Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Cllr. Rebecca Phillips, personal, (4A), staff member of Mentor Iaith Castell Nedd Port Talbot.
The minutes of the meeting held on 18th September 2025 were approved. as an accurate record of proceedings.
Members considered items from the Cabinet Forward Work Programme.
The Head of Support Services and Transformation provided an overview of the report as contained within the agenda pack and encouraged members to view the promotional videos, referenced in the report, which were available on the council website. Members welcomed Welsh Government funding in relation to this work and enquired whether the behavioural change research work referenced on page twenty four of the report was financed from the Cymraeg 2050 Local Authority Education grant; officers confirmed this was correct. Members questioned whether Ysgol Gymraeg Bro Dur Skills Hub, was funded by the Schools Strategic Improvement Programme (SSIP) funding or from an alternative Welsh Government resource? The Head of Service confirmed that the work was funded by the Community Focused Schools, Welsh Government funding, as a Welsh medium school. Members commended efforts to promote Welsh medium education and queried whether additional Welsh medium schools would impact English medium provision. The Head of Service reassured members that there were no issues anticipated within the ten year plan. Over the lifetime of the plan, it was the aim to create three new Welsh medium schools in high demand areas. The work being undertaken to improve Welsh in English medium schools will take time to achieve. Future plans of Welsh Government were unknown but at present no issues are foreseen. Members commented that it would be beneficial to view the promotional videos and to have sight of the behavioural change research report and the Estyn Inspection report. It was also noted that the opportunity to visit schools would be valuable, and this matter has been raised both at this committee and the School Improvement Partnership. The Head of Service advised members that the Clearmont Communications Report can be circulated. The promotional videos can be accessed through the Welsh medium section on the Neath Port Talbot Council website. Regarding school visits, officers advised that this may be challenging as the schools are independently managed, but this can be revisited. The Estyn inspection report can be accessed on the Estyn website. The Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years thanked the member for their comment relating to school visits. It was noted that during previously arranged visits through the School Standards Partnership group, attendance by members had been exceptionally poor. The Cabinet Member emphasised that, should future visits be arranged, it is imperative that members make every effort to attend. Members asked how many Welsh speaking teachers needed to be recruited. The Head of Service advised members that this information was not available but could be circulated following the meeting. It was noted that YGG Tregeles is a new starter school and Welsh speaking staff have been recruited, and this will increase on an annual basis as the school grows. The Scrutiny Chair asked what were the next steps in relation to the Clearmont ‘Cwmni Iaith’ report? Officers advised members that the next steps would involve implementing findings on psychological factors influencing language choice, ensuring parents understand bilingual benefits, and improving early-stage information. It was noted that some of the lessons learnt have already been incorporated into the promotional videos. The Chair of Scrutiny queried opportunities for Welsh use in English medium schools. It was acknowledged that while the overarching aim is to ensure consistent progress across all schools, it is recognised that some schools are currently more advanced in promoting bilingualism than others. Officers advised that there are plans to identify and work with a small number of pilot schools to further develop this approach, in schools where the foundation phase already demonstrates strong second language Welsh provision. The pilot would hopefully model good practice which could be disseminated to other schools gradually, focusing on early successes. Officers stated that the Welsh Government’s Cymraeg 2050 strategy, focused on increasing the use of the Welsh language across all school settings regardless of the categorisation of school. Officers acknowledged the significant efforts being made by English-medium schools in promoting the Welsh language. The Scrutiny Chair noted inconsistencies between schools and highlighted that progress often depends on individual school staff. The Chair stressed the need for the authority to emphasise the additional support available to schools and asked what the main challenge are going forward. The Head of Service stated that the main challenge was reliance on funding and identifying suitable land for new schools, which may affect delivery timescales. Members asked how many schools have already achieved or are working towards the Siarter Iaith award? Officers advised members that the specific data was not available at the meeting but would be circulated to members. It was confirmed that the number was very high, with all Welsh medium schools having achieved the gold award and a number of English medium primaries having achieved the silver award. The Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years highlighted the role of Criw Cymraeg in schools and commended the innovative work being undertaken by both staff and pupils. Particular mention was made of the good standard of Welsh at Dwr y Felin Comprehensive School and the efforts of Ysgol Bae Baglan to become a category B school. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered items from the Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programme.
