Children, Young People, and Education Committee

Okay. So, we move on now to agenda item 4, which is the final evidence session for the inquiry on the implementation of education reforms. As you are all aware, this has been a Senedd-long inquiry, during which we have gathered a vast amount of evidence. So, please can I introduce the Cabinet Secretary for Education and thank you for your written evidence? Can you please introduce your officials?

Thanks. Well, I'll ask officials to introduce themselves. If I go this way first.

I'm Hannah Wharf, deputy director, support for learners.

I'm Louise Brown. I head up ALN reform within support for learners.

Bore da. I'm Lloyd Hopkin. I'm deputy director for curriculum and assessment.

Okay. Welcome this morning. Members have a series of questions, and we'll start with Cefin, please.

Bore da. My first question is about clarification. Can you just confirm whether there is no overarching report of the review going to be published, the report that you carried out, and if there's going to be an action plan, further than what you gave on 14 October and your oral statement in the Chamber? If not, why not?

Thank you, Cefin. Good morning, everyone. What I've tried to do with this piece of work is put as much information in the public domain as we can and to be as transparent as we can. That's why the approach that we took was to publish the range of evidence that we received. You will have heard me say last week—. I'm very grateful to the judge for all the work that she did as part of what we commissioned her to do, but I was disappointed last week that we weren't able to have the tribunal report published at the same time, although we did ask and we worked with the judge to make sure that members of the committee and Members of the Senedd could have the report, and it was actually formally published yesterday, wasn't it? So, we've tried to put things in the public domain and to be as transparent as possible.

In terms of an overarching report, I think that would have been, for me, quite a difficult approach, because what I wanted to do was let the evidence speak for itself, really. Obviously, we had a judge doing this work, and I think it was important that people were able to read her report in its entirety, but also I didn't want to be in a position where we were then interpreting what we had been given into some sort of overarching Welsh Government report. So, we've put what there is in the public domain.

You will have seen there are a significant number of very complex issues that have been surfaced as part of this review, and I think it was the right thing to do to explore these issues thoroughly. That has given us a lot of work to do, which we are fully committed to doing. We do have an action plan, which we've developed on the back of the work. Some of those actions are short term. Some of them are longer term. As I specified in the Chamber, we're likely to have to look at some legislative changes. But all that work now is feeding into the new additional learning needs delivery board that we've established, which I'm chairing. That will monitor all the work that's happening underneath that.

I'm just wondering whether you think that having the considered view of Welsh Government—your interpretation of all the evidence—would have been useful for Senedd Members, this committee in particular. I mean some of your general conclusions and maybe some of the pinch-points, some of the priorities that you think we should be looking at, and key points from Welsh Government's point of view.

Well, I think I have set that out. I set it out initially in the written statement that I made in July. You'll recall, Cefin, that the intention was to do an oral statement on ALN in July, but, when we looked at the range of evidence we'd received and the challenging nature of some of it, the complexity of it, what we wanted to do was work with the sector over the summer to start to progress some of those issues, because we can't do this on our own. This has got to be a co-productive approach with schools and with local government. So, we took that time over the summer. But I have set out the five priorities that the committee is really clear on, and I think I've also set out, in response to questions in the Chamber, what further work needs to be done. I think an overarching report, as well, would be quite challenging in this space, because it is a constantly evolving space as well. So, you know, you could look at something like what's generally available in schools, say, two years ago, and that could be completely different to what's generally available in schools in another year's time. This is a constantly evolving space. It has evolved massively since—. And if you remember, we started on this journey in Wales back in 2014 with the White Paper. Then there was a draft ALN Bill that came to the Children, Young People and Education Committee. Then there was the Bill. So, this has been a journey, really, and it is a constantly moving one. I think the most important thing in this space is that we know what the issues are, we know where we've got more work to do, and we're focused on resolving those issues.

Okay. Moving on, you told us back in May of last year that you wanted to get under the skin of what is going on, that you were really worried about the decrease in recorded ALN numbers. So, now that you've had a chance to look at the evidence, what is your general impression? Is it worse than you thought it was?

Well, I think we have got under the skin of it. It's been a very thorough piece of work. I think having the judge feed into it has been really helpful as well, because of her experience of dealing with complaints. I think we knew that there were complexities that were going to have to be resolved, so, from that point of view, it wasn't a surprise that it surfaced really challenging issues, because obviously that's why we commissioned the review in the first place. It is very clear that there is inconsistent application of the identification of who has ALN, and obviously that is a pretty fundamental issue, really, which is why we're prioritising taking action on it. We do know that there are now more than 32,000 learners who have a statutory individual development plan. That's more than double the number of children who had a statutory plan under the old special educational needs system. We've also had positive feedback from Estyn. Estyn have told us that ALN, in their review specifically of ALN last December, that it's beginning to deliver meaningful improvements. You'll have seen the Estyn early insights report yesterday. That found that most providers are maintaining positive, inclusive environments where learners feel safe, supported and ready to learn. Provision for pupils with ALN is generally good across sectors. They've told us that a majority of pupils in primary, including those with ALN, are making good or better progress, and also that schools are identifying pupils with ALN early and many work with partner agencies to provide effective support. But, obviously, the fact that there is this flaw in the way that the legislation is being interpreted is still a worry, and that's why we're taking the action that we're taking to issue new guidance, so that everybody in the sector has a clear, consistent, accurate understanding of what ALN is. And we will issue that guidance. We've got a new implementation lead coming in to Welsh Government to drive forward that work with local authorities. So, there should be a much more secure and accurate understanding of what constitutes ALN.

Additional learning needs co-ordinators work really hard. Obviously, they will have mind to the guidance as well. And, as I said in the Chamber, we are going to, I think, need to look at changes to the code of practice, because that's where the problem is. The code of practice doesn't align with the two-stage test that is in the primary legislation, and the judge has been very clear in her discussions with me that the primary legislation has primacy, which is probably why it's called primary legislation, isn't it? I'm looking at the lawyers. [Laughter.]

Just to follow on from that, you acknowledge that there has been inconsistency in the interpretation of the legislation and the code, and Judge McConnell references that as well. So, if you could just be absolutely clear, what do we need to do from here on in order to make that interpretation absolutely clear to all agencies involved with ALN?

Okay. Yes. So, I think that there are two stages, really. Obviously, we want to take immediate action to make sure that there is that clear understanding. The ALN code conflates the two-stage test, so that's why the top priority is to clarify the core legal definitions so that every practitioner in Wales can make confident, lawful decisions on this. And, as I said in the Chamber last week, we've already got a draft of guidance. We've worked over the summer; we've got a working group—. We've got two working groups, one that is looking at how you measure 'significantly more difficulty learning', and the other one that is looking at 'generally available'. They're separate, aren't they? So, that guidance is well advanced. We've got a draft at the moment that we are sharing with stakeholders. We will issue that guidance so that practitioners can apply both stages of the test effectively. So, they will know what constitutes 'significantly greater difficulty in learning', and we will have that clearer picture of what is 'provision made generally available'. That guidance will be issued but then, as I said in the Chamber, we will need to make changes to the code of practice to make sure that it aligns with the primary legislation. Unfortunately, there isn't time now in what's left of this Senedd term to do that. I wish that there was, I would like to see this completed and rounded off, but we also have to consider other things in relation to the code. There are things that need tidying up, things that could be clearer. I don't know if you've seen it; it's a bit like War and Peace. So, there's more work to do in that space.

Okay. My final question is about the second element of the ALN test, which is whether a learning difficulty or disability calls for additional learning provision. So, the judge says that local authorities and schools are basing this on how additional learning provision compares to provision generally available in a particular school, rather than comparing that with other schools in Wales. So, what's your assessment of the scale of this issue and the impact it's having?

You're correct in that there is that misinterpretation—it's not about what's available in a particular setting or a local authority, it is about what's available across Wales. This is an area that the sector have asked for more support on and is absolutely fundamental to improving consistent delivery. I fully accept that there is not currently a national definition of what is made generally available to compare against.

