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 Committee noted and accepted the apologies for absence from Cllr G Ratcliffe, Committee Member, from Portfolio Holders, Councillors Jackie Charlton and Raiff Devlin, and from officers, Marianne Evans and Sally Llewellyn.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
The Committee considered the minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 June 2026 and were invited to comment on their accuracy. No amendments or corrections were raised by Members. Councillor Gareth E Jones proposed that the minutes be accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting, and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Claire Hall. The Committee agreed the proposal and the Chair approved the minutes.
The Committee considered the responses received to the recommendations arising from its scrutiny of Education Other Than at School (EOTAS). Members welcomed the timely return of the responses, noting that this enabled the recommendations to be reviewed while discussions remained fresh in Members’ minds. The Committee noted that all recommendations had either been accepted or partially accepted, with none rejected. Committee queried why one recommendation relating to the development of specific performance indicators had been categorised as partially accepted when the response appeared to indicate that the recommendation would be implemented. Officers explained that the categorisation reflected the delivery timescale, as the requested indicators could not be implemented within the timeframe originally proposed by the Committee. Members accepted the explanation provided. Members expressed appreciation for the prompt responses received from Cabinet and officers and emphasised the importance of recommendations being considered and reported back to the Committee in a timely manner. The Committee thanked those involved for ensuring that the recommendations had been responded to quickly and comprehensively.
The Committee considered its Forward Work Programme and noted a number of updates and amendments. Members were invited to comment on the programme and suggest any additional items for future consideration. Members also discussed the position of the Presteigne Catchment Review. The Chair advised that the review had been deferred on a number of occasions and remained subject to ongoing work. It was noted that the review was not yet ready to be brought before the Committee and would be scheduled when the necessary work had been completed. The Chair reminded Members that requests for future scrutiny topics did not need to be raised solely during committee meetings and encouraged Members to submit suggestions at any time for consideration through the work programme process.
Background: The Quarter 3 Performance Report provided an overview of progress against the Council’s Corporate and Strategic Equality Plan, with particular focus on Well-being Objective 3, which aimed to tackle poverty, reduce inequality and support the well-being of the people of Powys. The report had previously been considered by Cabinet in March 2026 and was subsequently presented to the Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee as part of the agreed programme of post-scrutiny performance monitoring. Officers advised that the committee’s role was to review progress, challenge performance, assess value for money and consider outcomes within the Learning and Skills remit. Members were informed that the report provided a high-level overview of performance, including progress made in areas such as post-16 education, Welsh-medium education, learner engagement and school infrastructure investment. The report also highlighted areas where performance measures were below target, including attendance and the retention of Year 12 learners in education. The Portfolio Holder stated that there had been a significant amount of activity undertaken across the service, particularly in relation to tackling poverty, improving support for learners and strengthening collaboration between schools and the local authority. He considered that progress had generally been positive but emphasised that the committee’s focus should be on scrutinising whether those activities were resulting in improved outcomes for learners. Officers further highlighted that over 3,000 learners and families had contributed to post-16 engagement activities, helping to shape future planning. Progress had also been made in expanding Welsh-medium provision through proposals for additional Welsh-medium school places and continued support through Welsh language immersion centres. Investment had continued in school buildings to ensure that educational facilities remained safe, modern and suitable for future needs Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Performance Reporting and Data Availability • Queried why Quarter 4 performance data was not available on the public performance system and when year-end data would be published. • Sought clarification on which performance measures were scrutinised in each quarter and why only a subset of education measures was included within the Quarter 3 report. • Suggested that performance reporting could be presented more clearly, including cross-references to the reporting cycle, to help Members understand when different measures would be available. • Questioned whether educational outcomes data should be aligned with Quarter 3 reporting to provide a fuller picture of service performance and impact. Officers explained that Quarter 2 and Quarter 4 performance reports were used for internal monitoring purposes and were therefore not routinely presented through the public scrutiny process. They clarified that