Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff crynodebau eu hysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion, sef ei gofnod swyddogol o'r hyn a benderfynodd cyfarfod. Maen nhw fel arfer yn ymddangos ychydig wythnosau ar ôl y cyfarfod.
Apologies for absence were received from: County Councillors: C Hall, M Dorrance, J Berriman, R Devlin and G Preston. Co-opted Member: M Evitts. Officers: S Llewellyn, J Chappelle, M Curtis. Invitee: Graham Taylor, Chair of the Schools Forum.
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 18th December 2025 were agreed by Committee members present as a true and accurate reflection of the meetings and ratified accordingly by the Chair.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Primary phase proposals • Members asked what the educational benefits of the proposed changes were for the primary sector, noting that much of the narrative had focused on secondary schools. • Committee queried whether it was acceptable for some primary schools to lose £60,000+ in a full year under the new arrangements and whether the authority should proceed with the primary changes in light of that impact. • Clarification if the proposed amendments to small‑school allowances, class size protection, capitation and premises costs would be fair to primaries overall. • Had the impact assessment explicitly recognised negative impacts on individual primary schools and sought before/after examples to illustrate the real‑world effect. Officers explained that the primary phase proposals centred on amending two key allowances—small school top‑ups and class‑size protection—and adjusting the capitation and premises elements that fed into Component 1 of the formula. They emphasised that the formula remained a distribution tool operating within the existing funding envelope, with spending decisions resting with schools under local management arrangements. They also noted that modelling work had indicated that premises and capitation allowances were no longer adequate, prompting the proposal to revise these elements. Officers clarified that although some primary schools were projected to lose funding, transition arrangements and structural support would be put in place to help schools plan changes over time. Secondary phase proposals (including 1:20 option class ratio) • Members asked why the secondary option class ratio had moved from 1:25 to 1:20, and sought the educational rationale (breadth of offer, new GCSEs/VCSEs, workload/NEA pressures). • Would 1:20 change be phased or would land as a single cost pressure in 2026/27, and whether further reductions below 1:20 might be required from September 2027. • What impact the changes would have across larger/smaller, single/dual‑stream secondary schools (i.e., whether there would be winners and losers) Officers Leaders described clear educational reasons for the proposed reduction in secondary option-class ratios from 1:25 to 1:20. They stated that the change supported smaller class sizes, better individual attention, improved classroom management, stronger pedagogy, and reduced risk of teacher burnout. They also linked the proposal to the significant curriculum reform underway at GCSE level, including the introduction of new GCSEs, increased non‑examined assessments, and the forthcoming VCSE and Skills for Life and Work qualifications. Budget Forum representatives confirmed that most secondary schools were already operating around a class average of twenty students, and that under‑funding for this reality might help explain past deficit patterns. They strongly supported the 1:20 proposal. Officers added that the increased flexibility would allow schools to offer a broader and more balanced academic and vocational curriculum Modelling, evidence and impact assessment • Members asked officers to run the budget through the revised formula for every school before decision‑making, so the Committee could see school‑level impacts and judge whether all schools could set at least an in‑year balanced budget while meeting statutory requirements and curriculum changes. • Had officer modelling had verified reports of extreme impacts (e.g., around £1,000 per pupil in some primaries). • Request was made for “before and after” worked examples for selected schools and for the impact assessment to acknowledge negative effects where applicable and the support that would be provided. • Were premises and capitation lines adequate, given previous evidence of under‑provision, and how amendments would be invested and distributed. Officers confirmed that modelling had been undertaken within the Formula Review Group, but that they had not verified external spreadsheets produced independently by members. They emphasised modelling principles rather than school‑by‑school outcomes at consultation stage, but acknowledged the need to provide more detailed “before and after” examples in future. The Committee repeatedly expressed concern over the absence of detailed modelling in the consultation, particularly given the potential scale of funding swings in the primary sector. Officers accepted that detailed analysis of the impact for each school would need to be provided before Cabinet made final decisions. Consultation quality and engagement • Members asked why only 17 schools had responded to the consultation and whether that level of engagement was sufficient to proceed • How the authority would improve response rates next time (e.g., workshops, different methods) and whether to offer professional learning sessions for heads/governing bodies on how the formula works. Both officers and Budget Forum representatives expressed concern that only seventeen schools responded to the consultation, despite the significance of the proposed changes. The Budget Forum reported that headteachers had been urged to respond but that engagement remained disappointing. Members argued that a consultation with