Okay, yes, we'll look forward to receiving that further information from you. Mark.
Could I just ask a follow-up to a response that we had last week when we had the EAS consortium in, amongst others? They told us that the specific grant—the pupil deprivation grant—principally for looked-after children, they were responsible for, and that certainly the vast bulk of that was spent on a specific programme, aimed not at LACs specifically, but at all children considered vulnerable at times of transition, particularly into year 7. Does that strike you as an appropriate use of that grant?
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.