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 March and 9th April 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting subject to the following amendment: In relation to the Minutes of the 13th March 2025, page 12 of the document pack, it should read ‘Chairperson’, not ‘Chairman’.
RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the contents of the working Group report, following a review of the Sustainable Communities and Learning Programme. 2. Following consideration of the report and the recommendations contained within, and subject to Members comments, agree the recommendations of the working group; 3. Endorse the findings and recommendations to Cabinet.
RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the research circulated to all Members on Mobile Devices in Schools and further research links provided at Appendix A. 2. Following consideration of the Research, determine if the Committee wish to take forward further scrutiny in this area. 3. Subject to 2., request that the appropriate arrangements for any future scrutiny are duly arranged through the Service Director, Democratic Services & Communication.
RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on Governor Support Services’ progress in response to the recommendations of Estyn Thematic Review of Governors in Wales and the information contained in this report. 2. Consider whether there are any aspects of the report that the Committee wishes to scrutinise in greater depth.
Apologies of absence were received from County Borough Councillors P Binning, J Cook, J Elliott and R Evans.
The Senior Solicitor - Litigation explained that a blanket personal declaration for those present who were members of a Governing body would be declared in respect of Agenda Item 5 - School Governance. In accordance with the code of conduct, the following declarations were made in relation to: Ø County Borough Councillor C Lisles – Item 5 - Personal Interest – “I am a member of the RCT Governors Association.” Ø County Borough Councillor J Brencher - Item 5 - Personal Interest – “I sit on the LEA Governors Committee.” Ø County Borough Councillor S Evans – Item 3 - Personal Interest – “My sons school is named in the report.” Ø County Borough Councillor S Evans – Item 4 - Personal Interest – “My sons school is named in the report.” Ø County Borough Councillor S Emanuel – Item 4 - Personal Interest – “My sons school is named in the report.”
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 13th March and 9th April 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting subject to the following amendment: In relation to the Minutes of the 13th March 2025, page 12 of the document pack, it should read ‘Chairperson’, not ‘Chairman’.
It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 13th March and 9th April 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting subject to the following amendment: In relation to the Minutes of the 13th March 2025, page 12 of the document pack, it should read ‘Chairperson’, not ‘Chairman’.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the contents of the working Group report, following a review of the Sustainable Communities and Learning Programme. 2. Following consideration of the report and the recommendations contained within, and subject to Members comments, agree the recommendations of the working group; 3. Endorse the findings and recommendations to Cabinet.
The Service Director, Democratic Services & Communications explained that the purpose of the report was to provide Members of the Education and Inclusion Scrutiny Committee with the findings and recommendations of the Scrutiny Working Group, which was established to examine the Sustainable Communities for Learning Programme (SCfLP) following a report from the Director of Education at its meeting held on the 2nd February 2023, attached at Appendix A. The Service Director continued that the final report, at Appendix A, contained the findings and recommendations of the Working Group, following the examination of the programme, with the process including hearing feedback from those schools that had undertaken the process including learner voice and the Service Director was keen to hold this up as a good example of stakeholder engagement within the scrutiny process. Members were advised that there were 11 recommendations for the Executive or Director, to consider, following approval, and Members of the Working Group sought the opportunity to bring forward recommendations that would further improve and enhance the SCfLP, whilst acknowledging the success of the Band B phase to date, and the lessons learnt, in terms of future delivery. The Service Director concluded by explaining the process of what would happen next, advising that a final report would be sent to the Cabinet Member and the Director, and a formal reply would be reported back to Committee, following on consideration of the recommendations. It was acknowledged that a key part of the process going forward, was for Committee Members to monitor the implementation of any recommendations and the delivery of those recommendations. The Chair put on record her thanks to Members of the Working Group for their participation, the schools and staff involved, pupils, Education Officers and Democratic Services Officers. The Chair acknowledged it was a very insightful piece of work and felt proud that a set of recommendations would be put forward, and it was incumbent on the Committee to ensure that the recommendations were implemented and would form part of the report back to the Committee on SCfLP. The Chair asked how the report would be shared to those outside of the Council to support those undertaking the SCfLP now. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation acknowledged they were happy to share the recommendations of the report, particularly in respect of new projects coming forward, in addition to making comments on some of the elements of the recommendations, recognising that one of two of the points may need slight amendments. The Service Director then provided Members with feedback in respect of recommendation 3, advising that post-project reviews were always undertaken, and learning opportunities considered, and lessons learnt could be shared at some point. Recommendation 4, in terms recognising of aspirations whilst working within the building bulletin guidance, that comes as part of the Welsh Government (WG) funding arrangements. Recommendation 7, in respect of the annual traffic management plan review process, completed by Governors, and reviewed by the Risk and Compliance Manager and uploaded to the Risk Assessment Management Information System (RAMIS), and recommendation 11 in respect of catering staff, who are employed by the LA, so are not the responsibility of the school to manage. The Director of Education & Inclusion Services, added, in respect of recommendation 7 further clarification around the partnership approach, recognising the targeted approach where there were areas to iron out. The Service Director, Democratic Services & Communications acknowledged it was really useful to have the feedback, and for Members to reflect on those, and explained if those were position statements in terms of the recommendations, that Members felt strongly around, then there was an opportunity as part of the formal reply that would come back from Cabinet to Committee for those rationales, to be included in that response. The Service Director shared further thoughts around several recommendations, in terms of the wording, in respect of the visibility of the progress reports, and in coming back through the scrutiny process. In terms of the building bulletin, Members might wish to consider a recommendation to WG, that perhaps there is more flexibility in what is prescribed within the bulletin. The Chair agreed with the Service Director, Democratic Services & Communications on the approach e.g., a formal reply that would come back from Cabinet to Committee and for the rationales provided by Education Officers, to be included in that response. A Member noted that a concern raised by schools was in relation to finishes and the cost implications of ongoing maintenance e.g. repainting of corridors but acknowledged the potential higher initial cost implication. A Member, referring to recommendation 6, sought clarification in terms of building bulletin guidance and toilets, specifically. The Temporary Head of School Organisation & WESP advised that the building bulletin provided guidance in terms of area, not finishes, which was something that was part of RCT’s brief, acknowledging it was something fed back as part of an internal lessons learned process, in terms of looking at finishes and updating the brief. Members were advised that updated building bulletin guidance had been released by WG this year, acknowledging some of the points that Members had made, and there was now more flexibility within the bulletin. Members were provided with clarity around single sex toilets and future designs. In addition, the Temporary Head of School Organisation & WESP confirmed that they would share all the information they had been given, and in terms of good practice, staff from some new school developments had already received those shared lessons learned, as part of a walk through. Whilst recognising that the Temporary Head of School Organisation & WESP had provided assurance around more flexibility in terms of the building bulletin, Following discussion, Members agreed that they would add in an additional recommendation around building bulletin guidance and ensuring the continued flexibility from Welsh Government, in response to changing needs and demands. A Member, in relation to recommendation 7, acknowledged they would like to see some mention of the fact that schools needed to consider community. In addition the Member, in relation to recommendation 8, felt that this needs strengthening, to included, ‘work alongside leisure services, local community groups and local elected Members’, noting a particular school that had withdrawn, in terms of the community. The Director of Education and Inclusion acknowledged that if there were concerns around any school withdrawing in terms of community usage, then she was happy to explore that further, whilst acknowledging budgets were a challenge in terms of staffing community usage. The Director also reported that there has been a small amount of Welsh Government funding to support the Community Schools agenda. Members were reminded that some facilities that were managed by leisure services, outside of school hours. Members were in agreement with this amendment. A Member, also in relation to recommendation 8, felt that the recommendation should include assurances that the facilities are suitable for both the school and the community use, noting that some schools in the programme, would not be able to meet the huge cost of upgrading all facilities allowing them to become available for the community. The Temporary Head of School Organisation & WESP provided a comprehensive response and explained she was happy to chat about the specifics with the Member outside of the meeting. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation provided further clarity around the planned maintenance of legacy buildings. The Director of Education provided further clarity around grant funding streams to enhance provision. The Member felt that the recommendation 8 should be amended to say, ‘ensure all facilities are of a suitable standard for school and community use, before signing off’. Following a discussion, with Members making a number of points, and Officers providing clarification, it was recognised that by making the amendment to the recommendation, this would be too prescriptive, in terms of how schools used their budget. At this stage, the Member was happy to withdraw the suggested amendment, but felt it was important how it was worded in terms of the community. Some Members raised their concerns around ensuring that members of the public were not promised something that was not deliverable in relation to community use of the facilities, with the Director of Education and Inclusion Services confirming that from her perspective the Directorate fully complied with the school organisation code and the statutory guidance. Instead Members agreed on the ‘where possible’ wording and to add the word ‘realistically’ to recommendation 8. A Member stated it was important that Cabinet were