As I said earlier, this is also a moving space as well, because things are developing all the time, and it's important to remember as well that we passed the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 before we passed the curriculum legislation and that, in itself, makes radical changes, providing for the opportunity for differentiated learning for our children.

We also know that there is a lot of high-quality inclusive practice in the sector and that is becoming more and more prominent across Wales. Estyn inspections tell us that such practices are common and that there's been a notable shift towards inclusive culture.

In terms of resolving this issue, we are working with schools, local authorities and colleges to make sure that there is that shared and consistent understanding of what provision made generally and inclusive practice really are, and that will be taken forward through the new guidance.

As I said, we’ve got a working group that’s chaired by Katy Williams, head of service for ALN and well-being in the Vale, and Claire Williams, who is head of ALN, inclusion and well-being at Torfaen. The draft document is being tested currently with the sector. We’ve also tested it with our headteachers’ advisory group, which has a key work stream on inclusion.

The kind of things that we’ve identified as being generally available across Wales are things like fostering positive relationship with learners and families, inclusive learning environments, high-quality differentiated teaching, progress tracking, formative assessment and feedback to help guide learning, timely short-term support and interventions, and transition support to ease changes in educational settings.

The work that we’ve done on this builds on the research of Dr Cathryn Knight and Professor Carmel Conn from PolicyBristol. They did a substantial piece of work for us called, 'What should constitute "generally available" provision in schools in Wales?' So, we’ve built on that to include it in the guidance. And once we’ve agreed what is generally available across Wales, then we will be able to ask practitioners to meet the second stage of that test. And if someone with significantly greater difficulty learning also needs provision that is not generally available, then they would have ALN and require ALP.

When do you expect this guidance to be published?

We're testing it at the moment, so we're hoping to publish it in the next few months.

Yes. It has just gone back out with local authorities. But it's a really interesting and quite unique opportunity to look at what is core education and what the landscape looks like now, and to describe that practice as it's happening and to get that agreement across local authorities that that is being delivered across their local authorities and across their education settings. So, we've gone to Estyn—they've given us something to look at and say that this is in the majority of schools and this is a description of the practice available. And then we've gone to work collaboratively with local authorities, and then we're asking them to work with their education settings as well to understand what that is and what that looks like now in our current landscape of education in Wales.

Okay. Diolch.

So, does that mean that you expect it to be published this calendar year?

Yes, hopefully.

Great, that's really helpful. Thank you.

December or January.

I was just wondering, on the working group you've set up, which is a really good thing, would there be any reports published from these working groups, and could the committee have access to those reports?

I think they're focused more on practical work, really, so they're working on the guidance.

Okay.

We've got the one that's looking at significantly greater difficulty learning as well, but I think they are focused on producing the guidance, really. And both of them are things that will move as well, because we've got work going on in the Welsh Government to have age-related expectations that we're developing across key areas. And obviously, that will make it easier for practitioners to identify if a child has more difficulty in learning.

That makes sense. Okay, thank you. We have questions from Natasha now.

Good morning, everyone. Given the introduction of the new ALN system, which has seen a reduction of 53 per cent—it was previously 93,000, now it's gone to 44,000—what's your understanding of what exactly has happened to that intermediate category of pupils who require more than generally available provision, but not as much as ALP? I know we've touched upon this in committee previously, but I'd really like to gauge this from your perspective. How do you feel the adoption of terms such as 'universal provision' and 'targeted provision', which have no legal status or common understanding—or indeed application across Wales—has helped or hindered in this regard?

We aren't going to really have an intermediate category of pupils. I think it is really important now, given the inconsistency that has been with this legislation, that we stick to what has legal foundations, so there are children who need ALP and children who don't need ALP. I would expect all schools to be doing the kind of things I described in my answer to Cefin, really: providing inclusive, supportive environments with differentiated treatment, strong relationships with children. If those things are working well, then there shouldn't really be a need for an intermediate risk category, in my view, really. Part of the reason we've got into this situation is because terms like 'universal provision', 'targeted provision' and things like that have grown up without reference to the legislation. So, I want to get us back into a space where everyone is working within the parameters of the legislation.

Okay, thank you so much for that. Another area of uncertainty and inconsistency despite criteria stipulated in the Act and expanded in the code is when does an individual development plan become the responsibility of the local authority rather than the school. I know you referred to the judge earlier in your response. Judge Jane McConnell reports that local authorities are relying on their power to direct schools to maintain an IDP rather than maintaining it themselves, the inference being that they are not taking responsibility for their fair share of cases and the burden is being passed unduly onto schools. Is this your understanding, and if so, how will you clarify where responsibility should lie?

This is a tricky issue again, really, because obviously, there were expectations when the legislation went through that certain IDPs would be held by local authorities—I'm looking at Michael—in a situation where the needs couldn't be met by the school, and then others would be school-led IDPs. What we've seen is a variation where in some local authorities they hold very few IDPs for children, including children in special schools.

The legislation does allow delegation, so the practice isn't unlawful, although it is contrary to the policy expectations when the legislation was going through. There's also no requirement under the ALN code for a child attending a maintained special school to have an LA-maintained IDP, and you'd think those are the kids with the most acute needs.

So, we know that there are inconsistencies, and local authorities are telling me that those that are delegating that responsibility to special schools are doing it because the schools know the children best and the budgets are delegated so that the schools can plan and support their needs. But we need to get a more granular understanding of the practical implications of this, really, and to understand the impact on support for learners, rights of appeal and the practical implications of the majority of education budgets being routinely delegated to schools.

As part of the work that we're doing to follow up on the issues from the review, we've got new professional advisers who are going to engage with local authorities and education settings, particularly special schools, to develop a clear policy position on the roles and responsibilities for preparing and maintaining IDPs.

Yesterday we re-established our special schools forum in Wales, and I attended the meeting of that yesterday. There is variation. I think the data we collected showed that—. Is it 25 per cent of special schools that have LA IDPs?

We can give you the data afterwards.

I was able to have a bit of a discussion with the heads there, and they had different views, didn't they?

Very different views depending on which local authority.

Estyn were in the meeting as well, and they had their own view about the implications of this on children's rights. Another view then was put forward about how having a school-based IDP impacted on the interface with health, because obviously health has the relationship with local authorities. So, what we're doing is we're identifying now—. We've got a questionnaire, haven’t we, that's going out to identify with special schools in particular—. But this new adviser will establish what's going on exactly on the ground in terms of that variation, and then we will have a clearer policy expectation of who will hold the IDPs. I think it's safe to say that there are quite strong views on this, even amongst local authorities, but I want to get to a place where we've got a clearer expectation of when a local authority will hold an IDP, and then what that means for the children involved.

So, what's the time frame? You mentioned the special adviser and the questionnaire. At what point will we hopefully be able to see the results of that?

Well, they haven't started yet, have they, the professional adviser.

Is there a particular deadline at least—?

I know that you like a timescale, Natasha.

I do, I do. You know me very well by now.

But this is complex work.

Sure, I appreciate that.

We have to do it properly and take account of the range of views. What I'm interested in is how this works for children. That's all I'm ever interested in. It could well be that the local authorities that are delegating the IDPs to schools are delivering more for those children through that. But if we find that that's not the case, then I will want there to be a clear, consistent policy that determines who holds the IDP.

I appreciate that, and I would be really grateful, Cabinet Secretary—. I know you've said that I do like my time frames; I do, and I appreciate we're all on the clock. We've only got a few months till our elections are going to be happening here. I just don't want to be left in the lurch, hence I'm asking that.

I don't want anything to be left in the lurch. This work is really important to me. We have to get this right for children and young people, and that's why it has been such a thorough, extensive piece of work. We're clearly sighted now on what the challenges are, and we are working through those. It is going to take a bit of time, and we have to get it right as well, because clearly there have been mistakes that have been made in the past, and we don't want to repeat those.

