The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education: update on the next steps for the pupil development grant. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer.

The gap in levels of attainment between learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers is an international challenge. The basis of the gap is historic and complicated; it’s rooted in inequality, disadvantage and class systems. Whilst Wales is not unique, we do face specific challenges. That is why I’ve placed narrowing the gap at the heart of our national mission to raise standards and deliver an education system that is a source of national pride and enjoys public confidence.

Since the introduction of the pupil development grant, more than £394 million has been made available. This has supported the equivalent of over 450,000 learners, and we are seeing progress. But it is clear there is no quick fix. We have to think long term, and that’s why we're increasingly focusing on the early years and on early intervention.

Time and time again, I’m told how important the PDG is. It is having a real impact in raising aspirations; building confidence; improving behaviour and attendance; and involving families in their children’s education, all of which are essential building blocks in ensuring that children and young people reach their full potential. This feedback is backed up by the PDG evaluation that we published in December, which highlighted that it’s considered invaluable by schools.

However, there’s much more to do if our more disadvantaged learners are ever to achieve on a par with their peers, and that is very clear from the 2017 GCSE results. Whilst the old and new measures are not comparable, it is clear that EFSM learners were less resilient in dealing with the changes last summer, and looked-after children were less resilient again. But we did see some excellent examples of schools bucking the trend, where their EFSM learners actually out-performed their non-EFSM peers. We are working hard to understand what these schools did differently and to ensure this excellent practice is shared and built upon.

It's also important not to lose sight of the significant progress made in attainment levels over recent years. More than one in three EFSM learners achieved the level 2 threshold in 2016, compared to one in five in 2009. And 23 per cent of our looked-after children reached that level in 2016, compared with just 13 per cent in 2013. But we know that this single measure of educational success is not reflective of a modern education system. Performance measures need to drive an inclusive and diverse curriculum benefiting all pupils, so we are developing a suite of measures that will focus on progress and added value, as well as overall attainment.

In the meantime, we are further expanding the PDG to provide an enhanced support package for our disadvantaged learners. From this month, I have increased the early years PDG from £600 to £700, building on the doubling of financial support last year from £300 to £600, and reflecting the importance of early intervention in breaking down those barriers that are often created by poverty and disadvantage. I have expanded the definition of PDG to give schools greater flexibility to support learners who have been EFSM in the previous two years. This responds to concerns around the single data collection point being artificial and will drive creativity in the use of the funding.

Crucially, I have also guaranteed allocation levels for the next two financial years. This, together with our commitment to PDG for the remainder of the Assembly term, will provide schools with a level of certainty at a time of significant financial challenge and unpredictability. The imminent roll-out of universal credit is a significant factor in this unpredictability. Having the time to assess and plan for the full implications of universal credit was an important factor in my decision to set allocation levels for the next two years. Whilst the UK Government’s austerity agenda continues to place Welsh public services under the cosh, we can at least offer schools some protection in terms of PDG until March 2020. Members will be aware that the Children, Young People and Education Committee is undertaking an inquiry into targeted funding. Evidence has been presented to the committee suggesting that the PDG isn't always used for all eligible learners, with the focus sometimes being only on those who are struggling academically. Let me be very clear: the PDG is there to support all EFSM learners and looked-after learners, including those who are more able. This position is not new, but I am keen to reinforce its importance and I want to see practitioners building on current good practice.

I was very pleased to hear Estyn recognise, in its evidence to the committee inquiry, that the PDG is one of the areas of decision making that schools make best use of evidence. This is essential in ensuring effective interventions and value for money. Schools can also rely on the support of regional consortia, who are required through the grant to have both a PDG strategic adviser and a looked-after children PDG co-ordinator. As well as providing essential support, leadership and challenge across their regions, these consortia leads are working at a national level with my officials and our raising attainment advocate, Sir Alasdair MacDonald, to deliver a national programme of work to drive progress across the board. This programme will reflect the findings of the forthcoming evaluations of both the early years and looked-after children elements of the grant.

There is no question for me that we have to continue to prioritise narrowing the attainment gap. We have a moral duty to ensure that there is equity of opportunity for all learners to reach their potential, whatever that may be. That is our challenge, and I am absolutely committed to rising to it. Thank you, acting Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Darren Millar.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Look, while I welcome any additional funding that you might announce on behalf of the Welsh Government for learners in our schools, and particularly those who may face disadvantage, I have to say, I'm extremely disappointed by the timing of this announcement; I think it's a huge discourtesy to the National Assembly, to the Children, Young People and Education Committee and its Chair that you have made this announcement simply because of the convenience of the Welsh Liberal Democrat conference in the kiosk where it was held, no doubt, in Cardiff over the weekend.

