Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 13th December 2022 as an accurate reflection of the meeting.
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained in the Central South Consortium’s report.
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that having scrutinised the contents of the report, plus the responses to the supplementary questions contained within Appendix A, Members wished to consider establishing a task and finish group, and a report by the Service Director Democratic Services, would be presented to the next meeting for Members to consider.
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that having scrutinised the contents of the report, Members wished to add this to the FWP, as an annual report.
In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, the following declarations were made pertaining to the agenda: Agenda Item 4 – The work of the Central South Consortium (CSC) in the region and Rhondda Cynon Taf Local Authority 2021 – 2022 Ø County Borough Councillor S Evans – Personal – ‘My son attends a school that is named in the report’ Ø County Borough Councillor S Evans – Personal - ‘I work for a HE institution’ Ø County Borough Councillor J Elliott – Personal – ‘I am a Members of the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE)’ Ø Mr L Patterson, Co-opted Member – Personal – ‘I am on the Management Committee of the Ty Gwyn Education Centre’ Ø Ms R Lydon, Co-opted Member – Personal – ‘I am Vice Chair of the Governors at Park Lane Special School, also both my sons attend the school’ Agenda Item 5 – School Modernisation – Update on Band B Sustainable Communities for Learning Programme Ø County Borough Councillor C Lisles – Personal – ‘I am the Chair of Our Children First Action Group’ Ø County Borough Councillor J Brencher – Personal – ‘I am Vice-Chair of the LEA Governors’ Ø County Borough Councillor S Evans – Personal – ‘My son attends a school that is named in the report’ Ø Mr M Veale, Co-opted Member – Personal – ‘My daughter attends the school specifically mentioned in the report’ Agenda Item 6 - Universal Primary Free School Meals (UPFSM) Ø County Borough Councillor S Evans – Personal – ‘My son is currently in year 5 and will benefit in the last 2 terms’ Ø County Borough Councillor J Brencher - Personal - ‘My grandson is benefiting’
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 13th December 2022 as an accurate reflection of the meeting.
It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 13th December 2022 as an accurate reflection of the meeting.
Members were informed that following circulation of the open consultations being run by Welsh Government (WG) on the 19th January, there were two consultations, which Members, may be interested in completing. Members were also informed that there were no new relevant WG consultations, at this time.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained in the Central South Consortium’s report.
The Director of Education and Inclusion Services began by welcoming Central South Consortium (CSC) colleagues who would provide an overview of the report. The Principal Improvement Partner for RCT Primary Schools then continued with colleagues to provide some key headlines from the report, which would provide appropriate context, before handing over to other CSC colleagues who took Members through the report before welcoming Members questions and observations. A Member noticed that sometimes Improvement Partner’s (IP’s) at schools, changed frequently and asked if this was a good thing or detrimental for schools. The Assistant Director for Partnerships and Improvement explained that the ideal scenario would be a 3-year model however with sickness rates and a number of staff having moved on to other positions, there had been a high turnover of staff, and some schools had seen a change in IP. Wherever possible a 3-way handover was provided e.g., the new IP, the old IP and headteacher, with the opportunity to work together. Extensive notes/information, on the involvement and engagement with schools, were kept, whilst also ensuring that the Principal Improvement Partner (PIP) had a solid overview of those schools, that they oversee the work of, to ensure that there was that consistency and continuity. The Member asked for clarification around safeguarding training for governors, as felt it was difficult to access. The Director of Education & Inclusion Services explained that the local authority provided safeguarding training, for key members of staff on the governing body, to undertake level 3 training. There were pressures around training capacity, but a number of mop-up sessions had been delivered since August, with a further chase up of governors to offer additional mop-up training sessions. Some governors expressed concerns with timescales and accessibility, as it was a whole day course, at level 3, so was difficult with people’s work commitments. A Member noted that she did not see any mention of community focused schools within the report and asked if this was something to be building on and increasing the focus on, over the next few years or so. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services acknowledged the appointment of a local authority lead for this dimension so as to build on family engagement work, and a pilot is being undertaken with the Treorchy cluster at the moment, with the intention to roll that out further to other clusters in RCT. So, this was very high on the agenda, whilst working in partnership with colleagues in CSC. The Principal Improvement Partner for RCT Primary Schools explained it was for CSC to see the impact of that and then reflect that in subsequent reports, moving forward as that work develops. The Assistant Director for Partnerships and Improvement explained they had just been introduced to the guidance by the Lead for Wellbeing and Vulnerable Groups which had been disseminated across the consortium and all would be receiving training around that. He felt it may be worth the Lead for Wellbeing and Vulnerable Groups coming along to a future scrutiny meeting to present some of that work, around supporting community schools. A Member noted, in relation to transition, that she did not see any reference to wider projects already existing, that CSC engaged with. The Principal Improvement Partner for RCT Primary Schools explained that this ran parallel with the cluster work and IPs were beginning to realise there was a lot of power in sharing good practice within clusters, which aids transition because of the uniformity of approach and practice, with the non-negotiables included in a cluster. There were two examples reflected in the report, but IPs were definitely developing cluster approaches by identifying good practice and beginning to share that and facilitate the discussions across clusters inclusive of transition. In respect of SIG’s, a Member asked what support mechanisms were in place for small schools, where engagement was often more difficult, than larger schools. The Head of Curriculum and Qualifications noted in terms of SIGs that it was a collaboration grant that schools received and could prioritise how they collaborated. In terms of the ability to release staff to engage, what was undertaken during the pandemic was to take the professional learning opportunities online, with asynchronous (on demand) and synchronous (live) versions of that training available to colleagues. There were plenty of opportunities but recognised the situation for smaller schools. The aim was to support all schools to collaborate as best they could within the opportunities available. A Member, in respect of Post-16 Education, noted there was a network of provision where students supported younger ones and wondered, if sixth formers were able to support those schools without sixth forms, to offer support in some of the traditional things e.g., reading partnership, a joint project, etc. The Head of Curriculum and Qualifications advised that the sixth-form leaders network referred to in the report wasa network of teachers, rather than a network of students, but commented that the Member made an interesting point, and he could take this suggestion to the network for consideration by schools and practitioners. It would be a school activity, and not necessarily something that CSC would lead, but there were many benefits in students leading and supporting the learning of other students. A Member referred to the professional pathway and asked if it was policy to allow HLTAs to deliver nurture provision, or a fully experienced and qualified classroom teacher, noting that post-Covid challenging behaviour and lack of engagement, had increased. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services advised that the local authority provided enhanced training for a range of professionals including HLTA’s (e.g., training around ELSA interventions, nurture training and trauma informed practice), so there was a whole raft of high-quality training that could be provided to HLTAs as well as the central offer from CSC. She continued that there wasn’t a policy per se, but members of staff put forward to deliver wellbeing interventions, were often very emotionally intelligent, highly skilled in many ways and no HLTA should be working in isolation, but under the direction and guidance of a qualified teacher. This is an important consideration as sometimes safeguarding issues emerged from this work, so supervision is key. There wasn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to opening new schools, and proposals would depend on the circumstances and the individuals concerned and support systems that were in place. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services advised she would make enquiries with the psychology service, if there were central requirements as part of an ELSA’s role as the service area does provide supervision for these post holders. A Member noted there was a lot of information that talked about next steps, and bullet points would be included in the business plan for 2022-23. He presumed that CSC would be reporting back to the committee what had been done against those bullet points and whether this would be turned into an action plan to show, whether those areas that needed development, and had indeed been developed. The Deputy Managing Director explained that an annual report was provided against the progress of the business plan, which would be reported to the joint committee and other governance groups and would be a publicly available report on RCT’s website, in about May time, so would have progress against RCT priorities, and the progress against the whole of the business plan. The Member queried whether this meant this wouldn’t come back to the committee for consideration. The Deputy Managing Director confirmed, as part of the reporting cycles to this committee, CSC provided an annual report on the previous academic year, which was what was presented to Members tonight, whilst the Cabinet Member for Education, Youth Participation & Welsh Language, through the governance system, would have access and be able to scrutinise that report, at the joint committee. The Deputy Managing Director advised that as part of the legal agreement with local authorities, the annual report was presented in the spring term. