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 22nd January 2024 as an accurate reflection of the meeting subject to the following amendments:- In relation to the Declaration of Interest, it should read ‘County Borough Councillor J Brencher - Personal Interest in agenda item 5 & 6 - I formerly taught at Pontypridd High School’, not Hawthorn High School. In relation to the Declaration of Interest, it should read ‘County Borough Councillor Jayne Smith - Personal interest in item 7 - I am a Governor at Llyn Y Forwyn’, not Forwen.
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, making a number of recommendations and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, noting the impact of the introduction of UPFSM’s and next steps, and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained in the report.
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, making a number of requests for information to be included in future reports, and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
Apologies of absence were received from County Borough Councillors Preedy and Smith and the Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation, Andrea Richards.
In accordance with the code of conduct, the following declarations were made: Ø Mr M Veale, Co-opted Member – Personal Interest item 4 & 6 – ‘I am Governor at Hawthorn Highschool and of the temporary Governing Body for Ysgol Afon Wen. I am also a Governor of Coleg Gwent’ Ø County Borough Councillor S Hickman – Personal Interest item 4 & 5 – ‘My daughter’s school was named in the report and my daughter is set to benefit from Universal Free School Meals’ Ø County Borough Councillor C Lisles – Personal Interest item 4 & 6 – ‘I am chair of governors Hawthorn Primary and Governor of Hawthorn Highschool which will form Ysgol Afon Wen’ Ø County Borough Councillor M Maohoub – Personal Interest item 4 & 6 – ‘I am a governor of Aberdare Community School’ Ø County Borough Councillor S Evans – Personal Interest item 4, 5 & 6 – ‘My son’s school is named in item 4 and item 6 and my other son is set to benefit from Universal Free School Meals, from the summer term’ Ø County Borough Councillor J Brencher – Personal Interest item 4 – ‘My grandson attends Coedylan Primary School’
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 22nd January 2024 as an accurate reflection of the meeting subject to the following amendments:- In relation to the Declaration of Interest, it should read ‘County Borough Councillor J Brencher - Personal Interest in agenda item 5 & 6 - I formerly taught at Pontypridd High School’, not Hawthorn High School. In relation to the Declaration of Interest, it should read ‘County Borough Councillor Jayne Smith - Personal interest in item 7 - I am a Governor at Llyn Y Forwyn’, not Forwen.
It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 22nd January 2024 as an accurate reflection of the meeting subject to the following amendments:- In relation to the Declaration of Interest, it should read ‘County Borough Councillor J Brencher - Personal Interest in agenda item 5 & 6 - I formerly taught at Pontypridd High School’, not Hawthorn High School. In relation to the Declaration of Interest, it should read ‘County Borough Councillor Jayne Smith - Personal interest in item 7 - I am a Governor at Llyn Y Forwyn’, not Forwen.
The Senior Democratic and Scrutiny Officer advised Members of the published consultations and reminded Members that if they had any queries, they could contact the Scrutiny Team.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, making a number of recommendations and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
The Headteacher, Ferndale Community School, shared with Members the work of CSC and the impact it had within his school. The Chair thanked the Headteacher, Ferndale Community School for his honest ‘warts and all’ presentation and acknowledged it was a really good summary of the school and where the school was on that journey. The Chair asked how much had been driven by the Headteacher and the SLT in school, and how much of it had been driven by the CSC. The Headteacher advised that the CSC model of the enhanced support was very much based around the school improvement priorities, so everyone was genuinely working in partnership. He continued that the school had benefitted significantly from the expertise within CSC, and the targeted support from a professional learning point of view. A Member acknowledged that CSC had been very supportive, but asked if there was a sense of offering strategies, or in-depth analysis, of the particular issues. The Headteacher acknowledged it was imperative that the school constantly analysed data. From a behaviour point of view, it was the Local Authority (LA) where the behaviour expertise came from, but a big focus had been learning and teaching, and the relationship between that and behaviour, and that is where a lot of the CSC expertise came from. The Headteacher highlighted the importance of the step-4 provision (LA funded initiative). The Principal Improvement Partner for RCT Primary and All-Age Schools in CSC then took Members through a PowerPoint presentation, following which Members asked a number of questions. A Member acknowledged that the paper made a lot of play in terms of strengths included and then areas to develop, and wanted to know how this would be done e.g., what are we going to do, by when, how will we know when we’ve got there, what the success look like, etc. The Member also asked what was meant by ‘evaluate outcome of professional learning’ and how this would be evaluated. The Member referred