The Head of Support Services and Transformation provided an overview of the report as contained within the agenda pack. It was noted that this is a complicated area across multiple departments, the Education Directorate holds the budget, and the Environment team undertakes the technical work. The Strategic Schools Improvement Programme (SSIP) team provides advisory support on priorities, managing significant Welsh Government and Council capital funding. Key funding streams include the Sustainable Communities for Learning programme (over £200m invested to date), Community Focused Schools Capital Grant, Additional Learning Needs capital funding, and the capital maintenance programme. The SSIP team acts as a central hub facilitating complex projects across numerous services. Members referred to page 166 of the report and questioned how up to date the condition reports were for the current school building conditions. The Head of Service advised members that a more technical paper prepared by the Environment Directorate is available and this can be circulated following the meeting. The first batch of surveys was conducted in 2004 and revisited in 2008. In 2016, the Welsh Government introduced a new set of criteria for conducting surveys, resulting in changes to the programme. The Head of Service explained that the condition surveys are part of a rolling programme, with some schools being assessed more frequently depending on their condition. A new surveyor is to be appointed by the Environment Team, whose dedicated role will be to conduct condition surveys not only for schools but across all premises. Members commented on the crossover between this issue and Environment-related scrutiny, particularly in relation to understanding the condition of the council’s estate. Members requested that the technical paper referenced be circulated for further review. Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of the report’s statement that all ‘through schools’ are in category A, described as ‘as new’ condition. Members highlighted that this does not reflect the reality on the ground. Members emphasised that there is always a level of risk and uncertainty within the condition reports provided to members, and that such issues should be flagged appropriately. Members expressed interest in reviewing the further information once circulated, with a view to considering potential follow-up actions. Members raised queries regarding the capital maintenance works programme, specifically referencing pages 165 to 167 of the report. It was acknowledged that further discussion with colleagues in the Environment Directorate may be necessary. Members sought clarification on the prioritisation of works within the programme, noting previous indications that the budget is primarily directed towards business continuity issues. Members questioned whether this approach remains in place and whether any portion of the budget is allocated proactively to prevent issues from escalating, rather than solely addressing urgent repairs. Concerns were expressed regarding the significant backlog of maintenance works and the potential financial implications of consistently responding to issues only once they become critical. While the Head of Service noted that they could not provide technical detail, they confirmed that the service is consistently operating in a reactive manner, addressing a significant backlog of maintenance issues with a £66m backlog maintenance. Schools categorised as category ‘A’ may have reported issues, but if a substantial portion of the building remains in relatively good condition, they will retain category ‘A’ status. Priority is given to critical infrastructure. It was noted that due to limited funding, preventative maintenance cannot be undertaken, despite its potential to mitigate future costs. Whilst this approach is not ideal, it is necessitated by the financial constraints and the deteriorating condition of the school estate. Members queried whether maintenance of replacement school buildings is up to date. From both a sustainability and budget planning perspective, it was emphasised that if capital budgets and grants are being used to replace assets rather than repair them, it is essential to ensure that these newer buildings are maintained in a good state of repair. Members noted that some replacement schools delivered through the SSIP are between 10 and 15 years old. Concern was expressed about whether the Council is able to maintain these buildings effectively. Members suggested that further consideration may be needed regarding how the capital maintenance budget will operate in future, particularly as the school estate transitions from predominantly older buildings to a greater proportion of newer assets. The Head of Service confirmed that no new schools are on the previous year’s maintenance list and there was no awareness of any serious issues, any significant failure would be addressed accordingly. The Council relies on two school surveyors to manage the entire school estate, who deal with smaller maintenance jobs without escalating to higher levels within the service or the Environment Directorate. Such maintenance work would typically be managed by the surveyors and may not be visible at their level, but agreed that this is a valid question and committed to seeking further information and providing an update to members. Officers had confidence that maintenance in newer schools is up to date, schools have delegated budgets to manage day-to-day repairs and maintenance, which supports the upkeep of buildings. Surveyors would advise of any larger capital type issues requiring attention in the newer schools. It was noted that although the newer schools are 10-15 years old, there are not the level of issues that present with the older buildings, although there will be occasions of larger issues in newer buildings which can be expensive. The capital maintenance budget of £2.12 m is inadequate. The top priority is ensuring schools are operational. Members enquired when would details of the redevelopment of the new vocational school at Velindre be available. Members also enquired about the maintenance of the current ELRS building. It was noted that damage to the structure is causing parts of the building to fall off into the car park which is affecting Hendrefelin School and causing parking issues with the local community. The Head of Service provided some brief detail and offered to meet with the local ward members outside of the meeting to discuss in further detail. It was confirmed that the vocational centre was brought to Cabinet, approximately 18 months ago as part of the SSIP rolling programme. Permission was granted to develop the scheme and take it forward to Welsh Government. Plans