I think that you should've announced this in the Chamber, not to your party members, and I, frankly, am appalled, because this is the sort of behaviour that you would have been the first to shout up and criticise when you were on the opposition benches before you joined this shambolic Government, so I'm very disappointed that you have made the announcement in this way, and I think it shows very much a significant lack of respect for the children and young people's committee in particular, particularly given that we are in the middle of an inquiry into targeted funding for children and young people in our schools. And you know that, within the purview of that inquiry, we are looking very much at the pupil development grant and the efficacy of it and we're going to be making, probably, a good number of recommendations about the shape of that grant in the future. So, frankly, why you've done this at the moment I do not know. You should have been waiting for the receipt of that report, rather than pre-empting it with a pre-emptive strike today. So, very, very disappointed indeed, and I'm very disappointed that you've laid aside the morals that you seemed to have when you were in opposition with regard to these sorts of announcements.

Now, that said, I do have a number of questions, as you might imagine, on your announcement. You've indicated that you've given some security to local education authorities in terms of the funding that you've provided through to the end of the Assembly term, but, as I understand it, you've based the allocations on the school census data in 2016. Why have you chosen to base the allocations on the school census data in 2016 and not 2017, which is available to you? Is it fixed, now, on the 2016 data, even though you know that the numbers of children and young people who might be eligible for the pupil deprivation grant will change from year to year in our schools? I've been contacted by schools in my own constituency saying, 'We haven't had a penny of pupil deprivation grant this year, even though we've got pupils who ought to be entitled to the grant, given the Welsh Government's criteria, simply because they've used the old data from the previous year'. Why have you chosen to do that? That certainly doesn't seem fair at all. So, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why you've done that.

I'm pleased to hear you recognise that it's very important that all learners who are entitled to this grant are afforded the opportunity to develop to their full potential, including those who are more able and talented. One thing that has been very clear from the evidence that has been coming in to the committee is that they have been largely overlooked to date in terms of the efforts that have been made, and I think it's very important not only that you send a clear message by saying a few words in this Chamber, but that there's some clear and practical guidance that is issued to our local education authorities, to the regional consortia and our schools. So, I ask you: will you issue such guidance in the future on things that are there, available for people to use, which are in accordance with best practice to achieve the best possible outcomes for those learners?

You made reference to the fact that the aim of this fund is to close the educational attainment gap. We know that that gap opened up significantly in 2017. Now, I appreciate that you say you can't necessarily directly compare to the previous year because you've changed the measures; it's the form of every Government to change measures where they don't like the measures that are in place, but the reality is that, even if you take into account those changes in the measures, the gap still grew. So, in spite of the fact that you're increasing the pupil development grant, we seem to have this reduction in its effectiveness in terms of being able to close that gap. So, I wonder what work you are doing to identify precisely why that gap is widening in spite of the extra resources that you are putting in.

Just finally, if I may, one question that many people ask me is why there isn't some sort of recognition for those individuals who may not be eligible for free school meals, but whose funding in the schools has declined significantly as a result of the ever-increasing push to increase this grant at the expense of the overall funding pot for our schools. You and I both know that, where you increase a specific grant, you've got to reduce the overall spending allocation that schools are getting. There are many parents who are just about getting by in those schools, where you've got young people who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, and, frankly, the measure that we have of free school meals isn't necessarily the best one, and, again, this has been coming through sharply in some of the evidence. Now, one of the things that has been suggested is the use of the Ever 6 measure, which looks at those individuals who have been eligible for free school meals over the period of the past six years, rather than taking a single snapshot in any one particular year. I wonder what consideration you've given to the use of the Ever 6 measure in terms of eligibility, rather than the current eligibility criteria that you are using. Thank you.

