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.
I think, generally, when you look at how looked-after children do—
It's not good.
—in a much wider evaluation, they're not doing well, are they?