year-end performance information would be published through the Council’s annual self-assessment process, which was due to be considered by Governance and Audit Committee and Cabinet. Officers acknowledged that the performance reporting cycle could be clearer and recognised the benefit of helping Members understand which measures were available at different points during the year and how quarterly reports linked together. They also explained that some educational outcome measures, such as examination results, could only be reported once data became available following the academic year and examination cycle. Officers accepted that there was merit in providing additional explanatory information to demonstrate how different measures connected with one another and how the committee could assess the wider impact of performance trends over time. It was confirmed that unverified educational outcomes would continue to be reported to the committee in the autumn, followed by verified data once received from Welsh Government. Performance Measures, Targets and Data Quality • Questioned whether sickness absence data could be broken down by service area and separated into long-term and short-term absence to provide more meaningful analysis. • Challenged how targets for Estyn categories had been set and questioned whether a target of ten schools in a statutory category was acceptable. • Sought confirmation of the actual number of schools currently in Estyn categories and clarification regarding apparent inaccuracies in the reported data. • Questioned whether the current performance measures provided sufficient information to enable effective scrutiny of service performance and outcomes. • Asked when performance measures were reviewed and whether Members could have greater input into the review of targets and indicators. Officers acknowledged the committee’s concerns regarding sickness absence reporting and agreed to refer the request for a breakdown by service area, including distinctions between long-term and short-term absence, to the Corporate Leadership Team for further consideration and feedback to the committee. In relation to the Estyn category measures, officers confirmed that an error had occurred within the reported targets and actual figures. They advised that the published figures were incorrect and clarified that the overarching ambition was for no schools to be in an Estyn statutory category. Officers explained, however, that inspection cycles meant that achieving a zero position at any given quarterly reporting point was unlikely. They reported that four schools were currently in Special Measures and four schools were in Significant Improvement, whilst noting that one school had recently come out of Special Measures, subject to final quality assurance from Estyn. Officers further emphasised that, whilst statutory categories remained an important external indicator, the service had significantly improved its understanding of school performance through strengthened support and challenge processes. They stated that officers now possessed a more robust evidence base and were increasingly able to identify issues, intervene early and provide preventative support before external inspection outcomes were reported Outcomes, Impact and Educational Effectiveness • Questioned how the reported data enabled Members to assess the impact of the significant amount of work being undertaken by the service. • Challenged the emphasis on recording activities and outputs rather than demonstrating measurable outcomes and impact. • Asked what impact the expansion of Welsh-medium education was having, including how many pupils were receiving education through the medium of Welsh and what success would look like. • Queried whether additional information could be provided within future reports to demonstrate the impact of interventions and programmes. • Questioned whether the committee had focused sufficiently on educational outcomes and pupil achievement rather than solely on processes, targets and compliance measures. Officers accepted the committee’s challenge that some of the reported measures were highly strategic and did not always demonstrate the impact of activity clearly enough. They explained that the service assessed impact through its Integrated Business Plan, which contained success criteria, milestones and supporting evidence to evaluate whether strategic actions had achieved their intended outcomes. Officers advised that the plan was currently being reviewed and that lessons from sector benchmarking and peer learning would be used to improve the quality and relevance of future measures. The Portfolio Holder agreed that the ultimate test of educational effectiveness was the achievement and progress of learners. He stated that outcomes, particularly GCSE attainment, provided the clearest indication of the effectiveness of the education system and reflected the experiences of learners throughout their school careers. He acknowledged that, whilst progress had been made, educational outcomes across Powys remained below the level that the Council would wish to see and that greater scrutiny of outcomes was required. Officers accepted that future reporting could better articulate the relationship between activities, interventions and measurable outcomes. They committed to reviewing how performance information was presented so that measures demonstrated impact more clearly rather than focusing predominantly on compliance and activity-based reporting. Learner Well-being, Attendance and Inclusion • Questioned whether attendance alone provided a sufficient measure of learner well-being and school culture. • Suggested that broader measures, including learner