Agenda item

To scrutinize the action plan in response to recommendations arising from the evaluation and the Estyn review.

DECISION

1.     Accept the report and note the observations.

2.     Ask the Cabinet Member for Education to:

·       lobby the Welsh Government further for additional financial resources.

·       further consider the option of returning to five days and/or consider the length of the period spent in the language centres, taking into account the well-being of the pupils.

·       hold further consultation with stakeholders and ensure that there is flexibility in the future provision.

3.     That the Scrutiny Committee extends its gratitude to all those involved in immersion, both in the language centres and within mainstream schools.

 

The report was presented by the Cabinet Member for Education. It was noted that the Immersion Education System had been the subject of discussion on numerous previous occasions by the Committee, and that continued interest in the field was welcomed as it was a vital one for the county. It was emphasised that Gwynedd had a unique opportunity as a county to ensure that children arriving late to the area had the opportunity to develop a vital skill, namely the Welsh language. It was noted that the Welsh language was important to everyone in Gwynedd and opened doors in terms of employment and cultural opportunities. It was emphasised that this was essential that, in a county where the majority spoke Welsh, all children were able to take full advantage of everything available to them.

It was noted that two reports had been published since the field was last discussed, namely a report from Bangor University and a report from Estyn. It was emphasised that the previous immersion system had not been inspected by Estyn, but that the system was now registered as an educational entity and therefore received a full Estyn inspection like the schools. The report by Estyn was noted to be very positive, recognising that Gwynedd had an innovative immersion system.

Appreciation was expressed to the staff of the department for their hard work, and in particular to Rhys Meredydd Glyn, the former Head of the Immersion Education System.

During the discussion, the following observations were made: 

The level of detail of Estyn's inspection of the Immersion Centres was questioned. It was noted that Bangor University's report contradicted the Estyn report and made specific recommendations, such as reconsidering the current four-day model and returning to a five-day model, noting that the four-day model contained shortcomings such as the contact on the fifth day between the immersion centre and the teachers in the schools. It was questioned whether the Department would be prepared to consider Bangor University's recommendations.

In response, it was noted that the Estyn inspection had included extensive fieldwork compared to Bangor University's inspection, with three inspectors over three days in each of the six immersion centres and in schools, including interviews with pupils and staff. It was noted that Bangor University's report had used different criteria to Estyn, including methods used in assessing adult immersion.

It was stressed that the comments in both reports were valid and that the recommendations had been accepted by both organisations. It was elaborated that work was already underway to respond to several of the recommendations, with centre staff now starting to work alongside pupils in the classroom, rather than taking them out of class as under the old system. It was further noted that additional resources were being offered to respond to the recommendations, and that a website was being developed to provide a snapshot of what was being achieved within the immersion centres.

It was noted that the recommendations regarding the number of days in the immersion centres had been fully weighed up and measured by the Department, with a table appearing in the report comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the four models available. Each model had been considered in detail before deciding to keep the current arrangement for the time being, as headteachers had asked for consistency.

Concern was expressed by a member that not all school headteachers were aware of the situation at grassroots' level.

The difficulties highlighted within the reports were highlighted in terms of the structure of lessons for the children returning from the immersion centres to the schools, and the need to return to the five-day model to address this. It was noted that the Estyn report was superficial, with little detail or evidence to support it. It was further noted that Estyn had inspected several immersion centres in Wales who had just started their journey, and therefore the praise of Gwynedd's centres was understandable.

It was noted that Bangor University's report was a good report, with more detail, evidence and comments from mainstream teachers, immersion teachers and pupils. It was noted that several recommendations and conclusions had emerged from the report, and that one of the main messages was that children needed more hours of immersion. It was noted within the report that comments from immersion teachers indicated that there was no constant contact between the schools and the centres, and that mainstream teachers tended to become more comfortable with using English.

It was noted that a five-day model within the immersion centres offered a clearer structure in terms of education for the children, but that there was insufficient monitoring or follow-up to this within the mainstream, as there were not enough immersion teachers available to ensure this. The need for the Welsh Government to provide more funding to maintain the immersion system was emphasised, as it was not fair for schools to have to contribute to fund the provision.

In response, it was noted that the fifth day within the school was advantageous as it enabled better communication between the centres and the mainstream schools. It was noted that pupils' well-being remained a central consideration for the Department, as well as teaching, and that the fifth day back at school had been identified as something beneficial for the children. It was stressed that the current decision reflected what was best for the children and for the schools, as well as the headteachers' request for consistency, money was not the main factor in reaching the decision. It was recognised that there was room for improvement in communication between the centres and schools, and that plans had been drawn up to rectify this.

It was stressed that both reports were important and stood on their own merits, and that there were lessons to be learned from both. An opinion was expressed that the findings of Bangor University's report stemmed from what happens on the fifth day, which is Friday, when pupils were back at school. It was elaborated that the context of the inspection, particularly the time of year when the work had been carried out, was likely to have influenced to some extent what was seen on Friday. It was noted that Friday was not necessarily a suitable day for children from the immersion centres to return to school.

It was explained that the financial situation was challenging, but that the Council had received a significant grant from the Welsh Government for the immersion provision and had used all possible means to protect schools from having to fund the provision themselves.

A member made the following comments:-

·       That Estyn had already misled this Committee on the matter of children's well-being and safety, and therefore a view was expressed that the Estyn report was unreliable.

·       The conclusion of Bangor University's report that mainstream schools were finding it difficult to support pupils to successfully reintegrate on Fridays, and that this had reduced the robust efficiency of the immersion process.

