National Assembly for Wales

[Inaudible.]—Hefin David. Can I ask Members if there are any declarations of interest, please? No. Okay. Thank you.

Item 2, then, is our third evidence session on our inquiry into targeted funding to improve educational outcomes, and I'm very pleased to welcome representatives of ERW and the Central South Consortium Joint Education Service, in particular Cressy Morgan and Betsan O'Connor from ERW and Andrew Williams and Debbie Lewis from central south. Thank you for your attendance this morning and for the papers that you provided in advance. If you're happy, we'll go straight into questions from Members, and the first questions are from Llyr Gruffydd.

To echo Betsan, our processes are very similar in central south. It's very much about following the national model of distribution of the grant to our schools, and to ensure that our schools are focusing on those pupil development grant learners. As a service, we've focused our challenge advisers on ensuring they've got the skills and abilities to be able to support schools and to challenge schools when that grant isn't being used appropriately. Some of the best practices then we ensure that we share across the region, and across the four regions.

I think some of the interventions stretch beyond literacy and numeracy, and where we do see good practice around the more able and talented, I think it's in terms of raising aspirations and outlooks. So, we have a school in Pembrokeshire that uses its PDG to pay for a minibus, which it calls its 'window on the world' bus. So, it's about taking the more able and talented children out beyond the community and seeing what opportunities are out there. Then, secondary schools are using PDG to support visits to higher education premises as well. So, it's beyond what happens in the classroom where good practice is happening, I think, for the more able and talented.

I'd say that for both ends of the spectrum it's about looking at the barriers to learning and what are those actual barriers that are stopping those youngsters achieving the higher levels or achieving the expected level. Our best schools are the ones that are really skilled at removing those barriers for all learners within the environment.

Thank you. Michelle.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Do you think that eligibility for free school meals is a satisfactory measure of deprivation? Research has indicated that two thirds of children are living in what we call in-work poverty. Do you think that those criteria are satisfactory and do you have any thoughts about how perhaps they could be better formulated?

I'm happy to start, if other people want to come in. We've done a bit of work on this and I've had this conversation for a long time about EFSM as a measure. At the time, maybe six or seven years ago, it was the best that we'd got, and it's probably still the best that we've got, but that doesn't mean that it's the best that we could have. I'm particularly concerned—a lot of my region is a rural area. And I am concerned that we're not picking up on some of the themes of in-work poverty, people having to have further distances to work, to travel, and therefore some of their income going on that. Seasonal employment affects some of these issues in particular. So, I think there are some things that we need to do about looking at more effective measures, or combine more sophisticated measures. This is one element of what we need to look at. So, I think there is work that we can do in principle about improving and enhancing the way we use this information. 

Anyone else?

I think from our perspective, it would be in agreement with exactly what Betsan said. It's those youngsters that are the 'just about managing' category of our society that are the ones that can be the most disadvantaged, because those are the ones where, sometimes, mum and dad are working two or three jobs and they're not getting the quality time and intervention with mum and dad, so their well-being and their vulnerability and their home-school learning—those are the ones that are really suffering. But I still think we've got a little distance to travel on how we're actually targeting, supporting and funding those. 

It is the best we have at the moment, and it's currently well understood by schools and leaders and those working with us as well. 

The pupil premium in England has a 'forever six' rule, meaning that if a pupil's been eligible for free school meals at any point in the past six years, they attract the pupil premium. Would you favour moving towards that kind of model here?

I think for schools that are capacity building, it gives an opportunity to then build capacity, put systems and structures in place, with more assurance of funding that surrounds that. So, my view on that is that it would really support schools with that extended planned funding, so they could actually look at the capacity of the school, the strategies they need, and really start to think about the innovative practice that's really going to start to make that long-term difference. 

And for those children who are on and off being eligible for free school meals. They may be on for a while, off for a year, and back on. It's that tracking process for those children that would help with that, perhaps. 

Okay. Anyone else?

I think the principle of it would allow for those exact pupils that we're seeing that are in the system. We know that's one of the socioeconomic patterns that these families live within. And it would be one strategy to look at that. But I'd imaging that it's very costly as well. 

Thank you. How feasible is it in practical terms for schools to positively discriminate and provide additional interventions for such a diverse group as those children on free school meals? How feasible is that? Are you able to do it? Does it restrict in any way?

I think, by the very nature of a well-differentiated education system, it means that, in a way, we positively discriminate all of our learners to ensure that all the learners, whether they're in a vulnerable group or not, are actually receiving the education and the support they actually need to ensure they make the progress they need and fulfil their maximum potential. So, I think we do positively discriminate on all our learners, not just our free-school-meal ones. 

Okay. Thank you. How involved are you in practical terms in advising schools on how to use the PDG?

I think part of the challenge around PDG as well is that there's a danger of some schools seeing, if you've got low FSM—that it's not something that's on your radar as much as those schools with high FSM. There can be a danger of schools—. If you look at all the guidance, the good practice guidance tends to be those schools with very high numbers of FSM. I think it's difficult for some schools to identify with that because they'll straight away say, 'Well, we don't have that sort of budget provided. How can we possibly do X, Y and Z?' So, I think there's a real case for—and we do a lot of it within the region, and I know other regions do—matching schools like with like, so that if you have a small rural school with three children on free school meals, you pair them with another school with a similar sort of cohort, because you learn from like rather than—. The guidance tends to focus on the schools with high numbers of FSM.

It's a high priority for us in central south, and one of the things that we've done is, for the last two years, all of our staff, for their performance management, have had a target around supporting and extending EFSM youngsters. So, it really does sit centrally to a lot of the business that we deliver. To that end, we've got a whole range of strategies, workshops, involvement. We've got a virtual community, a database of leads, and regular network meetings for identifying people within schools. We run the eligibility workshops to support and advise schools on best spend and best practice, and we've also got two best practice hubs in the region that we use as centres of excellence, very similar to ERW, where we can send schools to be able to look at good practice and how they could best engage and involve.

We also do school improvement groups. We fund school improvement groups across the region, and we've got a number of school improvement groups that are actually focusing specifically on extending the opportunities for EFSM learners. And then we do the fundamentals, such as governor training and a whole range of opportunities. So, on a school level, we're very much involved in supporting and identifying how the grant can best be used, and then, because of our performance management situation, our CAs—our challenge advisers—are very much focused, when they go into schools, on the progress of youngsters and how effective are strategies. When we look at strategies, if it's not been effective for a school, we're then able to challenge the school appropriately on why isn't it working and what are we going to do next to improve this.

Can you give some examples of where your challenge advisers have challenged schools on how they've used the PDG and perhaps changed the way they've used that PDG?

I haven't brought any specific examples along, I'm afraid. I can provide you with some when we go back to base, but I haven't got any with me at the moment, I'm afraid.

If we can get a note on that, that would be really helpful. Thank you. 

Okay.

The sorts of things I've seen in challenge adviser reports is that they've picked up on an intervention being put in without necessarily the school measuring the starting point and the end point, and so the following year, the school has rectified that and made sure that, if an intervention is happening, there's a baseline, a starting point and an exit point so you can measure impact. Those are sort of the general types of things that challenge advisers have been picking up on, certainly in ERW.

And longer term strategies rather than knee-jerk reactions. So, maybe earlier intervention. Those would be the kinds of feedback we'd be giving, and linking them again, taking them back to look and learn from others. We know what works, so let's go back and learn from others.

It's back to that barrier: what is the barrier to learning? Are we just going to hothouse our youngsters with academic intervention, or are we going to actually identify what is that barrier and what do we need to do? And very much, as Cressy described about the minibus as the window on the world—that's one of those barriers to those youngsters engaging in aspiration. For us, it's whether it's buying a washing machine to ensure the youngsters have a clean set of clothes so that they can present well to their peers and be ready to learn. That's a really valid spend within the PDG. So, it's not just about those hothousing maths and English interventions; it's about what really is the barrier to that learning.

Thank you. Do you feel that the guidance from the Welsh Government is adequate, and do you feel that your role as consortia is clearly set out in that guidance?

I think schools tend not to read guidance in that sense. So, we need to interpret it for them. I think that would be—. So, I think they do advise on the most effective strategies. The point that Cressy is making: they often are focused on schools where there is a larger proportion of young people in receipt of free school meals. But the types of things that we would use would be to interpret that for people. So, one of the resources—. It's very similar, again; all the regions are doing a similar thing, working with other groups of schools and clusters. Similar to the school improvement groups in central south, we've got a one-stop shop, whether it be research or a piece of work that another school have got—everything related to dealing with children in poverty and their attainment is in one place so that teachers don't need to go and look everywhere and read every academic paper that there is. So, we do try to reduce the burden, the workload issues, that we know affect our workforce by pulling these things together, and strategies around upskilling the workforce to be prepared to support these learners. It is effective differentiation and good teaching and learning at the end of the day. So, one of the strategies would be about making sure that everybody is better prepared to support learners, and I think that's one of the things that we've been doing as regions in terms of the preparedness and the resilience of schools to support learners.

