7 October 2025

(10.01 am)

Ms Dobbin: My Lady, the first witness today is Ms Amanda Stocks. She appears remotely and she will be asked questions on behalf of the Inquiry by Mr Lee.

Lady Hallett: Thank you, Ms Dobbin.

Mr Lee.

Mr Lee: My Lady, may I please call Ms Amanda Stocks.

The Witness: Good morning.

Mr Lee: Ms Stocks, can I check, please, that you can hear me and you can see me?

The Witness: Yes, I can hear you.

The Usher: Good morning, Ms Stocks. I’m the usher. Can you hear me?

Lady Hallett: Ms Stocks appears to have frozen.

She’s back.

The Witness: Apologies, the connection froze then a second.

Ms Amanda Stocks

MS AMANDA STOCKS (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Mr Lee: Thank you, Ms Stocks.

You have provided a witness statement to the Inquiry dated 25 April 2025. And the reference we have for that is INQ000652258. Can you confirm, please, that the contents of that statement are true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Ms Amanda Stocks: I can.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, if we can start, please, with your professional background. You are currently the head teacher of Stirling Inclusion Support Service, which is a school that provides specialist provision for children in Stirling in Scotland, and at the start of the pandemic you were working at Stirling Inclusion Support Service as a principal teacher, and in August 2021, you became the head teacher; is that correct?

Ms Amanda Stocks: That’s correct, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you have any other teaching experience prior to joining that service?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yes, so I’ve been a teacher for 23 years. I qualified in 2002 and worked within a mainstream secondary school in England for a period of time. I’ve held several roles alongside being a teacher, such as a head of year, I’ve been a special educational needs and disability coordinator, an assistant head and also the designated safeguarding lead, before moving up to Scotland.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, thank you for that. I now want to move to the type of specialist provision your service provides to children. You explain in your statement that within Stirling, the local authority has 38 primary schools and seven secondary schools. There are nine additional support needs specialist provisions, four at primary and five at secondary, with the majority based in mainstream schools and one standalone specialist school.

Please can you explain the specialist provision that your service provides to children, and how this provision of education differed from that provided in a mainstream school?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yes. So we have three bases within Stirling Inclusion Support Service and those bases are schools for young people with the highest level of need. We support young people and also the families, in the widest sense, of young people who have additional support needs particularly relating to social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. We also have an outreach leg within the service, as well, so we do support all the nurseries and schools, both primary and secondary, across the Stirling local authority, but before those young people with the highest levels of need, we do provide base support, provision support for those young people.

Counsel Inquiry: And, Ms Stocks, you say the service works with families. So in what way do you work with families?

Ms Amanda Stocks: So we look after young people and their families holistically, we have a dedicated family support worker, and the families are an integral part of the work that we do with – our young people.

Counsel Inquiry: How many children both at primary and secondary were attending your service at the start of 2020?

Ms Amanda Stocks: So we have capacity for up to ten young people – ten children at primary and 18 at secondary. The statement that I provided related to the primary young people, and we had nine at that point, during the start of the pandemic.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, you’ve already referred to the children who attend your service as having the highest level of need. Can you explain, please, how the characteristics and backgrounds of the children who attend your service differ from those characteristics of children who attended mainstream schools?

Ms Amanda Stocks: So, I would say that all our young have additional support needs, as there are many young people in mainstream schools that have additional support needs. But through assessment and through discussions with the team around a child, and liaison with other professionals, a decision is made with regards to whether a young people needs more intensive levels of support.

So, the children that attend Stirling Inclusion Support Service do not necessarily need a formal diagnosis. We work on presenting behaviours, and we have young people with various diagnoses and some with none whatsoever. So we can work with young people that have autism, for example, foetal alcohol syndrome, we work with young people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as well; but it’s not a requirement for the support at Stirling Inclusion Support Service.

Counsel Inquiry: And how would a child enter your service? Would that be by way of a referral?

Ms Amanda Stocks: So, there is two ways of entry. It could be by a placing request that a parent or carer – that would put in as a request for the service. Quite often we work with young people on an outreach capacity, and the team around the child and the parents and the carers are integral to that team, may consider that more support is required than can be provided in a mainstream school.

At that point, assessment reports, minutes of meeting, are put into the GIRFEC resource group, where there are professionals that sit on that panel, and then a decision is made and a recommendation is made whether a provision placement would be appropriate.

Parents and carers then have the ability to accept that or not.

Counsel Inquiry: And, Ms Stocks, you say in your statement that 75% of primary children prior to the pandemic were care experienced, and you define that as someone who has been or is currently in care or who is looked after at any stage of their life.

Would it be right, therefore, that the children who attended your service would receive some form of social care support?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yes. A vast – the vast proportion of them. And you can see from my witness statement that we have a significantly higher than average of young people within our service that are children who have experienced care.

Counsel Inquiry: Would that mean, therefore, that these children would have suffered, in the past, previous disruptions to their education?

Ms Amanda Stocks: It is quite likely, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, at paragraph 1 of your statement, you refer, when talking about the children, that many have additional vulnerabilities as they are care experienced. Is there anything you want to add to that?

Ms Amanda Stocks: I think it can be very individual to the young people as to what their vulnerability is. It can take many different forms. Obviously social work have a way of identifying the different types of trauma that young people have suffered. It could be that some have endured poverty, and – and poverty in the widest sense. It might be rural or working poverty as well. It could be medical trauma that they’ve suffered from or it could be family circumstances which meant that they’ve suffered vulnerability and trauma.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, you’ve made reference to those additional vulnerabilities in your evidence today, and you explain in your statement that, prior to the pandemic, staff members would visit homes to built relationships. Why is that so important?

Ms Amanda Stocks: All the work that we do, we’re very proud to be trauma informed, and all the work that we do is based on nurture and relationships. We work therapeutically and quite often we work with the people who have the best relationships with people and we want to broaden that therapeutic web, and so we’d use existing positive relationships to transfer on to new relationships.

We want our young people to be safe in their environments and secure in their relationships, so we meet young people where they’re at, and that can involve working at different locations, where they’re community based, and sometimes home based as well.

So it’s about getting it right on an individual basis for our children and young people.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, finally, just before we move on to March 2020, you’ve just told the Inquiry how you work. Can I ask, please, that you provide a high-level overview of what the delivery of a bespoke programme looked like in practice.

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yes, so that’s quite difficult to answer in a succinct and high-level approach, because it can look different based on the individual needs of the young people. We take into account their interests, their needs, what it means for them to be safe, and so we work very differently. We might use a lot of experiential learning, like the use of the farm and animal therapy. We might look at music or art. We use quite a lot of sport in order to engage and provide therapeutic support for young people.

It is hard to explain on a high level because it’s dependent on need and assessment and meeting young people where they are at and how we can move them forward.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, if we can now move, please, to March 2020. You explain in your statement that:

“During the school closures [from 23] March 2020, the primary bases [of Stirling Inclusion Support Services] were not open to children.”

And you go on to explain that the local authority had opened hubs for children of essential workers and those children that are deemed vulnerable.

Did your pupils attend the local authority hubs?

Ms Amanda Stocks: There was a proportion of our young people that did attend the authority hubs. Again, it looked slightly different for some of our young people because we used existing staff and existing relationships within those hubs. So the hubs was a venue, and the work and the relationships were consistent, which was absolutely vital for our young people. And it was based on need. We very quickly established new ways of working with parents and carers, and also, we listened intently to what they said, and based on the need, then, there were some young people that worked in the hub.

I think it’s probably quite important to think about the context around March 2020 and the public messaging that was very definite and very definitive about staying at home. And our parents and carers were very keen to follow public advice, and there was a level of anxiety and uncertainty expressed by parents and carers and young people around this time. So it was in discussion with themselves, within the wider team around the child as well, as to what would be the most appropriate setting for their learning.

Counsel Inquiry: And Ms Stocks, you may already have provided the answer, but my next question was going to be: for those children that didn’t attend the hubs, can you help us as to why, given they would have fallen within the definition of being vulnerable?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yes. So it was very much dependent on need and the individual context of our children and their families or the care placements, as well. So learning was always provided, but that would have been provided either remotely, either by visits, doorstep visits, garden visits, learning packages. So it was very much taking a lead from the team around the child as to what was the most appropriate environment for that learning to take place in.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, I’m going to come on to online learning soon, but can I just check that I’ve got it right, then. So from March 2020, following school closures from 23 March 2020, some children attended the local authority hubs and some children stayed at home and were supported in a different way?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yes, that’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: You explain in your witness statement that bespoke programmes were adapted to try and maximise attendance and engagement. Can you help us with what was happening with attendance and engagement during the pandemic that resulted in you having to make those adaptations?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yes, so initially we’d moved on to the use of Google Meet and did remote learning virtually like we did – like I am doing here today. And that – I think young people engaged in that initially because there was a novelty about this, it was all kind of new and exciting. Formalised processes had to be put in place and we quickly then moved on to Google Classrooms alongside physical resources being provided and dropped off at their homes.

We saw often that that novelty kind of wore off a little bit. We saw it became slightly more difficult for our young people to engage in that remote learning, so it happened in many different ways; via telephone calls, via Google Classrooms, via learning packs, and there was – obviously there was the visits, as well, by Inclusion Support workers and the wider team. And that’s what happened on a remote basis. Obviously, there was direct teaching in the hub.

So it looked different for every individual.

I think, as the first lockdown ensued, as well, we had prioritised literacy, numeracy, health and wellbeing for our young people, but it was supplemented and made bespoke based on their individual interests, so there was interdisciplinary learning as well, and other subject areas, if that was an area of interest as well.

It looked different for every individual, but I think as the lockdown wore on, it became more and more difficult to stay in that engagement in remote learning, and it was that – it was sort of like the definite physical interactions that young people were missing with staff members which led us on to a different approach in the second lockdown.

Counsel Inquiry: And again, Ms Stocks, we’re going to come briefly, if time permits, to the second lockdown. It’s clear from your statement that at March 2020 all children had been provided with or given access to a Chromebook or an iPad at the start of the pandemic. Can you help us why you provided that in March 2020 as opposed to later on in the pandemic?

Ms Amanda Stocks: It would still be available later on in the pandemic as well, but prior to lockdown and the school closure in March 2020, we actually completed an audit for our children, our families and for staff as well. We responded really proactively and really quickly to the news that this may be happening, and so that we were able to ensure that all our young people had access to a device and to Internet connection, as well. The local authority provided MiFi devices, and so as part of the audit, we were able to determine who needed which equipment in order to sustain learning.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, if we can now turn to maintaining relationships. You’ve set out to the Inquiry why it was so important to maintain relationships. Can you set out any headline challenges you faced during the pandemic to maintain those relationships?

Ms Amanda Stocks: I actually think our relationships strengthened during the pandemic – pandemic with our families. We have always had very close relationships. We have small numbers of young people and families that we work with and so that does mean that we’re able to establish really good, positive working relationships quite close with them as well. Immediately, there’d been lots of conversations prior to the lockdown about what it would look like, what communication would look like, telephone calls happened from the very first day. Very quickly, we moved to doorstep visits, as well, in the delivery of free school meals on a twice weekly basis.

So there was several different methods.

The one challenge that we overcame quite quickly, actually, was the use of virtual meetings. We’d never performed virtual team-around-the-child meetings before that point, but by April 2020, every family within the service had had a virtual meeting, and the infrastructure that that brought about brought – was challenging at points, but quickly overcame. We were able to provide one-to-one support for families so that they knew how to use Teams so that they could get online so we could have those conversations.

Our parents and carers told us that at points they felt quite isolated, and at some points – from society, they’d felt quite isolated. And actually, we were the main points of contact. And parents and carers reported strengthened relationships with the school. It became wider conversations than you would have, rather than just about what was going on and the education, schooling. There was lots of conversations about what was happening during the day, what they were eating for their dinner and their tea and things like that, as well. So relationships really strengthened and parents and carers report that to us.

And I think we have really good, open relationships with our parents and carers, but some were, because the relationships have improved even further, they’re even more transparent. And that allowed us to provide additional support if and when it was needed.

Counsel Inquiry: And Ms Stocks, you’ve mentioned having daily phone calls with parents and carers and you’ve outlined their concerns. What were the children saying? Was anything being fed back to you as to how they were coping with the pandemic and not coming to the service or not learning in the usual way?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yeah. And it was a mixed bag as you can imagine. Some young people, the novelty value of not attending school for a point was something that they enjoyed. Other young people reported that they felt boredom at times, that they felt isolated. They weren’t going out and playing with their peers in the community like they would be able to previously. There was a much more focus for young people on being online and gaming, and the challenges that that brought within the family home.

So we had frequent communication with our children alongside the parents and carers, as well, and they were always really open and honest. They did talk about anxiety throughout the course of the pandemic, and how that was impacting on them individually, as well.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, just on the topic of children spending more time online, you say at paragraph 13.1 of your witness statement that parents and carers reported that their children were accessing inappropriate material online, or accessing inappropriate games. How did you respond to that?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yeah, some parents and carers reported that. They reported that they were online for more than they would like them to be, and they reported that they’d purchased things online that brought financial difficulties within the family, or that they were playing games that the parents and carers wouldn’t necessarily want them to play. We appointed a digital lead or we nominated somebody as a digital lead throughout the course of the pandemic who was able to remotely support families and children and young people with parental locks, with advice. We were able to signpost them to websites like CEOP and other things like that, as well.

So we ran, sort of, like, one-to-one sessions for our parents and carers in order to support them in that way and that’s a feature that’s continued now into the service and as a result of the pandemic, we have appointed a digital lead since that point.

Counsel Inquiry: And we know, Ms Stocks, that in March 2020, that schools shut. You’ve told the Inquiry that some children stayed at home, some children were attending the hubs. And you’ve outlined in relation to the effectiveness of online learning for the children at your service, that engagement was good but then it wasn’t great after initial success.

From April to January 2021, when the second school closures were implemented, what overall impact was the closure of your service having on the children that were staying at home?

Ms Amanda Stocks: I think – when we returned to school in August, I think there was an impact in that young people had to be transitioned in differently than they would be at the start of a normal term. For some young people, they were displaying anxiety around the virus, around cleaning, around what was safe, around being around people again, so bespoke transition programmes had to be put in place for individual young people.

In January 2021, we remained open, albeit on shorter hours, and I think that was the right move, moving forward. I think, going back in relation to your question as well, we noticed some young people whose behaviours had changed, their profiles had changed differently, their behaviours that they were displaying changed. They spoke about uncertainty. Some naturally seek out a high five or a hug, physical contact; they weren’t necessarily sure whether that was okay or not.

Primary young people found social distancing really hard as well, so there was confusion and uncertainty around that.

And in terms of the learning, we noticed that our young people – different approaches had to be taken and some required a more play-based curriculum than they previously had experienced.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, you’ve mentioned social distancing so I want to turn to that issue now. You have set out in your statement that, as you’ve just outlined, when children returned to school, infection prevention controls were introduced to limit the spread of Covid-19. Can I ask, therefore, that, in your opinion, how practical and realistic was it to implement infection prevention and control methods amongst your pupils, for example, social distancing, one-way systems, or the wearing of face coverings?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Our whole processes had to change. I have to say, we were really well supported by the local authority in terms of PPE and guidance and risk assessments, which we could adapt. If we required help or support, we were able to speak to somebody and get guidance, help and support around all of that.

Being in quite small settings, one-way systems and things like that weren’t necessarily required like they would be in a large mainstream school as well. We could manage movement on corridors, but we did carefully have to work at that to manage who was working with whom, minimal contacts for staff members. Our service created bubbles, so there was dedicated staff teams for individuals. We tried to minimise the amount of staff working with the number of young people that they were. We had risk assessments and signage on display. We had processes in terms of cleaning and individual resource boxes that took place after individual sessions and working with young people.

It does seem quite surreal now, thinking about how school operates, that that’s how we did operate at that point then, but you can imagine that primary-aged children find social distancing very, very, very difficult, and – and they did quite often come into staff space as well, and it was anxiety provoking for people that that happened, but there was also recognition of – of young people with additional support needs, that also happens as well.

So the young people, the staff team, and also the parents and carers were also really resilient in this and worked through that process. But there were difficulties at time with all that.

Another issue was ventilation as well. And so ventilation had to be in place at all times as well. It meant that heating was on and windows were open during the winter, and additional clothing was provided for schools, and we had to be really creative and – to making sure that all those conditions were met each and every day.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Stocks, finally from me, you say in your statement that the full closure of schools for children of additional support needs is not an option. Is there anything you want to add to that?

Ms Amanda Stocks: Yes. I have to say our local authority invests in Stirling Inclusion Support Service, and invests in us as a trauma-informed organisation. And “trauma-informed” is not and should not be a moniker that is used by establishments and authorities; it is something that should be embedded in – that permeates throughout policy and practice throughout. That involves highly skilled staff who nurture the young people, who provide challenge for the young people.

And it answers the question for me whether teachers will be in existence going into the future. We cannot be replaced by robots. We – that nurture, that relationship, is absolutely vital for all learning, and therefore the face-to-face element, direct teaching of young people, especially with additional support needs, is absolutely vital moving forward.

They need the predictability of relationships, of routines, of structures. Yes, it might be with mitigations and changes, but that is absolutely vital, and that needs to be embedded. And if any lesson for me is learnt after the pandemic, it’s about the importance of trauma-informed practice, of nurture, the importance of relationships to support our young people.

Mr Lee: Ms Stocks, those are all my questions.

My Lady, do you have any questions?

Questions From the Chair

Lady Hallett: Ms Stocks, you obviously did an excellent job in Stirling supporting the children you care for and their families. Was this a particular Stirling initiative or was this something that you were aware was spread around Scotland in other areas? Or are you just an exemplar?

Ms Amanda Stocks: I think I’m an exemplar. I couldn’t answer that question truthfully and honestly. I think everybody had different approaches. I think in Stirling we are a very tight authority, we work very closely together and support is always available. I feel very fortunate for my service to be allowing the work that we do do within our service, as well, and that was in place pre-Covid, during Covid, and absolutely after Covid as well.

Lady Hallett: Well, thank you very much for all you did. I’m sure the families and the children and young people were extraordinarily grateful for what you and your colleagues did to help and support them.

The Witness: Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Obviously you showed great creativity and flexibility.

The Witness: Thank you. Can I say thank you, as well, for giving young people and their families with additional support needs a voice in this forum. That’s really important that they are heard.

Lady Hallett: Thank you. Thank you very much indeed,

Ms Stocks. Very grateful.

Ms Dobbin. I gather we don’t need to break anymore?

Ms Dobbin: That’s as I understand it too.

The next witness is Mr Lyndon Lewis.

My Lady, can just check that you can see Mr Lewis?

Lady Hallett: I can now.

Ms Dobbin: You can. Excellent.

Mr Lyndon Lewis

MR LYNDON LEWIS (sworn).

Questions From Lead Counsel to the Inquiry for Module 8

Lady Hallett: Thank you for coming along to help us, Mr Lewis.

Ms Dobbin: Mr Lewis, can I ask you to give your full name

to the Inquiry, please.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Lyndon William Lewis.

Lead 8: Now, Mr Lewis, you should have a statement in front of

you that bears the number INQ000649886.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes.

Lead 8: Do you see that? And are you content that the contents

of that statement are true to the best of your knowledge

and belief?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes.

Lead 8: Thank you. Mr Lewis, I think it’s right that you are

the head teacher of Ysgol Hendrefelin; is that correct?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That’s correct.

Lead 8: I hope that I did the pronunciation justice?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Very good.

Lead 8: Now, you’ve been the head teacher of that school since 2019; is that right?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That’s correct.

Lead 8: But I think that you are a teacher of some 36 years’ experience; is that right?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah, about that. No, it is that.

Lead 8: Now, can you just explain, please, a bit about to be your school. I think it’s right that it’s a special educational needs school; is that correct?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes, so it’s a school that serves the borough of Neath Port Talbot, and all of our children at school have additional learning needs.

Do you want me to talk about the variety of needs?

Lead 8: Yes, that would be really helpful.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: So we have a unit with children with autism. We have another unit – and the children with autism, that’s at Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4, so that’s from 11 years old to 16 years old. We have a Key Stage 3 unit with children with moderate learning difficulties. That’s from ages 11 to 14. And we have a moderate learning difficulties unit with Key Stage 4 pupils, that’s ages 14 to 16.

Then we have a unit which is a primary aged unit for

children with social, emotional and behavioural

difficulties. We have another unit on another site

which is a Key Stage 3 unit for children with social,

emotional and behaviour difficulties. Again, that’s

aged 11 to 14. And we have a further site with children

with social, emotional and behaviour difficulties from

the ages of 14 to 16, based in Port Talbot.

Lead 8: And I think it’s right, Mr Lewis, that the children in

your school then range from the age of 3 up to 16; is

that correct?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah, we don’t currently have any children that are,

sort of, 3, 4, 5. However, we can cater for that age

group.

Lead 8: You can. And can you recall whether, during the

pandemic, you had children who were that young or were

the children a bit older?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: The children were a bit older, from 8 onwards.

Lead 8: Eight onwards. And I think it’s right that across all

of your sites you’ve got about 177 children.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That’s correct.

Lead 8: Correct?

And about 102 members of staff?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That’s correct.

Lead 8: And I think almost all of your children have a special

educational needs plan or an individual plan; is that right?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That’s correct.

