Agenda item

Cabinet Member – Councillor Beca Brown

 

To consider a report on the above.

 

DECISION

 

1. To accept the report and to note the observations.
2. To note concern regarding the lack of resources available to move the work forward.
3. That the committee looks forward to seeing wider cooperation with the other relevant agencies.
4. To request an update to this Committee in a year.

 

The Early Years Service Manager was welcomed to the meeting. ⁠

 

Submitted – the report inviting the committee to scrutinise:-

·       What were the steps intended to take to transform education for children in their early years?⁠

·       What was the timetable and the key milestones to transform the service?

·       How was it intended to fund the transformation of the early years service?

 

The Early Years Service Manager provided a brief summary of the content of the report.

 

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and offer observations. ⁠ 

 

Disappointment was expressed regarding the progress of the work thus far. It was noted that the barriers in terms of staffing and funding was understood, but it was emphasised that the early years was the most important period in a child's development.

 

It was enquired how much close collaboration happened between the Education Department and the Children's Department because, according to the Government's definition, the early years included 0-7 years old, but there was no reference in the report to the period after the children started at school. In response, it was noted that the Early Years Unit's work programme focused on the pre-school period mainly, which was nursery education and the plans for children under 4 years old.

 

Reference was made to the new policy that would be coming into force next year regarding toileting, and it was enquired how they intended to pay for the provision. An enquiry was also made regarding whether a child that was not toilet trained could be deprived from going to school with their peers. In response, it was noted:

·       That the policy would expect parents to teach their children about toileting, with support provided to do so.

·       That the plan was welcomed by the schools as it re-defined the relationship between parents and school, to ensure that parents were parenting and schools were educating the children.

·       That the commitment of the Education Department and the Children's Service to the early years was substantial in terms of time and in terms of what was attempted, and was also challenging as they had to try to overturn complex systems, incorporating the health services into it too.

·       That the schools themselves paid to dispose of nappies, which was very costly for them. There would be no cost for the schools as a result of introducing the new policy as the children would be required to be toilet-trained before coming to the school, but the cost of the support through the health service etc., would come from the grants available.

 

An enquiry was made as to why there was not much reference to the Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin and the health service in the plans. In response, it was noted:-

·       That the relationship with the Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin was good. However, there was more work to be done to further develop that relationship, and that was part of the work currently achieved by the Early Years Unit.

·       It could be argued that Gwynedd had more Cylchoedd Meithrin than other counties, and that was due to the nature of the language etc.

·       That there was a Quality Board for the early years which included representation from inside the Cylchoedd Meithrin, and that there was a team of teachers who supported the quality of the provision and a team of officers from the Mudiad who supported more managerial and governing aspects of the provision.

·       That a vast majority of the matters raised were matters relating to the Cylchoedd's leadership and governance, instead of the quality of the provision.

 

In response to these observations, the member who raised the matter noted that this was unclear in the report.

 

By reading paragraph 9 of the Early Years Transformation Work Programme, concern was expressed that it appeared that only 21 of the 83 registered childcare providers in Gwynedd provided a service through the medium of Welsh or bilingually. In response, it was noted that there were 81 registered providers, with 21 of them providing after-care service for 2-year-old children, and that it was a requirement for all providers to provide through the medium of Welsh or bilingually.

 

It was suggested that the Early Years Play, Learn and Care in Wales document could be a precedent to draw up a strategy for Gwynedd with the local data that we had. All the consulting and commissioning surveys were questioned, instead of moving forward with the strategy. It was also noted that transforming education for the early years involved creating change for the better through the whole of Gwynedd, but no reference to Llŷn was seen in the report. It was noted that very good work was being undertaken in pockets of the county, but it was emphasised that every 5-year-old child should be in the frame for education and play opportunities. It was enquired where the vision was and the Service was urged to develop the Strategy urgently as time was scarce. In response, it was noted:-

·       That drawing up the Strategy was a priority for the Service.

·       That the Government's grants over the last 10 years had led to more provision in some pockets of the county, and it was not equal for all of Gwynedd's children. This would steer the Strategy, and there would be a need to work with our other partners to draw it up.

·       We would also have to look at the work's accountability and appreciation was expressed of the fact that this matter was being scrutinised to ensure this.

