So, if we look at—level 2 plus is a good example. We know that a relentless focus on that single measure, as a way of judging the system, leads to a set of behaviours in schools. It narrows the focus onto a certain part of the cohort, it narrows the curriculum, when we know that children—
I'm not challenging the fact that you've changed the performance measures—I understand that, and having a broader way of looking is better in the long run. I'm just saying, because there's been this change, it makes it more of a challenge—whilst accepting why you've made the changes, but it does present more of a challenge, presumably, because you have to look at more indicators, and take evidence from different places. But I take it that you're confident that the trajectory is going in the right way.
Yes, I think we are making improvements. But you're right: it does make it more challenging. But those changes are being made for the right reasons, as I said, whether that be at level 2 plus. Look at English literature. I understand why perhaps a performance measure around English was introduced, but the effect of that was that significant numbers of children—and, it must be said, usually children who are entitled to free school meals—were suddenly not sitting English literature GCSE. We've changed that performance measure, and guess what? Last year, we saw a significant increase in the number of children that were sitting English literature GCSE. For standards of literacy and oracy, I think studying literature is really, really important, before we even get into the joy of introducing children to the written word and the love of reading. So, we make changes. Yes, it causes challenges, but we're making those changes because we believe that they are in the best interest of children, and that has to trump ease of comparison.
Siân.