 How do we move from co-construction to ownership? We started this journey, but as we move forward from today, at the end of today, I want to talk about next steps. But it is about going from ... We won't get satisfied 100% of the people in this room. I do want to embark on that journey and continue that journey of shifting from co-construction. Rydych chi'n gael eich gwneud, rwy'n gweithio'r diolog y cyfnodau, rydych chi'n gwneud, rydych chi'n gweithio'r propozol, yr alternative propozol, ond ydy yn cyfnod, rydych chi'n gweithio'r gweithio. Roi ddweud. Roeddwn i'n gwneud, Borodau. Ond ydych chi'n gwneud, Ilein, ddeithig y Chyflodiwr Fyloedd Cymru. Roeddwn i'n gweithio'r swyddfaedd yr unig. Roeddwn i'n gweithio'r cyfrifiad sy'n cyfrifiad. I know that number of you did have a little, you know, kind of peak. Can I just ask you now to resist from doing that? Otherwise, you're not going to listen to what I'm going to say or indeed, you know, Hugh and Maureen. Before I go into the presentation on, you know, what could we do to replace, you know, level two inclusive? I spent some time last night just reflecting on yesterday. And I just want to share with you those reflections. I haven't captured everything, obviously, that was said yesterday. I think it's just important to actually set some context, you know, on the scene. So I'll share that with you. So I think the key message and Steve alluded to that only a few moments ago is that you're asking for a model based upon trust and the model that can address and look at capacity building. And then within that a wide range of indicators certainly around well-being. Schools as learning organisations based upon a broader curriculum and indeed, you know, the four purposes. Not focused on key stage four examination results but actually captures the quality of teaching and learning that goes in your school across the whole school. So what matters at year seven, year eight, year nine, year 10, not just what matters at key stage four based on the context and the community of your school. You've asked and we had a good discussion yesterday around value added. And then we finished with conclusions from you around not wanting a single indicator, a single number or a single colour to make a judgment about your school. And all of that is against the backdrop of what we heard from some of our speakers yesterday. So I think it was Steve Mundley who mentioned not having a blizzard of measures. Being aware of the ecosystem and if we do something over here, there will be an unintended consequence over there. Based upon co-construction, and I think that's been the theme of yesterday and will certainly be the theme of this morning, a system that drives collaboration and competition and also based upon peer review and verification. That's Mike and a brief summing up of yesterday. And for me, they are short, a medium term challenges and goals. And I think a lot of this, certainly quite a bit of it, we need to start and pick in over the coming weeks and months as we start our work. And when I say our, I mean our as in everybody in this room, as we work with OECD and Estyn to start developing that national self evaluation framework. And our inaugural first meeting takes place next week and then we'll need to think about how we can then engage with you. So that's my reflections on yesterday. And as Steve mentioned only moments ago and indeed yesterday, we do have the challenge of today and today being the level two inclusive. And before I go into the presentation, I just want to share with you a number of givens. And I think these are very, very important. We did hear yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary about a fundamental review. It is fundamental. Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. We have developed some initial thinking working with a number of head teachers in the room today. We have shared that thinking. We have refined it as a group. We've shared it with our key partners. We've shared it with professional associations and we keep tinkering and changing our thinking along that. None of what we're going to present today is policy. None of it is set in stone. It's our thoughts and ideas what could replace level two inclusive. And we want your feedback on that. So it's not set in stone and certainly not policy intention. It is transitional and interim. I think that's key. And what we will discuss today, I think, has got to be based around what we discussed yesterday. So it's going to be part of that wider national self-evaluation framework and verification. So we have worked with a fair number of head teachers, both primary and indeed secondary. And in terms of what have you told us about current performance measures? And none of what you see on the screen behind me is going to come as any surprise. So you're telling us that currently performance measures are narrowing choice of curriculum, particularly around current cap nine, what goes in the current cap nine is rather prescriptive. That's the feedback we've had from you. And then as a result of that, a number of qualifications and subjects are being downgraded as far as performance measures are concerned. They're not important. Steve mentioned earlier about the predominance of the CD borderline. And if you actually look at the historical data over the last eight or nine years and you look at our performance at A star C, we have seen a steady upward trajectory. If you then look at a number of subjects and I'll take mathematics as an example, if you actually look at the historical data for mathematics and you apply that to A star A and B, then that trajectory line is not going upwards. It might be a slight increase or indeed in some cases at a national level. It's being at the flat line. You've also told us, and we touched on this yesterday, benchmarking and quartiling is driving competition when we're talking about a collaborative self-improving system. Indicators not being inclusive. And the system and schools being driven by performance measures. I think that's the stark reality. That's what you've told us. So then, if you flip that around on the other side, in terms of the discussions that we've had and again reflected yesterday, you want to see a system where performance measures are inclusive and focused on the needs of the individual pupil. They drive an inclusive and diverse curriculum benefit of pupils. Greater autonomy for schools. So you've actually said, let us look at our own school context and develop our own performance evaluation indicators based upon the context of our school. But you've also been saying to us that there is a need for national indicators, possibly around English language, Welsh language, science