well-being, school ethos, motivation and emotional health, should be incorporated into performance reporting. • Requested more nuanced data to demonstrate pupil well-being and the effectiveness of well-being initiatives. • Questioned why attendance levels remained below expectations despite significant efforts to improve attendance. • Raised concerns that reports focused on provision and activity but provided little evidence of measurable improvements in well-being, reductions in exclusions or reductions in absenteeism. • Asked how the Council was addressing barriers to attendance, particularly for vulnerable learner groups. Officers agreed that attendance alone did not provide a complete picture of learner well-being or school culture. They confirmed that many schools were already undertaking health, well-being and pupil perception surveys, alongside mental health monitoring activities, and acknowledged that greater collection and reporting of this information could provide a more rounded assessment of school effectiveness and learner well-being. Officers accepted concerns regarding attendance and reported that, whilst overall attendance had improved and Powys compared favourably with other local authorities in Wales, attendance among vulnerable groups remained a significant challenge. They advised that small improvements had been recorded across most cohorts but recognised that further progress was required. To address this, the service was establishing a multi-agency attendance forum involving education, welfare and other partners to examine attendance barriers more broadly and coordinate interventions more effectively. Officers explained that attendance challenges could not be addressed by education services alone and described attendance as a shared responsibility across the Council and partner agencies. They highlighted that factors such as housing, transport and wider social circumstances could influence attendance and reported that improved data analysis was enabling more targeted interventions for vulnerable groups, including learners entitled to free school meals and those with additional learning needs. Officers indicated that a future scrutiny report focusing specifically on vulnerable groups and attendance could be considered through the Forward Work Programme. Welsh-medium and Early Years Provision • Questioned what proportion of three-year-olds in Powys accessed early years settings and whether accessibility issues affected opportunities for young children. • Raised concerns regarding access to Welsh-medium and early years provision, particularly in rural areas. • Asked whether data on attendance and access to early years settings could be collected and monitored in future. Officers acknowledged questions regarding access to Welsh-medium and early years provision and confirmed that the authority currently monitored the number of children attending Welsh-medium settings but did not routinely collect data showing attendance as a proportion of all eligible three-year-olds. They accepted that this information could be captured in future and could provide a useful measure of accessibility and uptake. Officers also advised that they maintained information on available Welsh-medium early years settings but noted that pupil numbers fluctuated throughout the year. It was recognised that expanding childcare provision and Welsh-medium childcare opportunities would increase the importance of monitoring accessibility and participation rates going forward. Accessibility, Equality and Poverty Reduction • Questioned how specific education performance measures contributed to the Council’s objective of tackling poverty, inequality and supporting the well-being of Powys residents. • Challenged whether the performance framework adequately demonstrated educational equality and equal opportunities across the county. • Sought assurance that measures reflected fairness, inclusion and accessibility for all learners across Powys. Officers recognised the committee’s concerns regarding the ability of current measures to demonstrate progress against objectives relating to poverty reduction, equality and well-being. They accepted that the high-level nature of the corporate performance framework could make it difficult to see direct links between service activity and longer-term outcomes. Officers therefore agreed that future reviews of the performance framework should consider how measures could better demonstrate impact, inclusion and equality of opportunity. The Portfolio Holder and officers reiterated that educational success should not be measured solely through attainment outcomes. They acknowledged the importance of developing well-rounded learners who were confident, emotionally healthy and able to contribute positively to their communities. Officers agreed that broader evidence of learner well-being and wider educational outcomes should be considered alongside traditional performance measures to provide a fuller understanding of the Council’s impact on children and young people across Powys.