That brings us to the debate on the Children, Young People and Education Committee report on targeted funding to improve educational outcomes. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Lynne Neagle.

Motion NDM6852 Lynne Neagle

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the Children, Young People and Education Committee Report, 'On the Money? Targeted Funding to Improve Educational Outcomes', which was laid in the Table Office on 20 June 2018.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m very pleased to open this debate on the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s inquiry on targeted funding to improve educational outcomes and our report, 'On the money?', which we published in June. The aim of our inquiry was to focus on whether Welsh Government's work on using a targeted approach to support disadvantaged pupils to reach their full potential and raise school standards more generally is truly on the money, and what more can be done to get the greatest impact and value for money from a targeted approach. If Wales is to have the first-class, heralded education system we all aspire to, we cannot and should not leave any pupils behind. That is why I'm pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Education welcomes our report and has accepted 24 of our 31 recommendations and a further three in principle.

The Welsh Government has a well-established approach of targeting additional resources at particular groups of pupils who are at risk of not reaching their full potential. Tackling the negative correlation between deprivation, as measured by eligibility for free school meals, and attainment has been a priority for many years. Of course, some pupils from deprived backgrounds do very well and flourish academically, but we know many more do not. Pupils who are eligible for free school meals—eFSM—who often do well often do so against the odds and in spite of, rather than because of, their circumstances. This is why targeted support and intervention to break these structural inequalities, such as the pupil development grant, is so vital. This is why the committee’s report expresses general support for the principle of targeted funding. However, at £94 million per year, the PDG takes up a significant chunk of the education budget and it's crucial that we get the best possible value for money.

Our report also looked at the Welsh Government’s targeted school improvement programme, Schools Challenge Cymru, which between 2014 and 2017 worked with 39 underperforming schools in Wales. 

Firstly, on the PDG, which is intended to be for every eFSM pupil, including those who are high-achieving but could achieve even more, our inquiry found that the PDG is predominantly being targeted at low-achieving eFSM pupils, and not at more able and talented ones. I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted our recommendation on this and has already taken steps to address it. 

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

The Welsh Government has also committed to closely monitoring the impact of the PDG and ensuring value for money, which we welcome. Estyn told the committee that two thirds of schools were using the grant effectively. Both Estyn and the Cabinet Secretary indicated that this was to be expected as it reflects the proportion of schools with good or better leadership. However, the committee believes that we should not be satisfied with a position whereby a third of schools are not using the PDG effectively and would seek further assurances from the Cabinet Secretary on this point.

The PDG has been in place for over six years now, and almost £400 million has been invested in it. The school improvement consortia have now appointed PDG leads in each of the four regions. We recommended that they should do much more to challenge ineffective use of the grant. This is something that the evaluation by Ipsos MORI and the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods found was not happening sufficiently. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s acceptance of our recommendations in this area, particularly on how the PDG can be used to improve eFSM pupils' attendance and engagement with their education.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I will now focus on a couple of the recommendations that the Welsh Government has rejected. From 2018-19, the Welsh Government expects schools to use the PDG on pupils who've been eligible for free school meals in either of the previous two years; this provides welcome flexibility. However, schools have not been given any extra money to do this, as their PDG allocations are still based on a one-year eFSM headcount. If the Welsh Government wants schools to adopt a more flexible definition for targeting the grant, the committee recommended that it should commit to fully funding this.

Furthermore, in relation to allocations, the committee recognised the rationale for using the 2016 annual school census data: eFSMs figures were higher in that year, which had enabled more money to be drawn down for the PDG. However, we were concerned about schools that buck the trend and may have had a higher number of eFSM pupils in 2017 or 2018. As such, we called for schools' PDG allocations to be determined by whichever is the higher of their 2016 eFSM headcount or the latest available.

The committee made a number of recommendations about the impact of the PDG on attainment of eFSM pupils and unintended consequences of changes to key stage 4 performance measures. Attainment data shows encouraging progress in narrowing the gap in the attainment of pupils eligible for free school meals and non-eFSM pupils, at least up to 2016. However, the committee was very concerned by what happened following the Welsh Government’s changes to key stage 4 performance measures in 2017, which reduced the weighting given to vocational qualifications due to concerns that pupils were being excessively entered for these.

