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 S McNicholas, D Thomas, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services, R Devlin, Cabinet Member for Customers, Digital and Community Services, R Church, Cabinet Member for Legal Services and Regulatory Services.
The Committee had considered the election of the Vice Chair. It was noted that one nomination had been received for Councillor Lucy Roberts, who had been the current post holder. Members had been invited to put forward any additional nominations, but none were received. Councillor Lucy Roberts had confirmed her willingness to continue in the role. A proposal and a seconder had been received, and the Committee had proceeded to a vote. The nomination had been agreed unanimously, with no votes against. Accordingly, Councillor Lucy Roberts had been formally appointed as Vice Chair for the forthcoming period.
The Committee received a Disclosure of Interest from County Councillor B Davies relating to items 6 and 7 to be considered 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.
It was recorded that the Committee had considered the minutes of the previous meeting held on 19 March 2026. Members had been invited to comment on the accuracy of the record. No amendments or corrections were raised during the meeting. A proposal had been made and seconded to accept the minutes as a true and correct record. The Committee had voted in favour, with no objections noted. Accordingly, the minutes were agreed and approved.
Background: It was outlined that the report had focused specifically on learners who were being educated other than at school due to medical needs or placement arrangements, rather than those attending a Pupil Referral Unit. Officers explained that the report represented a more detailed level of analysis than had previously been available, drawing on improved and more robust evidence to better understand the nature and scale of EOTAS provision. This reflected a shift towards a more evidence-led approach within the service. It was also highlighted that the work had been informed by both previous external observations and more recent internal evaluation, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to reviewing and improving the service over time. The background made clear that the authority was seeking to balance the need to respond to current demand while also planning for future increases in need. Furthermore, it was emphasised that the report formed part of a broader programme of development and improvement, including learning from other authorities and strengthening understanding of the factors contributing to learners requiring EOTAS provision. Overall, the background established that the report was an early but important step in developing a clearer, more data-informed understanding of EOTAS, with a focus on continuous evaluation and improvement. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Entitlement, Provision and Educational Offer · Asked what specific provision learners received at each key stage under EOTAS. · Questioned whether learners were receiving their full educational entitlement, particularly in light of parental concerns. · Enquired how “full-time education” was interpreted within EOTAS arrangements and how this aligned with statutory expectations. · Questioned how the relatively low number of hours (e.g. 5–10 hours per week) compared with mainstream provision could be justified. · Asked whether the number of hours was determined locally or informed by national guidance, and how this compared with other authorities. · Enquired whether the curriculum offer was sufficiently broad and balanced to meet learners’ needs. Officers explained that EOTAS provision had been designed as a highly individualised and bespoke offer, tailored to each learner’s age, aptitude, ability and personal circumstances. Rather than applying a standardised model, the approach had focused on ensuring that each learner received provision appropriate to their needs at a particular point in time. It was clarified that, while a general range of 5 to 10 hours per week had typically been provided, this had varied depending on the learner’s capacity to engage and their overall situation. It was further explained that the statutory requirement was to provide a “suitable and efficient education”, rather than a prescribed number of hours, and that there had been no national guidance specifying a fixed level of provision. Officers emphasised that, in many cases, the more intensive and individualised nature of one-to-one or small group teaching meant that learners could receive a level of focused input comparable to that experienced in mainstream settings. It was also highlighted that provision had often needed to begin at a lower level where learners had significant medical or emotional barriers, with a primary focus on supporting re-engagement with education. Funding, Resources and Financial Pressures · Asked whether additional funding had been allocated to support the service. · Enquired whether there were plans to submit future growth bids due to increasing demand. · Questioned whether the service was likely to overspend given rising levels of need. · Asked whether budget pressures could impact on the level or quality of provision delivered to learners. · Questioned how resources were being managed to meet increasingly complex needs. Officers acknowledged that demand for EOTAS provision had increased, both in terms of the number of learners and the complexity of their needs, and that this had created financial pressures. However, it was explained that the service had continued to operate within its allocated budget through careful monitoring, forecasting and financial management. It was outlined that certain elements of provision, such as medical tuition, had historically been funded within existing structures, and that anticipated overspends had been planned for in advance. While overall costs had risen in response to increasing demand, officers