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 to: 1. Note the positive impact of the work undertaken around the Community Focused School agenda as well as next steps. Consider whether there are any aspects of the report that the Committee would like further information on in the future.
RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
Apologies of absence were received from County Borough Councillor J Smith and Co-opted Member Mr S Jones.
In accordance with the code of conduct, the following declarations were made in relation to: Ø County Borough Councillor S Hickman – Personal Interest – “My child’s school is named in item 3.” County Borough Councillor C Lisles – Personal Interest – “I am a governor of Ysgol Afon Wen which is mentioned in item 3.”
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to: 1. Note the positive impact of the work undertaken around the Community Focused School agenda as well as next steps. Consider whether there are any aspects of the report that the Committee would like further information on in the future.
The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing explained that the purpose of the report was to update members on the Community Focused School approach in RCT. The report provided a further update following a previous item that was presented to Members in October 2023. The report discusses the approach to family engagement and utilisation of Welsh Government and Cabinet funding in this area, as well as some of the Capital Grant provided by Welsh Government. The report also covers the utilisation of central government Multiply funding which has complemented the work in this area over the past eighteen months. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing then took Members through the key highlights in the background at Section 4, RCT’s Community Focused School Delivery, at Section 5, Survey Results at Section 6, the Wider Support Mechanisms at Section 7 and the Conclusion at Section 15. Members then received PowerPoint presentations, highlighting the work being undertaken in schools, from the Family Engagement Officer, Capcoch Primary and the Headteacher, Treorchy Primary School. The Chair thanked all for their presentations, before before handing over to Members for questions. A Member asked how much time it took to prepare and plan all of the activities and whether a positive impact had been seen in the wider community. The Family Engagement Officer (FEO) explained it had a huge positive impact and provided Members with examples of some activities, whilst acknowledging that due to timing of grants, it was about applying and thinking about what you want to achieve in the next term. The Headteacher highlighted the importance of the role of the FEO, which was a changing role, and was integral. A Member asked how good practice was shared with other schools who maybe didn't have a FEO or those who did but wanted to expand or look at different ideas. The FEO explained about the Community of Practice meetings held every half term (led by Education and Inclusion staff and Valleys Kids), which was an opportunity to meet other FEOs and to see what they'd achieved which could be adapted, explaining that those meetings were vital. The Headteacher agreeing with what had been said, explained around the role of the clusters and beyond, in sharing practice and about engagement within the networks and the support from Officers. A Member asked, what contingency plans were in place if the 80% Welsh Government (WG) funding was reduced or withdrawn and in terms of match funding, where schools contribute 20%, were any schools struggling with this, and could it lead to postcode disparities. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing provided details on the Service Level Agreement (SLA), which included a contingency on what if funding came to an end, noting the investment now approach, whilst acknowledging school budget difficulties and the decision that would need to be made, if funding came to an end. He felt however, investment from WG was heavy in this area and he didn’t think there were any schools currently, that were raising particular concerns around the 20%. Current conversations with schools were around increasing the number of hours of FEOs, and with additional funding, from WG this financial year, he was hopeful to be able to support those initiatives moving forward. The Member also noted that the report stated that FEOs were concentrated in schools with high deprivation and low attendance and asked if there were any plans to expand the support to other schools where emerging needs were identified. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing confirmed they would extend if the funding allowed. In terms of the postcode question, he explained the process around ranking attendance and deprivation data, acknowledging that they hadn’t used FSM data as the rollout of universal free school meals would skew deprivation data, instead the data team had plotted every child in RCT according to the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) with schools then ranked based on what percentage of pupils they had in the top 20% most deprived areas. He explained that there were three schools who initially said no to the offer of a FEO, with all three since coming on board. A Member asked the Headteacher and FEO their thoughts around sustaining the programmes, their time pressures and relationships with external providers within their premises. The Headteacher provided a comprehensive response, acknowledging in terms of sustaining the programmes, they were evolving each year with the different needs that came through the school, and when an item had worked well, they always tried to emulate that, even if it was a slightly watered down version. With regard to time pressures, the Headteacher acknowledged as a large school, they had a large staff team that worked and supported each other, recognising that for a smaller school the challenges were different. With regard to external providers within the premises, it was important for children to have somewhere familiar and a safe space that they could access during the holidays and there was a good relationship with those that had run projects in the school such as Food and Fun whilst using a lot of school staff as well, which was really integral to understanding where equipment was, for pupils, and taking care of the environment here as well. The FEO added, that when applying for the Multiply funding, there were options to have providers in, but it quickly became apparent that meant giving them the money, so instead they looked for funding for the supply costs because it was felt important that the teacher worked with parents as well, building up that relationship rather than just using an outside agency, which also meant retaining the resources to be able to sustain classes. In terms of grant funding the FEO acknowledged the support from Interlink RCT, RCT Together and the community development worker. A Member asked the process the Headteacher and FEO had gone through to decide what to do and why, how they arrived at those interventions and whether that was done on a collaborative basis with other stakeholders, or whether it was the school making the decision. The FEO explained following low engagement at first, they had initially held different meetings, asking parents lots of questions e.g. what they would like to do, what were their interests, before working with local community Members, so reaching out to the community to find out what they wanted e.g., food pantry now runs with over 90 members. With regards to working with outside partners, they had been invaluable in terms of helping with lots of different surveys whilst working with other people and seeing what they had done and how they could do the same. The Headteacher explained there had certainly been a collaborative approach with stakeholders within the school initially, but what had worked well was the FEO speaking to parents at parent consultation meetings and short surveys around what was needed. So it was about speaking to stakeholders within school and the community to directly address the emerging needs and creating that plan together. Moving forward it was making sure the offer was up to date, whilst being mindful that needs change throughout the time that the children are within school. A Member asked whether the Headteacher and FEO had managed to take up any project work that involved looking at family values e.g. attitudes to girls and women. The Headteacher explained that they would explore that within the school setting, within the hub elements with the parental support and groups and noted the FAST (Families and Schools Together) project, which was based around good family values e.g., eating and preparing the meal together, stories told around the dining table there, which was a very successful project. In addition, she explained about the community cooking, as well as the health aspect, through the health hub, but agreed that they could do more on that in terms of the family value element with the hub. The FEO explained about parenting classes run in conjunction with Valleys Kids called Parenting Puzzle and Playful Parents that concentrated on values and encouraging positive parenting. In addition, she explained they had taken a group of parents to Forest Schools in Dare Valley County Park, for 8 weeks, and covered things such as family values which encouraged them to get involved and do different things. In addition, they ran drop-in sessions, and she explained about Wake Up Wednesday’s, which looked at a different topic of social media each week, showing parents how to keep their children safe. A Member referring to paragraph 6.5.4, Adult Community Learning (ACL), asked for clarification around the funding going forward to support this. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing explained that the key partners were RCT Adult Education, and they worked with them closely, and would continue to work with them afterwards. He felt it was important from the community engagement perspective to bring in third sector agencies as well to support the Council, so they weren’t reliant on council services all the time. The Lead for Community Focused Schools then provided details about the pilot work in the Mountain Ash cluster with Adult Learning Wales. A Member asked for clarification around how many schools didn't have a FEO. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing acknowledged in respect of the number of FEOs, they didn’t have a completely accurate number but explained they funded 34 of them within schools, whilst being aware there were at least 56, including some who undertake family engagement as part of their responsibility, but they may undertake a different role within the school as well. The Member referring to paragraph 5.9, the impact of the FEO funding, acknowledged that whilst they had heard evidence for those, she felt that more detail was needed on the impact in terms of the ‘how’. In terms of paragraph 5.9, the impact of the FEO funding, the Officer agreed with the Member, in terms of SMART objectives and that not being clear. There was a wealth of guidance from WG, but what was probably missing from that was Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), so, it was something being questioned with WG and WG have acknowledged this financial year of the need to incorporate KPIs and have provided a grant for LAs to explore this in further detail. The Member referring to paragraph 6.5.2. noted the breakdown of how many schools offered activities to children outside of the school day but asked if future reports could show how many children are EFSM pupils, in order to ensure that EFSM pupils have the means to access afterschool provision, as sometimes transport, for example, could be a barrier to them. In terms of paragraph 6.5.2, EFSM pupils numbers, the Officer acknowledged that this wasn’t something asked in the surveys, but would include in future surveys, and potentially beyond that to include ALN and EAL pupils. The Member referring to paragraph 6.5.3, in regard to the 18% of schools who offered activities/services to families or the community outside of the school day, acknowledged the brilliant examples provided, but felt that 18% was low, and would like to see an action plan as to how this could be improved. In addition the Member sought clarification around paragraph 15.3 the Community Focused School agenda. In respect of paragraph 6.5.3, pupil use as well as wider community use outside of the school day, the Officer provided a comprehensive response but acknowledged that this would form part of an action plan moving forward. In addition, in respect of 15.3, the Community Focused School agenda, the Officer acknowledged they worked with 21st Century colleagues in terms of looking at new school developments, so this was definitely part of the initial planning phase including looking at school development opportunities to work with partners. The Member referring to paragraph 7.7, the Ferndale Cluster, asked if she could hear more about that and whether it was something that could be explored for all schools, whilst acknowledging the work of the child poverty working group. In relation to paragraph 7.7, the Ferndale Community School Cluster, the Officer provided details of the pilot being undertaken and hoped that once the evaluation of that takes place, the WG would look to roll that out to all school settings. The Chair felt that it would be useful to see that report for the Poverty Working Group. A Member in relation to Appendix A, on page 60, in relation to the Questions from the Community Mapping Survey and asked if a summary of the results could be provided in future. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing explained that the results would be different in every school community and the template included was just an exemplar of the work undertaken in that area. The Lead for Community Focused Schools agreed this could be provided in future. A Member sought clarification around the building at Ysgol Afon Wen which was down to be a community sports and wellbeing facility. The Officer, provided clarification, explaining that the building was being made watertight before then exploring the exact opportunities that could be undertaken inside the building, with the idea it wouldn’t just be used for youth services in the future, but that it would be a wider community sports facilities similar to what many other schools had e.g., netball courts or football courts, etc. It was RESOLVED to: 1. Note the positive impact of the work undertaken around the Community Focused School agenda as well as next steps. Consider whether there are any aspects of the report that the Committee would like further information on in the future.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
The Head of Inclusion Services explained that the purpose of the report was to provide Members with an overview of the Additional Learning Provision (ALP) made within the Local Authority (LA) for children and young people with Additional Learning Needs (ALN) in line with the Welsh Government (WG) legislative framework for ALN. Extensive use of case studies and specific examples of practice were provided within the report, to provide a rich context and qualitative information regarding the nature and impact of the work undertaken by Access and Inclusion and the continuum of support for pupils with ALN within the county borough. In addition, the report provided a range of data in relation to the identification of ALN within RCT, prevalence of need as part of a comprehensive evaluative overview of the arrangements put in place by the LA to ensure effective provision for ALN in RCT. The Head of Inclusion Services then took Members through the Background at Section 3, Additional Learning Provision including several sub-sections, at Section 4, before going through the conclusion at Section 11. The Chair thanked the Head of Inclusion Services of her report, before handing over to Members for questions. A Member asked how RCT compared with other LAs and stated that he would have liked to have seen a comparison table e.g. ALN rates per