I completely understand. Thank you very much for that. The Welsh Government summary of responses to the review says that many stakeholders highlight a lack of consistency between the Act and the code, and say the code needs to be revised—this is sort of similar to what Cefin Campbell asked you earlier—not least to make it more user friendly, but presumably to also correct such inconsistencies. You said this won't be done in this Senedd term, and as I mentioned earlier, I appreciate time frames for all of us, but don't you feel that it is indeed a matter of urgency? Can something not be jiggled around to be able to have that put in place sooner rather than later?

It's really important to me that we get this right, but unfortunately there simply isn't the time. We can't jiggle things around because there are statutory timescales that are set out within the legislation for laying the code and getting it approved. If we were going to change the code, it has to go to the full Plenary. In order for us to have done that, we'd have had to produce the code in September this year in order to undertake the legislative requirements necessary. So, we would have had to go out to consultation; the previous code came to this committee, so I would be expecting us to ask the committee for their views on it; and then we'd have to lay it and there would be a procedure in the Senedd as well. So, it's not because of a lack of urgency; it's because of the constraints of the legislation.

What we're doing with the new guidance—. Although I understand that it doesn't seem as good as doing it through the code, I think as long as we're clear with the new guidance, clear with the expectations of the sector, that will make a huge difference. And bearing in mind that we're doing this as well with the input of the judge, I think if we issue guidance that says, 'This is what the expectation is', local authorities and schools will have to follow that guidance, because otherwise they probably are going to end up having parents going to the tribunal. It's not ideal, and I wish I was in a position to complete that part of the work before the Senedd elections, but we can't bypass what the legislative requirements are for the code, because they were set out when we passed the legislation.

Okay. Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Natasha. We now have some questions from Carolyn, please.

My question is about improving support to families. We often hear from parents who are concerned that their children are getting the right support and the support that they're entitled to. We've had several petitions as well. The advice from Judge Jane McConnell—sorry, the evidence from her—says that the ALN information and advice services put in place by local authorities are wholly insufficient, patchy at best, and often the information is just wrong. How disappointing is this, given the duty on local authorities to do this as a key element of the 2018 Act? During passage of the Bill, there were calls for such information and advice to have to be provided from an independent source. Given what we know, should this be a requirement? And just in addition, a third of parents and carers surveyed did not believe that the information and guidance that they received from their school or local authority was clear and supported their understanding of the ALN system. Again, it goes back to parents' understanding of what's there for their children, and just needing that clarity, really, I think, going forward.

Thank you, Carolyn. First of all, I wanted to thank all the parents and carers who replied to the survey that the committee will have seen. We had a really full response to the survey and it did give us some very difficult messages to listen to. While some parents said that schools were proactive and communicate well to plan with families, other families told us they face delays, unclear processes and inconsistent support around IDPs, and communication was a major concern. When the legislation was going through, one of the key aims of the legislation was to take the conflict out of the system to make it easier for families, for there not to be these battles. So, the last thing I want is for families to be battling.

The review has surfaced those concerns around information, advice, but also advocacy. Now, in terms of information, we've worked closely with families to develop a new toolkit for families to provide them with information, and we'll be publishing that, hopefully, now very soon. Natasha will ask in a minute for a date.

Seventeenth of November.

Seventeenth of November. There we are.

Where would that be available? Would it be on the website?

It'll be on websites, but we'll also be asking local authorities and others to promote it. We've worked with families to co-produce it, so we're hopeful that it will be a really good addition to what they have to help them navigate that. We're also then producing tailored resources for young people in specific circumstances—so, children who are electively home educated, non-maintained settings, post-16 learners—and a children's toolkit. They're going to be published early next year. On the post-16 side, Careers Wales, then, are improving their online information for post-16 learners.

But I do recognise the strong messages from the review about advocacy as well, and that there were concerns about the independence, variability in families' ability to access advocacy. So, we have commissioned a comprehensive landscape review of these information and support services. That will identify gaps, inform future commissioning and strengthen the role of advocacy for families. We want to make sure that we've got a much more consistent position, and I am particularly interested in how we make sure that we tackle the concerns. Because some local authorities do provide advocacy, but, because it's funded by the local authority, there is that perception from some families that it's not truly independent, so we want to tackle those issues as well.

We're also taking steps to learn from other UK nations. So, we're looking at what they've done in Scotland in this space, and also looking at the advocacy offer that we have for social care. But what I would be keen to do is ensure that we end up with an independent advocacy service that is offered for families in Wales. I think that would go some way to reassure families who've had to battle with the system.

How do parents know, though, about their right to appeal? Because it says up here that Judge Jane McConnell also says local authorities are routinely not informing families of their right to appeal decisions and that they have a right to advocacy, and how to go through it as well.

Yes, absolutely. Families have told us that they're not clear why decisions are being made and about the support and provision that's available for them, and, obviously, we need to address that. We've got this team now of new professional advisers that are coming on board. One of those will be working directly with local government to improve consistency in this space. Officials have started to collate all the local authority template letters, so that we can look at how decisions are communicated in their letters. So, I don't think it's rocket science, really. We should be able to get to a space, and, if necessary, will issue guidance to make sure that local authorities and schools are providing the same information to families. It shouldn't be—. That's a practical thing that should be one of the easier things for us to get over.

I think, if you've got clarity of information, it's just reassuring for parents, isn't it, to know what's out there, otherwise they can feel very much alone, wondering if the child is entitled to something and what can be done, who can help them. It's very distressing, isn't it, if you don't know, so that's why—

It is, and we also don't want a situation where it's only the more confident families or even families—. We're seeing the growth now of private ALN advocacy companies. We don't want it only to be families who can afford to access things like that or who are sufficiently confident to take on these issues. This should be for everyone, really; nobody should be left behind.

And addressing at the earliest age possible; I've visited some schools and you can see that, with the right nurturing, attention, it can help that child so much to, you know, move onwards.

The survey showed that half of the responses—49 per cent—to the survey of parents and carers disagreed or strongly disagreed that their child's ALN were identified in a timely way. This is among parents of children who were given an IDP, let alone those who refused one. Also, 44 per cent of parents disagreed that the support provided by the child's school was meeting their needs. I know a lot pin it on having an IDP, don't they, whether or not their child gets support as well. So, it's always raised as a concern. So, just your thoughts on that, really.

Yes. Well, obviously, the findings of the survey were really worrying, and I think it's really important that we fully take on board the lived experience of families who've been in the system, and obviously some of them did have positive feedback, but there were too many that talked about those battles and fights that we don't want them to be having.

I think that the things that I've set out, the work around advocacy, the better information, which will be done on a granular level, not just for parents but for children and others, will help with that situation. But you also make an important point. I've been to schools in Wales; I went to the school in Barry—was it Ysgol Gwaun y Nant—which is a Welsh-medium school, and met the ALNCO there, and there were very few children in that school that had an IDP. I said to her, 'Well, how is that?', and she said that she'd worked really closely with the parents, and the parents were very accepting of the fact that the children's needs were being met by provision that was generally available in schools.

So, I think the ALNCO has a really important role as well in communicating with parents. And the world has moved on, really. It's a very different landscape in Wales now to what it was when this legislation was conceived, because of the curriculum, because of the whole-school approach to mental health. Obviously, I've spoken in the Chamber about the support that teachers are providing, which goes well beyond education. So, I think children are having their needs met, more of them, without IDPs. What we have to make sure is that there are no children who should have an IDP who haven't got one, really. That's why we are clarifying that guidance. We want this to be followed in a consistent and accurate way.

I think—. Sorry, Chair. It's important, I think, as well, that parents need to know that their child doesn't have to have an IDP to get that support as well, because we're seeing so many children and young people just needing that nurturing, that care and support. Can I just ask a cheeky question? How concerned are you about the budget—because we're going to be going through the budget soon—about funding? Because we need to have—. I visited a school, and having that extra person there to help the pupil stay in school, come into school, just giving that confidence to respond to teachers, to sit with that person next door who might be teasing them, is so important. It might be a teaching assistant, but it's somebody who's a nurturing person. So, I just wanted to ask you how you feel about the funding for that, going forward.