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed: · The Education Service had developed a stronger understanding of school performance through enhanced support and challenge processes, enabling earlier intervention and more targeted support. · A multi-agency approach to improving school attendance had been developed to address the complex barriers affecting learner attendance, particularly among vulnerable groups. · Attendance improvement work had continued across schools, with small gains reported across most learner cohorts. · Work to review and refine performance measures had been undertaken, recognising the need for measures that better demonstrated impact and outcomes. · The provision of an early autumn report on unverified educational outcomes was appropriate to provide Members with earlier oversight of performance. The Committee welcomed: · Officers had confirmed that the target for schools in Estyn statutory categories remained zero and that reporting errors would be corrected. · Progress had been made in reducing the number of schools in statutory categories, with one school having recently exited special measures and further schools expected to be reviewed. · Officers had acknowledged the importance of measuring educational outcomes and had committed to reviewing performance measures to better demonstrate impact. · School attendance in Powys continued to compare favourably against other Welsh local authorities, despite ongoing challenges. · Officers had recognised the value of wider wellbeing measures and agreed that existing wellbeing survey information could contribute to a more comprehensive picture of learner wellbeing. The Committee requested: · Further sickness absence data be provided, including analysis by service area and a breakdown between long-term and short-term sickness absence. · Future performance reporting include clearer evidence of the impact and outcomes arising from service activity, rather than focusing predominantly on actions delivered. · Scrutiny Committee Members be involved in future reviews of performance measures and targets. · Consideration be given to incorporating wider learner wellbeing indicators, including wellbeing survey data, to better demonstrate school culture, wellbeing and outcomes. · Information be collected and reported on the percentage of all three-year-olds accessing early years settings, to support understanding of accessibility and inclusion. · A report be brought forward through the work programme outlining the actions being taken to improve attendance amongst vulnerable learner groups. · Future reports provide clearer explanations regarding the timing and availability of performance measures throughout the reporting cycle. · Consideration be given to presenting educational outcomes data alongside Quarter 3 reporting where possible to provide a fuller picture of service performance. The Committee remained unconvinced about: · Whether the current performance framework enabled effective scrutiny of the impact and outcomes achieved through education service interventions. · Whether the measures presented adequately demonstrated progress in key areas such as Welsh-medium education, learner wellbeing and educational attainment. · Whether attendance improvement activity was resulting in sufficient measurable improvement in attendance rates, particularly amongst vulnerable learner groups. · Whether the limited number of performance measures reported during Quarter 3 provided a sufficiently comprehensive view of service performance. The Committee expressed concern about: · The lack of measurable evidence within the report demonstrating improvements in learner wellbeing, attendance and exclusion outcomes. · The disconnect between reported activity and the ability to assess its effectiveness and longer-term impact. · The potential for important educational outcomes to be overlooked when scrutiny was limited to a relatively small number of high-level performance indicators. · The absence of more detailed and nuanced wellbeing measures, which limited the Committee’s understanding of learner experiences and school culture. · The difficulty in scrutinising performance effectively where performance measures, targets and reporting cycles were not clearly explained or aligned to the outcomes Members wished to assess. Scrutiny made the following Recommendations: • To ensure that a report on attendance and vulnerable groups was developed and presented to the Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee through the Forward Work Programme by the next available committee cycle, setting out the specific actions being taken, the barriers identified, and measurable improvements sought for vulnerable learner groups. • To develop the collection and reporting of data on the proportion of three-year-olds accessing educational settings, including Welsh-medium provision, and to provide this information to Scrutiny within the next reporting cycle to enable assessment of accessibility, participation levels and any geographical barriers to access. • To review the education performance framework and report back to Scrutiny within the next annual review of performance measures on options for better evidencing the impact of educational interventions, including outcomes relating to attainment, wellbeing and Welsh-medium education, rather than focusing solely on activity and provision measures. • To review the presentation and timing of education performance information and report back to the Committee before the next Quarter 3 performance cycle on options for providing a more complete picture of educational outcomes, including whether unverified attainment and performance data could be presented earlier to support effective scrutiny. • To ensure that future performance reports contained clearer explanatory information on the relationship between performance measures, reporting cycles and data availability, enabling Members to understand which indicators were available in each quarter, the reasons for any gaps in reporting, and how individual measures contributed to the overall assessment of educational performance. • To ensure that Scrutiny Members were involved in the review of education performance targets and measures during the next cycle of performance framework revisions, so that targets remained meaningful, transparent and aligned with service priorities.