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services explained that in terms of governance, there were lead Directors across the region that were involved in the support and challenge around different aspects of the delivery plan and had opportunities to ask questions on a regular basis. In terms of the scrutiny process, the lead Director attended the Joint Education Committee in CSC where more formal reports were scrutinised by political representatives from each local authority, but if there were emerging issues that Members wanted to drill a bit deeper on, there could be a shift in emphasis in the report that came back. The Service Director, Democratic Services and Communications acknowledged that the Deputy Managing Director and Director of Education and Inclusion Service had already covered the cycle of reporting but wanted to emphasise what had been said in terms of CSC governance arrangements and advised Members accordingly. The challenge around the performance, was factored into the standard work programme and standard items, brought before Members, and was very much the intention of this evening’s session which Members had fed back into, in the previous Council, in terms of making the opportunity as open and as robust as possible, which was now seen in the amount of detail and content brought forward by CSC, improving year on year in terms of supporting the evening’s meeting. The Member acknowledged the loss of free school meal data as a useful metric, and asked what representations were being made, for the replacement of this. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services acknowledged that it was a key measure for all local authorities but particularly for RCT given our socio-economic context, in order to ensure the gap between those eligible and those who were not, was closed and that all learners made good progress. It was something that has been raised in all Wales-fora, and she was sure it was something that WG were proactively looking at, given the blurred parameters now, with the universal roll out of free school meals. The Member acknowledging the local authority contribution, asked the Director of Education and Inclusion Services if she was satisfied, with the services she received from the CSC, and if it was value for money. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services explained that in terms of the services, there was an open and honest relationship with partners in CSC, and part of that ongoing dialogue was around the performance of schools and currently, with the Estyn inspection outcomes, this was a pretty positive position. There were good systems and processes to quickly identify schools causing concern and to ensure that bespoke support was put in place swiftly. Schools that did have enhanced support, had regular progress meetings and when progress was made, schools came out of that enhanced support category. She continued that at a time when resources were tight, the question constantly had to be asked if the services were value for money, which applied to all service areas across the council including the education directorate and commissioned services as well, so these were regular conversations. In terms of performance, the local authority was currently in a pretty positive place, and there was reliance on IPs to assist with the local authority’s improvement journey. The Directorate has really high expectations, and regular honest conversations take place in an attempt to get the services required for our schools. The Deputy Managing Director reiterated what the Director of Education and Inclusion Services had said with regards to the close working relationship with RCT and having honest conversations on a regular basis, with those expectations high within CSC as well. She continued that the local authority core contributions provided by RCT fund the IPs and PIPs, but CSC also provide additional value through the access to grant funding from WG to provide the curriculum and professional learning support as well. The Chair stated in terms of comparative data, e.g., RCT in comparison to the other local authorities she would have liked to see this more consistently throughout the report, so would be keen to see this is future reports. A Member referred to the post-16 leaders’ network and talk around career aspirations for post 16 learners and enquired how much engagement there was with Higher Education (HE) institutions, either locally or outside of Wales. The Head of Curriculum and Qualifications explained this was a key ongoing agenda item that came into the post-16 leaders’ network. HE partners were often invited to join certain sessions, depending on the agenda, to raise broader awareness with schools sharing their approaches to their transition arrangements. This provided an opportunity to share the support and guidance for post-16 learners of in conjunction with the HE sector. The network meetings were held online so school practitioners could join as appropriate. There was also resources and guidance for sixth form practitioners, to be able to be accessed by the online community. The Member referred to page 42 and explained there seemed to be an imbalance in terms of the NQT’s programme, around the primary versus secondary and asked if this was because there weren’t as many NQT’s in the primary sector. The Head of Curriculum and Qualifications explained that there were national targets in terms of the numbers of entrants into initial teacher education, which fed through into NQT’s in terms of that year. CSC’s role was then to support those individual NQT’s across the system but in terms of specific primary and secondary numbers accessing professional