Okay. Thank you. If I can just go back to your earlier point about the good inclusive practice and kids not needing an IDP, I also wanted to just remind the committee that we are taking steps to make sure that we upskill the workforce in supporting children with ALN, with mental health problems, with neurodiversity, because it's not the case anymore that it's just one or two kids in a classroom, and all teachers and teaching assistants need to have those skills to support children in schools. So, that's vital. You make really important points about staffing, because, for me, that support is all about the relationships, isn't it? It's about staff having the time to spend with children and young people, and support staff are absolutely critical, because they build those strong relationships, in a way that a classroom teacher, who's having to cover the whole classroom—.

I announced some additional funding for ALN in the statement last week. That was £8.2 million: £5 million for schools, and £3.2 million for further education. That is money that is in-year. That is on the back of significant additional money this year, and additional money that we put in towards the end of the year last year to recognise the pressures. In every meeting that I have with schools, with local authority leaders, with exec members, ALN pressures are up there straight away. They're all really, really worried. So, funding is a huge concern, which is why we have tried to prioritise funding for ALN.

You'll be aware that we have, as a Government, made a decision to lay a rollover budget with a 2 per cent increase across the board. That is going to create huge pressures in education, and there's no getting away from that. I hope—and the finance Minister has been very clear—that this is the start of the process. We know that there is a significant pot of money that is there for the negotiations. What I'm trying to do all the time is to continue to make the case for education, because we do need a lot more money, even with the extra money that we have invested, because it's not just about meeting the pressures in the here and now. It's also about how we do that fifth thing that was in my written statement, which is carry on towards more inclusive education, and that is going to require funding. We've got lots of really good plans, so we're looking now at a bit of a hub-and-spoke model with special schools working with their clusters to upskill the staff in schools.

But in the meeting I had with special schools yesterday, they gave me some very worrying messages about what's going on with their support staff, and how they are losing lots and lots of support staff. The one school had spent £0.25 million, I think, on supply teachers in the last couple of months. We need to pay support staff more. That's why it's a key priority for me in the workforce plan. It is tough being a member of support staff, especially in a special school. Some of them are dealing with really challenging children, they're getting injured, and at the moment they could get more money if they went to work for Aldi, and we've got to do something about that.

Thank you. Could I just go back a little bit to something you said to Carolyn about upskilling the workforce? Does that include all support staff and aides as well, including support staff that are on minibuses and taxis and things with children? Because I know that was one of the recommendations in our last report, and on school visits I’ve done, I know that has become a huge issue, because these support staff can be on a minibus or a taxi with a child for up to 40, 45 minutes. I know from my own constituency I have children travelling from Treherbert in Rhondda all the way to Brecon to their nearest school with provision that is tailored to them. So that's an hour a day in transport, with as many as four children with complex needs. So would that stretch to those types of support staff?

I think we've got to upskill the whole workforce. What we see at the moment, and we have got, is that there is an entitlement for support staff to have professional learning, but not all of them are able to access that at the moment, because they might be doing cover for classes, some schools don't let them have the time off, there are very different approaches to involving support staff in INSET and things. Support staff are a critical part of the school team, and part of the work we're doing with the workforce plan isn't just about the pay of support staff. It's how we make sure they get the recognition, and we make that entitlement to professional learning a reality.

I think we're in a stronger position to do that now because we've established Dysgu, our new professional learning body. I've been clear with Dysgu that the four priorities are literacy, numeracy, well-being and inclusion, and we'll be expecting Dysgu to take that work forward with the whole workforce. But it is essential that they're all upskilled. It's really simple things, isn't it, like sometimes just having that awareness of neurodiversity can make all the difference between a child maybe having a complete meltdown and having to leave the classroom, and there being lots of upset for everyone—. It is about upskilling the workforce and making sure that everybody has that understanding.

The only other point that I should have said to Carolyn is when school budgets are under pressure—and they are under pressure, even with the additional money we've given them; you won't find any school that'll tell you they're not under pressure with their budgets—what is first to go are those pastoral staff and the additional staff who can support those children who need that additional help, and I am desperate to avoid that.

Thank you for that answer. I now have extra questions on collaboration between local government and the NHS. The review highlights several areas of confusion about the way in which local authorities and health bodies are collaborating to deliver the Act. This includes basic issues like requesting information or help from the NHS, and what exactly is included in the NHS additional learning provision. It also includes the status of tribunal recommendations to the NHS. Are you fully confident that the action you have announced, including new multi-agency guidance, will address all of these issues?

Thanks, Chair. As you say, the evidence submitted highlighted persistent challenges in collaboration, particularly around referral processes, statutory timescales and the role and responsibilities of health professional in the IDP process. We are, as you say, establishing new multi-agency guidance at the same time as revising the supporting learners with healthcare needs guidance. We've got a new member of staff who's leading on the supporting learners with healthcare needs guidance. That, in itself, is a complex issue because we have support staff who are having to undertake tasks like catheterisation, and things like that, so that's important. But we've also got a member of staff coming on board who is going to sit across the NHS and education to help drive this work forward.

It is a complex piece of work getting this right, and the review has surfaced the complexities around the legal definitions as well. The definition of 'relevant treatment or service' in the Act refers to services the NHS would normally provide, but the legal test for triggering that duty is whether the service would benefit the learner's ALN. That creates a tension between clinical judgment and educational benefit, and impacts on how decisions are made.

The other thing that we're doing is working with regional partnership boards to try and make sure that education issues are more fully embedded into their work, and that they're actively leveraged as a strategic vehicle to drive a fully integrated approach across education, health and social care. So, it is a complex piece of work.

We're also developing key performance indicators in health to underpin that, and we'll be reporting on that to the new ALN delivery board. But the guidance is really important, because we've got to agree now a clear policy position on the expectations of each sector, in particular clarity on when clinical treatments are appropriate. Our understanding is that, legally, the duty placed on education bodies under section 20 of the ALN Act is educational in nature and that health professionals must consider whether a treatment or service is likely to be of benefit in addressing a child or young person's ALN, rather than whether it is clinically necessary.

I'm sure Members will recognise that this is a significant shift for NHS bodies. It's going to involve not just a change in practice, but a change in culture. But we are determined to do this work. And this, again, has to be a cross-Government endeavour. The message needs to go out from the top that health are partners in this endeavour to support children in their learning.

Can I just follow up on this? I sat where you are when there was a different Chair and there was a different education Minister, and when there were issues—. You mention some of the challenges that are different now—the curriculum, the whole-school approach and, of course, the pandemic as well—and what that means in terms of demand that is coming across public services, the NHS and the education system. There has to be leadership from the top about this. I know you said you're going to chair the ALN delivery board and you're going to try to have clarity, and you've got someone to work across education and the NHS. I just want to be clear about those performance indicators you expect to have, about whether those are going to be agreed between yourself and the health Secretary, because otherwise, I think it'll be very hard for them to bite in the health service.

But also, if you're chairing the ALN delivery board, as you come up to these issues of integration where health is an essential partner, otherwise it won't get resolved, it's about whether the health Secretary takes part in those discussions, and if not, whether he empowers or gives permission for someone else to go and do that for the service. Because otherwise, if whoever the health Secretary is doesn't say, 'I want this to happen' as well, then I know very well that it won't, because there are extraordinary pressures on the service otherwise, and it won't get done. I guess that's about the nature of the conversations you've already had with the health Secretary, as well as, if you like, the formal integration, the fact that he should have seen this from your position now as the education Minister. It should be an advantage. So, I'm just interested in how far that direction goes from you and the health Secretary about these issues—or not.