Lead 8: And a number of your children, roughly about 28, are either looked after by the local authority or in receipt of social care services?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That’s correct.

Lead 8: All right. I’m just going to turn, then, if I may, to the pandemic. Can you remember how far in advance of 18 March 2020 you were aware that schools might close?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: I suppose there were things on the news around that time. We had several meetings with local authority discussing the possibility of schools closing. I think the day, or I think maybe two days before, we were actually told that we are actually going to close.

Lead 8: Yes.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah, so there was lots of rumours, as they say, and lots of things on social media, et cetera. But yeah, but we weren’t officially told until a couple of days before.

Lead 8: All right. And the meetings that you had with the local authority, can you remember now how far in advance of 18 March they were?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: No, I … I’d say it was weeks.

Lead 8: Yes. And in that period of time, had you been able to start planning, then, for the prospect that you might have to – that you might have to pivot how you were going to provide education to children, or prepare for some of them being at home?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah, I suppose it was maybe, sort of, five days in which we – sitting down as a senior group, and thinking: actually, it looks like schools may close and we may close. So we started putting plans together, then, for that. And that was days before we closed.

Lead 8: Yes.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That – yeah.

Lead 8: Sorry, I didn’t mean to cut across you.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Sorry.

Lead 8: And that realisation, or that meeting you had five days beforehand, do you recall whether that was a result of something you were told, was that just a realisation that you came to as a school leader?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: I think we were looking at all eventualities, and so worst-case scenario is that schools would close. So we sort of brainstormed: right, how are we going to deal with this? And how are we still going to educate our children? And what can we do to keep them safe?

So, yes, we started days before. And how we could teach children when they weren’t in school, really. So that’s where we started.

And we put some training in before we left, which were in the last two days, when we were told, “You’re going to close.”

Then we had some training into how to use Google Classrooms and Teams, which I suppose it’s – everybody knows and understands what those things are now, but it was back – back when we didn’t. Then, it was a massive change for our staff.

So we spent – I know it sounds a bit strange, but I met somebody, and I took three of our staff to meet somebody at the – a service station on the M4, who sat there and showed us exactly how to use Google Classrooms and how we could teach others to use it, and then we went back to school and I freed up those three staff to work with each one of our teaching staff over the next two days to show them how to do it. And we started to work a little bit with children and how to use it. But it was – yeah, that was the last two days before we actually knew that we were closing.

Lead 8: So after the announcement was made on 18 March, did your site stay open in order to allow children to come in to school?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes, so we were open for vulnerable pupils to attend. So we closed – we closed for a short while, and then we opened for vulnerable children to attend school.

Lead 8: All right. So are you able to remember now the proportions of children who came in to school as opposed to the children who stayed at home?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: So initially we’re talking probably less than 10% of the children, initially.

Lead 8: In which –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Who were in school.

Lead 8: Right.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Right at the start. Those numbers grew, as time went on.

Lead 8: And do you remember, if we just focus on the first set of school closures for the moment, do you – can you remember now the most amount of – the most number of children you were able to get to come in to school during that period?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: So we’re talking of numbers like, sort of, 15 children, social distancing.

Yes, those sort of numbers at the start.

Lead 8: All right. So the reality was most of your children then were at home; is that right?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes.

Lead 8: And did those children have access to devices in order to be able to make use of the training that your staff had been able to get in the –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Initially, no. Early days. But like I say, as time wore on, more children came in to school, so we had lots of other classes coming in, and numbers on rotation – because of social distancing measures, et cetera. So we had maybe, over the week, that all of the class would be in for half of the week –

Lead 8: Right.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: – and the other half of the class would be in for the other half of the week. Just down to pure space and numbers.

Lead 8: So was that during the first period of school closures, or was that later on?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That was later on.

Lead 8: All right.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: That was – yeah.

Lead 8: And did the children in your school, did they manage to – did they start to get devices?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: We had devices from the local authority, and so we were able, in time, to get devices to every child so that everybody had a device at home that they could work from.

Lead 8: And did that take a while, or did that happen quite quickly?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: It happened fairly quickly.

Lead 8: And then, once children got those devices, what was the engagement with online provision from the school like?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: The engagement for, I would say, our children with autism and our children with moderate learning difficulties, then the engagement was really high. You know, on some mornings it would be 100%, but it would always be high, sort of 80% engagement.

The same with our children from moderate learning difficulties – with moderate learning difficulties.

There was less engagement from children with social, emotional and behaviour difficulties. I think that was the group of young people who were most challenging to get to engage in education remotely.

Lead 8: And was the school able to do anything for those children to try and help them whilst they were at home?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: We – some would engage online. Some wouldn’t. Some preferred to work with pen and paper and work packs. So as a school, we delivered work packs. We delivered laptops. We had dongles from the local authority for those children who could not access the Internet, so – and we visited houses as staff, we took children for walks. We sort of … we had a job of educating them, obviously, but we also felt we had a job of sort of looking after their wellbeing as best as we could and their anxiety over those times. So for some, a walk – a social distanced walk along the seaside was better than sitting down and doing some maths.

So it was horses for courses, so they say.

Lead 8: Let me ask you a bit more about what your staff were doing, then, when they were visiting homes. What kind of support were they offering?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: From, like I say, really, from sort of wellbeing walks and talks to working one-on-one with children with maths and English and other subjects. So it was a variety of ways of working with children at home.

We had some children who would not come out of their bedrooms, and their parents couldn’t get them out of their bedrooms because they were so scared. So we have some specialist staff who have particular sort of relationships with some of our most challenging youngsters, and they were able to coax them to come out and talk with them, and get them to sit in the garden, and, you know, talk to them about the pandemic and the family and these sorts of things. Anything, really, to improve their wellbeing and to reassure them and lower their rates of anxiety, et cetera.

So it was, you know, a vast number of things, depending on what we all felt was needed for those particular youngsters.

So as a senior team – so those children who were at home and receiving work, then we would have our middle leaders would meet with our staff who were out and about. We would have all this to feed into a wellbeing group which we would meet then twice a week and discuss every single pupil that we have in school and go through, you know, seeing the parents, we’d make calls, “They’re attending, they’re engaging”, “Oh, there’s a problem with such-and-such family.” “Right, we need to get out to there today.” So it was just making sure that we covered everybody, and safeguarding was a massive, sort of, focus during this time. Safeguarding and wellbeing. And I suppose they overtook – at many times, they overtook the delivery of actual, sort of, education as such.

Lead 8: Can I just –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Sorry, I – (overspeaking) –

Lead 8: I’m sorry, Mr Lewis, I just wanted to ask you about the broader support that your school offered, which I think you mention in your statement, that staff were not – they weren’t just going out to provide education, but I think you mention food delivery, as well; is that right?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes. We had staff delivering food, food parcels to different families and families who were struggling. We – yeah, we had, you know, there was occasions, and I can remember an occasion where we had a family, a family who – where they all had – the whole of the family had Covid, and they didn’t have any food in the house. And so they, at the time, Social Services weren’t available to go out and help, and Health weren’t able to go into the house because everybody in the family had Covid. So the school staff went, because we were in touch with them each day, then they would ring us and say, “Oh look, Johnny’s now got it, and so and so, we can’t get out to shop or anything.”

So staff would – you know, I can remember going out and my deputy and his wife going shopping for some of the family, and then delivering it to the house, and that was sort of common during different parts of Covid.

Lead 8: So not part of their school – (overspeaking) –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Not quite what we did our degree for, but I think there was, like, a community spirit. And because our classes in school are small classes, so you – the sort of communication between parents and teachers and teaching assistants is often on a daily basis, and during Covid it was in a daily basis, and if our staff – if they were working remotely or if they were in school, if there was somebody who didn’t turn up to a remote session online, then the staff would then ring and make sure they had – that the family was safe, and that the children were safe. So that became part of our daily routine.

Lead 8: I wanted to pick up on something else you mentioned in your statement, which I think is that – and I’m just going to summarise this, Mr Lewis – that in terms of the support children got at home, that was quite dependent on family circumstance as well; is that correct?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes, I think there’s a sort of an assumption that everybody’s capable of doing it, and, you know, we just found that lots of families need support, and children need support. And we can’t assume that in every house there’s going to be a laptop with wi-fi, there’s going to be pens, there’s going to be paper, and there’s going to be adults who are able to support the children educationally.

You know, we have – some of our adults, some of our parents, came to our school many years ago. We have some parents who are unable to read, and so we had to be really careful when we were communicating with parents – you know, it’s okay to say, “Oh, we – go onto the school website”, or send a letter home; for many parents – not many, for some parents that wasn’t the best means of communication. So, for those, we would sometimes, if need be, go round to the house to be able to explain in person, to make sure that they understood why certain measures were being taken, and also how they can support their children.

And I suppose, at times, you realise that for many of them, it’s really difficult to support their children educationally.

Lead 8: Yes.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: I think that’s important for us all to know, then, really, for – in case something like this happens again.

Lead 8: It’s one of your recommendations, is it, I think –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah.

Lead 8: – and one of the points you make, that no one should assume anything about what’s available in the home –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah, that’s right.

Lead 8: – in order to be able to support children.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Mm.

Lead 8: Particularly educationally –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes.

Lead 8: – during a pandemic?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah.

Lead 8: May I ask you, Mr Lewis, whether you think, in relation to the children in your school, the pandemic has had any enduring impacts on them?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: I think we’re still seeing the effects of the pandemic, particularly on literacy in school. I would say for a couple of years after it, you’d talk – still talk about anxiety –

Lead 8: Yes.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: – levels, but we see gaps in knowledge of children and gaps in skills. So I can remember our staff coming to see – or our middle leaders coming to see me because the children’s reading skills – we were having more children arriving at school who couldn’t read, and couldn’t read at all. So we went to train all of our staff on different methods of teaching reading, and reading with children individually to improve their reading skills. And we’re still seeing that now.

Lead 8: Yes.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Still seeing the effects of it now. So, you know, we continue to train any new staff who come in, and it’s something which we monitor regularly, because it’s so important for the future of all of the children, isn’t it? They need these basic skills.

Lead 8: And have you found those interventions – are they starting to work and help children –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes.

Lead 8: – to –

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yes, the interventions have been working since – since we’ve started them, which was shortly after the pandemic. And we do employ some staff who just focus working one-on-one with children with these interventions. And we continue to do it, and there is a need to continue to do it.

Lead 8: And I’m just going to go back, if I may, Mr Lewis, to one of your recommendations. And this is at paragraph 57 of your statement, where you suggest, I think, that it would have been helpful for you to have had more input from health practitioners and child psychologists, or maybe a bit more access to that sort of support that might have been able to help you.

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah, I suppose it’s on reflection, isn’t it, when we’re asking about what have we learnt? If this ever happened again, what could improve things for youngsters? And one of the others – one of the things that we identified was, obviously, if we could train parents, provide more, sort of, training for parents, more online resources for parents, workshops, these sorts of things. But also to include health practitioners and child psychologists into this, producing, sort of, educational videos which would help for a better understanding, maybe, for some of the youngsters and some of the parents during the pandemic of what was going on.

It sounds as though one of the most important resources that was available to you, Mr Lewis, throughout this period, was your staff. Do you, upon reflection, think that you had a particularly cohesive and close group of staff who were in a position to support the children in your school?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: Yeah, I’d say that I was very lucky, and we were very lucky as a school, to have such a sort of committed staff and a caring staff.

And, you know, you can only speak about your own experience, can’t you, and your own school? And our staff were fabulous during this time, going sort of above and beyond … yeah, going above and beyond on a daily basis, really, to support families. And of which – you know, at times it was – it was quite scary yourself, isn’t it, when – you know, some of the things.

I think one of the things you’ve got to realise when you’re working with addition – with children with additional learning needs is that – I know we’ve got rules for social distancing and wearing masks, et cetera, but our children very often don’t understand those. So they weren’t able to social distance. A lot weren’t able to wear masks. They weren’t able to test themselves, and sometimes their parents aren’t able to test them. So we had to test them in school. And, you know, before you know it, you would turn and somebody would be standing and coughing over you. Not because they meant to cough on you; it’s because they don’t understand how the rules worked.

And I think during those times, there was sort of an unwavering support, then, from the staff in school, who come in no matter what, and did their job, and did over and above their job.

And it comes down to people, doesn’t it? I think it comes down to people, no matter where you are, and whether they care about their job and their role. And I was lucky to have a staff who really cared.

Ms Dobbin: Mr Lewis, those are all my questions.

My Lady, do you have any questions for Mr Lewis?

Questions From the Chair

Lady Hallett: Mr Lewis, you’ve explained how you and your staff coped, and I’m sure your staff would say they were very lucky to have you as a leader, too. You obviously all did a huge amount to look after the children and young people in your care.

Did you get any support from outside? In other words, you know, how did you – you’ve just talked about having educational videos and things, but at the time during the pandemic, was there stuff coming from on high to say, “If you did this, this would help”? Or did you have to think of it all yourselves?

Mr Lyndon Lewis: I’d say we thought of lots of it ourselves. We could call, we could ring people. Yeah, so there was, there was support out there, but as you know, most people were working from home, so there wasn’t any support as such in school, and particularly in the early days, then, you know, we had to find a way forward but we obviously had to check all the time that a way forward could be done and to make sure that we did it in a safe way and we didn’t break any of the rules that were about at the time. So I suppose there was, yeah, there was support on hand to dial on a telephone.

Lady Hallett: Well, thank you very much indeed, Mr Lewis, for coming to help the Inquiry and for all that you and your staff did during the pandemic. I’m sure that all your local community were extremely grateful to you all. It was such an important job you did. And I hope – it was obviously tough to go back talking about those times and I hope we haven’t caused you too much distress but thank you for everything you’ve done.

The Witness: Thank you. Okay, thanks.

Ms Dobbin: My Lady, the next witness is Mr Paul Marks. And he’ll be examined on behalf of the Inquiry by Ms Treanor.

Lady Hallett: Thank you.

Ms Treanor.

Ms Treanor: Thank you, my Lady. May I call Mr Marks.

Mr Paul Marks

MR PAUL MARKS (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Ms Treanor: Thank you for attending today, Mr Marks, and for providing your witness statement which is dated 4 June 2025, and which we have at INQ000587852. And I think you should have that in front of you.

Mr Paul Marks: I do. Thank you.

Counsel Inquiry: Can you confirm that the contents of that statement are true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Mr Paul Marks: I can confirm as true.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Now, Mr Marks, you are the principal of The High School Ballynahinch, and you’ve been invited to give evidence today because during the pandemic your school was one of a number in Northern Ireland which operated as a hub for vulnerable children and the children of essential workers; is that right?

Mr Paul Marks: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: And if I may summarise what you’ve said in your statement by way of brief introduction, your school is a post-primary school. It’s a non-selective school with 415 pupils.

Mr Paul Marks: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Is that about right? You’ve said that you have a free school meal eligibility of around 35%, which I think is typical for an non-selective post-primary?

Mr Paul Marks: It would be, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And you also say that you have an autism special needs provision with a student population of around 70; have I got that right?

Mr Paul Marks: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: And in your statement you mention your involvement in a network of school principals in Northern Ireland who were sharing their experiences and advice throughout the pandemic, and I’d like to just ask you at the outset, to what extent do you think that your views on the impacts and challenges faced by schools like yours during the pandemic will be reflective of the experiences of other secondary schools in Northern Ireland?

Mr Paul Marks: I would like to think it would be very similar. There will be small differences, probably in terms of size and in terms of the different types of schools there are in Northern Ireland. I would like to think we would all have had a similar, but with small differences, experience throughout the pandemic, of both lockdowns and between.

Counsel Inquiry: That’s helpful. Thank you, Mr Marks.

Turning then to the pandemic, do you remember when you first became aware that schools might close?

Mr Paul Marks: So I think the first mention was that we had received communication in early March about travelling abroad, specifically to Italy. And then we realised, as a school, that things are going to have a significant impact on our children.

We probably did not really envisage shutting down schools, and we were assured that that wouldn’t happen in early March. However, we started to make some initial plans in terms of getting access to teachers – an area on times of – on cloud storage for children to access resources.

But we were not ready for a school closure in terms of effective teaching and learning.

Counsel Inquiry: Okay, and a quick point of clarification, just on that. Prior to 2020, would your school have received any guidance or information from the Department of Education or the Education Authority about school closures in the event of an emergency like a pandemic?

Mr Paul Marks: Not to my knowledge, no, or memory.

Counsel Inquiry: Now we know that on 20 March 2020, most schools in Northern Ireland closed to most pupils. And some schools, like yours, as we’ve said, remained open. Can you give us a sense of how many children would have been attending in that initial period of school closures at Ballynahinch?

Mr Paul Marks: So we only had two children attend. And I think we tried our best to give as much information to parents as possible. I think that whenever I spoke to other principals at that time, we had no doubt what an essential worker was, because it was clearly laid out to us from DE and from the Education Authority.

So I think the message that went to parents was one of – and I’ll have to be honest here – even though we didn’t say it, I think – you know, the word “NHS” came up quite a lot with my parents, because when some parents spoke to me they said, “But we don’t work in the NHS”, and I tried to explain “Yes, but there are essential workers here, not just NHS workers.”

But they said, “No, but we don’t want to burden the school, we’re going to keep our kids at home, we’re going to sort childcare out, we’re going to look after them themselves.”

So I think there was almost like an – almost perception among parents that only those who worked in hospitals really should be sending their children in.

I was worried because we were – only having two children in the school seemed, you know, a very little – a small number in terms of, you know, how can we justify this? And are we doing this right? Is there something more we could do? But then you were receiving weekly emails about the number of pupils in schools in Northern Ireland, and I think there was – it was something like 400 schools open and only 700 children going. So that averaged at less than two children going to school in Northern Ireland during that time.

So I felt that we were doing the same as everybody else, so it was okay. Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. And you’ve mentioned there that there was – I suppose it was clear to you who the essential workers were, albeit it may not have been clear to parents.

In relation to vulnerable children, we see that in April 2020 the Department of Education published guidance which explained that children who had a statement of special educational needs, children who were receiving support from health and social services, and children in other difficult family circumstances were included in that definition. I think you are familiar with that guidance?

Mr Paul Marks: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And in between that period between schools closing on 20 March and that guidance coming on 10 April, was that judgement about which children were vulnerable, how did you go about making that judgement in your school?

Mr Paul Marks: Well, just to give you a bit of background there, on 8 April the minister wrote to principals, and they – it was part of an annex to that email which listed those kids in terms of a pure definition of being “vulnerable”. Now, if you were to ask me how many vulnerable children I had in my school, I could probably name them, and probably less than ten.

But the definition of a “vulnerable child” set out on 8 April to me would mean a huge number of pupils who would be eligible to come into school. So for those two days before the guidance actually came out and made – was made public, for those two days, I had to plan for a large number of pupils coming in, and I felt that what we had in place in the school for the children that I had there was effective, and I wasn’t sure how I was going to manage having a very large number of pupils come in.

But we sent the information to the parents, yet no parents came back to me.

Now, when speaking with parents, there was a sense, to me, that they still didn’t want to burden the school or there was a fear of sending their children in, because then you’re mixing with other children and bringing back Covid. Or there was also a fear of, you know, “We’re doing okay, and we don’t want to admit we’re under pressure.”

There were a few families I’d contacted directly and offered them to come in, because I thought they would be struggling, from knowledge of them, and they were – they were happy enough and I had no concerns at that time – at that time – for them to come in.

So we had the door open for them, and we had no further children want to come in.

Counsel Inquiry: Now, in that answer, Mr Marks, you say that at that time you had no concern. And without inviting you to disclose any personal information, is the suggestion there that that may have changed as time went on?

Mr Paul Marks: In the second lockdown, I had serious concerns, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Okay.

Mr Paul Marks: And, yeah, I was effective in terms of bringing more children in.

Counsel Inquiry: Because of those concerns?

Mr Paul Marks: Correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. Now, in practical terms, then, can you tell us a bit about the provision that your school made for children who were attending, and what that looked like on the ground.

Mr Paul Marks: So we basically had two separate rooms for each child, and we had two separate staff. And then in the middle of all of this, we were getting water pumps changed. We had an infestation of mice. So, you know, we managed it as best we could between three staff. I felt that, you know, I was asking a lot of the three of us to do what we were doing, but it worked well.

We had no canteen facilities so we had to make the children breakfast and lunch. There was no transport for the children either. They had applied for transport back in March and they were told no. So the parents were leaving earlier, dropping kids off, and then going to do their shifts and then coming back and picking the children up. So our timings, you know, we had to be flexible with the parents. So it was a joint effort.

We had no PPE at that time either. So we borrowed goggles from the technology department, masks that you would normally use in woodwork and science, and basically bought as much alcohol gel as we could, and we tried our best – we were cleaners as well – to try to ensure as best as we could.

But we weren’t experts. We didn’t really know what we were doing. We were hoping for the best and that’s what we did. And I think every school that was in that position probably did the same. I don’t think we were in any way out there in that regard.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

And in the course of that answer, Mr Marks, you said that some children had applied for transport and were told no. Can you help us understand what the difficulty was, or why they were told no?

Mr Paul Marks: I don’t know why they were told no, but they applied directly to the Education Authority. And those children would have been entitled to transport. So there was none.

Counsel Inquiry: Okay. Thank you.

