Llyr Gruffydd AM: Thank you, Chair, and good morning. I just want to start by asking about your perception of how schools are using the pupil development grant funding, and to what extent they are genuinely targeting that funding exclusively towards children eligible for free school meals.
Meilyr Rowlands: Thank you for the question. This grant has been targeted far better by now than it was originally. Estyn has made several reports regarding the effectiveness of the grant, and, really, going back to before this specific grant, to a similar grant, called RAISE. At the start of this grant, the funding was often spent on tackling underachievement, rather than dealing with the underachievement of children who are eligible for free school meals specifically. But, over a period of time, we have seen that it is targeted much better by now. That's not to say that the targeting is working perfectly still, and I think that we are seeing examples where the targeting isn't going just to children who receive free school meals. Schools sometimes interpret poverty in a slightly wider way than that. In terms of what schools are doing with the grant, we have given evidence to you of the kinds of things that they are doing. They are tracking progress of pupils, they are trying to improve attendance, they are trying to work with families and the community in general, they're doing work specifically to improve how children are doing in exams, in key stage 4, specifically—a lot of funding is being spent on that—improving the confidence of students, taking students on extra-curricular activities, improving literacy and numeracy. Those are the kinds of activities they're being used for.
Llyr Gruffydd AM: Because the research by Ipsos MORI and the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods has shown that there is some kind of blurring—I think that's the term that they use—in terms of who is eligible. But you are relatively comfortable with the fact that there is sufficient targeting happening. You referred to the fact that it is used, perhaps, to reach a slightly wider cohort than just those who are eligible for free school meals, but you do feel that that balance, from your experience, is acceptable.
Meilyr Rowlands: Yes, certainly, it has improved a great deal. When I was looking at this initially, the targeting wasn’t happening at all. It was being spent on children who were underachieving, and one of the things that we did notice in the first report was that much more funding was being spent on boys than girls. And, of course, that raised the question immediately that it wasn't being spent then on children who are eligible for free school meals, because those numbers are equal. So, it wasn’t, but it has improved. There is a discussion about who exactly should have it and whether free school meals is the best definition. So, I think that schools are perhaps not following that exactly, but within the spirit of the grant, I think I’m fairly comfortable. There is a specific question—I don’t know if you are going to ask this—regarding more able and talented pupils.
Llyr Gruffydd AM: That's where I was going next.
Meilyr Rowlands: So, if there is a cohort of pupils who are missing out on this, they are the more able and talented pupils who receive free school meals. There are a number of reasons for this, I think. One of them is that there’s still some feeling that less able children should be receiving this grant, children who are underachieving. Schools don’t always identify underachievement of those more able children. It seems that they are doing okay, but if they were given more support, they would do even better.
Llyr Gruffydd AM: So, is it a lack of awareness of the nature of the grant, and that the individual has to be targeted rather than just those who are underachieving? Is that the problem? Or is it the regime that focuses on exam results and the need to draw those pupils who are underachieving up, rather than incentivising those who are achieving to achieve better?
Meilyr Rowlands: A bit of both, I'd say. And the third factor is identifying children who are more able. I think that we have a bit of work to do in that regard. I was in a conference for headteachers last week, where there was new data being discussed, and that data showed the progress of children from a certain point, year 6 tests. I think that kind of data will be very useful, because what that data can do is help secondary schools to identify more able children and that they are underachieving. Even though they're doing quite well, that kind of value-added data is very useful. So, I think that that will help as well.
Llyr Gruffydd AM: Thank you.
John Griffiths AM: Mark, did you want to pursue these matters further?
Mark Reckless AM: Yes. I just wanted to ask about the more able and talented stream. It was good to read in your report an increased emphasis on this and to see your awareness of its importance in the PDG as well. Can I just ask—? Would you look at one area regarding schools' engagement with the Seren network, particularly for the more able and talented, and what more Estyn can do through its inspection criteria and otherwise to encourage this from schools?
Meilyr Rowlands: Well, I think Estyn has always been very strongly focused on improving the performance of more able pupils. For example, in last year's annual report I raised it, and a lot of the debate around this now, I think, was generated by some of the things I've said in previous annual reports. We gave a lot of evidence to the—. Paul Flynn, I think, did the—no, who did the report? Paul Murphy did the report. So, we gave evidence to that. And on Seren, I'm particularly proud that my alma mater, Jesus College, is a very strong supporter of the Seren work. So, I'm personally quite interested in the work of Seren. And we look at the performance of more able pupils in all our inspections. It's a particular part of our inspection framework—looking at the relative performance of different groups. So, we look at the different performance of boys and girls, free school meals and non-free school meals, ethnic minorities, but we also look at the performance of more able pupils in particular, and we question schools about how they provide for the more able pupils, and we've referred to Seren in several of our inspection reports.
Mark Reckless AM: And where schools work particularly hard to engage with Seren and take up opportunities from that and push as many pupils as appropriate to work with that, is that something that you would recognise within your inspection reports? And, on the other side, where schools don't do that, is that something you would pull them up on?
Meilyr Rowlands: Yes, we've done that. We've done it in several reports.
Claire Morgan: Throughout our inspections, we are looking for best practice, because part of our strategy is always to identify where there are weaknesses, but actually to point schools in the direction of where they can find a solution. So, capturing different approaches to more able and talented is part of the role of inspection.
Mark Reckless AM: Thank you.
Llyr Gruffydd AM: Just briefly, you touched earlier on using the measure of those who are eligible for free school meals as a way to identify children from disadvantaged backgrounds so that you can target this funding. Varied evidence has been given to us on this. Do you have an opinion on whether that's the best way?