Okay, thank you. And finally, the Welsh Government's guidance says that consortia should claw back the PDG if it's been ineffectively or wrongly spent. Have there been any instances where you've had to consider doing that?

I haven't got an example in ERW where we've clawed it back, but we do have an example where we've raised concerns, provided feedback, provided support, because the essence of our job is to provide support to schools, and we would raise that with internal audit in the local authority and then we would provide support and guidance so there would be more effective use moving on. That's the process that we've got.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Similarly, if we could maybe have a note on that, I think that would be really useful for the committee. Darren, you wanted to come in.

Yes. I just picked up, Mr Williams, on your comment about washing machines. Have you provided washing machines with pupil deprivation grants in your area?

There was one particularly strong school within the Rhondda valley and they've done some exceptional, really innovative work around engaging EFSM learners, and their outcomes have been really strong, and one of the key things when I met with the head, when she talked me through the range of strategies along with academic interventions, she really made me realise what some of the barriers were that maybe I hadn't realised previously, and it's—when a teenager arrives at school in dirty clothes, are they ready to learn, are they ready to engage? So, their PDG was allocated towards reducing that barrier to the learners, and they did buy a washing machine.

But what if the problem is poor housing? Are you going to buy houses in the future with pupil development grants? I mean, where does this stop in terms of how far you go over the barrier of actually spending it on the child's education?

What an education is—it gives you an opportunity to be able to make decisions with your life and ask questions. So, on an education point of view, it's skilling these youngsters to be able to move their own way out of poverty and make their own decisions about their lives, really. So, our role in education is to ensure that youngsters are best prepared for life in the future, so ensuring that we're able to prepare them for learning and give them the quality they actually need is really important.

I mean, there are other ways to wash clothes other than a washing machine, of course, and many people struggle by and do that when they can't afford a washing machine. But I do find it extraordinary that that's the sort of thing that the pupil deprivation grant is being spent on. Are you able to give us a schedule of those more—as you describe them—innovative spends? I think that, you know—

We can do that. But I suppose it's very different—

—it's very wide, I think, of where this sort of finance ought to be directed.

It's no different to buying a minibus, though, to give a window on the world, is it, in reality? Because you're giving those youngsters an opportunity that they wouldn't necessarily have otherwise.

Well, I think it is, frankly. 

The key thing here I think—

White goods, I think, is very different.

But our—. I think every teacher wants to do the best for the learners in their community. There are some things that we can't do. We can't buy houses and we can't pull people out of poverty, but if you think that there's something within your control that can help that learner or that group of learners to overcome their individual barrier to learning and preparedness to learning—I think if we think we can do it, we will. I'm not saying we should by white goods at all in any way, shape or form, but if people need a coat because they're too cold to walk to school, and that's what's stopping them from accessing education—

I think it's interesting—

Can I just clarify—it was one washing machine? They didn't buy a washing machine for the household, they bought a washing machine for the school so that stuff within school could be washed. So, the youngsters had clean clothes, clean physical education kit, that sort of stuff. So, it was a school washing machine, not a house, not an individual—.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. That makes me relax a lot more—

Absolutely.

—than I was a few moments ago.

That takes us on nicely to practical uses of the PDG, and John.

I think it does, Chair. I wanted to ask about the practical uses of PDG and what you can tell us in terms of your areas—what are the uses that schools are making of that money, and to what extent does it vary between schools?

Building on the washing machine theme a little bit, some example of excellent practice in the ERW region would be where PDG is used not just to target literacy and numeracy and emotional well-being within school, but where schools recognise that, actually, the challenge is pulling the parents in as well. So, it's where PDG is used to reach a bit wider so that that support is to the family as well as the individual children as well. So, we've got examples of schools that have created community rooms, where parents are coming in and achieving qualifications, and that then means the parents have a way out of poverty. So, that kind of taking it beyond just those specific interventions. Alasdair Macdonald, who advises and works with the four PDG leads from the consortia, refers to it as education capital. It's about not just putting it in the classroom but providing opportunities for those children to have all those top-ups that my children have. So, when my children come home and say they're doing castles at school, we all sit round and they'll say, 'Oh, we've got this, we can do that, we can go there—'. It's about providing that education capital for these learners, and if that means upskilling their parents and providing their parents with a bit more skills to be able to do that, then that's good use of—.

And would that be one of the common uses of the funding?

I've seen that in schools, particularly in schools within communities with high levels of deprivation where actually engaging with families is vital. Monkton primary in Pembrokeshire, which has a significantly high number of Gypsy/Romany/Travellers, has worked very well in that way of engaging with the community, yes. 

Okay. Would anybody else like to offer anything else in terms of the main ways in which the money is used?

I was going to say: very similar is the family engagement with the high number of EFSM pupils in the family, and with areas of high deprivation. That's where we've seen some of the best practice—where we're actually bringing families in and educating and working with families to make a difference to the youngsters. So, it's that family learning and community engagement.

And in terms of what are sometimes described as softer approaches—you know, pastoral care and pupil engagement—would they feature quite strongly?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, and I think it's wrong to call them 'softer', because unless that's in place—. That's what forms the firm foundation for all the other stuff. It's referred to as 'softer', but it's the firm bit that's got to be in place.

It's about well-being, isn't it?

Yes.

And they're only referred to as 'softer' because they're hard for us to measure—

They're hard to measure. Exactly.

—but, actually, the long-term impact of those almost has a greater impact than some of the other quick interventions that are put in.

I think all interventions—. Sir Alasdair says, and Cressy refers to him—. He was speaking in a secondary heads conference in Cardiff a few years ago, and he said, 'You raise standards in the classroom, you close the gap outside.' And I think most of the interventions will either be about raising standards in the classroom or about closing the gap outside, and what we're seeing is that the most effective ones that are getting the impact are the ones that close the gap outside. The things, as Cressy said, that my children and your children get as part of their extramural, community-type learning, that's where we're seeing that work working well: working with community learning organisations, working with the youth service, working with communities, and working with grandparents, very often, in some of these communities as well, so that they can help their learners after school. And that's where we're seeing the gap being closed.

John, we're going to write about the next question, if that's okay, and move straight on to Mark, just because of the time. And if I could just—. I know that everybody's—. It's great that you've all got a lot to say, but if you can just try and be as concise as possible.

Looking at the attainment difference between free-school-meals children and others, for ERW, I see on that level 2 threshold, the gap was 34 per cent in 2011, it closed to 32 per cent in 2016, and then widened to 33 per cent last year. For CSW, that equivalent is 34 per cent—as I'm sure you're aware—in 2011, 30 per cent in 2016, and then up to 32 per cent again in 2017. I mean, do those figures really indicate that this targeted grant is working in obtaining its objectives? CSW.

I think for 2012 to 2016, we were making very good progress with our children who were eligible for free school meals and their peformance—our dip was in 2017. You've particularly mentioned level 2 plus key stage 4, and part of that was that our most vulnerable children find changing and adapting quite difficult, with low self-esteem, and perhaps, with some of the changes that the schools were well prepared for, with the measures et cetera and qualifications, I think our most vulnerable children found those changes, from our analysis of data, quite challenging.

Can you just highlight one or two changes that you feel were particularly difficult for them?

I think they found—. If their functional literacy was low, they found it very difficult to access some of the papers last year.

I think there was a particular issue with the content of one of the questions on the English paper, which was to ask them to discuss the pros and cons of fair trade. Children who are growing up in poverty don't dilly-dally at the checkout about whether to buy fair-trade goods or not—it's not part of general thinking. As a result, the English results really suffered, I think.

Yes, it was our English results that brought that down overall, when we went back and analysed it, hence you put other strategies in place to combat that. But we hadn't really anticipated that happening.

Right. Setting aside 2017, just looking at 2011 to 2016, I think for CSW it was a 4 per cent reduction in the gap, and for ERW it was a 2 per cent reduction in that level 2 threshold gap from 2011 to 2016. It strikes me as small, relative to the size of the gap. Do we think that that modest closing is a success or a sign that this grant hasn't been working as well as it should?

I think it takes a length of time. We've talked previously that children dip in and out of whether they're eligible, and it's about tracking through. We're not always tracking the same children. A huge amount of effort was put into it, so we were pleased that the gap was closing. This is not an easy job, and this is one measure. We've been talking about all of the other things that go on that we do that are not as easily measured. This is very much about that we're all looking at one measure here.

Could I ask: say, if we were to go another five years forward from now, what would your regional consortia see as—what would success look like? Forgive me for concentrating on a particular measure, but that's, I think, the nature of these sessions. What is a realistic goal for how much more we should expect to close that attainment gap, say, over the next five years?

