Lynne Neagle AM: Okay, thank you. The next questions are on looked-after children and adopted children, and I've got questions from Michelle then Mark.
Michelle Brown AM: Thank you. Good morning—
Mark Reckless AM: I was to come in first, I think. I was about to ask about ICF consulting.
Lynne Neagle AM: Go on then.
Mark Reckless AM: I think my questions are first, but, Michelle, please do correct me if you were planning to come in before. The PDG for looked-after children doesn't quite seem to have the degree of visibility as the PDG for the free-school-meals. I think we had the MORI/WISERD survey—only 15 per cent of primary schools and 23 per cent of secondary schools were aware that PDG was targeted at looked-after children. I just wonder—can you clarify on the record here what is the role of schools with PDG for looked-after children as compared to the regional consortia in this field?
Kirsty Williams AM: Okay. I think it is absolutely fair to say that most awareness around PDG is around free school meals. There is less awareness around the availability of PDG to support looked-after children. I think that's probably in the nature of the cohort, so, there are more children subject to free school meals than are subject to being looked after. So, I think that's part of the explanation. A decision was taken in 2015 to regionalise PDG for looked-after children. My understanding was that the thinking behind that at the time was around a greater strategic deployment of that resource and to try and drive a greater impact than how it was being used previously. So, looked-after PDG is held at a regional level. We have looked-after children PDG co-ordinators—they're in their second year this year—to look at a regional deployment of that resource. And that resource can be done in a variety of ways, through individual allocation to a school to support an individual child, through to capacity building for the whole system. So, for instance, if I give you an example, in Carmarthenshire, there's been a big emphasis on attachment disorder and training teachers with regard to the impact of attachment disorder. Carmarthenshire happens to be one of those local authorities that does quite well in terms of attainment for looked-after children. But, clearly, I have—not concerns. 'Concerns' isn't the right word. But I have asked officials to give greater scrutiny to how that resource has been used in the last year. Steve, on my behalf, wrote out to the system, setting out our expectations, but also advising them of the fact we will be asking very detailed questions of accountability for that money. So, what has that money been used on and how can you account for the effect? But, Steve, maybe you can give some greater detail.
Steve Davies: I think the challenge that—. One of the rationales for shifting—not that all the money stays in the region, but having a regional strategic support—was that, historically, the money was going directly with that child to the school. Given the quite often rapid turnover of children in schools—the very nature of looked-after children is they do sometimes move through foster parents—historically, what happened, the money lands in the school, because, at that time in the year, when it's measured, the school gets the money and can spend it on some additional support for staff, but quite often that child moves on to another school and the money doesn't transfer. Some schools will go through quite a number of years without having a looked-after child and will not think strategically, 'How do I need to support them?' So, that was the rationale of the shift. In terms of the implementation of the regional allocation, as of this financial year finishing, we are going into local authorities and regions to evaluate where they've located the resource, what the impact of that resource has been, so that is reinforced and shared more widely.
Kirsty Williams AM: And then, to reassure, it's not just internally that we're looking at this. We have a contract with an external agency to do an evaluation—
Mark Reckless AM: That's ICF consulting.
Kirsty Williams AM: Yes. Yes, so that was done in the autumn of last year, because, as I said, we had concerns about whether this was really having the effect that was intended. So, my expectation is that we will be in a position to receive that report later on this spring, and of course it would be my intention that that report would be made public for people to have a look at what—
Mark Reckless AM: That was commissioned last autumn—
Kirsty Williams AM: Yes, in November 2017.
Mark Reckless AM: November 2017.
Kirsty Williams AM: So, I'm hoping to have that published before the summer recess. I'm very reluctant to say months; I've learnt not to say months, because they move.
Lynne Neagle AM: I'm going to go to Michelle now, Mark, because—
Mark Reckless AM: Sure. I will come back in if I have anything further to ask here after Michelle.
Lynne Neagle AM: —both of you asked for these questions, and that's what the pre-meeting is for.
Mark Reckless AM: Michelle, I defer to you.
Lynne Neagle AM: Michelle.
Michelle Brown AM: Okay, thank you. Would you be open, Cabinet Secretary, to the idea of adjusting the eligibility of the PDG so that pupils who have been looked after or adopted at any point within a previous given period of time would attract the PDG, rather than only if they're looked-after on a one-off date?
Kirsty Williams AM: As I said earlier, in questions from, I think it was, Llyr, who was talking about concepts of concepts of Ever 6, we are constantly looking at how we can get that balance between focus and flexibility for this resource. Llyr opened with the question of, 'How can you absolutely ensure that these children are getting the money?', but then there's also a tension about how can you create some flexibility around the school's usage of the grant. So, we will look at that. I think there is the issue of where a school would know of a child that was looked after. Issues around adoption are slightly more sensitive, because we couldn't force a family to tell a school that their child was an adopted child. So, a family may be very open and very keen to explain that to a school, but we can't necessarily track as closely children who have been adopted, especially if that adoption happens before the child goes to school. We can't be in a position of forcing families to disclose this information if they don't want to, but we certainly can, as I say, look to strengthen our monitoring arrangements around PDG support for looked-after children and the impact that that's having. I just think we need to be a bit mindful of people's privacy in some instances. If they don't want to divulge that, it wouldn't be my job to tell a family, 'You have to let us know if your child is adopted.'