capita, waiting time for assessments, exclusion, attendance and trend versus the national benchmark. The Head of Inclusion Services explained, with regards to the data and comparisons with other LAs, exclusions and attendance were normally reported as part of separate attendance and exclusion reports, where there's reference made to learners with ALN and also in terms of exclusions. She confirmed there is no comparison data available to compare with other local authorities, in terms of waiting times for assessment and no national data available on that in relation to assessments for additional learning needs but provided context around the statutory timescales within the ALN code. In addition, Members were informed that there weren't any national performance indicators at this point in time, although there had been discussions with WG about introducing those, however there were local authority performance indicators, which were reported on last year in the update on ALN implementation report, with the Head of Inclusion Service providing an update. The Member, in relation to the Enhanced Capacity Funding (ECF) asked. if the figure of nearly £8.655m was sufficient, given the rising demand and sought clarification around how this was allocated e.g. per pupil or per needs basis and what outcomes had the funding achieved. The Head of Inclusion Services provided clarification with regards to financial transparency for ECF, and how it was allocated, acknowledging that there had been on average, a 13% increase in that funding each year over the last six years. Further clarification was provided, and it was noted the service was currently undertaking an audit of ECF spend. Members were provided with context around the submission of provision maps by schools, with Members being reassured that on an ongoing basis, those provision maps were scrutinised and where there were concerns, those concerns were raised with schools The Member acknowledged that Step 4 provision funding had now reached a total of £3.291M and asked if it would suffice, given the cost of inflation cost. The Head of Inclusion Services explained that they always build into the proposals, an element of sustainability but there was an expectation that schools could sustain those provisions, not necessarily in the form that they take during the two years that they have the match funding, but that they take learning, they build capacity, and then they can take the Step 4 provisions further to a different level. A Member, referring to paragraph 4.5, the Education Psychology Service (EPS), asked for clarification around the waiting times. The Head of Educational Psychology Service provided clarification acknowledging that there wasn’t a waiting time, per se, but acknowledged that whilst they offered a core number of visits, these could be flexible and there wasn’t a cap, but the challenge was working out the priorities. In terms of a shortage of Educational Psychologists (EPs), it was acknowledged that whilst there was a shortage, the service tried to deliver the most effective, efficient service it could with this in place. The Member, recognising that for some young people a mainstream school situation was not the best for them asked at the point where a school can no longer accommodate the needs of that challenging child, how many PRU places were there, and was there a greater demand than availability. The Head of Inclusion Services provided a comprehensive response and noted that there weren’t any waiting lists for the PRU provisions. In addition to placements there, bespoke packages for a number of pupils, were being put in place which covered the core curriculum, but in a creative and engaging way to make sure that the programs were tailored to the individual needs of the pupils, and in many cases, having a kind of hybrid provision. So it may be that they're accessing EOTAS, tuition, or the PRU for some of the time, but then accessing something that's quite bespoke to them outside of that PRU provision as well. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services then provided further clarification in relation to mainstream education not necessarily being suitable for all learners. The Member sought clarification in terms of the outcomes for Children Looked After (CLA). The Head of Inclusion Services explained it was difficult, because they were unable to report on individual pupil outcomes, so it was about looking at feedback from ESTYN and looking at local authority quality assurance processes. What could be provided was some data or some narrative on a cohort of children supported directly by the LA e.g., the most highly complex and challenging pupils to engage in education, where the bursary from the PDG CLA was used, to provide additional tuition in basic skills and looking look at the impact of that and pilot projects in schools, based on the old CLA-friendly school model being developed. A Member noted Language Link mentioned in paragraph 4.37 didn't appear to have had much of an impact, so wondered why that was. Members were advised that it was an effective intervention, tried and tested originally as a one-time innovative pilot, and then it became part of the core offer, because of its effectiveness, however the issue, over the last year, of schools not having submitted their assessment data, was acknowledged, and was something to tackle. The Head of Inclusion Services added that she still