Loading
The minutes are published. No summary has been written yet.
1.1 Apologies were received from Councillor Kathy Evans, Michelle Jones and Dermot McChrystal, Chief Officer Education (COE).
2.1 There were no declarations of interest. 2.2 The CLO left the meeting.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 24th November 2021 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 With regards to the fifth action point, Councillor Killick requested detailed information around the 27 open access provisions across Torfaen that were operated by the Youth Service, referred to in the response supplied to members of the Committee on 13 January 2022. The HoL agreed to discuss the request with the COE and report back to members of the Committee. 4.2 The Committee noted the action sheet.
5.1 The HoL gave a brief introduction to the report and EP provided a Torfaen-specific presentation to accompany the report. 5.2 DH entered the meeting. 5.3 Following Members’ questions and comments, the officers from the EAS made the following main points: • The EAS systematically provided a range of reports to the Local Authority (LA) throughout the year, which were produced in a format that was suitable to be shared with Elected Members. • As well as undertaking an annual survey, the EAS also conducted a lot of analysis throughout the year, for example before and during leadership programmes, which helped the EAS to be flexible and adaptive going forward. • The EAS had been extremely responsive during the last two years. Their Business Plan was agreed in February 2020; however they had to respond flexibly and in a timely manner to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic the following month. • High level priorities would not change during the lifetime of each Business Plan; however the level of activity could. The HoL added that the LA had recently reviewed its own service priorities and would engage closely with the EAS and headteachers in a proactive manner. • The impact of improvement and support was available via both qualitative and quantitative information, including progress against School Development Plans (SDPs). Impact was not only measured via numerical data as changes in behaviour could also impact upon professional learning. • Information regarding schools not engaging with the support available from the EAS was shared with the LA on a termly basis and the LA then engaged with the schools in question. The HoL explained that SDPs were discussed in meetings with schools and the LA asked the school, with support from the EAS, to provide evidence of their progress. The depth of knowledge available allowed the LA and EAS to be more proactive than in previous years. • Although officers from the EAS tended to only present a report to the Committee on an annual basis, officers were very willing to attend further formal meetings or provide briefing sessions around the work and support offered by the EAS. • Officers would reconsider the wording of paragraph 3.9 of the report, particularly regarding capacity, in order to provide more clarity around its meaning. The HoL suggested that capacity could relate to a number of issues and would be different for each school. • With regards to schools not engaging with support, sometimes there were acceptable reasons that needed to be understood. For example, before a specific type of support can begin at a school there may be a need for the EAS to work with the school’s leadership team beforehand. • The EAS believed that it was in a stronger position than ever in order to provide support to all schools within Torfaen. • Although some priorities were bespoke to individual schools, common themes also existed, and they would derive from national priorities. The EAS provided a service regarding these generic priorities. • The EAS would provide support to schools around learning behaviours and techniques; however the Behaviour Management Strategy was the responsibility of the LA. The HoL confirmed that staff training had been required around behavioural issues on three occasions during the previous 12 months. • The improvement priorities within the Business Plan aligned with the priorities of each local authority’s self-evaluation report, and this was achieved via lots of dialogue with senior management within each local authority. The EAS reported systematically against the LA’s priorities on a termly basis. • All elements of impact referred to on page 36 of the agenda linked implicitly to the LA’s improvement priorities. The EAS was confident that it would support all schools within Torfaen to become effective and thriving learning institutions by 2025. Leaders needed to be grown across schools in Torfaen and support was required for those disadvantaged by the pandemic and prior to it. • Progress in relation to last year’s Business Plan was supplied by the EAS to the LA on a termly basis, outlining the EAS’s contribution in schools to meet the LA’s priorities. Information was also shared with the EAS’s governance groups and were available should members of the Committee wish to view them. • As this was a new Business Plan data would not yet be available regarding the number of schools utilising the universal offer of professional learning support referred to on page 34 of the agenda; however this information would be supplied to the LA systematically from April 2022. The presentation at the start of the meeting included statistics and stories from last year, which may prove useful to members of the Committee. • The EAS had been working with the Children’s Commissioner for Wales in order to help schools understand and imbed approaches regarding the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child and Human Rights. The EAS offered half-termly sessions to schools and participation numbers were regularly reported to the HoL. • The above support was available to all primary, secondary and special schools, as well as the Pupil Referral Unit. • With regards to schools engaging with EAS support, each school would access the support relevant to its priorities that particular year; however it was expected that the full suite of support would be accessed by each school across a three-year period. 