I think it's probably true to say that secondary schools have a greater challenge than primary schools generally in terms of preparedness for the new curriculum. I think that's why we welcomed the phasing in of the new curriculum. With any sort of education reform, you've got that danger of people wanting to see change as soon as possible on the one hand, and on the other hand you need time to pilot things, to make sure that people have the right professional learning and make sure that there's opportunity for evaluation and thinking and so forth. So, we've got to get that balance right.
Sorry, that could be difficult to do if a school doesn't have money to create that space, couldn't it?
Yes. You raised two issues, I think. One, about the difference between primary and secondary: I think what I'm saying there is I think the fact that the new curriculum is going to be brought in for all the years in primary, but it's going to be phased in year by year for secondary is a recognition of that difference. In terms of funding, probably everyone in this room, and certainly me included, would like to see more money for the education system—any educationalist would like to see that. But, you know, that is a decision for local and central Government to decide how much they can afford. I think there is an argument for saying that the funding has become more challenging for schools over time.
Can I ask, just to keep it on track, are you finding that that's having an impact on secondary schools particularly—their ability to make space to get their heads around the curriculum?