Background Cllr James Gibson-Watt, Portfolio Holder for a Learning Powys, introduced the report by explaining that it should be considered alongside the subsequent detailed school budget deep dive. He advised that the report provided an overview of the financial position across Powys schools and highlighted that there were still too many schools operating with deficit budgets. He stated that, although the revised school funding formula had been fully funded and was helping to stabilise the situation, schools were continuing to spend more collectively than the funding being provided through delegated school budgets. He explained that the position remained particularly challenging within the secondary sector. Whilst the primary sector generally remained in a healthier financial position, there were individual primary schools that continued to cause concern. He emphasised that the overall financial picture indicated that the current school system was not sustainable in the longer term without significant structural change. He noted that incremental changes had already been made, but the delegated school budget position continued to present a considerable challenge. Cllr David Thomas, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate Transformation, endorsed the comments made by Cllr James Gibson-Watt. He advised that the planned financial position within schools was improving, but at a very slow pace, which remained a cause for concern. He stated that the long-term objective was for schools to achieve balanced in-year budgets and that this was one of the reasons the Council had committed to fully funding the school funding formula. He placed the position in a wider Welsh context, explaining that schools across Wales had experienced a deterioration in their financial positions since the post-Covid period, when unusually high reserve levels had existed. He noted that the number of schools in deficit across Wales and the overall value of those deficits had increased significantly, meaning that Powys was not alone in facing these challenges. However, he acknowledged that Powys had its own structural issues and stated that the school transformation programme would need to progress at pace. He highlighted the work being undertaken by schools to address structural issues and ensure that resources were aligned to curriculum delivery, while also suggesting that, in the longer term, a broader discussion with Welsh Government would be required regarding the worsening national picture for school finances. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. School Funding Formula and Funding Arrangements • Queried the meaning of the statement that the Council was “fully funding the formula” and whether this necessarily meant that schools were receiving sufficient funding to deliver education effectively. • Questioned why so many schools continued to overspend against their budgets if the funding formula was being fully funded and whether the formula was providing adequate resources to meet schools’ needs. • Suggested that the Committee should receive information showing how key elements of the funding formula, particularly pupil-teacher ratios, had changed over time to better understand the impact on school budgets. • Sought clarification on how frequently the principles underpinning the school funding formula were reviewed and whether Scrutiny should have greater involvement when significant changes to the formula were being considered. • Raised concerns that Members had not previously received sufficient worked examples to understand the practical impact of proposed changes to the funding formula on individual school budgets. Cabinet Members and officers explained that the Council considered the funding formula to be fully funded because it funded the agreed principles and assumptions within the formula, including staffing, pay awards, inflationary pressures and other funding allocations. They advised that the funding formula was not simply a mechanism for dividing a fixed pot of money but was based on agreed principles which determined the level of funding required. Additional funding requirements were incorporated into the Council’s budget-setting process through the Finance Resource Model. Officers advised that the funding formula was reviewed regularly, although not necessarily in its entirety each year. They explained that significant changes were considered through the Schools Budget Forum, formula review groups and consultation processes with schools. Changes were then considered by Cabinet and Scrutiny before implementation. Officers acknowledged the importance of helping Members better understand the practical impact of formula changes and committed to continuing to improve transparency around the process. School Deficits and Financial Sustainability • Expressed concern regarding the continuing growth in school deficits and questioned what impact budget deficits were having on educational standards and outcomes. • Highlighted the increase in cumulative school deficits and questioned whether schools were being asked to achieve the impossible financially, particularly within the secondary sector. • Asked how many school closures were associated with the reinvestment savings referred to within the report and sought greater transparency regarding the financial assumptions underpinning transformation savings. • Requested information comparing education funding allocations with the actual education budget available to the authority. • Asked how contingency funding had been allocated across schools and whether comparable figures were available for previous years. • Questioned whether the projected cumulative school deficits represented a significant financial risk to the authority and whether this was reflected within the Council’s risk register. Cabinet Members recognised the seriousness of the financial position facing schools, particularly within the secondary sector. They stated that the growing level of deficits suggested that schools were not receiving sufficient resources to meet all of their demands and that the current structure of the school system was becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. They acknowledged that deficits had risen significantly over recent years and agreed that difficult decisions would be required to ensure