Agenda item

Cabinet Member – Councillor Beca Brown

 

To submit a report on the above.

 

To accept the report and to note the observations and receive a progress report on the response to the recommendations in 9 months’ time.

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Education and officers from the Education Department and GwE were welcomed to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member's report on the Estyn report on education services in Cyngor Gwynedd was submitted requesting the committee to provide observations on the content of the report and to consider any scrutiny arrangements on the progress against the recommendations in the report in a timely manner.   

 

The Cabinet Member set out the context and thanked the Education Department and GwE for their thorough work supporting schools over the years, especially during the challenging post-Covid period.  She also paid a tribute to the work of teachers and staff in schools, and to the children and young people for all their efforts despite the pandemic and its intense side-effects.

 

Members were then given an opportunity to ask questions and submit observations. 

 

It was noted that the report was very strong and authority officers and GwE officers were thanked for all their support.

It was asked how the Authority intended to act on the Estyn recommendations in terms of improving monitoring, evaluating and promoting pupil attendance and strengthening provision to respond to the needs of pupils with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and ensuring monitoring arrangements and improving the quality of that provision. The following was noted in response:-

·         That the decline in pupil attendance was a trend seen nationally.

·         The accompanying grant for this field was used to appoint 3 officers in the Welfare Team to look at continuous absences, more frequent absences or significant attendance difficulties in school, freeing up the usual welfare officers attached to schools to target absences such as taking holidays during school term or missing the same day over a period of time along with looking at the codes schools use in terms of the registers.

·         That detailed reports were provided in terms of monthly attendance, and that there was also weekly data that looked at the trends, targeting specific schools and working with families in a bid to increase attendance.

·         That attendance was a duty for everyone, and not just the welfare officers, and an attendance campaign was planned over the year to raise awareness about the importance of attending school regularly and how not attending had an impact on school and pupil outcomes.

·         In terms of inclusion, Mrs Caroline Rees, who produced a report on the service in 2019-20, would conduct another inspection in December, specifically on inclusion, and make recommendations on how to strengthen provision.

·         That steps had already been put in place to strengthen monitoring processes around the secondary hubs, etc.

It was noted that the report recognised that the multimedia resources used in the immersion centres to reinforce language and vocabulary patterns were valuable and questioned whether there was a proactive all-Wales effort to promote and disseminate them. In response, it was noted that this was certainly something to consider.
 

It was noted that a comment had been made in the Audit Wales Report that the scrutiny committees did not scrutinise items/projects in the Council's Plan, but it was thought to have changed this year, and it was hoped that the committee would respond to that recommendation in going forward.

 

It was noted that it was not understood how some schools needed more intervention or support, having already received support from GwE, and it was asked whether there was something that could be done through GwE to ensure that we never get to this situation. In response, it was stated:

·         That all schools receive intensive support from the School Support Service, but very often there were circumstances where the challenges were outside the control of the Authority and GwE.

·         That those situations very often arose from human resources problems, and specifically the performance of individuals.  In those circumstances, GwE provided support to the headteachers where appropriate.

·         That a situation can never be reached where no school needs support nor can it be guaranteed that no school will go into intensive support.

·         That GwE supports the schools and identifies any weaknesses and puts in the time and support in a timely manner to fill the gap.

The Estyn report noted that the intervention for schools that cause concern was effective, but not always timely, and it was asked whether there were future steps that could be taken in that regard.  In response, it was stated:-

·         That responding to school challenges was multidimensional and that the challenge itself could come from different directions, be it human resources, fiscal, property or anything else that contributes to a school's success.

·         The report was believed to address the steps that had been taken over the past few terms to sharpen the system of supporting schools by identifying the schools much better than in the past, having an open discussion with them regarding the areas needing attention and putting solid support in place to do everything to avoid a school reaching a point of receiving a less favourable opinion from Estyn.

·         It was not thought possible for the Authority or GwE, even working together in the most effective manner, to give a guarantee that no school, in one way or the other, would not reach a position where that final opinion was unfavourable, but at times Estyn's views on a school could also help that school to progress.

Reference was made to recent training held at Arfon Leisure Centre on Autism Speculative Disorder and it was asked whether it was intended for that training to be offered to all school staff. The following was noted in response:- 

·         That the Department had quite a large team specifically targeting this area to offer whole school training where staff could work towards a certain standard in terms of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and that there were also webinars available to the schools.

