The track record I'm talking about is across the board, so it's very difficult to think of anything that's actually got worse over the last three or four years, so it's difficult to say that standards of provision is slipping. It might not be improving as quickly as we would like, but the purpose of major curriculum and, more generally, educational reform is to make sure that we do get a more substantial sort of improvement. I think we should congratulate the profession for the work they've been doing. A large number of schools and teachers and leaders have been part of preparing the new curriculum and all the associated work, as well as doing the day job. I think their commitment and their engagement with curriculum reform, and engagement with wider education reform, is to be congratulated. So, I think going forward, we must make sure that that is continued; that this process that's called co-construction—engaging with the profession, making sure that they're behind all the changes—continues. I think that's what's going to make sure that we don't see any slippage.
Okay, and on that point of comparing year on year, we will be able to make those comparisons legitimately then?
Yes, certainly, in terms of our inspection outcomes and our inspection work, yes.
Okay. That's great, thank you. Can I just ask you then about the difference in preparedness between primary and secondary schools, which I've just mentioned previously, and also what your views are on the impact of funding for schools on that as well? Because we're in a situation where a number of primary schools have got surplus funds, sometimes that's because of end of year additional funds just being magicked up, but there is a serious worry that so many secondary schools are in deficit and that, overall, secondary schools are in deficit. Is there a correlation between those two positions, that secondary schools may be less ready for this than primary schools?