long-term sustainability. Officers advised that contingency funding had been distributed on a per-pupil basis and confirmed that no equivalent contingency allocation had been made in the previous year. They undertook to provide further information regarding the relationship between transformation savings, school closures and the level of funding reinvested into the education system. In relation to financial risk, officers advised that school balances and deficits formed part of the Council’s wider strategic risk relating to the authority’s overall financial position. They explained that extensive work was underway with schools to improve forecast positions and reduce projected deficits over future years through recovery planning and enhanced monitoring. School Deficit Recovery and Governance • Asked what happened to school deficits when a school closed and sought clarification on how those deficits were managed financially and where the liability ultimately sat. • Queried how the Committee could assess whether the extensive support being provided to schools was having a meaningful impact on improving financial management and reducing deficits. • Questioned whether governing bodies and school leaders had the necessary skills, expertise and support to manage increasingly complex financial challenges effectively. • Raised concerns about the increasing number of schools entering deficit positions and highlighted the significant growth in the number of primary schools operating with cumulative deficits. • Questioned whether the Council was consistently applying the requirements of the Scheme for Financing Schools, particularly where schools had remained in deficit for periods longer than normally permitted. Officers explained that deficits and surpluses arising from school closures were retained on the Council’s balance sheet. They advised that deficits were not automatically written off but remained recognised within the Council’s accounts. Surpluses from closed schools could be used to offset deficit balances, although no additional funding from other schools was used for this purpose. Officers highlighted the range of support available to schools and governors, including professional learning, financial management support, curriculum and financial planning reviews, budget monitoring meetings and recovery plans. They advised that school improvement advisors and finance officers were working closely together to help schools manage their financial positions and improve sustainability. Where schools were not responding appropriately to financial concerns, the Council had used formal intervention powers, including warning notices and notices of concern. Officers acknowledged that the number of schools in deficit remained a concern. However, they reported that a number of schools were making progress in reducing deficits and implementing recovery plans. Significant effort was being directed towards those schools that continued to project in-year deficits or which had not demonstrated a clear route to recovery. In relation to compliance with the Scheme for Financing Schools, officers confirmed that the Council was operating within the requirements of the scheme. They acknowledged that some long-standing deficits, particularly within secondary schools, would take many years to recover and that flexibility was sometimes required where exceptional circumstances existed. They described these legacy deficits as a significant challenge for the authority. School Transformation and Estate Rationalisation • Challenged whether recent decisions relating to school provision and transformation were fully aligned with the stated need for structural change and rationalisation of the school estate. • Raised concerns about the sustainability of maintaining a large number of small schools in the context of falling pupil numbers and increasing financial pressures. • Questioned the extent to which savings generated through transformation proposals had been reinvested into education and sought clarity on the value of those reinvestments. Cabinet Members stated that the financial evidence increasingly demonstrated the need for structural reform of the school estate. They argued that maintaining a large number of small schools in the context of falling pupil numbers and increasing costs was not financially sustainable in the long term. They advised that transformation proposals had already generated savings which had been reinvested into education and that further structural changes were likely to be required in future. Cabinet Members emphasised that these decisions would be difficult and potentially unpopular within communities but believed that they were necessary to secure the long-term viability of education provision and maximise educational outcomes for learners. They acknowledged that rationalisation would need to extend beyond the primary sector and include consideration of wider school estate arrangements. Educational Standards and School Performance • Asked whether there was a relationship between school financial positions and educational outcomes, including whether schools maintaining larger curriculum offers through deficit spending were achieving better outcomes than schools taking more restrictive financial decisions. • Sought information on when a secondary school had last received an Estyn inspection outcome without entering a statutory category and whether there was evidence of improvement within the system. Officers advised that there was no clear statistical evidence demonstrating a direct relationship between a school’s financial position and educational outcomes. They explained that schools with significant deficits could achieve strong performance outcomes, whilst schools with healthy financial positions could still experience challenges regarding standards. Leadership, governance and effective decision-making were considered to have a greater influence on educational performance than financial position alone. Officers confirmed that schools had successfully exited Estyn categories and explained that support and challenge arrangements had strengthened the authority’s understanding of school performance. They emphasised that improvement activity focused on identifying concerns early and providing appropriate support before formal intervention became necessary. Welsh-medium