to page 18 of the report, the ‘areas to develop’ section and sought clarification around how it would be known if this was done. The Member noted the academic report made a call for better evaluation and asked how Members would know they were getting value for money for that, in terms of scrutiny, and what external evaluation of the £1m RCT gave to CSC had been undertaken so far and in the future. The Managing Director, CSC provided Members with a comprehensive response on the self-evaluation process noting alongside this, there had been an external review of the middle tier undertaken 4 years ago, and it was about looking at the external evaluation and evidence available in the system, without commissioning something else to ensure being as streamlined as possible. Challenge came from Directors, the LA and Estyn visits, so there was significant challenge around value for money, the impact of the support, and at an individual level, in terms of the programmes and the projects that ran, with an impact assessment on all of those. The Member recognised that there was a lot of other bits of documentation which had business plans, KPIs, etc., and recommended that when the report came back at the end of the academic year 2023/24, the wish list of things that needed to be done, would have better measures on whether they’d been done or not and if not, why not and a RAG rating of progression. The Managing Director, CSC confirmed these formed the business plan and there would be more information on those in the annual academic report and the annual financial reports, which would link into the progress made. The Chair agreed it was about ensuring that the Committee had sight of the business plan for future reviews, acknowledging the separate body that would look at that, in order to be able to understand the associated KPIs, the RAG rating, the timescales, etc, and around the how and when. A Member sought clarification around point 2.1, ‘further developing professional relationships with elected members / officers in RCT’ and asked what was felt to be deficient and how it was planned to develop those relationships further. Additionally, mention was made of ‘rationalisation of reporting’, and the Member asked if this was referring to the myriad of statistics that schools were required to provide. The Member asked, in relation to Improvement Partners (IPs), if they were starting to remain in post and attached to schools for longer, along the lines of the 3-year rolling programme. The Member concluded by asking, in terms of meeting the needs of professionals for cross-phase knowledge, what changes CSC would be making to the training offer over the future years. The Managing Director CSC advised that in relation to ‘further developing professional relationships’, this was linked to the Joint Committee, to ensure that those relationships between CSC staff and officers across all of the LAs were as appropriate as they could be. In terms of the ‘rationalisation of reporting’ this was primarily about CSC’s reporting to other people, whether to LAs or Welsh Government (WG), with a piece of work underway looking at exactly what the statutory reporting requirements were for schools, LAs and CSC. The Managing Director, CSC provided a detailed summary in respect of the question around IP stability with the Assistant Director for Partnerships, and Improvement, CSC added, that the only significant change across the board for the 5 LAs was around a secondary IP deployment, due to a long-term member of staff finally retiring. The Managing Director CSC and the Assistant Director for Curriculum and Professional Learning, CSC then provided Members with a detailed response on cross-phase and the all-through model, noting that an awful lot of work had been done with staff with lots of the support and bespoke support and professional learning, taking place, before highlighting a number of networks. A Member sought clarification around the ‘whole school approach to oracy and reading’, noting she could not see appendix 2, and around any additional information in respect of the bespoke support for PSE. The Assistant Director for Curriculum and Professional Learning, CSC provided Members with an outline of the CSC offer including details around Voice 21, the work around vocabulary, reading and phonics. In regard to PSE, under the new curriculum, this came under Health & Wellbeing, and the Assistant Director for Curriculum and Professional Learning, CSC would be happy to come back with some more information or presentation around any other areas of the curriculum. The Principal Improvement Partner for RCT Primary and All-Age Schools, CSC added that the focus for 2023/24 for RCT, was focusing on Health & Wellbeing, looking specifically at vaping and healthy life choices. The Member then asked if she could dig down a little deeper in terms of advice on the types of reading e.g., a reading analysis and in terms of PSE what sort of professional support and materials was being offered to these specialists within schools, to deliver the PSE. The Assistant Director for Curriculum and Professional Learning, CSC explained that as far as reading tests went, there were no national levels anymore. There are the online personalised assessments for reading that can be used for planning a learner’s next steps. There is no national assessment criteria in the new curriculum, only at GCSE level. However individual schools should be analysing their assessment information, and this can be used for reporting to the governing bodies and other stakeholders. With regards to PSE, this now sits withing the