learning opportunities, this would be dependent on the number of NQT’s in the system. The Member referred to page 43, in respect of developing leadership in RCT and the new and acting head teacher development programme and asked what the breakdown was of Welsh medium and English medium, as there was a significant issue, in Welsh medium, in recruiting head teachers and senior leaders and nurturing those teachers through the system. The Assistant Director for Partnerships and Improvement explained that CSC were party to a number of initiatives and opportunities to start to engage more Welsh medium leaders. CSC had a collaboration of five secondary Welsh medium schools, that worked together to develop the capacity of leadership within their schools and then to promote leadership. The Assistant Director for Partnerships and Improvement explained that he would come back with the actual figures. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services shared the Member’s concern and explained in addition to the offer from CSC, the local authority also ran a leadership programme, investing in high potential middle and senior leaders, who could go on to become headteachers but may not have the confidence. There had been positive successes, with really good Welsh medium representation, and people who had the potential to move on to leadership positions, were encouraged to be nominated. The Member referred to school governance on page 55 and asked how governors were supported to take up more training, and how well was the governor toolkit, mentioned on page 45, being promoted, as she had not come across it. The Principal Improvement Partner for RCT Primary Schools explained the suite of governors training should complement what the local authority provided as well, because they ran concurrently. CSC were looking to widen the scope of that training so that it captured more appropriate areas of the curriculum and the context that governors needed to be aware of e.g., ALN and Curriculum for Wales (CfW). So, this was something to take back as to whether the training was sufficiently broad and if there was enough of it for governors to access, and if the mode and the means by which they access the training, was appropriate to their context. He continued that in terms of the governor toolkit, all IPs and staff had received training about its contents and usefulness, but the caveat was how widely distributed was that toolkit. There were some case study examples that showed strong governance improvements in terms of their strategic role, through the use of the toolkit, but he felt perhaps CSC needed to look at how widely distributed it was, and then maybe widen the messaging around that. The Member noted the podcasts listed on page 68 and asked whether the committee could access some of those, that would be of interest to the committee in relation to the work of the CSC. The Member referred to regional SIG’s, referred to on page 74, and asked what the statistic was around uptake and commitment. The Head of Curriculum and Qualifications explained that membership of a SIG was optional. Some SIGs functioned very effectively compared to others, and there were some SIGs that had, what was affectionately called SIGlets, and they themselves seemed to be more effective than the full SIG itself. The Central South Wales Challenge (CSWC) model was reviewed on an annual basis with overwhelming feedback to retain SIG working, however it was certainly not mandated by CSC. In terms of providing collaboration funding to schools, the process had been streamlined to allow schools to prioritise. The Chair felt future CSC reports should have a harder metric on the uptake or frequency of SIGs, to understand in greater detail. The Member referred to page 71 and asked for an explanation of the CSC culture and what that meant in the context of leadership and safeguarding. The Principal Improvement Partner for RCT Primary Schools explained that it emphasised the gravitas and the significance of how seriously CSC took their safeguarding practices and processes and making sure that they were communicated across the organisation and implemented consistently e.g., we know who the safeguard leads are, we know what the process is in a school, if we see a safeguarding concern. The Member felt there was a training awareness piece around the use of HWB and the friendliness and accessibility of that platform. She understood there was a delegated responsibility to IT leads in schools, to create these accounts, but there was confusion around that from the schools themselves, so something to think about to ensure there was consistency. The Director of Education explained that if additional training was needed, the Head of Service Transformation & Data’s team provided training on HWB, recognising it was easier for some than others to access information digitally. There have been some complexities, with the signing in and so on, so the team were there to support. In terms of schools, it was suggested that perhaps some clarification was needed for headteachers to ensure that the message was consistent around the support that was required for governors to access HWB Following consideration, it was RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained in the Central South Consortium’s report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that having scrutinised the contents of the report, plus the responses to the supplementary questions contained within Appendix A, Members wished to consider establishing a task and finish group, and a report by the Service Director Democratic Services, would be presented to the next meeting for Members to consider.