Provision • Raised concerns that some dual-stream schools may have reduced or diluted their Welsh-medium provision in order to support their overall budget position and commented that evidence of this practice appeared to be increasing. Officers noted the importance of maintaining and expanding Welsh-medium provision and recognised that future planning would need to take account of both childcare and Welsh-medium education needs across Powys. They highlighted the need to continue monitoring provision and participation levels to inform future planning decisions. Information, Transparency and Scrutiny • Requested additional contextual information and trend data to enable Members to better understand the long-term impact of funding decisions and budget pressures on schools. • Emphasised the need for greater transparency around budget planning assumptions, formula changes, transformation savings and deficit recovery arrangements to support effective scrutiny. Officers acknowledged Members’ concerns regarding the complexity of school finance information and agreed that additional contextual information, trend data and explanatory material would assist effective scrutiny. They advised that they would continue to improve the presentation of financial information and sought to provide greater clarity regarding funding formula changes, financial assumptions and the interaction between education performance and financial management. Cabinet Members and officers welcomed the Committee’s ongoing scrutiny of school finances and emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear understanding of both educational outcomes and financial sustainability when considering future decisions regarding the education service.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed that: · The Council had fully funded the agreed principles of the school funding formula, including additional investment to meet identified funding pressures within the system. · Work undertaken through school support, challenge and monitoring arrangements had strengthened the authority’s understanding of school performance and improvement needs. · Schools, governing bodies and officers had continued to work closely together to address budget pressures and improve financial planning. The Committee welcomed: · Forecasts indicated that the overall schools financial position appeared to be stabilising, although significant challenges remained, particularly within the secondary sector. · Additional investment had been made through the formula and through the reinvestment of savings from transformation proposals into education funding. · Officers confirmed that attendance levels remained comparatively strong nationally, while acknowledging that further improvement was required for vulnerable learner groups. · Professional learning for governors and headteachers in financial management had been rolled out to strengthen financial oversight and decision-making. The Committee requested: · Information be provided on changes to pupil-teacher ratios and school funding formula assumptions over time, to enable members to understand the long-term impact on school budgets. · Information be provided on the relationship between school transformation proposals, school closures and reinvestment into education budgets. · Officers continue to work closely with schools and keep the Committee updated on the impact of financial recovery measures, governor support and professional learning. · Additional governor training be considered to improve understanding of school funding arrangements and delegated budgets. (Confidential Session) · Further information be brought forward on variations in curriculum offer and educational provision across schools to support consideration of equity across the county. · Continued reporting be provided on risks associated with school deficits, recovery plans and intervention arrangements. (Confidential Session) The Committee remained unconvinced about: · Whether the current financial position demonstrated that all schools had sufficient resources to deliver curriculum expectations sustainably, particularly within the secondary sector. · Whether the long-term structure of the school estate remained financially sustainable without significant future change. · Whether current performance and financial information fully demonstrated the impact of funding decisions on educational outcomes and opportunities for learners. · Whether some schools would be able to repay substantial historical deficits within existing recovery arrangements, particularly where deficits had accumulated over a long period. (Confidential Session) The Committee expressed concern about: · The continuing growth in school deficits over recent years, particularly within secondary schools, and the potential impact on educational provision. · The increasing number of schools operating in deficit and the financial pressures facing governing bodies in setting balanced budgets. · The risk that financial pressures could eventually affect both educational standards and learner opportunities if structural issues within the school system were not addressed. · The scale of projected cumulative deficits, the number of schools operating under spending restrictions, and the risks posed by a small number of schools with significant and continuing financial challenges. (Confidential Session) · The possibility that continued financial pressures could result in schools being unable to sustain improvement activity whilst simultaneously addressing historic deficit positions. (Confidential Session). The Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee did not agree any formal recommendations to Cabinet arising from the Schools Outturn Position and Budget Plans report or the Confidential School Budget Deep Dive session.
The Monitoring Officer determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. Their view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in their view outweighed the public interest in disclosing this information. Members were asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Proposed by Cllr Gareth E Jones and seconded by Cllr Claire Hall. Committee unanimously agreed.
Observations made and included within the paper to Portfolio Holder, see item 10.
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.