such limited participation could not be considered robust. Officers agreed that the process would need to be reviewed and that alternative forms of engagement—including workshops and professional learning sessions—should be explored to ensure schools understood proposals well enough to give informed feedback Phasing, timing and transition support • Members asked for clear phasing so that schools had at least two terms to make staffing/structural changes, and they proposed an implementation timetable (accept in principle; April 2027 start, 50% in 2027/28, full in 2028/29). • Was the phasing plan aligned with new qualification timelines and whether short‑term support and challenge would accompany the transition. Officers acknowledged the Committee’s concern that schools required a minimum of two terms to implement staffing changes. In response, they stated that transition arrangements were embedded within the proposals, including phased changes for primary schools. The Committee later recommended that primary changes should not start before April 2027, with 50% implementation in 2027–28 and full implementation in 2028–29, giving schools sufficient time for workforce planning. Secondary sector changes were not proposed for phasing because most schools were already operating at the 1:20 ratio. Deficits and repayment expectations • Members asked what the authority expected in terms of deficit repayment from schools that benefited from additional funding—what percentage of in‑year balance should be used and over what timescale. • Would phasing prevent schools from sliding into deficit, given notice periods for staffing changes Officers confirmed that improving secondary sustainability was a major objective, and that the proposed formula changes would support schools in returning to balanced in‑year budgets. They explained the legal framework for deficit management under the Scheme for Financing Schools, noting that exceptional circumstances could justify extended repayment periods. Budget Forum members asked for clarification on what proportion of any new funding allocated through the revised formula might be required to contribute to deficit reduction. Officers accepted the need to provide clearer expectations. ALN interactions with the formula • Members asked whether the formula review had fully considered ALN pressures in individual schools and how the ALN changes (learner‑led funding, LA‑IDP allocations) interacted with the proposed distribution. • Were ALN uplifts and recent formula adjustments working as intended and whether further review would be needed once changes had bedded in. Officers highlighted that ALN (Additional Learning Needs) funding had already undergone a major reform in 2024, and that the current proposals interacted with, but did not replace, that framework. They reported that ALN pressures continued to rise nationally, and that Powys had budgeted an additional £1.1 million for 2026–27 and 2027–28, based on Tyfi data and demographic trends. Members raised concerns that the £7,000 allocation for LA‑maintained IDPs did not adequately cover the cost of one‑to‑one or two‑to‑one support. Officers responded that funding was based on need as specified in each IDP, and that schools retained flexibility to deploy funds across their full ALN cohort. They also noted ongoing Welsh Government consultation on national ALN funding regulations. Small schools, rural equity and Welsh‑medium • Members asked whether the formula properly recognised the additional costs of rural/small schools, and whether small‑school top‑ups were adequate and equitable. • How would equity be ensured for schools with very small numbers of pupils needing specialist provision and for dual‑stream/Welsh‑medium contexts. Officers responded that the formula already included small‑school top‑ups within Component 3 and that bandings were being removed in favour of per‑pupil methodology to improve fairness. Concerns were also expressed about Welsh‑medium equity, particularly in dual‑stream schools where provision differed between streams. Officers acknowledged this issue and confirmed that equity between languages formed part of wider ongoing review work. TROCHI (Welsh‑language immersion) and other earmarked priorities • Members asked why TROCHI was not shown in the formula paper (part 4 had been blank), whether TROCHI should be included within the formula in future years, and whether there would be provision in the south as well as the north; they also asked if the £100k top‑up was sufficient or sustainable. Officers clarified that the funding was not guaranteed beyond the grant period but agreed that TROCHI should be considered for potential inclusion in the formula in future reviews. They confirmed that work on this would continue over the next year. Delegated budget framework and compliance • Members asked what constraints the delegated budget framework placed on schools’ spending—i.e., whether schools truly had a free hand once allocations arrived, and what other LA framework expectations had to be followed. • They asked whether the authority should ring‑fence or strengthen compliance expectations (e.g., for Welsh‑language equity and adherence to relevant codes) Officers restated that once funding was delegated to schools, spending decisions were governed by the national regulations and the local Scheme for Financing Schools. They emphasised that while the formula determined distribution, schools retained responsibility for ensuring expenditure met statutory obligations and aligned with their school development plans. Officers reiterated that autonomy must be balanced with accountability through monitoring, financial meetings, and challenge processes. Evidence, benchmarking and ongoing review • Members asked what evidence and benchmarking (including Wales‑wide comparators) had been used to justify the changes, and how ongoing review would ensure the formula remained aligned with Welsh Government funding regulations and policy. In response to concerns about limited evidence, officers and the Chief Executive stressed that the Committee would be provided with measurable outcomes through the Corporate and Strategic Equality Plan, the Integrated Business Plan, and quarterly performance reports. They confirmed that Powys benchmarked against Wales‑wide data and that scrutiny would be supported through deep dives, case studies—including examples where provision had failed—as well as strengthened quality assurance processes involving headteachers and governors. They also noted that many aspects of the formula, especially ALN and deprivation elements, would continue to evolve in line with Welsh Government policy.