That's difficult to put into percentages when we're talking about numbers of children, but we would intend that closing the gap—that we would continue to focus on that. We've had some success with children at the expected level. Our focus now is also at the above-expected level, because we talked about more able and talented children earlier, so that is a focus for us. This is something that we are relentlessly tackling.

In ERW, on this measure at least, the closing of the gap has been less than in CSW. What would you want to achieve? What's your goal, say, over a five-year horizon? 

I think there are two issues. In terms of the issue of the gap, as other learners' performance—we're looking at them as well—will improve, so the gap—. It's not about the gap, it's about everybody, so we want to improve the non-FSM learners as well.

But isn't this grant about the gap? That's the focus of our inquiry, and it's why we're particularly asking you questions today.

But we want to make sure that all learners improve, and I think the concept for us in five years' time would be that each learner achieves their own personal best within that context. We don't know what the measures will be. We know that they're unlikely to be the same ones that we're measuring today. But we need to make sure that we're not—. We've all seen the picture of the fish riding a bicycle. So, we will need to make sure that each learner is given access to high-quality teaching, with good teachers and that they all have that differentiated learning, the support in the classroom and outside, so they get to that personal best. And it won't be the same for all of us, all of the time. So, we don't know what the measure will be, but we need to be able to support every learner to achieve that.

But to assess the success of this grant and your use of this grant, rather than the success of your consortia in general, what would you like to achieve in terms of the attainment gap for free-school-meals against non-free-school-meals?

That those learners have the same equity of access as every other pupil. That's the aim. That they are able to access—. So, their barriers to learning—they won't be eradicated—will be reduced to a point at which they can access the curriculum and their schooling in the same way as other pupils.

Thank you. Can I just move on, briefly, to looked-after children, and am I correct that the regional consortia has the more direct responsibility for the spending of the grant for looked-after children than they do elsewhere, and could you explain a bit about what your consortia's approach is to spending that money?

I'll start then, because ERW is quite different to some of the other regions.

Could we contrast that with the CSW approach?

It's interesting—elements of what Betsan's just described do overlap with the process that we operate. So, we have a five-strand approach to the strategy and we divide the money up five different ways. The second strand to that is 33 per cent of the funding looks at strategically delivered support. So, across our region, we've delivered support on well-being packages to all named people within schools. We have regular networks and a pot of that money supports the leads within each school through in-house training, development of play therapy, attachment, and then ensuring that schools are able to share that practice.

Part of the grant then is allocated to individual authorities. Nine per cent is allocated to individual authorities, so individual authorities can actually target areas that they need to focus on. Then, 46 per cent is directly out to schools. So, schools have actually applied for what they want to spend their money on and work with, and that money then directly goes out to schools whether it be individual projects around developing well-being, training staff, linking with others. So, that's how our grant is divided up.

Thank you. And can I just ask, finally, and only one response, probably, on this: on the change from the Welsh Government to include adopted children, previously looked-after children as well as looked-after children, but not, I think, an increase in the amount of money to reflect that, how has the process changed to try to support those adopted children as well?

Certainly within ERW, the way that we've managed that is by—. The core drive of the work we've done has been around training schools to understand the impact of trauma on the development of the brain and the impact of that on the physical. What we’ve said to schools is that this is good for absolutely every child in your school—that you understand this—because every child in your school, at some point, will experience a trauma, whether it's your parents getting divorced or whether it's your dad losing a job. Other children experience phenomenally high levels of trauma, which require you to understand what it is that's happening within them that prevents them from learning. So, that will include adopted children and it'll include children on the child protection register. It'll include my children, when their guinea pig dies. It'll include looked-after children, who have been or who were. So, by training staff to better understand their learners, it covers the adopted children as well.

When we have questions from headteachers around particular individuals where adoptive parents have contacted the head and said, 'Well, in England, we could have this, so what's happening here?', on the whole, adoptive parents, certainly within the ERW region, have been very happy with the approach that's taken, which is about making sure that the teachers in schools understand their children better.

Okay. Julie.

That partially covers what I was going to ask, but we did do an inquiry in the last Assembly on adoption, and one of the big things that came out from adoptive parents was that, sometimes, there is a lack of sensitivity in the classroom about children who were adopted and inappropriate questions being asked of the children. So, are those the sorts of issues that you've covered through this grant, because, obviously, that is a barrier to learning for the child, if they're asked insensitive questions that aren't appropriate or are embarrassing for them? We had quite a few examples like that.

We're doing some training with all our schools, so we're working on the Hub model. We're training one person within each cluster of schools, and then that training is cascaded down. Within that—it's the level 1 looked-after children training—it is about sensitivity and appropriate questioning and the engagement and involvement. So, our strategy, rolling forward, is that we've started the training with key people in each cluster, and that will cascade down through to each school. So, hopefully, by the end of the year, we can see that everyone in school will have actually accessed some part of this training.

So, that is being addressed.

Yes.

Because there were some very worrying examples given to us.

The committee has a number of questions about the consortia's role in Schools Challenge Cymru that we're going to need to write to you about because of time, and we'll move on to Julie Morgan's questions on the impact.

Just generally, how effective is the Schools Challenge Cymru programme in your regions?

I think, for central south, we found it, overall, positive. We had 16 schools that were part of Schools Challenge Cymru and it had a positive benefit for our region, albeit, within that, there were a minority of schools that had challenges that made progress much more slowly than others, but, overall, it was a positive experience and we've taken from that key things, in that we've continued with the accelerated progress boards for our vulnerable schools. We've introduced the role of accelerated progress leads in taking the practice and expertise—in fact, employing some of the ex-Schools Challenge Cymru advisers to continue to work in our region. So, we've taken the best and moved on with it, and, overall, it was a positive experience.

It's more difficult for us to show its impact because, obviously, it was far less of a proportion of our schools that were engaged with the programme—there were only four out of 67, I think. So, I think the thing that we've taken from it, from a positive point of view—. The impact on some schools was positive—it was. But, compared to other schools, was it more positive? It's very difficult to say because the sample was so small, but what we do know is what worked, and we knew that some of these strategies worked well in our schools before Schools Challenge Cymru, and they continue to do so. Those were things around exactly what Debbie said: a good challenge adviser or a supporter—whatever we call them—that person who's your key link as a school that's in difficulty; accountability that is clear—we're very clear whose roles are doing what functions, and that's within the school and outside the school, in terms of support. So, things like the accelerated improvement boards, we use them as well and they’re having an impact in a lot of our schools and not just the Schools Challenge Cymru schools.

I spoke to some heads last night from across all regions, who said it's about the time. I know that you're getting evidence from Mel Ainscow later today or later in this process. In London, they had eight years of resources, time, et cetera. And I think that is something that we recognise, that when your school is in dire straits, when you need a lot of support, it doesn't come overnight. And this programme was quite short in that sense, by the time we get to grips to what the issues are, and then have time to get the impact. 

So, do you feel it was too short? 

I think that we've got to recognise that it will take—. Some of the type of schools that we were looking at targeting, it will take them more than two to three years to come out of that position, in terms of resilience, building resilience within the schools, upskilling teachers, headteachers, new leaders, et cetera. It's a big task.

So, you say two to three years, you feel. 

Two to three years was the length of this programme. I think it will take longer. 

Longer. That's right—that's what I was trying to find out. How long do you think a programme needs to be?

I don't know. How long is a piece of string? Some of these schools have been struggling for some time. 

And that's why we've put accelerated progress leads in, because we recognise that this is working well for us, so we put a plan in for another two years to try and maintain that momentum really, because, for us, we would have liked it to have continued.

So, you were disappointed it didn't continue.

Yes, and many of our schools were as well. 

Right. And in ERW, you had your own intervention, didn't you, in four other schools?

Yes.

So, what was that?

What we looked at were the things that worked well for us. And they worked for us. We also took a slightly different approach even with the four Schools Challenge Cymru schools. We knew that that adviser was key. So, rather than go through the recruitment process nationally, we chose good people that we knew locally because we had no time to lose here in getting to know the schools. So, we used people that we knew we could trust and depend on to hit the ground running and support these schools, because the person is important—getting the right person. So, we used that strategy.

We did exactly the same with these other four schools. The main difference was would we try to give some financial support to those other four schools in the same way as the four Schools Challenge Cymru schools had had significant support, just to see if we could match it. And I think those things we put—. The boards work. They were working in ERW before Schools Challenge Cymru. Those intervention boards, whatever you call them—the right person to support, and clarity of accountability between the local authority, the region, the school and within the school. A clear line of sight. If we get those three things right in any context, they will work, and I think Schools Challenge Cymru did help us in some cases where that wasn't clear, but, in some of our schools, that was very clear anyway. 

Yes. Can I just ask about the fact that the funding has ended? You have been able to carry on with some of it.