 

Referring to paragraph 10 of the Work Programme, it was enquired how prominent the Welsh language would be in the new childcare and nursery education space, specifically therefore at Our Lady's School, Bangor, which was in the transition category. In response, it was noted:-

·       That there was a meeting with the governors of Our Lady's School to explain the vision in terms of having Welsh or bilingual provision, and that they agreed, when the scrutiny process would be undertaken, that we would look for provision that would operate bilingually.

·       That there was currently provision on the school's existing site, and the Department would collaborate with that provision over the last period to improve their quality in terms of bilingual provision.

 

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the governors and the Council officers would have input into the work of evaluating the scrutiny process, looking to having bilingual provision on the site.

 

It was noted, although the spaces were to be welcomed, that it was sometimes difficult to maintain the spaces that already existed, especially therefore in rural areas where the number of children could be low from time to time, and there was an enquiry about how much weight was given to maintaining those spaces. In response, it was noted:-

·       That several financial sources currently went to the childcare and nursery education locations, and that had substantially increased over the last 4 years.

·       Over the recent period, quite fair contributions had been given to small Cylchoedd to keep them viable, but there was also more funding to come from the Government as they hoped to further extend 2-year-old childcare. Therefore, all of this had to be considered and to see what exact funding formula needed to go to Cylchoedd to retain them.

·       That retaining some of the smaller Cylchoedd Meithrin was very challenging in a rural county such as Gwynedd, but the increase in the requirement as a result of further extending 2-year-old childcare could make them more viable in the future.

·       That education and childcare in the early years was costly as there was a need for a safe staff / child ratio and because the expectations on the locations were substantial, whether it was an Estyn inspection or an inspection of the safeguarding guidelines etc. which was carried out regularly. 

·       That the number of children in pockets of areas in Gwynedd were not there to justify, or to establish viable provision for the future, and this due to parents' choices or the fact that there were not any children in some areas. 

·       In terms of funding Cylchoedd Meithrin, that the Council had been providing a core allocation to each location, which meant that a Cylch with 3-4 children had the same core allocation as a Cylch with 30 children.

·       That the situation was complex, especially as it was volunteers who mainly established Cylchoedd Meithrin and care provisions, and that extreme pressures were on them as individuals to be able to maintain those provisions.

·       They wished to ensure the scrutineers that the Service had considered everything in terms of how to ensure quality provision to children before they started at the school, and that sustainability was one of them.

 

It was noted that some parents in extremely rural areas had chosen not to put their children in the nearest Cylch Meithrin as the numbers were already low, and to put them in another Cylch where the numbers were higher. This meant that fewer children would be in those rural schools in the future, and that was a concern. ⁠It was suggested that there were various ways to try to encourage people to distribute children fairly across Cylchoedd Meithrin, especially as some of the parents did not use the Cylch that was on their doorstep.

 

It was asked if there was room to consider whether or not schools could have their own Ysgol Feithrin, so that they came under the Council's wing, instead of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. In response, it was noted:-

·       That the question was difficult to answer because the situation in some areas lended itself as more of a model where children would possibly start earlier in the school than they would in other areas.

·       That the situation was also complex in terms of the question whether the Council provided the education and the care, and how they could be fair with care providers in the private sector outside of education.

·       As Gwynedd only had one admission policy for all the schools, changing the admission age in one school would mean consulting with every school.

·       That many of the volunteers in the Cylchoedd Meithrin were also school governors.

·       That this must be weighed up moving forward, but they wished to emphasise the good work relationship between the Council and Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin and the way they tried to think about more sustainable methods to maintain the provisions. The Council was conducting these types of discussions with the Mudiad as it was not believed that the current arrangement of a committee of volunteers and a small number of staff and children was sustainable for the future in Gwynedd.

 

It was noted that this was the type of thing that members would have preferred to see in the report in order to receive assurance in terms of the collaboration, and disappointment was expressed regarding the lack of vision to move forward and plan in the report.

 

RESOLVED

1.     To accept the report and note the observations.

2.     Identify concern about the lack of resources available to move the work forward.

3.     That the committee looks forward to seeing wider cooperation with other relevant agencies.

4.     Request an update to the Committee in a year's time.