I know that rates of achievement of the level 2 threshold measures are not comparable between 2017 and previous years. However, what really concerned the committee was the widening gap between eFSM pupils and their peers. We found that there's now a disincentive to schools to enter pupils for vocational qualifications, even where it might be right for that pupil, and this has affected eFSM pupils disproportionately. The committee recommended that the Welsh Government urgently investigate this unintended consequence and learn lessons at the earliest opportunity. We recognise that new interim performance measures have been announced for summer 2019. However, given that the provisional 2018 results show a similar position to 2017, we'd welcome further assurances from the Cabinet Secretary that the 2017 and 2018 eFSM cohorts were not unfairly and adversely affected by the previous changes. How has the PDG mitigated, or failed to mitigate, against this?

The same can be said for looked-after children; their attainment relative to their peers has widened since 2016 after years of good progress in narrowing the gap. Moving on to the element of the PDG for looked-after children and adopted children, I welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment to using the evaluation it has commissioned from ICF Consulting to improve the programme going forward. The committee heard that this aspect of the PDG has been insufficiently strategic until quite recently, when the regional consortia have improved the way they target and administer the grant.

The committee's biggest concern, however, related to the way the PDG is used or not used on adopted children. There are around 4,000 looked-after children in Wales, and an estimated 3,000 to 3,500 adopted children. Whilst the Welsh Government expects consortia to target the PDG at adopted children as well as looked-after children, the funding allocation is based only on the numbers of looked-after children. This means one of two things: either the PDG is not being used for adopted children or if it is, then the per-head amount of £1,150 is effectively diluted by almost half.

I'm really pleased that the Welsh Government has said it will look at how adopted children can be more proactively identified and subsequently supported through the PDG. However, we are disappointed that our recommendation that the PDG is allocated to consortia based on the numbers of both looked-after children and adopted children has been rejected, although we note that the Cabinet Secretary will keep it under review.

Turning to Schools Challenge Cymru, I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted our four recommendations, albeit one in principle. Whilst the improvements shown by schools involved in the programme were variable, some schools did extremely well as a result of the extra challenge and support, particularly in the central south Wales region. It is vital that there is no loss of momentum in these schools following the closure of a programme, and I am glad that the Government has agreed that the regional consortia should closely monitor the position. We did hear different interpretations of whether Schools Challenge Cymru was always intended to be time limited, but there was general consensus in our evidence that a programme of this kind really needs to run for longer than three years to have a lasting effect.

The committee noted the Cabinet Secretary's position that Schools Challenge Cymru served its purpose while the consortia were in their infancy and that they can now take on the baton of targeted school improvement in specific schools. But what the committee couldn't really understand was why the decision to discontinue Schools Challenge Cymru came seven months before the evaluation, which the Welsh Government itself commissioned, was completed. We were also concerned to be told of a lack of engagement in learning lessons from Schools Challenge Cymru with those central to delivering the programme, who told the committee that they felt somewhat frozen out.

The committee recommended that the Welsh Government and the consortia do more to learn lessons from Schools Challenge Cymru in order to apply these to school improvement more generally, and I am pleased the Cabinet Secretary has agreed to do this. The committee was concerned that, following the closure of the programme, its annual budget went back to reserves, rather than elsewhere within the education budget. Indeed, this inquiry has highlighted the wider issue of school funding, which has come up time and time again in various inquiries the committee has undertaken. The committee will be examining these issues and the process of allocating school budgets in its forthcoming inquiry into school funding, and this is, of course, a key issue for the 2019-20 draft budget, particularly given the concerns expressed over the level of funding for school budgets.

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, I'd like to thank stakeholders for the way they've positively engaged with the inquiry and their invaluable contributions, as well as the schools that we visited. I'd also like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for her positive response to this inquiry and our recommendations. I know the Welsh Government is committed to supporting disadvantaged pupils to reach their full potential and raising school standards more generally. I hope that our report has shown the value of regularly monitoring that Welsh Government's approach is truly on the money.