indicated that there had also been a focus on improving cost-effectiveness by developing more flexible and tailored packages of support. It was confirmed that future demand was being actively forecast and would be addressed through the authority’s normal budget-setting processes. Importantly, officers assured that financial constraints had not resulted in learners receiving less than the provision assessed as necessary to meet their needs. Data, Baseline and Performance Information • Questioned the lack of detailed data within the report, including waiting times, duration of placements and outcomes. • Asked how a robust baseline dataset would be established to enable meaningful year-on-year comparisons. • Enquired how performance would be measured, including reintegration rates, duration in provision and learner outcomes. • Asked for clarity on the development of clear Key Performance Indicators to monitor the service It was acknowledged that the level of data available at the time had been limited, reflecting the early stage of development of this area of work. Officers explained that significant progress had already been made in strengthening the evidence base and improving data collection processes. The current information had been intended to act as an initial baseline from which future performance and trends could be measured. Officers outlined that further work would include more comprehensive and detailed data collection, including analysis at individual school level. This would enable the authority to identify patterns, monitor outcomes and develop a clearer understanding of service performance over time. It was also confirmed that ongoing evaluation and performance monitoring would be embedded within future reporting arrangements to support continuous improvement and effective scrutiny. Value for Money and Effectiveness • Questioned whether the service was delivering value for money following previous concerns. • Asked how impact and outcomes were being evaluated in relation to the cost of provision. • Enquired how the authority would demonstrate effectiveness once improved data and evaluation cycles were completed. Officers acknowledged that, at that stage, it had not yet been possible to reach a definitive conclusion on whether the service was delivering value for money. This was due to the relatively early stage of the revised approach and the need for more robust data and evaluation over time. However, it was explained that improvements in evidence gathering and analysis had already enabled the service to focus more precisely on areas of need. It was emphasised that the intention was to move away from less targeted or reactive approaches and towards more strategic and evidence-informed interventions. Officers indicated that a clearer assessment of value for money would be possible once full evaluation cycles had been completed and outcomes could be measured more consistently against expenditure. In the interim, there was a level of confidence that activity was becoming more focused and aligned with identified needs. Early Intervention and Prevention • Questioned the limited reference to prevention within the report. • Asked what preventative work was being undertaken to stop learners disengaging from school. • Enquired how early identification of need was being improved, particularly in relation to anxiety and neurodiversity. • Questioned whether needs were being identified too late, often only at crisis point. • Asked how the authority was addressing issues such as masking of needs before escalation. Officers acknowledged that preventative work had not historically been as developed as it needed to be, but confirmed that this had become a key priority moving forward. A strong emphasis had been placed on developing more inclusive practices within schools to reduce the likelihood of learners reaching the point of requiring EOTAS provision. It was explained that work had been undertaken to better understand early indicators of need, including those that were less visible, such as anxiety and neurodiversity. Officers highlighted that engagement with families had been central to understanding the factors which contributed to disengagement from school. In addition, a multi-agency working group had been established to strengthen early intervention through co-ordinated support involving education, health and other services. It was also noted that pilot approaches, including blended models where learners accessed both school-based and EOTAS provision, had been developed to support both prevention and reintegration. These approaches aimed to maintain a connection with school and avoid long-term disengagement. Inclusion and Capacity of Mainstream Schools • Questioned why mainstream schools were not able to meet the needs of all learners. • Asked whether the growth in EOTAS provision reflected wider pressures within schools. • Enquired whether there was capacity, staffing or resource constraints limiting inclusive practice. • Questioned how schools were being supported to strengthen inclusion and reduce reliance on EOTAS. Officers and Cabinet Members emphasised that mainstream schools had been working proactively to support learners but were facing increasing challenges. It was recognised that there had been a rise in anxiety, behavioural difficulties and other complex needs among young people, alongside wider societal changes that had impacted on schools. It was acknowledged that capacity pressures existed, particularly within the secondary sector, and that these were influenced by both resource constraints and structural factors. However, it was stressed that the issue could not be attributed solely to individual schools. Instead, it required a whole-system response, involving improvements across education services. Officers outlined that maintaining high-quality teaching, strong relationships between staff and learners, and a broad and engaging curriculum were all essential in supporting inclusion and