and mathematics. We've spent quite a bit of time yesterday talking about the importance of wellbeing and that needs to be included in any system that we come up with. And also around progression and value-added. We've got a session in about an hour on that. So that's what you want to see. This is the current system. This is what you want to see. In terms of making that happen, that's certainly not going to be easy and straightforward. So in terms of moving forward, we need to develop a system that is fair, coherent, transparent and proportionate, recognises all children in the system based upon self-evaluation. And I think that was a key message that came out of yesterday. Looks at progress and the value-added and mixed between evaluation and performance measures. What do we mean by evaluation and assessment? What do we mean by accountability? Certainly a system that encourages breadth of curriculum drives improvement across the whole system and not just that narrow focus on the CD border. And again, it was quite not surprising, but actually quite reassuring that when I did the reflection, and these slides are a number of months old, but a suite of indicators are not just that one colour number, that one measure. So those are the challenges. So what we have been doing, we have been working, as I said, with a number of you in the room. We have been working with professional associations, directors of education, consultia, just to develop our thinking around this. We're now going to share with you our thinking, and I'm going to ask you still to resist looking at your envelopes, please. And just to repeat myself, none of it is set in stone. We'll take you through our methodology and our thinking. And then when we finish, we certainly welcome your feedback as part of your group discussion. Thanks very much, and you. Right well, good morning to you all. Thank you very much. I'll be doing my presentation in Welsh. So if you need your headsets, if you just pop them on now, just to make sure that everybody can hear me. Now I'm going to try and build on a little about what you've heard already this morning. And what we also heard yesterday, of course, we've got a clear situation about where we're at at the moment. And we've got a situation that's a bit less clear about where we need to be by the time we have our new curriculum developed. But we've got robust principles in place for that. However, in the meantime, as you've heard, we've got a period now, a bridging period. So what I'm going to do this morning is to share some of the ideas. And as I said, these are just some of the ideas for the transition period. These are ideas that have been developed jointly with groups of headteachers, and there's an opportunity for me to say thank you very much to those headteachers who have been working closely with us. But as has been emphasised before, they have not been set in stone. So we need to go on a little journey about where we are and where we need to be. But we need to focus today specifically on that transitional period. It's an opportunity to look at how we look at GCSE results data. And also, as you've heard from, I will hear from Steve in the next presentation, we'll be looking at that idea of added value and measuring progression, which is one of the very important things that has been emphasised. We need to look at progression of individual's pupils as we move on. Now, the principles behind all of these has already been explained. You've heard from Graham that we are looking at self-evaluation for teaching, not self-evaluation for just looking good. And I think that is an important principle. Yes, any government has to have a national accountability framework, and that was emphasised by Steve Munby and others yesterday. But we also need to develop local ideas. We need leaders to think about the meaning of internal accountability, which is suitable to the context, which is suitable to the pupils, and also suitable to the vision and ideas and the individual pupils of those schools. Now, there is a Mars bar available for anyone who recognises this school. I've picked out a school quite randomly, an anonymous school, but you might recognise it. It has been chosen randomly, as I've said, but it is a real school. So, if anyone would like to come to me later if you recognise your school or recognise someone else's school, congratulations. I think Steve Vincent has got two Mars bars in his pocket as a prize. Now, I'm not going to pause very long on this, but we've already discussed the deficiencies of using just one indicator. Steve Munby emphasised yesterday that anything we have to do in terms of an accountability framework has to be valid, it has to be dependable, it has to be fair, it has to be clear why we're doing it, and that we've dealt with the unintentional results that arise from the method that we are currently using. If you look at those tests and set them against the same indicator, the L2 inclusive, are they inclusive? Are they fair? Are they dependable? Is it clear why we're doing it? What are the unintentional consequences? Well, I don't have to tell you this morning that that indicator, as one indicator that rains over everything else, falls short in a number of those individual tests. And as a result, we have come to this situation here in Wales now that even though there are obvious improvements that have been issued and that we can be very, very positive on the CD border, there are obvious deficiencies and there is a different value placed on some people's progression against other people's progression. And you can present this information more than one way. You've already seen similar charts and if you ask the question that Steve asked yesterday, how goes it for our children? Well, does that graph there on its own? Does that tell us how goes it for our children? Well, no, it can't. No set of figures can do that. So we have to come up with something that is slightly different. Now, when we are proposing ideas and I emphasise that these are just ideas and proposals and you'll see how they are placed in your schools later. But I emphasise these are ideas only. They are proposed measures, proposals. They are initial proposals. Will they work? Well, they have to take us on a journey from where we are now to where we want to be. And there is a suggestion very clearly here that we need to keep our emphasis, that important emphasis on literacy, numeracy and science. Now, we talk about bringing in a measure that deals with an average points score for each one of those specific individual areas, literacy, numeracy and science. They are important areas. They are areas that we have to show improvement and progression. But by