·         If there was a child known to the team, training was offered to the staff of the school in question.

It was enquired whether there had been any development in appointing more educational psychologists. In response, it was noted:- 

·         That there were significant staffing difficulties in the service, and that the Cabinet Member and the Chief Executive had sent a letter of concern to the Welsh Government about the training method, which remained unchanged.

·         That the core training was provided in Cardiff and it was difficult to promote local people to go on the training.

·         That the Council employed assistant psychologists to work with the team in the hope that those employees would apply for a place on the course in due course.

·         Over the last two years, following lockdown, they had experimented with different approaches, bringing schools together to discuss with a psychologist, and although reaction to this model of working had been mixed, the model had evolved again to try and incorporate more school visits.

It was welcomed that the report praised the Council for ensuring the continuation of the hubs after European funding had ceased, and emphasised the importance of protecting these funds during the challenging times we face. However, some concern was raised that the report indicated that the provision varied and that there was not adequate contact between the hubs and department officers. It was asked whether work would be undertaken to identify what needs improvement, and what would happen to improve contact with the department. The following was noted in response:-     

·         The Additional Learning Needs and Inclusion Quality Officers element was strengthened and much more contact was arranged between the officers and the hubs, with one officer working with the hub in Meirion Dwyfor and another officer working with the hub in Arfon.

·         That the Department was looking at extending the membership of the Hub Management Board to include input from other headteachers.

·         As a result of receiving recommendations for further improvement from Caroline Rees, the external expert, that it was hoped that there would be an action plan in place by January in terms of strengthening provision.

·         That the Service was also looking at improving the space used for the hubs, along with young people's ownership of them.

They pointed to the significant change in pupil behaviour since lockdown and questioned whether the diversity in terms of what was being maintained and resources, etc. was indicative of that. The following was noted in response:- 

·         That the challenge on the inclusion side was significant in terms of exclusions and the challenges that schools faced in this regard, and that Caroline Rees, the external expert, would look at the provision in the schools as well in terms of the use of inclusion funding the secondary sector receives and the provision map we have as a county.

·         That the Council would receive a sum of money from the Shared Prosperity Fund for commissioning providers in the schools to extend the curriculum available to those with behavioural difficulties, as traditional methods did not work for many of these learners.

·         Following the grant period, it was possible to see what had worked, and perhaps a long-term action plan needed to be formed in this field.

The Estyn report was noted as being very complimentary of the provision of Welsh-medium education in Gwynedd, e.g., praising the fact that we have 6 specialist immersion centres and that there were a high number undertaking their GCSE subjects through the medium of Welsh, but these were factors that had existed for some time. It was felt that the report was superficial, e.g., it did not consider if there had been a drop in the number undertaking GCSE subjects in accord with the Welsh Education Strategic Plan (WESP), although that was the case. It was thought that Estyn looked at Gwynedd in comparison with other counties in Wales, and saw Gwynedd as a huge success, but there was a risk of us becoming self-satisfied. It was noted that it would be good if Estyn had higher expectations of Gwynedd and looked at Welsh language provision in the county more insightfully. In response, it was noted:-       

·         That the member could be assured that the Education Department was not resting on its laurels.

·         That the Department was looking at the WESP's priorities to increase and empower Welsh language provision, to empower the transition arrangements in a linguistic context and to seek to empower bilingual provision and education in the primary and secondary sectors and to increase the number of learners studying subjects through the medium of Welsh.

·         That the Department was also committed to reviewing and updating the Education Language Policy.

·         It was accepted that the report was complimentary, and that although the inspectors did not visit all the schools, all schools were inspected by Estyn, and therefore a detailed, intensive, and thorough review was undertaken in all schools within a 6-year cycle.

·         The inspectors attended two immersion centres. It was not a paper exercise; it was an exercise where the inspectors observed lessons and spent a day between the two centres. 

·         That there was more work to be done and that the Service wished to empower and improve further so that it could be a practice that is rolled-out nationally.

 

It was noted that the Council had fewer immersion teachers than in the past, as each centre now had 1 teacher rather than 2, and it was questioned whether the Education Department maintained a register of teachers with experience and expertise in the immersion field, as such a register would be a step forward towards cultivating a team of people with the necessary experience and expertise for carrying out the work.
The following was noted in response:- 

·         That there were currently 6 immersion teachers within the immersion education system, and that, like all other teachers, they possessed a qualification and a teaching certificate.