are in place for a report to be presented to Cabinet concerning the management arrangements at the facility, although no date has yet been set. In relation to scaffolding at the site, it was clarified that this is required to undertake asbestos searches at the building. There is no current maintenance figure for the building due to its vacant status. However, the structure is reported to be in relatively good condition, with some repairs needed to the roof and windows, as well as remedial work to address damp issues. The member reiterated concerns regarding the dangerous condition of the roof which has been reported to building services, and asked could this be investigated further. With reference to the new school, members commented that a Headteacher had been appointed and expressed the view that further detail on the school should therefore be available. The Head of Service confirmed that no Headteacher had been appointed to date; a Pathways Manager is in post to develop the scheme. Members requested further clarification on the Vocational Centre report that is scheduled to be presented to Cabinet. It was noted that scrutiny should have early involvement in policy and strategy development in addition to post decision scrutiny. The Head of Service apologised for any confusion and clarified that no decision was required as a new school was not being established, and the usual SSIP process did not apply. It was acknowledged that the report would be of interest to scrutiny and discussions were held regarding the most appropriate mechanism for scrutiny involvement. The Head of Service explained that while the development is still some way off, discussions with officers had led to the view that some decision-making would be required, hence the need for a Cabinet report. It was noted that this did not preclude scrutiny involvement, and that the matter could be considered by the committee and the Chair, with the expectation that it would be considered in due course. Members requested that scrutiny should receive the report for pre decision scrutiny, prior to being considered by the Cabinet, if possible. Members welcomed the collaborative working between the Education and Environment Directorates but sought clarification regarding budgetary responsibilities. Specifically, it was queried whether, given that the budget is held within Education, there is a requirement for each activity to have oversight and accountability from a senior member of staff. Members asked whether this responsibility lies with the Education Directorate, the Education Scrutiny Committee, and Cabinet. The Head of Service confirmed that the budget is managed within Education and that this committee would be the appropriate forum for reporting on budgetary matters. Members sought clarity on the accountability arrangements for the SSIP, school maintenance, and other related programmes, particularly given the cross-departmental nature of these areas. The Head of Service confirmed that the SSIP was under the responsibility of Education. Members expressed interest in exploring how such cross-directorate matters could be more effectively scrutinised in future, emphasising the value of cross-scrutiny involvement and the need for clear mechanisms to ensure all relevant information is available. Members acknowledged that reports concerning school maintenance and building condition can be technical but noted that the committee previously received the full list of condition requirements and associated issues for schools. Members requested the information be circulated to provide greater clarity on the condition of individual schools and support more informed scrutiny. The Head of Service advised that further advice would be sought regarding the publication of detailed school maintenance information, as there was concern that sharing such data could cause unnecessary alarm amongst schools. Members understood the concern but noted that the Education Scrutiny Committee had previously received this information annually without issue and it had been a valuable resource. It was suggested that, if necessary, the list could be shared privately with the committee to support its scrutiny role. The Head of Service agreed to look into this matter further. Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
Officers provided a brief overview of the report as contained within the agenda pack. The Scrutiny Chair asked the following questions: • How consistency and quality are being monitored across all schools within the county. • Are the challenges experienced by secondary schools also evident across Wales? • How are the changes to the curriculum being communicated to parents? • How the local authority and schools can do more to engage parents and secure their support for the new curriculum. The Head of Education Development advised that monitoring is through a continuous evaluation cycle, including checks on schools’ self-evaluation processes. While implementation is progressing, variation in quality remains, and some schools have been identified for improvement by Estyn. Support is provided to school leaders to strengthen teaching and learning. Challenges in secondary schools mirror a national picture, driven by a cultural shift from a focus on GCSE outcomes to the four purposes of education. Officers acknowledged this transition is significant, with some schools adapting faster than others. The school improvement service continues to support this change. Officers confirmed that schools are encouraged to design their own curriculum within the national framework and involve parents and stakeholders in shaping their vision. The curriculum is an ongoing process requiring continuous review. This represents a significant cultural change. Many schools have implemented workshops to help parents understand the Curriculum for Wales. However, it was acknowledged that this practice is not yet consistent across all schools. The Scrutiny Chair enquired whether there was any more that could be done as an authority to encourage schools to communicate the changes with parents. Officers confirmed that Education Support Officers were visiting every school during the autumn term to discuss progress towards Curriculum for Wales. This will include questioning school leaders on how parents and the wider community have been involved in their vision for Curriculum for Wales, and to develop their understanding of the changes. The Head of Service advised members that work was ongoing with individual schools and at a cluster level. Schools have been encouraged to work in clusters, more frequently than they have previously. Schools will have a Cluster Working plan with the aim of developing young people within the cluster. Following Scrutiny, the report was noted.