Yes, we have been given some support.

It's limited. 

Thank you. 

Okay. Well, unfortunately, we've come to the end of our time. Thank you very much for your attendance this morning. The committee's found it really useful. As is usual practice, you'll be sent a transcript to check for accuracy following the meeting. Thank you again for coming. 

Thank you. 

Okay, we'll move on, then, to our next evidence session with the regional consortia. I'm very pleased to welcome representatives of GwE and the Education Achievement Service for south-east Wales, in particular Sharon Williams from GwE and Paul Matthews-Jones from GwE, and Ed Pryce and Kath Bevan from EAS. Thank you all for your attendance. If you're happy, we'll go straight into questions because we've got a lot of questions and not very much time. Llyr.

Thank you. If I start on behalf of EAS, we obviously had 14 schools, the highest proportion in Schools Challenge Cymru across Wales. We didn't have challenge advisers in those schools to duplicate any work of Schools Challenge Cymru advisers. In the first year of the programme, work was quite separate, although over time we got to work more closely with the Schools Challenge Cymru challenge advisers so that they could understand the range of complementary services that EAS could offer into schools, such as literacy and numeracy support, and we felt, over the three years of the programme, that relationship built. We also built on not just the schools, the 14 schools in Schools Challenge Cymru, but it did give some capacity to start things like the excellence in teaching framework, various other programmes. It's the forerunner of learning network schools and the school-to-school support. So, it has enabled capacity across the region.

Just to add very briefly to Paul's comment that AIBs were obviously an avenue for all stakeholders to be involved, to challenge the process, to support schools, and we've continued those as AIBs in our region, because we've found them a very powerful process.

Diolch.

Julie.

Yes. How long do you think an intervention such as Schools Challenge Cymru needs to be to be effective?

I suppose, there, I'd look at the research that's been undertaken into it that would say three years minimum to embed. We've noted, with some schools, they made great progress in the first year, but sustaining that progress into the second and third years is what's essential.

Right. So, you say three years is—

Yes. You said it wasn't as great as you might have hoped—

Right. So, how have these schools adjusted to the loss of the funding, and how have you moved on?

Well, we moved on—. Obviously, we've used some of the post funding to restructure within GwE. Obviously, I referred to the roles where we've got senior leaders looking across all the secondary sector, and we've also appointed core leads in each authority, and, therefore, we've looked at—. We've got individual school improvement advisers working with an individual school, but also a team around the school, so subject SIAs would be linked, and, for example, a core lead, because we're in close dialogue with the authority, close scrutiny from our leaders, from our senior leaders, within GwE. Then, of course, we're in a better position to analyse and look at what schools' needs are and every school, now, whether it's a previous Schools Challenge Cymru school or not, has a bespoke support plan, and that support plan has gone through governors and all stakeholders, and therefore we can commission the expertise needed for that particular school in order to make the improvements we highlight for that particular school.

With specific reference to Schools Challenge Cymru schools, we worked, in the build-up to the removal of Schools Challenge Cymru funding, to support finance officers in schools—awareness-raising sessions for governors and chairs of governors as well, and headteachers, to ensure that their financial plans were prepared for the transition.

So, you planned—

Challenge advisers were involved, Schools Challenge Cymru advisers involved, in that process. There was a transition where we employed some of those Schools Challenge Cymru advisers, others were other experienced heads in the region. So, we balanced the needs of individual schools, mapped to our challenge advisers who then took over.

Right. So, you have been able to carry on the work.

It was a balance, where some Schools Challenge Cymru advisers carried on, some didn't wish to carry on, and we filled the gaps with other challenge advisers from our own successful schools.

Just to clarify, then, our previous panel told us that they didn't think that three years was enough, especially in view of the fact that the London Challenge was, what, seven years. Can I just clarify, based on the EAS's answer, then? You said it takes three years to embed—would you have liked it to have gone on longer?

Three years minimum for a programme such as that. We were following the advice on the research that was saying three years minimum. Any programme, it does take time to change, particularly as many of these schools were those with some of the greatest structural problems, shall we say, given the results that they'd achieved in the past.

Okay, thank you. Llyr.

To reiterate that we would put it down to the needs of individual schools—the challenge adviser would be integral to that process in approving school plans. Yes, the prime focus should be on the EFSM learners, however, there will be learners that are on the edge of that, perhaps have been free-school-meals in the past and are no longer—learners who are not free-school-meals during the middle of a school year. You'd want the appropriate support to continue for the needs of those learners.

On behalf of the area of EAS, we work with our schools so that the entitlement is there for all learners. We work with our schools to encourage them to identify those who are more able and support them. And the support that's offered varies: some of it is about raising aspirations and re-engaging them into their learning; others are providing intervention on a need basis. But, right across the region, it is encouraged that they are identified and they do have access. We recently released our 'more able' strategy that outlines clear direction to all the schools to monitor and target the more able pupils.

Yes. We also, actually, are hosting a conference for the more able next week, and lots of the workshops are addressing the use of the PDG to share the good practice there.

Darren on this.

Just a very brief question. Obviously, the Welsh Government have announced extra resources for their Seren network project, and I just wonder how that links in with the work that you're doing, using the PDG, for the EFSM pupils. Do you see an alignment there, in terms of the policy, or isn't there one? 

Okay. I mean, obviously, Seren is targeted much later. I mean, it's targeted—well, the new Seren is going to be 14 to 18-year-olds, isn't it, as opposed to just the 17 and 18-year-olds, as it is at the moment? I obviously welcome that, but if you're going to track pupils, then it's important that there are consistent measures across the board, isn't it?  One of the things that we found on a school visit to Ysgol Clywedog was that they were using different measuring systems, if you like, to track pupil progress there than they were in other schools, and they seem to be very effective, but clearly there's an inconsistency in terms of those arrangements, even within GwE. So, I wonder: what work are you doing to help identify these more able and talented kids through, perhaps, a more consistent approach to tracking?

Within the EAS region, we've collected targets at pupil level for the last five years now with a system that takes the data from school systems out of the school information management system. We've recently introduced the EASi target-setting system, which is online, secure, where we collect those pupils—. We also collect progress updates three times a year so that challenge advisers have that data so that, should a cohort, individual, or groups of learners be falling behind, they can have that dialogue with the headteacher to work in partnership to address those issues. We've also introduced, across our sixth forms, Alps to ensure that there is some predictor of the potential of learners at the end of sixth form, and measurements against that as well, as other regions do as well.

So, you've got consistent approaches in terms of all the management tools, if you like, within schools?

It would be measured and tracked against national curriculum levels up to key stage 3. It would then be progressed towards GCSE targets—statutory agreed targets, at key stage 4. At pupil level.

Because I think it was the Alps tool that they were using in the north Wales school that we went to.

Michelle.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. How satisfactory in relation to deprivation is eligibility for free school meals? Research has shown that around about two thirds of schoolchildren are living in what we call 'in-work poverty'. So, how good a measure is free school meals?

When used as a proxy measure for deprivation across schools, as it's been for a number of years, we would say, in general, in the vast majority of schools, that it is accurate in terms of that with EFSM you would get a good feel for the range and level of socioeconomic disadvantage within a school. However, we acknowledge that socioeconomic disadvantage is not binary, where a child is either disadvantaged or not; it's a continuum of need. Therefore, perhaps the one-year measurement of EFSM, where a child is EFSM on the pupil level annual school census, can lose some children who are disadvantaged in that system.

Okay, thank you. In England, the pupil premium applies if a child's been eligible for free school meals in the last six years. Would that sort of eligibility help with what you've been describing?

In terms of the funding availability for it, or anything that can smooth for schools the impact of significant changes on EFSM, which is recorded on a single day in January, would be beneficial.

I think it would support the variance—that a pupil would be entitled to it one year and not the next. 

Thank you. Moving on to your role in the use of the PDG, to what extent do you challenge schools on their use of the PDG? Do you have any examples of where one of your challenge advisers has actually changed the way that the PDG is applied in the school?

To look at our process, the challenge adviser is integral to the process. The challenge adviser will start work in the spring the year before allocations are known to get an idea of the intended school spend. They'll work with them throughout the summer. The formal deadline for agreeing plans is in September, so the challenge advisers will write a report agreeing and suggesting further changes. The majority of changes tend to encourage schools to look more at capacity building, rather than direct support, to ensure that it's building on the future.

We then undertake a mid-year review in December/January to ensure that schools are on track and that it's having an impact. Then there's a final review at the end of the year where, again, on the impact, they look at school performance data to correlate the initiatives that have had the impact and the initiatives that haven't, perhaps. In some of our secondary schools, a couple had spent quite large sums in terms of external support for PDG learners that didn't demonstrate an impact. So, for the next year, the plan was changed so that that activity was not continued. 