·       Bangor University's conclusion had indicated that a return to mainstream school on Fridays had a negative impact on pupils' well-being in terms of consistency.

·       Only £1 million was being spent on the immersion system, and that the Welsh Government needed to lobby for more funding.

An opinion was expressed that the report contained bias, disregarding the findings of Bangor University's report.

Concern was expressed about the lack of criticism in the Estyn report, stressing that Bangor University's report offered a more balanced picture and highlighted a lack of strategies, contact and understanding from teachers. It was stressed that changing the model from Friday to Monday at school was not going to be a solution to this problem. It was suggested that pupils' well-being needed to be specifically examined when deciding on the best arrangement, as evidence had shown that pupils felt more confident in the immersive environment than when returning to mainstream school.

The need to consider increasing immersion hours and placing greater emphasis on the process of integrating pupils back into their schools was emphasised, ensuring appropriate strategies and training for staff. It was noted that there was a lack of time for teachers to implement the strategies, and that consideration needed to be given to a return to a five-day-a-week system that had already proven successful.

A view was expressed that the Language Charter had not proven successful, with English being used as an informal language within schools, and that it should be reviewed and scrutinised as a matter of urgency by the Committee.

In response, the following was stated:-

·       Work was underway to re-launch the Gwynedd Language Charter with new branding.

·       Any additional funding from the Government was welcomed.

·       The Department had already used all available resources to maintain the provision and to protect schools from additional costs, but that there were wider financial pressures across education services.

·       It was important to continue to celebrate the successes of the immersion centres and to recognise the hard work undertaken daily by teachers and staff across the county.

·       Secondary headteachers had raised concerns that communication remained challenging.

·       Schools were encouraged to appoint a language mentor to act as a liaison between the immersion centre and the school, to ensure linguistic progression. It was noted that this role was essential to maintain the link between pupils and the immersion staff after their time at the centre.

·       An immersion period did not end after 10 weeks, and that relationships were intended to be fostered with mainstream schools to share immersion expertise. It was further noted that the training on the principles of immersion needed to be guided by the universities, so that it could be part of the training of all teachers.

The nature of the consultation held with the headteachers was questioned. Headteachers had been asked whether they had been given an opportunity to consider the evaluation before expressing an opinion on the new models. In response, it was noted that all primary and secondary headteachers had received a copy of the four models and the relevant information before expressing an opinion.

It was noted that cases had been reported where teachers did not arrive at mainstream schools on time on Friday, meaning children had to wait for long periods. Concern was expressed that long periods of online work could lead to loneliness among the pupils. It was therefore stressed that having children back on the fifth day did not fulfil its purpose of keeping them in touch with the school and their fellow pupils.

Concerns were raised about the impact of the fifth day on the social language of the schools, especially in rural areas. It was noted that this could affect the linguistic nature of the whole school and the Welsh culture on the playground and in the classroom. It was suggested that it would be worthwhile to receive the views of schools that had already experienced the arrangement to get a more comprehensive picture of the situation.

A question was asked about cases where parents had not chosen to send their children to the immersion centres. In response, it was noted that reasons such as the need to settle in a new home were common, but that the Department was extending the invitation to future periods and continued to invite and persuade parents to attend through in-person visits to the centres. It was emphasised that cases of refusal of the invitation to attend the immersion centres were very rare.

It was questioned how children with additional learning needs were supported by the immersion centres. In response, it was noted that robust arrangements were in place to support pupils with additional learning needs and emotional needs. It was explained that individual development plans were transferred to the centres and that staff received training on the principles of parenting schools, trauma awareness and ELSA (Emotional Literacy Support Assistants).

The importance of promoting Welsh as a social language in mainstream schools was emphasised, emphasising the need to create a culture where pupils can use the language naturally in the playground and in the community. In response, it was noted that two officers within the Council were working on the reform of the Language Charter and that a funding bid had been submitted to expand these roles. It was further noted that there were jobs available within schools in each catchment area for teachers to take on additional responsibilities to implement the Language Charter and to organise one annual event in their catchment area.

It was noted that another model had been suggested regarding keeping the fifth day within the school but extending the period within the immersion centres from 10 weeks to 12. It was elaborated that it was impossible to determine how practical this model was at present, but that it was something to be considered further in the future.

A member thanked the immersion service staff, congratulating them on their excellent work and praising them for the efficiency of the service. They also thanked all the teachers in the county for their heroic efforts to immerse pupils on a day-to-day basis in the classroom.

It was proposed that the report be rejected because there was a trend in the glorification of the reports received from Bangor University and Estyn; recommend that the Cabinet Member for Education lobbied the Welsh Government for additional funding to fund the provision and thank the staff at the immersion centres for their work.

Councillor Rhys Tudur noted his opposition to accepting the report. He elaborated that insufficient consideration had been given to models of greater duration in the immersion centres; that models needed to be looked at in need of extensive funding e.g. pupils go back to an immersion centre once a week after the 10-week period; and the impact of pupils returning to schools from the centres for one day a week on pupils' language practices in mainstream schools had not been considered.

The proposal was seconded. A vote was taken on the proposal, and it fell on the Chair's casting vote.

A discussion was held in relation to accepting the report.

RESOLVED

1. To accept the report and note the observations.

2. To ask the Cabinet Member for Education to:

• further lobby the Welsh Government for additional financial resources.

• give further consideration to the option of returning to five days and/or consideration of the length of the period in the language centres, taking into account the welfare of the pupils.

• consult further with stakeholders and ensure flexibility in terms of the provision in moving forward.

3. That the Scrutiny Committee extends its gratitude to all those involved in immersion, both in the language centres and within mainstream schools.