conclusion in the recent report, that outcomes have been consistent over the inspection cycle doesn't mean that we are pushing enough or that the reforms happen in a way that allows progress in performance terms.

I would wish to see that we wouldn't be in this position continuously. I think that—

But you've just suggested that there are seven years ahead of us yet in terms of introducing these reforms.


But you understand the point I was making about the risk of finding ourselves like this continually and therefore to say, if we were to interpret your conclusion in the recent report, that outcomes have been consistent over the inspection cycle doesn't mean that we are pushing enough or that the reforms happen in a way that allows progress in performance terms.

I would wish to see that we wouldn't be in this position continuously. I think that—

But you've just suggested that there are seven years ahead of us yet in terms of introducing these reforms.

But I do think that the reforms, in looking at them holistically, are fundamental, as I was saying. You have to go back 30, 40 years to see something similar. So, I do think that we need to look at—. One of the problems—. You ask what hasn't worked in the past. Well, I think one of the things, and it's difficult to answer that question, but one of the things that hasn't worked in the past is just doing one aspect of the system. We need to look at transforming the entire education system at the same time, because if you just tinker with one part then it might have an unintended effect in another place. So, I think we need to look at the system as a whole, and I think that what's happening at the moment is a structural change to the system.


I would wish to see that we wouldn't be in this position continuously. I think that—

But you've just suggested that there are seven years ahead of us yet in terms of introducing these reforms.

But I do think that the reforms, in looking at them holistically, are fundamental, as I was saying. You have to go back 30, 40 years to see something similar. So, I do think that we need to look at—. One of the problems—. You ask what hasn't worked in the past. Well, I think one of the things, and it's difficult to answer that question, but one of the things that hasn't worked in the past is just doing one aspect of the system. We need to look at transforming the entire education system at the same time, because if you just tinker with one part then it might have an unintended effect in another place. So, I think we need to look at the system as a whole, and I think that what's happening at the moment is a structural change to the system.

Yes, I think that's a fair enough point. What's your assessment, therefore, of how able or how ready schools are to deal with, in moving forward now, all of these changes and reforms?


But you've just suggested that there are seven years ahead of us yet in terms of introducing these reforms.

But I do think that the reforms, in looking at them holistically, are fundamental, as I was saying. You have to go back 30, 40 years to see something similar. So, I do think that we need to look at—. One of the problems—. You ask what hasn't worked in the past. Well, I think one of the things, and it's difficult to answer that question, but one of the things that hasn't worked in the past is just doing one aspect of the system. We need to look at transforming the entire education system at the same time, because if you just tinker with one part then it might have an unintended effect in another place. So, I think we need to look at the system as a whole, and I think that what's happening at the moment is a structural change to the system.

Yes, I think that's a fair enough point. What's your assessment, therefore, of how able or how ready schools are to deal with, in moving forward now, all of these changes and reforms?

Well, as I said, I think that they have coped with a whole host of changes, and that's something to be praised. We are disappointed the standards haven't improved as much as we would have liked to have seen, but we also need to be congratulating the workforce for getting to grips with so many changes in a relatively short period. So, that does give one confidence that they will be able to cope with other changes in future. So, I am confident in that sense, but we do have to be careful in looking out for the workload, because the culture of promoting is one of giving more responsibilities to teachers, to schools, to colleges and to headteachers. So, we have to be very careful that that workload doesn't become excessive.


But I do think that the reforms, in looking at them holistically, are fundamental, as I was saying. You have to go back 30, 40 years to see something similar. So, I do think that we need to look at—. One of the problems—. You ask what hasn't worked in the past. Well, I think one of the things, and it's difficult to answer that question, but one of the things that hasn't worked in the past is just doing one aspect of the system. We need to look at transforming the entire education system at the same time, because if you just tinker with one part then it might have an unintended effect in another place. So, I think we need to look at the system as a whole, and I think that what's happening at the moment is a structural change to the system.

Yes, I think that's a fair enough point. What's your assessment, therefore, of how able or how ready schools are to deal with, in moving forward now, all of these changes and reforms?