It has to be a cross-Government endeavour, because otherwise it won't happen. I know that the health service is under massive pressure and that nobody who's working in the health service is in a position where they're trying not to help children. But they are working in a clinical priority space, and we now have legislation that asks them to think about this differently and to think about their responsibilities in helping to meet the additional learning needs of children and young people. When the legislation was going through, the committee pressed for stronger protections. We wanted the tribunal to be able to instruct health boards. That wasn't accepted at the time.

I remember.

I think there has been some progress in terms of engagement with health officials. Things are improving. I've had one trilateral with the Cabinet Secretary for health and the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being; we've got another one coming up. And that will be a key point, really. This has to be something that—. Hannah is looking a bit—.

No, no, I just wanted to directly come back on that point about key performance indicators needing to be not just education owned, but health owned as well. I think that's part of the trickiness of this, isn't it? This is cross-Government, and the ownership of where that is and how that's taken forward is absolutely key. So, those key performance indicators are being developed with—. It keeps changing name; it was the NHS executive and now it's NHS performance and improvement. It's embedding it within that NHS performance and improvement function. And we're also looking at the role within that function as well, which is a more national role to drive forward work in that space as well.

Yes. We'll have the member of staff, the professional adviser, and he or she will sit within NHS Wales Performance and Improvement, which I think is really important, that there's somebody there strategically. I will continue my discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for health around how we can both drive this forward together. It's one of the reasons why I've taken the two papers to Cabinet, to get the whole of Cabinet to sign up, because this does affect everyone. It's also about social care; it's about mental health; it's about finance, because we can't do it without the money. This has to be a cross-Government endeavour. We passed this legislation, we have to make it work, and, other than the money issues, the collaboration with health is the big issue that gets raised all the time by local authorities and schools. So, that needs to come together in a much more effective way. It's also part of that wider problem we've got, where schools are holding the baby, really, while other thresholds maybe are pulling back a bit, because of understandable pressures, but that can't continue. It's not sustainable for schools to pick this up all the time.

Cefin, did you want to come in?

Yes. My question is very similar to Vaughan's. It's my concern about the capacity within the health service to undertake this role, given the huge pressures they're under already. This is such an important piece of work that they would have to take responsibility for if it's going to work well. I'm just wondering, following on from Vaughan's point, about the collaboration and about them taking that role seriously as important players in developing ALN provision.

Yes. I think that's an entirely fair point. Obviously, the health service is under massive pressure as well, but I think we have to work together to find a way through this, because we've got a legislative framework that requires that this happens. So, we have to tackle those obstacles through the ways that I've said: through the guidance, through the new staff, through the cross-Government working, through the performance indicators.

The other thing that I should mention to the committee is that you're probably aware that Audit Wales are also looking at how the ALN system is working, and they're looking across public bodies. That report is due in February, and I really welcome that as well. I know none of this is easy, and I know that everybody's trying their best, but this is children's life chances. We've invested about £13 million again in neurodiversity waiting times, but we've got to make progress, because a year in the life of a child is a long time. Children don't have that time to get access to these services. So, it's not going to be easy, Cefin. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. But we're committed to doing the work, and to doing that work across Government.

Thank you. There was no real mention of the role of the designated education clinical lead officers last week in your oral statement. I know that you know that the committee recommended that each health board should have its own DECLO, because at the moment there are only—. I think there are four across the seven health boards. Are you confident that the DECLO role is delivering the intended benefits?

Yes. Thank you. Obviously, I'm aware of the concerns the committee's expressed previously about not every health board having a DECLO, but they all have access to a DECLO; they all have delegated a DECLO. So, they are compliant with the legislation. I do think it's important to remember as well that DECLOs are providing a strategic role within health boards, and I think, for me, the challenges are around the other issues that we've discussed, really, around that approach to prioritisation, around the pressures in the health service. And, actually, what we're seeing is strengthened communication, collaboration and joint working, which has been led by the DECLOs. But it is, I think, much bigger than the role of the DECLO, which is a sort of strategic and co-ordination role.

Okay, thank you. We now have some questions from Vaughan, please.

I'm going to go back a bit towards health. I’ve got some questions that relate to some of the findings from the review, and they're about challenges for preschool children. Of course, health is the universal service until a child is of school age, and there appeared to be some confusion about NHS intervention before the age of three, whether that constitutes additional learning provision, whether it needs an IDP or not. And that does appear to be confusion, because that intervention can be for a number of different things. And what constitutes education before the age of three or not, and whether it's childcare and education and a neat divide, I know these will all be familiar issues for you. But I'm interested in whether you think there's a need for greater clarity around this, so that actors in the system understand what they need to do and why. And this goes back to making it as easy as possible for families, focusing on where they can access information and support and then how, when a child is of school age, they get to have that information and support for the child and their family.

Thanks, Vaughan, and this is an important and difficult issue, because determining how to identify ALN and ALP for children under school age is difficult. It involves predicting a child's future learning needs, or understanding if the child's needs are long term or not, and understanding if a two-year-old will have ALN in the future is a very difficult thing to do. None of us have got a crystal ball, and also little children develop at different rates, don't they?

So, this issue has arisen from the review. What we do need to do now in response to that is look at those underpinning definitions and assumptions in the legislation. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix on this, and this work is going to take time. We've already recruited a professional adviser who will focus on improving delivery of ALN in early years, so we've got somebody who's got a strong background in early years and education and they'll work across all of our local authorities to support the sector and increase consistency of delivery.

I think it's important as well to say that Estyn have also spoken very positively about the role of the early years officers in local authorities, but, with this new member of staff, we are going to have to develop further guidance in this area and potentially look at legislative change in the future to make this clearer, because the definition is quite challenging.

Also, as part of our disabled people's rights plan we are taking forward action to review how the childcare and early years capital programme supports the accessibility of the physical environment for inclusive childcare and play, and we're working with local authorities and stakeholders to support childcare and play workers to access training and resources required to support disabled children. But this is an area that does require further work and clarification, and having the new lead for us in Welsh Government will enable us to do that work with stakeholders, but that then may require some changes to the legislation.

It does seem that we might need to have, from a committee point of view, some engagement with the health ministerial team to make sure that we're getting the same commitment from them that we hear from you to make sure those issues are addressed. Because that crossover between education and healthcare takes place all the time, but in the earliest years as well, like I said, in the first three years of a child's life there is only one universal service, and understanding what they can deliver, I think, will make a big difference about what the education system needs to deal with.

Yes, and it's quite—. Well, 'fragmented' is the wrong word, because it's good that there are different types of provision, but obviously we've got children in different kinds of settings as well. Obviously, there are some children in maintained nurseries, there are some children who are benefiting from the childcare offer. We've also got children who are benefiting from Flying Start. So, it's not a straightforward landscape either. And actually, the definition applies to all children under school age, so it could also apply to children who aren't accessing any provision.

Yes, it would do.

Perhaps we could write to the Health and Social Care Committee. Parents, when they've got a young child, they'll go to the doctor, won't they, thinking that a doctor might help. So, it's just that crossover, isn't it?

They all have access, obviously, to a health visitor, and I think—. I'm a massive fan of health visitors; I think that relationship with new parents is really, really important. But there's probably more work that we can do there as well, really, to make sure—. Health visitors know what's normal development and what's not normal development, but I definitely think there's scope for more join-up. Hannah.

I just wanted to say that, internally, in terms of Welsh Government functions, we have an early years, health visitors and ALN working group with deputy directors all sitting round the table discussing exactly these things, and figuring out ways forward together as well.

Can I come in as well? In terms of a universal offer, a point you made earlier, Cabinet Secretary: the universal offer shifts over time, and that's across all sectors. Particularly in the early years phase, the early years offer has shifted significantly with the introduction of Flying Start, the expansion of Flying Start, the childcare offer for Wales. Therefore, there's a huge new cohort of children coming through those programmes. The Act and the legislation rely on us having an understanding of the baseline delivery landscape in all sectors, and that's really, really difficult. So, that's what we're grappling with, really, across health, early years and education. It's almost impossible to maintain a current view on that, and I think, in the early years phase, that's a particular challenge.

