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.
Apologies for absence were received from: Committee Members County Councillors A W Davies, B Davies and G Ratcliffe Cabinet Members County Councillors D Thomas, G Preston and S Davies. Officers: E Palmer, J Thomas, C Pinney, M Thomas, J Chapelle and N Owen.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
Background Provided by the Cabinet Member for a Learning Powys and the Director for Education as one of the most comprehensive reports on school performance and standards that had been brought forward in recent years. The introduction set out that the report provided a clear overview of the current position of the Powys learning system, beginning with contextual information, continuing through a summary of overall outcomes and standards, and culminating in detailed breakdowns of grades and performance indicators across key stages. It was acknowledged that the overall picture across Powys schools had been variable. Some aspects of performance demonstrated improvement, whilst others remained areas of significant concern. It was noted with positivity that GCSE outcomes in Powys secondary schools had moved above the Welsh average for the current year, reversing a historical trend in which Powys had previously fallen below national averages. In contrast, the report drew attention to serious concerns around Key Stage 5 outcomes, including A‑level and BTEC performance. These results had not shown the progress expected and continued to be an area requiring urgent focus. The remarks stressed that the variability across the system reflected deeper issues that required sustained evaluation and improvement efforts, with leadership, assessment practices and learner pathways all identified as influential factors shaping outcomes as pupils moved through the system. Overall, this was an honest assessment of both progress made, and challenges still faced, emphasising that the system contained strengths but also required improved consistency, sharper evaluation of practice, and better alignment of resources to ensure higher standards for all learners across Powys. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Data, Tracking and Assessment · Members asked why primary‑phase data had not been presented, as members believed useful assessment information ought to have existed at that stage. · A question was raised about why strong standards in early years did not appear to continue through to the end of Key Stage 4. · Members asked why no clear targets had been set or referenced in the report, and why targets were absent from the “next steps” section. · A query was raised regarding why the authority could not draw together or use existing diagnostic tests to track progress across primary schools. · Members asked whether secondary schools carried out Year 7 baseline testing and how that information supported progress monitoring up to GCSE outcomes. · The committee questioned how the authority ensured that schools’ internal modelling and tracking systems were accurate and comparable. · Members asked what GCSE targets had been set for 2026, 2027 and 2028, and what national benchmarks or data sources underpinned those targets. · The committee challenged the inconsistency in how comparative local authority data had been presented across different tables in the report. · Members asked how the authority intended to improve the consistency, clarity and comparability of published performance data. The Director explained that although useful diagnostic tests existed within primary schools, these were no longer part of a statutory national framework and therefore could not be used reliably at local authority level. He clarified that national literacy and numeracy tests had become diagnostic tools held at school level, used at variable times across the year, which meant the authority was unable to use them for valid comparison. Officers confirmed that schools were purchasing different commercial packages or creating their own systems for pupil assessment, which made consistency difficult. They emphasised that, because of this fragmented landscape, the authority had strengthened its reliance on first‑hand evidence gathered directly within classrooms. In response to queries about Year 7 baseline data, officers confirmed that some schools used CATS assessments, but this information remained school‑level data that the authority could not access or verify. School improvement advisers had, however, been working closely with schools to test the accuracy of such internal assessments through monitoring visits. On the matter of targets, the Director stated that clear targets already existed within the Corporate and Strategic Equality Plan and were publicly reported each quarter. He accepted that future papers could incorporate those targets directly, so that committee members would not need to refer to multiple documents. He also confirmed that GCSE and attendance targets were based on national benchmarking rather than internal expectations, reaffirming that the authority was not “marking its own homework”. The Director also acknowledged concerns over inconsistent data presentation and explained that differences between tables related to whether national datasets counted only authorities with sixth forms or all Welsh authorities, including those whose provision relied wholly on colleges. He accepted that this