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed that: · The principle of reviewing the Schools Funding Formula on a regular basis to ensure fairness, equity and alignment with current educational delivery requirements was appropriate. · The move to address secondary option class sizes, including reducing the funding assumption from 1:25 to 1:20, was educationally justified to support curriculum breadth and learner outcomes. · The use of modelling, consultation and engagement through the Formula Review Group and Schools Budget Forum had been an appropriate mechanism for developing proposals. · The inclusion of deprivation and ALN elements within the formula remained necessary to support schools with higher levels of need. The Committee welcomed that: · Officers had worked extensively with schools, governing bodies and the Schools Budget Forum throughout the development of the funding proposals. · Transitional arrangements had been proposed to phase in funding changes, recognising the need for schools to plan and adjust staffing structures. · Benchmarking activity had been undertaken where possible, particularly in relation to elements such as capitation and premises funding. · Officers had recognised the growing pressures on schools arising from curriculum reform, ALN demand and staffing sustainability. The Committee requested that: 1. Detailed modelling be provided to show the impact of the proposed formula changes on individual schools, including “before and after” scenarios. 2. Worked examples be supplied illustrating the impact of the formula on: o small rural primary schools; o large and small secondary schools; o schools with high levels of deprivation; o schools experiencing sudden drops in pupil numbers; and Welsh medium schools. 3. The authority clearly explain how schools experiencing significant funding reductions would be supported during the transition period. 4. Future reports clearly set out the educational rationale underpinning funding changes, alongside financial and operational impacts. 5. Officers ensure that communication with headteachers and governing bodies was clear, timely and supported by practical guidance. The Committee remain unconvinced of: · Whether the proposed changes to the primary sector funding would be manageable for all schools without creating significant financial instability. · Whether removing or reducing small school and class size protections would disproportionately impact rural and sparsely populated areas. · That all schools were able to fully assess the impact of the proposals without knowing the final budget quantum. The Committee expressed concern of: · The potential scale of funding reductions for some primary schools, particularly small rural schools, and the risk this posed to educational sustainability. · The limited response rate from schools to the funding consultation, which raised questions about understanding, engagement and confidence in the process. · The risk of unintended consequences arising from the implementation of the formula, particularly where cumulative pressures already existed due to ALN, staffing and transport costs. · The ability of some schools to absorb financial changes while still setting balanced budgets and delivering statutory curriculum requirements. Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) 1.The Committee recommended that where changes were brought forward in future, implementation should be phased over multiple financial years, beginning no earlier than the 2027–28 financial year, to provide stability and planning certainty for schools. Secondary - Implement as per the recommendations in the report. Primary - Year 1 (2026-27) 20% New formula/80% old formula Year 2 (2027-28) – 50% new, 50% old Year 3 (2028-29) 100% New formula The financial impact is cost neutral to the primary funding envelope as the additional elements to capitation and premises will be amended in line with the revised implementation period. The implementation amendment will minimise the loss of funding to those schools that are losing in year 1 and provide further time for them to plan any required structural changes as a result of the outcome of the changes to their funding. 2. The Committee recommended that the authority should undertake a professional learning session for headteachers and governing bodies on how the funding formula operates. This was intended to improve understanding and engagement in future consultations. Accept – there are training sessions available for governors and heads to join in respect of the Funding Formula and Scheme for Financing Schools, which will continue. 3. The Committee recommended that the authority should review the consultation process to ensure a higher response rate from schools. The low number of responses (17 schools) was considered insufficient to proceed confidently with the proposed changes. Accept – however it is noted that the proposals were developed in collaboration with heads and chairs of governors and also reflected conversations that took place in finance surgeries with schools. In addition, the Chair of the Schools Budget Forum gives an update at every Chairs and Vice Chairs briefing, in recent meetings that has included about the proposals and the planned consultation. 