That's why Flying Start is very different to childcare and the childcare offer across the border, isn't it, as well, because it's that wraparound care.

Yes, and there's going to have to be significant investment in the health visitor service to have smaller groups of families to support as well, and what that allows them to do. That goes back to the point you were saying to Carolyn earlier, about resources. Because you can't do all that for free.

I want to come back to another point, where I think there's a point of clarity as well. That's in the post-16 landscape as well. Again, it's going back to an earlier point you made about the work of Judge McConnell and the difference between the code and what primary legislation might provide for. This is about the code giving an entitlement for further education—a general entitlement for up to two years—unless there are reasonable needs. And Judge McConnell notes that, whilst that reflects the ALN regulations, the duties on the face of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 appear to be different. It's about whether, potentially, an IDP might run up to the age of 25.

Again, I'm interested in whether that's a point for clarity in the guidance—whether, actually, there is a need to look at the regulations base so, again, it's easier for a young person and their family to understand what that is. I think it goes back to your earlier point about the fact that the current code is enormous—it's over 300 pages. So, actually, as a practitioner or as a family, you're looking at that and thinking, 'Somewhere in this, we should understand where we can get help and support', and then if you understand that some parts of the code don't actually meet all of the primary legal duties that's a real problem.

Lots of Ministers in your position wouldn't surface all these issues, and wouldn't say 'We've got to do something about this because it affects the entitlement of young people', and I think it's to your credit you're doing that. But it's about how you see this as an issue to try and get to that point of clarity and understanding to help people access their entitlements.

Okay, thanks, Vaughan. As you've said, the review has highlighted a number of challenges in appropriate post-16 provision, and definitely areas where further clarity is needed on how to meet learners' needs. This is a particularly tricky area to have clarity on, because there are various different legislative duties interplaying—so, not only ALNET, the regs and the code, but also the Learning and Skills Act 2000, which a lot of learners have been through.

We've also now got the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022, and I'm aware that the Minister for Further and Higher Education will be bringing forward commencement Orders that are going to repeal sections 31 and 32 of the Learning and Skills Act as part of the implementation of the tertiary education and research Act. I'll be working with the Minister to understand how these changes interplay with the implementation of the ALN Act for the post-16 sector. I do have to say to the committee that we need further clarification on this. I think it's useful that it has been surfaced by the review, and we are working on this area.

On the positive side, if I could say that there's really good work going on in post-16. We've had an implementation lead in post-16 for some time, Chris Denham, who's based with ColegauCymru, and in many respects, they're ahead of the game, because they've actually got a definition of what's generally available. They've worked on that in post-16. There's a lot of positive work going on there. Medr are strengthening the independent living skills curriculum, with insights from the Estyn thematic review, and we're investing more in mental health and suicide prevention in that space as well. But there is good work going on with ColegauCymru, and I'm meeting Medr after this, actually, to talk about their ALN provision. But in terms of that very valid point you make about the entitlement to how many years, et cetera, we do need to do further work on that.

Okay. Can I just move to another point, ALP and its provision in Welsh? Mudiad Meithrin have made a specific point about the position in the Act that all reasonable steps must be taken and about whether some local authorities are essentially using that phrase to avoid delivering provision in Welsh. We know there's a demand challenge right across the sector. There's a demand challenge across Welsh-medium education. But I'm interested in whether you take the same view about whether it's clear enough about what 'all reasonable steps' means and whether or not this would be something that you'd pick up in the five-yearly review on Welsh-medium provision that you've already announced as well—so, in the here and now, but then also for a future Senedd about what it might do, and whether or not you're still in post in five years' time.

Thank you. Obviously, one of the key principles of the legislation was to create a bilingual system, and you've referred to the statement about all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that provision is available bilingually or through the medium of Welsh for families requesting it. Through the review, respondents have called for further clarification on what constitutes 'reasonable steps'—it's not defined in the legislation—to provide ALP in Welsh and suggested that the phrase be reconsidered in regulations, to strengthen the commitment to Welsh-medium support.

I've already announced the quinquennial review—that review was established through the legislation when it was going through. It was to recognise the fact that we'd said 'all reasonable steps' rather than creating an absolute duty. It was put there as a safeguard, really, so that we could make sure that was reviewed. That has commenced and will report by September 2026. As part of that review, it will explore how and to what extent the provisions in the Act, such as duties to take all reasonable steps, are being implemented in practice. It will also consider what is reasonable and how this varies across local authorities and settings. So, I hope that that review will give us the further clarity that we need in order to make sure that the sector themselves are clear about what are reasonable steps.

I won't repeat everything I said in the Chamber about the work of our brilliant implementation lead for Welsh language, Trystan Williams, but he is doing amazing work, and we're seeing a difference. But, obviously, there is a long way to go, and the committee is very well versed in the recruitment and retention issues around Welsh-medium, and I know from my time in the health department that there are also those same issues there. I do think it is very important that when you're dealing with sensitive issues, people can do that through what is their first language.

That sounds like a task for the Government and a future committee in autumn 2026, once that's published.

My final question is about the number of children with additional learning needs who are educated other than at school, so home schooling. We're interested in whether you've got an understanding about whether that is because those parents are concerned that their needs won't be met in school, or whether there are other reasons for why a parent might not want their child to be educated in school—again, in the shift that's taken place in the last five years or so, in the run-up to but then certainly accelerating after the pandemic, the challenges about attendance, full stop, but also about home schooling.

I remember one of your predecessors described herself as a fairly illiberal liberal when it comes to children not being in school, because there's a whole range of other issues too. So, I'm genuinely interested in what your understanding is about those numbers and that proportion, and then also about how you try to ensure that there is appropriate provision for children who aren't in normal compulsory education.

Thank you. We had a bit of a discussion about this in the Chamber, didn't we, home-educated children. I am worried by the upward trend in ALN learners being educated other than at school, including at home, with the rates rising rapidly in the last four years. Obviously, I'm really concerned to hear of a rise in parents who are concerned about whether their child's needs are being met. I think it is really important that where families take a decision to home educate their child, that's a positive choice, rather than being pushed on them because they feel that needs aren't being met. I would encourage parents and carers to work with their school and local authority to explore all options before taking that decision to home educate, because when a child has disengaged, it's often quite hard to re-engage them.

We're doing a wider piece of work around home education and EOTAS and ALN because we're also seeing an increase in ALN learners in EOTAS provision as well as those being home educated. I think that highlights the importance of inclusive practice, early intervention, and multi-agency collaboration. Officials are drafting commissioning and referral guidance, which will set out requirements for EOTAS provision, and that will seek to bring more equity and consistency to the process of referring pupils for EOTAS provision. We'll also reinforce the message, one of which has been picked up by Estyn in the insights report, that this can be a bit of a revolving door for some children, and that shouldn't be the case.

We're also taking account of the interdependencies between ALN and EOTAS policy areas, and working on that to draw on ALN guidance to support understanding of a more inclusive system. Part of that work is producing supplementary materials to make sure that LAs—. They do already have duties to home-educated children, but we want to reinforce that so that they're aware of their roles and responsibilities towards home-educated learners.

I think it's helpful to remind ourselves that education other than at school doesn't automatically mean home educated, and actually that provision that is still provided is, I'm sure, for lots of Members, a cause of casework and concern about its adequacy regardless, but in particular about the ALN provision, where it might end up being the right option for the child, but you've got to ensure that it's actually delivered and that there's an oversight for it as well. I know some parents feel that their children are being forgotten and removed from the school, as opposed to whether this is the right option for that young person.

As you say, it's not just about children who are educated at home; it could be a child whose learning needs aren't met in school and then their behaviour escalates and they can't emotionally regulate and they end up in a PRU. That's why the inclusive practice that we're trying to develop, which is around strong relationships and supporting children in their settings, I hope will help with some of that.