encouraged to read the individual comments of the surveys and transcriptions of the visits to the schools, as there was so much additional information, that the report didn’t go into. The Member further wished to draw attention to recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, in particular, as well as highlighting phase 2, in respect of the TOR. She continued that recommendation 3, listed a lot of positive impacts, but the Working Group did not collect and quantify measurable impacts against the items listed e.g. high quality teaching, learning, and attendance, so therefore the report did not identify any causality in school improvement, in these factors. The Member felt in relation to the lessons learned being recorded, that these should be provided to Members, in summary form, at the earliest opportunity. The Member, queried, in relation to school leaders being involved in early designs, and provided context in relation to Ysgol Afon Wen. The Member concluded, in relation to recommendation 7, in respect of reviewing existing traffic management plans and active travel plans, again provided context in relation to Ysgol Afon Wen and suggested that a new cross-committee working group be set up to look into this specific area. The Service Director, Democratic Services & Communications explained that following approval of the thematic committee Work Programmes, if there was a committee wide view that was a potential option, this would need to be a request made to O&S for determination. The Service Director added, that recognising that all Committees’ Work Programmes were incredibly busy already, and it would take time for a joint scrutiny item to be convened on this, and that it wasn’t in the gift of scrutiny to make those determinations, it would be better to convene a meeting of the respective Council departments to bring some resolution, if possible. The Director of Education & Inclusion Services added, that as this was a specific issue relating to one school which required a cross-Directorate response, it would be more appropriate to involve key members of the school and Governing Body, to try and resolve this local matter in partnership with the relevant officers. A Member explained that whilst they sympathised with the Member, they felt that this was a localised issue, recognising the resources that would be taken up with a Working Group, so did not support this suggestion. Another Member suggested that perhaps a proposal from the Member could be sent to the Committee, to decide whether to set up a Working Group or again, whether this was a local issue. The Member, whilst putting aside the issues at Ysgol Afon Wen, explained in relation to active travel plans, this was something schools were required to report annually, back to planning on the state of their active travel plan. The Member wished to see research carried out as to exactly how many schools had a planning requirement to do this, how many schools had an active travel plan, and had they been affective at bringing in more active travel and reducing car use, so this was the Members particular reason for suggesting a Working Group, in relation to active travel plans. The Chair acknowledged that some elements, following school visits, were quite easy to understand in retrospect, even with the pedagogical input, so was something to bear in mind. In terms of the research proposed, they had already heard from Officers, around the Risk & Compliance Manager and the Risk Assessment Management Information System (RAMIS), and that having to be reported annually, so suggested that when the report on SCfL comes back to the Committee, that some of the elements that the Member had mentioned e.g. how many schools have got a planning requirement to do this, how many schools have an active travel plan, and have they been effective in bringing in more active travel and reducing car use, rather than commission a separate piece of work. The Temporary Head of School Organisation & WESP clarified that this was a planning condition, rather than something that was mandatory, so would be easy to include in the report. Only schools that had been through the planning process and had this requirement conditioned would need them so this information wouldn’t be available for the other schools or indeed required. The Chair further acknowledged that there was not appetite at this time for a cross-scrutiny working group specifically in relation to this item, but that the Member, through the Service Director, Democratic Services & Communications, facilitates a meeting of governing bodies, planning officers, highway officers and the Education Directorate, on the particular ward item. If the Member then had wider concerns around the broader issue of active travel, then these should be made known to the Chair, and she would discuss with officers accordingly, and this considered by Members as part of the Work Programme. The Service Director, Democratic Services & Communications added that research service within Democratic Services could undertake that piece of work, providing the feedback to the Chair, initially and then a discussion could take place with the Chair, whether a potential request to O&S at that point, once the feedback is received, through that piece of work. The Member concluded that they were happy with the proposal. There were no further questions or comments from Members. It was RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the contents of the working Group report, following a review of the Sustainable Communities and Learning Programme. 2. Following consideration of the report and the recommendations contained within, and subject to Members comments, agree the recommendations of the working group; 3. Endorse the findings and recommendations to Cabinet.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the research circulated to all Members on Mobile Devices in Schools and further research links provided at Appendix A. 2. Following consideration of the Research, determine if the Committee wish to take forward further scrutiny in this area. 3. Subject to 2., request that the appropriate arrangements for any future scrutiny are duly arranged through the Service Director, Democratic Services & Communication.