We also embed the opportunity of showing good case studies and signposting schools with good practice to support those who are at the planning stage.

Okay, thank you.

We'll move on now to John Griffiths.

On the practical use of the grant, I wonder if you could tell us what the main ways are in which schools use the money available and to what extent it varies between schools.

Within our region, we would say that about 40 to 50 per cent are using their funds for direct pupil support focused on standards—so we're talking about literacy and numeracy-type interventions. We would say that approximately 20 to 30 per cent are using it to support well-being and engagement in learning for some of our challenging pupils. We're currently in a situation where probably around 20 to 30 per cent is about building capacity within our schools—so training and raising awareness of all the workforce in the intervention programmes that are available, so that we start to see some of those techniques embedded in the classroom practice and not in just stand-alone projects.

Okay, would that be the same for you?

And just briefly, Chair, you were talking, I think, Sharon, about what are sometimes called the softer approaches, working particularly perhaps with families and parents. Do you think that that perhaps is one of the most effective uses of the money?

Okay, that's great.

Thank you. Mark.

To what extent has the provision of PDG enabled you to close the attainment gap in your regions between free-school-meals and non-free-school-meals?

If I look first of all at the foundation stage, key stage 2 and key stage 3, the gap has closed. There are marginal improvements in those areas. Key stage 4 is the area where we still have further work to do to close that gap. It did close last year, but there's further work there. It is about sustainable change in our secondary schools, and this links into the Schools Challenge Cymru funding as well. It is the time taken to see the impact of the funding.

We also found that it wasn't a constant and a pattern throughout all our schools. We had pockets where they actually maintained the standards of the EFSM within our high schools.

So, if we look at examples such as Tredegar, Blackwood, those are schools that have sustained their free-school-meal performance at key stage 4 over a number of years. They have successfully closed that gap and have very high attainment A* to A as well in those secondary schools, where there is very strong and effective leadership throughout middle levels as well. 

On this, Darren. 

Yes. It's very easy to rubbish away the widening gap on the basis that there have been some changes to GCSEs, and I can understand why people would want to suggest that that is the case. But even when you go down to the particular qualifications data, it seems to me that the gap has particularly widened in respect of science, and that that's where the big problem is, that's where the fault line has opened up again. To some extent, it's opened up in the other areas but it's actually only marginally, and it's possibly down to the changes in GCSEs. This is at GCSE level. 

So, why would it be so different in science given that the new science GCSE, and the new recording, doesn't kick in until 2018?

The science change is because a number of schools have made a decision to move to GCSEs a year earlier than they actually need to for recording purposes, to prepare for those, rather than continue with BTECs and other vocational qualifications for an additional year. We've seen quite a variation when we've analysed across our schools. Those who've kept those vocational qualifications for another year have sustained those results. Those who've moved to GCSE haven't. 

We'd like to do some more research on the impact on individual learners of that change of the types of qualifications that were most suitable for those learners. 

Can I just ask, Mr Pryce, is it possible for you to disaggregate those who made the switch from BTEC to GCSE science early, so that you can demonstrate that what you said is accurate?

I haven't got those figures with me in those pack, but we can provide those to the committee. 

Mark.

Can I focus perhaps on the level 2 threshold inclusive of maths and English or Welsh because that seems to have been less affected by the restriction on the vocational number? For EAS, I have that as a 32.5 per cent difference back in 2011, narrowing to 32 per cent in 2016. I thought, Ed, you'd said that it had narrowed further in 2017. I have here that it has very slightly widened again to 32.1 per cent.

Sorry. Level 2 plus, yes? Level 2 inclusive English, Welsh, maths.

Yes. So, are you satisfied with that very marginal degree of narrowing?

No, we're not satisfied in that, currently—and this reflects across Wales and the EAS—the proportion is half of EFSM learners who achieve relative to their non-EFSM peers. Our targets for the next three years are to close that in every year. So, no, we're not satisfied with the progress yet at key stage 4.

As in, get rid of it entirely, or narrow it?

No, sorry. To narrow that gap in the next three years, our statutory targets are by 5 per cent in 2020.

By 5 per cent in the next three years. In GwE, with similar numbers, the level 2 threshold inclusive in 2011 was a 32.4 per cent gap, and then, again, in 2017, also a 32.4 per cent. Why, notwithstanding all this PDG money, have we not seen any narrowing at least in that measure in your region?

Thank you. Can I ask just briefly about the approach your consortia take to looked-after children and, indeed, adopted children, and some of the moneys that I think you're more directly responsible for in that field?

Thank you. And, briefly, can I just ask, is that also the EAS approach?

Our regional model would be where it's allocated on a cluster basis. So, the cluster would meet, they'd write their plans, and their plans are submitted to the regional looked-after children co-ordinator for agreement. There are then the mid-year reviews, as well, to ensure that they're on track with the provision that they're providing. Again, we've worked with our schools so that they focus on building capacity, and we're also very aware of the children who no longer become a LAC, to ensure that they're still having the support that they require, and also those who then become adopted.

Thank you.

And how flexible, then, is the system that you've got in place? So, for example, if you had a looked-after child who, say, needed help with music lessons, or something like that. I know that GwE offer the bursary scheme. Is that the same in EAS?

We don't offer a bursary scheme. The cluster works together to formulate their plans, knowing the LAC children that they're catering for, to ensure that, as well as providing the necessary interventions, they're still raising their aspirations.

Okay. Thank you. Well, we've come to the end of our questions. Can I thank you all very much for attending? As usual, you will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy, following the meeting, but thank you very much for your time this morning. The committee will break until 11:00.

Okay, welcome back, everyone, for evidence session 5 in our inquiry into targeted funding to improve educational outcomes. I'm very pleased to welcome Rob Williams, policy director, NAHT Cymru; Damon McGarvie, who is headteacher of Pennar Community School in Pembrokeshire and NAHT Cymru president; Tim Pratt, director of Association of School and College Leaders Cymru; and Ravi Pawar, who is headteacher of Blackwood Comprehensive School. Thank you all very much for your attendance. We're very pleased to see you, and if you're happy we'll go straight into questions. The first questions are from Michelle Brown.

Good morning, everyone. How are school leaders using the pupil deprivation grant, and to what extent is it being targeted exclusively at pupils eligible for free school meals?

Shall I start? I'm a school leader with a large cohort of children who are eligible for free school meals, and so we have a budget of around £200,000 at my comprehensive school, and it's used for a variety of purposes, including intervention programmes for children who perhaps have got literacy and numeracy deficits, and we support pupils with that through a range of specific learning difficulties programmes, catch-up programmes, such as Rainbow Reading and so forth, but we also provide resources for the children, including the use of laptops particularly to help them with reading if they need it. So, there are lots of intervention programmes for children who potentially have got deficits, and those programmes are really helpful, particularly with our free-school-meals children who may well have those deficits.

In addition, we use the funding also for the softer elements of school work. I think it was recognised a few years ago that there's also a poverty of experience, and we try very hard to ensure that children are not disadvantaged by that experience. So, in my school, we use the funding for additional music fees, sometimes for sporting events as well, or trips to art museums and so on. We call it the 'pupil offer day', and I think that's a combination of things that perhaps we used years ago with Schools Challenge Cymru, because it was a priority of the school to try and put together a pupil offer scheme, and that funding is then used just to try to reduce that poverty of experience. 

So, there's a whole range of activities, really, that the children are involved in, and we have to make sure that, to the largest extent, the children who benefit from that are children who are eligible for free school meals, but there are others who are not. I'll come on to another point that, in my school, about 20 per cent of the children qualify for free school meals, but our multiple deprivation index is 40 per cent. So, it's double. So, we're looking to make sure that children who have the same needs get the same interventions and programmes of support. So, it is used effectively, the PDG, for pupils who are eligible, but also for those who perhaps might need it who are not. 

I'd like to follow on from that. In Pembrokeshire, my school has about 260 children, and around about a quarter of our children are eligible for free school meals. Similar to my colleague here, there were those families then who, while not eligible for free school meals, are not in a position to be able to afford to buy school meals. So there's still an element of poverty just above that line.

We use the PDG in a similar way and we target pupils for literacy and numeracy interventions. We do that right through the school. We try to target our children as young as possible, so we get early interventions so they benefit from those interventions right the way through their school lives. But certainly one aspect of the use of the PDG that has been very successful in our setting is that we've used it to support a nurture group. So, it's not a direct standards focus, however, we had a little cohort of children who were free-school-meals eligible who were being excluded from time to time in school for poor behaviour. So we used the PDG to fund a nurture group, and since that has started, exclusions have stopped completely for those children. We haven't had a single exclusion since we've had the nurture group in place. So, it's not just about the interventions; it's about the wider pastoral role that we can use PDG for, and that then will have a long-term impact on the standards of the pupils. 