All our pupils, whatever their background, deserve to receive the greatest impact and value for money from a targeted approach. Thank you.

Thank you to the committee for this report. As a new member of the committee, I've found this a really interesting read and, with that very necessary focus on school budgets now, I think we all welcome this scrutiny of the effectiveness of particular activities and the stability of the income streams that underpin them.

I'm interested, too, in whether school leaders make spending decisions on the basis of what they think will work best and hope that they can then resource those decisions sufficiently a bit further down the line, or whether it's finance first, resulting, maybe, in an offer to children that is less than optimum. Because, arguably, in both those cases, neither decision is as effective as it needs to be. In the first, the quality is there, but may be unaffordable and therefore not achievable, and in the second, the cheaper option may not quite hit the mark for the more challenging objectives for particular children. Obviously, I realise this is an oversimplification of the dilemmas that school leaders face—it's not all about money—but as recommendation 1 in this report does make clear, value for money and opportunity cost are considerations for this Assembly, considering the financial constraints we're under.

We recognise what you hope to achieve through the PDG, Cabinet Secretary, and would expect, of course, a robust defence of it when it appears to be falling short, but what we will be looking for in particular is a credible explanation of why it works when it does and an honest appraisal of why it doesn't when it doesn't. Because, if it is literally just about money, we'll support you in your arguments to the finance Secretary to get more money. However, if it's about weaknesses within school leadership or consortia or local authorities, or even within Welsh Government or Estyn, you need to be frank with us. So, while I completely accept the value of tracking systems and data gathering, which I see you mentioned in your response to recommendation 1, I'm also interested in what you might call—'performance management' is not quite right, but how you gather meaningful information about that, on which you can then act.

As you know, Welsh Conservative believe in more direct funding of schools and trusting teachers and other staff with decisions, but with that comes a greater responsibility for transparency and governance. Because we can hold Welsh Government to account until the cows come home, but, as we see time after time, that is not the same as Welsh Government accepting accountability and acting when this Assembly calls it out. So, it's pleasing, Cabinet Secretary, that you've accepted so many recommendations in the report, which speak to concerns about mission slip, really—not entirely across the board, but in some instances.

And the point about loss of focus on more able and talented children from the PDG target groups is an observation that matters particularly to me, I must admit. Just to be clear, I'm not going to be running any grammar school arguments in the course of this debate, so please don't be distracted by that, but this question about what has happened to working class, non-affluent Wales's status as an acme of educational achievement still hovers over us. And while we can talk about our greater understanding of the effects of poverty and other adverse childhood experiences, it's not as if they didn't exist before, and yet our education system doesn't seem to capture and raise up more of those poor but really able young people to reach the opportunities to an extent that they were able to do previously. So, we will expect to see that acceptance of recommendations, including recommendation 3, turned into action and attainment improvement, and we'll also be expecting assessment of the attributable effect of your PDG strategic advisers. 

Finally, your approach to stopping some of the schools gaming the system—this move from BTECs to GCSEs for the cohorts of pupils that we're talking about in this debate, and the apparent effect on grades and the nature of vocational qualifications. It's been raised previously, and I'm sure we'll hear a bit more again today, that entering the children that we're talking about for GCSE equivalents rather than GCSEs made the narrowing of that attainment gap look a bit more impressive than it's actually been. So, I admire you for not accepting that, but I'm not sure what happens next for the young people who are on the wrong side of that attainment gap, and what you now need to do with the PDG—because it's funding we're talking about—as well as other strategies.

What it has exposed, though—or confirmed prejudices, if you like, Diprwy Llywydd—is that pre-16 vocational qualifications have been treated as lightweight qualifications, and, having seen copies of the relevant science papers in my own household, I can see why. Vocational courses and exams surely should be about responding to learners' different aptitudes and learning styles, and they should still be about achieving excellence, but in a different way with different ways of achieving high levels of practical applicability. We are never going to get anywhere near parity of esteem if the establishment treats vocational exams as the 'That'll do' option, especially for those who are in the greatest need of social mobility.