The Chair drew to Members attention that this was a request that was made as part of the Work Programme Workshop process, but was determined that there wasn’t a significant amount of time to request a more detailed report from Officers, ahead of the meeting today, so it was determined that the research, already undertaken, and the additional secondary research, at appendix A, would be brought forward and provide a prompt for further discussion, if it was deemed necessary. The Service Director, Democratic Services reiterated that the report was being presented to Members, following representation that was made as part of the work programming processes which informed the Work Programmes (WP) determined and supported by O&S, today. Alongside the range of factors that contribute to the formation of those WPs, the Service Director advised of ways to strengthen stakeholder engagement, advising of engagement with external stakeholders e.g., the RCT workforce, who predominately lived in RCT, with one of the areas of feedback through the workshop process was around the appetite from those stakeholders for the the mobile devices in schools to form part of the Work Programme. It was noted that this was one of the areas that received support for a deep dive by scrutiny, particularly about marking a consistent mobile phone policy for schools. The Service Director, Democratic Services hoped his comments would frame Members discussions. The Chair acknowledged the points, at 4.2 of the report, and explained that discussions would focus around those. The Chair further acknowledged that at present, there wasn’t a mandate to enforce schools to adopt any particular approach to policy around mobile devices in schools, so Members needed to bear that in mind. A Member was very keen to scrutinise the topic further and provided narrative around his own experience with children in school, recognising that some schools had good policies on how mobile devices were managed, whilst acknowledging there was no power to mandate schools, but to identify best practice to advise schools. A Member endorsing the previous Member’s comments, felt that best practice was the way forward, acknowledging that schools did look for guidance on this. A Member provided narrative around evidence from the Senedd Petitions Committee, which did not support a complete ban on mobile devices and was in agreement with the previous Members, with the need to push forward on this. A Member noted there were concerns about the distraction in schools, in respect of the attention span, mental wellbeing and the difficult issue of cyber bullying, providing Members with some narrative. A Member felt the important questions for Members to answer were, did every secondary school in RCT have a policy (and what type), storage for phones to be locked up, consultation with parents in the development of the policy and asking headteachers around associated behavioural or wellbeing issues. In terms of adding value to scrutiny, it was thinking about exclusion rates and whether there was effective and consistent implementation, allowing for local variations. The Chair acknowledged this was an opportunity to hear from stakeholders e.g. headteachers. In addition she was surprised to learn that the research indicated there was no direct correlation with behaviour, but this information could be interrogated, from an RCT perspective. A Member fully supported what was said, whilst acknowledging the changes with AI and in respect of wellbeing issues and felt sharing good practice sooner would lessen the severity of things that could go wrong. A Member provided narrative around the guidance brought in, in England in 2024, which backed headteachers in prohibiting mobile phones through the school day. The Member additionally suggested that signal jamming could be brought in to schools, whilst recognising it was controversial. The Director of Education and Inclusion acknowledged that Members had made valuable comments, whilst recognising that many schools had implemented strong policies around mobile device usage. What had been seen in the early days of implementing a policy was a zero tolerance approach, and a spike in exclusions, but it was hoped that this would dimmish over time. Members were advised that a little time was needed to gather that intelligence in the autumn term robustly and, feedback to Members to get a sense of what the picture was across the system. The Head of Achievement and Wellbeing for secondary and through schools in RCT added that further research showed nearly all schools had a policy or protocol which were similar. It was difficult for schools to implement a complete ban, recognising children that were bused into schools, so it was understood around the need for parental assurance. Mobile phone policies were part of a wider programme of graduated response to behaviour, with training done with schools around a behavioural curriculum, so it would be difficult to show the direct impact on exclusions. The Officer provided further narrative around the policies. Members were in agreement that headteachers should be invited, who could provide best practice on policies, and around the impact of them. The Head of Achievement and Wellbeing for secondary and through schools in RCT acknowledged that schools encouraged mobile phones should stay in bags, whilst also encouraging parents, if they need to communicate with their child, to do that through school communication