I guess where it works well is it's an integral part of the self-evaluation of the school, so they look at where they need to target the interventions, and whilst the funding itself obviously comes out of those who have—. I'm uncomfortable with the eligibility for free school meals part of it; I think it's to do with take-up, and actually we know that there are some pupils who would be eligible who, for whatever reason, don't always take that up. So, there's an issue around that that we'll probably come to later. 

But it's part of self-evaluation. We identify the needs and some of those things will be whole-school approaches, which will benefit, yes, those children who are EFSM, but also others who, as colleagues have already said, wouldn't necessarily qualify for free school meals, but are still in need in that sense. There are others who are targeted on a more individual, bespoke basis through the catch-up programmes and that kind of thing.

Okay, thank you. Ipsos MORI and WISERD's evaluation found that schools are commonly blurring the eligibility for free school meals in a broader concept of disadvantage and deprivation. Is this a picture that you recognise? 

I think so, yes. The thing is that when you are a school leader, you have intimate knowledge of the children in each cohort, and you will know that there are a number of children who are not taking up free school meals, but are genuinely really needy and need that extra support. Now, for a variety of reasons, their parents may not have chosen to take up free school meals. That doesn't mean that actually they're not living under significant social deprivation, and therefore for school leaders not to have the freedom to be able to look across the cohort and say, 'Well, actually, this child really needs extra support' is a dangerous place to be in, because otherwise you stand the risk of significantly disadvantaging children just because of the decision that their parents may have taken, sometimes out of pride—you know, you don't want it to be seen for your child to be having free school meals. 

There are a couple of things to note around this—more than a couple, probably. One is that we looked at the measures, if you like, for identifying deprivation—NAHT looked at this quite some years ago—and free school meals was probably the least worst measure, if that's a decent phrase to use. We've already mentioned things like the Welsh index of multiple deprivation. There are also those children who hop on and off free school meals, and so there's the Ever 6 model they talk about, where you can generate those who have ever been able to access it. But looking more widely, we also look at the potential for auto-registration for free school meals. That data is out there. It removes, potentially, the stigma we've spoken about in that sense, and it makes sure that everyone who is eligible will get access to that. We know that some local authorities work hard to try and make that happen.

It is common practice, I think, amongst school leaders across Wales that they won't restrict the use of the PDG to children who are eligible for free school meals. They will look at the broader context for the children who are in need, and if there are group interventions put in place, then other children who have had similar needs to those children will be brought in, and they will have that support alongside their free-school-meal-eligible peers.

And within the PDG guidance, it says about a wider impact. It talks about the interventions you can put in that are able to have that wider impact, as long as those children who are EFSM do get that benefit out of it too. So, I think there's that flexibility in the grant. It is recognised in that sense.

Schools are very interested, of course, in the well-being agenda and trying to provide support for vulnerable children, particularly those who are transferring across from primary school to secondary school. There's a lot of emphasis on that. In my school, we have a really well-functioning well-being facility that we call 'the cwtch' and it is staffed by trained higher level teaching assistants. A lot of the training has been paid for by the PDG grant. But if we were identifying vulnerable children, we wouldn't necessarily—. We would, of course, identify them if they were free-school-meals children, but more importantly for us, it would be whether they had adverse childhood experiences—what we call ACEs. If you have a large number of ACEs, it identifies children who are going to be potentially vulnerable in the secondary school and in their lives in general. In those circumstances, the grant is used, of course, to support the needs of those children, but it depends on the needs of those children whether they're free school meals or not.

One of the things that came out in the evaluation, as well, was the fact that schools will front-load it with core budgets and other things too, if they think it's really important and it's been identified as a whole-school approach to supporting pupils. They'll often add parts of their core budget to that, if they can. Of course, the pressures on core budgets maybe put that at risk.

Okay. Thank you. To what extent is the PDG being used to support more able and talented children on free school meals, as opposed to pupils who are at risk of low achievement?

I can speak from my setting in that the children who are eligible—they do have interventions put in place from the PDG, and a lot of the interventions that we use, we make sure that they are wide-ranging so that we can target all the ranges in the spectrum. So, our more able and talented pupils are getting the support through the PDG. One example, which is a little bit of a frustration as well, is that, through the PDG, being an annual grant, we try to find best value for money to support our pupils and to run our schools efficiently. One piece of software that was purchased by my school recently—it was cheaper for us to buy a three-year licence than it was to buy a one-year licence. So, we bought the three-year licence. We then get called in by audit and they say, 'Well, you've bought a three-year licence; you can't do that on an annual budget. You've now got to split that over three years. Over the next two years of your budget, we're going to take some of that out'. Those are frustrations, really, that shouldn't be there. We're trying to find the best way to support our pupils. But the short answer to your question is 'yes'. All the pupils who are eligible are being targeted.

The more able and talented pupils who are eligible for free school meals don't pay music fees in my school. That's funded by the PDG. Other pupils pay £120 a year, but we don't charge children who are eligible for free school meals, regardless of their ability. That has encouraged more children to take those music lessons.

This is, really, a question for the representative of the ASCL. Could you expand on your statement in the written evidence that restrictions placed upon the use of the PDG funds have resulted in schools having to be very creative in their reporting of it?

In a way, this is very simple. When you have a grant with conditions attached to it, you quite legitimately may end up in a situation where, for example, departments within the school have spent their money, some of which will be significantly for the benefit of EFSM children and would sit under that heading, but may have happened before the allocation of that grant has been put through. So, you may have to say, 'Well, can you, as head of history, tell me what you've spent in order that, when we are having to fill out the return on this, we can justify everything that we've spent?' as opposed to, at a central point, just saying, 'Well, these are the big blocks of money that we've spent'. I guess the reason we highlighted that is a sense of frustration that we have audit, which you've heard about, we have Estyn, and then we have an estimate of somewhere between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of grant funding that goes into administering those grants and checking up that they're spent properly. Now, that seems double the amount of checking up that needs to be done, which means less money is getting into schools. You've also then got probably a senior member of staff chasing round checking how the money is being spent and having to justify that on paper, sometimes to two or three different people, and that's where we're trying to raise this point in saying that this is not a good use of money if we are having to do all this justifying, when actually what we are about is trying to make sure that the children who need the support get the support.

Llyr—is it on this? 

Yes, because it goes into the questions I was hoping to ask, really, about whether we therefore should retain those sorts of parameters around the PDG. Should it not be easier then that the sum is allocated according to the need and eligibility for school meals but that, actually, it goes into schools' core budgets and not as a discrete programme that you have to account for separately?

I think in an ideal world we'd probably say 'yes'. I think the caution around that is our fear at the moment in terms of pressure on the core budget. One of the concerns we have with additional grants, like the PDG for example, is the potential dilution of their impact, because of the pressures back in the core budget—

So, you'd lose the targeted element then.

So, whilst there's an attraction with an unhypothecated approach to it, I think the concern would be that it mustn't be driven by the fact that there's just pressure within the core budget.

But is it not partly being driven by pressures on core budgets at the moment? You know, to what extent are those parameters for PDG being blurred to cover some deficiencies in core budgets?

In reality, it is. That's the honest answer: in reality, it is. We know that, for example, schools are having to use PDG to sustain key staff members. That would still adhere to the guidance within the grant, because if they were removed, the disproportionate effect would be on those pupils who qualify for EFSM.

Should we settle for that charade? You know, I don't want to be disparaging, but really it's moving the deckchairs a little bit, isn't it? 

One of the issues is that, if the core funding was sufficient, the additional money that was targeted could then be more transparently used. This blurring is what is at issue. It is a real concern that, as a school leader, if I'm faced with £100,000 of potential deficit, and I get £80,000 in on the PDG, I might be tempted to look at ways of allocating that just to sustain what we're doing already. If I wasn't in the position of having to face that sort of deficit through no fault of poor management, it would be a very different thing to have that additional money in the core funding.

So, the additionality that the PDG brings in—that it's a discrete and distinct pot of money for a specific purpose—is more valuable than getting the right level of core funding. I mean, that's the tension here, isn't it? That's the dilemma, isn't it? So, why don't we just get the one right, and then hopefully that will bring its own positive results?

The reality is that, also, those schools who don't have access to any or large amounts of PDG are already losing support staff, for example. So, they're already under those sorts of pressures. So, that is the reality. So, your point is a really, really valid one. I suppose what we would say is to be cautious a little bit around that, just because we still need to ensure that that funding is targetable. 

And I understand that fully—don't think I don't.

But if we had the full amount able to come into schools, that would improve the situation, and it would demonstrate an element of trust that, sometimes, is lacking at the moment. That 'You can have 80 per cent of the grant, but we're going to keep 20 per cent of it to check that you're actually using it' doesn't sit easily with colleagues.