would be clarified more clearly in future reports. System Performance, Variability and School Improvement · Members asked what specific actions were being taken to address persistent inconsistencies in performance between schools. · Members queried how the authority would demonstrate that variability between schools was reducing year on year. · A question was raised about what targeted interventions were in place for the six schools performing below their family averages for free school meal attainment. · Members asked why performance among non‑FSM learners had declined over several years and what changes in teaching or assessment practice might have contributed to that decline. · The committee queried whether the strategies currently in place were the right ones, given that improvements appeared slow or inconsistent. · Members asked what was substantively different in the current school improvement approach compared with previous years. · A question was posed about whether schools were being robustly challenged and whether earlier practice had lacked sufficient accountability. · Members questioned whether middle leaders had adequate capacity to fulfil their responsibilities, particularly in subjects where recruitment difficulties were common. · The committee sought reassurance that system‑wide school improvement capacity was genuinely strengthening rather than simply being re‑presented or re‑described. · Members expressed support for the proposal to produce a case‑study paper to show clearly how support to a specific school had changed and what impact that change had achieved. The Director acknowledged that historic practice in Powys had lacked consistency, with resources previously deployed in a scattergun fashion. He stated that every school had now undertaken a rigorous self‑evaluation process involving both school leaders and the local authority, ensuring that each school identified accurate priorities. He emphasised that support was now bespoke, brokered by a school improvement adviser and directly aligned to each school’s development plan. Officers confirmed that improvements were emerging but required time, noting that EFSM performance had risen significantly in the previous year, even though the gap between EFSM and non‑EFSM learners had not narrowed. They stressed that improvements for all learners were necessary and that raising standards in teaching and learning remained essential. The Director stated that the authority had changed how it operated system‑wide, improving challenge and support across functions such as finance, property and data. He described school improvement advisers as now being significantly stronger, more accountable and better quality‑assured, supported by peer review with other authorities. The Cabinet Member added that secondary headteachers had reported genuine satisfaction with the enhanced support they were receiving — which he described as a notable improvement compared with previous years. In response to concerns about leadership capacity, officers acknowledged national recruitment challenges, especially in maths, science and Welsh‑medium subjects. They explained that schools were often forced to be creative with staffing and budgets, but middle leaders were now being more robustly held to account, particularly around assessment and tracking. The Director welcomed the suggestion of providing a case‑study paper to demonstrate concretely how school improvement practice had changed and what impact it had had, and he confirmed that such a paper could be shared with committee members. Welsh‑Medium Provision and Language Pathways · Members asked why the report contained almost no analysis comparing Welsh‑medium and English‑medium outcomes. · Members requested data on the outcomes of learners who transferred from Welsh‑medium primary provision into English‑medium secondary education. · A query was raised regarding the progress and outcomes of learners who entered Welsh‑medium education through the Trochi immersion scheme. · Members asked whether staffing challenges within the Welsh‑medium sector were affecting learner outcomes and limiting curriculum breadth. The Director acknowledged that Welsh‑medium outcomes were included within overall performance data but were not disaggregated in the report. He agreed that members’ questions were valid and undertook to bring a separate paper providing detailed analysis of Welsh‑medium performance, transition from Welsh to English pathways, and the outcomes of learners entering via immersion programmes. Officers explained that literacy data combined the highest of either Welsh or English, which meant additional work would be required to extract meaningful Welsh‑medium‑specific information. Attendance, Absence and Engagement · Members questioned why attendance varied so widely between secondary schools and what accounted for such inconsistency. · Members asked why girls’ attendance had fallen below boys’ attendance and whether girls’ non‑attendance might relate to factors such as emotional wellbeing or the menstrual cycle. · A query was raised about whether the behavioural culture within some schools might be discouraging girls from attending. · Members asked whether improvements in attendance were genuine or partly explained by pupils being removed from school rolls, such as through elective home education. · The committee sought clarity on the rise in authorised