preventing disengagement. Learner Pathways and Retrospective Tracking • Asked whether learners currently in crisis had been identified earlier during their time in primary school. • Questioned whether retrospective tracking had been undertaken to identify missed indicators or gaps in support. • Enquired how learning from these cases would be used to inform future preventative practice. Officers confirmed that there had been a commitment to working closely with families to understand learners’ experiences over time, including identifying points where needs may not have been recognised or addressed. It was acknowledged that there had been earlier stages at which some needs had remained “invisible”, leading to later escalation. This retrospective understanding was intended to inform future preventative approaches, enabling earlier identification and more effective support. Officers also reported that detailed audits and reviews of provision within schools were being undertaken to develop a deeper understanding of how needs were being met and where improvements were required. Elective Home Education (EHE) and Overlap with EOTAS • Asked how the authority identified and monitored children who were electively home educated. • Questioned whether some EHE learners might instead require EOTAS support. • Enquired what proactive contact was made with families following deregistration from school. • Asked how quickly contact was made after deregistration and whether this was consistent. • Questioned whether there was any requirement for EHE learners to be formally registered. Officers clarified that, where families chose elective home education, they had taken responsibility for providing education themselves. However, it was explained that the authority had continued to offer support, including the allocation of an Education Welfare Officer to each family as a main point of contact. It was stated that contact was normally initiated shortly after deregistration from school, with ongoing engagement depending on the needs of the family. Officers outlined that families had access to a range of support services similar to those available to school-based learners. It was also noted that, at the time, there had been no statutory requirement for EHE learners to be formally registered, although it was recognised that changes in legislation were expected to introduce such requirements in the future. Parental Engagement and Communication • Asked how the authority explained EOTAS provision and entitlement to parents. • Questioned how expectations were managed where parents believed provision was insufficient. • Enquired how effectively the authority engaged with families to understand barriers to school attendance. • Questioned whether some parental decisions to home educate reflected dissatisfaction with school provision. Officers emphasised that engagement with families had been central to the development of the service. It was recognised that parental concerns, anxieties and expectations had played a significant role in learners’ educational journeys and their ability to engage with school. Support had been provided through a range of channels, including education welfare officers, family liaison staff and wider multi-agency services. Officers indicated that strengthening communication and support for families would be key to both preventing disengagement and supporting successful reintegration into school where appropriate. Safeguarding • Asked how the authority assured itself that children educated outside of school were safe. • Questioned what monitoring arrangements were in place for both EOTAS and EHE learners. • Enquired how non-attendance or disengagement from provision was identified and followed up. Officers confirmed that safeguarding arrangements had been in place for learners accessing EOTAS provision, including the monitoring of attendance and engagement. Where concerns had arisen, these had been followed up promptly through established procedures. For electively home educated learners, it was explained that standard safeguarding pathways had applied. Professionals working with families had been expected to raise any concerns through the appropriate channels, ensuring that safeguarding responsibilities were maintained regardless of the educational setting. Outcomes and Post-16 Progression • Asked what outcomes were expected for learners accessing EOTAS provision. • Questioned how success was measured in terms of reintegration into mainstream education. • Enquired what outcomes were expected for learners who did not return to school, including qualifications and post-16 destinations. • Asked how learner wellbeing outcomes were monitored alongside academic attainment. Officers stated that learner wellbeing had been regarded as the primary outcome of EOTAS provision, recognising that this was fundamental to enabling progress in education and beyond. It was reported that many learners had achieved qualifications and had progressed to post‑16 opportunities. These pathways had included further education, work-based learning and alternative provision, depending on individual needs and circumstances. Officers also outlined that additional support from careers services and youth services had been provided to ensure that learners were supported effectively through transitions beyond compulsory education. School-Level Analysis and Patterns • Asked which schools were referring learners to EOTAS and whether patterns could be identified. • Questioned whether there was variation between schools in referral levels and practice. • Enquired how school-level data would be used to challenge, support and improve early intervention. Officers acknowledged that detailed analysis at school level had previously been limited, but confirmed that this was now being developed. Work had begun to identify patterns in referrals to EOTAS and to understand the underlying reasons for these trends. It was explained that more comprehensive school-level analysis