I think transition is appropriate—that's quite sensible, but clearly if the grant is for looked-after children, it should be spent on looked-after children.
Are there any other comments on that approach? I think, to take up what EAS has said, there were difficulties about having particular programmes aimed specifically at individual looked-after children, and it was felt that they would benefit vulnerable children, who had more transitions between schools perhaps than others. Is that a sufficient link to justify how that grant is spent? I think this is really in the wider context of how much schools need to make sure this grant goes towards the group it's specified for, and to what extent it is acceptable to blur the boundaries of that and perhaps this is just an example of a higher degree of blurring than some others.
I don't know enough about this particular initiative to comment, but I would have thought that looked-after children is a very small group and if you were to blur it that much, then it wouldn't be very targeted. I would have thought that if the grant is specifically for looked-after children, it should be more targeted, but I don't know the details.
Just following up on another point, I think you said that the 'PLASS' data—. I apologise that I'm not familiar with the abbreviation, but could you explain if anything was being done to address previously looked-after children who are now adopted and seeking to ensure that they are measured to that data to allow proper tracking. Is that work that's in hand, do you know? Could you just clarify for me the 'PLASS' description and what information system that that refers to?