felt this was a positive impact, bearing in mind the issues that schools were raising in terms of the impact of deprivation and poverty upon language acquisition and language development. The Member referring to the PLASC data graph at paragraph 3.5, asked for clarification why it was thought there had been some changes over time in the types of needs that were coming forward. Members were advised that over the years, some categories had been re-categorized on PLASC, so you couldn’t always compare like for like. In addition, sometimes in terms of diagnosis, under Speech, Language and Communication Disorders (SLCD) children would have been recorded under that and not under Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) maybe because they haven't got an ASD diagnosis. Additionally, schools can record more than one need as well. The Member asked for an update on the portal. Members were advised that several data drops had been analysed and the incidences had reduced, and issues had not been raised by Headteachers, about the portal recently either, which was positive. The Member, referring to the Step 4 provision acknowledged that this involved putting funding into schools, and asked where it hadn't worked, why hadn't it worked and what was being done about it. The Head of Inclusion Services advised that they had discussions with schools, twice a year, on the outcomes of the reports, so they can then tease out any data that isn't there and then discuss reasons for the impact not being as it should be, so that any additional support from behaviour support or from the senior EP for wellbeing, could be put in place. The Member, referring to the alternative curriculum offer, asked if there was something wrong with the core curriculum e.g., not providing as standard these courses that all young people could have access to. The Chair added her thoughts, that the provision demonstrated the importance of the tailored curriculum and that it should not necessarily be an intervention, but more of an inclusive, broad offer from the outset. The Head of Inclusion Services provided context around the curriculum offer acknowledging that there was some really powerful information about the impact of widening that curriculum and what had been observed in schools is that where they had introduced a broader curriculum or vocational opportunities, for example, for the pupils in the Step 4 provision, in many cases then they've opened that up to pupils who are not accessing the Step 4 provision because they've seen the benefits of it. The Member asked for clarification around Learning Support Classes (LSCs), in relation to Welsh medium settings. The Head of Learner Support Service provided a comprehensive update with regards to Welsh medium LSCs, acknowledging this was a developing area of strength and it would be interesting to see, at the end of the year, what the outcome of the quality assurance process is. The Chair acknowledged the investment in this area could quite clearly be seen, and asked that this be reflected in future reports A Member, referring to page 10, graph 2, portal requests for involvement during academic year 2023/24, acknowledged there were a number of requests by specific need, and asked for an indication of response times and how long schools werehaving towait forthat support. Members were advised that paragraph4.10 advised that the Learning Support Service (LSS) make first contact for 100% of referrals within two weeks of triage andthen followingthat, thelength ofthe involvement will be determined by the nature of the work, determinedby thetriage. The Member, referring to paragraph 4.18 noted there were 96 support visits that had been provided by the EYAT with direct support for 61 individual children and asked, against how many requests, were all of the requests fulfilled, if they weren't fulfilled, why and were there other areas that they were signposted to or other areas that they could have support that they could have taken up instead. The Early Years ALN & ALP Lead Officer provided a comprehensive response, advising that as far as she was aware there are no requests that had not been met and the Early Years Advisory Teacher (EYAT) worked in two ways, individually and systemically within the settings themselves, so that there wasn't a wait or a process where access to that support was not met. The Member referring to paragraph 4.23, acknowledged it was clear there was a strong process in place to quality assurethe LAmaintained IDPs but asked how it was known if schools were getting itright. The Early Years ALN & ALP Lead Officer explained there was arange ofways in which schools were supported with their school based IDPs e.g., termlydip samples within the clusters, school based IDP drop-indrafting sessions, towork withother schoolsin theirclusters tolook atwhat agood schoolbased IDPlooks likeand promote that, as well as schools being able to contact the ALP team regularly for quality assurance of their individual IDPs. The Member referring to the paragraph 4.29, Post 16, noted that 36 pupils who had LA maintained IDPs transitioned successfully into Further Education (FE), and asked out of how many and what doesthis figurelook likefor schoolmaintained IDPs as well in comparison. The Head of Inclusion Services explained that in respect of the 36 pupils, that she didn’t have the percentage to hand, but pointed out that many of the pupils who