would enable earlier intervention, allowing the authority to support schools more effectively and address issues before they escalated. Wider Context and External Learning • Questioned whether the authority had explored models of good practice from other authorities or countries. • Asked what could be learned from international approaches to similar challenges. • Enquired whether sufficient use was being made of external evidence to inform local practice. Officers acknowledged that, while some learning had been taken from other areas, there had not yet been a full exploration of international models of practice. The focus to date had been on developing local approaches and learning from within Wales. However, it was noted that broader evidence had highlighted key factors associated with effective education systems, including strong investment, a skilled workforce, inclusive practices and a shared sense of responsibility across communities. These principles were recognised as important in shaping future development. Governance, Oversight and Awareness • Questioned why there had historically been limited scrutiny of EOTAS provision. • Asked how awareness and understanding of the service could be improved. • Enquired what arrangements were in place to ensure ongoing oversight and accountability. It was acknowledged that EOTAS provision had not historically been subject to a high level of scrutiny or visibility within the authority. Officers and Cabinet Members recognised the importance of improving awareness and understanding of the service among elected members. It was emphasised that the development of stronger evidence, evaluation and reporting processes would support improved accountability and enable more effective scrutiny going forward. System-Wide Issues and Complexity • Questioned the impact of wider societal changes on increasing demand for EOTAS. • Asked how factors such as anxiety, behaviour and family circumstances were contributing to need. • Enquired whether the challenges were systemic, requiring a whole-service or whole-system response rather than isolated interventions. Officers and Cabinet Members recognised that the challenges associated with EOTAS were complex and driven by a range of interrelated factors. These included rising levels of anxiety among young people, behavioural challenges and wider societal and family influences. It was emphasised that these issues could not be addressed through isolated interventions alone. Instead, a co-ordinated, whole-system approach was required, bringing together education services, partner agencies and wider community support to respond effectively to the needs of learners.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee noted: · the EOTAS provision had been designed to deliver a suitable and efficient education tailored to individual need, with packages built around wellbeing, age, aptitude and ability. · a bespoke approach to provision, rather than a fixed universal offer, had been appropriate given the complexity and variability of learner needs. · the development of multi‑agency working arrangements, including involvement from CAMHS, youth services and neurodevelopmental teams, had been a necessary step towards improving outcomes. · the service had made significant progress in analysing need and responding to Estyn findings, with improved evidence gathering and more targeted intervention beginning to take place. · a whole‑system approach to inclusion and educational improvement had been required, recognising that EOTAS was not solely the responsibility of one team but of the wider education service. The Committee welcomed: • officers had begun to establish a clearer evidence base and baseline dataset, acknowledging that this work had previously not been in place. • there had been increased focus on early intervention, inclusion and preventative working with schools, particularly regarding neurodiversity and anxiety‑based school avoidance. • joint working with families had been strengthened, recognising parental insight as critical to understanding barriers to school engagement. • pilot approaches, including blended learning models maintaining school links, had been developed to support reintegration and reduce long‑term reliance on EOTAS. • post‑16 pathways and outcomes support for learners had improved, including college placements, Careers Wales engagement and transition planning. • safeguarding arrangements had been in place, with attendance monitoring and follow‑up processes for non‑engagement. The Committee requested: • a comprehensive dataset and baseline had been developed, including waiting times, duration of placements, reintegration rates and outcomes, to enable effective scrutiny and comparison over time. • clear key performance indicators (KPIs) had been established, covering wellbeing, attainment, reintegration and post‑16 destinations. • further work had been undertaken to strengthen preventative approaches, particularly through early identification of need and improved school‑level inclusion. • retrospective tracking of learners had been carried out to identify missed early indicators and inform future practice. • detailed school‑level analysis of referrals to EOTAS had been completed to identify patterns and support targeted challenge and support. • enhanced parental engagement and structured support programmes, including EBSA‑related training, had been implemented. • wider Member awareness and oversight of EOTAS had been improved through briefing sessions. The Committee remained unconvinced about: • whether the current EOTAS provision could yet demonstrate value for money, as full evaluation of impact had not been completed. • the adequacy of available data, noting that the report had been limited in detail regarding waiting times, duration and comparative measures. • whether the level of provision (e.g. 5–10 hours) fully aligned with expectations of full‑time education under legislation, particularly from a parental perspective. • whether