Health and Well-being area of learning, and there were professional learning programmes, advice and guidance documents, network meetings and drop-in sessions available from CSC. She noted that this time last year there were lots of concerns and queries around Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE), but there weren’t so many coming through from schools currently. A Member asked, in regard to school governor training, whether this could be face-to-face going forward. In addition, the Member, referring to the Alps analysis on page 22, 4.2 asked, whether there was going to be a focus on all the areas where we aren’t achieving what we should be and how we are going to move that forward. The Chair noted she had attended CSC training today, and said there was good engagement from Governors afterwards, and what was good about the online model for those that worked full-time, was fitting it into the working day and being able to access it from a desk but recommended perhaps a hybrid approach was needed. The Assistant Director for Curriculum and Professional Learning, CSC took on board the Member’s comments and provided a summary around the governor training, but noted the evaluations were very strong and they had continued with online training this term because attendance was lower last term when some face-to-face sessions were held. At the moment for most governors, the desire was to keep them online because of the challenges of travelling and fitting in around work and family commitments, acknowledging that the programme would be evaluated, and the feedback taken onboard. The Managing Director, CSC confirmed that the Alps data in the report, was from RCT schools but there were some gaps in the data that was submitted, although it was confirmed with ALPs that this was a statistically balanced sample. She then continued around the variations of outcomes and the reasons around non-attendance, which was an issue nationally. The Managing Director, CSC then provided the Member with reassurance in terms those students who were getting A’s at GCSE but not converting those to A*’s at A level. The Chair noted this was also one of her queries, and acknowledged that ‘A’ level, was a step up however the aspirations should be fully to be in that category and felt it was a disappointing read in that regard. A Member referred to page 24 and sought clarification around what the classification of ‘vulnerable’ was. Then on page 30, the Member noted that 10 out of the 16 candidates, had met the criteria and awarded MPQH but asked what happened to the other 6 and whether there was a programme of mentoring or continuous learning that was happening. On page 31, 7.4.3, in terms of Regional Leaders of Governance (RLGs), there was a statement in terms of ‘expanded significantly’ and the Member asked what that meant. The Member then, referring to a recent governor link visit, looking at literacy and Welsh, that teachers had flagged up an inconsistency between what the cluster and what the secondary school was asking for vs what the consortium was asking for and sought clarification. Finally, the Member referring to page 55, the appendix, which provided the 3 recommendations from the Local Government Education Services (LGES) inspection and, recommended that future reports integrate the recommendations and the support provided from a CSC perspective, into the report itself. As this was an ideal opportunity to integrate how CSC had demonstrated for RCT to work towards these recommendations. The Managing Director CSC confirmed that future reports could integrate the recommendations and in terms of the literacy, Welsh and inconsistency, agreed it would be good to unpick outside of the meeting. She explained with regard to the question of NPQH, that the 6 candidates that did not yet reach the criteria, had the opportunity to re-engage with the programme, with a second assessment cycle in May and would then be able to continue to have the mentoring and coaching support to enable them to demonstrate the criteria that they didn’t meet, although she noted that the NPQH process was changing significantly, and provided details of this. The Assistant Director for Partnerships and Improvement, CSC then provided an explanation around vulnerable schools, acknowledging that the vulnerable conversation could be for a range of reasons. The Director of Education & Inclusion Services also provided context around termly meetings of schools causing concern and the importance of sharing intelligence in a timely manner. The Principal Improvement Partner for RCT Primary and All-Age Schools, CSC then provided a response in terms of RLGs, noting there were currently 8 schools being supported by RLGs and the reasons for this. The Chair concluded that Members would agree that this had been a really useful discussion, and that they were able to get under the skin of the report. The presentation had been useful in terms of that introduction, and she extended a big thanks to the CSC for attending and asked that thanks were conveyed to the Headteacher, Ferndale Community School, who provided a fantastic introduction and context. The Chair acknowledged that she looked forward to replicating this approach in future, as Members were keen to hear from the practitioners themselves. Following consideration, it was RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, making a number of recommendations and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, noting the impact of the introduction of UPFSM’s and next steps, and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained in the report.
