Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
Resolved: The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 7 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime. These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by: County Councillor Gareth E Jones Seconded by: County Councillor Angela Davies All Committee Members present unanimously agreed.
Apologies for absence were received from Committee Member: County Councillors B Davies, G Morgan and C Hall. Co-opted Member: Margaret Evitts and Sara Davies. Portfolio Holders: The Leader J Berriman, Deputy Leader M Dorrance, J Charlton, S Davies and G Preston. Officers: E Palmer, J Thomas, M Thomas and A Phillips.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
The minutes of the 11th September 2025 meeting were proposed and seconded, the Committee members present were in agreement that the minutes were a true and accurate reflection of the meeting.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Changes to the Work Programme • The Committee asked why the Forward Work Programme had been altered and what the reasoning behind those changes were. • Members queried whether the revised programme had been designed to ensure scrutiny was aligned with Estyn’s recommendations. • It was questioned whether the changes would allow the Committee to receive the right information at the right time to scrutinise effectively. Dr Richard Jones explained that the Forward Work Programme (FWP) had been revised to ensure that scrutiny was aligned with the Integrated Business Plan (IBP) and the recommendations from Estyn. The revised programme was designed to provide the Committee with timely and relevant updates on each strategic objective, enabling effective scrutiny at key points throughout the academic year. He emphasised that the IBP served as an overarching framework, and the FWP would now be structured to reflect this, ensuring that the Committee received the right information at the right time. Dr Richard confirmed that a paper on individual school standards was scheduled for January, once verified data was available. He assured Members that the report would include both detailed analysis and contextual benchmarking across Wales, allowing schools to be understood within their family of schools. Ysgol Calon Cymru • Raised concerns about the Ysgol Calon Cymru proposal and asked why the proposal had not changed following public consultation. • Questioned whether the Ysgol Calon Cymru proposal aligned with existing Council policies, including Sustainable Powys and school transformation. • The Committee asked why the Ysgol Calon Cymru proposal had been withdrawn from the Cabinet meeting and rescheduled for a future meeting. • View was supported as the revised paper offered no substantive changes. The Chair acknowledged the concerns and confirmed that a conversation would be held with officers prior to the Cabinet meeting to determine whether further scrutiny or action was warranted. No formal decision was made during the meeting, but the matter was noted for follow-up and potential scrutiny intervention depending on the outcome of the Cabinet meeting.
Councillor Gibson-Watt began by acknowledging the comprehensive and technical nature of the IBP, noting that much of its content was operational and required professional input from officers. Explained that Estyn had accepted the IBP as the appropriate mechanism for implementing the post-inspection action plan (PIAP), and that the Council had successfully amalgamated the two documents. He described this as a sensible and pragmatic approach. Expressed confidence in the IBP as a framework for improvement, stating that it was a robust and well-structured document. Highlighted that recent performance meetings had shown a much-improved focus on standards within schools, and that mechanisms had been put in place by the Director and officers to support the drive for improvement. Councillor Gibson-Watt also noted that early indications from GCSE results suggested a slight improvement compared to previous years, particularly following a period of disappointing outcomes. Concluded by stating that, as Portfolio Holder, he felt reassured that the IBP provided a solid foundation for achieving the Council’s educational objectives. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Clarity, Structure and Accessibility of the IBP • The Committee questioned why the IBP lacked clearly defined success criteria and measurable outcomes and asked whether these could be embedded directly within the document rather than referenced in external plans. • The Committee commented that the absence of headline key performance indicators (KPIs) made it difficult to assess progress and requested that each strategic objective include a small number of explicit KPIs. • The Committee expressed concern about the breadth of the IBP, suggesting that it attempted to address too many issues simultaneously and risked becoming unmanageable. • The Committee asked how Members could track progress against the IBP’s goals, given that the document only included end targets and not interim milestones. • The Committee queried how many documents would be needed to monitor progress and whether the IBP could be updated as a live document. • The Committee suggested that guidance or pre-meetings would be helpful to support Members in interpreting educational data and navigating complex documentation. Officers acknowledged that the IBP was a comprehensive and operational document and explained that it formed part of a wider accountability framework. This framework included the Corporate and Strategic Equality Plan (CSEP) and Integrated Delivery Plans, which together provided the full context for the Council’s education improvement strategy. The Director clarified that while the IBP itself did not contain all performance measures, these were embedded within the CSEP and would be brought to scrutiny in scheduled reports. In response to concerns about the lack of embedded KPIs, the Director agreed that further refinement was needed and committed to incorporating headline KPIs into the IBP to improve clarity. Officers also confirmed that the IBP was intended to be a live document, subject to updates and revisions as work progressed and as Estyn monitoring visits identified new priorities. The Head of Service added that detailed delivery plans were being developed for each strategic objective, and these would flow down into individual staff appraisals. Officers accepted that navigating multiple documents could be challenging and agreed to explore ways to make the IBP more accessible, including the possibility of pre-meetings or guidance sessions for Committee Members. Performance Measurement and Accountability • The Committee asked whether the Council had set a target date by which no school would be placed in an Estyn category such as Special Measures or Review. • The Committee sought assurance that the outcomes and targets within the IBP had been approved by Estyn and were appropriate for each strategic aim. • The Committee asked whether regular reports would be provided showing progress against targets and whether these would include both quantitative and qualitative data. • The Committee requested that a single headline KPI be identified for each strategic objective to clarify expectations and enable scrutiny to assess impact. The Director confirmed that Estyn had approved the outcomes and measures included in the IBP and that these had also been reviewed by the Council’s Accelerated Improvement Board. Officers assured the Committee that future scrutiny meetings would include impact reports showing progress against targets, using both quantitative and qualitative data. In response to questions about setting a target date for removing schools from Estyn categories, the Director explained that while Estyn inspections were important, the Council aimed to know its schools well enough to identify issues before external inspection. The service had introduced new systems to monitor standards internally and was using benchmarking against similar local authorities to set ambitious but realistic KPIs. Officers agreed that scrutiny needed to be able to assess progress clearly and committed to providing headline KPIs for each strategic objective, along with contextual data to support interpretation. Governance and Leadership • The Committee asked how the Council intended to ensure that education was championed across all departments and by all councillors, noting that not all Members were school governors or actively engaged in education matters. • The Committee raised concerns about the bureaucratic process for reappointing LEA governors, particularly for those who had served effectively and were asked to continue by their schools. • The Committee questioned whether governors were sufficiently equipped to challenge the IBP and whether professional learning opportunities were being provided to support them. Officers acknowledged the challenge of ensuring that education was championed across the Council and explained that this required leadership at all levels, not just within the education service. The Director stated that improved use of data and transparent reporting would help raise awareness and engagement among councillors and other departments. The Cabinet Member recognised the difficulties in recruiting school governors, particularly in a rural authority with a large number of schools. They agreed that the process for appointing and reappointing governors was overly bureaucratic and committed to reviewing it. Officers confirmed that a new professional learning platform had been launched to support governors, and that efforts were underway to improve recruitment through supportive advertising mechanisms. The Committee was assured that governors would be provided with the necessary training and resources to challenge the IBP and contribute meaningfully to school improvement. School Improvement and Collaboration • The Committee asked what had changed in the Council’s approach to school improvement, given that previous plans had also promised robust support and challenge. • The Committee emphasised the importance of including schools in the communication loop and ensuring that school leaders were actively involved in shaping improvement priorities. • The Committee asked whether the Council was analysing data from schools outside Powys where Powys pupils accessed courses, and whether this was informing improvement strategies. • The Committee requested that all working groups, strategies and partnerships be mapped to provide a clearer picture of the support landscape. Officers explained that the Council had restructured its school improvement and professional learning teams to work more collaboratively. The Head of Service stated that the integration of these teams had led to earlier identification of school priorities and more bespoke support for individual schools. The Committee was informed that a new data matrix had been developed to bring together information on safeguarding, HR, finance, leadership, and teaching and learning. This matrix was being used to inform weekly quality assurance meetings and to guide targeted support. Officers emphasised that school improvement was