5.4 The HoL assured members of the Committee that the improvement priorities within the Business Plan would be shared with headteachers, the Executive Member and members of the Committee in order to shape and amend them. He added that it was an ongoing piece of work and there was plenty of scope in the democratic process in order to allow the input referred to above. 5.5 The HoL confirmed that the relationship between the LA, EAS and schools during the pandemic in terms of overcoming issues had been very positive and this needed to be replicated regarding school improvement. 5.6 The Chair thanked the HoL and the officers from the EAS for their contributions to the meeting and they left the meeting. 5.7 On completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee concluded by offering the following comments and recommendations for consideration: Recommendation 1 – Members requested that the information presented at the meeting, (by the EAS), to be included as an appendix to the report, going forward. This information was felt to be more pertinent and explicit to Torfaen. Recommendation 2 – Members requested a meeting to be arranged with the Chief Officer of Education and the Head of School Improvement to determine what information is available from the EAS, which Members, particularly School Sub Members would find useful in directing their work programme. Recommendation 3 – As the Business Plan will now span over a three-year period, Members requested that they also be sent the annual reviews each year so that they are able to be kept informed of progress against local the authorities’ priorities. Recommendation 4 – To better define what is meant by ‘capacity’ and what it specifically relates to with regards to page 10 of the Business Plan “If schools and educational settings have the capacity to secure improvement and engage with the support available from the EAS, this is the expected impact… ”). Members requested that this sentence needs be more descriptive on what the capacity issues are, and whether they relate to leadership, staffing, teaching etc. Recommendation 5 – Members concerned that some schools are not engaging with the support available from the EAS, who are then reported to the LA on a termly basis. Members requested to be provided with the main reasons as to why some schools are not engaging with the EAS. Recommendation 6 – Members expressed concern that the bespoke support being offered by the EAS would be generic support across the region and would not necessarily meet the needs of our individual schools appropriately. Particularly as a result of staffing in the EAS and contribution of local authorities funding being reduced. Members requested further reassurance on how the local authority will ensure the correct levels of support are being provided to our schools. Recommendation 7 – Members requested a seminar on how schools are supported to use whole school approaches to Behaviour Management to ensure staff have adequate training to adopt strategies which act to reduce later need for remedial action. Recommendation 8 – Members requested that a survey be developed on behalf of the Committee, to be sent out to schools, gaging their views on the Business Plan, for next year. Recommendation 9 – Members requested that copies of the information supporting the final business plan, (as outlined in 2.9 of the report) be provided to them: · Detailed Business Plan 2022–2023 · Regional Grant Mapping Overview 2022–2023 (to follow once detailed received from WG) · Regional Self-Evaluation Report (Executive Summary) · EAS Risk Register (Executive Summary) · Regional Professional Learning Offer 2022–2023 · Local Authority Strategic Education Plans Members also requested that this information be provided, as background information within the EAS report next year. 5.8 Whilst discussing the recommendations, members also requested the following additional information: • Termly updates from the EAS on how they are helping to meet the local authorities’ priorities. • Impact / success criteria “Stats and stories” information. • Impact capture reports. • Report on progress against last year’s Business Plan priorities. • Last year’s value for money report. • To receive minutes from Headteachers Group meetings and any other pertinent information arising from meetings such as this, on a regular basis. 5.9 Councillor Janet Jones left the meeting.
6.1 The SCI&SO presented the report and invited members to review the information contained in the appendices to the report and agree an item for scrutiny at the next meeting. 6.2 The Committee agreed to scrutinise the Well-being Offer (early intervention and support for PSB outcomes – Objective 3 ‘To provide children and young people with the best start in life’).
7.1 The date of the next meeting was noted. 7.2 The meeting ended at 11.45am.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.