·         That there was no qualification per se for immersion and these were teachers who has learned their craft by working alongside other experienced teachers.

·         The immersion teachers were members of a national immersion network and attended meetings and conferences to share good practice, and also sought to attend training to empower and update their skills.

·         That the immersion teachers also spent a great deal of time looking at studies and research in the immersion field, which were extremely rare.

·         That, as an organisation, we had undertaken our own research and had delivered 6 teacher training webinars across the county, which had been recognised as good practice.

·         There was also an effort to try and train school staff as immersion was now an area that applied to virtually all schools, sharing with them the immersion principles that had been identified by Estyn.
 

It was asked whether the Education Department had a register of qualified and experienced immersion teachers in reserve. In response, it was noted:- 

·         That the immersion system, like all primary schools, was dependent on the pool of supply teachers, and that the Department did not have the funding to obtain dedicated supply teachers for the immersion units.

·         However, there was a group of teachers, at least 1 per centre, who had been identified as practitioners who were well versed in the methods and principles of immersion and had visited the units and could be contacted directly.

·         If those individuals were not available, they would then have to go and ask the less experienced teachers in the immersion field, and that would be an opportunity for those teachers to gain experience and expertise so that they, in turn, begin to get used to the immersion methods and principles.

Disappointment was expressed that the open questionnaire prior to the inspection had closed early and members were unable to make comments on the closing date. It was asked how many headteachers and governors had been involved in the discussions with Estyn during the preliminary visit and also how many members of this committee had met Estyn. The following was noted in response:-   

·         The comment that the open questionnaire had closed early would be passed to the Estyn's Link Inspector.

·         Estyn inspectors asked to see a certain number of headteachers representing the range in terms of different sectors and school sizes, and it was believed that GwE had also been involved in the preliminary visit.

·         That Councillor Beth Lawton, as former chair of this committee, had met Estyn inspectors.

It was asked on what basis Estyn claimed that the joint planning between the Cabinet and the scrutiny committees to co-ordinate decision-supporting work programmes was improving. It was also questioned on what basis it was claimed that the scrutiny committee's consideration of the work of the projects within the Council's Plan was currently limited. It was noted that the comment was not disputed and it backed up what many members of the scrutiny committee were constantly asking, namely what difference does scrutiny make? In response, it was noted:-     

·         In terms of improving co-ordination between the Cabinet and scrutiny, there had been a shift to confirm a fuller Cabinet agenda in relation to forthcoming items, and that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the scrutiny committee hold regular meetings with the relevant head and cabinet member to identify issues that need scrutiny.

·         That members prioritise items for the coming year in the scrutiny workshops and that many of the items on the 2023-24 forward programme were from the Council's Plan.

·         That the impact of scrutiny was something to look at as part of the scrutiny review that was currently taking place.

It was noted that a sentence cited in the Estyn report 'Schools provide many GCSE subjects through the medium of Welsh and a large number of pupils sit an examination in GCSE Welsh first language' was a completely vague and unsubstantiated comment that was unjustified. In response, it was noted that Estyn had a writing guide where the terms used across their reviews correspond to certain percentages, and that 'many' and 'very many' equate to 80%+ or 90%.
    

It was asked what the intention was in moving forward with the Post-16 Education Project in Arfon. In response, it was noted:- 

·         That it could be interpreted there had been some slowness, or delay, with the project, and perhaps an element of it, at least, reflected the complexity of the field, along with the fact that we have had a pandemic in the middle of this period and several national and local elections as well.

·         A report on post-16 education was submitted to the Cabinet in March this year seeking permission to undertake further work with key stakeholders of post-16 education in Arfon. 

·         Workshops were held with the headteachers over the summer, reporting back to them in early September on the conclusions of those workshops.

·         It was hoped to provide a further update to the Cabinet before Christmas, and the item was programmed for the January meeting of this committee.

The committee was asked to consider when it would be timely to scrutinise progress against the recommendations of the Estyn report. It was agreed to receive a further report in 9 months’ time which would allow a sufficient period to implement the recommendations and to prepare a comprehensive progress report.  

 

RESOLVED to accept the report and to note the observations and receive a progress report on the response to the recommendations in 9 months’ time.