Thank you.

Thank you. I have some questions now on the curriculum. Estyn has told the committee that schools' approaches to assessment and progression under the Curriculum for Wales are inconsistent, while schools report difficulties in how to interpret the progression steps and descriptions of learning. How do you respond to that, given that difficulties in this particular aspect of curriculum implementation have been raised for many years?

Thank you. Progression is central to the Curriculum for Wales. Through the Act and the progression code, schools have clear legal duties about ensuring all learners are supported to progress. That's not just about learners covering content or passing tests; it's about them developing real understanding and ability and being able to apply these in different contexts to solve problems.

It's clear that the previous regional approach to professional learning was not supporting all schools, so we're now providing a range of national and focused PL to support schools to plan progression and use the descriptions of learning.

You'll have heard me talk before about our curriculum and assessment design support programme. That reached 200 schools last year and is set to reach a further 600 this year. It takes schools through the process of curriculum design, but also, vitally, includes looking at approaches to progression. We've also granted some funding to a project that is developing curriculum design partnerships. That's £2 million in building capacity in the system to understand progress and develop and share curriculum approaches that support this progress.

We've worked with Swansea University and Estyn to develop more detailed age-related expectations for literacy and maths, which we’re testing with the profession this term. This is intended to make it clearer to schools what progression looks like. We've also funded our Calon project, which will be providing assessment tools specifically to support understanding of progress in literacy, while our maths resource provides support for understanding progress in maths.

We continue to work with the profession around providing support to evaluate long-term progress, and we're looking to test more support on evaluating and communicating progress in the coming months. I think we are clear that the descriptions of learning can be simplified, and we're starting to test that detail. As part of the curriculum review commencing next year, we're also looking at how we can further clarify and simplify the expectations around progression. I recognise that some schools need more support with that. We're trying to put that in and we're working very closely with Estyn as part of that work.

Thank you. Is the Welsh Government intending to provide more guidance on minimum expectations for pupils’ progression at different points, as many schools have called for and Estyn have said would be useful? How concerned are you about the longer term implications of this uncertainty about assessing progression, and when will any changes be forthcoming?

Thank you. Obviously, assessing progression is critical, and we have to have plenty of data so that we can understand how the system is working. We've worked closely with Estyn to develop, as I said, the more detailed expectations for progression in literacy and maths. They've been working directly in partnership with officials on the literacy detail, and have also provided close and clear input on the maths detail. That national intensive support will provide greater detail linked to age-related expectations to give specialists and non-specialist teachers absolute clarity in supporting learners to progress these skills. That detail will inform further guidance going forward.

Vitally for maths, this resource doesn't just include more detail about what should be taught, it's also the most effective way to teach particular concepts in maths, which recognises the pedagogy is absolutely key to getting maths right. That detail for maths is being published through the autumn and spring, and we're testing the literacy detail with professionals this term. We're also working on using data from personalised assessments to provide schools with further information on attainment, which will be linked to age-related expectations. We're testing that through the newly-developed professional learning resources. Obviously, personalised assessments are a formative test—they're there to support progression in learning; they're not used for accountability measures—but what we do want to do is to have that greater understanding as part of that work about where we would expect children to be at that stage in their development.

So, we're actively working on that, and I hope that I'll be able to give the committee a fuller briefing on that when I appear before you in the first week in November.

Thank you. We now have some questions from Carolyn, please.

Sorry, my laptop's gone down. [Laughter.] Do you want to ask them for me?

Yes, that's fine. So, carrying on with questions around qualifications, some schools and teaching unions continue to argue that GCSE specifications should have been available earlier to enable the current year 10 cohort more time to prepare for them, for example, over the past three years when these learners have been taught under the Curriculum for Wales. On the other hand, the regulator, Qualifications Wales, felt it was important that the curriculum defined the qualifications, not the other way round. As someone who’s come into post relatively late in the process of the curriculum roll-out and qualification development, do you feel the right approach has been taken, and why?

Yes, I do in terms of the qualifications, yes, because the timeline for the roll-out of reformed made-for-Wales qualifications strikes a balance between the time needed to design and develop high-quality qualifications, and the time needed by the workforce to prepare for teaching. Work started on the design once the Curriculum for Wales was finalised, so that the first cohort of learners under the curriculum can undertake the first wave of reformed GCSEs.

Now, aligning qualifications with the Curriculum for Wales has been an important driver of that work, but, given its complexity, the reform of qualifications has always been gradual and staged, ensuring that the interests of learners were protected at all times and taking into account the scale of the change for schools and teachers. It is actually standard practice for qualifications specifications to be made available a year before teaching, not just for GCSE qualifications in Wales but for other qualifications as well. We don't normally publish specifications further in advance than that.

We don't really want teachers teaching qualifications at the earlier years of Curriculum for Wales as well, because that would mean narrowing that curriculum offer. Learners come to the qualification stage at years 10 and 11. The years before that are meant to be wider, cross-cutting areas of study. So, I don't think it would have made sense to do it any earlier, and I think it would have risked distorting the work of the curriculum and there being more teaching towards the qualifications, at a time when that wouldn't have been appropriate.

Now, in saying that, I do want to recognise that this has been another big change for the school sector at a time when they're grappling with a lot of changes. And obviously, we did the legislation, the ALN, the curriculum all before the pandemic. I know that schools are dealing with an awful lot and that this is stressful for them. And I just wanted to assure the committee that we have worked with the WJEC to try and support schools with this. We've funded the provision of professional learning and guidance to ensure that they're positioned to confidently teach the new qualification. We've had a very comprehensive package of online and face-to-face professional learning opportunities for teachers across Wales. A comprehensive assessment pack for each qualification, including detailed assessment arrangements and sample materials, was published in December. Guidance for teaching for each wave 1 GCSE was published in January. WJEC embarked on quite a significant series of 'Preparing to Teach' face-to-face events through a pan-Wales roadshow between February and April, and that was done by the co-ordination of in-service education and training days across secondary clusters. I provided £500,000 to support that professional learning programme. So, we are trying to support the sector as best we can through what is, I know, another change.

Just regarding GCSE science qualifications, do you welcome Qualifications Wales's decision to continue the three individual science GCSEs while the new combined GCSE science single and double award are in their first years? Do you think there might be any confusion from the number of science GCSEs that will be available as a result? And can I just say, you know I've been raising about the natural history GCSE that's available in England now? We went and visited a school, and she was saying that, with the changes, for example, geography, tec—

Tectonics.

Tectonics and ecosystems were being moved out of it. I think I raised it with you before. So, natural history and ecosystems—there seems to be a gap there now. I just think, going forwards, we're looking for green skills, so I think that there will be a gap. So, there is a gap. If it's not there and they go into doing their A-levels, they haven't got that being taught. So, I guess that's something for me to raise with Qualifications Wales, but just go back to the science one.

Okay. Thank you, Carolyn. Well, I do welcome the decision by Qualifications Wales to undertake a further consultation on the suite of GCSE science qualifications, and the fact that they're continuing the separate science GCSEs in biology, chemistry and physics until that consultation has been undertaken. I have had a lot of discussions with Qualifications Wales about the triple science versus the double award—it is a really complex issue. There are still strong and differing views on the availability of separate science GCSEs. I think the decision to consult again recognises that wide range of views on what science GCSEs should be available for learners, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that. I think it's important as well to recognise that lots of schools do this differently at the moment. So, lots of schools offer the combined double science at the moment. So, we have still got that mixed landscape. And I also wanted to recognise that I know that some schools will have started planning for next year, and they may well be frustrated by that. But I hope that by announcing this ahead of them being taught next year, it'll give them an opportunity—a year—for them to prepare on that.

I think, with the tectonic plates, that was—. The only thing I ever remembered from my geography was that. [Laughter.] [Interruption.] Absolutely. I don't want to upset any geographers. I think that's somewhere else now, isn't it, in the curriculum.