And in relation to your autism provision classes, what arrangements were you able to put in place for those children?

Mr Paul Marks: So this was something that we were quite concerned about, because we were worried about how – their impact in terms of their mental health and wellbeing, and in terms of them trying to come back to schools. So we were trying to have a link as much as possible with these children. So they involved weekly phone calls with my dedicated CRC staff, and that seemed to be really good.

We didn’t do phone calls for anybody else. But the phone was always there in case anybody wanted to contact us. But the weekly phone calls seemed to work quite well.

Those children, in our experience, seemed to fare quite well in terms of being able to come back to school, and have a normal return, as it were, in my opinion.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. I’d just like to ask you, then, about your experience of delivering remote learning.

Now, in your statement you set out your review that the school wasn’t really prepared for teaching remotely. What were the main challenges that Ballynahinch experienced in trying to deliver education to children in their homes?

Mr Paul Marks: I think if you try to differentiate between online learning and online teaching, it was really difficult to teach children during that first lockdown.

What – the problems that we had were, really, those families who were able to access technology, those who had the means to be able to buy a computer or have a computer in the house, a lot of parents did not have smartphones, so they weren’t even able to do that.

Some of our children in rural areas had very slow broadband, if any. We were given 3G SIM cards so they could put them into smartphones and use them as a hotspot, but you can imagine the conversation I’ve had with some parents once I’ve delivered those SIM cards to try and explain to them what a hotspot is and then after five minutes of a conversation, realise they don’t have a smartphone, and then won’t have access to a hotspot.

So, I mean, it was very, very difficult.

The other part which I noticed was that if you had children in maybe P6 or P7, in the last couple of years of primary school, the prioritisation for devices was usually given to the children, younger first. If they were going to towards transfer test, at that time it wasn’t cancelled, they wouldn’t have known that, and they were working flat out in that regard. So I think if you were a parent and you only had the one device, it may have been given to the younger children first and then if you can imagine a parent who’s never been a teacher or never had to do this experience before, they’ve spent an hour with their first primary school child, maybe an hour with their second primary school child. By the time it comes to your high school kid you’re probably quite tired and it’s time to make lunch, and you’re probably just, you know, there’s probably – there’s not as much monitoring, I would say, generally, as you would monitor the primary school children. Children being children, you know, if they’re not being watched, they’ll probably end up doing something different.

One of the challenges then that we had was that we could not do interactive learning with our children. The resources were uploaded to a cloud-based system and the children were then able to, if they could log on, which was another challenge they had, they were able to download the resources. Most of them did not have printers so they were writing on paper from the screen. And then there was no way for us to monitor or to evaluate how much learning was going on with the children because there was no way for them to send it back if they didn’t have a printer or a scanner. There was nothing you could do interactively in that.

We then ended up photocopying resources which we took from the Cloud, we put them in a bundle, I then drove them to the houses, left them at their front doorstep, did the usual – make sure you sanitise it, leave it for, whatever number of days, you know. But we even tried posting things, as well, and it just became a bit unwieldy and it just became a bit of a disaster, to be honest.

Counsel Inquiry: In your statement, and I think you’ve touched on this in that answer, you refer to Covid money being given – and this is at paragraph 21, just to help you – you refer to Covid money being given to your school for ICT for pupils that never happened. You refer to dongles that were wasted, and you said that the process was very confused, rushed and erratic. Can you explain what the difficulties were in relation to that?

Mr Paul Marks: So there were times when we were given money, and it was to be spent really quickly on wellbeing. You know, that’s the kind of sentence that was given to me. And I’ll give you an example: this was for staff wellbeing, and I was given money to be spent by a certain deadline. And I scratched my head, thinking how do I give – what do I spend this money on? So I put money into the staffroom for the staff. I put some outdoor seating for children. But when I went down to the company, because you couldn’t do it online or by phone, I went down to the company and asked for some outdoor seating, and he said to me, “You’re the sixth principal that’s been in to me in the last two weeks.”

So we all had the kind of similar idea. We were all: how are we going to spend this money fast? Because we didn’t want to lose it. And that seemed to be at that time the way it was; if you didn’t spend the money it was gone. In terms of technology, we – I’m not sure if we were – if we had asked or we were told, but there was a promise of either iPads, Chromebooks, or laptops. None of them came to the school. I didn’t see any.

The dongles with the SIM cards, which I mentioned, I think I was given 400 of them, 500 of them. I think I used 30. And of those 30, I had no parent come back to me and say, “That worked well.”

So it seemed like great intentions at the start, it just wasn’t delivered at the end. And I’m not placing blame on anybody in that regard. I think it was just at that moment everybody trying their best to try and get things done for the children but it just didn’t materialise in the final step.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Mr Marks.

I’d like to move on just to ask you a bit about the implementation of various measures in your school. In your statement you describe different challenges around implementing measures such as masks and class bubbles. Can you tell us a bit about the practical challenges you experienced in your school in implementing those.

Mr Paul Marks: So whenever we started off the term, it became very apparent that class bubbles were going to be the most effective way.

So children were in the same room the whole day, and if – with wearing masks as well. And the teachers who were teaching them were wearing masks. So if you can imagine a science class, a science teacher would have to bring the equipment down to a room and try his best to do a science experiment in perhaps an English room, where there was no facilities. And the teachers – our kids would really depend on seeing people’s faces. So when the masks were being worn by the teachers, you wouldn’t know if the teachers were smiling, if they were cross, if they were – you know, they wanted to find out more from children. So it was really difficult.

One of the bits, then, we found difficult as well was some children had exemptions from wearing masks. And we weren’t sure how to implement that, because it was causing animosity between the other children. We had to try to explain to children as best we could why some children were allowed masks and some were not.

We were given CO² monitors for every room, and inevitably they changed colours whenever the CO² was going too high, and so we had to open all the windows as soon as they went red, and then the children were cold and I got complaints from patients about, you know, why are children freezing? And I tried to explain how this – you know, how the system works.

Whenever we had a child go down with Covid, we – they were all logged and where it happened – and then if there were three children in a bubble, I think, from memory, we would have to send the whole class home. So there is 26 children being sent home and we had to close off that room.

Now, the Education Authority at the time had told us: when this happens, we’ll send in a sanitation team.

I had more than six classrooms go down, and we never seen a sanitation team once. It just didn’t happen.

We were promised air purifiers. It didn’t happen either.

So there were lots of times when they said we were going to get resources but they just didn’t appear.

Counsel Inquiry: And in your statement you explain that you stopped the bubbles after September 2021, and you say that you were worried about the impact on the children and the children seemed much happier. Can you just explain what changed after you moved away from –

Mr Paul Marks: It was either September or October at that time, the bubbles went down, and it was just because there was – the children looked so miserable, being stuck in the same room all day long. And we made a decision, and all the – I think all schools kind of did at the same time – that we noticed a massive difference in terms of how the children were reacting with each other, and were able to go outside properly and were able to, you know, go into their proper classrooms. And it just seemed a much more effective impact on the kids, and the children were much more happier in total.

Counsel Inquiry: And just to finish on these measures, then, in your statement, and this is paragraph 36 for your reference, you say that there were issues with pupil hygiene and that you had to remind students to wash their hands and so on. And you say that the assumption that children would wash their hands was wrong.

Can you tell us a bit more about the extent to which that posed a practical difficulty for you.

Mr Paul Marks: So you would think that, as an adult, it’s automatic that once you use a bathroom you would wash your hands. It’s kind of ingrained in you, that’s what you do. But children being children, they are going to the toilet, and then they realise: oh, I want to run outside, I want to play, I want to do this, I want to do that – there’s my friend. They would get distracted and therefore sometimes they haven’t washed their hands. So we would have to put up stickers, everywhere, “Have you washed your hands yet?” We would see them come out of the bathroom and we would say – verbally remind them, “Did you wash your hands? Did you remember?”

So we had hand sanitiser basically in every single room as well. And it even led to some silly things. I mean, whenever the children were using it, they were moving their hands too quickly, so it would fall on the floor and then children would slip on it. All those small things were – were challenges that we had never dealt with before and we were trying to learn on the hop, as it were.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Mr Marks.

And the final topic I’d like to look at with you before we take your reflections, is about the enduring impacts of the pandemic on the children and young people in your school. In your statement you have highlighted that persistent absence is an ongoing issue for you. Based upon what is happening in your school, what factors do you think are contributing to that persistent absence?

Mr Paul Marks: I think, when there was lockdown and parents were working from home, it was probably a nice experience for those children who maybe don’t enjoy school as much as others, because they were getting lots of attention, and they were able to spend time with their family, and it must have been, for those children, quite nice. For those children who missed their friends or were a bit more social, who enjoyed school, it probably wouldn’t have been as much fun for them.

So for the children who maybe didn’t enjoy school as much, when they tried to return to school, their parents may still have stayed at home, because they were working from home, and it must have been a bit of a wrench for them to leave home to go to school. And if the parents were in any way anxious in the house about children bringing back, that anxiety must have had an impact on the children themselves, which would have then caused anxiety for the children coming in to school.

And what we have found shortly after the second lockdown, the amount of children – and this is probably the same for the rest of the country – the amount of children who are missing school because of anxiety-based reasons has increased. We’re only starting to see a decrease now. And I think my concern is that Covid had such an impact in terms of their mental wellbeing that it’s going to take them a long time, probably, to get over that.

I think the children who had parents who went back to work straight away, they had less issues, I think, in my opinion.

Counsel Inquiry: Okay. And, Mr Marks, you’ve mentioned anxiety. Are there any physical or mental health conditions in particular which you consider are contributing to that declining attendance?

Mr Paul Marks: Not that I’m aware of. No, sorry.

Counsel Inquiry: Okay. Thank you.

Now, you also describe in your statement, and this is at paragraph 48, a change in how pupils are engaging with education in terms of their behaviours. Can you give us a sense of the enduring impacts you’ve noticed in your school of the pandemic on that behaviour?

Mr Paul Marks: Okay. So what we noticed was that children’s behaviour had – gave us more challenge directly after lockdown, and we tried to have some sort of reset of values and we tried to – what they call, I suppose, the “new normal”. But we had to reset everything. I think we had to take a whole new look at this and we had a whole new vision of values in the school, because we knew that this was not normal and this was not going to be an easy reset and we have an awful big emphasis on respect of each other.

So we have found that had worked well. What we also noticed was that some of the parents’ behaviour towards our staff has certainly changed, although that has got better now. But I think, in terms – sorry, in times of high stress and anxiety, sometimes it can bring out behaviours in us that were not – we don’t normally exhibit, and I feel that, you know, we were kind of in the firing line, slightly, a couple of times, with parents.

And I have fantastic supportive parents, but everybody has their breaking point, I guess.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Now, Mr Marks, I think you’ve had an opportunity to consider this in your witness pack, but research has suggested that the time children spend online has considerably increased since the pandemic, and I wondered, is that something you’ve observed with your pupils.

Mr Paul Marks: Yes, and it’s a different type of online ingestion because we would have normally had kids on YouTube quite a lot, and they will have spent a long time on that. But now it’s more to do with things like TikTok and Snapchat. We have actually had to introduce a policy in our school last year of removing the mobile phones from the children when they come into school and they don’t get them back until the afternoon and we have seen an incredible increase in terms of – the way they speak to each other and the way they engage with each other has definitely improved. How they’re able to hold conversations.

We have seen basically online bullying almost decrease to almost zero now from doing it. And it’s funny, whenever we give back the phones, they’ll automatically switch them on really quickly, look through it, and then realise they’ve missed very little and put them back in their pockets, which is tremendous. In the old days, we would have seen them at break and lunch, you know, just constantly looking at their screens, not talking to each other, which I always thought was they’re missing out on the best part of school.

But what parents would tell me is that when they go home, they do spend much more time on their phones, not tablets, not computers, but on their phones.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. And the last, sort of, enduring impact I’d like to ask you about relates to the widening attainment gap, and that’s something that her Ladyship has heard some evidence about already, but I’d like to ask you: to what extent has your school received support to address the issue of lost learning either during the pandemic or since?

Mr Paul Marks: So they have given us money for things like Easter school. This year, there will be a Halloween revision session, et cetera. But the uptake of those classes during holidays is low. If – I actually believe the biggest attainment loss during the two lockdowns was due to the fact that online teaching and online learning was lost, and I put that down to the children not being able to access the technology.

If I had a perfect world, and with hindsight, every child should have been given a laptop to take home with a 3G dongle stuck inside it, and we would have been well prepared for actual interactive teaching using the proper software, which we hadn’t used before. There’s pupils trained on how to use it, and strict guidelines and guardrails in order to have effective and safe online teaching. We didn’t have that, and that’s a real – that was a miss from all of us, including myself.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, Mr Marks. I think I just about have time for one more question.

In your statement you have set out what you think might be improved in the event of a future pandemic, and you’ve just given us an answer in relation to that now. But one of the things that you suggest is that during a pandemic, education should not be a devolved issue. Now, that might be regarded as the nuclear option, but what is it about your experience that has driven you to that conclusion, Mr Marks?

Mr Paul Marks: So even just to think about the last storm we had, Irwin, you know, we had a red weather warning in the south of Ireland, but in the north it was only an amber up until the last moment and I thought it was funny because, does the storm just stop at the border? And it’s kind of like that when it comes to maybe a pandemic – and only in a major emergency – should all children not be treated the same and have the same – we all be given the same guidelines, and that was my only point.

And I feel that, you know, the children in London should be of the same as the children in Glasgow, and the children in Belfast. If there was a delay, and the delay caused panic, and – it could have made our lives easier if we had have just all made the same decision at the same time. So that’s just a minor bugbear, so I apologise.

Ms Treanor: Thank you very much, Mr Marks.

My Lady, those are all of my questions. Do you have any questions?

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Marks. I mean, I don’t think I am going to accept the challenge of looking into the issues of what areas should be devolved and what should not, if you’ll forgive me, but thank you very much indeed for all that you and your staff did to try to help the children in your area, and for which you were responsible – for whom you were responsible, and thank you very much for all the help you have given to the Inquiry. I’m very grateful.

The Witness: Thank you, my Lady. Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Very well, I shall break now and return at 11.50.

(11.36 am)

(A short break)

(11.51 am)

Lady Hallett: Ms Dobbin.

Ms Dobbin: My Lady, may I please call Ms Kate Davies.

Ms Kate Davies

MS KATE DAVIES (affirmed).

Questions From Lead Counsel to the Inquiry for Module 8

Ms Dobbin: Can I ask you to give your full name to the Inquiry, please.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes. Kate Davies.

Lead 8: And Ms Davies, I think you ought to have in front of you a witness statement which bears the number INQ000587986.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And are you content, subject to a correction we will make in the course of your evidence, that that statement is true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: Thank you.

Ms Davies, I think it’s correct that you have been the public policy director of Ofcom since 2021; is that right?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: But prior to that – forgive me, there is something that I forgot to say before you give evidence.

My Lady, forgive me, this is important, and it’s right that I say this before Ms Davies proceeds with her evidence, but during the course of it, it’s likely that there will be reference to child harm, death, and suicide, and it may be distressing for some people to hear. So it’s just to ensure that people are aware of that before the evidence goes any further.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much, Ms Dobbin.

Ms Dobbin: Ms Davies, forgive me for having interrupted the question to you, but I think I was asking you about the role that you had during the pandemic within Ofcom.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes. So as you said, I was public policy director from July 2021. Prior to that, I was strategy and policy director at Ofcom through the period of the pandemic, from 2017 through the period of the pandemic.

Lead 8: Could you provide an overview as to what the state of regulation was prior to 1 November 2020 in terms of the regulation of online – the children’s online lives, essentially.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, absolutely. So Ofcom’s remit broadly covers communications, so telecoms, broadcasting, spectrum. And prior to November 2020, the only duty we had in this area was in relation to promoting media literacy and researching media literacy which obviously engages questions of how adults and children are engaging with material online.

Lead 8: But in terms of the overall regulation of children’s online lives, does that effectively mean that there was no regulatory regime, so to speak, rather that it fell within criminal law or laws relating to personal data?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes. Exactly. So prior to the video-sharing platform regime coming in in November 2020, which we’ll come on to, there wasn’t anything that you would think of as a regulatory regime beyond the ones you’ve set out, particularly in relation to data protection.

Lead 8: All right. We’ll maybe come back to the implications of that, but as you have mentioned, there was a change in the regulatory framework with the introduction of this regime that was specific to video-sharing platforms; is that correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And a very basic question, if I may, but can you give an example or describe what type of platforms are video-sharing platforms?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, absolutely. So it’s a service where you go on and you share videos. So YouTube is the most commonly used example, though I should be clear that the regime in the UK was for a subset of those services. So it was about services based in the UK. So at any given time, that was about 20 services.

Lead 8: So I think, as I understand what you’re explaining, when this regime came into force in 2020 it only applied to those services which were based in the UK; is that –

Ms Kate Davies: Broadly speaking, yes.

Lead 8: – broadly speaking –

Ms Kate Davies: There’s a very technical legal definition, but yes.

Lead 8: Yes, I think we’ll try and avoid the very technical definitions.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, agreed.

Lead 8: But I think what that means, as well, is that there were a number of services being provided to children in the United Kingdom that were not regulated –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – is the reality of the situation. And I think it’s also right that although that legal regime came into place in November 2020, that in fact Ofcom didn’t start its regulation activities until 2021; is that correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes. So in November 2020 it effectively became law in the UK, but what needed to happen, for real regulation to take place, was for us to consult and eventually produce final guidance for those services. We consulted reasonably quickly, so four months after the law, so in March 2021, and finalised that guidance in October 2021, which really kicked off proper regulation.

Lead 8: So in fact – and we’ll come to one of your reports shortly – the period that you started, the first time really this area was regulated then, was from October 2021 –

Ms Kate Davies: Yeah.

Lead 8: – onwards, and your first regulatory year ran to October 2022?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: So, I mean, just coming back to realities, does that effectively mean that this lack of a regulatory framework persisted through most of the course of the pandemic for children? I mean, in reality, up to October 2021?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And once that regime came into effect, is it too broad to say that it was essentially voluntary in nature?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes. I don’t think that quite works as a description. So what it was, is that it was, as I say, a subset of services but some household names in there, so TikTok, Twitch, Snap, based in the UK under the definitions. And what it required was the consideration of whether those services should put in place appropriate measures, which – but then, you know, whether or not they are appropriate, depending on questions of things like proportionality, but things like a process to assure the age of a user, whether or not they had clear terms and conditions. But the specifics of what they could require to be put in place was set out in legislation.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: So it was a much more narrow regime than the Online Safety Act, which I’m sure we’ll come on to, and there were questions about what could be required of each individual service because of proportionality and various other reasons. But we did enforce, through that regime, so it wasn’t voluntary.

Lead 8: And was it for them to judge in the first instance what was proportionate?

Ms Kate Davies: So it was for them in the first instance to judge whether or not to notify. So, were they a relevant service? That’s the first threshold, if you like.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: So that’s how the process worked. It was for video-sharing platforms to notify to Ofcom that they were a relevant service. And then in the first instance, yes, I think it would be for them to judge what’s proportionate, but obviously then we were engaging very closely and testing that – and, as I say, getting out very clear guidance on what we expected.

Lead 8: Yes, all right.

And at the same time that this regime was being introduced, the government was also considering a much broader regime for regulation of online – people’s online lives in general; is that correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And in fact I think that the government White Paper related to the Online Harms Act (sic), that came out in 2019; is that right?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: So was it always envisaged that this video-sharing platforms regime would be interim until it was overtaken by this much broader piece of legislation?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so I believe even in our first year report, which was published in 2022, we set out exactly that fact, which was it was seen as a stepping stone, if you like.

Lead 8: And is the Online Harms White Paper a good snapshot as to the government’s judgement of the harms that online use potentially posed to children in and around 2019?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, I believe so. I think that’s probably a question for government, but yes, I believe so.

Lead 8: All right. Well, as the regulator, I suppose, then, did its overall assessment of the sorts of harms which existed in 2019 accord with Ofcom’s assessment?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, to the extent we were able to make an assessment at that time. So because we didn’t have duties – we were conducting relevant research, so the question of harm came up in our research with children, but we were – in 2019, we were not at a position where we had expertise in these specific areas. That was something that came later when we had formal regulatory duties.

So I wouldn’t say we, in 2019, had the best knowledge of the landscape.

Lead 8: I understand. And also, that what the government judged a risk – was a matter for government judgement.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm.

Lead 8: I wonder if we could just have a look at the White Paper, though, just to get an idea of some of the things that were under consideration at that point in time.

So this INQ000606810, and I think we can see on page 1 that this was April 2019. And if we could go to page 20, please.

We can see that there was a specific part of this White Paper, and that’s at 1.17, that was considering children’s online lives, and the harms that they might experience, this part, though, introducing some of the more positive aspects of children’s ability to be online; is that correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And I think if we look, please, at – if we go over the page, please, to the next page. It’s set out in box 7 what some of the positive impacts potentially were.

And again, obviously Ofcom has more experience now and expertise in this field. Is that also an assessment that Ofcom continues to make: that there can be positive aspects to children being able to go online and to be able to engage in the Internet, and with social media?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, absolutely. And I think certainly during the pandemic, we found that it was quite an important lifeline for children as well as also obviously carrying some risk, and we have, over time, though I couldn’t tell you quite what shows up in our very latest research on this question, but we have over time specifically asked a question around whether children think the benefits outweigh the risks of being online, and we’ve asked that question to parents as well.