I think the issue that most concerns me is how we manage to use this targeted money to level out the opportunities for young people in more deprived areas, or the pupils within schools who don't have the range of possibilities that better off households can provide for their children. I think there's a big challenge for those schools in my constituency that have significant numbers of mobility within year and within the period of the lifetime of the child's presence in the primary school. So, for example, at Albany school in Plasnewydd, there's a huge range of movement in and out of the school that occurs throughout the year. So, if we only have a snapshot of eligibility, this can lead to very challenging fluctuations in funding from one year to the next. So, for example, in a particular year, the lowest year they had was 80 pupils eligible for free school meals. Then, in the following year, there were 100 pupils. The school had planned for the current year that there would be funding for 100 pupils, but has now got to cope with £30,000 less in its budget with very little warning. That makes it extremely challenging for headteachers to ensure that they are providing for deprived children without overspending a budget they haven't got. So, I think that if there could be more monitoring over a slightly longer period, rather than just a snapshot on a particular day of the year, that would help those schools that do experience huge levels of mobility to be able to plan a bit better and not have surprises. Overall, though, I think that the pupil deprivation grant is hugely important in ensuring that every child gets the opportunity to succeed to the best of their abilities, because that simply isn't going to happen if we simply have per-pupil funding.    

I'd like to thank Llyr Gruffydd, my predecessor on this committee, for his thorough work. I also look forward to contributing with great energy to the work of this committee and as the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru on education. Improving the attainment of pupils from deprived backgrounds is vitally important to Plaid Cymru and, according to the Cabinet Secretary, it's also a priority for the Welsh Government. The commitment to maintain the pupil development grant throughout the fifth Assembly was one of the 10 education priorities agreed with the First Minister when she was appointed to the Cabinet in June of 2016.

But, unfortunately, a number of the recommendations that the committee has made have been rejected by the Cabinet Secretary with regard to extending pupils' eligibility for the pupil development grant, as has been seen, and the Welsh Government proposals to change the criteria for free school meals will have a detrimental effect on pupils from deprived backgrounds. At present, families who are eligible for universal credit are eligible for free school meals. Under the Government's proposals, only families with net earnings under £7,400 a year will be eligible for free school meals from January 2019. The Children's Society is calling on the Welsh Government to ensure that families receiving universal credit will continue to receive free school meals, and that will cost £35 million in addition per year. Increasing the cap on net earnings to £14,000 a year, as happens in Northern Ireland, would cost £20 million in addition.

Now, £15 million a year was lost from the education budget when Schools Challenge Cymru came to an end, and £12 million of that funding was a Barnett consequential. Scotland also provides free school meals for all pupils in infants units, which means that the Labour Welsh Government and the Cabinet Secretary from the Liberal Democrats will have the most miserly policy in the United Kingdom nations. I would suggest that the £15 million lost from the education budget could contribute to the cost of overturning that decision. The consultation on amending the eligibility criteria for free school meals was announced after the committee concluded its work on the evidence, and it's disappointing that the Government's timing has meant that the committee didn't have an opportunity to scrutinise this as part of this report.

I want to turn to a second aspect of the report that draws my attention and has drawn the attention of a number of committee members over a number of years now, namely the funding for schools in general. Some £94 million pounds, or 6 per cent of the education budget, is spent on the pupil development grant, with £400 million being invested to date. It's disappointing, therefore, that Estyn, in its evidence, says that only two thirds of schools are using this grant in an effective manner. Unfortunately, we do therefore have to come to the conclusion that consistent cuts to council budgets have led to cuts to schools budgets, and so it's no surprise, therefore, that schools have been using funding from the grant—the pupil development grant, that is—to fill gaps in their core budgets. I know that's not the purpose, but that's the reality of the situation in an increasing number of schools.