The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation presented the report to Members which provided an update on the Council’s Band B projects being delivered via the Welsh Government’s Sustainable Communities for Learning programme, previously known as the 21st Century Schools and Colleges Programme. Members were advised that the last update presented to Scrutiny was in December 2021, and since that report, progress on a number of projects had been significant, with the current position of the existing Band B programme highlighted at paragraph 5.1. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation then drew Members’ attention to paragraph 5.2, advising that development work continued to progress on the remaining key projects within the programme, albeit at a slower pace than originally anticipated for some, with a number of the projects experiencing delays as a result of the financial volatility being felt world-wide. All projects remained on the Band B programme, however at this juncture, for some there was no timeframe available for delivery. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation referred Members to the responses to the supplementary questions, contained within Appendix A and upon conclusion, welcomed Members questions and observations. A Member acknowledged the report was very helpful, and as a governor going through this process for the first time asked if there were any lessons that could be shared from previous projects e.g., formal documentation. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation acknowledged there was some detail in the 2020 report, but it was still early days for the Rhondda proposals. There was some learning in respect of building outcomes, and there were lessons learned on every project, which impacted projects coming forward, but it would be good for those who had not been involved in a transformational programme, to learn from some of the developments completed. The Member made a good point and the Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation was certain that some learning, could be shared, going forward. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation highlighted a previous question and answer session, with practitioners, and suggested something similar could be organised, in terms of teaching and learning, and the buildings. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services explained that Estyn had undertaken a thematic review of all through schools, published about a year ago, which could be circulated to Members. In addition, there was an all-Wales group, which looked specifically at all through schools as well, so best practice was shared. Best practice was also shared amongst headteachers, in terms of shared experiences, strengths, weaknesses and different approaches, etc., which happened not just within the authority, but also across authorities. A Member noted the question on page 114 which said, ‘what are schools doing to address and prepare for the widespread issue of delayed language development on infants suffering from acute social isolation associated with the Covid-19 lockdowns’ and asked if a bit more information could be provided, as this was absolutely vital to future learning in many other areas. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services acknowledged the pilot happening across a selection of registered education providers and primary schools, where there was training being undertaken, in order to support professional learning of staff on the chalk face. There were other developments as well, around language acquisition, with screening being undertaken during the first few years in school. Access and Inclusion Services provide support for schools who routinely screen learners using Speech Link and Language Link assessment tools and have concerns about the development of learners who do not progress despite access to intervention. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services explained she would ask the Head of Inclusion Servicesto provide a bit more information on strategic approaches and interventions, which could be circulated to Members so they could see what that interventions were taking place on the ground, and noted it was an absolute priority in this post pandemic phase. A Member referred to the Donaldson Report – Successful Futures, in relation to all through schools being in an advantageous position, and the answer at 19. in Appendix A and asked if the policy dovetailed with RCT's commitment to deliver equity and excellence in education and its duties under the Equality Act 2010 to advance equality of opportunity if certain parts of the county were denied access to the all through school model. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services acknowledged this was quite a difficult question to answer because each context was unique, and she would not want all of the local authority’s schools to be the same as they needed to reflect the needs of the community. In terms of the mission, it was to achieve equity and excellence in education, but that was for all settings, irrespective of its type or designation. From an equality and equity perspective, she would want all children to be treated equally, and have access to high quality teaching and learning, in whichever setting they were in. In respect of the policy, if a new school was to open, it wouldn’t automatically be assumed that it was going to be an all through school, it would have to fit the needs of the community and the particular number of schools that were being reviewed at a certain point in time and an analysis of any presenting issues. In addition, each of the all-through schools, are very different in terms of the structures, staffing, their whole curriculum offer and provision, etc. A Member stated that schools in the authority would probably come under Band B, at some point or maybe Band C, and some had very big physical challenges, and asked for clarification around this. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation explained that Welsh Government would to be taking away the bandings, so there was not going to be a Band C, but a Band B continuation, of the sustainable school’s programme, but acknowledged there were some real challenges, especially with the geographical locations of schools. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation noted an example, such as in Cymmer Primary School, where it had been possible to transform that existing school, into a fantastic 21st century environment, although this was not possible at all schools, so the local authority would have to come up with some really inventive solutions moving forward. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services felt it was not just about the schools included in Band A, B or C, because significant improvements could be delivered in other schools, as part of the capital programme, and the local authority could act swiftly to support schools where it was thought the learning environment was not good enough for children and required improvement. So, it was not always about the big projects, but about the package of support around a school, where there were concerns. Following consideration, it was RESOLVED to acknowledge, that having scrutinised the contents of the report, plus the responses to the supplementary questions contained within Appendix A, Members wished to consider establishing a task and finish group, and a report by the Service Director Democratic Services, would be presented to the next meeting for Members to consider.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that having scrutinised the contents of the report, Members wished to add this to the FWP, as an annual report.
