I thank the Member for those questions. I'll try and answer as many of them as I can. I think the key point is that there is a distinction to be drawn between data for accountability on the one hand and data for assessment and self-improvement on the other. It's really important that we ensure that those two things are kept separate, because they serve very, very different purposes. The reason for moving away from school categorisation was because that actually blurred the boundary between the two in a way that created perverse incentives, effectively, at a school level, in relation to the management of data and the choices made as well in relation to examinations, potentially, in some cases as well. I can assure the Member that it's fundamentally important for our system that there is a clear line of accountability in relation to schools.

Principally, the responsibility for accountability at a school level is obviously the governing body, but obviously, externally, to Estyn as the school inspectorate. And as the Member will be aware, from 2024, there will be more frequent inspections as a consequence of Estyn's new programme, which will provide, obviously, more regular information to the system about the performance of schools. As she's also aware from the last point in her question, there is a new approach to inspection, with the removal of summative judgments and the providing of parent-friendly reports, all of which, I think, give better qualitative information in a much more nuanced way for parents. And also, obviously, communicating that in a way that parents might more readily understand is very important, which is why I welcome the work that's been going on in relation to the parent-friendly reports.

The experience to date, as I understand it from Estyn, of the removal of the summative judgments is that the discussions at a school level have focused much more on the kinds of things the Member was asking about in her question, which are: how can those schools know where they are on the journey to self-improvement, the implementation of the curriculum, and really focusing on the practical steps in terms of strengths and weaknesses, rather than focusing on the question of the boundary between different summative judgments. So, that is the experience to date. I obviously will be keeping a close eye on that with Estyn. It's obviously very important for the success of our system that that is embedded properly in the approach to accountability. In relation to the national monitoring programme, we will now be in a process of specifying that, testing some of the approaches to that—how frequently? What size cohort? There are all sorts of design questions, if you like, that need to go into that.

The Member makes a very important point, I think, and it's one that I've been testing myself with officials, about the range of schools that we have in Wales, and the communities they serve. How do we make sure that the information we get provides a useful set of messages to us? That's a good question. It's an important point of judgment. So, the choice to be made in this context is as follows: either you choose a very granular mechanism that tells you, with much greater specificity, what's happening at a school or local authority level—that comes with choices about the burden on the system, and on individual learners across the system—or you decide that what you're looking for is a way of monitoring the performance of the system overall. And at the moment, we will need that data to know, so that you can hold me to account about the performance of the curriculum in due course. So, that will be the source of information, or a source of information, on which you can draw, and you can test whether the approaches that we are following are delivering on the literacy and numeracy requirements, are delivering on the areas of learning and experience. So, that would provide a base of data on which to found those challenges, which, obviously, we need to do. 

I don't recognise the point that the Member is making about how uncertainty about qualifications is affecting the transition between years 6 and 7. I don't know how that can be at this stage, if I'm completely honest. As she will know, Qualifications Wales is undertaking a consultation at the moment about the reform of qualifications. Those qualifications will first be taught in 2005, and so the programme that I'm describing today will be ready in time for that cohort. So, it's obviously important that these things happen in a way that is systematic, and that's the intention of what I'm describing today. I hope that captures at least most of the questions that the Member asked.