Lead 8: And if we could, please, go to paragraph 1.18. So I think this is – so this is really where the government introduced the caveat that despite the overall – the potential positive benefits that this harmful content and activity could be particularly damaging for children; correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Mm.

Lead 8: And I think if we just go on, please, then to look at some of what was being highlighted at that time, if we could go to box 8, please. So – and I won’t ask you to go through each of these, but we have cyber-bullying and then box 9, if we can go to that, please, that would appear to suggest – and it’s the second bullet point – that the prevalence of using the Internet to view related content has also been found to be higher in children than in adults.

Was that the sort of information that Ofcom was thinking about in and around this time, as well, when it came to –

Ms Kate Davies: So at this time, as I say, we – so the kind of journey for Ofcom, if you like, in building the capabilities around online safety in particular expertise in particular harms, for example, we started some thinking working with the government from around 2018 and obviously worked – engaged with the government as they produced this White Paper, but really our development of our skills and capabilities really started from 2020 onwards.

So at this time, we didn’t really engage in a lot of these questions in detail. We had our research that pulled out exposure to certain harms. The research at this point, I believe, had a list of certain things and it would ask children, obviously captured in a way that didn’t cut across ethical considerations when undertaking research with children. So we wouldn’t ask children about everything.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: But what I can say is that our later work, so the two fairly comprehensive documents we have pulled together which are called registers of risk –

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: – as part of the Online Safety Act, both on illegal content and on the protection of children, they both point to evidence in this area. So the illegal harms register of risk points to the fact that children are more likely to be exposed to harm in this area, the specific self-harm and suicide harm that you’ve pulled up, and then the Children’s Register of Risk pulls up that older children are the most likely out of children’s ages group to be exposed to self-harm and suicide content.

Lead 8: Thank you, and we’ll come to those –

Ms Kate Davies: Sorry –

Lead 8: No, no, it’s really important and we’ll come to those risk registers in due course.

Sorry, that can come down.

But I think just for the moment – and again, just focusing here on the sorts of risks that were around on the Internet at that time, if we could go back to that INQ000606810, and to box 10, please. I think that was probably around page 23.

Yes.

So again, at that time, this concern about underage sharing of sexual imagery is starting to come to light as well.

Ms Kate Davies: We were aware of it. But as I say, it falls into that same bucket of we hadn’t built a regulatory regime in this space and capabilities in this space.

Lead 8: Yes, and we’ll come back and look at how that developed. And then I think we can see at box 11 parents also concerned then – I think it’s on the next page, thank you – this emerging issue about the amount of time that children were spending onscreen as well.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: So if we’re looking at the pandemic, potentially important to understand that this was an emerging issue prior to the pandemic, as well?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, in terms of the views of parents, I believe, in our research, it shows up most, actually, during the pandemic, this starts to become an increasing concern around an ability to control their child’s screen time.

Lead 8: Yes, I’m grateful.

If that could come down and we could just go straight to one of those pieces of research, then, and that’s INQ000615279.

So I think this is one of the first bits of research that was done, and I think, as I understand, it’s not dated but it dates back to 2021.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, I think that’s right.

Lead 8: And again, is this intended to demonstrate some of the potentially harmful material, then, that Ofcom started to develop an understanding about which was on –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so this was research that we undertook to inform how we would implement a regulatory regime.

Lead 8: And if we go to page 25, please, and if we could just bring up, please, figure 18.

So this is, as I understand it – this was information that you sought to get from children themselves, I think; is that right?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so the research was across adults and children, but yes, 13 to 17-year-olds were questioned specifically.

Lead 8: And I think the red arrow is an indication of the sorts of – it indicates at the side, in fact, that children were more likely –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – to come across this material than those older than them. And did Ofcom have an understanding at this stage as to why children were more likely to come across the very material that was of a nature that they – that you might expect adults would come across more?

Ms Kate Davies: I don’t think we had a detailed understanding, no, but I’m not entirely sure.

Lead 8: And if we could just, please, go on to page 45 of this document. And if we look at the final paragraph.

I think that this also suggests, and I think this is something that maybe Ofcom developed an understanding of as well, was whether or not, in fact, when people came across – or children came across material on the Internet that wasn’t appropriate, the likelihood that they would report it in any way, again, is that something that Ofcom came to develop an understanding about?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so our research – and it’s a different piece of research, forgive me, I’ve forgotten precisely which piece – it directly shows that children – actually, a fairly large proportion of children were aware of reporting mechanisms, for example, but a very small proportion actually used them when they saw harmful content. So yes, exactly what you’re speaking to.

Lead 8: And just going, then, to another piece of research that helps throw some light on this, if we could go to INQ000615305. And if we could go to page 7 of that, please.

This is in fact a piece of work done in 2019 –

Ms Kate Davies: Yeah.

Lead 8: – to try and understand what exactly children’s access to the Internet was; is that right?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, absolutely. So this was in – within our media literacy duty, so the requirement to research and promote media literacy, and this is captured by that. So in order to do that and to share it with others, we think it’s very important to understand what’s actually going on and how children are using new services.

Lead 8: And is this also information used so that you can chart how children’s usage changes over time as well?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: So, for example, we can see, if we are looking at 3 and 4-year olds, we can see if we read down that what it is Ofcom understands they’re doing –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – with the devices that they have access to, and also it allows you to see how it changes between ages as well; is that correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And can I – some of the research, for example, we can see that Ofcom asks if children are allowed to take devices to bed with them.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: Is that because it’s interested in understanding whether or not children use devices, for example, without their parents being around?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, I think, again, it came from – in 2019, it came from this duty, core duty to promote and research media literacy. And as part of that – so if you’re thinking about media literacy skills, which are about – what Ofcom would define is about the ability to use, understand, and create media across different contexts, then whether or not a child is able to understand the media they’re looking at, whether they’re doing it on their own with somebody else, is relevant to that question.

So that’s sort of how we get to it, which I think is a “yes” to your question –

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: – but a slightly different positioned –

Lead 8: Thank you. I think it’s just because when we look, then, at how some of this research develops –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: But perhaps – thank you, that can come down.

If we could maybe look at your statement in terms of encapsulating, then, how the picture changes in time. And I think if we could pick that up, please, at page 16, paragraph 74. So – and if we take 74 as our starting point, Ms Davies. At (a) you have set out what the research showed between 2015 and 2018 children were doing online; correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: So we can see that they were starting to use YouTube, gaming, and other online platforms; correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm, yes.

Lead 8: And then, if we go to (b), then you’ve set out how things changed from the period of 2020 onwards, and here, this is covering the pandemic period, isn’t it?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, absolutely. So during that time, use of VSPs, for example, was almost universal among children.

Lead 8: Yes. So when you say near universal, do you mean there that, or are you suggesting, that the use of these platforms changed particularly during the period of the pandemic, that they – that they became much more ubiquitous than they had been before then?

Ms Kate Davies: What our evidence shows is that more children were using them, yes.

Lead 8: And can I ask, then, is there a particular intersection that the Inquiry should consider that this form of platform became used by more children at a point in time when the regulatory regime hadn’t matured?

Ms Kate Davies: Can you unpack a bit what you mean by that?

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: Sorry.

Lead 8: I think, as I was asking it I realised that that sounded quite complicated.

You’ve said that children’s use of video-sharing platforms was nearly universal during this period of the pandemic, so spanning 2020 to 2022.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm.

Lead 8: You’ve already explained that your regulatory role didn’t kick in until October 2021.

Ms Kate Davies: Yeah.

Lead 8: So does that mean that there is a considerable period of time during the pandemic when this use was increasing but there wasn’t really a regulatory regime –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – covering it?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: So I mean, when we are considering this, and not being technical about it, when we’re looking at what children were able to access on the Internet during this period, until Ofcom’s regulatory role kicked in, are we really looking at a regulatory wilderness during this period?

Ms Kate Davies: There was no regulation for safety.

Lead 8: Thank you. If we stay with your statement, and if we please go to paragraph 75, I think – again, this is probably common sense and straightforward, but I think at 75 you’re pointing out that, in the period of the pandemic, a difference was that almost all children were going online.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: And that that was a distinction with the period leading up to the pandemic; correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, there was an increase, though of course the other important element was that some children were unable to go online effectively for what they needed to do.

Lead 8: Of course. And we’ll come back to digital exclusion as well and deal with that.

And looking at your paragraph 76, again, you set out that, at (a):

“In the period 2015-2019, children were diversifying …”

What they were doing online.

Is that correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And then how did that change during the pandemic?

Ms Kate Davies: So, what we saw during the pandemic was that, again, as you might expect, the activities centred on socialising. So, because they had lost that offline ability to socialise, that was sort of the starting point for how they were talking about online activity. Particularly in our qualitative research, but we also see increases in gaming, I believe. And also this concept of multi-screening, so that you’d be chatting to somebody on a laptop but also looking at social media on your phone at the same time, for example.

Lead 8: And if we go to paragraph 77, you have set out there the changes in what children were – what services children were using as well.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: We touched on this already but I think at (b) you’re drawing attention to specific platforms that became far more popular during the pandemic as well; is that correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so TikTok in particular became very popular really quite quickly.

Lead 8: Are you aware of any reason why that might have been the position during the pandemic?

Ms Kate Davies: So what our research showed at this time, and I – it was definitely in the qualitative but possibly also in the quantitative research, was particularly – and I couldn’t tell you why this is – but particularly an interest in short form and ephemeral content, and that particularly picks up on the functionalities of Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat, which we see is very popular during this time.

Lead 8: And when you say “ephemeral”, do you mean in the sense of fleeting? There quickly and –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so content that appears and then disappears.

Lead 8: And if we look at your paragraph 78, please, this is specifically dealing with exposure to harmful content; correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And if you could just explain a bit about the period, then, pre-pandemic and what Ofcom had found about exposure to harmful content.

Ms Kate Davies: So, pre-pandemic we undertook research into this area. It was relatively high-level quantitative research but it still found significant exposure. The question was framed in terms of over the last year, so it’s not really telling you anything about the quantity, but it’s significant exposure to a range of harms.

Lead 8: And again, can you – and I think this the point at which you wish to correct your statement.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: Because in your statement you have specifically said that research found there were similar levels of exposure to different kinds of harm, and I think in fact it’s this bit that you want to correct; is that right?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so it’s actually – it’s actually the subsequent sentence.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: So with very considerable apologies to the Inquiry, there is an inaccuracy. So the figure that is set out there, so the four in five 12-15s, the date is wrong, so it was actually earlier than that, so it’s actually a pre-pandemic stat, with many apologies, because it doesn’t actually help with this.

What I would say – so, what – what happened, is there were two things that happen with our research during this period which makes trend data quite difficult. One is that obviously due to the pandemic we had to change our research methodologies. So the research prior to this point is generally face-to-face, both qualitative and quantitative, and during the pandemic it had to move to online and also surveys that children would complete either by themselves or – or with a parent. So that obviously changes the nature of the responses you’re getting.

At the same time, as we’ve been talking about, we were preparing first for the video-sharing platforms regime and then for the online safety regime, and that meant that we were building up our capability in this area and thinking about different bits of research we wanted to do. So, for example, we launched a new Online Experiences Tracker, I believe, in 2021.

So all of those things mean we have quite a few data points, but trend data is very difficult.

What we do have is data that shows an increase in time spent online in the pandemic.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: And what our later analysis and evidence shows is that increase in time spent online increases the risk of harm. And I know that comes up from others’ evidence, as well.

The other thing I’d say is we absolutely recognise evidence from a range of other people and bodies that point to increase in harm during the pandemic and we absolutely don’t dispute that.

Lead 8: So just digging into that a little bit more, does it come down to this: that it’s the fact that children were online longer, and therefore able to explore the Internet, that exposed them to their – to a greater risk of coming across harmful content?

Ms Kate Davies: That is one of the main risk factors, I would say. The other thing that comes out quite strongly from our qualitative research, and it’s only 18 children so I wouldn’t overstate it, but I think it provides some kind of helpful texture, that it wasn’t just the amount of time spent online but the fact that, for example, a number of them either dropped out of online classes or their school day was squeezed in such a way and because of, obviously, the requirements on their parents, that it was unstructured time online, that it wasn’t just the amount, it was also unstructured, it was usually alone. So there’s various other factors, I think. I don’t think it’s just the amount of time.

Lead 8: It’s important to say, Ms Davies, isn’t it, that Ofcom did do research during this period that spoke to children –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – it wasn’t based on what their parents said was happening.

Ms Kate Davies: No.

Lead 8: It was based, for example, on children keeping diaries of what they were doing online –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – that enabled you to gain this greater insight into what they were doing?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so we have a longitudinal study with a group of children that’s been running almost since the start of Ofcom. It’s got great insights, it’s with 18 children over time and obviously the children drop out as they turn into adults, and we’ve evolved our approach to that. So as more pupils are online, we actually have different ways to engage with the children and during this period we used both interviews, which obviously were online, but also diaries but also asking them to share screenshots of their device usage so, you know, actually very direct, so not just what the children were reporting themselves but direct passive measurement of how much time they were spending online.

Lead 8: All right, and I will come back to that, but just staying for a minute on what may have changed during the pandemic, is there any evidence that because they had more time to explore online, that children were coming across more harmful material than they might have done otherwise? So I’m really asking you a question about the nature of what children may have come across, and whether that changed, or whether Ofcom knows anything about that?

Ms Kate Davies: So what our register of risks sets out, which I think is relevant even though it was a later document, is that greater time online increases the risk of harm. Very straightforwardly.

Lead 8: Yes. But just to come back to my question, and it may be that there is no answer to this, whether or not Ofcom does know anything about whether or not having that time changes the nature of what children look at –

Ms Kate Davies: Oh, okay, sorry –

Lead 8: Forgive me, I –

Ms Kate Davies: – I was misunderstanding your question.

Lead 8: No, I think it was the question perhaps.

Ms Kate Davies: I can’t bring to mind specific evidence on that.

Lead 8: All right, but it’s a simple equation –

Ms Kate Davies: Mm.

Lead 8: – more time equals greater risk?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, yes.

Lead 8: All right. And again, can I just ask you a broad question about this. We’ll come in a moment to age verification. But do children come and were children, making this pandemic-focused, are children coming across harmful content regardless of whether a website required an age verification, or is the problem that children come across harmful material because they’re going onto sites or have access to content that they shouldn’t have?

Ms Kate Davies: I suspect they were coming across harmful content regardless.

Lead 8: All right. And just on the – and it may be that we don’t need to go to this, but certainly research that you did in your first year of regulation, so in that period from October 2021 to October 2022, and this was research that was carried out by Yonder, found that a third children under the age of 18 lied about their age when creating a social media account.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: Can I ask you, first of all, why does it matter if a child is signing up to a social media account if they say they’re 18 when they’re not?

Ms Kate Davies: Well, there’s two things, I’d say. So – and I think it’s that a third of them had adult ages, which I think is quite important, actually, because what you find on social media is both sites and apps that say that their content is for 13 plus –

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: – and then you find content that is appropriate for adults, either because the site is specifically for adults or a kind of wider understanding of what’s appropriate for adults and what’s for children. And if children are saying that they’re older than they are, let me put it that way, instead of that they’re saying they’re adults. If they’re saying that they’re older than they are, I think two things happen. One, if a site is designed for 13 plus, and we can question whether they are, but if they say that they’re for 13 plus, there might be types of content on there that might be okay for an older child to engage with but might be more harmful to a younger child.

But then at the point they sign up, let’s say they’re 8, and they say they’re 13, that’s five years difference, by the time the site thinks they’re 18, they’re only 13. So you’ve also got the point of a child being exposed to adult content.

So it’s sort of problematic at two points, I would say.

Lead 8: And for those children that say they’re over 18 when they sign up to a site, if a site is only for people over the age of 18, presumably that’s because the sort of content it has is really specifically only for adults; correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, yes.

Lead 8: And are those sites more likely to be – is that gaming sites? Are they an example of that?

Ms Kate Davies: They may be. I mean, the most obvious reasons are obviously that they are a porn service. There will be other sites that decide that they are adult only. Particularly with the new online safety regime, they may decide: actually, this is – we want to have content that’s just for adults. But the most obvious reason is that it’s a porn site.

Lead 8: All right. And the fact that a third of children say they signed up in your first year of regulation using – saying that they were older than they were, that suggests that it’s not difficult to sign up saying you’re either over 13 or over 18.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: At that point in time, was there any – was there much by way of effective regulation on the part of these companies in terms of being able to spot “Someone’s signed up saying they’re over the age of 18, we think they’re not”?

Ms Kate Davies: So, yes – so, we set out for companies certainly things that we didn’t think were appropriate. So, for example, one of those scrolls where you just fill in a date, especially if it’s pre-filled to the date of an 18-year old, is deeply problematic. Equally, what we said was that a credit card is a suitable way of assuring that somebody is 18, because in this country you have to be 18 to get a credit card. But a debit card you don’t have to be 18, so that wouldn’t be suitable. And then there are various other things which the technology has developed significantly since the period we’re talking about, but everything from facial age estimation through to different forms of analysis you can undertake. Using an email where you can work out what’s that email been used for. Has it been used for, for example, taking out insurance? Probably means it’s an adult.

You can also – companies can also look at meta behaviour of somebody online to work out whether they’re more likely to be a child or an adult.

There are various things you can do, essentially, and there were certainly at this time various things you could do. But the technology has developed.

Lead 8: All right. So there were things that could be done to detect –

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: – whether or not these were children who were –

Ms Kate Davies: Yeah.

Lead 8: Well, we know there were children who were certainly trying.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm.

Lead 8: And, it would appear, succeeding, from your research, to get onto sites that were only –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – for adults. Is Ofcom – are you able to assess retrospectively –

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: – and I understand the point you make that the technology has moved on, but would you have assessed during the period of the pandemic that the technologies had not reached a stage whereby they were stopping children from getting into these sites that required age verification?

Ms Kate Davies: So I think we were aware that there were different technologies at, kind of, different forms of development, but there were certainly ways for companies to have an age gate, if that’s in acceptable term, at the point of signing up that could be more effective than you just put in your date of birth.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: And we had a programme of work, particularly with adult sites, to improve what they were doing in this area, with some success.

Lead 8: And does that still mean, though, I’m really just trying to gauge – and again, being realistic and practical about this, and understanding the sorts of risks that children were exposed to during the pandemic – whether, in reality, there were sites that children were able to register for and stay on –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – despite those regulations?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes. And obviously, again, the regulation I’m talking about, we – we set out that programme from the end of 2021 onwards. So, particularly for the period you’re talking about, yes, absolutely.

Lead 8: Okay, that’s important. So, again, this wasn’t work in progress during 2021?

Ms Kate Davies: No.

Lead 8: You couldn’t regulate until you had –

Ms Kate Davies: Yeah.

Lead 8: – drawn up your guidance? So, again, does that mean, for the most part of the period we’re talking about –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – that the regulation wouldn’t really have been –

Ms Kate Davies: No.

Lead 8: – there to stop children from getting into these adult sites?

Ms Kate Davies: That’s absolutely fair.

Lead 8: Just coming back, then, and I think the research that Ofcom did during this period sets it all out, but again, as I think you’ve already alluded to, what this may – in large part, but tell me if I’m wrong, it’s probably children accessing sexually inappropriate sites, if they’re doing this?

Ms Kate Davies: Able to, yes.

Lead 8: And in terms of just coming back, then, to the point that you made originally about the research that Ofcom did during the – particularly during the pandemic, setting aside time, there were then these other factors in the home –

Ms Kate Davies: Mm.

Lead 8: – that also potentially meant that children were more exposed as well; is that right?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And lack of supervision, because parents were working or had other things going on in the home as well; is that one of the other considerations?

Ms Kate Davies: Very understandably, yes.

Lead 8: I think that your – that Ofcom’s research also suggests that parents did know that there was security that they could use on devices –

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: – to limit what children could have access to, but that perhaps not that many parents at this point in time were making use of those sorts of controls?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes. There was an awareness of parental controls, reasonably high, I believe, sort of around 50%, I think. But yes, much lower levels of usage.

Lead 8: And again, I can – and in fact maybe it would help to go to this so that I can show you it.

If we can go, please, to INQ000615274. Thank you.

So this was your first year of regulation, and if we could go, please, to page 91, and if we could enlarge the last part, please.

And I wanted to ask you about the second paragraph. So this goes back to self-generated imagery. And then the second paragraph explains the increase in usage, or sorry, the increase in the creation of this imagery as well.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: Thank you. That can come down.

Can I ask again whether or not this was quite a specific pandemic-related issue? And by that, I mean is this a harm, in Ofcom’s assessment, that grew during the period of the pandemic?

Ms Kate Davies: So I think we’ve seen evidence from others that it grew during the pandemic.

Lead 8: Yes, that’s certainly the NCA’s assessment.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm, and I think there’s IWF research into it as well, sorry, Internet Watch Foundation.

Lead 8: Yes, and I think that the NCA would attribute that to specific pandemic-related issues like boredom, for example.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: But I just really wanted to understand whether or not that was also an assessment that Ofcom had made, or would Ofcom in this sort of instance, does it rely on the NCA, for example, to come to those sorts of judgements?