The Business Manager – Catering presented the report to Members, which provided Members with an update on the roll-out of Universal Primary Free School Meals (UPFSM) in Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) whilst considering how Welsh Government (WG) funding has been utilised to support this initiative. The Business Manager – Catering continued that she would pick out some of the salient parts of the report, because it is quite lengthy. Paragraph 3.1 to 3.5 provided the context and background to the UPFSM policy and paragraphs 3.7 to 3.9 provided information on the funding from WG to facilitate the roll out. Members were informed that paragraph 3.11 highlighted that eligible nursery pupils were those who attended local authority nursery supervision on a full-time basis, in accordance with the council’s admissions policy and this has caused confusion for some parents. Paragraph 4.2, table 2 summarised the average percentage uptake of reception pupils for the autumn term. Paragraph 4.4 provided information on the additional catering staff costs and paragraphs 4.5 – 4.9 informed Members of the operational processes that were needed to be implemented to deliver the policy. Paragraph 4.10 detailed the challenges faced by the Council due to the roll out of UPFSM. Paragraph 4.11 highlighted the risks associated with reduced applications for Free School Meals as UPFSM is rolled out, and the council’s mitigation measures. The Business Manager – Catering concluded her presentation by noting the council’s next steps, which were set out in paragraph 4.12, and finished by welcoming Members questions and observations. A Member asked for clarification around the 101 schools mentioned in the document, compared to 115 schools mentioned in the previous report. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation confirmed that the 115 schools, included secondary schools/all-through schools, hence the difference in numbers. A Member asked for further details of special dietary requirements, for those such as asylum seekers or who had specific religious beliefs, e.g., Jewish or Muslims, and did not eat meat and asked if anything had been catered for in terms of implementation of the roll out. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation confirmed that all religions were catered for and when a special request was received, it would be looked at and those children would be supported with that specific meal. The Member was concerned that if this was not part of the implementation, some schools may not be aware, and this could cause confusion. The Service Director 21st Century Schools and Transformation confirmed that all schools bought into the council’s catering service, which was universally rolled out, so all schools would automatically have that right, across the board. A Member asked if there was any correlation between attainment and free school meals since the roll-out. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services explained that an analysis was not done at that level, but what the Service had was access to data around engagement in certain provisions, e.g., breakfast club and eFSM eligibility. Whilst there was data sets on all sorts of things, any correlation between whether outcomes were improved as a result of access to a free school meal entitlement is not undertaken. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services continued that the Service tried hard to encourage families to take up eligibility. A Member referred to the last line of paragraph 4.4 noting the word ‘assumed’ and asked when the council would have assurance that it ‘would’ be covered, by the WG grant. The Business Manager – Catering explained that the only information was received on an all-Wales basis, and not at specific local authority level, although it was expected. She also confirmed that regular progress meetings were held with WG, on the roll out and it was being highlighted that the unit cost needed to be reviewed, not just from RCT, but by other local authorities. The Member referred to the last line of paragraph 4.5 and asked if there was a timeline for completion of the remaining 66 schools. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation confirmed that a project plan could be provided. The Member enquired if local produce, in the interest of sustainability, could be facilitated in the future. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation explained that the Service worked with procurement colleagues, and this was really high on the agenda with the Council carbon management programme. Local food supplies are procured, where the Service could, but there was more work to be done. The Member referred to the last paragraph of 4.9 and asked if there was a training need around catering staff, in respect of the specialist nutritional element requirements. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation confirmed that all staff were trained on allergens, but for the specialist nutritional element, that support was bought in from an external dietician. The Member finished by asking if the local authority could work in conjunction with the likes of Coleg Y Cymoedd, etc., in terms of training and development, in terms of staffing. The Business Manager – Catering explained in terms of staffing that they had been working closely with HR colleagues and there was online recruitment going out via social media platforms and they would be taking part in a recruitment fayre, in March, with catering staff piloting walk-in interviews. The Service Director 21st Century Schools and Transformation explained it would be a great idea, to work with the college, to get that sustainability and chain of young people coming into the industry. Following consideration, it was RESOLVED to acknowledge, that having scrutinised the contents of the report, Members wished to add this to the FWP, as an annual report.
The Chair thanked Officers for their reports and noted that this had been a very productive meeting again and she was really grateful for Members contributions, and the level of questions asked. The Chair confirmed that the next meeting would take place on Thursday 2nd March, and there was a set of robust actions to come to the next meeting, in the form of a report for the task and finish group, in respect of Band B schools and learning from that, and the 21st Century schools’ programme.
None.
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.