had LA maintainedIDPs inRCT, moveon to FE colleges, and are provided with an FE based IDP. Staff from Coleg y Cymoedd are representatives on the Post-16 steering group. She felt it was also important to note that there was not necessarily an expectation that all pupils who had an ALN now may moveon toFE orPost-16 educationsimply becausethe ALNETAct extendsto 25 years old. It was not appropriate for all learners, and that was taken on board in Post-16 forums. The Member referring to paragraph 4.76, the response to Access and Inclusion’s Parent Focus Group acknowledged as an ALN parent themselves, their disappointment about not knowing about the group and asked what could be done to improveengagement and sought clarification around how itwas advertised. Members were advised that initially invitations were extended to around 25 parents of children who are in mainstream but had involvement of access and inclusion services. It was realised from the attendance, that this was noteffective, soit was hoped to go out to schools and have an open forum and ask the FLACCteam, whichconsists ofthe Complex Case Managerand Family Liaison Officer to assist with that. Additionally, they were looking at having a rolling program of parental engagement activities, taking into consideration flexibility about the times that those sessions are held. The Chair expressed her view with regards to the tailored curriculum, and exclusion data, and agreed that that in the first instance, the mainstream setting should be as inclusive as possible for learners but noted that the local authority puta lotof pressureon itself, to reduce exclusion rates, when that was sometimes not possible. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services provided a comprehensive response and highlighted that there were variations across schools and that it was important to draw on best practice. It was highlighted that with the new school improvement model in the autumn term, the collaborative opportunities would potentially provide opportunities to bring schoolstogether to explore matters strategically where there was a need to, and to share that best practice in the system as well. A Member referring to 4.10, the 38% increase in referrals to LSS over a four-year period and asked for some assurance that LSCs were sufficient for the number of high-need pupils. Members were advised that every year data analysis was carried out to look at the numbers of pupils coming through, which was a statutory duty under the ALNET Act. Consultation then takes place, which goes through the school organisationprocess, which takes abouta year and then classes are opened, so it was done on an ongoing basis. The Chair on behalf of a co-opted Member asked what percentage of the education budget was taken up with access and inclusion services, and could future reports, show numbers of children and families that were being supported across the whole spectrum. How many children were supported out of county, andhow muchwas thatcosting, andwhat werethe long-termplans there. Dowe haveany research around why there are increasing numbers e.g., autism, and isthere anyresearch thatwe candraw uponfrom. Are oursupport servicesand multi-agency services truly joined up. The Head of Inclusion Services explained that she didn’t have to hand the information in relation to the percentage of the education budget that goes on access and inclusion services, and numbers of children and family that are being supported across the whole spectrum but that could be provided, along with the out of County expenditure. The Chair added that she would like to see the out of county and the overall data included in future reports. The Director of Education confirmed that the financial information was available in the performance data information that was provided to O&S. The Head of Inclusion Services acknowledged regarding whethersupport servicesand multi-agency services were truly joined up, that things had improved since the introduction of the ALNET act with the authority working closely with health, and therewas astrategy DECLOrole, with regional meetings held on a termly basis to tackle strategic and operationalissues. What sometimeshampered trulyjoined upservices apartfrom budgets or financial constraints, was sometimes the legislation itself e.g., dutiesfor thehealth board,not being a statutory duty, and the timescales misaligned with education, but on a local basis they tried very hard to work in a joined-up way. The Head of Educational Psychology Service explained this was a complex question, acknowledging there was lots of research into lots of different areas of the question, but nothing specific enough to respond to that. He provided context around their own action research within the educational psychology service and suggested he couldtake itback tothe team and explore in more detail. The Chair thanked Officers for attending this evening, and welcomed the very thorough report and noted a number of questions and elements that she would like to see in future reports. It was RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
The Chair thanked Members for their attendance this municipal year, which she acknowledged had gone very quickly, and for their contributions and input, which been invaluable. Further details on the Work Programme workshops would be provided in due course.
None
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.