Can I thank Darren for his series of questions? Perhaps I can start where he left off. In one breath, Darren says, 'You're spending too much money on PDG, and that is at the expense of non-PDG children in schools,' but then he says, 'Why haven't you introduced an Ever 6?' [Interruption.] 'Why haven't you introduced an Ever 6?' I would love—and have looked very carefully at the principle of being able to introduce an Ever 6 system here with the Welsh PDG. I simply don't have the resources available to do that. To be able to implement an Ever 6 would do what Darren has just accused me of doing—prioritising the spending on this grant over other children. Now, Darren, I would agree with you that free school meals might not be the perfect proxy for what constitutes disadvantage, but, at this present time and in the absence of anything else, that's the best proxy that we have at the moment.

Darren also asked about the issue of best practice. Increasingly, we are aware of what works for our most disadvantaged children, and we have already issued guidance to both schools and to individual regional consortia around the use of an evidence-based approach to spending these resources. One of the most accessible resources is the Sutton Trust toolkit, which I know that Darren and the committee are very, very familiar with, as evidence-based interventions that we know work. Darren will also know, from the evidence I gave to the committee just before the Easter recess, that we are considering looking at a Welsh version of the Sutton Trust toolkit, building on Welsh interventions, Welsh experience, and what we know is working here in our schools. But, as I said in my opening statement, Estyn have themselves said that this is one grant where there is extensive evidence that schools are indeed using the evidence to direct their investments.

Darren asked about the issue about the 2016 PLASC data and the use of PLASC data. What's important to understand is that PDG allocations have always been behind—that's how they always have been. Darren asked a very reasonable question—why have we chosen 2016 as the base for the next two years? I have done so for a very simple reason, acting Presiding Officer. We have used that data because it is what allows me to get the most money into the system, because, actually, because of a whole range of factors, free school meal eligibility is dropping. So, 2016 gives me more money than using 2017 data, and we've frozen it for two years in consultation with the profession, because we simply do not know, at this stage, what the effect of the roll-out of universal credit will be on free school meals on Wales. It could present us with changes in behaviour that could see huge fluctuations in free school meal take-up and, therefore, big fluctuations in individual schools' budgets. We have taken the decision that it is better—it is better—to be able to provide certainty of resource for schools for the next two years for planning, rather than take a chance on what the impact of universal credit will be on the free school meal provision, because I simply do not know. Given the fact that I would be first to admit, Darren, that these are challenging financial times for our schools, certainty over that budget is what is important to those practitioners, and the 2016 data gives me more money than the 2017 data would have, and I'm trying to get as much money into the system as I possibly can. And that's the reason for that investment.

The figures in 2017 are complex, and, whilst no direct comparisons are able to be made, I was very clear in my statement that those children were less resilient to the changes to the examinations than their better-off peers, and we have to be clear about why that is, and there are a host of reasons—everything from tier 2 vocabulary and oracy levels that are needed now to get a maths qualification, through to people being taken out of other core subjects to get them through their maths and their English. There are a host of reasons, but I'm also exploring this with our independent overseers of our qualification system, Qualifications Wales, to get a better understanding. But let's be clear: there are some schools where their free-school-meal pupils did better than their non-free-school-meal pupils. So, Cefn Hengoed in Swansea: those entitled to free school meals did better in their GCSEs last year than their better-off counterparts. There are certain schools within the city of Cardiff with very similar levels of uptake of free school meals. Some of those schools have got significant numbers of those pupils getting their level 2 plus, and a similar cohort in the same city have not done so well. And that variation in the system, where some schools have been able to insulate their free-school-meal pupils and push them on, and have been successful in doing so, and schools in the very same city have not been able to do so, is of concern to me, and that is why we will be expecting our PDG co-ordinators in our regional consortia to ensure that best practice—where those schools that are bucking the trend and their pupils are doing well, that good practice is shared consistently across all schools. Because if some can do it then all should be able to do it.

I fear that I will also have to start by echoing the comments of the previous speaker on the timing of this statement. I do feel that it does show a little disrespect to the work of the committee, because we’re a matter of weeks away from publishing the report on school support grants, which will, of course, have a strong focus on the PDG, and here we are hearing a statement from the Government that suggests that you’re not willing to wait to see what our committee report will have to say on some of these issues. So, that is a cause of disappointment, and, okay, you can announce it to your party conference if you want, but it’s this Parliament that sets your budget and it’s to this Parliament that you should be accountable and making statements in the first place.