4. The Committee recommended that the authority should consider the inclusion of TROCHI funding within the formula in future years. This was to ensure equitable provision across the county, particularly in the south. Accept – this will be considered in the next review of the formula. 5. The Committee recommended that the authority should continue to review the premises and capitation allowances within the formula. This was based on evidence that these allowances were not providing adequate resources for schools. Accept - this has been reviewed as part of the Primary phase and forms part of the proposals within the report. Further work will take place in respect of secondary capitation in the next review, as set out in the report. 6.The Committee recommended that the authority should maintain a strong focus on equity for rural schools within the funding formula. This was to address concerns that smaller schools faced similar costs to larger schools but had less financial flexibility and were disadvantaged under the proposed changes. Partially accept - The formula proposals are intended to target the distribution of funding so that top-ups and option sizes are learner-led. It is recognised that some schools could be disadvantaged but officers will continue to work with these schools to find ways of mitigating the impact. The Formula Review Group evaluates previous changes and identifies any unexpected benefits and consequences. 7. The Committee recommended that further work be undertaken to test proposed funding changes against real school budgets, to better understand operational consequences prior to implementation. Accept – This is continuous and ongoing work that takes place with individual schools via Finance Surgeries and also at a strategic level with Finance, the Education Service and HR working in close collaboration. 8. A Member Development Session required for all Councillors on the Schools Funding Formula. Accept – this had previously been agreed.
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. IBP targets, KPIs and benchmarking • Members asked whether the KPIs linked to Recommendation 3 were specific to ALN, and whether those KPIs demonstrated a clear direction of travel for improvement. • Members asked whether ALN‑related KPIs had been benchmarked against national Wales‑wide data, and whether such benchmarking could evidence a “genuine shift” in performance. • Members questioned where the evidence for progress sat within the IBP regarding references 4.1, 4.2, 42 and 43, and sought clarity on how progress against those specific IBP points was being measured. • The Committee asked how scrutiny could be reassured that the service was achieving the outcomes embedded within the IBP, and whether the qualitative and quantitative indicators were sufficiently robust for monitoring. Officers explained that the KPIs linked to Recommendation 3 were intended to cover the full span of ALN activity, and that although they were not exclusively ALN‑focused, they were structured in a way that enabled progress to be tracked for ALN learners as a distinct cohort. The Director emphasised that the IBP had been written to align with the broader accountability framework, and that ALN targets sat within this context to ensure consistency with whole‑service improvement. In response to questions regarding benchmarking, the Head of Service confirmed that ALN‑related indicators had been benchmarked against national data wherever national datasets existed. Officers acknowledged, however, that some aspects of ALN provision—particularly those relating to early identification and individual development plans—were still evolving nationally, meaning that benchmarking could only be partially applied. Despite this, officers stated that there was clear evidence of a “direction of travel” that demonstrated improvement. When asked where evidence for progress against specific IBP references—namely 4.1, 4.2, 4.2 and 4.3—could be located, officers advised that updates were being captured within the internal quality assurance processes and would feed into the next scheduled formal performance report. They reassured the Committee that qualitative and quantitative indicators were being actively reviewed, and that these were sufficiently robust to provide meaningful oversight. Evidence base, assurance and quality of data • Members asked what evidence supported claims of improvement within ALN provision, including behaviour, exclusions and engagement outcomes. • Members asked whether Tyfi ALN data were accurate, whether they had been quality‑assured, and whether one‑page pupil profiles could be returned to schools for verification. • The Committee questioned whether Tyfi should be regarded as the definitive data source, noting concerns raised by some schools about its reliability. • Members sought assurance that ALN data used to inform financial planning and forecasting of future need were robust enough to influence long‑term IBP planning. Officers confirmed that claims relating to improved behaviour, reduced exclusions and stronger learner engagement were supported by a combination of school‑level reporting, intelligence gathered through challenge adviser visits, and the authority’s internal ALN performance monitoring systems. The Director stressed the importance of triangulating evidence rather than relying solely on numerical data. In relation to the accuracy of Tyfi data, officers explained that data quality assurance was ongoing, and that the system had recently undergone improvements to ensure more reliable outputs. The Committee was assured that one‑page pupil profiles generated through Tyfi could be returned to schools for verification, and officers expressed confidence that this would further strengthen the accuracy of the dataset. Officers