Lynne Neagle AM: Okay, thank you very much. We've got some questions now on potential unintended consequences, and other matters relating to that, from Hefin David.
Hefin David AM: Can I ask what value you place on the work done by the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods and the presentation so far and the paper to be presented by Dr Nigel Newton?
Kirsty Williams AM: I always—and Welsh Government are big supporters of WISERD and the work that they do, and, in fact, we need more research into Welsh education, not less. Therefore, I find their papers really helpful and help us to inform our work. I think what's really important in perhaps this piece of work is to say that I hope that, in the time where I've had an influence to influence over Welsh education, either as a backbencher or now as a Minister, equality and principles of equity have always driven what I've tried to achieve. And I would never undertake a policy reform that I thought would lead to less equity in the Welsh education system. Closing the attainment gap is a core element of the national mission for education in Wales and we would not proceed with anything that we thought could lead to an exacerbation of an achievement gap.
Hefin David AM: Okay. And how do you respond, then—? I mean, it's a balanced paper, it looks at pros and cons and there's a mixed picture from it. How do you respond to the specific statement that Dr Nigel Newton said that the curriculum could exacerbate segregation within schools between different groups of pupils?
Kirsty Williams AM: Well, I think what the paper acknowledges is that there is no evidence that that will happen. These are 'coulds' and 'maybes' and things that we need, as a Government, to take into consideration as we plan this journey. There can't be any empirical research done at the moment because the curriculum isn't being delivered, but I understand, and we need listen to—. If there are concerns out there in the field that these are unintended consequences that we may fall into—that is the value of that piece of research that helps inform us. I have to say, though, the curriculum in itself is neither going to necessarily on its own hugely enhance equity nor detract from equity, in the sense that the curriculum is what's taught in our schools. There is an opportunity, I believe, that empowering teachers to be able to be more flexible in what they teach their children actually gives us an opportunity to deliver lessons that could be much more engaging and much more relevant to some of our schoolchildren than what they have at the moment. What will make the curriculum a success for all of our children, and I believe will have a bigger impact on children who are in danger of being left behind, are the four enabling purposes of the curriculum. So, the curriculum on its own can play a part, but it will only be as good as the four enabling elements that surround it. And that is strong leadership of our schools that ensures that there is no segregation, that has high expectation of all of our children, and delivers a curriculum within that setting that meets the needs of the children there. Secondly: excellent teaching. In the end, no education system, whatever its curriculum, can exceed the quality of the people who stand in front of our children day in, day out. So, the curriculum can be the most exciting, wonderful—and I think it is exciting and I think it's wonderful—it can be the most exciting, wonderful thing in the world, but if teachers can't teach it effectively, if their pedagogy is not excellent, then the content itself—it won't work. Then we've got issues around assessment and accountability. So, how do you assess how children are doing in your new curriculum? How do you understand how that pupil, who has, you know—who could be vulnerable for a whole host of reasons, usually reasons outside of the school—? That pupil is vulnerable. How can you assess how that pupil is and move their learning along in an appropriate fashion? And then, finally, the well-being of the child. People sometimes say, 'Oh, you're going soft—typical, going soft'. But what we know is that we cannot expect children to learn unless we address issues around their well-being. But we also know that poor achievement is also detrimental to a child's well-being. There's been lots and lots of research done, not in a Welsh context but in other systems, where children are kept behind for a year. That has a massive impact on their well-being. So, good achievement leads to good well-being, but good well-being also leads to good achievement, and you can't separate the two. So, the curriculum on its own will not be enough. It is the four enabling objectives that sit around it, and we have to be cognisant of the WISERD's research, of course we do, to ensure that, as we're doing our professional learning, as we're planning well-being for our children, as we think about assessment methods and how we develop a culture of strong leaders in our schools—and we have some, we have many, but we need to do more to support them—it is that that will make the biggest difference, not just the content of the curriculum on its own. Although I do believe the flexibility that we're allowing people will, I think, lead to a curriculum and more meaningful lessons for some children in schools who are in danger of disengaging because they don't understand why they're being asked to learn what they're learning, they don't see the relevance of what they're learning to what they may want to do or how their lives are, or they don't see themselves reflected. So, for some of our communities, they don't see themselves reflected in the curriculum that we're teaching at the moment. And, again, international research would suggest that, if you want a child to thrive, they have to see themselves and their community reflected in what they're learning in schools.
Hefin David AM: What the WISERD research suggests is that the senior management teams—the management teams—would certainly buy into what you've just said, but the classroom teachers would be a little bit more sceptical.
Kirsty Williams AM: As I said, classroom teachers are absolutely crucial to this, which is why, first of all, we've taken the difficult step to delay the implementation of the curriculum to give us the time that we need to make sure that it's not just school leaders but it is individual classroom practitioners who have the skills that they need to make the most of the opportunity that the curriculum allows them.
