Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. Self-evaluation is an important internal exercise, but when used in this context, where it will form part of a larger evaluation and assessment process, and where schools operate under a funding model that sees schools competing for pupils, will the self-evaluation of schools and consortia simply end up being an exercise in self-promotion? I know that you say that the self-evaluation will be validated externally, but if that is the case, if it will be subject to external validation and evaluation, why bother with the self-evaluation in the first place, and not just leave the matter to external bodies such as Estyn? And from a practical point of view, what will validation mean in reality, and how will Estyn actually go about validating self-evaluations of consortia and schools? I would be really, really interested to hear how you foresee that working, Cabinet Secretary. 

The schools should already be self-evaluating for their own use, so this idea that the evaluation should become public, in a sense, will surely risk what previously might have been an honest evaluation becoming one spun in order to attract more pupils. Is this really the correct move considering the funding model, and would the Cabinet Secretary favour a changed funding model that would suit this evaluation scheme better?

Turning to the peer review of both schools and regional consortia's self-evaluations, how do you foresee that working in practice? What is the intended output of the peer review? And given that both regional consortia and schools will be effectively checking each other's homework, how can you ensure that standards will be improved as a result? Thank you.