also acknowledged Committee concerns about the reliability of Tyfi as a definitive data source. They emphasised that while Tyfi served as the central operational tool for ALN data management, it was not used in isolation; school‑generated information, professional assessments, and multi‑agency contributions were also incorporated to ensure a more complete profile of need. The Director assured Members that the data being used for financial planning and forecasting had undergone scrutiny and was sufficient to inform long‑term IBP delivery. Accountability, governance and reporting • Members asked whether the accountability described by officers was fully reflected in formal governance reports, and how the Committee could see this more transparently in performance documentation. • Members asked how partners and internal teams were held to account for achieving ALN‑related IBP targets, including those in the Strategic Equality Plan. • Members questioned whether head‑of‑service and director‑level quality assurance processes were strong enough to validate school‑level self‑evaluation and improvement planning. Officers confirmed that formal governance reports did capture the accountability structures described during the meeting, although they acknowledged that the visibility of these links could be strengthened in the documentation brought to scrutiny. They committed to making clearer references in future performance papers to how specific ALN‑related IBP targets were being monitored and assured. The Director stated that internal teams and external partners were held to account through a combination of the Accelerated Improvement Board, senior management meetings, and multi‑agency steering groups aligned to the Strategic Equality Plan. Officers acknowledged that some elements of cross‑agency accountability were more challenging but confirmed that escalation routes existed where necessary. When asked about the robustness of director and head of service level validation of school self‑evaluation, officers explained that enhanced quality assurance processes had been introduced. These included routine challenge of ALN self‑evaluation, regular oversight of school improvement planning, and cross‑moderation of evidence captured during advisor visits. Early identification, early years and transition panels • Members asked whether early identification of ALN had genuinely improved, and what evidence demonstrated earlier recognition of need compared with previous years. • The Committee asked whether newly introduced early‑years transition panels were working effectively in ensuring needs were passed to receiving schools promptly and accurately. • Members questioned whether previous gaps in transition processes had now been successfully addressed and what mechanisms prevented recurrence. Officers reported that earlier identification of ALN had improved, citing a notable increase in early‑stage referrals, more accurate pathways into support, and stronger integration between early years and ALN teams. They stated that this improvement was assisted by earlier involvement from educational psychologists and by professional learning that focused on identifying emerging needs. The Committee was informed that the new early years transition panels were functioning effectively and that feedback from schools indicated that information was being transferred more promptly and more comprehensively. Officers added that mechanisms had been introduced to ensure that previous transition gaps—particularly delays in sharing information or inconsistencies in documentation—were no longer recurring. The Head of Service confirmed that transition processes were under continuous review, and that data mapping exercises were helping to identify where further refinements might still be required. Multi‑agency engagement, PIP panels and partnership working • Members asked what happened when multi‑agency partners failed to attend key PIP or ALN panels, and whether meetings could still be considered “fit for purpose”. • The Committee asked what authority or escalation routes existed to secure attendance and meaningful involvement from external agencies, particularly health services. • Members asked how tracking and follow‑up procedures operated when agreed assessments or interventions were delayed due to partner non‑attendance. Officers acknowledged that the effectiveness of multi‑agency engagement could vary depending on capacity within external services. They confirmed that meetings did still proceed when some agencies were unable to attend, but that this was supported by follow‑up processes to ensure no element of need was overlooked. In relation to authority and escalation routes, the Director specified that escalation mechanisms existed both within the local authority and through regional partnership structures. Where persistent non‑attendance by external agencies occurred, escalation could be made to senior representatives at the Health Board. Officers confirmed that tracking and follow‑up procedures were in place to monitor delayed interventions, with clear responsibility pathways established to ensure that agreed assessments were not lost due to partner absence. These procedures were also being strengthened through new collaborative working arrangements. Capacity, resources and training • Members asked whether the authority had sufficient staffing and operational capacity to meet demand identified through the IBP, including specialist provision at Penmaes. • Members questioned whether training for challenge advisers, headteachers and ALNCOs was sufficiently comprehensive and consistently delivered across the authority. • The Committee asked for numerical and percentage data on uptake of ALN‑related professional learning (senior leadership, middle leadership, ALNCO networks). • Members asked whether pupils with lower‑level ALN needs were receiving adequate support and