Thank you very much, Darren, for your questions. I had hoped that the statement this afternoon would be able to help develop a broader understanding of the difference between assessment for learning, which is a crucial part of how we raise standards in our schools—and how that is a very different beast to what is accountability. The fact that the two have been melded together in the past, some of it in reality, some of it, often, myth and in the minds of practitioners, is one of the reasons why we’re not making the progress we need to make. Let me be absolutely clear: we need accountability in the Welsh education system. We know from past experience what happens if that accountability is taken away. Therefore, I will continue to ensure that our schools, our LEAs, and our regional consortia are held to account for their performance.

But accountability measures have to be the right ones, and they do have to be, I’m afraid to say, divorced from the principles of assessment for learning. So, you’re absolutely right, we will continue to use the categorisation system to be able to provide a holistic view of how individual schools are performing. We will continue to develop a robust inspection regime, with the publication of inspection reports via Estyn, which give parents the information that they need when looking at prospective schools for their children. And there is more we can do to improve both categorisation and, I believe, potentially, in conjunction with discussions with Estyn, how we can improve the inspection regime also. But let me be clear: assessment for learning is not part of that accountability regime. It is simply not a robust way—it is not a robust way to use assessment tests to judge the performance of a school. Cohorts can differ hugely.

Just last week, I visited Blaenymaes school in Swansea. The children entering that school are significantly behind, developmentally, than you would expect in the Welsh—[Interruption.]—in the Welsh population. Sixty per cent of those children are on free school—[Interruption.]—on free school meals. That is very different from a school in the same local education authority, and therefore relying simply on scores around standardised testing is not a fair way to judge. [Interruption.] Yes, you’re right. How we monitor that school is the progress that they’ve made, and I’m delighted that Blaenymaes school was recently given a ‘good’ and ‘good’ evaluation by Estyn because of the progress they’re able to make for those children. But it would not be right to use individual children’s test scores to judge the performance of that school. But parents need to know. Parents absolutely need to know, and there are no plans to stop parents being given access to their children’s test scores. It’s really important as a parent, and I’m a mum myself whose children have sat these assessments most recently. It’s really important to me and other parents to know where my child is, to have a standardised benchmark assessment to work alongside the individual teachers’ assessments around my children.

The paper tests will be phased out, Darren, and they will be phased out to an online adaptive system. One of the problems with the current testing is it does not take into account where a child is. We could have a child with a number of additional learning needs who sits down in front of a test, looks at the paper, and can’t answer the first question. That, potentially, is devastating to that child’s confidence. The beauty of an online adaptive test is that the questions will adapt to the ability of that child, to see where they are, and to push them to see how much they can do. That’s good news for all children, because you can get a better, more accurate picture of where that child is. The idea that, simply, children will be completely fazed if they sit down in front of an exam paper at 16 is, if I might say, fanciful, Darren. The reality is that teachers in high schools prepare their children for sitting those exams with mock papers, mock exams. Those things happen, and we have to divorce the two.

There are professional learning needs. We do need to get self-assessment better. It’s one of the weaknesses in our system. That’s been acknowledged by Estyn. That’s why continued moderation is really, really important. But, by moving some of the emphasis away, that gives us more time for teachers to concentrate on developing their skills in this area, and, as you know, we’ve put aside £5.6 million in this financial year for the consortia’s professional learning funds.