Meilyr Rowlands: It certainly is a good way of doing it. There is a strong correlation between children who underachieve and that measure, so it is a strong measure. But, there is scope to discuss how exactly it does work. For example, some people say that if you have received free school meals for a period of time and now you're not receiving them, then perhaps you should still be receiving the funding for a period of time, for example. So, there are ways of fine-tuning that measure, I think. It's worth considering those approaches.
John Griffiths AM: Thanks for that. We move on now to Michelle.
Michelle Brown AM: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. You've reported that the proportion of schools making effective use of the PDG remains around two thirds of secondary and primary schools, meaning that a third are still not using that PDG effectively. Why do you think this is?
Meilyr Rowlands: I think that sort of proportion broadly corresponds to the schools that don't have particularly good leadership. I think, ultimately, all of these sorts of initiatives come down to strong leadership and effective leadership—that they know how to organise and use those grants effectively. One of the shortcomings that we often identify is evaluation—that money has been spent on a particular way of using the grant, but it has not been evaluated well. So, I think quite a lot of it is to do with generic leadership skills. But those are some of the specific shortcomings to do with evaluation.
Michelle Brown AM: Are there any patterns by region or type of school in that?
Meilyr Rowlands: I don't think there's any patterns that we've identified in terms of region.
Claire Morgan: As Meilyr said, it's very strongly linked to leadership capacity.
Michelle Brown AM: Okay. Thank you. What are the most effective uses of PDG, from your point of view? Is there something in particular that you think that schools should be focusing on?
Meilyr Rowlands: I think there's a lot of evidence on what constitutes good practice in this area. There's the Welsh Government guidance, there's our guidance, there's a lot of research—the Sutton Trust toolkit—and they're the sorts of things I mentioned earlier. I think that more attention does need to be given to the community-focused element of this work. So, schools do a lot of things that they are in control of—the things I mentioned earlier: things like improving attendance, offering extra-curricular activities, literacy and numeracy support, tracking pupils—all those sorts of things. But an important element of this, I think, is engaging with the learners, but also with parents and the community. I think what we've found is that the most effective schools—the ones that really do make a big difference to this cohort of students—are the ones that do that most effectively.
Claire Morgan: I think that there are different situations in different schools, but in the best schools, they evaluate the barriers to learning for their particular children. Often we see that engagement with communities is part of that engagement with families. In Brackla Primary School, in Bridgend, they've got Families at Brackla, and it's a range of activities to engage with families. Families often have had a negative experience of education themselves, and the schools are trying to address some of those concerns. Cefn Hengoed in Swansea, which I'm sure many of you know about, have had an extensive strategy for engaging with the community, with the families, and equipping their children to participate in decisions around the curriculum, making them more confident learners. So, it is about removing the barriers for disadvantaged learners.
Michelle Brown AM: Thank you. You've made the comment that secondary schools are focusing too much on key stage 4 and not enough on developing pupils' skills in a sustainable way. Can you expand on that and give us a bit more detail on that, please?
Meilyr Rowlands: Yes. I think this is sort of generally accepted now. The latest guidance on the grant now says that 60 per cent of it should be spent on key stage 3. I think that acknowledges this general point. But what a lot of schools did with this money was precisely that, to target key stage 4—to have catch-up homework clubs, revision clubs, specifically to get children better GCSE results, and getting C grades, in particular. Of course, that is an important part of your armoury of tools to use, but I think there was too much use of that. Part of the problem with that is that it doesn't either develop the long-term transferable skills that those pupils have, or should have, nor does it produce the kinds of skills that the teachers need as well. So, it's kind of a quick win, a quick-fix solution, while what we feel would be more effective in the long term, and more sustainable in the long term—because if this money goes, then those quick fixes won't be possible—what would be more effective in the long term is to improve the curriculum and the pedagogy, the quality of the teaching, the quality of the curriculum, so that children are naturally enthused by what is on offer, that they attend better because they want to be in school, that they want to learn. So, we feel that getting the curriculum right, tailoring the curriculum to the needs of the pupils in that area, and improving teaching, is a more sustainable long-term solution.
Michelle Brown AM: Do you think there's anything in particular driving the focus on the key stage 4?
Meilyr Rowlands: Well, again, I think most people would say it is the performance indicators. I think there's a general acknowledgement of that. Again, I said last week—. There was a conference of all the secondary heads in Wales, and that was one of the major discussion points in the conference: how do we get the performance indicators right so that there are no perverse incentives in it?
Michelle Brown AM: To what extent are decisions being made in schools concerning the application of the PDG actually evidence-based? To what extent are they using research to back up how they're using the PDG or is it effectively just guesswork?
Meilyr Rowlands: I think that, of all the areas of school policy, this is the one that's most evidence-based. I think that, generally, schools can do much more about using evidence and research findings, but this particular area is probably the one that schools are strongest at using research in. That's partly because the guidance strongly suggests that you should do that, but also because there is a lot of easily accessible research evidence available. So, there's a lot of research on this. As I mentioned earlier, the Sutton Trust toolkit is a good example where researchers have really tried very hard to simplify all the evidence that exists in a way that schools can use. So, there are little pound signs to show how costly an intervention is and little stars or something to show how many months of gain pupils get out of this particular intervention. So, it makes it much easier for schools to make a decision. But I think what's missing is that you can't just take that evidence as it is, because you have to implement it in your own school, and that then will affect how effective that particular intervention is. Just because it is evaluated by researchers as being generally very effective doesn't mean that you will necessarily implement it effectively. So, it is therefore important that each school does evaluate. So, there are kind of two sides to using research. There's looking at research, but there's also doing your own research and evaluating how effectively you have implemented something. I think that's been a weakness.