According to a focus group held by the committee, the grant hides the fact that school budgets are insufficient. It is not an additional resource, but core funding under a new guise. That's not what I'm saying—that's what experts in the field say. The committee came to the conclusion, therefore, that it supports the principle of targeted funding, but that it's of the opinion that this principle can't succeed unless core budgets for schools are funded sufficiently.

Recommendation 30 calls on the Welsh Government to continue to review how appropriate school funds are, and to consider how this affects schools' use of targeted funding, such as the pupil development grant and the use made of it.

We genuinely need to get to grips with these problems and the Welsh Government has to ensure that sufficient funding is available to provide a quality education for every child in Wales. Lifting the attainment of pupils from deprived backgrounds should be one of the main priorities, but this won't happen under austerity, where schools are losing teachers and teaching assistants, leading to a vicious circle of lowering standards.

I'm very pleased to speak in this debate about the committee report. I welcome the committee's investigation into this. As the Chair said, it's absolutely right that we scrutinise how this money is spent—and it is a large annual investment of £94 million and a significant proportion of the overall education budget. I support the positive impact that the pupil deprivation grant has had, and that was the general conclusion of the committee, covering pupils who are eligible for free school meals, those who have experienced care, and those who are adopted. I think it’s absolutely right that we offer extra help to improve the attainment of these pupils, and also to make sure that they're as engaged as possible in the education system, because we don’t want any pupils, if possible, falling through the gaps. So, I welcome the report and the opportunity we’ve had as a committee to shine a light on how the pupil deprivation grant in particular is used.

I want to concentrate my remarks on how the grant is used to improve the educational attainment of adopted children in particular, because schools can have a tremendous positive force in the life of a child who has experienced trauma and loss. That, of course, applies to children who have experienced care and, of course, to adopted children, and some children who have been in care and are then adopted. There are schools that I think are doing absolutely fantastic work around inclusion and attachment and are making their staff aware of attachment theory and awareness of trauma, yet I think a significant number of children who’ve already had an unfair start to life struggle to cope in an education system that too often doesn’t recognise the true nature of the challenges that they face. I don’t think, often, within schools, there is awareness of what the children may have been through, and this does prevent the foundations of knowledge and accomplishment being built, and it exacerbates social and emotional problems and diminishes life chances.

I sponsored an event here in the Assembly last June with Adoption UK—and, of course, we do quote Adoption UK in our evidence—and their survey of 2,000 adoptive parents and 2,000 adopted young people is very significant. It showed that almost three quarters of adopted children and young people agree that, 'Other children seem to enjoy school more than me.' Two thirds of secondary school-aged adopted young people said that they'd been teased or bullied at school because they are adopted. That's two thirds. Almost 70 per cent of parents feel their adopted child's progress in learning is affected by problems with their well-being in school. Sixty per cent of adoptive parents do not feel their child has an equal chance at school, and nearly half of parents of secondary school-aged children have had to keep their children off school because of concerns about their mental health or well-being. So, I think this is a very, very sad story.

So, I do really welcome the fact that adopted children are eligible to receive support via the pupil deprivation grant and I also welcome the fact that the Government has accepted, in principle, recommendation 24, although it does seem that it is difficult to set up a system whereby a school can know that children are adopted in order to be able to offer their help. But I'm pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has said that she will pursue this issue. But I am disappointed that the next recommendation, recommendation 25, is not adopted, because, obviously, as the Chair said in her introductory remarks, if we aren't able to allocate an amount of money to cover the number of children that we estimate are adopted, it's not going to be possible for them to have the benefit of a pupil deprivation grant. I think this is an area that is very important, and the Chair gave the figures—I think about 3,000 to 5,500 adopted children are allocated the pupil deprivation grant—but if we don't have those systems for collecting the data, we won't be able to ensure that they get the help that is needed.

So, in conclusion, I've just concentrated that briefly on adopted children, because I don't think it's generally known, and I don't think schools always recognise that adopted children do have many of the traumas that children who've experienced care have, so I thought it was important to highlight that in my contribution today.