a shared responsibility across the Council and that efforts were being made to break down silos and improve cross-departmental collaboration. The Director confirmed that property colleagues and other services were now working closely with education to address issues affecting schools. In response to questions about external benchmarking, officers stated that the Council was working with neighbouring authorities to share best practice and support school leaders in raising standards. Wellbeing, Inclusion and Attendance • The Committee asked how the Council intended to support pupils who were not attending school due to unmet ALN needs, placement disputes, or emotional barriers. • The Committee questioned the pace of delivery in relation to wellbeing and inclusion, stating that strategies had been discussed for years without sufficient impact. • The Committee asked whether Children’s Services were actively involved in the partnership work around emotionally based school avoidance and elective home education. • The Committee asked whether the Council received any funding for children educated otherwise than at school and requested clarification on how school trips were coded for attendance purposes. Officers acknowledged the increase in pupils not attending school due to emotional, medical, or placement-related issues. The Head of Service explained that the Council worked on a case-by-case basis with families to resolve these challenges and was in the process of establishing a transition panel to improve support during key stages. The Director confirmed that the Council had revised its model for supporting electively home-educated children, integrating this work into the education welfare service to ensure continuity and better engagement. Officers noted that the number of home-educated children had increased nationally and that Powys was working to support families through targeted programmes. A new initiative, EBSA Horizons, had been launched to address emotionally based school avoidance. This programme aimed to be proactive and preventative, involving schools, parents, and children in identifying and overcoming barriers to attendance. Officers also highlighted the development of parent forums and drop-in sessions to improve communication and support. The Cabinet Member stressed the importance of multi-agency working and confirmed that the Council was collaborating with the Health Board and other stakeholders through an ALN Integrated Steering Group. Officers stated that commitments had been made through a joint action plan and that progress was being monitored at director-level meetings. Early Years and Welsh Medium Education • The Committee expressed disappointment at the limited detail provided on early years provision, given its importance in preventing exclusions and supporting ALN. • The Committee asked whether the Council was doing enough to promote Welsh medium education from early years through to post-16, particularly in light of proposed all-through schools. • The Committee asked whether the Welsh in Education Strategic Plan (WESP) was being reviewed and whether accessibility to early years provision was being monitored. • The Committee requested data on travel distances required to access early years provision and asked whether this met the Council’s accessibility standards. Officers acknowledged that the early years section of the IBP was brief but explained that this was due to the sector’s strong performance in recent Estyn inspections. The Head of Service confirmed that early years teams had been sharing best practice across the Council and that efforts were underway to improve integration between early years, ALN, and other objectives. In response to concerns about accessibility, officers agreed to provide data on travel distances and access to provision, including Cylch Meithrin settings. They noted that some families chose provision based on work location rather than home address, which could affect accessibility figures. Regarding Welsh medium education, officers confirmed that the Welsh in Education Strategic Plan (WESP) was reviewed annually and would undergo a full review after five years. The Committee was assured that the Council was working to strengthen Welsh medium pathways from early years through to post-16, and that pupil and staff views would be considered in future planning.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee noted that: • The Integrated Business Plan (IBP) had been accepted by Estyn as the appropriate mechanism to deliver the Post-Inspection Action Plan (PIAP). • The IBP was a comprehensive and operational document, situated within a wider accountability framework linking corporate objectives to individual appraisals. • The IBP was designed to be a live document, subject to refinement and adaptation following Estyn monitoring visits and internal review. • The IBP included six strategic objectives aligned to Estyn recommendations, each supported by delivery plans and performance measures. • The Forward Work Programme had been revised to ensure scrutiny received timely updates aligned with IBP objectives. • The IBP lacked sufficient clarity in success criteria and measurable KPIs, which were expected to be strengthened through future iterations. • The education service had begun restructuring, with new appointments and professional learning programmes introduced to support delivery of the IBP. • The strategic actions within the IBP aimed to embed education as a priority across the Council, though the mechanisms for achieving this remained under development. The Committee welcomed that: • Officers committed to