whether schools had the capacity and guidance for early‑stage intervention. On the question of capacity, officers confirmed that resource pressures were recognised and were being addressed as part of the authority’s forward financial planning. They noted increasing complexity within ALN cohorts, including at specialist settings such as Penmaes, and stated that workforce planning was being adapted to respond to these needs. Regarding training, officers outlined that professional learning for challenge advisers, headteachers and ALNCOs had been expanded, and that networks were now meeting more consistently than in previous years. Officers agreed to provide numerical and percentage data on training uptake and noted early indications that participation levels were high. The Committee was assured that pupils with lower‑level ALN needs were receiving support through a model focused on quality‑first teaching, supported by additional professional learning to strengthen early‑stage interventions in schools. Impact on learners • Members asked what difference ALN reforms were making to pupils, especially those currently without access to appropriate provision or support. • The Committee questioned whether exclusions, attendance and engagement outcomes for ALN learners were improving and how those measures were being tracked and reported. • Members asked for clearer links between IBP targets and learner‑level outcomes, seeking reassurance that strategic change translated into tangible benefits. Officers stated that ALN reforms were already making noticeable improvements for many pupils, particularly in relation to early identification, transition and more consistent access to specialist advice. They acknowledged, however, that some learners were still awaiting appropriate provision. The Director explained that addressing such gaps remained a priority within the IBP. Attendance, engagement and exclusions data for ALN learners were being monitored and would be reported through the next formal performance cycle. Officers acknowledged that the Committee required clearer links between strategic targets and learner‑level outcomes, and committed to strengthening this aspect in future reports. Case studies, scrutiny and deep dives • Members requested both positive and negative case studies, noting that examples where provision had failed were essential for understanding system weaknesses. • The Committee asked whether deep‑dive scrutiny sessions into specific ALN themes (e.g., behaviour, early years, specialist pathways) could be scheduled to provide stronger evidence. • Members asked how case‑study evidence from initiatives such as the Adele Bates behaviour programme could be used to demonstrate impact. Officers welcomed the request for both positive and negative case studies, stating that examples of challenges were particularly valuable for system learning. They confirmed that case study material from initiatives such as the behaviour programme delivered by Adele Bates would be used to evidence impact and inform practice. The Director expressed support for deep‑dive scrutiny sessions into specific ALN themes and agreed that such sessions would enhance understanding of service pressures and progress. Transparency of information returned to schools • Members asked whether school‑level ALN profiles and funding information would be returned to schools systematically so they could verify and challenge local data. • The Committee questioned why Tyfi‑generated one‑page profiles had not previously been shared and requested assurances that these would be circulated going forward. Officers confirmed that school‑level ALN profiles and associated funding information would be systematically returned to schools, enabling them to verify the data and challenge anomalies. They acknowledged that the one‑page profiles generated by Tyfi had not historically been shared due to concerns over accuracy, but assured the Committee that improvements to the system now made this feasible. Officers committed to ensuring these profiles would be circulated going forward, with schools actively involved in validating the information.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed that: • The direction of travel towards earlier identification of Additional Learning Needs through strengthened early years processes and multi‑agency working was appropriate. • The increased collaboration between the ALN service and the Learning Improvement Team had begun to address previously identified systemic weaknesses. • The principle of equity rather than uniformity when planning ALN provision across school clusters was the correct approach. The Committee welcomed that: • Officers had re‑established multi‑agency forums, including the ALN Integrated Steering Group and Behaviour Working Groups, which had reduced silo working and improved information sharing. • A programme of professional learning for ALNCOs, headteachers and school leaders had been delivered or was underway, including whole‑authority ALN network events. • Targeted behaviour and wellbeing programmes, including the Adele Bates programme and the Emotion‑Based School Avoidance pilot, had been introduced and were beginning to demonstrate early positive impacts. • Work had commenced to increase capacity within specialist provision, including PRU stability and special school leadership, particularly in areas previously experiencing disruption The Committee requested that: • Detailed ALN “deep‑dive” scrutiny sessions be scheduled to examine specific elements of provision, supported by quantitative data, benchmarking with other Welsh authorities, and real‑world case studies. • Future reports include clearer alignment between ALN activity, the Integrated Business Plan, outcome measures and governance reporting lines. • Officers provide transparent and school‑level ALN funding information, clearly setting out allocations, associated