And allowing us to identify it as part of the school development plan, rather than saying, 'We want to see a PDG plan', a separate piece of paperwork, which essentially has the same sort of information, the same sort of interventions. We are duplicating our work there; we're spending more time doing something that, I think, doesn't need to be done. If that PDG money can be allocated and identified in that school development plan, that's a far better use of our time as well.

Darren.

Just a very brief question. One thing that the Welsh Government has tried to do with local authorities is, instead of having lots of different grant conditions, it just simply has outcome agreements that are shared between the Welsh Government and the local authorities. Couldn't there be a similar approach with the PDG, whereby, yes, you get the cash, but they don't care how you use the cash, provided you achieve the outcomes, which are, obviously, a narrowing of this gap between the achievements and attainment of free-school-meal kids versus non-free-school-meal kids?

That sounds really attractive, but what I think we have to be very careful of is that we don't reduce the impact of this sort of money to numbers. That sounds a bit trite, but I'll give you an example: in the last school I worked in, we had a child with severe Asperger's. When he arrived in the school, he hid under tables and ran away from staff, and spent a lot of every day not able to work. By the time he'd been in school for five years, he'd achieved three GCSEs at grade F, which was a phenomenal achievement, and went on to get an apprenticeship. He wouldn't figure as a success if we just measured by grade C; he would've been lost. 

I appreciate that. I'm not asking whether we've got the right measures in place; I'm simply saying to you, 'Would it be better to switch to outcome agreements rather than grant conditions?'

If we were able to get them right. There has to be a conditional answer there. It's not as simple as just 'yes', because the devil's in the detail.

And there needs to be a degree of consistency across Wales in how that's administered. I think the danger in that is that at a local level it could vary a great deal. We're already seeing that expectations in one area of Wales in terms of reporting can be very different to others. But the principle behind what you say—I agree with it, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Michelle.

In England, the pupil premium applies if a child has been entitled to free school meals within the last six years. Is that a model that you would like to see us move to here? We've already touched on the limitations of free school meals as a measure of deprivation, so how do you feel about the way it applies in England?

The simple answer to that is 'yes', but I think in addition to that is what we talked about on auto-registration. I think there needs to be some exploration of the potential in that area too—but, yes, definitely.

I think if that is a system that can ensure that we've got stability in knowing what we've got coming down the pipeline for the next two or three years, so we can plan longer ahead, so we're not keeping staff and interventions on a short-term basis. We don't want to be having a grant one year, which is the reality around Wales at the moment—we are having a grant, we are having an intervention and we are putting things in place that are being successful, then the grant changes 12 months later, so we lose £20,000 from our budget. That intervention stops, the children are still there and then next year it's back up. So, anything that gives us stability in that grant to plan ahead would be welcome.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. John.

I wanted to ask about practical use of the PDG and concentrate on the extent to which academic and external expertise is brought to bear—for example, the Sutton Trust toolkit—in deciding the practical use of the money. Does that feature strongly? Is it considered by you?

Of course. We look very closely at which interventions are deemed to make the biggest difference; for example, the quality of feedback that children receive. So, a lot of support—we have used the PDG for training purposes to support teachers with the best ways of providing feedback, and we've been able to bring in experts to work with the staff in terms of their quality of teaching. We've used the PDG to support that.

It's also worth noting that when we look at the Sutton Trust, it shows some areas of value for money that I don't necessarily agree with. They'll make a decision, perhaps, on the use of teaching assistants in the classroom, and they have said in the past that there's very little value in the use of teaching assistants. I would disagree with that. I would say that it's about, if you've got teaching assistants, what quality they are and how you use them. So, it's to be used as a reference, but it's to be used with caution.

And do the regional consortia suggest that you use that toolkit or access expertise and academic advice? Is that something that regional consortia suggest to you?

It's part of grant guidance that we could deploy the PDG for those purposes, but it is up to the school, really, to determine what's best in the context of the children that they have. You know, in my school, the main issue for us is that we do have language and numeracy deficit and we want to work with our primary schools, so a lot of this funding is supported that way, but it has to be based on what is good action research, and the action research is very sensible and helpful too. For example, the local consortia where I work has put together a two-day PDG conference where really good practice that's been used and deployed across all schools is then demonstrated for others to see, and we share that practice then and try it out ourselves. So, that's been very beneficial.

Does that happen on an annual basis?

I think it happens every two years.

Every two years. 

There was a big conference in the Vale of Glamorgan just two years ago where there was a huge amount of work on this and it's helped us to really consider what kinds of activities and developments should be deployed and would work.

I think it's fair to say that the knowledge of things like what's available through the Sutton Trust and the approaches that colleagues have been describing have been developing over the years of the life of the PDG grant, and maybe at the beginning, the early years, it wasn't as widely accessed and signposted as maybe it is now. But, as colleagues are saying, ultimately, it has to be based upon the school decision because it should reflect your self-evaluation. I think you have to be a little bit cautious of just picking something off the shelf because it looks like it has good value for money if it actually doesn't fit with what is the key area within your school.

Okay, thank you. We're going to move on now to talk about looked-after children and adopted children. Mark.

Yes. I think, Tim, you suggested that, at least in some circumstances, 80 per cent of the grant is coming through to schools and 20 per cent is being held back. My understanding is that the approach for looked-after children is somewhat different than the rest of the PDG and there's a greater emphasis on the role of the regional consortia in overseeing that money. What's your involvement with PDG and spending it on looked-after children and previously looked-after children who've since been adopted?

I think probably Ravi is in a better position to answer than me on this one because he's—

I think the change this year has been particularly good, and, up until recently, the funding for looked-after children has followed the child, and sometimes, if the funding goes into the school and the child leaves the school, the funding will change and move on with that child, but the EAS approach this year has been incredibly beneficial for us because we've been able to pool the grant—the looked-after-child element of the PDG—to put a really strong programme of transition for vulnerable children that perhaps wouldn't have been available in previous years. The pooling of that grant has enabled us to, across our cluster, appoint a member of staff who is responsible for vulnerable children, has undertaken training such as Thrive and ELSA, has experimented with the kinds of activities that will work to address the needs of children with adverse childhood experiences, and, because it was a bit disparate in the past, with all different schools having to use the grant within their own context, now it's much more sensible and I think is having a big impact upon the transition for vulnerable children. I think the movement away from saying, 'You have to use it just for those particular children rather than spreading it across vulnerable children', has been really beneficial this year.

So when you say they're moving away from that, that's EAS who are moving away from—.

Yes. I don't know what the other consortia are doing, but from my perspective, because I've been quite heavily involved in this as I lead the cluster team—there are six primary schools plus myself—this particular development, although we were a little bit reluctant to engage with it initially because it was a big change, has been very beneficial, we believe.

But it's focused on supporting vulnerable children particularly around the transition—

Particularly. 

—from those primary schools into your school.

That's what the direction has been from the consortia, and we've used it effectively in that sense.

Okay, but we're not aware whether there's any direction from Welsh Government that the grant for looked-after children—

No. It's the EAS that has provided us with that—

Good. I think you said earlier—. You referenced, I think, having a 40 per cent level of multiple deprivation compared to about 20 per cent for free-school-meals—

I did.

—and that the PDG grant you were using to support that wider group.

Yes, if you can imagine if you put together a programme of support for children who've got deficits in language, the majority of those children will be, in our experience, eligible for free school meals, but there will be some others also who are not. And I wouldn't want to deprive those children of that support. 

Does your core grant for the school not already reflect having that higher level of deprivation amongst your pupils?

It does, and we use it for that circumstance as well. So, the core grant—. The PDG is not enough really to support the interventions that we need to do, so we do have to supplement what we do in terms of interventions through our core budget. 

Okay. And can I ask: I'm not sure perhaps whether anyone could speak more from the teachers union perspective on this, but when we consider the higher core funding targeted at deprivation when we consider PDG, whether targeted at free-school-meals, or looked-after children, do you think we've got the balance about right in terms of the targeting of what funding there is for education, or do we need to go further in shifting that funding towards children in these particular categories and schools with larger numbers of them, or is there an argument that we have gone too far on that, and some schools who don't have high levels of free school meals, or deprivation, actually have substantially lower funding and it's very, very difficult to deliver the basics?

Unfortunately, a lot of this is to do with—. It depends where you live. Different local authorities allocate different amounts, and it's not as simple as, 'We've got it wrong', or 'We've got it right'. In one authority, they may choose to allocate greater sums of money for schools with high deprivation. In other authorities, it will be a lesser amount and they will target their funding elsewhere. One of the things we've argued for a long time is that we need some sort of commonality across all 22 authorities in terms of funding of schools, because, at the moment, you can have schools that are three miles apart, in two different authorities, that get significantly different levels of funding. 

So, are you saying it's open to local authorities to fund all schools equally, just giving a certain grant per pupil, and not make any allowance for deprivation?