absence and whether changing school practice, increased family holidays or inconsistency in policy enforcement had contributed to that trend. · A question was raised about whether home‑school agreements or similar expectations could or should be reinstated. · Members questioned the connection between high exclusion levels and increased authorised absence. · The committee asked for information on attendance support capacity, including the number of Education Welfare Officers and whether schools were adequately resourced. Officers explained that attendance had been improving, particularly authorised absence and persistent absenteeism in primary schools, and that attendance had reached target levels in secondary schools. However, they acknowledged that authorised absence had risen, and that the most vulnerable groups — EFSM, ALN and care‑experienced learners — continued to show weaker attendance. Regarding girls’ attendance, officers confirmed that the observed trend matched national patterns, with social pressures, emotional wellbeing and other gender‑specific factors contributing. They confirmed that a detailed piece of work was being initiated to better understand gendered patterns of absence. In response to concerns that improved attendance might reflect an increase in elective home education, officers reported that only a small proportion of EHE pupils had previously been excluded and that improved monitoring and challenge, rather than off‑rolling, explained recent improvements. Officers explained that home‑school agreements were no longer statutory, though many schools still engaged families actively. They further explained the link between exclusions and authorised absence, noting that high exclusion levels elevated authorised absence figures. Education Welfare Officers were supporting schools more flexibly than before, with targeted visits prioritising schools whose attendance required deeper intervention. Officers noted that while classroom teachers still often undertook follow‑up tasks, EWO support had become more strategically aligned and consistent with national guidance. Behaviour, Exclusions and Early Intervention • Members asked whether behaviour in some schools was contributing to lower attendance among specific groups, including girls. • Questioned what support was available to schools before exclusion became necessary and whether early intervention was consistent. • Requested further detail on reasons for exclusions and how these varied by phase, school type or year group. • Why had exclusions fallen dramatically after Easter in the previous year and whether a particular strategy change had caused the shift. • Members asked whether some exclusions could be interpreted as schools signalling that they needed more support. • Committee asked how costed programmes such as EBSA support, the Adele Bates programme and virtual school involvement were evaluated for effectiveness and value for money. • Did the authority intend to establish a central specialist behaviour team. • Members questioned how early behavioural concerns identified in primary schools were being tracked and shared when pupils transitioned into secondary education. Officers stated that exclusions had reduced substantially, with over 50 per cent fewer days lost in the most recent autumn term compared with the previous year. They highlighted that early intervention strategies were making a measurable difference, citing one secondary school that had created de‑escalation spaces, nurture provision and trained staff to intervene before crisis episodes escalated. The Director confirmed that strong early intervention practice was now more visible across schools. In response to questions about behaviour programmes, officers explained that external programmes such as the Adele Bates initiative were being fully evaluated. Early feedback had been positive, with one school requesting access after hearing strong reports from another. Officers stressed that they were now selecting external partners more carefully, ensuring that programmes built long‑term capacity rather than offering short‑lived quick fixes. The behaviour working group, newly established and meeting half‑termly, brought together headteachers, ALNCOs, pastoral leads, and local authority teams. Officers reported that this group was reviewing exclusion definitions, personal support plan usage and training requirements and was working toward a county‑wide behaviour strategy. Responding to concerns about vulnerable learners, officers reported that ALN–related exclusions reflected the complexities of need within Powys, with a high proportion of pupils having ASD or social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. They outlined work underway to upskill staff through Autism Education Trust training and to strengthen emotional‑based school avoidance support. Officers did not consider exclusions a “cry for help” but acknowledged that they were sometimes used to reset provision for pupils with acute needs. Officers confirmed that transition issues — especially between Years 6 and 7 — continued to pose a national and local challenge. They explained that the authority was working closely with schools to ensure continuity in teaching, high expectations and early identification of pupils vulnerable to behavioural or emotional difficulties. Curriculum, Pathways and Learner Experience • Members queried why