I too welcome the CYPE committee's report on targeted funding to improve educational outcomes. It was actually quite heartening, given I've seen other reports where not so many amendments were accepted in principle—24 out of 31 I thought was fairly good going. But it is frustrating to note that the Welsh Government has rejected several of the committee's recommendations that, actually, were based on a lot of really good evidence taken during the evidence session. 

It was highly disappointing that the Government rejected recommendation 5, that it should fund schools' pupil development grant allocation for those students who have been eligible for free school meals at any point in the past two years, rather than over the past year. In her response, the Cab Sec for education said the Welsh Government recognised that there is a wider cohort of learners on the periphery who would also benefit from additional support. Yet, this additional support is been drawn from existing funding allocated to schools through the pupil development grant as opposed to extra funding. And at a meeting earlier today—this is a big issue within my own constituency now, where more and more families are coming forward with real concerns. The Government then is expecting schools to stretch their funding, to provide extra support to students who need it most, but not providing any extra support for them. This, of course, places these students, who already are at risk of lower educational attainment as a result of personal circumstances at a greater disadvantage when compared to their peers. I certainly ask: how can the Government believe that this is fair and, as the Cabinet Secretary wrote in her response to the report, what does the Government consider to be the optimum allocation?

This issue is exacerbated by the lack of a response from the Welsh Government regarding recommendation 13, which concerns urgently investigating the widening of the free school meal/non-free school meal attainment gap in 2017. The committee report presents data showing that the attainment gap between those receiving free school meals and those who don't increased from 17.4 per cent in 2016 to 25 per cent in 2017, thereby a very worrying trend, requiring, I believe, an urgent investigation by the Government to ensure that this doesn't continue. 

The Children's Society have recently stated that they are concerned that the Welsh Government's proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for free school meals could reverse progress made in closing the attainment gap. They say that the plans will mean that 55,000 children will miss out on free school meals. However, research at the Department for Education in England found that extending entitlement to free school meals would lead to academic improvement, particularly amongst children from less affluent families. If the Welsh Government is truly driven to tackle the impact of deprivation on educational outcomes, outlined to be a key priority in the 2014 'Rewriting the future: Raising ambition and attainment in Welsh schools' strategy, then surely it must review how pupils are calculated to be able to receive free school meals? Furthermore, it should seek to provide greater levels of funding to the pupil development grant following the UK Government's recent announcement of an extra £550 million for Wales. This would ensure that disadvantaged children and children who are giving us concern are provided with the resources they need to achieve the highest possible educational outcomes, helping to create a Wales in which social mobility is at the forefront of Government policy. Thank you.

Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I say I welcome this report and I'm very grateful to the committee and its staff both for the report and for the constructive and collaborative approach taken during the inquiry? The report is fair and balanced, recognising the challenges we face and noting where improvements have been made, whilst also suggesting where we might go further to support our most disadvantaged learners. 

I am pleased to have been able to accept the vast majority of the committee's recommendations, a sign of the priority that this Government places on supporting all learners to achieve their potential. That's absolutely why we must continue to prioritise targeted support and keep striving to break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage.

Many of you here in this Chamber will have heard me say more than once that the PDG is both a policy and a personal commitment of mine as well as of this Government, but more important than what I say is what schools think about the PDG—that's more important—and they agree. The recent evaluation found that schools find the PDG invaluable and I am frequently told by headteachers and classroom teachers alike of the difference that it is making on a daily basis. In the previous half term, I have visited schools in Rhyl, Bangor and Merthyr Tydfil, and when I have asked them what's the most important thing I can do for them, they have all consistently said, 'You must keep the PDG.'

Can I just briefly comment on some of the issues that have been raised by other people in the debate? Julie Morgan is absolutely right to talk about the issues affecting adopted children. I am particularly keen to continue to work alongside David Melding, who is not in his seat, to look at the educational achievement of looked-after children. We have a mountain to climb in that regard and I make no apologies for acknowledging the challenges we still face as a Government for that cohort of children, for the need to redouble our efforts in that regard, and I am keen, Julie, to do what we can to better identify children who are adopted in our school system and look at ways of supporting their education.