existing arrangements sufficiently evidenced consistent early intervention across all schools, given that analysis had still been at an early stage. The Committee expressed concern about: • the increasing demand and complexity of need within EOTAS, alongside corresponding financial pressures on the service. • the apparent lack of preventative focus historically, with insufficient evidence of early intervention prior to escalation to EOTAS. • variability in school capacity to meet learners’ needs, particularly at secondary level, linked to wider systemic and resource pressures. • the risk of long‑term reliance on EOTAS, recognising that extended placements could have detrimental impacts on wellbeing. • gaps in engagement or follow‑up, including isolated cases where contact with deregistered learners had not occurred as expected. • the broader rise in anxiety, school avoidance and elective home education, indicating wider societal and educational challenges affecting inclusion. Scrutiny’s Recommendation 1. That Cabinet required officers to develop a comprehensive EOTAS dataset and baseline by March 2027, including waiting times, duration of placements, reintegration rates and learner outcomes. That data collection be strengthened to enable year-on-year comparison and more effective scrutiny. 2. That Cabinet approved a clear KPI framework for EOTAS by the start of the 2026/27 financial year, including measures for: • learner wellbeing • reintegration into mainstream education • attendance • post 16 destinations 3. That Cabinet strengthened early intervention arrangements, requiring a preventative model with schools and partners to be in place by September 2027, to focus on early identification of need, particularly neurodiversity and anxiety-based school avoidance. In addition, that learning from current EOTAS cases was used to inform preventative practice, including identification of missed early indicators. 4. That Cabinet ensured enhanced engagement with families, including rolling out structured parental support and training (such as EBSA-related support) by March 2027, so that parental understanding and involvement be strengthened to reduce disengagement from school. 5. That Cabinet improved awareness of EOTAS among elected Members and governors, including formal briefing sessions by early 2027, to strengthen oversight and ensure more informed decision-making. 6. Clearer outcome measures were developed, including those relating to: • reintegration into mainstream provision • examination outcomes and post 16 progression • long-term wellbeing and engagement 7. That a progress report be brought back within 12 months, detailing: • progress against these recommendations • improvements in data and outcomes • impact of the revised approach
Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Scalability and Sustainability of the Approach • Asked whether the approach presented was scalable beyond the initial participating schools. • Questioned whether the model relied too heavily on a single individual or external expert, and how sustainable it would be in the long term. • Enquired how much time and resource input had been required from the external specialist and whether this level of input could be maintained or replicated. Officers explained that the programme had been deliberately designed to be sustainable and not reliant on a single individual. While the input of the external specialist had been valuable in initiating change, the core aim had been to embed systems, processes and approaches within schools so that the work could continue independently. It was emphasised that the intention had been to enable schools to “take the stabilisers off” over time, ensuring that improvements were maintained through internal capacity rather than ongoing external support. Resource Requirements and Implementation • Asked how many days or hours of input had been required to deliver the programme within schools. • Questioned how schools had utilised the available time and support, including training and development activities. • Enquired how the approach would be embedded within schools once external support reduced or ceased. Officers outlined that the external input had been provided over a defined number of days, with flexibility in how this time was used by each school. Schools had been able to allocate time across a range of activities, including whole-staff training, smaller group sessions and targeted work with specific roles such as heads of year or additional learning needs staff. It was explained that the programme had not been a rigid or prescriptive model, but rather one that had allowed schools to tailor implementation to their own context. It was further noted that schools had been expected to take ownership of the approach, ensuring that strategies and actions were embedded within everyday practice rather than being dependent on continued external guidance. Impact on Attendance and Outcomes • Asked whether the approach had resulted in measurable improvements in school attendance. • Questioned whether there had been any impact on educational outcomes, particularly at Key Stage 4. • Enquired whether improvements in behaviour and engagement would translate into longer-term attainment gains. Officers reported that there had been a positive impact on attendance, with measurable improvements observed during the period of implementation. It was explained that improvements in behaviour and the creation of a more supportive and stable environment had contributed to increased attendance. In relation to outcomes, officers indicated that while it was still early to measure long-term attainment, there had been an expectation that improved behaviour, engagement and classroom climate would contribute positively to future examination results. It was recognised that such improvements would take time to become fully evident as changes became embedded. Behaviour, Culture and “Back to Basics” Approach • Questioned whether the approach