improving communication between the education service and schools, particularly through collaborative data sharing and area head meetings. • A professional learning platform for governors had been launched, improving access to training and reducing technical barriers. • The education service had stabilised its school improvement advisor team, particularly in secondary schools, enabling earlier identification of development priorities. • A transition panel was being established to support pupils with ALN during school changes and transitions. • Multi-agency collaboration was being strengthened, including partnerships with the health board and trauma-informed school networks. • The EBSA Horizons programme was being launched to address emotionally-based school avoidance through a preventative, whole-system approach. • Parent forums and drop-in sessions were being initiated to support families and facilitate peer networking. • The IBP included plans to assess the impact of school transformation projects on educational outcomes and value for money. The Committee requested that: • Key performance indicators (KPIs) and success criteria be embedded within the IBP text, rather than referenced in external documents, to aid scrutiny. • A mapping exercise be undertaken to clarify the various working groups, strategies, and third-party commitments supporting the IBP. • A review of LEA governor recruitment processes be conducted to reduce bureaucracy and improve retention. • Training or guidance be provided to scrutiny members to help navigate future IBP documents and ensure robust scrutiny. • Accessibility data for early years provision be supplied, including travel distances and unmet demand. • An impact assessment be conducted on new school builds to evaluate educational outcomes and value for money. • Cybersecurity measures be explicitly referenced in the IBP, given their importance and recent sector concerns. The Committee remain unconvinced of: • The effectiveness of current strategies in delivering tangible improvements for pupils with complex ALN needs. • The sufficiency of pace in implementing support measures for schools and families under strain. • The clarity and accessibility of the IBP as a live document, particularly in tracking progress against objectives. • The robustness of the financial planning underpinning ambitious capital programmes. The Committee expressed concern of: • The increasing number of children being educated outside the school system, and the limited funding and oversight available for elective home education. • The emotional toll on school staff who were going above and beyond their duties to support vulnerable pupils. • The lack of detail in the early years section of the IBP, despite its foundational importance. • The absence of cyber security references in the IBP, despite its relevance to school safety and resilience. • The presentation of safeguarding data, which lacked clarity on risk levels, project timelines, and prioritisation. • The bureaucratic barriers faced by returning governors, which risked disengagement from experienced volunteers. Scrutiny’s Recommendations: 1. That key performance indicators (KPIs) be clearly embedded within the IBP text itself, rather than referenced in external documents, to ensure transparency and facilitate effective scrutiny. 2. That performance measures and success criteria be strengthened and made more specific across all six strategic objectives. 3. That a mapping exercise be undertaken to clarify the various working groups, strategies, and third-party commitments supporting the IBP. 4. That the Council undertake a review of LEA governor recruitment processes, particularly to reduce bureaucracy for returning governors and improve retention. 5. That training or guidance be provided to scrutiny members to help them navigate future IBP documents and ensure robust scrutiny. 6. That the Council provide accessibility data for early years provision, including travel distances and identification of areas where access is limited or unmet. 7. That an impact assessment be conducted on new school builds to evaluate whether improved physical environments had led to better educational outcomes and represented value for money. 8. That the IBP include a clear commitment to working collaboratively with schools, recognising them as key partners in delivering improvement. 9. That the IBP reflects a greater sense of pace in implementing support measures, particularly in areas affecting vulnerable learners and school staff. 10. That cybersecurity be explicitly referenced in the IBP, given its importance to school safety and resilience. 11. That the Council provide clarity on funding arrangements for electively home-educated children and outline the process followed for monitoring and supporting these learners.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
Resolved: The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 7 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime. These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by: County Councillor Gareth E Jones Seconded by: County Councillor Angela Davies All Committee Members present unanimously agreed.
Resolved: The Monitoring Officer had determined that category 7 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime. These factors in his view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by: County Councillor Gareth E Jones Seconded by: County Councillor Angela Davies All Committee Members present unanimously agreed.
Scrutiny Committee discussed and confirmed recommendations to Cabinet.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.