Of course, one welcomes any additional funding, particularly for the early years PDG. We’ve always said that that investment is needed in the early years, because that is when it will have the greatest impact, and that is a positive step, as well as moving to a two-year funding cycle. There are questions remaining, I fear, as to whether this is the best use of that funding. It’s an old argument that’s been ongoing for many years, as to what kind of return one could get for almost £400 million by using it in different ways. We must bear in mind that the trend of closing this gap between the attainment of those eligible for free school meals and those who aren’t had started before the introduction of the PDG, so there’s more work to be done, and I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary would recognise that there’s always more work to be done, to prove that this investment is actually delivering results in terms of the Government’s policies in this area.

There’s no questioning the value that schools place on this investment, of course. I wouldn’t argue about that for one moment, but, in the evidence that we’ve received as a committee, and in the visits that I’ve undertaken to a number of schools, it’s not always appreciated as funding to deliver the purpose for which it’s given, but more to subsidise cuts in core funding of schools. Of course, that is done in various different ways that tick the Government’s boxes, but, perhaps, to use a term that has been used in a conversation with me by someone from the sector, it’s 'papering over many of the cracks'. So, there are questions to be asked as to whether the Government is confident that the money is being used on all occasions for its intended purpose.

Has consideration been given—? Perhaps we do need to have a debate on shifting this funding into schools’ core funding through the revenue support grant, because you are talking more and more about providing flexibility to schools to use it in the way that they feel is appropriate in terms of delivering its purpose, but I just see some inconsistency here in terms of policy, because I'm sure you would—and I see from your face that you would—argue that it’s important to protect this as a specific grant that has particular criteria that you would expect schools to deliver against, but, of course, you are abolishing other grants and putting them into the RSG, and when we then express concern that there is some loss of focus, you say, 'Well, no—there will be an additional focus on outcomes and outputs, and ensuring that we can track the use of the funding.'

So, there is some inconsistency, I think, in the way in which the Government is approaching the various means of providing funding to schools, and I think we need a debate. I'm not sure myself what the answer is, but I do see that there's an inconsistency, never mind some of the funding going to schools, some to local authorities, and some grants coming through the consortia. The feedback I get from schools suggests that perhaps there may be a piece of work that needs to be done around those issues.

May I also ask—? In light of the point that I made on the need to monitor the impact of the PDG, you mentioned providing an enhanced focus on progress and adding value. Can you tell us a little more as to which indicators you will be considering and what you will be seeking to measure? Because it's a very difficult thing to measure in that context. Some clarity on that would be welcome.

May I welcome the fact that you are moving to a two-year funding cycle for the PDG? Because the feedback as to how difficult it is to go on a year-to-year basis has come through very clearly from a number of different directions. May I say that Gwynedd Council has been guaranteeing funding for their schools over a longer period than just 12 months already? So, it's clear that the need to move in that direction on the ground is clear, and I'm pleased to see that reflected in your decision, although you are framing it in the context of universal credit, and that's quite reasonable, but I would say that it's not only because of universal credit—I would hope that this is a decision that goes over and above that. We are short of the situation in England, as we heard, with the Ever 6, but certainly it is a step in the right direction, and I do welcome that.

You've referred to the Estyn comments on PDG, but Estyn also say that only two thirds of schools use the PDG effectively, and that leaves a third of schools that aren't doing so, and I'd like to hear what steps the Government will take to ensure that the potential of this income is being maximised in every school, particularly in that third of schools that Estyn feels that perhaps aren't making the best possible use or making effective use of the PDG.

And finally from me, we had a few questions earlier on scrapping the school uniforms grant. In his response, the First Minister said that it would be turned into a more flexible fund—something that could provide additional support for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, something that may pay for school trips or specific experiences. It sounds very similar to the PDG, so perhaps you could tell us a little more about how it will differ. Thank you.

Thank you, Llyr, for that. I want to begin by saying that I'm grateful that you recognise the need to give stability to schools as much as we can, which is why the decision has been taken. That's especially true when, as I said to Darren, funding situations are difficult, and this gives schools and their governing bodies the best possible opportunity to plan for the effective use of these resources. And you're right; Estyn says that there is more that can be done to ensure that these resources are used effectively, which is why we are working with the regional consortia, with the PDG co-ordinator in each of them, to ensure that schools are doing just that: that they are using best practice and that they can evidence the reasons for the decisions they're taking with regard to the PDG.