Hefin David AM: So, if we look at some of the statements that were in the presentation by WISERD at the seminar two comments jump out: 'We'll end up'—this is from classroom teachers— 'We'll end up with a different accountability framework to the aims and objectives of the new curriculum.' and 'there will be no consistency'. And consistency is the one I'd particularly like to focus on: 'there will be no consistency across all schools in how the new curriculum is delivered which could affect outcomes'.
Kirsty Williams AM: Well, first of all, we've just talked, haven't we, about trying to ensure that there is greater consistency and that's why we're changing our approach to the legislation around the Bill. So, in terms of progression steps, there will be a statutory framework to ensure that progression is the same wherever you are in Wales. So, as I said, we're using this report, we're using this feedback, to inform decisions going forward. In terms of—. Read the first bit again. Was it—[Interruption.] Accountability, yes.
Hefin David AM: Yes: 'different accountability framework to the aims and objectives of the new curriculum.'
Kirsty Williams AM: Okay. So, as always, in education, teachers—understandably, because this is the regime that they have been a part of—immediately don't think about their pedagogy, they think about, 'How are judgments going to be made upon me as an individual?' And what we're trying to do is ensure that we are developing another accountability regime that is indeed in line with the purposes of the curriculum and doesn't work against the purposes of the curriculum. So, I understand why teachers are concerned. They spend a lot of time thinking about accountability and how they're going to be held accountable for their practice, but, again, what we want to do is provide reassurance that we are devising an accountability regime for our system that is in line with the purposes of the curriculum and puts us in line with the mainstream thought and reform process across the world of progressive education systems.
Hefin David AM: It was the segregation bit I was particularly interested in and the response with regard to disadvantaged pupils and pupils of lower attainment.
Kirsty Williams AM: I don't—. I do not believe that any changes—and I would not pursue any changes that—would lead to a segregation.
Hefin David AM: Okay. And with regard to the connection between Welsh Government and local government and the concerns that the Welsh Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Education Wales raised, what progress has been made on bridging the gap between—? Whether it's a perception gap or a practice gap, what progress has been made on that?
Kirsty Williams AM: Well, I think the last time we had this conversation in the committee I said that I think the comments that the WLGA and ADEW had made were reflective of an old piece of work and were not current and up to date, and I think progress had been made in that time, and I'm pleased to report the significant progress that's been made—
Hefin David AM: Bridges have been built.
Kirsty Williams AM: Bridges have been—. Well, from my perspective, the bridges were always there. But we've got renewed, energetic engagement from the WLGA and ADEW in all the arrangements that we have for the development of the curriculum and my understanding is that they have said publicly and in writing that they're very supportive of what's going on.
Hefin David AM: I'm sure they're watching and nodding vigorously now on Senedd.tv.
Kirsty Williams AM: And I will be with them tomorrow night and Friday morning and I'm sure if they've got any other views they'll let me know.
Hefin David AM: And the final question: there is a process, a model for this, which is Scotland. What kind of lessons are being learned from the introduction of their curriculum?
Kirsty Williams AM: Okay. So, I think the first thing to realise is that our curriculum is not a copycat of the Scottish curriculum, but it is always useful to reflect on how other systems have undertaken curriculum reform in their nation and to learn from any issues that have arisen. So, I think it's fair to say—and I spent time with some delegates from Scotland just this weekend at the Atlantic Rim Collaboratory conference that Wales hosted this year. Unfortunately, Minister Swinney was not able to attend at the very last minute because of Brexit preparedness work that he was involved in, but certainly their teaching union and their equivalent of the EWC in Scotland joined us as well as representatives from the Scottish Government, although not John himself, and they were very frank about some of the challenges that they had faced in introducing their curriculum. Part of that is about assessment and they had not really thought—. They spent all their time thinking about content and spent no time at all thinking about assessment. Assessment has been a crucial part of the process that we have been involved in. Professional learning, ensuring that the profession was properly prepared for the changes, I think they would agree that that wasn't necessarily—. The middle tier, which they don't have to the—. Well, they've got local authorities and regions, but whether they were truly engaged in what they were doing. So, I think we've learned—. Although our curriculum isn't a copycat, as I said, we have been able to learn from, and we've had people who have been deeply involved in the Scottish experience as part of some of our curriculum and assessment groups and some of the advice that we've had in terms of developing coherence. But, Steve, I don't know if—. You speak to your Scottish colleagues quite a lot.
Steve Davies: As I said, they're very forthright in sharing their learning and I think one of the critical elements was the extent to which assessment was considered at the outset alongside the curriculum content. So, that was critical, but we've embraced experts who were involved in that process who were part of our curriculum assessment group. So, they feed in throughout—not 'don't do this because Scotland has done it', but they feed some of that learning into the system. As the Minister said, we had seven other countries from across the world giving us feedback and input over four days as to where we can continue to look at what we're doing but also checks and balances against some of their experiences with this area of reform.