represented a return to basic principles such as respect, relationships and clear expectations. • Asked why such practices had required external intervention, rather than being already embedded within schools. • Enquired whether pressures on staff had prevented schools from reflecting on and implementing best practice independently. Officers acknowledged that the approach had reinforced fundamental principles such as respect, relationships and clear expectations. However, it was emphasised that the intervention had gone beyond simply returning to basic practices. The external input had provided a fresh perspective and enabled schools to reflect more deeply on their existing practice. It was explained that the involvement of an external specialist had supported schools to challenge assumptions, identify areas for improvement and implement changes more effectively. Officers also highlighted that the complexity of current behavioural and emotional needs meant that traditional approaches alone were no longer sufficient, and that updated strategies informed by expertise had been necessary. Consistency and Impact Across Schools • Asked whether all participating schools had experienced equally positive outcomes from the intervention. • Questioned whether the programme had been consistently effective across different settings. • Enquired how outcomes from all schools would be evaluated and reported once implementation was complete. Officers confirmed that the programme was being implemented across multiple schools, with evaluation processes in place to assess its impact. While initial feedback had been positive, it was noted that full evaluation across all participating schools would be completed once the programme had concluded in each setting. It was explained that the authority intended to review outcomes from all schools to determine the overall effectiveness of the approach and to identify any variations in impact. This would inform decisions about future rollout and development. Transition and Curriculum Issues • Asked about variations in pupil transition from primary to secondary education, particularly in specific subject areas. • Questioned whether there were inconsistencies in learner experience and behaviour across departments, including Welsh. • Enquired what factors were contributing to variation in engagement and behaviour within certain curriculum areas. Officers acknowledged that there had been variation in pupil experience during transition from primary to secondary education, including differences in behaviour and engagement across subject areas. It was explained that targeted work had been undertaken within specific departments where issues had been identified. It was also noted that factors influencing behaviour and engagement could include learner attitudes, particularly in relation to certain subjects, as well as broader influences such as family expectations and prior educational experience. Professional Practice and External Expertise • Questioned the rationale for bringing in external expertise to address behaviour and inclusion issues. • Asked whether the expertise provided had offered new insights or approaches beyond existing school practice. • Enquired how the external input had supported reflection, challenge and development within school leadership and staff. Officers stated that the involvement of an external specialist had been intended to provide a constructive challenge and a fresh perspective. It had enabled schools to reflect on their practice, identify areas for development and consider alternative approaches. It was emphasised that the specialist had acted in a consultative role, supporting schools to develop their own solutions rather than imposing a fixed model. The approach had encouraged professional dialogue, reflection and ongoing development within school leadership and staff teams. Wider Cultural and Systemic Change • Asked how the approach contributed to wider cultural and systemic change within schools and the authority. • Questioned whether the focus on relationships, behaviour and inclusion aligned with a broader shift away from data-driven approaches. • Enquired how this work supported the development of a whole-school culture focused on inclusion and wellbeing. Officers highlighted that the programme had contributed to wider cultural change within schools, particularly in strengthening relationships, improving behaviour and fostering a sense of belonging among learners. It was explained that the work aligned with a broader shift towards prioritising wellbeing, inclusion and engagement alongside academic outcomes. It was also noted that the approach supported a move away from overly narrow, data-driven models towards a more holistic understanding of learner development. Officers emphasised that building positive relationships and a supportive school culture had been fundamental to improving outcomes. Replication and Future Rollout • Asked whether the programme could be extended to other schools within the authority. • Questioned the capacity of the system to support wider implementation. • Enquired how learning from the pilot schools would be shared and embedded across the wider education system. Officers confirmed that the programme had the potential to be extended to additional schools within the authority. It was explained that early success and positive engagement from participating schools had supported further interest, with additional schools already beginning to adopt the approach. It was noted that learning from the initial cohort of schools would be used to inform wider rollout, ensuring that implementation was based on evidence and experience. Officers indicated that the aim was to build capacity across the system so that the approach could be adopted more broadly and sustainably.
The work programme was noted, with an understanding that it would continue to evolve to support effective scrutiny and oversight.
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.