Well, we do, actually. We do. Our evidence, as I said, is that, when it is implemented properly, pupils do actually gain from it. But we're not imposing it, and what we're saying is that headteachers are not necessarily understanding it. I think there is quite a lot of jargon around it. I was just looking in the annual report. Quite unusually, in this section, we have had to actually explain some of the technical terms, like 'continuous provision'. So that's, I think, one of the reasons why people don't understand it fully. That's why we did produce this quite substantial bit of work, trying to unpack what this actually means in practice and giving a lot of good examples of the practice.
You referred to evidence of this approach working. Given the timing of when it was brought in and where we are now, has that really had time to distil through the system and give compelling evidence that this approach works better than more traditional approaches?
I think it has, to be fair. I think this has, because we're talking about a lot of developmental work related to the foundation phase prior to 2010, but it became compulsory for all schools to deliver it from 2010 onwards. So, that gives enough time for children to have been through the whole of the foundation phase onto key stage 2, and we can see the effect of it. In the schools where there is good practice in the foundation phase, we can see the effect when we inspect on key stage 2 children.
So, would you be confident about this, in the next few years, feeding through into an improvement in Programme for International Student Assessments, rather than a further deterioration?