bringing in a points score system, we'll be looking at giving equal value to each achievement from each individual pupil. So that gives you three foundations, if you like, in that context. The suggestion is that everyone receives an indicator. They look at performance against those three. But we also intend to split the cohort into three, which shows the average score for the top three, the middle three and the bottom third. So the top third, middle third and bottom third. And there'll be score point system for those three. And the same level will be done on a national level, looking at Wales, looking at the top third, the best, looking at the middle third and the lowest third, looking at the performance of all three. And the suggestion we are making this morning is that is a major step forward from where we were in the previous two slides. But it's important to emphasise, as Graham said yesterday, data is not the evidence. However much data you've got, data is not the evidence base. It is part of it. So that's the initial proposal. That is the core, the foundation, if you like, numeracy, literacy and science. And they have been defined up there for you. Best of English language, Welsh language, English literature or Welsh literature. Best of mathematics, numeracy and best of science. Now I know that there will be a lot of questions and it's all well and good for you to raise those questions. But let me just run through the other ideas as well. That might possibly give you a bit more context. So that gives you three, but there are six others if you look at the score of nine caps. And the other six will be open to individual local choice. But they have to obviously come from the GCSE approved by Qualifications Wales. But that is a choice. The other six are a choice. And they are an opportunity for you to show in schools that those wider indicators do reflect the context of your school and the extensive curriculum that is offered in your school. And that will also form part of the self-evaluation toolkit and validation that was discussed in the sessions yesterday. We are also proposing as well that every school will offer the skills challenge as a curriculum choice. And the measures for that will be on a point score. And also they'll be splitting into the top third, the middle third and the bottom third, just as I described earlier. But even though there are dangers here, of course. And one is very aware that there is a lot of data in the pot compared to just one figure that tries to say everything. But professional opinion of people who work in schools will be an integral part. So professional opinion will be an integral part of the self-evaluation process in creating and developing the toolkit that has been referred to yesterday. Then in terms of the Welsh language. In addition to the nine caps, there is also a proposal in the transitional period that we develop an additional indicator to support the Welsh language. Whether that's first language Welsh or second language Welsh. Again, this will be based on the same principle. So this principle will be very important. It'll be based on the points score system for learners. And I should have emphasised as well. I missed that in the earlier part. But we also emphasised that we'll continue to that emphasis on free school meal pupils and the rest of the cohort. So free school meals will still be included. We'll be looking at the top third, middle third and the bottom third for the Welsh language. Now the situation at the moment we got first language Welsh and we've got second language Welsh. Now there's been a clear movement within successful futures and within the literacy, AOLE for literacy. They will now move into the continuum of a Welsh language. But as I said, this is a transitional period that we're in at the moment. So these are just ideas and suggestions at the moment. So if you then graph these data, these scores, they're a bit small, but they are in your packs when you'll open them later. But you will see for English, for example, these are results for free school meals on a point score, non free school meals, then everyone, then the top third, the middle third and the bottom third. And all of these, this is just English on the left and maths on the right. Now each section of information gives you more information about the previous figure. And it gives you more context. It doesn't generalise too much. Of course, there is a danger as soon as you take any average scores, you will generalise. But I hope that this is a much more robust system than what we've seen historically. The same thing on the science. And when you look at the other nine cap, I don't need to explain that. I won't go through all of them in terms of the strength, the comparative strength there. But there is a national Welsh level, of course. And what's not there, we recognise this immediately and this might be something we discuss. How do we benchmark? And how do we look at an individual school in this context? But this at the moment, this is not an effort to benchmark. Perhaps we don't need to do that after some of the comments that we've had over the last few days. But we will be looking at progression later on. And that, of course, does give some context. Then for the Welsh language, whether it's first language Welsh or second language Welsh, you've got the same type of process. And this will support the development of the Welsh language over the next few years when we will reach the position, when we will have the continuum for Welsh language with the new curriculum. Now something else that hasn't been included here, which has been picked up yesterday, is that these are results for one year. Now, it's very important that we look at a three-year period for the state term. So don't forget that when you look at it. I'm not trying to suggest that this is just one year that we're looking at in this context. And then you can, of course, look at strengths and weaknesses within schools. And if you look at these figures, you know, I think it's quite interesting sometimes. If you look at the bottom school on the table, school G, you will see for all pupils in 2016 and 2017 that the school is performing strongly against the all pupils. That is the average cap to nine point score. But if you look at the bottom, middle and top, you will see that the top and middle perform very strongly in school G. But there is a question about why the pupils in the bottom third in the school, it appears that they are not performing as strong as the other schools, A to F. Perhaps there is a clear context that might explain that. It doesn't offer any ideas or any answers, but it throws up a new question compared to just looking at one point.