Well, as I said, I think that they have coped with a whole host of changes, and that's something to be praised. We are disappointed the standards haven't improved as much as we would have liked to have seen, but we also need to be congratulating the workforce for getting to grips with so many changes in a relatively short period. So, that does give one confidence that they will be able to cope with other changes in future. So, I am confident in that sense, but we do have to be careful in looking out for the workload, because the culture of promoting is one of giving more responsibilities to teachers, to schools, to colleges and to headteachers. So, we have to be very careful that that workload doesn't become excessive.

Would you also share the concern that the reduction in school budgets will worsen those risks that you referred to?


Yes, I think that's a fair enough point. What's your assessment, therefore, of how able or how ready schools are to deal with, in moving forward now, all of these changes and reforms?

Well, as I said, I think that they have coped with a whole host of changes, and that's something to be praised. We are disappointed the standards haven't improved as much as we would have liked to have seen, but we also need to be congratulating the workforce for getting to grips with so many changes in a relatively short period. So, that does give one confidence that they will be able to cope with other changes in future. So, I am confident in that sense, but we do have to be careful in looking out for the workload, because the culture of promoting is one of giving more responsibilities to teachers, to schools, to colleges and to headteachers. So, we have to be very careful that that workload doesn't become excessive.

Would you also share the concern that the reduction in school budgets will worsen those risks that you referred to?

Yes. As you'll know, international research evidence shows that it is not the amount of funding that goes into education systems that dictates how effective they are. But it is true to say that, if you have financial cuts, that does cause practical problems for headteachers in having to lay off staff, and so on. So, it does take a lot of time and energy to deal with cuts.


Well, as I said, I think that they have coped with a whole host of changes, and that's something to be praised. We are disappointed the standards haven't improved as much as we would have liked to have seen, but we also need to be congratulating the workforce for getting to grips with so many changes in a relatively short period. So, that does give one confidence that they will be able to cope with other changes in future. So, I am confident in that sense, but we do have to be careful in looking out for the workload, because the culture of promoting is one of giving more responsibilities to teachers, to schools, to colleges and to headteachers. So, we have to be very careful that that workload doesn't become excessive.

Would you also share the concern that the reduction in school budgets will worsen those risks that you referred to?

Yes. As you'll know, international research evidence shows that it is not the amount of funding that goes into education systems that dictates how effective they are. But it is true to say that, if you have financial cuts, that does cause practical problems for headteachers in having to lay off staff, and so on. So, it does take a lot of time and energy to deal with cuts.


Would you also share the concern that the reduction in school budgets will worsen those risks that you referred to?

Yes. As you'll know, international research evidence shows that it is not the amount of funding that goes into education systems that dictates how effective they are. But it is true to say that, if you have financial cuts, that does cause practical problems for headteachers in having to lay off staff, and so on. So, it does take a lot of time and energy to deal with cuts.


Yes. As you'll know, international research evidence shows that it is not the amount of funding that goes into education systems that dictates how effective they are. But it is true to say that, if you have financial cuts, that does cause practical problems for headteachers in having to lay off staff, and so on. So, it does take a lot of time and energy to deal with cuts.

Could I ask the reasons for Professor Donaldson being asked to undertake a review of Estyn's role?


Could I ask the reasons for Professor Donaldson being asked to undertake a review of Estyn's role?

Yes. I think any good organisation would welcome external scrutiny. I would say that, wouldn't I, because I'm an inspector, but I think it's important that we practise what we preach. There have been in the past systems of quinquennial reviews. I think it is healthy for anybody to have that sort of external view, and I think in particular we're proud in Estyn that we are a body that is developing and trying new things and evolving continuously. So, I think it's that. But if you were to ask, 'Why now?', it's because of the extent of the education reform that we're particularly facing. So, I think it's a good thing to do at any given time, but considering the range and speed of change that we're facing in education now, I thought it was particularly important that we ask Graham Donaldson to look at the implications for our work of all this education reform.