channels. Members were advised that all the schools the Officer had spoken to, had consulted with parents and pupils when creating their policy. A Member made a point around those that needed to use public transport, having to have their mobile phone in order to have the relevant app for the bus pass. A Member suggested that a review of the policies across all schools (both primary and secondary) was conducted, as well as looking at bullying policies within schools. The Chair noted another issue in schools was smart watches, with them needing to be removed for examinations, so whilst mobile phones could be in a bag, notifications would still ping on some smart watches, which would be a distraction, so it would be good to get additional information on devices linked to phones. The Head of Achievement and Wellbeing for secondary and through schools in RCT added this was a fair point, in terms of watches, and something she could look into. In terms of sharing good practice across schools, secondary and all-through headteachers had a strong network, and shared their policies, along with good practice on how they implement the policy, even providing teachers with scripts to minimise conflict when a mobile device is being confiscated. It was RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the research circulated to all Members on Mobile Devices in Schools and further research links provided at Appendix A. 2. Following consideration of the Research, determine if the Committee wish to take forward further scrutiny in this area. 3. Subject to 2., request that the appropriate arrangements for any future scrutiny are duly arranged through the Service Director, Democratic Services & Communication.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on Governor Support Services’ progress in response to the recommendations of Estyn Thematic Review of Governors in Wales and the information contained in this report. 2. Consider whether there are any aspects of the report that the Committee wishes to scrutinise in greater depth.
The Head of Service Transformation and Data Systems took Members through the report, providing the background, at section 4, acknowledging the important role governors play in ensuring there is strong leadership and robust governance to enable schools and learner outcomes continue to improve and, for the Local Authority (LA) to provide high quality training to governors to fulfil their role, before taking Members through the key headings of the additional information requested, at section 5, following the meeting of the 29th January 2025. She concluded by explaining that the report highlighted the practical steps required to respond to Estyn and to address some of the issues raised and training, in order for governors to undertake their role. The Chair of the RCT Governors Association (GA) provided Members with an update, on the RCT GA, highlighting a number of key issues including changes of membership over the last 18 months, frustrations with trying to move the GA forward, the issues of being labelled independent, not seeing any accounts, the restrictions on using Hwb email addresses in terms of GDPR which prevented independent communication with governors/governing bodies on matters affecting school governance. The RCT GA Chair advised she had met with the Senior Manager of Governor Support and Emergency Planning to try to overcome some of the issues, and a questionnaire and covering e-mail, asking for governors permission to contact them, would be circulated, although recognising this would not reach all governors. She continued, that she felt the word independent was hindering the GA, where GDPR was concerned, whilst acknowledging the GA was independent, she has never seen a set of accounts. It was the RCT GA Chair’s wish to make this work but needed RCT’s support and help to move forward and be a more proactive group that would help all RCT governors promote best practice. The Chair, referring to, page 74 of the report, was pleased to note only three inspections highlighted governance as requiring improvement, but felt the sentence ‘in response to the recommendations, additional support, mentoring and training has been provided in the three schools’ needed more clarity e.g., what does that look like, what form does that take, is there any evidence of impact whilst recognising there may be an inspection to assess, whether that had been achieved or not, and therefore whether the support and mentoring provided, had the desired outcome. The Chair, referring to paragraph 5.13, wanted to understand the impact of the recruitment initiatives, so if they had been undertaken in the summer term what was the impact of those, thus far and how far reaching had they been. The Chair, referring to paragraph 5.9, in respect of engagement in the survey, asked how many responses had been received so far. The Chair, suggested, in terms of the constitution, instead of the RCT GA asking individual governors to opt into communications from the RCT GA, could it be tabled as an autumn term item on the Director's report or as there is a separate item in governors meetings from the RCT GA, could we ask in those autumn terms meetings, for all governors who are present in that meeting, to agree verbally, rather than having to reach out via Hwb. The Chair felt at the moment it was an unnecessary barrier, whilst understanding GDPR purposes, but felt it was about making the process easier for governors to have access to