curriculum breadth narrowed so significantly at Key Stage 4 and Key Stage 5, and how this affected learner motivation and outcomes. • What changes in curriculum design or subject availability might have contributed to declining A‑level and BTEC outcomes. • Questioned whether the system was providing courses that learners actually wanted and needed. • Members asked why pathways were narrowing and whether this reduced learners’ options, enthusiasm and attainment. The Director stated clearly that teaching and learning at Key Stage 5 had not received sufficient attention for many years and that the authority had significantly changed its approach. School improvement advisers were now scrutinising Key Stage 5 teaching with the same rigour applied to earlier key stages, including lesson observations, scrutiny of learner work and meetings with subject leaders. Officers acknowledged that curriculum narrowing at Key Stages 4 and 5 was limiting learners’ options and contributing to motivation and attainment issues. They pointed to rising proportions of U‑grades as evidence that some learners were studying subjects for which they were not suited, often because of timetabling or limited subject choice. Work was underway with headteachers, and post‑16 leads to improve curriculum planning, subject leadership and information, advice and guidance for learners. Post‑16 Outcomes, Destinations and ALPS Data • Members asked why A‑level entries were decreasing and whether high‑achieving learners were leaving Powys for colleges over the border. • Queried whether subject availability, perceived teaching quality or curriculum breadth were prompting learners to study elsewhere. • Clarification was sought on the authority’s use of the ALPS system and how QI scores should be interpreted. • Members asked what progress tracking existed for learners who stayed in‑county compared with those who left. • It was questioned how destination data for learners attending colleges outside Powys was collected and why this remained inconsistent. • Members asked what arrangements existed with Shrewsbury, Hereford and other cross‑border colleges for sharing learner outcomes. • Enquired whether schools had sufficient capacity or training to interpret post‑16 performance data effectively. Officers confirmed that the decline in A‑level entries reflected several factors, including learners choosing to study in neighbouring English colleges because of subject availability, perceived academic performance or the breadth of curriculum offer elsewhere. They reported that a substantial survey of learners, undertaken with external research partners, would further illuminate reasons for learners’ decision‑making. The Director acknowledged that ALPS data provided a valuable but imperfect picture, dependent on accurate data uploads by schools. Officers explained that ALPS set aspirational minimum grades based on national data and that quality indicator scores showed the extent to which learners exceeded or fell short of those expectations. The Director noted that many schools needed further support to interpret ALPS data correctly, and that the authority was providing targeted training and challenge in this area. On destination data, officers acknowledged that current processes were cumbersome, requiring direct contact with out‑of‑county providers. They had therefore agreed a new approach whereby schools would collect destination data before learners left Year 11 or Year 13. Although colleges outside Powys had no obligation to share information, officers reported that relationships with most cross‑border institutions had strengthened and that information‑sharing had improved as a result. Inclusion, ALN and Vulnerable Learners • Members asked why ALN learners and pupils eligible for free school meals remained disproportionately affected by exclusion. • Committee questioned whether underfunding of ALN provision or IDP processes was contributing to exclusion trends. • Enquired what training and support schools were receiving to meet the needs of learners with ASD, SEBD/SEMH and other complex needs. • Members sought assurance that multi‑agency working through community‑focused schools was improving attendance and behaviour. • Did the authority had sufficient capacity to intervene early with children showing emerging needs. Officers accepted that ALN pupils, EFSM learners and care‑experienced children were over‑represented in exclusion data. They emphasised the complexity of need within the cohort, with nearly 60 per cent of ALN pupils having ASD or SEBD/SEMH as their primary area of need. They described ongoing work to train staff, review emotional‑based school avoidance, expand multi‑agency involvement and improve support through community‑focused schools. Officers rejected the idea that schools were using exclusions as a cry for help but recognised that exclusions were sometimes necessary to reset provision. The behaviour consultation panel, now meeting more frequently, enabled much quicker access to multi‑agency advice, outreach support and pre‑placement planning. The Director stressed that the authority was now more selective in choosing external behaviour programmes and that a longer‑term focus was essential for improving outcomes. Officers reiterated that early intervention for individual pupils and for whole‑school systems was improving steadily and contributing to reduced exclusions.