Could I ask the reasons for Professor Donaldson being asked to undertake a review of Estyn's role?

Yes. I think any good organisation would welcome external scrutiny. I would say that, wouldn't I, because I'm an inspector, but I think it's important that we practise what we preach. There have been in the past systems of quinquennial reviews. I think it is healthy for anybody to have that sort of external view, and I think in particular we're proud in Estyn that we are a body that is developing and trying new things and evolving continuously. So, I think it's that. But if you were to ask, 'Why now?', it's because of the extent of the education reform that we're particularly facing. So, I think it's a good thing to do at any given time, but considering the range and speed of change that we're facing in education now, I thought it was particularly important that we ask Graham Donaldson to look at the implications for our work of all this education reform.

What have been the biggest benefits to Wales of having Estyn as an independent body inspecting schools and other institutions in Wales compared to the work that Ofsted has done in England?


Could I ask the reasons for Professor Donaldson being asked to undertake a review of Estyn's role?

Yes. I think any good organisation would welcome external scrutiny. I would say that, wouldn't I, because I'm an inspector, but I think it's important that we practise what we preach. There have been in the past systems of quinquennial reviews. I think it is healthy for anybody to have that sort of external view, and I think in particular we're proud in Estyn that we are a body that is developing and trying new things and evolving continuously. So, I think it's that. But if you were to ask, 'Why now?', it's because of the extent of the education reform that we're particularly facing. So, I think it's a good thing to do at any given time, but considering the range and speed of change that we're facing in education now, I thought it was particularly important that we ask Graham Donaldson to look at the implications for our work of all this education reform.

What have been the biggest benefits to Wales of having Estyn as an independent body inspecting schools and other institutions in Wales compared to the work that Ofsted has done in England?

Well, we have very good relationships with Ofsted and with Education Scotland and the Education Training Inspectorate in Northern Ireland. I wouldn't like to compare—I don't think it would be fair to compare ourselves. We do things slightly differently, but we benefit a lot from each other. We have inspectors from Ofsted or from Scotland, from Northern Ireland, on our inspections. We shadow them, and our inspectors go to their countries. So, we're working quite closely with the home countries, but also further afield with Holland and with the Republic of Ireland, for example. So, we're always, all of us, learning from one another about what we think they do well and what they think we do well. We're constantly learning from each other. I wouldn't think it's fair for me to say what I think—you know, where we're better than another country.


Yes. I think any good organisation would welcome external scrutiny. I would say that, wouldn't I, because I'm an inspector, but I think it's important that we practise what we preach. There have been in the past systems of quinquennial reviews. I think it is healthy for anybody to have that sort of external view, and I think in particular we're proud in Estyn that we are a body that is developing and trying new things and evolving continuously. So, I think it's that. But if you were to ask, 'Why now?', it's because of the extent of the education reform that we're particularly facing. So, I think it's a good thing to do at any given time, but considering the range and speed of change that we're facing in education now, I thought it was particularly important that we ask Graham Donaldson to look at the implications for our work of all this education reform.

What have been the biggest benefits to Wales of having Estyn as an independent body inspecting schools and other institutions in Wales compared to the work that Ofsted has done in England?

Well, we have very good relationships with Ofsted and with Education Scotland and the Education Training Inspectorate in Northern Ireland. I wouldn't like to compare—I don't think it would be fair to compare ourselves. We do things slightly differently, but we benefit a lot from each other. We have inspectors from Ofsted or from Scotland, from Northern Ireland, on our inspections. We shadow them, and our inspectors go to their countries. So, we're working quite closely with the home countries, but also further afield with Holland and with the Republic of Ireland, for example. So, we're always, all of us, learning from one another about what we think they do well and what they think we do well. We're constantly learning from each other. I wouldn't think it's fair for me to say what I think—you know, where we're better than another country.

Of course. I'm not asking you to criticise Ofsted. I agree that wouldn't be appropriate. But I think what is fair for me to ask is: perhaps could you highlight one or two areas where you believe that Estyn has a particular difference of emphasis and approach from Ofsted?