Ms Kate Davies: So I think what’s in our report is that we had noticed an increase. I don’t think we get into why that happened.

Lead 8: All right. Another bit of your research from 2020 and 2021, so this is in the vulnerable – sorry, this is in the Children and parents: media use and attitude report, and in it, Ofcom also sets out some research, as well, about the vulnerability –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – or what makes children vulnerable, as well, to coming across online harm.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: Can you explain a bit about that as well?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, yes, absolutely. So in that report, we added an exploration of vulnerability. We looked at two different dimensions of vulnerability, so one around financial vulnerability and one around vulnerability as a result of being impacted by a long-term health condition or disability. And it is that second form of vulnerability that we found meant children had an increased risk of being exposed to harm.

Lead 8: And I think other research that you’ve done as well suggests that there are perhaps other children as well –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – who might be more vulnerable to coming across online harm as well.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: Could you tell the Inquiry a bit more about the research in that field?

Ms Kate Davies: I mean, there’s quite a few to pick up on, but some specific examples, so, for example, I think we have research that children with mental health conditions are more at risk of harm, but also specific conditions, so we found some quite specific research that I don’t think we should kind of draw too broadly, but about the interaction between eating disorders, children looking for eating disorder content, and then possibly being targeted by CSAM perpetrators and groom – people who want to groom children.

Lead 8: Yes, so they’re sort of interlinked –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – vulnerability. Since the pandemic, Ofcom has gone on, as you’ve already said, to draw up these risk registers.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: I wasn’t going to take you to them. There’s a risk register for 2024.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: And a risk register for 2025. There is something I’ll ask you about particularly in the 2025 one.

Ms Kate Davies: Can I – sorry, can I just explain that the 2024 is specifically on the legal harms and the 2025 is specifically on protection of children.

Lead 8: And is that – is the – is that an innovation in having a report on children in 2025, or did you have one in 2024, as well?

Ms Kate Davies: No, it’s that they fall out of the online safety regime. So we are required to produce a register of risk, so our own assessment of particular characteristics of children, particular functionalities of services that expose adults and children to risk, and it’s, as you will have noticed, a very comprehensive document.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: So the one in 2024 was specifically related to our illegal harms duties, so it covers things that do specifically impact on children such as grooming, that are illegal, and then the one in 2025 was a requirement for our protection of children duties.

Lead 8: All right, and I’ll come and ask you about the change in the regulatory regime, but those reports, as you say, really comprehensively analyse a whole series of risks to children that emerge from the online world, so to speak.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: Has Ofcom come to an assessment as to whether or not the pandemic did change or exacerbate children’s use of the Internet so as to, I suppose, first of all to change the way they use the Internet, or change social media?

Ms Kate Davies: No, we haven’t undertaken an assessment of that in the round.

Lead 8: And has it come to any assessment, or has it done any work to understand whether or not the pandemic itself has changed what children look for online, or anything about, I suppose, children’s online lives beyond …?

Ms Kate Davies: No. I know that it comes up in very specific places. So, for example, the link you were drawing between the pandemic and did that, certainly during that period, it seems there was an increase in self-generated intimate images.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: The causality I can’t speak to, but we haven’t come to a conclusion to kind of, at that broader level that you’re talking about, of the impact of the pandemic as a whole on children’s online activities.

Lead 8: Has the – has the amount of time that children spend online, has it changed since 2020?

Ms Kate Davies: It has increased.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: And I think it continues to increase. Quite the impact of the pandemic on that specifically, there are obviously some very practical reasons where we saw a very sudden uptick, children having next to no other activities they could undertake, but yeah, I can’t speak to more than that.

Lead 8: So that’s as far as the assessment can go.

Ms Kate Davies: Yeah.

Lead 8: Children’s Internet use increased during pandemic, their social media use increased since the pandemic; and has it stayed at the same sort of levels that we saw in the pandemic, or has it –

Ms Kate Davies: So it’s – overall, it’s either the same or going up.

Lead 8: Right. And if we could go, please, to – this the final document – INQ000615307, and it’s page 12, paragraph 1.30.

So, this is from this most recent analysis, and one of the things that that sets out is that children most in need of support are likely to encourage this really harmful content.

That can come down, thank you.

May I just ask – and again, it was really just going back to the pandemic – does that sort of evidence now suggest, for example, that these are algorithms that are targeting children who might go online to look for help, because they’ve got a mental health problem, that then means they are exposed to this sort of content?

Ms Kate Davies: So, we absolutely identified algorithms as a vector of harm. And in our Protection of Children Codes, one of the requirements is around – there’s different forms of content considered harmful to children in the Online Safety Act, but essentially content that is harmful to children not being promoted via those algorithms, so – so services changing the way their algorithms operated for precisely this sort of reason.

Lead 8: Are we able to say whether, during the pandemic, that would also have been the position in terms of children being exposed to these sorts of algorithms?

Ms Kate Davies: I would assume so. I mean, the technology changes over time but recommender algorithms were definitely in operation, so I would assume so.

Lead 8: All right. What has changed since the pandemic is the advent of the online harms Act; correct?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: I think the big question, then, really, about all of this is understanding whether or not that Act means that the unregulated exposure that children had to these harms during the substantial period of the pandemic – whether or not that Act means that they wouldn’t be exposed in the same way. Are you able to help us with that?

Ms Kate Davies: I’ll try.

Lead 8: Or – well, let’s – if you try to help with that first question.

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, absolutely.

So the Online Safety Act has – it has a few other elements, but let’s focus on the two main, which is protecting everybody from illegal harm, and particularly protecting children from certain kinds of content that are judged to be harmful to children.

It achieved Royal Assent in 2023, and the illegal harms elements became enforceable in – earlier this year, in March, and the protection of children’s elements became enforceable in July this year.

What those elements are all about is services. And by services here, I mean user-to-user services, social media, search, and pornographic services. But for social media and search, what it is all about is those services having in place systems and processes that are based on a risk assessment undertaken by the service, that they then put in place systems and processes to deal with those risks and keep people safe.

So it is not a looking at specific bits of content regime, it’s all about what systems and processes. And by systems and processes, I mean things like content moderation, age assurance, some of the things we’ve been talking about.

Why do I mention the timing? I mention the timing because what I can tell you is based on what we know right now but it is still relatively early days for what is quite a large and comprehensive piece of legislation.

What we can already see, I think, is that we’ve had fairly significant success with particular elements of it. So, for example, the adoption of age assurance. And by this I mean highly effective age assurance. So to the conversation we were having earlier, really – services really having in place a robust mechanism for assuring the age of their users.

And we’ve had success both with adult sites, porn services, but also more broadly across the industry where it may be important for them to ensure that they are protecting children from certain kinds of content.

We’ve also implemented specific things such as hash matching for CSAM, which is a particular way to identify child sexual abuse and other forms of content which would significantly – or should – reduce the prevalence of this content online. So the ability of a child to come across it by mistake.

So – so we can see that things are happening. We are in the process of monitoring and evaluating, actually, how far are we getting, and we’ll be able to say more on that later this year and into next year.

I think it does fundamentally change the picture, but quite how far we get, in terms of things we’re talking about, I think remains to be seen.

Lead 8: Is the issue about providers being outside the UK, does the Act remedy that? In other words, do you have a regulatory reach to overseas providers?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, so it’s different to the video-sharing platform regime, the requirement, I forget the legal specifics, but basically if it can be viewed in the UK, yes. The requirement is for services where people in the UK are engaging with the content on that service, essentially.

Lead 8: And just coming back, then, to the sorts of really specific things that seem to have arisen during the pandemic, so in other words, that suddenly in the course of a national emergency, you have children who are online for a lot more, for a lot longer periods of time. There may be less supervision of them.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: Is there any specific work that Ofcom is doing to consider these sorts of periods of national emergency, and whether a more robust regulatory response or oversight is required?

Ms Kate Davies: So I don’t think quite specifically to that question, but I think there’s a couple of things I can share that are helpful. So firstly, I think it is important to be very clear that the Online Safety Act does not engage with the question of time spent online. Where it comes up is through the risk – that it increases the risk of harm. But there isn’t any legislation around time spent online specifically and I want to be clear on that.

When it comes to this question of national emergency, we are currently consulting on an additional requirement that certain providers, high risk providers in certain circumstances, should be required to have in place crisis response mechanisms. Now, we’ve set out what constitutes a crisis. I’m not sure the pandemic would, because of its longevity, but that where those crises are either driven by a proliferation of online content or result in a proliferation of harmful content, that services should have in place specific mechanisms to engage with the nature of the crisis and to report afterwards on how they’ve dealt with it. We’re currently consulting on that.

Separately in our illegal harms codes, and I believe also in our protection of children’s codes, what we do set out is that we expect services to be able to respond to external events when they’re thinking about things like content moderation. So there should be an ability to flex your capability to responding to external events, which I think is relevant to this question.

Lead 8: Because I think we included in your bundle some of the evidence from the time, that the ability of content moderators to do their job during the pandemic actually reduced, certainly in the first instance?

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: I think we’ll hear some more evidence about that next week. So is that the specific issue that you’re talking about, that there ought to be a way for these companies to be able to ensure that there is moderation during these periods?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes. So we don’t require specific levels of content moderation. It’s different for every company. And also, increasingly, we’re looking also at automated content moderation, so that doesn’t necessarily replace human content moderation but, you know, you need to think about these things in the round. But what we do require, as I say, is that companies are able to respond to external events which I think speaks directly to this point.

Lead 8: Do you think, or does Ofcom assess during the pandemic that parents really understood the risks that children were being exposed to online?

Ms Kate Davies: I don’t think our research suggests that parents did fully understand, but I think it is interesting that I think our research points to increased concern among parents.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: So around how they help their children, how they manage their online. So there was clearly increased concern even if there wasn’t a full understanding. I also think generally, when we’re thinking about this ecosystem, if you like, of course, because of our media literacy duties, we think about the role of parents and children, but it absolutely isn’t all on parents to work it out, it’s absolutely about what can the services do to improve the situation.

Lead 8: And is that one of the shifts that the Online Harms Act (sic) is intended to achieve, that the burden is on the provider to meet certain standards or to provide safeguards rather than the onus being on parents?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, I think that’s a fair assessment.

Lead 8: But I’m just coming back to the pandemic, does Ofcom – did parents, for example, do you think, know that there was this absence of regulation? In other words, do you think that parents during that period would have had certain expectations about how, I don’t know, for example, pornography that was provided to think that children couldn’t access that?

Ms Kate Davies: So I believe our video-sharing platforms research shows that parents thought it was the responsibility of the service to protect children.

Lead 8: Yes.

Ms Kate Davies: Which suggests a mismatch between expectation and what was going on.

Lead 8: And again, understanding that the point of the regulatory regime is to make providers responsible, do you think that in any future pandemic, nonetheless, there is still a role for education and making sure parents have a realistic understanding of the sorts of risks that children might be exposed to, and what children might do in order to try to get access to sites that they shouldn’t be on?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, I think that’s fair. I mean, what we saw, actually, during the video-sharing platform regime, during our research alongside it, was that parents’ understanding of the regulation did actually improve significantly over time. And I think that is important. I think the education piece you speak is to very important.

Also, what our research shows is just – the importance of just open conversations between parents and children about what’s going on, as much as an understanding of the regulation per se. Just an open dialogue about experiences is quite important.

Lead 8: I said that I would come back to digital inequality and I don’t want to lose sight of that, because there are two sides to this coin, aren’t there?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: On the one side is harm, and on the other side is the necessity for children in order to be able to access education, or to be able to maintain friendships. Can I ask you about the other side of the coin now.

So, first of all, did Ofcom’s research indicate that there was a digital divide prior to 2020?

Ms Kate Davies: Prior to 2020, yes, I believe so, because we have a Technology Tracker, but I cannot right now –

Lead 8: You do, but I –

Ms Kate Davies: – bring to mind the specifics, but yes.

Lead 8: I won’t put you on the spot about that, but I think there was research that was carried out –

Ms Kate Davies: Yes.

Lead 8: – that indicated that. But, I mean, based on your own knowledge and understanding, then, of what the position would have been like during the pandemic, was there – is it your understanding, then, that there was this divide between children who didn’t have adequate access to devices?

Ms Kate Davies: Yes, absolutely. So, as I was saying earlier, we introduced this concept of vulnerability. We obviously did have our ongoing Technology Tracker, but we also did an analysis around financial vulnerability, and it found that the situation with access to devices was much worse with those households that were most financially vulnerable, as you’d expect, with children either having no access to a device, or having access to smartphones only, which we started to look into, because the nature of engaging both with schoolwork but also with public services is quite limiting on a smartphone only, and also, obviously, often that was a shared device.

Lead 8: Yes. I was going to say, when we looked initially at access to children’s access to devices in 2019, that may have given the impression, actually, that most children did have access to devices.

Ms Kate Davies: Mm.

Lead 8: Do you know whether or not – does the research tell us whether or not, for example, that the children were referring, for example, to shared devices or not?

Ms Kate Davies: I don’t know off the top of my head. Quite possibly.

Lead 8: All right. But nonetheless, Ofcom was satisfied that there is this proportion of children who don’t have access to a device –

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: – or who have to share it –

Ms Kate Davies: Mm-hm.

Lead 8: – as you say?

And again, just in terms of Ofcom’s research of the importance of children being able to go online to maintain friendships during the pandemic, overall, what were the findings about that?

Ms Kate Davies: So overall it’s interesting, so we did a first qualitative research after the first lockdown, and then we did one after the third lockdown, which was early in 2021, and it shifts a bit between the two, but certainly after the first lockdown, children – really, the importance of being able to go online for socialising and – and drawing a link between it and their wellbeing, much as – alongside the risks we’ve already talked about, and obviously that impacting of children who weren’t able to do that, and being sort of cut off from social networks.

Ms Dobbin: All right.

My Lady, I think those are all of my questions. Did you have any questions you wanted to ask?

Lady Hallett: No, thank you very much indeed, Ms Davies. I don’t have any further questions. All I can say is that I fear you’re going to have a job for a long time to come if you stay with Ofcom and trying to protect children online. But anyway, thank you very much for the help you’ve given to the Inquiry. I’m very grateful.

The Witness: Thank you.

Lady Hallett: Very well, I shall return at 2.00.

Ms Dobbin: I’m grateful.

(1.00 pm)

(The Short Adjournment)

(2.00 pm)

Ms Dobbin: My Lady, please may I call Professor Emerita Gillean McCluskey.

Lady Hallett: Thank you.

Professor Emerita McCluskey

PROFESSOR EMERITA GILLEAN MCCLUSKEY (sworn).

Lady Hallett: Thank you for coming along to help us, Professor.

The Witness: Thank you, my Lady.

Questions From Lead Counsel to the Inquiry for Module 8

Ms Dobbin: Can I ask you to give your full name to the Inquiry, please.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Professor Gillean McCluskey.

Lead 8: Can I just check that you have in front of you, please, your expert report which I think runs to 296 pages, Professor.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I do, thank you.

Lead 8: Does that bear the number INQ000587959?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Thank you, it does.

Lead 8: And can you confirm that any of the facts that are stated in that report are true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: They are.

Lead 8: And can you also confirm that any opinion that you have stated in that report is an opinion which is the true and complete professional – is the true and complete professional opinion –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It is.

Lead 8: – of you. Thank you.

It’s right to say that this almost 300-page report has been authored by, in fact, three different academics, is that correct, of which you are one?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: (Witness nodded).

Lead 8: And insofar as there are two other lead authors, the first is Professor Cathy Lewin; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, that’s right.

Lead 8: And she is a professor of education at Manchester Metropolitan University, specialising in educational technology; is that right?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right.

Lead 8: And the other lead author is Professor Jo Van Herwegen, is that correct, who is a professor of developmental psychology at University College London; is that right?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right.

Lead 8: And she has a special research interest in specialisation in the provision and – education provision and outcomes for students with special educational needs; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It is.

Lead 8: And then may I ask you, please, about your expertise, Professor McCluskey, in this field.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I was the lead author for a number of reports, including the central report on education and its impacts for the Scottish Covid Public Inquiry, and my broader research is – looks at education in the round, and particularly the challenges for children who have got barriers to learning in whatever way that presents itself.

Lead 8: All right. I was going to ask, to begin with, about an observation that you make at paragraph 41 about the different parts of the United Kingdom, and that your research for the Inquiry, looking at education during the pandemic, found that there were greater commonalities than there were dissimilarities.

First of all, is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That is correct yes, it is.

Lead 8: And I think it’s important to say about this report, it is a report that covers the whole of the United Kingdom, isn’t it?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It is.

Lead 8: So in each of the areas that you’ve looked at, you’ve sought to ascertain what research exists in each part of the United Kingdom in order to help you arrive at conclusions; is that right?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s exactly what we tried to do. It’s fair to say that England by its very nature, because it’s much larger, has a very much larger body of research overall and it’s also fair to say that, for instance, Northern Ireland has a relatively smaller body of reach, but yes, in each case, we tried to establish what research was available and the weight of that research, the rigour of it as well.

Lead 8: And just standing back from the enormous detail of your report and just trying to set out what the commonalities were, can I ask you about each of these. So first, in terms of the policy interventions that were implemented by each of the governments in the United Kingdom, insofar as they all closed schools to most children, did they do so at broadly the same times as each other?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: In broad terms, yes, they did. They each had a commitment to closing schools to most pupils. They each had a commitment to ensuring continuity of in-person support as far as possible for vulnerable and disadvantaged children and for the children of key workers, and they all moved to remote learning, in different forms, at approximately the same times, given that there are different school – you know, holidays and things vary a bit over –

Lead 8: Yes, of course.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: But in general terms, absolutely, yes.

Lead 8: And in terms of that vulnerable children policy that each implemented, so that children could come to school, is it correct that there is some variation in the detail of that policy across each of the parts of the United Kingdom?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, for historical reasons, policy reasons, the approach to defining vulnerability generally, even before we think about education, is quite complex and messy, and that plays out to some extent in the ways in which vulnerability was understood pre-pandemic across the jurisdictions of the UK, but the policy contexts have always been slightly different.

But I think the key thing is that each of the jurisdictions recognise the need to respond to children who were vulnerable. There were differences. But that there was a genuine, I think, and principled attempt to understand that children with additional levels of vulnerability needed extra support.

Lead 8: And did each part of the United Kingdom also have within their policy a discretion that it afforded to either schools or to local authorities in Wales, Scotland and England to identify children as vulnerable as well?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Again, that is a commonality across all four jurisdictions, as you say, and I think a really important one. So at the same time as trying to provide some clear guidance, there was flexibility and discretion built in from the outset in each of the sets of guidances available to local authorities in schools.

Lead 8: And then, moving on from the identification of vulnerable children, did each part of the United Kingdom broadly implement the same policy around provision of remote learning as well?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Broadly.

Lead 8: Perhaps we’ll come to the detail of that shortly.

Turning then to any points of difference, I suppose, is there anything that you would put to that any part of the United Kingdom did that stands out as being quite different from any of the other parts of the UK?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think there are points of difference that are interesting, but in terms of something really significant and outstanding, probably not, on balance.

Lead 8: And just so that we can be clear about this from the start of your evidence, what would you consider to be those interesting points of difference that might be noteworthy?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, so we – I think we may come to it later, but I think that some parts of the UK were – some of the systems they had in place meant that they – it was easier for them to move towards remote learning once the pandemic started.

Lead 8: So I think we will come to that quite quickly, actually, but do you mean that in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, that their online provision might have been slightly more advanced than England; is that the point?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That is – yeah.

Lead 8: All right. And just coming, then, broadly, to impacts, whether or not overall – and again, just standing back from the detail of your report – whether or not you’ve concluded that, broadly speaking, the educational impacts of the pandemic have been broadly the same around the United Kingdom or are there any points of difference that you would point to?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: No. Again, I think it’s an important point to make that actually the impacts were broadly similar.

Lead 8: All right. I’m going to deal, then, if I may – and again, just standing back from some of the detail of your report – just to understand your opinion prior to the pandemic as to the standards of education across the United Kingdom.

So if I can start, the Inquiry has heard evidence from Ofsted, for example, that most schools were judged to be ‘good’ in England prior to March 2020.

Is that picture broadly the same around the United Kingdom?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It’s broadly – broadly the same. It’s probably useful to contextualise that within, you know, the countries with whom we most often compare ourselves with, rather than just the UK, just to have that broader picture. But – so I’m referring to PISA, to the Programme of International Student Assessment, which gives us that broader picture within which we can look at the four jurisdictions.

Things were broadly good, attendance was broadly stable. Generally, attainment had been improving across the four jurisdictions in the previous, say, 15 to 20 years. There was some stagnation which was causing some concern before we went into the pandemic, so things were not perfect, but they were probably imperfect equally across the four jurisdictions.

Lead 8: Can I just – before we go on, you’ve mentioned PISA.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: It’s probably important to understand why that might matter in the context of your evidence.

PISA is – and please say if I’m wrong – but is that a means of comparing across different countries the attainment levels within each of them in a way that makes them comparable to each other?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, there are two things we’ve done in the report. One is to look at international comparisons and one is to look at cross-country within the UK comparisons, simply because sometimes, when we might say, for instance, girls outperform boys, which is generally true, it’s useful to know whether that is something that only occurs in the UK or whether it’s actually part of a global trend. And then we can talk about the differences that may have been effected by the pandemic.