The Committee endorsed that: • The report had provided a substantive and detailed overview of school performance, including outcomes, standards and system‑wide issues across Powys. • The strengthened approach to self‑evaluation across all schools had created a more reliable basis for identifying areas requiring support. • The Local Authority had begun implementing a more precise, data‑driven model of school improvement to align support with verified need. The Committee welcomed that: • Improvements had been recorded in GCSE outcomes, including Powys secondary schools performing above the Welsh average. • New quality‑assurance processes for School Improvement Advisors had been introduced, including peer review with other authorities. • There had been increased focus on middle‑leader accountability, especially in relation to learner progress tracking in Years 7–9. • The introduction of the RADI principles had helped improve outcomes for disadvantaged learners and encouraged inclusive practice. • Secondary headteachers had reported greater satisfaction with the quality and consistency of support from the School Improvement Advisory service. The Committee requested that: • Future reports included the Local Authority’s performance targets within the document, rather than requiring reference to separate plans. • Data within the report be presented more consistently, with clearer comparisons between other Welsh local authorities. • A separate paper be brought forward containing detailed analysis of Welsh‑medium outcomes, including transition patterns and the impact of Trochi. • A strengthened approach to destination tracking be established, with clearer reporting on learner movement into and out of Powys post‑16. • A case‑study example be prepared to demonstrate how school improvement interventions had changed practice within a particular school. • Further work be carried out to examine learners’ progress between primary and secondary phases, to understand the decline between early years and Key Stage 4 outcomes. • Additional clarity be provided on the impact of ALN funding, individual development plans and multi‑agency involvement on attainment and exclusion levels. The Committee remained unconvinced of: • Whether the approaches described by officers represented genuinely new practice, as several members felt similar assurances had been given in past years. • Whether longstanding variability between schools in leadership, teaching quality and learner outcomes had yet been effectively addressed. • Whether sufficient leadership capacity existed within secondary schools, particularly at middle‑leader level. The Committee expressed concern of: • Persistent variation in performance between schools, including those with outcomes below their family averages for free‑school‑meal learners. • Declining outcomes for non‑FSM learners, contributing to a widening attainment gap despite some positive movement for FSM cohorts. • The narrowing curriculum in Key Stages 4 and 5, which limited learner choice and contributed to disengagement and an increase in U‑grade outcomes. • The unreliable and inconsistent nature of primary‑level assessment data is because of the lack of national benchmarks and varied tracking systems. • The limited quality of teaching and curriculum offer at post‑16, which had contributed to weaker A‑level performance. • Ongoing challenges in recruiting and retaining middle leaders, particularly in Welsh‑medium, mathematics and science subjects. 1 Prioritised strengthening leadership capacity at middle leader level, recognising recruitment and retention challenges and the impact this had on teaching consistency and learner outcomes. 2 A unified and robust assessment tracking framework for primary schools be developed to improve the consistency and reliability of progress data in the absence of national benchmarks. 3 Commission a detailed examination of ALN provision, including comparisons, pressures on funding, and the impact of ALN needs on exclusions and attainment. 4 Support a comprehensive analysis of Welsh medium outcomes, including transition between linguistic pathways and the impact of immersion schemes such as Trochi. 5 That schools be required to collect annual destination data for all learners, recognising that post 16 movement patterns could not be reliably tracked under current processes. 6 Request a model example showing how school level improvement interventions had materially changed leadership, teaching and learner outcomes, with the option of inviting the school’s headteacher to Scrutiny. 7 Endorse improved processes for monitoring learner progress across the transition from Year 6 to Year 7, to better understand the dip in performance between early years and Key Stage 4. 8 Ensure future reports provided clearer and more consistent data comparisons, including national benchmarking and uniform inclusion of Local Authority performance indicators.
Background The Attendance and Exclusion report set out a detailed overview of the position across the autumn term. It was explained that attendance in both primary and secondary schools had improved, with overall rates meeting or exceeding expected targets for the period. Primary attendance sat above national averages, with notable reductions in persistent absence and improvements for specific groups of learners, particularly care‑experienced pupils. However, it was made clear that attendance for learners eligible for free school meals and those with additional learning needs continued to present concerns and remained below the levels hoped for. Secondary attendance had also risen, with a decrease in persistent and unauthorised absence. Nonetheless, authorised absence had increased, and concerns persisted for vulnerable groups. A shift in gender patterns was highlighted, showing that boys’ attendance had overtaken girls’ attendance, marking a notable reversal of long‑standing trends. The wider context for exclusions was outlined. A substantial reduction in the number of exclusions had been recorded when compared with the previous autumn term, including a significant fall in the number of days lost to exclusion. While the overall direction was positive, it was emphasised that exclusions continued to affect certain groups disproportionately, particularly learners with additional learning needs and those eligible for free school meals. The information introduced further explained that the local authority had strengthened its analysis of attendance and exclusion data and had begun work to understand the underlying reasons behind the patterns emerging. This included consideration of emotional‑based school avoidance, gender‑related factors, wellbeing influences and the impact of multi‑agency support. The summary framed the report as a detailed examination of progress made, the strengths emerging within the system and the areas where further improvement and sustained focus were still required. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Attendance Patterns, Trends and Data Interpretation • Members asked whether the improvement in attendance figures had been genuine or whether it reflected learners with very low attendance being moved into education other than at school. • Committee queried whether improved monitoring and challenge, rather than structural changes to pupil placement, had been responsible for the rise in attendance levels. • Questioned why girls’ attendance had fallen below boys’ attendance and asked whether girls’ attendance had genuinely declined or whether boys’ attendance had improved disproportionately. • Members asked whether any analysis had been undertaken to examine gender‑specific reasons behind non‑attendance, including whether adolescent wellbeing or menstrual‑related issues played a role. • Committee raised concerns about the marked variation in attendance performance between schools and asked what factors accounted for improvements in some settings but not others. Officers explained that improvements in attendance had not resulted from pupils with very low attendance being moved into alternative provision. A review of those who became electively home educated showed that only a small minority had experienced exclusions previously, indicating that the improvement reflected strengthened monitoring and challenge rather than shifts in pupil placement. Officers reported that both primary and secondary attendance had improved, with persistent and unauthorised absence reducing, although vulnerable groups such as pupils with additional learning needs, those eligible for free school meals and care‑experienced children continued to require targeted attention. When committee members questioned why girls’ attendance had fallen below boys’ attendance, officers stated that this pattern aligned with national trends rather than being unique to Powys. They suggested that social pressures, emotional wellbeing issues and the challenges associated with adolescence could be influencing these trends. Officers confirmed that further detailed analysis would be undertaken to understand the underlying reasons for this shift. Authorised and Unauthorised Absence • Queried why authorised absence had increased, despite improvements in persistent and unauthorised absence. • Members asked whether a more permissive attitude towards authorised absence, such as holidays during term time, had contributed to the pattern. • Questioned whether schools were applying attendance policies consistently and whether stronger expectations such as past home‑school agreements ought to be re‑introduced. • Committee sought clarification on the relationship between exclusions and authorised absence, particularly how high exclusion levels inflated authorised absence figures. Officers responded to concerns about the rise in authorised absence by clarifying that this category included periods of exclusion, as well as authorised term‑time holidays. They noted that although unauthorised absence had reduced, authorised absence had risen partly because exclusions contributed to those figures. Officers highlighted that home‑school agreements were no longer statutory, though schools continued to work with families to stress the importance of maintaining regular attendance. They recognised variation in how schools applied their attendance policies and confirmed that work was underway to bring greater consistency across settings. Behaviour, School Climate and Emotional Wellbeing • Members asked whether behaviour issues within certain schools might be discouraging girls from attending and whether any gender‑focused analysis had been undertaken. • Committee questioned whether social or emotional pressures faced by adolescent girls could be influencing attendance patterns. • Enquired about the impact that disruptive behaviour from peer groups might be having on some pupils’ willingness to attend school. • Members asked whether research or monitoring had examined whether toxic or hostile peer environments were affecting girls’ attendance. Officers addressed questions about whether behaviour issues within schools might be discouraging girls from attending by emphasising the importance of a whole‑school approach to emotional health and wellbeing. Professional learning had been provided to help schools develop cultures in which all learners felt valued and able to belong. Officers commented that feelings of safety, inclusion and emotional security were essential, particularly during adolescence, when vulnerabilities could become more pronounced and attendance more sensitive to school climate. Exclusions, Vulnerable Learners and Emerging Trends • Members asked whether the significant improvement in exclusion data reflected genuine behaviour change or whether other factors, such as changes in term structure or school reporting, had been influential. • Queried why exclusion levels had dropped sharply after Easter in the previous year and whether a particular shift in strategy or intervention programme had driven this change. • Members sought clarification on the reasons behind exclusions and what types of behaviours or incidents were most commonly