Kirsty Williams AM: The particular focus of this year's conference was on the issue of assessment and we were joined by colleagues from Scotland, from Ireland, from Iceland, from Finland, from Saskatchewan, from Nova Scotia and from Uruguay.
Hefin David AM: When did that take place?
Kirsty Williams AM: Where?
Hefin David AM: When.
Kirsty Williams AM: The weekend just gone.
Hefin David AM: Right.
Lynne Neagle AM: Okay, thank you. Suzy. You've got a whole section on assessment, I don't know—
Suzy Davies AM: This isn't about assessment.
Lynne Neagle AM: Oh, okay. Go on, then.
Suzy Davies AM: So, on the basis that this is not about assessment, you mentioned that one of the lessons learned from Scotland is that they said they spent too much time on curriculum content rather than assessment. Can you tell me a little bit about what you've learned about how they quality control the content, even though the content, of course, will be completely different in Wales?
Kirsty Williams AM: Yes, the content would be completely different. When I said they spent too much time, I said that the focus had been in their work about just talking about content and, actually, the assessment arrangements were bolted on at the end of the process. So, the curriculum was all designed and developed, it was sent out to schools, and then the question was raised: 'Oh, actually, what assessment methods—? How are going to assess how children are getting on?' But, Steve, you would have more details of their exact experience of quality control of the content—
Suzy Davies AM: Of the content, because every school is going to be very different at this.
Steve Davies: In terms of developing the guidance and the curriculum going out in January is concerned, I think—again, I don't want to be overly critical, but one of the findings was that they encouraged schools to go forth and multiply in terms of the materials and ideas and concepts that were coming through. What we learnt was to actually—the pioneer movement was to get a smaller group to develop those materials and look to engage through cluster groups. So, we had pioneers who worked with clusters to test the development of that concept before we were looking for schools to go away and develop a larger amount of content. So, in terms of the staging and measuring of bringing together the curriculum and the associated guidance, I think the time we've taken to actually get there and the strategy of using pioneer schools, external experts, back to pioneer schools, back to regions, or engaging regions in that, has been more measured and planned against a planned timescale, where everyone from the outset—with the exception of the extension of the one year—was clear on when we were going to be producing materials that would allow the profession to then take it and use it. I think—. Claire, do you want to add to that, or—?
Claire Bennett: I think, as we move forward, that kind of cluster approach remains really important. So, it's, as schools then think about, 'What am I going to do in my school?', that they're doing that in clusters together. When colleagues from the regional consortia were sharing their thinking with the curriculum assessment group last week, they were talking about the very specific and differentiated, I suppose, professional learning support that they would be offering to schools that have already done quite a lot of thinking and are quite far down this journey and then the kind of different sorts of approaches they would offer schools that are just starting out. Their emphasis was very much on this peer-to-peer sharing and support, so people aren't just going off in isolation. The other thing that will also help in that process will be the national network. So, there'll continue to be a focus for each area of learning and experience, bringing together the professional learning and the ongoing curriculum development, bringing together practitioners and experts and colleagues across the middle tier to give a bit of strategic direction and to be able to identify if there are areas where more support is needed. So, I think that a huge amount of thinking, particularly in the regions, has gone on into the practical support that can be given to schools, not just in engaging with the curriculum now, but then how they take it and think about then developing it in their schools. It feels like—I think Graham Donaldson was calling it a 'slow-burn process'. You don't start in 2022—people are already doing it and there's a lot of thought going into how to support continued sharing through the next two years.
Kirsty Williams AM: And I think that's another difference, you see—that strong middle tier and the role that the middle tier is playing in Wales, which was absent in Scotland. So, this ability to work in networks to provide support to a network of schools, that wasn't available in the Scottish system and I think that makes—I think that helps us in the way that they just simply didn't have a structure that allowed them to do that. It's not a criticism of them; it's just that we have got a structure that we can utilise to do that support so that schools are not completely left on their own and they can be working with other schools, with their regional consortia, going forward.
Suzy Davies AM: Can I just have a quick—?
Lynne Neagle AM: Very quickly, because I want to move on to implementation.
Suzy Davies AM: Yes, sorry, I completely understand. Was one of the things that Scotland did—I don't want to use the word 'assess'—to monitor the pupil response to the curriculum as one of the means of deciding whether curricula in particular schools were working well enough?
Kirsty Williams AM: I don't know if they—. I don't know if they did, but one of the interesting things that we were reflecting on over the weekend is that, certainly some of the Canadian systems, in particular, which we were interested in, used pupil surveys as part of their accountability regime—so, actually taking the time to ask students how they felt, not just about the content of the new curriculum, but actually how they felt their school was doing. And so we're interested in looking, as I said, at some of the practices that other countries use to include pupil voice to find out what's happening.
Suzy Davies AM: Okay, that's interesting. Okay, thank you.
Kirsty Williams AM: Yes. I mean, it's early thoughts, because we've only just heard about it ourselves. But that's the beauty of working with other countries. They found that particular useful and successful, and we're keen to see if we could do something similar.