You might not regard this as a particular priority, but we can't have the education system that I want for our pupils if we take our eye off this particular ball. Maybe, if you were standing in my place here, you'd want to get rid of the PDG. But I want to make it absolutely clear to the parents of some of our most disadvantaged children, and to the schools that serve those communities, that whilst I am the Cabinet Secretary for Education, then the PDG will exist, and I will do my best to ensure, where there are opportunities to increase the value of that, like we did last year, and like we have done this year, that we will do just that. I make no apologies for wanting to invest this money in the education of our poorest children.

I mean no discourtesy to the Chair or other members of the committee by making this announcement, but it is the start of the financial year, and we have had to make allocations to schools. It's not your fault that your report is going to come later on, but it is not my fault. When schools are asking me for their allocations, we need to be able to get that allocation out to them. I hope that I have demonstrated over the last two years that, where I can respond positively to the work of scrutiny committees, I will do that, but in terms of the allocation, we've had to make that money and those allocations known to schools as quickly as possible. It's not meant as a discourtesy to the committee. It's just a question of timing and the start of the financial year.

I will be making a statement later on this term to update Members on our changes to assessment and accountability measures. It seems to me we are in a position to move to a more intelligent suite of assessment and accountability measures that moves us on from where we have been in the past, which perhaps has been, in some schools, used to focus exclusively on the C/D boundary, which has had consequences for other aspects of our education system, for the types of qualifications that children have been entered for. Despite the dip in performance in 2017, what we did see in 2017 is more children on free school meals being entered for GCSEs than ever before—children that previously wouldn't have been entered for a GCSE science exam. More children than ever before from poorer backgrounds are being entered for these qualifications, and that's something I think we should take into consideration, and we do need a better suite of performance measures.

As I said, Llyr, you may not believe in the ability of this investment to transform the life of children. Listening to schools, listening to the evaluation and listening to Estyn, I believe that this is the right path, this is the right focus, and whilst I remain in this position, it will continue to be so.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I welcome your announcement of the increase in the early years PDG. Acting earlier in a child's life to mitigate social and other disadvantages the child is subject to makes sense, and obviously the earlier you act, the better it is for the child, and the more likely you are to head off the consequences of that disadvantage. I also welcome your decision to extend the eligibility criteria to two years—with a little bit of caution, because it may well take a lot longer than two years for a child to recover from the effects of being on free school meals or other disadvantage. So, can the Cabinet Secretary explain to us why this period isn't longer, and why she has chosen two years as opposed to three, four, five or whatever? Guaranteeing the allocation for two years is also a welcome development. I do actually agree with you that it will provide a level of certainty at least. Do you have any thoughts as to whether you might review that period? Is this two-year thing going to be an ongoing thing or is it just going to be a one-off?

Coming to the PDG and how it's applied, a level of flexibility seems to exist in how schools use the PDG, and whilst 100 per cent of the PDG may not be specifically and directly targeted at pupils on free school meals by the schools, I wouldn't like to see that flexibility compromised. I think it gives schools something—an extra tool in their armoury to help children who may fall into a grey area, perhaps. So, do you have any intention to restrict how schools are going to be using the PDG? Because you've gone to quite big pains today to emphasise that this PDG is to narrow the attainment gap. What are the implications for schools? Are you going to try and restrict how they use the PDG, or are you just going to leave it as the status quo, as things are at the moment?

Free school meal entitlement is also quite a blunt tool, and I think you would agree with me on that. Factors such as adverse childhood experiences can have a hugely detrimental impact on educational attainment, so have you given any consideration to whether the PDG criteria could be adjusted to take into account factors such as certain ACEs that can detrimentally affect a child's development and educational attainment hugely through life? If you don't feel that the PDG is the appropriate tool for that, what proposals are you coming forward with to address those factors that do have such a big impact on educational attainment? I recognise that your objective is to narrow the attainment gap between pupils on free school meals and those who aren't, but narrowing the attainment gap is only part of the picture. If pupils on free school meals are to escape the cycle of low wages that their parents may have found themselves in, they must be allowed and encouraged to fulfil their potential. So, do you have any proposals on how pupils on free schools meals can be targeted to become higher achievers, over and above payment of the PDG? Thank you.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Thank you very much. Let me be absolutely clear about the usage of the PDG. PDG money is there to support the educational attainment of those children who are eligible for free school meals or children who are looked after, regardless of their potential. So, for some, that might be providing catch-up to bring them up to a level with their peers. For some PDG children, that's about supporting them to be the more able and talented children that they are. So, this is not about an educational attainment level for individuals, it's about supporting each of those children to be the best they can be.

