May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement and echo her thanks to the shadow board for their work too?

You make reference in your statement that over the next five years you’re committed to developing a national approach for career-long professional development. I know you’ve made reference to this in the past, and this will be good news for those who have been providing evidence recently to the Children, Young People and Education Committee on CPD, who feel, perhaps, that the coherence and the co-ordinated package aren’t currently in place. But you do say, and I will pick up on the issue of timing, that that will happen over a period of five years, and whilst I accept that the creation of a new body, or the company limited by guarantee that you refer to, is going to take some time, are we ambitious enough in trying to reach the point that we are trying to reach in a period of five years? Perhaps you could respond to that point.

I would agree most strongly that we do need to improve career paths, as you say and that you acknowledge in your statement, but there is a dilemma, of course, because much of the evidence that we hear talks of teachers, and the best teachers, being promoted out of the classroom. Therefore, the challenge, I suppose, is striking that balance between ensuring that the best do have opportunities to move beyond the classroom in their careers, but also that we don’t lose the best teachers who become headteachers who don’t teach, or go to the consortia, or the local authority, or Estyn and so on and so forth. So, we need to ensure that that pipeline of talent is maintained. There is a risk, perhaps, that looking at this in isolation may be happening. I’m sure that isn’t the case, but I would like some assurances from the Cabinet Secretary that she is eager to strike that balance, but also I’d like to know how you are striking that balance between ensuring opportunities without necessarily losing the best talents from our classrooms.

You refer to the NPQH in your statement. I’ve raised some concerns about this provision in the past and the situation that did exist where there was a failure in actually accessing courses, where there were fewer places than there were vacant headship positions, and that wasn’t sustainable. I understand, as you say in your statement, that the situation has improved, but I would like to know, for example, whether the Welsh Government has looked at how many people have completed that qualification and have then gone on to take a headship. I would like some assurances that you have evaluated these courses as they currently exist, because the feedback I get from a number of teachers, and those who have completed this qualification, is that they haven’t necessarily learnt any new skills, but they are simply recording what they are currently doing. Now, I understand that there is some value in reflective learning, but I do feel that there is a perception among the profession that the NPQH doesn’t provide the best possible value for them in their career development. And if you want to retain the NPQH, as you say in your statement—and I have no problem with that, necessarily—then what I want to be sure of is that the NPQH is as meaningful and as valuable as possible, and has the best possible impact for the time investment of the sector and the individuals in terms of completing that particular qualification.

To conclude, and perhaps to play devil’s advocate—and I have broken the golden rule by using Google Translate to find the proper translation for ‘devil’s advocate’—but I could ask what the point is of creating better leaders if the burden on those leaders is actually stifling when it comes to carrying out that role. Because a major part of the challenge facing us in creating leaders is giving them the time to lead in an effective manner, but also giving them the time to learn how to lead properly in order to secure continuous improvement within the profession.

Now, I’m looking at the academy’s vision as you’ve outlined it, and the four bullet points: inclusive and collaborative; inspiring and motivating; building capacity; quality. Now, there’s nothing new there, if I can be honest about this, and I’m sure that you would acknowledge that. I accept that I’m taking it out of context—it would be good if we could see the whole of the work presented to you by the shadow board in terms of the recommendations and any work underpinning those. But if you’re if the profession, you’re a manager, you’re a teacher and you are also a learner in terms of CPD. You can be a SENCo; you can be part of a pioneer school and looking at the development of a new curriculum. Those are the main challenges or the main barriers to effective leadership: you simply don’t have the time to get to grips with that role. Almost 90 per cent fail to manage their workload within their working hours according to a recent survey by the EWC. So, there are some questions, I think, in terms of providing the time to deliver this agenda effectively, particularly, as you mentioned earlier, in smaller schools where you don’t have a team where you can delegate responsibilities to them. The agenda—you touched upon this in an earlier response—in terms of smaller schools, most often rural, and leadership go hand in hand. I would like to hear more as to how they overlap, too.