leading to them. • Questioned whether some schools were using exclusions implicitly as a cry for help when dealing with pupils with acute or complex needs. • Committee asked for more detail on exclusion patterns by year group and school type, and whether particular age groups or school phases were disproportionately affected. • Members asked how exclusion patterns correlated with ALN pupils and whether underfunding or gaps in ALN support were contributing to higher exclusion rates. Officers confirmed that exclusions had decreased significantly, with the number of days lost to exclusion falling by more than half compared with the same period the previous year. They attributed this improvement to strengthened early intervention, revised behaviour management strategies and improved pastoral support. However, officers acknowledged that vulnerable groups—especially learners with additional learning needs, those eligible for free school meals and care‑experienced pupils—remained disproportionately represented in exclusion data. They explained that many ALN learners had complex needs, such as autism or social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, which required continued investment in staff training and specialist support. Committee members asked about the sharp decline in exclusions following Easter the previous year. Officers noted that exclusion rates often reduced as the academic year progressed and that the timing of Easter could influence the distribution of school days in reporting cycles. They also suggested that strengthened multi‑agency support and early intervention approaches were contributing to the sustained reduction in exclusions. Officers rejected the idea that schools used exclusions as a cry for help, noting that while exclusions sometimes enabled a reset in provision for an individual learner, they continued to be used appropriately within the established framework of behaviour support. Early Intervention, Behaviour Support and Multi‑Agency Working • Members asked whether early intervention strategies were being applied consistently across schools and whether they were sufficiently timely. • Committee enquired how promptly schools were now acting in relation to behaviour or attendance concerns, in light of past Estyn feedback that intervention had not been early enough. • Requested more information about emotional‑based school avoidance (EBSA) work and how it was being rolled out across secondary schools. • Committee wanted to understand how programmes such as the Adele Bates behaviour initiative and virtual school support were being evaluated for effectiveness and value for money. • Members questioned whether successful interventions were being shared and scaled across all schools or whether access remained uneven. Officers outlined that early intervention had become a stronger focus across the county, particularly in response to previous concerns about slow action in the early stages of difficulty. A behaviour consultation panel, operating more frequently and drawing on multi‑agency expertise, had been supporting schools to address emerging issues before they escalated. The panel brought together specialists in behaviour, attendance and youth support to ensure timely and coordinated assistance. Officers also described the rollout of emotional‑based school avoidance support across secondary schools and highlighted ongoing behaviour interventions, including programmes that aimed to improve staff competence and resilience in managing complex behaviour. They reported that external behaviour programmes were being more carefully selected, with emphasis placed on long‑term impact, staff training and sustainability. Feedback from schools involved in these programmes had been positive, and evaluation of impact was underway. Staffing, Resource Capacity and Support to Schools • Members asked how many Education Welfare Officers were in place, whether this number was sufficient, and whether the service had enough capacity to respond to schools’ needs across a large rural county. • Queried whether teaching staff were still having to undertake extensive attendance‑chasing duties, and whether this was detracting from classroom teaching. • Committee asked what support schools received when considering exclusions as a last resort, and whether the authority provided sufficient guidance and expertise during complex cases. • Requested clarification on the role of the behaviour consultation panel and how rapidly it could mobilise support for schools experiencing significant behavioural challenges. Officers confirmed that six Education Welfare Officers were supporting schools across the county. They explained that the service had moved from a fixed‑schedule model to a more responsive and targeted approach, allowing resources to be directed to schools with the greatest need. Schools remained responsible for early‑stage attendance interventions, with EWOs stepping in once those measures had been exhausted and more formal support was required. Officers highlighted that this shared responsibility aligned with national expectations and strengthened overall practice. Officers acknowledged that teaching staff still undertook some attendance‑related tasks but stated that the revised approach to EWO involvement provided more structured support, reducing unnecessary duplication and helping schools manage attendance more effectively. They described how the authority supported schools when exclusions were being considered, ensuring that decisions were made appropriately and that guidance was available throughout the process. Data, Transparency and Requested Additional Information • Members asked for a breakdown of exclusions by school phase, year group and school type, while recognising confidentiality issues in small cohorts. • Committee requested further information demonstrating the link between attendance and educational outcomes, particularly how missing certain numbers of days might statistically reduce GCSE scores. • Members asked whether the authority could provide further open data and clearer trend analysis to support scrutiny and help schools communicate messages to families. Officers confirmed that detailed data on exclusions, including breakdowns by year group and school type, did exist. However, they cautioned that due to small cohort sizes in certain settings, it was sometimes not possible to publish such details without risking the identification of individual learners. Officers added that further work would be undertaken to explore how anonymised patterns could be shared more safely. They also noted that messages about the impact of absence on attainment had been strengthened, with schools being provided with clearer communications to share with parents and carers to reinforce the importance of regular attendance.