The money has to be used for direct intervention for those eligible children, but the resources can also be used for universal interventions that would disproportionately benefit EFSM or LAC learners. So, that has a knock-on effect for those who find themselves perhaps just over the threshold or who are suffering from other limitations on their educational attainment, but not financial. Let me give the Member an example from her own region. Brynteg County Primary School in Wrexham has an EFSM percentage of over 32 per cent and they have used some of their PDG to develop a growth mindset programme for every learner in the school—every learner. But what we know is that that disproportionately benefits the learners who are from a more disadvantaged background. So, every learner benefits from that programme, but it disproportionately benefits those children on FSM. 

With regard to ACEs and to attachment disorder, which is something that increasingly primary schools are telling me that they are contending with and dealing with, LAC resources in the ERW regional consortium have been used to ensure that all primary schools are ACE and attachment aware. Again, that potentially benefits everybody in the school, but we know it disproportionately benefits a certain subset of children who are entitled to this resource.

I'm not intending to restrict schools' uses of the funding. What I want to do is ensure that schools are using best practice and evidence and knowing that the interventions that they're employing are the ones that we know actually work for children. So, Michelle, you're absolutely right; we need to look at each individual child in the round and where we can support those children to reach their potential, whatever that might be. So, this is not just support to use for children to catch up, but to extent children who are more able and talented and to raise those aspirations for the children, something that Brynteg County Primary School has done wonderfully. 

I'm not sure if this is the last speaker, Chair—

No, you have a few more. Sorry about that. Lynne Neagle.

Thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer. As Members have said and as the Cabinet Secretary is aware, we are nearly at the end of our inquiry into targeted funding. We've got a discussion about it tomorrow, and I really don't want to pre-empt the committee's findings on that, because we will be making, I hope, a good number of recommendations, which I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will want to take very seriously. I am pleased that the work that the committee has done has enabled a continued light to be shone on this very important area of work.

I just wanted to ask two brief questions, the first related to the resilience of pupils in the 2017 GCSEs, which you've referred to several times in answers. In particular, you've highlighted the fact that you are intending to ensure that the lessons of good practice will be rolled out to all parts of Wales. Can I just ask whether you can give a more concrete indication of when you expect that work to be completed and for your assurance that that is going to be in good time for this summer's exams?

My second question was on the issue of more able and talented learners, because the committee has received a lot of evidence that some schools are just using their PDG on free-school-meal pupils who aren't performing well, and I very much welcome the clarity that you've provided this afternoon that you expect that money to be used for all EFSM pupils. But in relation to that, do you have any concrete plans to ensure that that message is given loud and clear to the whole of Wales, and to ensure that that is properly implemented everywhere? Thank you. 

Can I thank the Chair of the committee for her comments? As I said in answer to Llyr Huws Gruffydd, there is no slight intended towards the work of the committee. It is the start of the financial year and schools need to know their budgets. We've had to make that announcement prior to the publication of the report. And just for clarity, many Members have been greatly exercised this afternoon about me announcing this money first to a party conference on Saturday morning. Let me assure all the Members the first people who knew about the additional resources were the schools. I announced this to individual schools in March. It is schools up and down this nation that first heard about this resource, and I want to assure all Members of that in the grant allocations that were sent to them in March.    

Lynne, I share your concerns around using this resource, as I said to Michelle Brown, just for catch-up, and not to recognise individual children who are more able and talented. I've been clear today, I hope, and I was clear in the committee evidence that I gave you, that I expect all children to be benefiting from these resources, and I will be expecting the regional consortia advisers, both individual ones in individual schools, as well as the co-ordinator for the entire consortia, to be asking these questions in schools of headteachers about how this resource is being used. And I have been very clear about my expectations that those questions are to be asked. This money is there for every child who is eligible to reach their full potential. 

The issue around resilience in GCSEs is an ongoing piece of work; it's not a one-off piece of work. We've already had conversations with regional consortia, headteachers via our headteachers conferences, as well as the ongoing dialogue officials continually have with headteachers about the need to spread good practice, and understand why some schools are able to buck the trend and why other schools, as I said, even within the same local education authority or the same regional consortia, were not able to support their pupils in the same way. If there was one simple reason for the lack of resilience, it would be easy, but this is multifactoral and slightly different in each school. But that work is ongoing and consistent across all the areas. One of the greatest strategic challenges we have in the Welsh education system is variability, and this is again another example of why we need to address that situation around variability.     