It's gone to biodiversity—. No, biology. One of them has gone to biology.

So, we've written to the WJEC and Qualifications Wales about this issue.

Okay, great.

We'll double check. I can't recall in terms of the qualification whether—

But she said there's a gap now for natural history. And they also raised—. They struggled, because there weren't enough examples for them to teach the children, because of the change of the exam, and also they had the wrong devices as well that were needed for music, I think, wasn't it? They said—

Yes, music.

The first time they had it on laptops, but they've got Chromebooks.

They've got Chromebooks. So, it's just things like that people need to be aware of.

Okay. Well, they have had sample papers, haven't they, Lloyd, the schools? Obviously, it is more challenging when you've got a new qualification, because you can't go online and look at all the past papers and things, but we will continue to work with schools on those issues. I'm not aware of that Chromebook issue.

It's a specific issue in music, learning with Chromebooks, when they're told that they need to use a laptop in the exam. For some learners, that will be the first time that they've actually used that device. So, it's actually about familiarity with the device under examination conditions. So, that did objectively seem unusual, but that's part of the reason we're—. Just so that you're aware of it, and we're writing to WJEC on that.

And it's the importance of us doing school visits, isn't it, really, when you do school visits and talk to the teachers and then—.

And I also think some schools used quite a lot of money during COVID to buy iPads for every student, without realising that, like that music exam, you can't actually do that on the iPad. So, they've spent their money, and they can't recoup it now to buy the equipment that's needed, like the—.

Would it make sense for us to write to the Cabinet Secretary when we get the response, so you can see what we've asked and what they've said?

You have been copied into the letter to the—

Oh, okay. I've not seen it yet. We'll have a look at that.

So, when the answer comes, it'll probably come to you as well. Okay. We now have our final questions, from Natasha, please.

Yes. Thank you so much, Chair. I want to ask around raising standards as well as funding, if that's okay. I'd like to know: do you have any evidence, either in your possession or something that you can share with the committee, that the continued roll-out of the Curriculum for Wales is actually contributing to raising standards in schools all across Wales?

Well, I think I've already set out the work that we're doing on progression. I think there are some encouraging signs through our personalised assessments data that we published very recently as well. I know that the learners who have just done their exams haven't been through the Curriculum for Wales, but we saw improvements there.

I think we're also—. Just to go back to the personalised assessments, the latest national statistical release shows clear signs of improvement in key areas, including procedural numeracy, Welsh reading, and notably English reading. Attainment was higher for all year groups in English reading compared to 2022-23, and similarly attainment for all year groups has improved in procedural numeracy, particularly amongst year 2 to year 7. There's also some improvement seen in Welsh reading in years 3 to 9 compared to the previous year and English reading attainment in year 3 has reached its highest level to date, indicating a sustained upward trend, and this progress is testament to the dedication and hard work of educators.

But I think, in my earlier answer, I recognised that we are doing more work to get more granular detail on how things are going. I think it's important to recognise that we're still in the final stages of rolling out the Curriculum for Wales. Learners have only just started doing their exam years in that. So, I think there are signs that things are going in the right direction, but we're looking to get more information through the changes that we're making to things like the personalised assessments, linking them to age-related expectations through the work that we've done with Estyn on literacy and numeracy. I also took the decision to enter Wales in the trends in international mathematics and science study and the progress in international reading literacy study, which are the year 5 tests for literacy, science and maths. That wasn't a universally popular decision with some in the sector because it was seen as more testing, but I have reassured the sector by explaining how vital it is that we understand how the system is performing, and I've also said to the sector that I don't see them as tests for schools; I see them as a test for us as a Government.

Okay. Thank you very much for that. The National Association of Head Teachers has told the committee that 54 per cent of the respondents that have been in touch rated their experience of the training offered to implement the Curriculum for Wales as, and I quote, 'negative' or 'very negative'. What impact do you anticipate the new national professional and learning body, Dysgu, as you mentioned a few times, having in terms of changing these perceptions longer term and in actually supporting the effective delivery of the Curriculum for Wales across Wales?

I don't know when that survey was undertaken by NAHT, but I think we are in a better place now. I referred earlier to the challenges that we had in the system with the regional consortia. We know the heads weren't happy with that system. That's why we're moving to a new school improvement system, because they were telling us that it wasn't meeting their needs in terms of professional learning and support.

I referred to the national programme of support for curriculum assessment design. That's been a big undertaking by the Welsh Government: 200 schools last year, a further 600 this year. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, with 100 per cent of participants finding the programme clear and relevant, as well as benefitting from working collaboratively with other schools.

But now that we've got Dysgu coming as well, obviously, it's very new, but that is going to lead on the delivery of professional learning in response to national priorities. That will include PL for literacy, numeracy, well-being, as well as the long-term change programmes including support for ALN and things like the teaching of Welsh. I hope that that will address the concerns raised by headteachers. Because one of the things, when we did what was then called the middle-tier review, which led to the school improvement partnership programme, that headteachers talked about when they were asked about PL was the white noise of professional learning. There was too much going on in the space.

It's one of the reasons why, as part of the £44 million that we've provided for national curriculum support, which was announced recently in two tranches, we wanted to focus there on a coherent national offer, because it felt as if the landscape was too busy, too many people doing different things, too many different grants. So, we've really tried to make that more coherent, and the plan will be for that work to come into Dysgu over a period of time, once it's established.

Thank you so much, Cabinet Secretary. I was going to ask a question on Technocamps, but you did answer the question I asked you yesterday in Plenary. So, I was listening. I do want to ask you something that—and I hope the Chair will indulge me in letting me ask this question—I’ve wanted to ask you for quite some time. We've covered a lot of things today. We've talked about IDPs, we've talked about Curriculum for Wales, we've talked about ALNCOs—everything, pretty much. We've covered a lot in the session. But I want to ask you—and I appreciate what the Chair said to you earlier, that you've only been in the post for a short period of time, and I take that into account when I'm asking you this—if you'd been in the post longer, what areas would you have focused on? What would you have liked to have had done by the end of this term?

Gosh, that's an interesting question, isn't it?

I'm curious. It's something I've wanted to ask you and I can't ask you in the Chamber, but you're here in committee, so I thought—

It's a fair question. I do feel quite frustrated, really, that obviously I've come in after three years of the term had already gone. There have been limitations on what you can achieve in that period. I would really like to have had the opportunity to grapple with the ALN issues earlier, because—

What would you have done?

Well, I think that I would have—. We can't have kids left behind. I really don't want these learners left behind. I don't want families battling. I think that I would have wanted to get much more assurance from what was going on in the system. When I came into post, I think I was in post two weeks when I saw what the data was showing on ALN, and I said to officials straight away, ‘We've got a real problem here.’ I also watched the evidence that the committee took from Judge Jane McConnell back, and I've acted immediately by initiating the review to tackle those issues, but obviously the review, to do it thoroughly, has taken time. As I've set out this morning, there are constraints on what we can do before the end of this Senedd term. It is a massive portfolio. I think there's still a lot more that I would like to do. I think things are moving in the right direction in terms of joining up all those policies in the interests of children and young people, but there's more work to do.

Thanks so much.

It's like a job interview, isn't it? [Laughter.]

Just for the record as well, the NAHT survey was done in September this year.

Obviously, I meet with the unions regularly. We have a forum with the unions. I'll certainly pick that up with them, but we are working very hard to make things more coherent and supportive. Heads have got enough to worry about without having to worry about whether the PL that they're getting is good enough.

That is the end of our questions, as you breathe a sigh of relief. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. We really do appreciate your time. It's been very insightful.

Has it? Oh dear. [Laughter.] Thank you. Thank you for having us.

I will now move on to item 5, which is papers to note. We have three papers to note today, full details of which are set out on the agenda and in the paper pack. Are Members content to note the papers? Yes, I can see they are. As agreed in the earlier motion, we will now proceed into private session.