So the Programme of International Student Assessment takes place every three years and it looks at reading, writing – it has different emphases, different areas of focus each time that the test is run, but it looks at reading, writing, and maths. It has its critics, but the one advantage, and the reason that we do refer to it in the report, is it’s one of the very few tests that all the UK countries are involved in.

Lead 8: Right. So is the importance of it, for our part, then, it also allows – it has allowed you, in the report, to compare the parts of the United Kingdom with each other?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Exactly.

Lead 8: But also to compare how each individual country has done over time in those assessments, as well?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Exactly.

Lead 8: All right. You go on in your report to say, recognising that there had been a rise in attainment rates across the United Kingdom, that although this had been noted, there was a concern that it marked variability across the UK. May I ask you about that, please, and what that refers to?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: So the first point, just to reiterate, is that there had been some stagnation in the years just before the pandemic. That was a big concern.

Lead 8: Can I just pause and ask you why would that be a cause of concern, if the rates were good or regarded as rising?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: So if the rates are rising but the rates of other countries are rising more, then there’s – then the UK goes down in the rankings. And that is very – obviously, that’s a concern because of the reputation of our education system is then called into question. So if we had some stagnation, so things were plateauing or in some cases just becoming slightly more problematic, then school leaders and governments were concerned about that.

Lead 8: I understand. And had that started to happen, then, that concern that the UK was slipping compared to other countries?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Exactly – yes it had, yeah.

Lead 8: Right, okay. I’m grateful.

Turning, then, to another point of concern that you mention in your report, you refer on the one hand, I think, in the period leading up to the pandemic to attainment also increasing in respect of children with special educational needs; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right, yes.

Lead 8: But later in your report, when you come to focus specifically on the SEN system, you also refer to there being a crisis in the SEN system, as well. It’s paragraph 383 if you need it, if that’s not on the tip of your tongue. But if you are able to, can you reconcile those two things?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: So the first thing to say is I prefer, when I’m talking, I will use the phrase “special needs” because I want to make sure that we’re talking not just about England but about those four countries.

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: And the term “special needs” is imperfect in many ways. I would understand that people might have concerns about that particular phrase, but I’m seeking a phrase that doesn’t belong to one of the four jurisdictions. So if you’ll forgive me for going with something imperfect, that’s my reasoning.

So, yes, it’s fair to say that there was a huge amount of legitimate policy attention and increased resourcing over time going towards understanding special needs and addressing the needs of children with special needs. That was making a difference, and overall, the headline was that attainment for children with special needs was improving.

However, this was not true for all children with special needs, and it’s fair to say that, as the depth of knowledge that we have of special needs has increased over time, particularly in the last 10 years – which is something we should celebrate, because the more we understand the hopefully better we’re able to support children who face these challenges, but that understanding means that we – some might say the categories of special needs have expanded and the needs have grown in and of themselves.

So we have a situation where the headline looks as though things were improving, but that is certainly not the case for all. And if we look slightly beneath that headline, then we begin to understand how that varied so much for different groups of children and young people in school.

Lead 8: All right. And then – and will you forgive me, I should have clarified that at the start, because it’s right, isn’t it, that “special needs” are defined differently in each part of the United Kingdom, and the terminology is slightly different –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: – in each. But if we say “special needs”, that will cover –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It’s good enough, if we can be forgiven for just going with a phrase that’s not ideal, but –

Lead 8: Imperfect –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: All right. Then, lastly, the disadvantage gap before the pandemic –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: – as well. Again, can you just provide your opinion as to where – what progress had been made and where that stood prior to the pandemic.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think when I’ve been using – I’ve been concerned about stagnation. I think that’s really where my concern comes into focus.

So there had been concerted attempts to try to address the disadvantage gap. That is the gap between the children who live in the poorest households and how they attained, and the difference between achievements of children in more affluent households. And that had really stalled. So it had been – it had been a clear focus, again a clear focus of policy attention in the four jurisdictions of the UK, and again, resources, support, additional teaching, additional classroom support in terms of teaching assistants. Some very practical terms. More money, more people to help. But the disadvantage gap is – seems to have been really resistant to change.

Lead 8: All right, I’m going to move on then, if I may, about the matter that you touched upon at the outset of your evidence, which is this different provision that existed across the United Kingdom in terms of access to technology. So if I can just ask you about this.

What you have suggested in your report is that in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, that their provision – I’m putting this in broad terms, but that their provision had advanced prior to the pandemic in a way that was different from England; is that, broadly speaking, correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. There are –

Lead 8: And I should say within schools, sorry.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, so there are two aspects to that, I think. The first is that each of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales had a digital strategy for education and it also had a learning platform, which I can say more about in a minute, but if I can just talk about the strategy. There had been a strategy in England but partly, as far as I understand it through austerity measures, the digital strategy had been deprioritised and had only recently been resurrected in 2018, 2019, and one of the central planks of that was to introduce the idea of demonstrator schools for education technology in England, but it actually hadn’t been put into practice, although the intention was there, the pandemic, actually, overtook that intention. So you have a difference in strategy prioritisation.

It’s fair to say, I think, that certainly in the other three jurisdictions, the – concerns about rurality and, you know, distance and geography probably played its part in the development of those national strategies and a recognition of a need for it had been around for quite a long time because of the concerns about people missing out because they weren’t living in highly populated areas.

That wasn’t the only driver, for sure. There were other drivers, but that was probably part of it. So you had that strategy and then also the learning platforms.

Lead 8: Can I just maybe use Scotland as an example, then, as to how this worked prior to the pandemic.

So in terms of the, sort of, learning platform that was available in Scotland, could you just explain what that actually looked like or what it was.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. So it’s called Glow, and it was in place long before Covid. And what it is, it’s just a central point where schools, teachers and children – which is the really important thing – could all access a central way of sharing information, children … perhaps if you haven’t worked – for people who haven’t worked with a learning platform, I think of it a bit like what we do now, very automatically with Teams, for instance. So there’s a really – it’s very easy to share information, to share – for teachers to share information about expectations about a piece of work, there’s a library of resources, there’s ways in which children can send back work for marking. There’s lots of opportunities and ways to share feedback, both from children to the adults. It’s a way for parents to share information and be informed about what’s happening in school.

So it’s a – this system was already in place. I think that’s the thing to emphasise. So there were lots of ways in which people would just expect that to be the way that information was shared.

Lead 8: All right. Sorry, forgive me if I hadn’t understood, is it also – was it a platform by which online teaching could be provided, as well?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Live online teaching was really rare. That was not happening. And not all learning platforms had that facility at that time, to be fair. Perhaps one of the things that Scotland also had was a thing called e-Sgoil, which was live online, and was set up in the Western Isles in one of the most remote parts and originally, I think, in 2016. It had expanded already by the time the pandemic came along, to respond to a broader set of needs. So, although it started out very much about live online learning partly to do with remoteness and rurality, but also to do with teacher shortages in those areas, so trying to provide teaching online where it would be impossible, say, to have a teacher for a 16-year-old who was looking for a more unusual subject at that level, if that makes sense.

But it had developed quite a lot since then. So e-Sgoil also would have a bank of recorded lessons. It also would offer study support for senior pupils looking to work on their national qualifications as well.

Lead 8: And again, was that provision, had that been rolled out across Scotland or was that for the – those parts of Scotland that were very remote that that would be used?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It was expanding but it wasn’t in place across the whole country.

Lead 8: I’m going to come back and ask you what the implications of that were in terms of the pandemic but in terms of Northern Ireland and Wales, was their online provision, were the platforms that they were using, were they similar to the ones available in Scotland, or –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I do know most about the Scottish situation, but my understanding is that both Northern Ireland and Wales had learning platforms. It’s also fair to say that Northern Ireland actually were early adopters of technology, and had probably the most advanced approaches to technology, as they went into the pandemic.

Lead 8: I think one of the things you point to in your report, though, is that prior to the pandemic, there was actually a contraction in the use of technology.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And I have two questions about that. I think the first one understanding, notwithstanding what you’ve said about the availability of these platforms in other parts of the UK, whether that contraction applies throughout the UK?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, it does. So overall associated with austerity measures, access to technology had actually declined before the pandemic. But its use had actually increased. So although there was less access, what there was, was being used more actively. But particularly by teachers, not by children themselves. So it’s worth noting that as well.

Lead 8: Yes, because we’ll come to the other side of this, which is about: do children have access to devices to use this?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: But just staying on this issue for a second, you also go on to say in your report that there was more digital provision in private schools; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. It seems as though, although the research on this is quite limited, but it looks as though there was more provision, there was – from one – one report that we do have, suggests there was three times as much available finance to support that provision, as well. So we have a really unequal situation and a real difference between what was available in state education and in private education generally. There were differences, there were variations, but generally.

Lead 8: All right. Well, maybe we’ll come and look at this during the pandemic period.

Just moving on then, I suppose, to what’s the really critical issue for our purposes in this Inquiry, and I’m jumping ahead a bit, but to understand whether or not the availability of that technology in other parts of the United Kingdom proved to be advantageous to those parts of the United Kingdom. I suppose, in other words, did they capitalise on it? Did it have a benefit?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: There’s no evidence, there’s no research undertaken across the four countries that provides evidence of whether that worked or not. What it looks like, though, from what we can see, is that the systems – because the systems are already in place and the level of familiarity for staff in the schools was such that they had the skills, and they had the knowledge of the systems, I think we can probably say that it gave us starting advantage. But I have to be really clear, nobody has undertaken a study to ask that question properly.

Lead 8: All right, but in the work you’ve done and the research you’ve undertaken, is there any tangible difference, for example, say, in attainment or something that might be measurable that might say, you know, “We don’t know the exact reasons, but …”?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: No.

Lead 8: Or even specific to any subject to say, “That might be explicable by the fact that these jurisdictions had better technology prior to the pandemic”?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: No, because I’m not sure you’d see it in attainment. What you’d probably have to do is to ask staff. But then staff weren’t working across the four different jurisdictions. They were – very few of them would have moved jobs at any time during that time, just to make a comparison. So they only had their own experience in their own place. So that’s why I’m being cautious about it, you know. I think it must have made a difference but there’s no way we can actually know.

Lead 8: What you do go on to say, though, is that throughout the United Kingdom it was known that a digital divide existed; yes?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: So going back to this, the other side of the coin, which is: did children have access to devices?

So is that correct then? Can we say that for each part of the United Kingdom, that that divide was there?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That divide was there. And it – again, you asked me earlier, if I may refer to it, to the commonalities across the UK, and sadly and concerningly that absolutely – the digital divide was a feature in each of the four jurisdictions.

And it really had three aspects to it that I think are important to note. It was access, as you’ve mentioned. So that’s access to devices of different kinds. But it was also skills. So the skills that come with experience, with practice, with having access to the – access to devices allows you the experiences to develop the skills. So without access, without skills, inevitably, then, we also see a digital divide in the outcomes for children when they go to use them.

So I think this is – so, going into the pandemic, we had a series of concerns about these different aspects of the divide, and I think evidence suggests that those things also then made a big difference once the pandemic struck and children were learning at home.

Lead 8: All right.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Most children were learning at home.

Lead 8: All right.

Can I turn, then, to the outset of the pandemic and what opinion or conclusion you’ve reached as to how well prepared schools across the UK were to pivot to teaching most children in their homes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: To be brief, they were not prepared at all.

Lead 8: And have you come to any conclusions as to why they weren’t prepared or why they weren’t ready?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: There was no scenario planning for a pandemic of this kind. There was no preparation. There was no training for staff. There was no communication that happened with parents about what to do in the event of …

So that much-used word, unprecedented, needn’t have meant that there was lack of preparation but there was a lack of preparation and training.

Lead 8: All right. Moving on, then, to consider the different steps that were taken to deal with the scenario that schools were coping with.

So, first of all, I think dealing, if we may, with the steps that were taken to provide children with devices. And again, just standing back from your report and seeing if I can encapsulate this, each part of the United Kingdom and each government did implement a strategy to acquire devices and to provide them to children; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, it is. Yes.

Lead 8: And is it also correct to say that those devices across the United Kingdom were delivered to children at quite a late point in the first set of school closures?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah, there was huge variability, which is probably – I should sort of précis – sorry, I should start every answer by saying that, in a way. But generally there was a really late delivery.

It’s fair to say that governments tried incredibly hard and made strenuous efforts to try to address the lack of devices, but it was also the lack of Internet accessibility. So the devices were delivered late and the Internet accessibility wasn’t delivered at the same time in many, many cases. So, without the Internet, the device was not always very helpful.

Lead 8: All right, let’s maybe unpick a little bit of this. You may just want to have your statement open in front of you from about paragraph 242.

But you explain there that in England, that there was a scheme by which devices would be provided, and that by the end of June – yes, the end of June 2020, I think 2.6% of learners had been provided with laptops; have I got that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yes.

Lead 8: So – and I think we may hear some evidence about this, but those devices intended for specific groups of children; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, for disadvantaged learners there, yeah.

Lead 8: But I think as you go on to explain, falling considerably short at that period of time of the numbers of children who actually needed devices; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That is correct, yes.

Lead 8: And similarly, I think you set out that in Northern Ireland, 3,000 laptops were distributed in June 2020; correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right – (overspeaking) –

Lead 8: And then some more –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: – in August?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, although I do make the point there also, without Internet access, those 3,000 laptops.

Lead 8: Yes. Then can you just help me with the position in Scotland and when the devices arrived there. I think you’ve set out that there was an initial 25,000 devices were procured; correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And do you know when those devices were delivered?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Gradually over the summer and then into August 2020, also remembering that the school holiday falls earlier in Scotland, so August 2020 is when the schools go back.

Lead 8: And I think equally, when it comes to Wales, it’s right to say that Wales, I think, were slightly ahead of the curve and able to provide devices to 2.7% of learners by the end of May.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: So if we are just looking at government provision of devices, then, across the United Kingdom, obviously coming at that later point towards the summer of 2020; is that right?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And I think what you explain, then, in your report is that there was a continuous provision of devices throughout the autumn and winter of 2020; correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right, yes.

Lead 8: And what have you deduced from the fact that those devices continued to be delivered, and I think throughout the period of the second set of school closures, as well?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: There was a real mismatch between need and what was able to be provided. Again, I do want to recognise the strenuous efforts that everyone was making to try to do this, but it just simply wasn’t adequate. Some schools in some areas and in some local authorities were more successful, and I don’t know that, you know, I could only speculate, I don’t know the reasons for that. We don’t have any evidence about it. But in general, things were still happening too slowly, and the fact that they were still delivering – it took them a long time to even harmonise the distribution of laptops and the access to the Internet surely, you know, is really quite a grave concern considering the commitment to ensure continued learning.

Lead 8: We’ve heard some evidence from some school leaders about being able to either procure devices locally or using budgets to acquire devices. Was that something that your research demonstrated, as well?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, in general terms. It just seemed to be really variable. And that’s not good, because, you know, every child has the same right. It shouldn’t be about where you live or whether you live in an affluent area or whether you live in an affluent authority – I mentioned the City of Westminster there as one example. So it really shouldn’t matter and that variability is a real problem.

Lead 8: So that should be the concern, it’s the inconsistency –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: – of provision? So some local schools, some local authorities may have been able to fill gaps, but others may not; is that right?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: (No audible answer).

Lead 8: Again, just in terms of those who most needed devices, what did your research tell you about where the need was greatest?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Again, I do think that there were attempts to try to ensure that disadvantaged learners had access to remote education through devices and to having Internet access. We can see that a very large number of devices had been delivered by the following February.

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: You know, now, that’s a long time in a child’s education, when you think about how long they’re in school, from the age of 4 to the age of, say, 16, 17, 18. So that’s the best part of a year. And we still haven’t got full delivery for some disadvantaged learners.

So it looks like a big number but it took a long, long time to happen, and those who were disadvantaged were being, how can I say this? The – as schools moved more effectively to live lessons, we also know that this actually led to a kind of cumulative disadvantage for those who were already disadvantaged, because even where they had devices, they were more likely – learners who were disadvantaged were more likely to have to share those devices at home or share Internet access, or through, maybe, having smaller spaces to work in at home, it meant that they might be in the same room as a parent who was having to work at home, or another child in the family having to work at home.

So the impacts of overcrowding, of lack of study space, lack of devices, lack of – or variable interconnectivity, all of these things started to really make more of a difference over time.

Lead 8: All right. I think you’ve touched on a really important point I was going to come to, but I think, as I understand the point that you’re making, there’s a distinction between the first set of school closures and the second set of school closures in terms of the type of remote learning that was being provided; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, we certainly saw much more of a move to – as schools got more guidance and more skilled, and staff understood the demands of the digital remote offer, the confidence and skills about doing that increased, and live online lessons became much more common.

This was a good thing in many ways, and many teachers will have found it – you know, that the – they could see engagement more clearly, and they felt that youngsters themselves felt that it was more engaging. And being engaged is part of motivation, and seeing other people face-to-face, even if it was online, that was a lot better than being sent a worksheet or, you know, a pre-recorded video, or a piece of paper with a quiz on it, which was a lot more common at the very beginning.

Lead 8: So I think what you’re saying is that, in fact, in the second set of school lockdowns, this more effective provision, by way of online lessons, had the unintended consequence of, in fact, widening potential barriers to children’s ability to access that content?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think that’s exactly what I’m saying. And I know it was an unintended consequence, but I think it’s something we really want to be aware of when we’re thinking about lessons learnt and planning for the future.

Lead 8: All right. And again, it comes back to this, as you’ve said: that it was thought that having live or synchronous teaching is the best or the most effective route?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: But that requires a child to have access to a device at a specific time?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: Is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s correct, yeah.

Lead 8: And that’s what may have become more challenging –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: – for some people?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: And potentially if different children were having live, online lessons at the same time?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Absolutely. And I think –

Lead 8: Would be a concern?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: – it’s just, yes, it became a problem.

Lead 8: All right, I’m going to move on, if I may, to deal – I’m just going to stay with the first set of school closures for the moment, and just ask you a bit more about variation in what was being provided during the first set of school closures.

Can I just ask you, then, about I think the point that you are making, that there was, again, this word “variability” across the United Kingdom about the types of education that children were being provided with during that period; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: There was variability in a number of different ways. So I think that there was variability between what independent private schools were able to offer and what state education was offering. I’ve mentioned that. So there was a move in – commonly, in independent schools, to more live lessons, and for a closer following of the typical school curriculum as well.

They generally found it easier to pivot to online learning, and – than state schools did. So there was that difference.

The other difference which I think is a really understandable difference was that the expectations that you could have of secondary-age learners about being able to sit in front of a screen are vastly different from what you might expect for a child of 4 or 5 or 6, and so of course, there needed to be differences, there needed to be differences in approaches.

And so some of the variation was, if you like, pedagogically led, it was – it made sense, and some of it was not. It was about what we might say is a really unfortunate set of circumstances, again, depending on, you know, where you were growing up or the household you were growing up in. So there were different kinds of things going on.

Lead 8: Can I just ask you about the first point you made about teaching very small – teaching younger children.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yes.

Lead 8: And I mean, a question really drawing on your expertise about how difficult or not it is to teach younger children online as opposed to teaching them in the classroom?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think a lot of school staff had real concerns about how they would be able to work with children who, if they were in a classroom, they would be able to move them on from activities very quickly. They’d be able to take account of the fact that young children developmentally cannot sit still for very long, you know, their bodies need to move physically. And so, you know, the range of activities, the range of – the relationship between learning and physical movement is very, very different. The need for play is well understood now. Play, as part of development, which feeds into, you know, learning and progress and achievement.

So I think that primary school staff had a real challenge on their hands, particularly for younger ages, in trying to work remotely. It isn’t reasonable, and it’s inappropriate to expect small children to sit in front of a screen.

Lead 8: All right, and just coming back, then, to the question that we started with, which was just to understand more about the reality of children’s lives during the pandemic and the sorts of education that they’ve been – they were provided with. You’ve mentioned differences in being provided with live online lessons during the first period of school closures.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And have you come to an assessment as to putting the – putting private schools to one side, how common or not it was for children to have live lessons during that first period of closures?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah, it was really rare. Yeah, it was much less common. It became more common, but in the first lockdown it was unusual.

Lead 8: And have you been able to come to an overall assessment as to actually what children were doing or what their school day might have looked like during that first period of school closures?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: There is – there’s quite a lot of data which suggests that there were – children were – like staff, children were making really good attempts in general to engage. They were being sent homework, as it was – or, you know, what might have been called homework before the pandemic. It looked very traditional. So we – so we’re talking about worksheets, workbooks, quizzes, videos that they could look at that would support their learning.

There was a move, I think to be fair, across all four jurisdictions again, that because the national exams were being cancelled, a setting aside of that expectation and the pressures of preparing for exams meant that children should concentrate on consolidating their learning and feeling secure in their learning and the things they already knew so they wouldn’t lose traction, but that any new content learning, if you like, would – it would be much more difficult to deliver. So that’s, you know, that was not the priority.

And there was a big emphasis on – initially on welfare, on, you know, on wellbeing of children, and that consolidation of learning rather than new learning.

Lead 8: And does that apply at both primary and secondary, or was the provision more advanced for secondary school pupils?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think there was the general messaging about consolidation that ran through primary and secondary. That’s not to say there weren’t cross winds and that there weren’t expectations that went against that in other ways, but I think if we look at the messaging that was coming through policy, it’s very person-centred in many ways, actually.