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed that: · Officers had undertaken a deep‑dive analysis of autumn‑term attendance and exclusion data, enabling clearer identification of trends and vulnerable groups. · Attendance at both primary and secondary level had improved and secondary attendance had reached target levels. · A reduction in exclusions had been achieved, with over 78 fewer exclusions and significantly fewer days lost compared with the previous autumn. · Schools that had implemented early‑intervention strategies, such as nurture rooms and de‑escalation spaces, demonstrated measurable improvements in exclusion patterns. The Committee welcomed that: · Officers had begun more robust tracking and monitoring processes, including analysis of pupils moving to Elective Home Education (EHE), confirming improved internal monitoring rather than an artificial boost to attendance. · Behaviour‑related work—including the Behaviour Consultation Panel, EBSA rollout, and the Adele Bates programme—was being evaluated for impact and expanded only where effective. · Schools were increasingly sharing effective attendance practice through networks, with strengthened support from Education Welfare Officers (EWOs). · There had been continued progress in developing a whole‑school emotional wellbeing and belonging approach to support attendance and inclusion. The Committee requested that: · Further breakdowns of exclusion data be provided (e.g., by year group, school type, and reason), subject to anonymity safeguards. · A clearer analysis of the correlation between attendance and attainment be shared, suitable for use in communications with learners and parents. · Additional information be supplied regarding the Integrated Business Plan, given it was now six months old, to evidence progress against agreed actions. · More detail be provided on post‑16 attendance patterns, including expectations around non‑lesson time and any link to poorer outcomes at Key Stage 5. · Officers continue work on gender‑based analysis, particularly around the causes of lower attendance for girls. · Further clarification be offered on behaviour‑support capacity, and that Scrutiny undertake a future deep dive into the Behaviour Working Group. · Ongoing investigation be carried out regarding the high exclusion rates for ALN learners, including how training and multi‑agency support might reduce exclusion. The Committee remained unconvinced of: · Whether the actions described by officers genuinely represented new approaches, as several members felt they had heard similar assurances in previous scrutiny sessions. · The extent to which inconsistencies between schools had been addressed, particularly variation in attendance, authorised absence, behaviour, and performance between settings. · Whether sufficient improvement had been made to prevent a recurrence of repeated patterns, especially around attendance and early intervention. The Committee expressed concern of: · The continuing lower attendance of girls compared with boys, despite girls outperforming boys academically. · The increase in authorised absence, including the impact of holidays and the inconsistency with which schools applied attendance policies. · The significantly higher exclusion rates among vulnerable learners, particularly EFSM and ALN pupils. · The lack of clarity on whether behaviour issues and cohort dynamics might be disproportionately discouraging girls from attending school. · The limited staffing resource of six EWOs across the county, raising questions about capacity to provide timely support. · The continued variability in post‑16 provision, linked to attendance, curriculum breadth, and quality assurance, and its contribution to weaker A‑level outcomes. 1 Be provided additional detail on exclusions including analysis by year group, type of school, and reason for exclusion, while ensuring anonymity for small cohorts. 2 Committee to be provided with an update demonstrating whether the actions set out in the Integrated Business Plan, now six months old, had shown measurable impact. 3 Additional analyses required explaining the high exclusion rates for ALN pupils and outlined the strategies being employed to address this. 4 Continued prioritisation and evidenced early intervention approaches, particularly at points of transition, to reduce both non-attendance and behaviour escalation. 5 Further investigations into the causes of the widening attendance gap between girls and boys and reported back with detailed findings. 6 improved tracking processes were developed for pupils moving from primary into secondary school, particularly for those already identified as vulnerable or at behavioural risk. 7 Exploration whether exclusion levels varied between larger and smaller schools, and between Welsh medium and English medium settings, while recognising this had not been discussed in depth at the meeting. 8 A detailed review of the Behaviour Working Group’s workstreams, outputs, and impact be brought back to Scrutiny, including its links to attendance and exclusions. 9 Behaviour intervention programmes such as EBSA, Adele Bates, and others were reviewed for effectiveness and cost efficiency, with the findings reported back to Scrutiny.
Noted.
Noted
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.