the RCT GA. The Service Manager Governor Support and Emergency Planning explained the process, in relation to recommendations from Estyn to governing bodies, with engagement with Improvement Partners (IPs) to support governing bodies, to undertake a self-evaluation and development plan, escalating any real concerns to the Regional Lead for Governance (RLGs), with support for around two terms with impact fed back through the Post Inspection Action Plan (PIAP), and LA progress meetings, so these were monitored and the outcomes of the work undertaken and reviewed. In relation to the impact of the recruitment initiatives Members were advised that vacancies within RCT normally sat at around 12 – 14%, but were currently 8%, with a recruitment drive being undertaken during the summer holidays alongside working with different Directorates on more of a social media presence e.g., the skills people can gain from being a governor, the positives of it, etc. In relation to engagement in the survey, this closed on Friday, with the data being analysed over the summer, and shared with senior members in the Education directorate, as well as formulating a development plan. The Service Manager felt the meeting with the RCT GA was a positive one, discussing the word independent and, agreeing a way forward i.e., that members of the RCT GA Executive committee would draft an email that they would like sent to governors to help and support their work plan. The Service Manager was happy to put this on the autumn term agenda regarding governors agreement of an opt-out version, whilst acknowledging her concerns with GDPR. Additionally, the Service Manager was happy to the meet with the RCT GA Chair, to iron things out and formulate anything for the autumn term agenda and hopefully agreeing a Work Programme (WP) for the next academic year. The Chair, sought clarity around the RCT GA vision, and what support was needed from the LA to enable that to happen e.g., improve and support governors in RCT. She asked if there was a role for the RCT GA to play, in terms of supporting those schools who had governance noted as a recommendation. The RCT GA Chair, spoke positively of the meeting with the Service Manager Governors Support and Emergency Planning, but noted the stumbling point over being labelled independent and the finances, and the GDPR issue, to actually be able to contact the governors, which was a primary duty in the constitution. The RCT GA Chair advised the GA wanted to work in partnership with RCT to understand the needs of all governors, being seen as an inbetweener, as well as discussing holding events, although not knowing if the finance would stretch to that. The Chair acknowledged that the Service Manager Governor Support and Emergency Planning had suggested a further meeting, with regards to the GDPR element, in the autumn and that some of the points raised by the RCT GA Chair, could be addressed. The Director of Education and Inclusion Servies agreed a Directors report would be a way of gathering intelligence and information from governing bodies e.g., by sharing a survey asking governors to give informed consent to sharing their details with the Governors Association, in a way that was compliant with GDPR and working within the parameters of the law. The Director acknowledging the recent change in Chairperson, noted the previous termly meetings with herself, the chairperson, the deputy-chairperson, and the Cabinet Member, could now be re-established moving forward to try and overcome the issues and barriers being experienced. The Director provided clarity in respect of the recommendations around governance, noting Estyn always made reference to governors, under the leadership aspect of school inspections and what was referenced here in the report were explicit recommendations in relation to governance. Any schools with a PIAP and/or a school in enhanced support, which may not be in a statutory category following an Estyn inspection, could also have key recommendations or priorities relating to governance, which would be the focus of support and challenge in termly or twice termly progress meetings, or in pre-warning meetings, which monitor progress over time. The Director noted, in relation to professional learning for governing bodies, the management of change that CSC had been through very recently had restricted the opportunity to work in partnership sooner. This work would continue over the summer break with that information accessible to governors in due course. A Member noted the RCT GA Chair, made reference to not being able to see accounts and not being able to hand on heart say schools were getting value for money, and asked why this was. The Service Manager Governor Support and Emergency Planning provided context around the historical charge within the SLA, and agreed to provide a breakdown of those costs for the RCT GA. A Member outlined the positives of the report before noting in respect of Hwb that engagement of governors using Hwb still seemed poor, with the target of 700 not met, so it was difficult to see how messages could be got out using this platform. The Member further felt that report was incomplete, acknowledging the timing of the report, specifically in relation to the survey results and referring the previous minutes of the meeting in January 2025 in relation to the actions and recommendations e.g., to hear from a range of governors, and asked that previous minutes are considered for actions and brought into future discussions. The Member, referring to paragraph 5.2, felt greater clarity was required in regard to of all the Estyn recommendations, not just 5, 6 and 7, as indicated in this report, so progress could be seen across the whole area. The Member, referring to paragraph 5.3, the training noted the previous report had a breakdown of how many people attended each of those training sessions, so it would be useful to see how impactful that training was. The Member suggested, when the survey was analysed, a summary of the open ended comments would be useful and asked that any comments in Welsh could be translated. The Member sought clarification of Officers’ meetings with the RCT GA, as felt these had not always taken place when they were due, whilst acknowledging this was often for good reason. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services asked the Member, in relation to reported cancelled meetings, requested additional information so that this could be looked into. The Director disputed cancelled attendance at RCT GA meetings, as no invitation to a RCT GA had been previously received/agreed but would be more than happy to attend the RCT GA at any point. The Director agreed in terms of concerns about the timing of the report, but the Directorate would be happy to bring another report back. Members were advised, in relation to the recommendations from the thematic report, that these related to the LA recommendations in the report but would be happy to report upon any other aspects of the thematic report if required. It was noted, in terms of the translation, that these comments were from the previous report, but translation in future reports, could be provided, as and when required. The Director concluded by saying in terms of the services provided, that governor support services were rated as good or excellent by 94% of headteachers in a recent survey, so it was important to capture the positives, as well as some of the concerns to give balance and the team was more than happy to reflect on the feedback provided and come back with further information if that was required. A Member asked how many people had attended the courses, and what feedback had there been. How was it known if they were effective or not and was there a need to replace courses (those run by CSC). The Member asked if some of the training could be in person, as they felt the face to face contact, was important. The Member felt that Hwb was a huge disincentive to those joining as governors and provided context around the issue. The Service Manager Governor Support and Emergency Planning took the Members point on board around face to face training, acknowledging this was a survey question which would be analysed. In terms of the CSC offer, Officers would be meeting to look at what can be offered within the new model moving forward in September. In relation to Hwb, she acknowledged the directive in place, whilst understanding frustrations recognising the team was available to help governors e.g., locked out, access issues, etc., as well as delivering training to governing bodies individually e.g., bitesize training with governors. The Member provided further narrative and reiterated that they could not understand why a link could not be sent to an RCT CBC email address for a governors meeting with the Director. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services acknowledged she would look into this. A Member referring to paragraph 5.10, the figure of 252 people accessing the Hwb, out of 700, felt there would be people sitting in governors meetings that had not read the necessary paperwork. The Member asked why they could not be told of important things on the secure site and asked how many people were dropping out of governorships because of the extra burden of Hwb. The Head of Service Transformation and Data Systems explained the difference between joining the Hwb page, and having a Hwb email account, as they were two separate things. The Head of Service asked the Member to make them aware if there was any individuals they could support. The Chair acknowledged the discontent around Hwb and asked if anything could be done in terms of mitigation, whilst recognising GDPR, as it could be perceived as a barrier to becoming a school governor, if you’re not able to access the paperwork in advance of the meeting. The Chair concluded, noting that some of the requests from the last report weren’t necessarily able to be met in time for this evening’s report in terms of survey outcomes, inviting a range of governors, etc., so would look to bring this item back when further information was available. It was RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on Governor Support Services’ progress in response to the recommendations of Estyn Thematic Review of Governors in Wales and the information contained in this report. 2. Consider whether there are any aspects of the report that the Committee wishes to scrutinise in greater depth.
The Chair acknowledged that it had been a very detailed and inciteful meeting with excellent questions and thanked Officers for fielding those questions. The Chair also thanked the RCT GA for attending for the final item. The Chair reminded all of the online Play Sufficiency briefing for those that could attend and advised that the January meeting would be moved from the 28th to the 29th, following approval by O&S of the Work 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.