Thank you very much. And finally, then, Vikki Howells. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I have a few questions on your statement. Firstly, I note your comments about how the PDG is being used to better involve families in their children's education, and you will know that I'm hosting an event for Parentkind at the Senedd tomorrow at which you'll be speaking. This aims to celebrate the work of the charity in getting parents to take a role in education. However, I know, and many other former teachers and teachers know, that it can be difficult to engage parents of EFSM children to attend parents evening or to feel comfortable visiting their child's school. What work can the Welsh Government do to help overcome these barriers? 

Secondly, the improvement in attainment for EFSM and looked-after children you mentioned is really welcome. One in three of the former are now reaching the level 2 threshold, and nearly one in four of the latter. It is right that we recognise pupil progress, but for many of these pupils progress cannot be measured by exam results alone. So, I'd welcome the return to more of a focus on the inclusive measure of value added. Could you expand on your comments about how the Welsh Government will develop a suite of measures that will focus on progress in terms of value added? 

Thirdly and finally, a crucial aspect of the PDG is obviously the way in which it is used to support looked-after pupils. The current flexibility in the system allows regional consortia to tailor-make support packages that address the particular needs of pupils in their area. How does the Welsh Government monitor this to ensure that best practice is rolled out across Wales so that all looked-after pupils receive the very best support? 

Can I think Vikki for that? I'm looking very much forward to the event tomorrow. What we know is that, after the quality of teaching, parental engagement in their child's education is the second biggest factor that reflects outcomes. So, we need fantastic teachers in front of our children, but we also need really supportive parents, grandparents and communities behind those children if they're going to make the most of their education opportunities.

There is some excellent good practice. I think maybe it's even Janet Finch-Saunders's constituency or it may be Darren Miller's constituency—Ysgol Glan Gele Infant School. I think it's Darren's. This is one of the schools that Estyn has highlighted has excellent practice for using PDG in terms of parental engagement. That school has worked really hard in systematically targeting its PDG to address the problem of disengaged parents. This includes basic skills sessions for parents themselves, taking place in the new parent partnership provision. So, they've created an entire scheme that really, really targets this issue, and they use their PDG to support it. As a consequence, the school has seen greater parental involvement in their own children's learning as well as upskilling the parents themselves, which is a great thing, in their own numeracy and literacy skills. That's also had a huge impact on well-being for both those parents as well as their children. It's a really good example of great practice in how this resource is being funded. But we need to see more of those examples being developed and spread across Wales. 

With regard to assessment and performance measures, I'm hoping to make a statement, as I said to Llyr Huws Gruffydd, later on this terms that outlines the approach that we're asking. It's necessary to align ourselves as we prepare for the new curriculum, because assessment arrangements are going to have to change and we're going to have to go along with our new curriculum, but it's also clear to me that we need a more sophisticated way in which we can measure the individual performance of schools.

Yes, we still need children to achieve in their formal examinations, but, actually, how we measure that needs to be much more sophisticated. At the moment, what we've got is a system that says, 'If you get a child a C in their GCSE—tick, you've been a success', but if you got a D, then you've failed that child. But, actually, if that child was barely coming to school and your school has worked really, really hard and has actually got that child engaging in activities and a suite of skills and experiences, we shouldn't write off that effort. Meanwhile, if a child came to you that should have got an A* and they've ended up with a C, we should not be congratulating the school system for that either, because they've not allowed that child to reach their full potential. We need a set of performance measures that focuses on the whole cohort, not just the C or D borderlines where we know some schools have focused, but on every single child in that school. Their performance and their achievements should matter and I'll be making a statement about that later on this term, about how we achieve that. 

It's perhaps not surprising but it's disappointing that much of the debate today has just been about free school meals and not about the LAC element of the PDG. If we're worried about the attainment gap for our poorer children, then, my goodness me, we need to be worried about the attainment gap for our children who are care experienced and who are looked after. 

My officials will be working very closely with the group that is chaired by David Melding. I'm hoping that David and I can meet up shortly to discuss how best we can use these resources to shift the dial for these children. It is not easy. It's complex. We have made good progress, but last summer we have seen a falling back because of that lack of resilience. I'm absolutely determined that these children's educational attainment is equally as important as every other child's in the system, and I'll be working cross-party, across the Chamber, to ensure that these resources that are being made available by a LAC PDG are used to best effect. 

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.