Lead 8: When you say person-centred, can I just ask what that means, please?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Sorry. I mean that it’s about trying to understand the holistic needs of a child rather than simply focus on attainment and academic achievement. It’s about, you know, their wellbeing aspects of being in isolation.

Lead 8: One of the announcements that was also made on 18 March was that secondary school examinations wouldn’t take place. That was certainly the position in England.

Did that impact – that early decision that those exams wouldn’t go ahead, do you know if that impacted, then, on the specific provision of education to children who would have been expecting to do exams?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It impacted immediately, yes. Not – my understanding is that it impacted in ways that were perhaps unexpected. So you might have expected just that the young people who were preparing for exams would be delighted that they weren’t going to have to do the exams, but actually they had been preparing really hard for those exams in general. It’s such a rite of passage for many of our young people in the UK. It’s an expectation that society talks about from such an early age as well. So, to – that move to cancel exams, while absolutely necessary and understandable, actually created a whole tumult, a real sense of disorientation, I think, for that generation of young people who were expecting to sit exams or other – other qualifications and accreditations.

So the provision that was put in place instead, no matter what it was, was always going to feel really kind of – not second best, I’m struggling for words a bit, but just out of kilter with their expectations for such a long time.

Lead 8: Yes, I think – in fact I wondered, whether or not their exams having been cancelled, what sort of teaching they were getting, if it wasn’t orientated towards exams and whether or not there was in fact substitution for teaching towards that end.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah, I think I’ve used the word “consolidation” of known – of course teachers, good teachers, will always try to extend what’s available, and that happened. And although I haven’t said so in so many words, I would really like to note how the dedication of staff was just above and beyond in all the – so many ways in which they tried to do – to ensure that – particularly if we’re just talking about the young people who were expecting to sit exams and to provide a good education in very difficult circumstances for them. They really went above and beyond. And that included trying to consolidate but also extend, but not introduce new concepts. I think that’s the distinction.

Lead 8: All right. One of the – that was – in terms of variation, that’s obviously about types of education being provided. I think your report also points to variation in terms of the number of hours that children were doing –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: – schoolwork for during this first period of school closures as well. So, again, can I ask you about that, and the degree to which there was variation in what children were spending time doing –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: – in terms of learning.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, it’s very straightforward to measure the amount of time that children usually spend in school. So we can say, you know, they spend five to six hours a day in school, for example, just generally. And, you know, a little – sorry, a note of caution, because we don’t know exactly because there was huge variability, again, in terms of what was being offered and what was being accessed in terms of education in the first lockdown and in the second lockdown, but less so in the second lockdown but certainly initially, but we know it was far less.

So the – it varied according to age, but in general terms, even when we say older learners were probably approaching closer to five to six hours a day, it was still less. For younger learners, it was less than that, generally.

Lead 8: I think what you suggest in some of your evidence is that there is some evidence of, for example, average periods of time that children may have spent doing their schoolwork, but underneath that might lie considerable variation. Is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, it is. Yes. And again, I wanted to draw attention to the differences in terms of the experiences of children living with disadvantage.

Lead 8: In that regard, can you just explain, sorry, what you mean by that.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: So, certainly in the first lockdown, children living with disadvantage were much less likely to engage with education. Children with different kinds of vulnerability were less likely to engage with education. There’s probably a number of reasons for that but I think that difference is the first thing to note.

Lead 8: Thank you. And I think, just moving on then, which is a separate point, probably, from hours spent, but related, is that question of engagement. So, in other words, a child could have a device –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: – but the question of whether or not they’re engaging with online learning a separate question; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. I think – I think it relates to the broader understanding of the things that help engagement, and that’s knowledge that we have from research over a long period of time. So we know that engagement is assisted where the school itself has good leadership. So that broader context.

We know it matters what kind of family circumstances and what the household circumstances are in which the child is trying to learn. We know that the neighbourhood matters and we know individual factors also really matter for learning.

We do know that the challenges for children living with disadvantage, and I’ve talked about some of them already, were just so much greater. We know that overcrowding, for instance, or not having a study space was generally, before the pandemic, was already compounding disadvantage for children who struggle in school.

But when the pandemic came, obviously, the issues of home study spaces just becomes so much more central, and probably compounds disadvantage even further.

Lead 8: In your report at paragraph 198, you refer to a survey that was carried out by the Educational Institute of Scotland. That reported that low learner engagement was the most significant barrier to delivering remote learning.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: And that – we also see that the Office for National Statistics in England in 2020 also reported that, we can see there, over half of parents surveyed said that their children were struggling with remote learning at home, for reasons including lack of motivation and lack of guidance and support.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: Is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, it is. I mean, it is still worth remembering that digital access was a real problem –

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: – and digital skills associated with lack of access were still a problem. So these words, “motivation” and “engagement”, are a little bit – could be misinterpreted. I think that behind that, what might look like a lack of motivation is probably a lot of the things that I’ve already mentioned about the actual circumstances within which children were trying to learn, and clearly, if you were in a home where there were easy access to devices, where everybody in the household had their own devices, where the Internet speeds were good, then that helps. And where those things are missing, that means there’s a hindrance or a barrier.

It is quite clear that, also, the lack of guidance and support needs to be understood a bit more carefully, as well. So children living with disadvantage were often the children of people who were either on – who may have been key workers, so they may not have had the capacity to spend a lot of time assisting their children. On the other hand, we also know that parents from low-income families spent a lot of time trying to help their children.

So it may just have been the kind of support and guidance wasn’t as effective for some children, even though their parents were willing and, indeed, very committed to offering the support that they could.

Lead 8: I think what you suggest at paragraph 198, and also you pick it up at paragraph 200, as well, is that the potential lack of engagement is also demonstrated on the teacher side of the equation, as well; is that right? So teachers were reporting that they weren’t getting work back from children, as well; is that right?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. Teachers were really concerned about this. So I think that teachers were really aware – were aware of the difficulties some children were facing, and the statistics there, so around a quarter, 24%, saying that fewer than one in four children in their class were returning work that had been set. That is quite a statistic.

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That is quite a concerning amount. It is in the early days, it is 2020, it is the first lockdown, but it’s still quite a concern.

Lead 8: All right. One of the things that you point to in your report that was an issue was that in some schools, in fact, they were required to have cameras off; is that right?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yes. Across the UK I think it’s fair to say that concerns about safeguarding and privacy meant that cameras – having cameras off – it became quite an issue. And I think that it probably, although there might have been good reasons for it, we also know it really affects engagement. I mean, we know that as adults: if the camera’s off, it does give us the opportunity to do other things, or we – it’s easier to drift, the concentration isn’t as good.

So, yes.

Lead 8: I mean, that seems like a really obvious point. It’s quite hard to understand why that would have carried on. Given that it’s – the idea that children would engage with cameras off, it’s difficult to conceive why they would.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think they were just – as I say, you know, the UK has a – schools have a real concern about safeguarding and privacy in general, again for good reasons. I think that there was, you know, an understanding that children may be in shared spaces online. You know, that wasn’t – I mean shared spaces as in the physical space they were in when they were online. There might be other people in the background. You know, there might be other children in the background. There might be all sorts of things going on. And that would detract from, you know, the feelings of safety, and that it just wasn’t appropriate in many cases.

There were real differences in how this was understood across different schools, but that was the general message.

Lead 8: Yes, right.

Can I then just touch on a different subject, please, which is the particular difficulties that children with special needs faced in accessing online education.

Can you just explain, please, in summary form, what the particular barriers were that some of those children faced.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: So it’s worth saying, first of all, that the vast majority of children with special needs are in our mainstream schools. So while we – it’s important to think about what happened in more specialist education settings, most children with special needs are in mainstream schools, generally.

So, when the pandemic started, the complexity around vulnerability and how it was being defined had a real and immediate impact on the children with special needs right away. So, am I eligible to go to school or not? And there were lots of reasons for and against children being able to go to school when they had special needs.

The range of special needs makes it really difficult to talk about one – you know, one answer for all children. I think that’s – it’s really invidious to, kind of, do that, because it just oversimplifies the situation that is just not the case. So you’ve got to be really careful.

Lead 8: So, just in terms of understanding entirely why you say that, but there has been evidence to the Inquiry, for example, that children with certain needs might need quite – might need different types of remote technology to help them to be able to learn at home, and, for example, that there were barriers about being able to access that.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: Is that … I mean, did your research demonstrate those sorts of barriers?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Absolutely. So the barriers that – so there’s barriers – so although I’ve said and want to emphasise that most children with special needs are in mainstream schools, they are often there with additional support from staff, for a start, who are able to provide, for instance, one-to-one support or one-to-two support, who can help them with, you know, with physical needs, if that’s appropriate, or with accessing, you know, materials more easily, or resources more easily.

And so the first thing is that resource, that person resource is no longer there. Whether that’s an additional teacher or a teaching assistant, pupil support assistant, personal assistant, all that range of that workforce that is so vital in our schools. And then secondly, as I think perhaps you were hinting at there, there’s also the question about, you know, adaptive technologies and systems that support them in learning in schools.

So if we take an example, perhaps, of children who are deaf or children who are visually impaired, they’re really – the significant difficulties that they face in not having the technology available for them at home just – it increases the barriers to learning so much. It’s really difficult for – really problematic for children and their families.

Lead 8: Finally just this on this topic: your overall conclusion at paragraph 366 is that mitigation by remote learning failed overall during the pandemic. I wanted to see if I could unpick that a little bit.

I mean, is it your – are you saying it failed by way of mitigation because it wasn’t an adequate substitute for face-to-face learning, or are you assessing that on a different basis?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: The former. So I think that there was no better alternative. So I think it’s really important to say that. I think that the efforts that were made, were made in good faith, and a huge amount was done to try to mitigate the difficulties that children faced, but it was not an adequate response. And I think that was because of the lack of planning in advance and preparedness. And resource, the financial resource, which is a point I make a number of times in the report.

So the preparation wasn’t there, the training wasn’t there, but people did the very best they could in the circumstances. So – but it wasn’t adequate, at the end of the day, it was not adequate.

Lead 8: And does that observation also go for the second set of school closures as well, in the – from January 2021 onwards?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think a lot more was done. We know that a lot more was provided by the second lockdown and the second set of closures and then into 2021, but I think that – was it as good as being in school? No. Were the mitigations put in place equal to the offering that the school made? No.

Ms Dobbin: Thank you.

I think that may be an appropriate moment. I have slightly lost track of time, my Lady, but I think that we’re due a break in and around now, if that’s a …

Lady Hallett: [Microphone off].

Ms Dobbin: You’re on mute.

Lady Hallett: Sorry.

Yes, that’s absolutely fine. If we break now – I was just doing the calculations – it shows I wouldn’t pass any maths tests – at 3.25 I’ll return.

Ms Dobbin: I’m grateful.

(3.08 pm)

(A short break)

(3.24 pm)

Lady Hallett: Ms Dobbin.

Ms Dobbin: My Lady.

Professor, I want to move on then, if I may, to the second mitigation that was used across the United Kingdom during the periods of school closure, which was to permit vulnerable children to attend school.

You’ve already said broadly the same policy applied across the United Kingdom; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It is.

Lead 8: And broadly the same area of discretion afforded to schools and local authorities to determine whether or not a child was vulnerable; yes?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And again, if I just ask you for your overall assessment as to the success of that policy during the first period of school closures?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think it’s important to say that the policy was in itself, seemed a good one. I think it made genuine attempts to try to include as many aspects of vulnerability as possible, but its operation failed.

Lead 8: And why do you say it failed?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Because we know that the percentage of children who were vulnerable who attended school, who were eligible and who attended school, was really low.

Lead 8: All right. Can we look at that, please.

Could we please go to page 62 of the witness statement and to the table, at table 8.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: If we could enlarge that, please.

So I think, first of all, and we’ll come to this point, Professor, if we look at the first part of the table, that’s the share of institutions open; correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: So this shows what proportion of schools were open in different parts of the United Kingdom. And we can see that in England it was a much higher proportion; correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And is that a reflection of the fact in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland they had a hub system rather than individual schools being open?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right. So the hub or cluster school system was intended to ensure that there was a central point where resources would be provided, and that children who were either vulnerable or the children of key workers could attend local schools, and that was the case for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. So it’s difficult to make comparisons between the two systems.

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: They were quite different systems.

Lead 8: All right, and does that caution attach to this table in general: it shouldn’t be used as a point of comparison?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right. And if we look at the key notes, some of that need for caution about comparison would also play out in terms of how – who’s included in the vulnerable category as well.

Lead 8: Yes. We’re going to look at that just to understand that, because I think you make a point about the need for care around that, but if we just look at the second part of the table to the share of pupils attending –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: – and look at the average during lockdown, I think it’s correct that across all parts of the United Kingdom, the overall proportion of children in schools was very small; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s correct.

Lead 8: And particularly small in Northern Ireland?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, that’s also right.

Lead 8: All right. So that’s the share of all pupils attending.

The third part of the table assesses the share of vulnerable pupils attending; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, but it is a proportion of the vulnerable pupils.

Lead 8: Yes, that’s what I wanted to ask you.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Okay.

Lead 8: Sorry, can you just explain that, then. So if we look at England and we see April 2020, 5%, and we see that increasing throughout May and June, can you just explain what that percentage relates to?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: So the definition of vulnerable pupils, which is also given in the report in the earlier table, table 7, shows that the vulnerable included a range of different needs. However, the key notes here show that this measure of vulnerability refers to pupils with an education, health and care plan or have a social worker. So that’s a narrower definition of vulnerability.

Lead 8: Yes. So I think if we look at the policy in England, which includes that discretion to include a child who the school or the local authority deems vulnerable, it’s that broader cohort of children that don’t appear –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: – in this table.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right, and that is the case, although there are different categorisations and different ways of measuring vulnerability, each of the four jurisdictions in this table show a narrower definition of vulnerability. So I suppose the reason I’m making that point is to emphasise that although these percentages are already really low, they’re actually probably not indicating the full extent of that really low number. It was even worse, is what I’m trying to say.

Lead 8: Yes, and I’m just taking England because it’s an easy example to take, if a school can deem someone vulnerable, that will bring into play presumably lots of information that the school knows about the child that will make them think that they’re vulnerable?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: But it doesn’t lend itself to a definition, does it?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: I hope that makes sense.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: That’s the school’s judgement about who’s vulnerable.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah, yeah.

Lead 8: So presumably, then, it would be very difficult to say or to estimate the overall proportion of vulnerable children that there might be in any given school or in the school population in a particular part of the United Kingdom?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: The term “vulnerable” had a generalised layperson’s type use in education prior to the pandemic. It took on new meanings and a new definition in the pandemic. So you wouldn’t expect schools to have been using the word “vulnerable” as a way of defining children across the UK prior to the pandemic.

So, to be fair to the schools, that wasn’t the way they looked at things prior to the pandemic. It wasn’t to say they wouldn’t use the word “vulnerable”, it wasn’t to say they weren’t aware of vulnerability, but it wasn’t a tool in the same way as it became.

Lead 8: All right. But is the main message, then, to take away from this, that having regard to those percentages, they are, in your opinion, an underestimate of the actual number of vulnerable children who were not attending school?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Even if they’re correct, they’re very, very low, and concerningly low. I think there’s evidence to suggest they’re probably an overestimate. So, at the very best, they’re very low. And concerning.

Lead 8: All right. We can see when it comes to England that that percentage increased in the June period of 2020; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And do you have an understanding as to why that number went up in June 2020, or what might explain that?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: There’s a number of possible reasons. But certainly clarity, schools themselves have engaged with greater clarity on vulnerability and categorisation and eligibility. That was improving. I think, you know, as with all these – with all the circumstances in the April, things were just really, really muddied, really confusing, and you had parents not understanding what was – what was going on, you had children unsure, and you had schools themselves.

So some of that was about increasing clarity.

We can see that the percentages increased across all four jurisdictions in that time.

Lead 8: But can also see, I think, and I’m conscious of your warning to be careful about comparison, but does this help us understand that, even with that caution, that there were fewer vulnerable children, even on a narrow definition, attending schools in the other part of the United Kingdom?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yes.

Lead 8: And what’s your opinion as to what that reason – why they were attending in lower numbers?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think, again, there’s a number of reasons, and it’s really a case of collating those reasons from a number of different studies rather than from one source. So we know, for example, that there was confusion and lack of clarity. Despite attempts to be clear, there was confusion. So some of that intended discretion and flexibility probably inadvertently gave rise to some of that confusion.

We also know that there was a fear of risk of infection for children who had some kind of vulnerability. We also know that there was also the stigma for some children of not wanting to be identified – particularly older learners, and adolescents, not wanting to have anything that makes them stand out in any way, would be a common thing regardless of the pandemic. The stigma of being identified as vulnerable, I think, was also an understandable reason that made it – probably added to the complications.

But as well as that, if vulnerable pupils included pupils for whom perhaps specific arrangements would have needed to be in school, and it was difficult to provide them, then, you know, even though they were eligible, the staff and resourcing might not have been in place. Obviously staff and resources were affected by Covid as well. School staff were affected. They were getting Covid as well. So it was really difficult to maintain a stable staff base.

And then also things like, as we’ve said earlier, the provision of resources as well as the human resource, the physical resources that would enable the child to feel safe coming into school, and to know that the familiar routines, the familiar provisions, for instance devices that they might need, would not necessarily be there in the same way.

So there were quite – and transport would be another aspect. Some of the children who would be vulnerable would have individualised transport arrangements for school. Again, they were disrupted for understandable reasons during Covid. So there was a real combination of reasons.

Lead 8: And does this data also suggest that the hub system was less effective in getting children into school?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, I think that probably does add to it. I mean, children are – I think there’s a natural reluctance to go to a place that you don’t know, an unfamiliar place, especially when so much else was in turmoil and I think some of that fear, the generalised fear, was also about “Oh, and now I’ve got to go to somewhere I don’t know, and I’m going to meet with children I don’t know, they’re not my classmates, they’re not my peers”, and at a time of increased anxiety and turbulence anyway, that probably added to it. Some of the evidence certainly suggests that those feelings of uncertainty and anxiety were – stood in the way of going to the hub schools.

Lead 8: You’ve said at paragraph 133:

“The key message to take from these figures is that take-up was very low across the UK and although attendance increased in later lockdowns, it remained concerningly low.”

Is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And in that same paragraph you also set out, I think, a critique of the use of the term “vulnerable” itself, in the context of this policy. Can I ask you that, is it your opinion that framing the ability of children to attend and vulnerability was a mistake on the parts of the governments of the United Kingdom?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think it was a genuine attempt to assist schools to understand their duties, and it was probably sensible to try to emphasise that school attendance offered safety and surety, and that some children were more at risk without that. And I can understand why the word “vulnerable” seemed a helpful term. However, again, perhaps inadvertently, it just didn’t work in the ways intended.

And the fact that the definitions of vulnerability not only had a discretion built in, which is a good thing, but that they changed over time, the categories of vulnerability expanded, I think was really unhelpful. I understand why it happened and I’m sure that school staff would often appreciate that, you know, that would be helpful in principle, but in practice it just added to the general confusion and uncertainty that families were feeling, and indeed school staff themselves, about knowing what was coming next. So the rapid changes and the kinds of changes around those definitions.

Lead 8: I think the point that would be made against that is if you don’t specify certain children as being eligible to come into school, for example, that acts as a disincentive, whereas if you’ve actually said these specific groups of children fall within the category, that does give the sort of certainty that perhaps you’ve suggested is lacking.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah, yes. So I think that if – so in terms of for next time, I think we need to think really carefully about whether that vulnerability category can include all those things, but because we had schools that were not used to using that terminology, they already had systems that talked about SEND or additional learning needs or special educational needs, and about additional support needs, those being the four ways in which it was categorised across the UK, and now they have this new category which attempts to include both disadvantaged and special needs broadly defined, and that just gave rise to too many problems.

With planning, that can be avoided. And I think that with training and with understanding, with discussion about how to use it I don’t think there would necessarily be a problem, but in these circumstances with the lack of planning and preparation for the use of the term, it did give rise to problems. So I think it’s avoidable but that is what – that did cause problems in this really difficult set of circumstances.

Lead 8: So just to understand that again, in terms of looking towards the future, that greater clarity and greater certainty at the start of the pandemic as to precisely which children will fall within the definition is what would be helpful?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: The danger with categorisation is you always miss somebody out. So I think that there always needs to be some discretion and flexibility, but I think that the more preparation that goes into understanding where flexibility might be needed or discretion might be needed, I think would help national governments, local authorities, and schools, just understand that so much better.

Lead 8: Thank you. You have also set out in your report – and I’m just picking this up – when it comes to – sorry, to children who were entitled to attend special schools.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: I’m sorry, it’s at paragraph 403, in England, you’ve set out some findings there that, again, there were specific reasons that may have made attendance at those schools more difficult; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yeah.

Lead 8: And those sorts of reasons being, for example, the risk assessment that was carried out by the school; is that right?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It is. I think that there was a criticism, it seemed to me a legitimate criticism, from many of the head teachers of such schools that much of the guidance was directed towards typical mainstream schools. And often specialist schools are – you know, the clue’s in the term. So they have perhaps a variation on the ways in which they need to think about children’s safety and about school safety and school staff support.