The Business Manager, Catering Services took Members through the report which provided an update on the roll-out of Universal Primary Free School Meals (UPFSM) in Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT). The report considered how Welsh Government (WG) funding had been utilised, to support this initiative. The Business Manager, Catering Services then highlighted a number of points within Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the report. A Member noting the table at 7.3 and the issues around costs, that the Business Manager, Catering Services had highlighted, asked if the £12.3m covered the costs that RCT had incurred in providing the FSMs in the scheme. The Business Manager, Catering Services explained with regards to the revenue funding, and the full cost of delivering UPFSM, the RCT costs exceeded the revised unit rate, noting a meeting with WG, where she would be going back and saying the £3.20 wasn’t enough, noting that RCT was not the only LA in Wales in that situation. She explained that WG had sent a questionnaire out to RCT, but the guidance wasn’t very clear, so different LAs, had completed it in different ways, so she would be going back to challenge WG on that, so no, it didn’t cover the full cost. In terms of capital funding, this was fully funded, with the Business Manager, Catering Services highlighting that she wished to submit another bid to WG for additional funding, particularly around school electrical upgrades, which had been an unforeseen cost. The Member said it would be helpful to know how much of the cost had landed on RCT and how much with WG. The Member also asked with regards to section 5.1.7, meal sittings, what this meant for schools e.g., change of timings of sittings. The Business Manager, Catering Services explained that with some schools, nursery children would have to be served from 11.30am and advised that one of the things being done in all primary schools to speed up delivery, was a pre-ordering system, which would speed up queues. Unfortunately, for some older schools or ones constrained with hall size, this meant having to have 2 or 3 sittings, which meant starting earlier for the younger children which then impacted on curriculum time. The Business Manager, Catering Services confirmed that this had also been raised with WG in 1-2-1 catch up meetings, along with all the risks identified in the report. A Member noting that take up was only about 60%, with WG expecting around 80%, asked what the range of take-up was from the lowest to the highest percentage. In reference to the impact of numbers registering for eFSM status, the Member also asked what information had been collected about the impact of the marketing campaigns. The Member sought clarification around the figure of £0.542m, at section 4.4. The Member also asked, with regards to the hiring of staff, what % of midday staff were also assisting with breakfast clubs. The Business Manager, Catering Services noted that when WG first rolled out UPFSM, they were projecting an 86% take-up, noting that the all-Wales average was only in the late 60%, so she would ask for clarification at her meeting on Friday, but noting that WG had acknowledged that the take up wasn’t anywhere near that level. In terms of the impact of eFSM, the applications were not dealt with by catering, but dealt with by revenue and benefits, but she could request that information. In respect of the £0.542m, the Business Manager, Catering Services confirmed that this was all covered by the revenue grant, so as things stood at the present time all the costs of the UPFSM was fully funded but needed to go back to WG in terms of the capital funding, as there was still work to complete. In terms of what % of midday staff were also assisting with breakfast clubs the Business Manager, Catering Services, would need to come back with that data. A Member, referring to section 5.2.1,and acknowledging that eFSM was a measure for so many things, and concerned with the take up rate, asked what was being done to inform parents and carers to take up the offer. The Member noting, in relation to 5.1.1 staffing, there had been a commitment to rolling out to years 5 and 6, so there was a concern in terms of staff recruitment and, asked if there was a contingency to ensure that it was delivered on time. The Business Manager, Catering Services explained, with regard to eFSM, that any communication sent out to schools, always included documentation to share with parents and carers, about applying online. She was also asking schools, at a local level, to encourage families they knew, who could be eligible, to assist them to fill out the online form, if it was a digital issue. In terms of years 5 and 6, she acknowledged it was an ongoing problem recruiting staff, but sometimes it was only additional hours needed, e.g., increasing hours in the kitchen, although sometimes it was an extra body. She confirmed that the LA was moving to a new staffing agency, with early discussion taking place to target staff with all the catering qualifications and experience needed, so they were constantly looking at new ways to engage with potential applicants. In addition, they were working with HR to develop some promotional videos, as people’s expectations didn’t always match up with the type of duties, in order to retain them. The Member also asked about retention issues, with the Business Manager, Catering Services explaining that with the changes in Universal Credit (UC), they were finding it difficult to retain staff, because they wanted extra hours, but some of the hours in the kitchen were small e.g., 12 or 16 hours