expenditure and links to the data matrix. • Evidence of professional learning uptake be presented in both numerical and percentage terms to allow scrutiny of system‑wide impact rather than isolated engagement. • Future case studies brought to scrutiny include examples where ALN provision had • not worked as intended, as well as examples of effective practice. The Committee remained unconvinced of: • Whether sufficient capacity and resource were currently in place to deliver the improvements outlined at a pace that would make a meaningful difference for all learners. • Whether the systemic improvements described were yet translating consistently into improved classroom‑level outcomes across all schools and clusters. • That current Key Performance Indicators provided sufficient ALN‑specific clarity to demonstrate sustained improvement and direction of travel The Committee expressed concern of: • Ongoing delays in assessment and intervention timescales, particularly where staffing capacity and multi‑agency attendance were inconsistent. • The impact on schools and cohorts where multiple pupils with differing ALN presented in single classrooms, stretching staffing and financial arrangements. • The effectiveness and authority of multi‑agency panels where partner agencies did not attend, reducing meetings’ ability to secure timely outcomes for children. • Persistent gaps in community‑focused and specialist provision in certain catchments, and the short‑ to medium‑term impact on learners without access to local support. • The cumulative impact of historic under‑delivery in ALN provision, particularly in early intervention, and the risk that additional resource was being applied too late in the learner journey. Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) 1. The Committee recommended that the authority should undertake a detailed analysis of current and projected ALN need across school clusters, in order to support equitable planning of specialist provision within the revised Wave 3 proposals. Accept End of the Spring term 2. The Committee recommended that accountability for delivery of IBP ALN actions, in line with Estyn recommendations, should be clearly reflected through governance and performance reporting structures, including scrutiny and Cabinet reporting mechanisms. Accepted 3. The Committee recommended that future ALN proposals should be fully costed and clearly aligned to the Council’s Financial Resilience Model, to allow scrutiny to assess sustainability in the medium term. Accepted 4. The Committee recommended that the authority should provide clearer evidence of capacity and staffing arrangements to deliver statutory Individual Development Plans, including mechanisms for tracking and managing caseloads. Accepted 5. The Committee recommended that a structured programme of professional learning for mainstream teachers should continue and be strengthened, with a particular focus on inclusion, complex needs and consistency of practice across schools. Partially accepted – The professional learning programme for mainstream staff will be based on an analysis of need on a whole LA basis and on individual schools needs offering a more bespoke learning package. 6. The Committee recommended that multi‑agency working arrangements should continue to be developed, particularly to strengthen collaboration with health services, and to improve attendance and accountability at panel meetings Accepted This will also be picked up at Director level. 7. The Committee recommended that the authority should bring forward proposals to address gaps in specialist provision, informed by current analysis of need and demographic trends. Accepted 8. The Committee recommended that transition arrangements for learners with ALN should continue to be strengthened, including early years transitions, school‑to‑school transitions, and post‑16 pathways. Accepted New system planned for will be implemented and evaluated in September. 9. The Committee recommended that parental engagement and dispute resolution arrangements should form a clear part of future ALN proposals, including transparent escalation routes and learning from complaints. Accepted Current arrangements will be evaluated and practices strengthened. 10. The Committee recommended that transport pressures associated with ALN placements should be addressed collaboratively across services, with future reports clearly identifying risks, costs and mitigation measures. Accepted 11. The Committee recommended that mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of ALN interventions and programmes should be strengthened, with findings reported back to scrutiny to demonstrate impact on learner outcomes. Accepted 12. The Committee recommended that data collection and analysis arrangements, including use of the TYFU system, should be further utilised to inform strategic planning and monitor progress. Accepted 13. The Committee recommended that a dedicated “deep dive” scrutiny session on ALN should be scheduled, covering: • Implementation of Individual Development Plans for learners with complex needs; • Management of sudden increases in demand for specialist placements; • Resolution of disputes between parents and the authority; • Adaptation of mainstream provision for learners with moderate ALN; and • Multi‑agency collaboration for learners requiring complex, cross‑service support. Accepted
Standing item, no items brought to this meeting.
Comments: Committee would ensure the Work Programme remained aligned to areas where scrutiny could add value, particularly in light of the significant issues identified around ALN, funding, and the broader education system. The ALN item had highlighted a number of deep‑rooted and unresolved issues, the Committee recognised the need to adjust its future work to undertake more focused and evidence‑driven scrutiny.
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.