They all have their different formulae that they use, but there's no commonality of formula across the authorities. So, the PDG comes through as a separate amount, which has to be—. And that then goes to consortia to distribute. The core budget may contain higher or lower levels of taking into account the deprivation within that local authority in terms of how they then send the money on to schools. 

So, to the extent that deprivation and FSM are relatively well correlated, to the extent that you're a local authority that's emphasising deprivation in its funding formula, then the PDG comes on top of that and goes to schools that are already disproportionately well funded, whereas for local authorities perhaps you take a more equal approach to the funding, that the PDG is very focused on those less well-off children. 

I think the issue is the inconsistency. You have—. We've looked at this quite a bit in terms of the core budgeting that takes place. Some of the data that is used in the formula by Welsh Government for its distribution is significantly out of date, I would say. You've then got the 22 authorities who have different elements within their formulas in the way they allocate. There are issues that come out, for example, through special educational needs, additional learning needs, in terms of some local authorities that add that—that goes into the school budgets. Others traditionally have been holding those as central pots more. And I think there's a need now, given the pressures we have, for a more cohesive way of organising funding across Wales, so that we do not have those big discrepancies.

If you take it, for example, that usually over 90 per cent of a budget spend in school is on staffing, well, those basic staffing costs per staff are the same across the whole of Wales. They don't vary. So, I think we need to—. We're saying that there's time for that kind of open and honest, transparent debate around budgets, because, at the moment, it's not clear the route the funding takes, who holds what, and what actually ends up in school. All we do know is that schools are telling us that the pressures are increasing and the funding seems to be reducing. 

Finally from me, looking at the link between the PDG and attainment of free-school-meals versus non-free-school-meals, we've discussed quite a lot with the consortiums those numbers, and, certainly, looking at the level 2 threshold inclusive, there didn't seem to have been much change over the years—particular difficulties last year. I probably won't press you on the school data because I know that bounces around a lot more, but I just raise with you the extent to which the PDG is less targeted and is focused on deprivation of vulnerable children at transition rather than free-school-meals and looked-after children. Isn't there a risk for Welsh Government or, potentially, this committee as we address whether this grant has succeeded in its stated aims that we may come to the view that it hasn't because it's much harder for us to see a reduction in that attainment gap on the basis of free-school-meals or looked-after children and, therefore, the money might be vulnerable in future?

It is one of the issues that we have that a significant number of children who will be on free school meals will also be children with significant learning difficulties, who may not achieve the thresholds. Therefore, if you rely on those thresholds as your means of measuring success of the grant, you may not see what you want to see. Actually, it's a much more complex picture in terms of how successful is the grant. This is, I appreciate, almost impossible for a committee like this to do, but actually you need to be getting into the schools and talking to the staff and seeing the outcomes that they've been able to achieve. I do believe that this pooling of that resource has enabled us to do a heck of a lot more than we would have done otherwise. So, it's made a difference.

I think the other thing to note on that is that we already know that there's plenty of data that tells us that the pupils who come from backgrounds of disadvantage, by the time they arrive in school, are already at significant disadvantage before they've started. So, the PDG, you could argue, to some extent is trying to play a bit of catch-up in that sense. So, one of the things we talk about is the kind of pre-school work that needs, and not just—. Schools are undoubtedly part of the solution in this, and so that's why the funding is still required, I would argue, but I think we need to be better at pooling and looking at approaches that co-ordinate things a little better, particularly for pre-school.

But don't those attainment gaps widen within school, particularly within the earlier years of primary school?

Which I think tells you that it's wider than just the school. I would argue that that point tells you that it's more than just that, because the school can do as much as it needs, but those elements that lie outside of its remit and its ability to address will still often remain.

But shouldn't schools be doing significantly more now than they were in the past when they didn't have access to grants of this type?

And I think schools are doing more now than they did in the past. We've got far more support for children with free school meals than we've ever had, really, and, in terms of the support workers who work with children with deficiencies, those kinds of interventions just weren't in place before the PDG came into practice.

But shouldn't we be seeing a more substantial narrowing in attainment gaps on various measures that we're not seeing? That's, I suppose, the question.

But what is very difficult to see in the PDG scenario as well, if I go back to my example of the nurture group for those children who were continuously being excluded—if those children are in a classroom and they're picking up chairs and they're throwing them across the classroom, upending tables, they're disrupting, they're ripping up books, what impact is that having on the other 29 children in the class? So, if that pastoral work is being done as a nurture group, and those children are supported in their behaviour and they then get reintegrated back into class, which is what happened, those 29 other children are then learning and achieving as they should. And that's very difficult to measure, but it is a direct result of the PDG as well.

Thank you.

Thank you. I should just clarify as well, for the panel, that the committee has visited several schools and also the outreach team here has undertaken extensive consultation with schools and others in relation to this inquiry.

Just before we move on to Schools Challenge Cymru, can I just ask about the point you made about looked-after children and what EAS are doing and spending it more widely, really? Because the money that goes into the PDG—£1,150 per head, specifically for looked-after children—is there as a recognition of the general challenges that looked-after children face in education. How confident are you that by EAS taking that new approach it's not going to dilute the support for some of our neediest children in Wales?

I don't think it is actually diluting the support for those children at all because the pooling of that grant has enabled us to do more than what would have happened previously. So, those children are involved in more things than they were before. We're having an opportunity now to really engage with the parents and enable the looked-after children necessarily to work with the people we call the 'helping hands' in the school.

Okay. Thank you. Right, we'll move on to Schools Challenge Cymru. Julie.

Yes. I don't know how many of your members have been involved with Schools Challenge Cymru, but could you say—how effective do you think it's been?

We look to Ravi. [Laughter.]

Well, my school was involved in the Schools Challenge Cymru programme from the beginning. I think it was one of the schools that was—. It made a great deal of difference to lots of things within the school in terms of the way in which we approach teaching and learning, and the way in which we link collaboratively with other schools. It made a difference also to the ultimate outcomes of the children in the measures that were identified as the key measures.

Initially, I think that perhaps the measure of success was a little narrow because it was always based upon the performance of the children in the level 2 plus. That was the measure that was always used. Whilst in my school that was very, very successful, because it made us a little bit more outcomes focused in that area than perhaps we'd previously been—it was very, very successful—I understand how Schools Challenge Cymru may not have been successful in some other schools because the schools were given some autonomy in terms of how to actually put together their plans. I know that there's been, in some schools, an investment in leadership that perhaps has been difficult to sustain. For example, if you have a huge grant of £250,000 and you use it to second people to take on leadership positions within your school and then that money is taken away, you don't then have that capacity any longer. So, you have to be really careful about the way you use the funding, and realise that the plan has to be sustainable. Whatever you put in place needed to be sustainable. In my circumstances, that hasn't had an impact upon our core budget or how we've actually moved forward because the planning was very carefully done alongside our challenge adviser, so that it didn't have an impact when the funding was released and was reduced at the end. We had to put together really sensible, clear exit strategies.

I think what was helpful as well was the establishment of the education improvement boards, the achievement boards, the accelerated improvement boards. They were very useful because they enabled key staff from the school to meet with consortia representatives, local authority representatives, the school challenge adviser and the head of the primary school. We met on a monthly basis to think about the programme, the development priorities the school had, and also measure the success more regularly. As a consequence of that, the school has maintained that. We're no longer in Schools Challenge Cymru, but that process whereby we meet as a group of professionals to look at the key priorities of the school is continued, because we thought that was a benefit for the school. I don't know whether that's sustained in other schools, whether they saw the value of that, but it certainly was a sensible approach as far as we were concerned.

So, the fact that the programme ended—would you have preferred it to have gone on longer in terms of—?

Well, everybody would like the funding. The funding's very helpful, but of course that was never going to be the case. We always knew that it was a two-year programme. So you have to think about how you're going to use a two-year programme, and it was about the investment in training, as well, in developing pedagogy and thinking again about best practice action research. So, that's what we used our funding for, and inevitably that funding, when you take it away, has to be replaced in a different way, but it didn't have an impact for us on staffing costs.

And you've been able to keep the momentum going, that was—.

We feel we have. Absolutely. We're on a good upward trajectory in terms of standards, but we felt as if we were there already. The Minister came to my school, after the first year, when our outcomes were very, very strong. It was a huge celebration because the progress that the children had made was quite stark in its first year. I think, in the second year, there was an expectation that the schools would improve again, at the same rate, potentially, as they had done previously. I think that slowed because the improvement that was made initially was so, so big in my school, it was most important that we actually sustained it and kept it there. That, I think, was the key thing. So, yes, it was an injection of money that was needed at the time, and from my perspective, it was helpful—absolutely helpful.

Okay. Any other questions from Members? No. Okay, well, can I thank you all very much for attending this morning and for answering all our questions? As usual, you'll be sent a transcript to check for accuracy following the meeting, but thank you again for your attendance.