6. Statement by the Minister for Education: Support for Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Learners

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 5:40 pm on 30 April 2019.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Suzy Davies Suzy Davies Conservative 5:40, 30 April 2019

Thank you very much, Minister, for that summary of Welsh Government action over the last couple of years. We agree with you that your background should not determine your ability to take part in education, and I think, actually, it would be quite useful to hear from Welsh Government at some point soon about the work that they're doing to combat the effects of adverse childhood experiences. It was certainly something that the late Carl Sargeant was very keen to take up, and I think that any information we have on that front would fit in very well with the statement that you've made today. 

Just on the particulars, I was happy to see reference to the draft evaluation and improvement framework and the acknowledgement, or at least the inference, that our academically brightest children perhaps have not had the attention paid to their progress that they should have in recent years. The Welsh Conservatives have certainly raised concerns about this benign neglect over some time, so perhaps you can tell us when you anticipate that the draft framework will be finalised and published and whether there'll be a specific focus for more able and talented children articulated in that final framework—whether it'll be picked out as something to focus on. 

Thank you also for allowing officials to give us a briefing on the new curriculum today. One of the things that I picked out from that is that the progression steps—and, admittedly, we've only just seen these—are not prescriptive, in the sense that teachers or schools must achieve certain outcomes by certain times. And it's not clear to me, then, how driven schools will need to be to ensure progress, or how indeed they will be driven to ensure progress for every child. And I think the evaluation and improvement framework will have something to help us understand that, when it comes to scrutiny. 

I note happily the update regarding school uniform and sanitary product funding, and hope that, like me, you will be calling on the UK Government to scrap the tampon tax once we leave the EU.

I wonder if you could tell us a bit more about the funding of meals during the school holidays, though, because instinctively, of course, we understand why children in real need would need that opportunity. We see how it works during the school term, nourishing children enough to enable them to learn. So, you won't find us challenging the existence of this provision, but if you start from the premise that it's the parents' responsibility to, obviously, feed their children and that eligibility for free school meals is something of a blunt instrument—I think we've talked about this before in this Chamber—how will you be monitoring and evaluating who is actually using this provision? Will some families who can assume responsibility for their children be using this unnecessarily? But, more importantly, will there be children who are missing out on this? Because, unlike during the school term, there isn't a school attendance officer who can be visiting families. If this is an opportunity not only for children to be fed but perhaps for parents to find work—they might have time to do that if their children are in holiday clubs and stuff—how is that being monitored so that the provision of it is being used most effectively?

Thirdly, I think I've asked you before about whether you have any worries about whether the generous provision of the PDG was masking decisions made by local authorities to provide smaller amounts of core school funding. And, in the course of discussions on this in committee fairly recently, you expressed concerns about the delegation rates on centrally provided grants, about how much and how quickly that money was reaching schools. So, do you have any sense yet of how speedily the money for school uniforms, sanitary products and the holiday enrichment programme is reaching those who should be spending it? Again, is anybody missing out who should be getting this?

And then, finally, your comments around students from disadvantaged backgrounds aspiring to study at university. Now, young carers in receipt of the most supervised study will lose their carer's allowance, and I hope that you'll take this opportunity to offer some support for the Welsh Conservatives' policy to fill that funding gap for those young people who would be affected by the loss of their carer's allowance. 

I'm very pleased with the news on part-time study and those who choose to take up Master's qualifications, and the living cost support that they are getting. Could you tell me what your plans are though for a longitudinal study of those MA students? Because two of the unintended consequences of the Labour drive for 50 per cent of young people to go to university was an inadvertent devaluing of things that weren't university degrees, different qualifications. It seems to me that more employers are looking for Master's qualifications now to help them distinguish candidates from those who have degrees. Now, everyone who wants to usefully study a Master's qualification should not be prevented from doing that for financial reasons, on that we absolutely agree, but how are you encouraging students to think again about whether it's a Master's that's the best next step for them, or whether another qualification or different training route might be more valuable or suit them better? The reason I ask this is, in earlier comments about the BTEC, you basically confirmed that there was no way that was ever a GCSE equivalent when it could have had parity of esteem if it had tested vocational excellence rigorously—and I'm using 'vocational' in its widest sense here. If you're supporting the MA students in this way, what plans do you have to offer similar support to people taking MA equivalents that are vocational or non-academic, if I can put it that way, if those qualifications suit them better? I think we're all serious about seeing parity of esteem for different types of student and the types of ways that they learn. While of course I applaud what you're doing with the MA, I don't want that to be to the exclusion of other equivalent qualifications for different types of study, so that this doesn't become yet another reason for sending people down a route that may not be the best route for them. Thank you very much.