Lynne Neagle AM: Michelle.
Michelle Brown AM: Fair enough; thank you for that answer. The EAS consortium's approach to using the looked-after and adopted PDG is to use it as part of a broader approach targeted at vulnerable learners in general. What are your views on that approach?
Kirsty Williams AM: I'm a great believer in if we can get it right for our most vulnerable learners, we'll be getting it right for all of our learners. I gave the example earlier, for instance, of attachment disorder, and, Chair, you will know that I have had conversations. One of the emerging themes for me, as I go around visiting schools, is the impact and the growing awareness and the growing numbers of children who have attachment disorder, and how schools are best able to respond to that in their children. So, for instance, as I said about Carmarthenshire, there's been a huge effort to address that in the school sector in Carmarthenshire. Now, that has a disproportionate benefit for those children, because you're more likely to see attachment disorder in children who are care experienced, because of the nature of the lives that those children have lived, but that doesn't necessarily mean that attachment disorder is exclusively found in those children that are looked after. It can be found in other families as well. So, that vulnerable learner, regardless of their background, will benefit from having teachers who are better trained, understanding and have intervention strategies in place to be able to address that need.
Steve Davies: I think it's also important to add that this is not one region's approach; this is across four regions, so the others—. For example, ERW have run a significant programme looking at the impact of adverse childhood experiences on pupils, which has enabled teachers to detect some of the impact of some of those and then considers some of the work they need to do within the school but also with other agencies. So, it is something that's applied consistently across the four regions.
Kirsty Williams AM: I was in Pil Primary School recently where they use their PDG, both FSM PDG, and no doubt an element of PDG for looked-after, for nurture groups. So, for those children who really, really find it very difficult to be in the main classroom, they can have that nurture group experience to address issues around emotional behaviour, feelings, and it gets them in a position where they are able then to join the main classroom because issues around behaviour have been addressed and they're in a better position to learn. So, again, this is an example of how vulnerable learners in the wider sense can benefit.
Lynne Neagle AM: Okay. Mark, did you have anything you wanted to ask?
Mark Reckless AM: Yes. Can I follow up on tracking adopted children? I entirely understand that you can't force parents to disclose that their child is adopted. However, my understanding was that, in England, there was a dataset with social services that was shared with schools in a way that I'm not clear is happening in Wales and how, if at all, that links to the pupil level annual school census data. Perhaps sort of linked to that, isn't there an argument for making the parents of adopted children in the schools, potentially, with adopted children more aware that adopted children who were previously looked after have this potential grant, and would they not be more willing to disclose this, at least confidentially to the school and Government, if they knew there was this upside of doing so?
Kirsty Williams AM: We're actively looking at whether we should try and find a way of collecting this data, with the caveats that I just gave earlier. We can't force parents to divulge information that is a matter for them, nor would I want to. But there is an active discussion going on at the moment about whether we could create a dataset where people divulge this information and we can then track the children through. You're absolutely right. One of the ways in which we can often encourage take-up, for instance, of free school meals, especially in those communities where there is a sense of reluctance to apply for support—even though people are entitled to it, there's a reluctance to do it; sometimes we see this in rural areas—. Actually, appealing to the parents by saying, 'Actually, this will mean more money for your child's school budget' is a much more compelling reason why people will apply for it then saying, 'Actually, it's going to help you', because they don't want to be seen being dependent, they don't want to be seen being helped. But, if you say to them, 'Actually, do you know that this means more money for your child's school?', they go, 'Oh, all right then, I'll fill in the forms now.' So, you're right, I think there is something that we could do to make parents understand, in the round, that this has an impact. But we are actively looking at and discussing whether we could create a dataset around adopted children and how we can do that in line with data protection and data sharing. One of the things I am concerned about in the performance of looked-after children generally is how we can, across Government, work more closely together. We can't see the educational attainment of looked-after children just being a job of education. It's got to be a job of social services and the health service as well. There's got to be a joined-up approach to doing that. Now, officials were at the ministerial advisory group that's chaired by David Melding on prospects for looked-after children. They were there at the group last week. David tells me that the paper was very positively received by the group. I will be sitting down with David Melding to talk through what more we can do on the education side. I think there's really an appetite between me and the Minister for children to get a closer working relationship on this. We can't expect schools to do it on their own and alone. And there are things that we can do out there in local authorities to help improve outcomes. It's not just about the PDG; it is about, when social services are thinking about a placement, where does the discussion about where children are going to go to school—when does that take place? Do we talk about the placement, move a child and then think, 'Oh my goodness me, what are we going to do about the schooling?' If you can imagine, the school could have been working really, really hard with a pupil to get them in a good place, to get them being able to access the curriculum, and then social services decide that the placement is being changed. So, we potentially lose all of that. So, a greater involvement in education and better linked-up working in local authorities will help us with this. It can't be just the job of the PDG. If we think we can crack this with just PDG, then we're being delusional. It has to be a cross-government approach at a national level, and at a local government level as well, to get this right. Sometimes, data protection—how can we break down some of these barriers between, you know, the school doesn't need to, schools shouldn't see, the entire social services report? Well, maybe the school does need to see some of that background information if they're going to have an impact for that child. So, there's more work to do, but it cannot be just the job of education on its own if we're going to make a difference, nor can it just be the job of the PDG to make a difference for those children.