I have to say, with regard to the eligibility of free school meals and the consequences of universal credit, let me be absolutely clear: as a result of universal credit—something that this Government has not asked for—we find ourselves in a very challenging position. If all people entitled to universal credit were to receive free school meals, then we would simply have more than half of our cohort of children in receipt of free school meals, and there are basic issues around affordability as far as that is concerned. Under the proposals consulted on recently, more children in Wales will be eligible for free school meals than are currently eligible. If there are some children whose eligibility may change as a result of universal credit, they will have cohort protection. And I have to say to Janet Finch-Saunders, of all people in this Chamber to lecture me about the fact that she's got families coming forward saying that they're struggling, I would direct her to her own colleagues in London who are pursuing this policy. And I have to say, Janet, it's pretty rich of you to say that we need to do more to support these families when it is the policies of your Government in Westminster that are causing these difficulties. 

Siân Gwenllian raised the issue of school funding in general and, of course, I'm not responsible for the day-to-day funding of our schools—that is the responsibility of our colleagues in local government; a function and a responsibility that they hold very dear indeed. Now, the upshot, perhaps, of what Siân is saying is that it is Plaid's policy to have a national approach to school funding directed from the centre. And, if that is the new Plaid policy, I'm sure her colleagues, such as Ellen ap Gwynn, will have plenty to say about it. 

If I could turn, then, to the issue of GCSE results, the 2018 GCSE results saw a slight increase in attainment at A* to C for free school meal learners in English and maths, which, of course, is to be acknowledged, but we still have a long way to go to support our free school meal pupils to achieve the highest possible grades. Because of changes to performance measures, we know this year that many free school meal pupils who have previously taken vocational science qualifications took GCSE sciences for the first time. There has been a 37 per cent increase in the number of free school meal learners taking at least one science GCSE, compared to 2016, and a 20 percentage point increase in the number of all year 11 pupils taking at least one science GCSE this year, compared to 2016. This is an extremely positive change, as we need to better prepare our learners to ensure that we as a nation produce the scientists of the future. It is essential that key stage 4 performance measures and school accountability arrangements incentivise schools to support free school meal pupils in achieving the highest grade possible, not adopting a 'poor dab' syndrome, and having high expectations for all of our children, regardless of their background. We have already taken steps in this direction through the commitment to implement the interim performance measures at key stage 4 from 2019. The approach of using measures that reflect attainment for all grades will incentivise schools to support all learners to achieve their best outcomes, rather than focusing on a very narrow cohort of children in their school. 

Alongside our wider reforms to raise standards and reduce the attainment gap, we are also directly developing the PDG arrangements. We have strengthened our regional approach to provide more effective challenge and support to schools in how they are using this resource. As acknowledged by the Chair, each consortium now employs a strategic adviser for PDG, with a focus on raising the attainment of all disadvantaged learners, and I have asked them to strengthen collaboration across Wales to ensure best practice is shared and built upon. There is an increasing body of evidence that tells us what works for these children, and that needs to be consistently applied across our system. Why is it, Deputy Presiding Officer, that schools in this capital city, in the same regional consortia, with the same local education authority, can ensure that all their free school meal children achieve five GCSEs or more, and a school with a similar profile cannot? That cannot be acceptable to any of us here, I'm sure we would all agree, and we need consistent approaches and consistent support so that all children, regardless of which school they are in, can achieve. 

We also know that early intervention in a pupil's educational career will have the best effects, rather than simply using PDG as a sticking plaster and a panic measure when a child enters year 10 or year 11. Now, of course, those children need support, but we also need schools to be ensuring that they are supporting their children from the moment they enter secondary school, but also from the moment they enter the education system at all. That's why this Government—. I have doubled the amount of PDG available for our early years provision because we know, if we can get children off to the best start, that's where we will have the biggest impact.

Now, Suzy Davies and Lynne Neagle both raised the issue of more able and talented children. We should not for one second draw a direct line between academic ability and a parent's ability to pay. More able and talented has not been an area where there has been sufficient focus in the Welsh education system in the past, and that's why we have introduced new arrangements to support more able and talented children, regardless of their background. But I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear once again: PDG is there for all children on free school meals, not just for those children that need additional help. 