Members considered the Performance Monitoring item
The Head of Education Development provided a brief overview of the purpose of the report. Members requested that future reports specified whether the quarter related to a financial or academic year, to assist members understanding. Members referred to workforce impacts on page 178 of the report and questioned whether there was an expectation of significant redundancies in schools going forward and would this impact on the performance for the rest of 2025/26? The Head of Service advised members that this did not fall under the content of the report. The report related to corporate service improvement plans and did not focus on school based redundancies. The member asked if there are workforce changes within schools, would that impact on schools’ performance. The Head of Support Services and Transformation stated that this was not the case. Clarification was provided that if schools decreased staff numbers due to falling pupil numbers, this should not result in a change to the quality of teaching and learning. The decrease in pupil numbers also affects available budgets. It is the Headteachers responsibility to ensure that the best teachers and support staff are employed. Members acknowledged the previous comment made but expressed concern from other reports that some staff losses are teaching assistants who are employed to support pupils with additional learning needs. Some schools are unable to meet their legal requirements due to budget issues. Members enquired how school deficits are likely to impact this and whether this is being monitored going forward. The Head of Support Services and Transformation advised members that approximately twenty two schools were in deficit at the end of last year. However, it was noted that schools are supported to ensure they are able to meet their legal duties to those children with additional learning needs. This approach is not sustainable long term and more funding is needed. It was the officer’s belief, that schools are doing their best with the available budgets and working hard to keep standards high. Colleagues from the Education Directorate are supporting schools in that. Members acknowledged the positive development in the increased Flying Start provision and commended the progress made. However, concerns were raised regarding the continued lack of preparedness among some children entering nursery provision in certain schools. Members questioned whether sufficient monitoring is in place to assess the impact of Flying Start on improving school readiness. The Head of Support Services and Transformation answered the question on behalf of the Head of Early Years, Inclusion and Participation, who was unable to attend the meeting. The Head of Service noted that reports on the Flying Start Programme have come before scrutiny and also Cabinet. Confidence was held that the service is monitored, and targets are being met. Officers in the Early Years team are available if members have any further questions. Members complimented the Flying Start programme and its expansion. Members requested figures on redundancies unrelated to pupil number reductions. Officers confirmed this information was not linked to the reports under consideration and was unavailable at the meeting. Following Scrutiny, the report was noted.
Officers referred to the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee Forward Work Programmes contained within the agenda pack, and members were given the opportunity to request further items for consideration. With the agreement of the Chair the following changes were made to the scrutiny committee forward work programme: • Estyn Inspection report has been moved from 16th October to 27th November 2025. • School Funding Formula Review report has moved from the 27th of November to the 8th of January. Members thanked officers for their support and commented on the lack of education reports on the Cabinet Forward Work Programme, making it difficult to consider any pre-scrutiny items. Members asked for clarification regarding how the Schools Funding Formula review would be considered by scrutiny. Officers confirmed that the report was being considered by scrutiny for pre-decision scrutiny before being considered by Cabinet in February. The Forward Work Programme was noted.
There were no urgent items.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.