Lynne Neagle AM: Thank you. Julie's got some more questions on the impact on adopted and looked-after children.
Julie Morgan AM: Yes, before I go on to those, I just wanted to support, really, what Mark was saying about adopted children and how important it is, I think, that the adoptive parents feel able to speak to the school and to give information. Because certainly any evidence we've had from adoptive parents, and generally knowing about what adoptive parents do feel, is that they often feel that there's a degree of a lack of sensitivity in the school about the issues of adoption. I would certainly support some move towards ensuring that the atmosphere was open in a way that would encourage them to realise that it would be a help for the children if there was an awareness in the school. So, I just wanted to really reinforce that.
Kirsty Williams AM: Yes, and that would chime with what I hear from many adoptive parents. I'm just trying to be sensitive by saying we can't force people to divulge this information if they don't want to.
Julie Morgan AM: No, but they need to be given the opportunity.
Kirsty Williams AM: Yes, you're right. We need to make sure that those parents feel that they can discuss this with school leaders and classroom teachers and explore how best those individual children can be supported, and how best we can support parents. Because, again—and I've said this a lot—after the quality of teaching, the second biggest impact on a child's educational outcome will be parental engagement. So, being able to create an environment where adoptive parents feel very confident and able to talk about their children's education is absolutely crucial if we're going to get that parental engagement that we need for all of our children.
Julie Morgan AM: Yes. Thank you. Going on to looked-after children, you say that the latest data on looked-after children's attainment is extremely disappointing. Can you expand on that and what effect the PDG has had in this result, or not had?
Kirsty Williams AM: Well, there's no getting away from it: the way in which we currently measure outcomes for looked-after children, the results are not good enough. It's a source of huge concern to me that we need to do better for those children. That's why officials are engaging with the group that David Melding is chairing, to make sure that education is integral to that group and it's not lost sight of. There's a discussion to be had about the cohort, whether it's right and correct to compare looked-after children to the main cohort, or whether these statistics are useful in any way. Sometimes as well—this is not to make an excuse because, as I've said in my paper, it's extremely disappointing, but sometimes it can be really difficult. Because the cohort sometimes can be very, very small, it can swing the statistics to look perhaps more dramatic.
Julie Morgan AM: I think, generally, when you look at how looked-after children do—
Kirsty Williams AM: It's not good.
Julie Morgan AM: —in a much wider evaluation, they're not doing well, are they?
Kirsty Williams AM: They're not doing well. So, that's why we've got the review, the independent review, into the impact of the PDG in this area. This is why Steve is doing the work that he is doing with the regional consortia because, clearly, at the moment, we are not doing what we need to do for that particular cohort of children. I would not make any bones about that at all.
Steve Davies: I think we will not move away from the fact that these children need good GCSEs to gain employment, so we'll continue to measure that. I think we need to look at more nuanced evaluations of the data at a lower level. So, for example, there were significant improvements in terms of PDG pupils who got three and four good GCSEs but didn't get past the threshold. That's not to cover anything that is not working in terms of improvement, but we will look at the full range and still hold on to the fact that we have to look at a measure that relates to the likelihood of these children going on to further education and training.
Julie Morgan AM: And then just one more question about the exclusion rates amongst looked-after children. They are, I understand, over six times more likely to be given a fixed-term exclusion. So, is there any way of trying to address this? Is the PDG used for anything to do with exclusions?
Kirsty Williams AM: We can look at exclusions. We also have to read across about how the whole system works, not just the PDG element of the system. So, we know, for example, that 66 per cent of looked-after learners have some additional learning need, so we can't just look at it in terms of this particular source of funding; we have to look at it at a wider level of support. So, given that the majority of those children will have an ALN, how can we make sure that our new ALN legislation and our new ALN regime meets the needs of these children? So, I think what we're looking at, again, is to say that it can't be just the job of the PDG. That's there as an additional level of support, but actually, we've got to get our ALN right. Unless we get our ALN right, lots and lots of these children are not going to get the support that they need day in, day out via that system. We do know that sometimes, if we're not addressing ALN, then we're not addressing behaviour issues that then potentially lead to an expulsion or potentially lead to non-attendance. So, we've got to look at it in the round and recognise the connections between the sometimes quite complex needs that these children have within the school setting, that are not just as a result of the fact that they're looked after; they have other needs as well.
Steve Davies: And investment in well-being—
Kirsty Williams AM: Absolutely. Steve is reminding me that that's why well-being is part of the national mission—to address issues around supporting children with their well-being, which is a way of keeping them in school.