Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move our amendment.

I just want to say for the record, though, that it wasn’t intended to be a ‘delete all’ amendment, but it is what it is and so'll we move on on that basis.

Could I also echo the sentiments expressed in the first Plaid amendment? Any improvement is to be welcomed for its effect on the individual young people who benefit from it, as well as the staff at the schools.

I just wanted to start briefly with the reduction in the number of settings offering education for three and four-year-olds. I’ve always been disappointed that some councils in Wales have chosen to restrict this offer to council nurseries only, which may account in part for the reduction. But I’m also concerned about the drop in the number of settings at a time when the Government is rolling out its 30-hour childcare offer for parents working more than 16 hours. As well as anticipating a rise in demand there, what about the children who can only access 10 hours of education, because their parents work 15 rather than 16 hours? They still have five hours of childcare to find, preferably in the same setting as the education offer, except, of course, they have to pay for it. It’s also the setting where the seeds of the 1 million Welsh speaker policy need to germinate, so perhaps the Minister could give us her thoughts on that.

Point 4 of our amendment is an opportunity for the Minister to let us in on how the risk profile and financial management associated with policies aimed at school improvement are managed within Government. The consortia and local authorities, working together, are supposed to be the back-room engines of school improvement. They’re only briefly mentioned in this report, although the standout finding there is that, as a result of a range of failings in one consortium, the pace of improvement in secondary schools causing concern is just too slow. But, specific trouble in one consortium doesn’t explain the wild variation in school performance across Wales. You accept that there is variability. It’s within schools as well as between schools—a finding of the OECD in its report in the last Assembly term, and that doesn’t really seem to have changed much. So, in congratulating those schools with well-motivated, well-led staff and happy learners achieving their potential, we cannot let that mask the flipside of the very significant number of learners who've been let down in the way we highlight in the first two points of our amendment. 

Now, as you say, Minister, 5 per cent of primary schools and 15 per cent of secondary schools are in special measures or in need of significant improvement. Those are quite high percentages when we're talking about the nadir of performance, and these concerns are not new. So, how has your audit and risk management within your department helped you improve the monitoring and evaluation of policy design and implementation? In short, what have you changed as a result of that work?

With only 8 per cent of our primary schools considered excellent when it comes to standards, why are 88 per cent of them categorised as green and in need of minimum support? Barely half of our secondary schools are good, let alone excellent, yet 78 per cent of them will only get 10 days or less support. How did we get to a position where only a third of our through schools—the fashionable format for leadership and management now—were found to be good at leadership and management, let alone standards, and teaching and learning—only a third of them; there were no excellents. 

This report shows that despite the demographics and other challenges at our schools, any one of them can be excellent across the five inspected areas, so why exactly do so few of our primary schools achieve that, and how can we have such extremes between success and failure in the secondary sector? It doesn't tally with the categorisation. It doesn't tally with half our schools needing inspection follow-up, and despite some very, very pleasing results, as you said, around well-being, that doesn't necessarily tally with higher standards, because Estyn says you only see that where the schools are exceptionally strong on well-being.

But where I think the urgency now lies is with self-evaluation. The OECD said we had problems with this previously, and it is patently clear that far too many schools and school leaders are still struggling with this even now—half of secondary schools. These are the schools you're asking to take on new qualifications and a new curriculum, a new curriculum questioned yet again today in the Times Educational Supplement, which is dependent on self-evaluation and self-improvement within the schools to achieve its aims, and you said that was vital.

If, as claimed, a shift to a self-improvement culture is moving at pace, why aren't standards improving at pace? Estyn says that despite various initiatives, including banding and categorisation, it remains the case that these schools—the poorer performing ones—are not identified early enough, and not enough is done to support them. You said that in your opening remarks, and you said that you're currently considering how.

Minister, you have the powers of intervention to shake up these schools and councils and consortia, who continue to fail children. Please use them.