a week, so they were losing people due to lack of extra hours. A Member, asked, on behalf of another Member who had needed to leave the meeting, how much variety there was for those who didn’t want a hot meal. The Business Manager, Catering Services advised that the cold options were a baguette or sandwiches, and salad, with a choice of filings, noting that this was where the pre-ordering came in, to ensure children could have what they wanted, so was open to suggestions, as long as compliant, as some fillings were not suitable. A Member asked for clarification around the amount of food offered to children, noting conversations around it not being enough. The Business Manager, Catering Services acknowledged that she was happy to take away those details, but explained there were guidelines on the weight and portions, that were served to all pupils, even if this meant children taking the full offer, when they wouldn’t eat it. The Chair thanked the Business Manager, Catering Services for her frank responses, and the really clear report. Following consideration, it was RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, noting the impact of the introduction of UPFSM’s and next steps, and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained in the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, making a number of requests for information to be included in future reports, and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer took Members through the report which provided an overview of the Post 16 curriculum offer across RCT Secondary and Through Schools and update on the Education and Research (Wales) Act which became law on the 8th September 2022. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer then highlighted a number of points within Sections 4, 5 and 14 of the report. A Member noting that expect for the last couple of sentences, the report only talked about 6th form provision by RCT and asked why the report focused on one pathway and not the others and how do we ensure some consistency. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer explained, being new to post, this was something she would like to develop moving forward in the role, although had looked at provision within schools and the officer in RCT, moving forward, in the first instance. She acknowledged that her role as a Board Governor at Coleg Y Cymoedd would allow her to gain a deeper understanding of the offer from partner organisations and agreed that it was important to have a clear picture of everything that was on offer. The Member noted that this was helpful, but didn’t really help parents, or children, sitting GCSE’s now, as the comparisons weren’t there, and wouldn’t know where to go to get that information. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer added that work on careers education, continued to be part of her remit, and highlighted the Gatsby Benchmarks which she provided details on. She added that part of that role was to quality assure and ensure that young people had the correct information e.g., experience of a sixth form provider that is not their school. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer was happy to take this up with the Member outside of the meeting. A Member sought clarification around section 14.4. The Member, referring to section 7.1, noted there was a very short section on destinations but felt it might have been helpful to have more detailed information in terms of the types of destinations, young people were going on to. The Member also sought clarification around the figures not adding up to 100%. The Member referring to the Appendix, sought clarification around pupils studying courses with fewer than 7 participants, which she was aware WG didn’t like. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer began by clarifying the point, with regard to section 14.4, paragraph 2, reassuring the Member with regard to the model for 6th form provision in RCT. The Head of Achievement and Wellbeing for secondary and through schools in RCT, explained, regarding the figures not adding up to 100%, in section 7.1, that this was unverified data, with the consistent measures for Post 16, usually 3 years behind, which was unhelpful from a comparative point of view. She continued, that the 63% and 14% were about students who had gone onto further or higher education, or apprenticeships, so had carried on their learning after Year 13. So, there would be a % of learners that would go into employment, so there was a gap in the figures. The Member felt it would be useful in future, to put a footnote in. The Director of Education & Inclusions Services, responding to the question around pupils studying courses with fewer than 7 participants, explained that the removal of sixth form from any school would never be based on a single subject area, it would be context specific and would need to look at a whole raft of factors, including the budget positioning of a school. Some schools may have capacity for small group sizes in certain subject areas, but this can become an issue if you have very low numbers across a wide range of subject areas, adversely affecting the curriculum and choices available to young people, who then choose to go elsewhere and to settings where there is a broader curriculum offer. In situations such as that, schools have to utilise funding to prop up the sixth form provision, which could be detrimental to other year groups. The Head of Achievement and Wellbeing for secondary and through schools added that what did happen as a consequence of options, was that some Year 12 students may not then continue the subject