Can I finish, Deputy Presiding Officer, by acknowledging the contribution of our raising attainment advocate, Sir Alasdair Macdonald? His wealth of knowledge and experience allows for continuous improvement and, crucially, reflection, contributing both to the strategic vision and the operational development of this grant. And in closing, again, I'd like to thank Lynne Neagle, the committee members, for their work in this area, and I commit to continuing to reflect on the recommendations and move forward with what I believe is a shared mission across this Chamber to ensure that children, whatever their economic circumstances, thrive in our schools. 

Thank you. Can I now call Lynne Neagle to reply to the debate? 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I begin by thanking everyone who's contributed to a constructive debate this afternoon on a very important subject? I haven't had any advice via the messaging about how long I've got, DPO, so I think—

About three minutes. 

Okay. Right, thank you. [Interruption.] Okay. If I start, then, with Suzy Davies, who highlighted some of the shortcomings of the PDG, which were picked up in our report, but which we really hope our recommendations and the positive response by the Welsh Government will help to address—things such as the new guidance that we've called for. I know that the Minister is developing a toolkit that should improve consistency, and the new PDG staff in the consortia, who are going to be there to challenge, we hope will make a difference. And, as you know, the committee made recommendations around the parity of esteem issues that you rightly highlighted. 

Jenny Rathbone highlighted some of the concerns that arise because of large numbers of change in the numbers of kids in school, and that was something that we picked up in our report. We had hoped that the Welsh Government would accept that recommendation, but we hope that that will be kept under review, and I think it's particularly pertinent for, probably, areas like Cardiff where you are likely to have big changes in population, more so than in some other communities, because we don't want those schools to be left out or disadvantaged. 

Siân Gwenllian—. Can I welcome Siân to the committee, but also take this opportunity to place on record my thanks to Llyr Gruffydd, who has been an excellent and most conscientious member of the committee? So, thank you, Llyr, for everything that you've done. Siân raised some general issues around school funding, and what has been apparent in all our inquiries, really, is that there are pressures on funding, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary recognises that point. That is why we are undertaking now a more wholescale look at the school funding to try and see whether there are any recommendations we can make to improve the situation.

Both Siân Gwenllian and Janet Finch-Saunders raised the issue of this policy on free school meals. You'll be aware that we have recently written to the Cabinet Secretary to ask for some more information about the way the figures have been calculated, why the cut-off is where it is, but what I would also say is that members of the committee are very conscious of the need for there not to be any unintended consequences. I think that we do have to be mindful that, should there be a big increase in the number of pupils having free school meals, that may then mean a big increase in the pupil development grant, or, worse, the pupil development grant being seriously diluted for our poorest pupils, which actually would be a very regressive step. So, we are very mindful of that also; it's very important that we keep that in mind.   

Can I thank Julie Morgan for her contribution—a very important contribution—on adopted children? And, of course, our predecessor committee, as you'll remember, did an important inquiry on adoption, and we are acutely aware of the needs of adopted children, and also, of course, aware that many of those initiatives that are so important in schools around emotional and mental health are funded by the PDG in many of our schools, so that's why it is important that we get that support for adopted children in schools, and I hope that that is something that the Cabinet Secretary will look at again. It is absolutely crucial that that support is there.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her further response today and for the positive way in which she's engaged with the inquiry? The committee fully agrees with her about the need to do everything to support all our pupils, including our more able and talented. We welcome the steps that have been taken already in this regard, but we will be looking to follow up with this inquiry as to how the new guidance is making sure, how the new challenge is making sure, that our more able and talented pupils are also being impacted by this policy. Can I just conclude, then, by thanking, again, everybody for contributing, thanking everybody who gave evidence to the inquiry, thanking the committee team, who, as always, have been absolutely brilliant, and reminding Members here that we will return to this, as we have with all our inquiries, to monitor and scrutinise the progress on the recommendations of this very important inquiry? Thank you.

Thank you. So, the proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.