Agenda item

To provide an update on the evaluation process in the context of the Evaluation of the Immersion System.

DECISION

1.     To accept the report and note the observations.

2.     That the Committee scrutinises the Immersion Education Programme Improvement Recommendations Action Plan at the 10 April 2025 meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Education provided the context. It was noted that the Cabinet had decided at its meeting on 16 July 2021 that it was timely to reorganise these centres and create a new Immersion Education System. It was explained that the Committee had expressed a wish to scrutinise the new system after it had been given time to become established. He explained that the Education Department had decided to appoint a research team from Bangor University to evaluate the Immersion Education System in Gwynedd. ⁠He elaborated that this team had conducted visits and had spoken with stakeholders, and would report back soon with its recommendations.

A member questioned how the three participants had been selected for the case study, and what had been the criteria. In response, it was noted that the three had been selected by the university. It was explained that this relied on parental consent and that they had been selected at random, which was a scientific method of selecting participants in case studies. It was elaborated that the participants came from different immersion centres.

A member expressed interest in getting a copy of the equality impact assessment. Concern was expressed regarding the slant and focus of the report and the initial decision to cut from five immersion days to four. It was noted that the focus, without exception, was on the individuals going through the immersion system, with no mention of consultation with parents, other learners in the school, or wider society or elected members. It was expressed that the decision, the report, and the proposed research were thoroughly neo-liberal in their ideology.

It was explained, in response, that this research specifically looked at the implications for children going through the immersion system, but the point regarding the impact on schools was accepted, and conversations had been conducted with headteachers regarding this⁠ matter. Attention was drawn to the fact that the Education Department was prepared to strengthen or change the arrangements in response to recommendations, but they were waiting to see what the report stated before drawing any conclusions. The officer underlined that no effort had been made to conceal anything, and in terms of considering reports that had been produced over time, they were more than prepared to see what the impact had been. They noted that the point regarding equality implications was accepted, and that its scope was possibly greater than expected in standard reports.

In response to what was said, a member expressed that research would be expected before making the decision to reduce the number of immersion education days. From a lay person's perspective, it was noted that this appeared to be a financial decision.

It was noted that, considering the decision to revamp the immersion centres had been made in order to provide high-quality provision, the number of teachers had been reduced from two per centre to one teacher and one assistant, and the number of centres had been decreased, with the immersion period changed from five days to four. It was expressed that this type of immersion was not intensive if it was not five days. There were difficulties for teachers in scheduling for children who attended the centre for four days of immersion and then returned to school for one day a week. The member highlighted a reference in the documents to holding sports activities on Fridays for these children, but after enquiring, they noted that this did not happen. It was noted that children sometimes got materials on their laptops from the centre, but the language unit very rarely visited to inspect if the children were alright. It was questioned whether this was truly beneficial to the child being immersed.

It was noted that some children, when returning to school for one day a week, felt nervous about their ability to follow things. It was confirmed that this fact, consequently, could lead to teachers speaking more through the medium of English, changing the language customs of the class completely. It was expressed that this had not been measured at all in the consultation. They elaborated that the current consultation questions did not allow people to express comments on the impact of the arrangements on the remaining children or on their language habits. It was expressed that this was a matter that caused concern.

In response, it was confirmed that the evaluation of the system placed a clear focus on integrating the transition day back into the mainstream. It was noted that the staff involved in the research had followed the children during the first week in the immersion units, and on the Friday, and had also observed the end of the children's time on the course to compare their confidence level. The team had also followed the children in the mainstream to assess the effect of the transition on them, how much language use they had, and what was the effect on the schools.

The members wished to see any relevant documents regarding how the decision to cut immersion days had been made.

Disappointment was expressed regarding the comments expressed about the changes to the immersion education system. It was noted that although financial considerations applied to every service, they had managed to attract much more funding than had been invested in this service. It was highlighted that the main reason for reviewing the system was that it had not changed since its inception in 1984, and that it was now outdated and inefficient. This review was welcomed, and it was hoped that it will show the way forward and address the negative comments. A member underlined their view that the new approach would be much more effective.

One member expressed their view that immersion 80% of the time was not sufficient, and they believed that we were taking a step back in allowing this. Reference was made to the survey for parents and the questions, noting that the Education Department was looking for answers to justify what the Council wanted to do, without being entirely objective. Disappointment was expressed that teachers had to cope with increased work pressure on Fridays.

It was noted, in response, that immersion was not entirely comprehensive anyway, as children are at home over the weekend. It was pointed out that a number of schools in Gwynedd had a high percentage of children who used English on the school yard, and these were not just the children who attended the immersion centres. The officers accepted the point that releasing children from the immersion centres on Fridays can be inconvenient for teachers, especially given the amount of work they had. They expressed appreciation towards teachers who were willing to adapt plans and work for different levels of children's ability. They expressed their desire for the report to be accepted so that the matter can be considered in a scientific manner. Concern was noted about the feeling expressed about the changes, emphasising the important role that assistants played within immersion centres.

RESOLVED

To accept the report and note the observations.

That the Committee scrutinises the Immersion Education Programme Improvement Recommendations Action Plan at the 10 April 2025 meeting.