into Year 13, and then numbers decrease. The numbers in the report were based on learners leaving Year 13 with qualifications. They were also finding an increasing number of schools, in order to keep and broad and balanced offer, for Years 12 and 13, that some teachers were teaching outside of curriculum time, so they would be small numbers, in order for their subject to still be accessed, Post 16. Some of the figures also reflected the consortium arrangement between an RCT school and a Bridgend school, which would also be influencing those figures. A Member, making a number of points, then referred to Appendix 1, and asked whether all current RCT sixth forms, were sustainable. The Member also asked about visits to sixth forms and asked whether Year 11 pupils be included in this. The Director of Education & Inclusion Services noted that the school highlighted, was part of the Cynon Valley Consortium arrangements that existed, with 27 subject areas on offer. She reiterated that in looking at any sixth form numbers, things needed to be looked at systemically in schools, noting that those conversations did happen, and were explored in partnership with the schools and governing bodies. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer explained that in the first instance she had made appointments to spend the afternoon in sixth form, and provided details around this, and reassured the Member with regards to Year 11, that she was involved with the Year 11 provision in all schools as well, not just those with sixth forms, which had been ongoing since her previous role. A Member asked, putting transport to one side, if students wanted to go elsewhere within RCT, were they given that opportunity to access another course e.g., sociology was only provided in certain areas. The Member also asked what support was in place to ensure every pupil had a positive destination post 16. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer advised that she was starting a piece of work at the moment, explaining that when learners made an application for their sixth form or college place, they would put in the subjects they would like to study and put in an application to transport, with the closest provision to take up that offer, being granted, and provided an example. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer then highlighted the work she did around this. In terms of the support in place, she reminded the Member of the work she did with careers education, to make sure that all pupils, had a 1-2-1 careers interview, to unpick what it is they wanted to do e.g., sixth form, college, support into the world of work, signposting into further careers advice and guidance or looking at apprenticeships and different types of destinations. There was an awful lot of work in all secondary, through and special schools, to ensure pupils had the guidance to make the right choice, so they had a positive destination, Post 16. The Chair requested that future reports include more detail on destinations, and wanted to know how many learners were engaged with Seren, at Post 16, where they were going, were they successful in terms of Oxbridge or Russell Group applications, and then continue on to HE. She added that the apprenticeship scene was very big at the moment, and the report needed to include more around the impact of the Post 16 offer in terms of the wider destinations of learners. She continued that she would like to see more cross reference with Gatsby as well as YEPs and highlighted the report going to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, explaining that 5k learners had been surveyed, and there was uncertainty around the transition after GCSEs. She hoped that the reports could be married up in future, as it would be remiss not to use the survey produced by YEPS. Additionally, the Chair said she would like to see analysis of the impact on learners post 16 studies, in terms of their future progression. The Director of Education & Inclusion Services, noted for next year, that the Seren and Gatsby reports could be integrated, into the one report, whilst reminding Members of the need to get balance right, in terms of the content, as Members had raised concerns about the length of reports, whilst not making them overly complex. The Head of Achievement and Wellbeing acknowledged that she could send some information around regarding the Seren, particularly the university destinations. She continued that in terms of the YEPs survey, this had been noted, and the 14-19 Future Pathways Officer was piloting a project in various schools, and that was a consequence, not just the YEPs survey, but other information that had come, in terms of transition. A Member also asked if future reports include a table and statistics on the destinations of Year 11 pupils, what their home school is, and where they go onto. The Chair concluded that again this had been a really excellent discussion and thanked the Officers for their valuable input. Following consideration, it was RESOLVED to acknowledge, that Members had scrutinised the contents of the report, making a number of requests for information to be included in future reports, and considered whether they wished to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
The Chair advised that this was the final meeting of the municipal year and was very grateful to Members for their input in terms of questioning, and level of interrogation. She concluded by thanking Members for their input this evening and looked forward to the details of further meetings, in the new municipal year.
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.