So I think that some schools were forced into a situation where they were making very localised risk assessments and local-specific decisions for their school, understandable, but actually really quite difficult. And I think that sometimes they said themselves, it made for some quite, you know, difficult decisions they didn’t want to be making and situations they were not comfortable about.

Lead 8: And I think the point that you make at paragraph 397 is that, in terms of England, those children who had education, health and care plans, that they represented only a small proportion of the children who were attending school during the first lockdown; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yes.

Lead 8: And again, was that picture reflected across the United Kingdom?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: In broad terms yes. Yeah. There are – the systems are different, but the general principle of children with additional – with a higher level of needs, which was recognised and noted in some way officially –

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: – that’s certainly the case, yes.

Lead 8: Yes, all right. Just, then, standing back, if I may, Professor, and where this leaves things at the end of the pandemic, can I first ask you about those categories of children who you think were particularly impacted by this combination of school closures, and the effectiveness or not of the mitigations that were put in place.

So can I start maybe with those children who have special needs and your opinion as to whether or not they were particularly impacted.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. They – as a group, as a whole, they were – their progress was disrupted in ways that were more detrimental than for the general – so the general population was impacted negatively but children with special needs were impacted more.

Lead 8: May I ask you, just on that, the fact that those children were attending school in smaller numbers, did that mean that they weren’t getting access to other forms of services or therapies that they might otherwise have been accessing?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, because many of those services are provided via the school. And that was one of the concerns that school – the specialist settings, and – you know, mainstream schools that supported children with special needs, they were really conscious of – that the access to help and therapy services, which were often accessed through the schools, were just – that was made so much more problematic.

And it was problematic for those who already had been identified as having needs, but for those children who were maybe coming to the front of the queue for identification, for assessment of risk, for assessment of needs and diagnoses, that was even harder. So it was hard for those who already identified and had the needs, but it was really noticeable that children who were – had not yet had a diagnosis or an assessment, that was – that really, it – you know, that largely stopped.

Lead 8: All right. And then I wanted to ask you about children who were going through periods of transition in their education as well –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: – and what your opinion was as to whether those children were particularly impacted by the pandemic period.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. I mean, we talk about a – sort of key transition points: obviously starting primary school, transferring from primary school to secondary school, and then onward from secondary school to whatever’s ahead, whether that’s into work or into some kind of training, into further education or higher education.

Probably the – all of those points of transition, there seems critical points of transition in terms of developmental needs, and each of those was seen to be disrupted. There’s evidence that suggests that each of those points was disrupted. And just even if we take the primary to secondary transition, the number of, you know, preparation programmes, induction programmes, the familiarity that grows with visiting the new school, with meeting the new teachers, the – experiencing the fact that there’s going to be a much greater range of teachers you’re going to have rather than your one class teacher you’ve had for a whole year, all of those things are now no longer available in the way they were.

And the – saying goodbye to people, those are really important rituals that, you know, we expect to go through at these points of transition, all of these things are disrupted for all of these children, and I think with quite profound impacts. Again, for all, but more particularly for those who were perhaps least secure in their learning or least secure in their friendships, whose wellbeing was not as, you know, deeply rooted and as strong.

Lead 8: And in terms of, then, of those children who may have been coming to the later key transition points, so maybe the children who were doing their exams at 16 or at 18, what’s your opinion in terms of the impact on those children?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I’ve said earlier the evidence is strong that they felt really – that they actually were – they felt the rug had been pulled from under their feet in terms of the exams, which, you know, I know young people always moan about having to do their exams, but again, it’s a rite of passage, it’s an expectation in our society. And for something that big to change, that was a really important challenge and something to note.

It was also the case that young people at that point of transitioning on from school were really concerned about career plans. We know that many of them changed career plans, changed plans for their education, as well. And also for young people who were – who would be more likely to move on to work directly with people, that was difficult. And, for example, so many young people work in hospitality and retail as a first step, or maybe, you know, a longer-term commitment, a career that they would want to pursue, these things were also really difficult.

So both the practical and emotional things were affected quite deeply and quite, in wide-ranging ways.

Lead 8: All right. I want to ask you, then, about your opinion. I think you’ve now had a chance to read the expert report in respect of Long Covid; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yes.

Lead 8: And also I think that your attention has been drawn to some of the research that has been done as well, one of the studies in particular – perhaps if we bring that up, that’s INQ000593477. Thank you.

And if we can perhaps – we can see that this is a report, I think, Professor – thank you – it’s a piece of research that was carried out, I think it’s by, or in respect of 22 young people and also the caregivers, that’s right. 15 parents and caregivers of children who were aged 5 to 18; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yes.

Lead 8: And I had really just wanted to ask you about a point that emerges having regard to both the Long Covid expert report and this report, and if we could just go ahead, please, to page 5 of this report. And I think it’s helpfully encapsulated under the section that says, “Discussion”.

And we can see that it sets out:

“Our findings highlight the importance of school to [children and young people] with [Long Covid] and how returning to school was central to [their] much hoped for ‘return to normal’.”

And I think the report – I won’t ask you to go through all of it, but talks about some of the challenges that children had in being able to return to school.

Thank you, that can come down.

That report obviously helps to understand, on the part of children who had Long Covid, that desire on their part to be able to go back to school. Is that as you read it?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, and I think –

Lead 8: And to be able to participate in school?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah, and I think that, you know, a point I’ve made, sort of, perhaps a bit tongue in cheek is that so far, you know, although young people, particularly adolescents rebel against school and find it difficult, but actually, they still really value school and in a very important sense, children with Long Covid are exactly the same as any other child. They want to go to school. A key finding of this report – and it is a small qualitative report, so I know we will treat that with caution, it’s a small number, it’s a small sample size, but at the same time, it mirrors findings of many, many other studies in that these are young people who are very ordinary, actually, in their desire to attend school and to be part of the school experience. And they value it.

Lead 8: And does this, then, require consideration of specific strategies, then, to help children who have conditions like Covid to be able to participate in school in a way that is, I suppose in a way that recognises that they may have some of the challenges that this report discusses, like feeling exhausted or feeling as though, you know, maybe after doing one lesson, they need a break or a rest, or …?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, absolutely. I think that that is a really fair request, and I think there is a growing understanding of the need for that kind of flexibility, and that there are strategies that schools could and should put in place to try and support children who face those challenges.

Lead 8: I want to, then, just deal with another group of children which is those children who come from clinically vulnerable or clinically extremely vulnerable families, and I think you have highlighted again in your report the fact that there’s a lack of research about these – about children in these families or children, I should say, as well, who are clinically vulnerable themselves.

I think you have that in paragraphs 328 and 339.

I think one of the documents that was put in your bundle was one of the NFER studies that highlighted that there was a considerable number of children who lived with a family member who was clinically vulnerable, and also that many of those children were in families that came from specific ethnic backgrounds as well.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Mm-hm, mm-hm.

Lead 8: Again, can I just ask you, then, about that, and how much is known from an educational perspective about the barriers that those children might face in being able to attend school?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, I think this puzzled me a fair bit because I was – there seemed to be a difference between what was happening in England, in terms of the tenor of policy guidance, and what was happening elsewhere in the UK. There did seem to be a narrower expectation, an expectation that all children should return to school as far as possible, and perhaps less – in England – and less of a recognition that clinical vulnerability would be absolutely understandable concern.

And when I looked at the guidance that was in – available in the other three jurisdictions, it seemed to offer much more of “we need to take each case as it happens”. One of the differences, for instance, is that only England was continuing with – was talking about penalties and fines and – that punitive approach.

I think that’s probably the difference. It felt as though England, in this particular point, was emphasising a strict and punitive approach, whereas the other three weren’t. They were talking about the need for understanding, support, flexibility. That wasn’t always mentioning specifically clinical vulnerability, and I did look for that.

And in fact, it probably should. So, although some things were mentioned in terms of needing that flexibility, it didn’t – not each of the countries – this is one of my things about we need consistency across the four countries in future –

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It would be helpful to name that much more clearly.

So to go back to your earlier question about, you know, vulnerability being defined more clearly, it seems to me that there’s really good grounds for saying that clinical vulnerability should be explicitly mentioned, and that it should be explicitly mentioned in connection with a supportive and proactively supportive approach on the part of schools. Whether that’s for the child or for the family and environment within which they are living.

Lead 8: All right.

I’m going to move away then, if I may, just from focusing on some of the groups of children who you’ve given evidence about, to just, again – and this is standing back from the detail of some of your report – to understanding some of the persisting consequences of the pandemic. And I think the first one of those is attendance.

So may I just ask you this, then: is it correct that persistent attendance post-pandemic is problematic across the United Kingdom?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: That’s right.

Lead 8: And are you able to offer an opinion as to the relationship between the pandemic and persistent absenteeism and why it has crystallised into a more persistent problem since the end of the pandemic?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think that in research terms it’s still relatively early days to be saying we can feel confident about all the reasons and make sure we have a really good understanding of what’s going on.

So if I can just make it clear, some of this is quite tentative, just in terms of the timelines. You know, we’re only two years out of that, it’s difficult to do comparisons.

That said, it is clear that those patterns of attendance tell us something about what’s happening. So it’s not that all children have lower levels of attendance than they did before. It’s the patterns within that that we can see that are concerning. And that is that children living with disadvantage, once again, have lower attendance rates and have an increasing rate of what we might call persistent non-attendance.

We can also see that children with special needs, their rates of attendance have not recovered to the same level as their peers. So not only are the levels of attendance lower, it’s the patterns within that that might concern us.

When we start to think about what the reasons for that, again, it’s drawing on different – data from different places, but it’s certainly – it certainly seems the case that the continuing and cumulative impacts of the under-resourcing of schools, which was happening before the pandemic, plus the pandemic on top of that, has made a difference to how engaged children can be when they’re in school. And I’ve earlier suggested we need to be cautious not to assign blame and make it that the child should be more engaged; it is a two-way street, it’s a process, it’s a relationship between the school and the child. But we can see that engagement and attendance are lower for these groups.

So it certainly seems to be related to both what was happening before in terms of we know that there was already a slight decline in attendance before the pandemic for these groups, particularly for older learners, particularly, yeah, age 14 onwards. And if we took the huge bump that we got from the pandemic out of it, some of that suggests that this pattern, actually, just follows on from the pattern we were seeing beforehand, which is concerning.

Lead 8: Then if I can ask you about the disadvantage gap and your opinion as to the impact that the pandemic has had on that, please.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. So it seems that for children living in more affluent and advantaged circumstances, their recovery has been stronger particularly in England. Overall, there are still some declines and decreases in, if you like, the core subjects, reading, writing, maths, science, in Scotland – in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but in England there seems to have been a stronger recovery overall in terms of attainment.

That is not the case for children living with disadvantage. What seems to be happening is that the gap in some places is widening, not overall, but as a general picture it is still widening. And we have not gone back to pre-pandemic levels, and pre-pandemic levels were not good.

Lead 8: Yes. All right. If I can move on, then, to your overall conclusion that you’ve reached, and this is at paragraph 466 of your statement, where you’ve said the consensus – where you talk about, and you, I think, conclude that there’s a consensus that school closures triggered by the pandemic have had a severely detrimental effect on learning and attainment; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: Is that your overall assessment of each of the parts of the United Kingdom as a consequence of the pandemic?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I think, from what we can tell at the moment, at this point, it’s still early days, I feel confident that that’s a fair assessment.

Lead 8: Can I ask you a bit about the most recent data that’s come from the Department for Education, and if we could go to this, please, at INQ000587992. Thank you. And if we could go, please, to page 36.

I think, Professor, that you’ve been provided with this, haven’t you –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: – in order that you can take it into account, and so that we can ask whether or not your overall opinion that you’ve just stated is in any way changed by the most up-to-date data that’s available for England. I’ll come and ask you whether or not you think this might be mirrored in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: So this – sorry, apologies.

Lead 8: No, I was going to say this looks quite technical to people who are not educationalists, but I think this is setting out in each of those subjects at Key Stage 2, the children that are meeting the expected standard, and I think that the point is, if one looks at the most recent data, that that might look broadly – there are some percentage points difference, but that might look broadly in keeping, for example, with 2018 to 2019.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: May I ask you about that and what you think that data might throw light on.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: I’m – when I look at the data, if we look at the readings, it was – if we take the ones that are helpfully highlighted, it – 73%, but it’s actually a percentage point higher in the most recent statistics, 23/24, teacher assessed, “TA”, teacher assessed writing, 78% in 2018 to 2019 but down slightly, 72% in the most recent data. If we look at the maths, it was 79% in 2018/19, but down to 73% on the most recent data. And if we look at science against teacher assessed, it’s slightly down as well. So one up, and the rest down.

But, you know, these are – one of the points I’ve been – this is good news. If this – actually, considering everything, I would see this as fairly positive, and something that tentatively we might be able to celebrate. It looks like good news.

Even the ones that have gone down, considering all that’s happened, I think that may not be a bad outcome overall.

Again, though, my note of caution is always the headline: data masks a lot of variability, and it isn’t until we look at later tables in the same document, for example, that we see some of the issues for children facing disadvantage or with special needs.

Lead 8: Yes, all right.

If I can just then go, please, then to table 12, which is on page 39, I think, as I understand it, this is the disadvantage gap index; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes.

Lead 8: And again, can I just ask you, without going into the technical detail of this table, what it tells the Inquiry?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: So the disadvantage gap, if we have a … the closer you get, looking at that – bottom – the disadvantage gap index, the closer you get to zero there means the gap is at its narrowest. So if we have 3.03 in 2015/16, for example, and then just before the pandemic we have 2.91, so it’s decreasing slightly, as a headline, and then when we come to 23/24 it’s increasing again.

Lead 8: So we see a continuum, if we just keep our – if we just stay with that line, from 3.23 in 21/22?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: 3.21, and then 3.13; is that correct?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, yeah.

Lead 8: And again, can I just ask whether or not that figure for 23/24, whether or not that is a cause for optimism in relation to this?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Um, I’m not as confident about that at all. I’m not too sure. And it looks to me as though – yes, we might say the gap has decreased slightly since 21/22, or since 22/23, but I think it’s just too soon to talk about a long-term pattern with that. It might be something to argue about, but I’m not – I wouldn’t be confident to say that.

Lead 8: All right.

And then if I ask you, please, to look at figure 6. Sorry, that’s on page 45.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Okay.

Lead 8: Sorry, apologies. Again, this is obviously very technical, but you said just a bit earlier that when you look at underlying tables, there is – that they also, perhaps, reveal a cause for concern. And I just wanted to check, first of all, is this one of the tables that provides that cause for concern?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: It is.

Lead 8: All right. And again, if you could just tell us in headline why that’s the case, that would be helpful.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah. So, again, we’re looking at – what’s useful is we’re looking at data for the same age range as we were in the previous tables, so we’re comparing like with like in that way. We’re looking at the percentage of pupils reaching the expected standard in reading, writing and maths. So it’s a kind of a combination, it looks – it’s across the piece rather than in individual subject. And probably the thing to do that might be most useful is, if we look along the bottom, we can see these numbers, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 along the bottom refer to – so that’s 2016 through to 2024.

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: And really, I think probably, one of the things to do is to look at what’s happening just before, you know, just as we go into the pandemic. So if we look at the situation for – if we look at the first box, we’ve got, for example, we’ve got the blue line, which has been sitting at, say, 55% of pupils reaching the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, children from an Asian background, yes, thanks, and then we’ll take out the pandemic, and then when we start in 2022, we can see it’s lower, and it starts to improve, but I think we can all see that it does not yet return to the level it was at in – just before the pandemic.

Then if we take that same approach and look across all the other boxes, we can see similar patterns, not exactly the same, and some of them are actually more concerning, and some less, but overall, that’s the way – there is this – things improving but actually that word I used earlier was “stagnation”, you can see in each of the cases, I think I’m right in saying, that actually it was just starting to tail off. That improvement was starting to tail off before 2020. And that has continued. But it’s, you know, there are some improvements but it has not gone back up overall.

Lead 8: All right. And I won’t take you to this now – thank you, that can come down – but I think, in the rest of the extract you’ve been given, there’s also data for Key Stage 4, as well, and the disadvantage gap?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah, yeah.

Lead 8: And I think again, if I just take it as headline level, in 2017 to 2018, the disadvantage gap index was 3.68, and in 23/24 it’s 3.92.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: (Witness nodded).

Lead 8: So again, is that a similar –

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yeah.

Lead 8: – point? It’s still higher than it was pre-pandemic?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, although I think – I don’t know how much detail you want to go into. I’m wary of going into too much detail. Shall I just stop there?

Lead 8: I think it’s just the headline that really matters.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, that’s fine, okay.

Lead 8: And I think, again, I won’t take you to it but there’s a Key Stage 4 of the same table that we’ve just looked at at figure 8, which sets out attainment by ethnicity, disadvantage and gender. Can I just check whether or not that follows the same sorts of patterns that you pointed out in relation to table 8?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes, in general terms, yeah.

Lead 8: All right. Thank you. Can I just, then, coming back to the sorts of – because you’ve touched on this lightly, as we’ve gone through your evidence and I just want to come back to it, some of the things that may have worked during the pandemic in helping children’s – children to maintain their education or to maintain attainment. Can I just come back, then, and ask you about that, and what it is in your opinion that you think may have worked at any point in the pandemic?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Some of these are double-edged swords. I mean, the opportunity for live, online learning, if I’ve understood your question correctly –

Lead 8: Yes.

Professor Emerita McCluskey: – clearly helped engagement for many children and returned them to a – you know, something close to the experience of being in the same place at the same time as their peers, and the school staff. And that was hugely important.

So, again, thinking towards the future, it’s something that will hopefully provide a central focus for planning, but I think we just know much more now about how – what kind of mitigations we also would want to put in place to ensure that opportunity is there for all, not just for those who are already well able to take it on.

Lead 8: Yes, all right. And I think I’m – you’ve set out a very long list of recommendations as to what you think might be needed in a future pandemic, but, I mean, is it right to say that a lot of those recommendations are focused on pre-planning and having very specific plans in contemplation in order, for example, that that sort of provision be much more readily available to more children?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: Yes. I think I’ve – I think it’s been important to try to set out some of the detail of that, partly because we already know a huge amount about what works well, and in which circumstances, and, you know, with which schools, with which children. So we’re not starting from scratch when we set out those recommendations. Much of the information we have is already at our disposal.

So it is about planning but it is also about remedying the situation that schools had as they went into it, because with all the planning in the world it won’t make any difference if the sense of crisis that schools were experiencing is not addressed as part of that. And that’s why the first recommendation I make is to ensure that schools are properly supported and resourced. And feel that. You know, that they themselves would agree that they are properly supported and resourced to do the job they want to do and are trained to do. Without that, the planning won’t help.

Ms Dobbin: My Lady, those are all of my questions. I think that there is one from a Core Participant.

Lady Hallett: There is. I think, Mr Jacobs, you have one question?

Questions From Mr Jacobs

Mr Jacobs: I do.

It may in part have been answered by the closing comment just given, but, Professor, just one question on behalf of the Trades Union Congress, if I may.

You’ve described in your report, and just in your evidence, how unless the crisis in education is tackled urgently, schools will be unprepared for any future pandemic, with long-lasting social and economic consequences. Is it possible to tease out what it is about the crisis in education that had a particular bearing on the ability of schools to respond in the pandemic, and on the outcomes for children?

Professor Emerita McCluskey: One of the phrases I’ve used in the report is that we had a system under stress, and so it is – it’s certainly possible, and indeed necessary, to tease out what those aspects of those stresses were. They were certainly financial. I’ve been quite clear in the report that the declining funding arrangements in the years leading up to the pandemic made a massive difference. We could see that working through in terms of school infrastructure, physical infrastructure, digital infrastructure, and commitment to, you know, planning of all kinds, and to teacher recruitment and retention, head teacher and school leader recruitment and retention.

Shortages in specific subjects. The – we know the list of things – we know the things that were causing immense difficulty. So I think that that crisis is still with us. And I am worried that unless that’s said really clearly, we won’t be starting in from a good place to think about what planning we need for the future. It will just take away from the plans we make. It’ll just make them worthless.

I think one of the other things that I do emphasise as well, and I want to say it again, is that that can only be done in partnership, partnership – do you know, there’s no one part of the ecosystem of schools that has the right answer.

And I appreciate you’re speaking from a TUC point of view, but I do think that there have been so many missed opportunities to ensure that the voices of children and young people and their families are included in decision making in really authentic ways, and that systems, and all the different parts of the system, work much better together, all the key stakeholders.

There’s a lot of lip service paid to it, but I do not think we are yet at the point where we can say it’s working well.

Mr Jacobs: Thank you.

Thank you, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Jacobs. I think that’s probably the note to end on, Professor.

Thank you very much indeed for your help with the Inquiry, both today and obviously in preparing your very helpful report. Don’t panic if you think we haven’t covered something or Ms Dobbin hasn’t covered something today, because I promise you, we do take into account all the written material as well as the oral evidence. Would you also, please, pass on my thanks to your colleagues who helped you prepare the report. So I’m really grateful to you. Thank you very much.

The Witness: Thank you, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Very well, I shall return at 10.00 tomorrow.

(4.18 pm)

(The hearing adjourned until 10.00 am the following day)