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 25th September 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting, subject to the following amendment: In relation to page 6 of the document pack, it should read ‘Cllr Barry Stephens, not Cllr Barry Stevens.
RESOLVED to: 1. Acknowledge the contents of this report. 2. Consider whether they wish to scrutinise any parts in greater depth.
RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. 2. Consider whether they wish to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the information provided. 2. Consider whether any further information is required on any aspect of the report or the work of the Education and Inclusion Services Directorate.
Apologies of absence were received from County Borough Councillor J Barton and J Elliott.
The Senior Solicitor - Litigation explained that a blanket personal declaration would be declared in relation to agenda item 3 for those present who were members of a Governing body and or school mentioned in the agenda item was within their ward. A separate personal declaration should be made by members for other items. In accordance with the code of conduct, the following declarations were made in relation to: Ø County Borough Councillor S Evans – Item 3 – “My son attends a school that is mentioned in item 3.” Ø County Borough Councillor P Binning - Item 3 - Personal Interest – “My son attends Ysgol Llanhari mentioned in item 3.”
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 25th September 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting, subject to the following amendment: In relation to page 6 of the document pack, it should read ‘Cllr Barry Stephens, not Cllr Barry Stevens.
It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 25th September 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting, subject to the following amendment: In relation to page 6 of the document pack, it should read ‘Cllr Barry Stephens, not Cllr Barry Stevens.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to: 1. Acknowledge the contents of this report. 2. Consider whether they wish to scrutinise any parts in greater depth.
The Temporary Head of School Organisation & WESP explained that the purpose of the report was to provide an update on the Council’s Sustainable Communities for Learning (SCfL) Programme, including complementary investment delivered under this funding umbrella, and as requested at the last meeting in January 2025, a general overview of the council’s school buildings. The Officer then took Members through the report. A Member sought clarification around snagging and open snagging lists. The Officer advised that all recent projects had contractual defects (snags), ranging from minor to major. All defects were logged, schools informed, and issues referred to the construction aftercare team. Defects were covered for 12 months post-completion with several schools remaining within this period. A Member sought clarification if a defect fell outside the 12-month period. The Officer explained that under the NEC contract, issues identified as poor workmanship or design errors after completion were treated as latent defects, with a process in place to address them. Although the 12-month defect period applies, contractors often return years later to rectify issues, reflecting a strong track record. The Member in relation to paragraph 5.3, sought clarification around how recommendation 4, from the task and finish group, was being implemented and how the information gathered about lessons learned was generally used in relation to staff, governors, etc. The Officer noted that while a formal staff design input group was not yet established, discussions with schools had taken place. Feedback was already captured and shared with project teams and schools as part of lessons learned. If further stakeholder engagement was required, establishing an oversight group could be considered. The Member sought clarification around the work from the task and finish group being shared. The Officer confirmed that work from the task and finish group had not yet been shared but agreed it was a good idea to share it with recently completed schools, the ADEW planning group (covering all 22 local authorities), colleagues, Welsh Government (WG) representatives, and the SCfL team. This was noted as an action. The Member in relation to active travel, paragraph 5.33 questioned the term ‘obliged to do’ and referring to recommendation 7, in the task and finish group report, asked to have some more information on how that review was being taken forward. The Officer clarified that the term “oblige” was not intended to imply a burden. Schools with active travel plans took them seriously and worked closely with Environmental Services to comply with guidance. WG had issued updated guidance last year, resulting in minor changes to planning consent wording. The guidance was available on the Council’s website. A Member asked what safeguards were in place to ensure projects were delivered on time and within budget. The Officer explained that safeguards included internal mechanisms such as a cross-directorate project board meeting quarterly (and as needed), involving finance, estates, and education. Issues were escalated to the programme board, the Council’s senior leadership team, ensuring scrutiny at the highest level and delivery of projects on time and within budget. The Service Director for 21st Century Schools and Transformation noted that quarterly meetings were held with WG for project updates, providing a robust process with scrutiny of current construction programmes. The Member asked what the timeline was for addressing the six schools currently rated category D for accessibility. The Service Director confirmed all six schools were Band D, but reasonable adjustments were made wherever possible, supported by Welsh Government ALN funding and the Council’s capital programme. Adjustments ranged from curriculum changes for pupils with hearing or sight difficulties to physical adaptations, such as stair climbers at Treorchy Comprehensive. Despite geographical and mobility challenges, efforts were made to keep children in their local schools. The Member asked, how adaptations funded through the ALN Capital Grant, were prioritised and monitored for impact. The Officer explained that ALN projects were prioritised with input from the ALN team, and funding this year supported new learning support classes. WG monitors the grant, requiring compliance with terms and conditions and regular reporting. Finance colleagues oversee this process, and some projects have also been audited for added scrutiny. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services advised that statutory duties required a child-centred approach with reasonable adjustments for any child with a statutory plan or emerging needs. Close partnership working between Access and Inclusion and 21st Century Schools ensured timely planning. While large-scale schemes may not always be in place, smaller investments were made to remove barriers to learning for individual children. The Service Director added that communication with parents and tracking pupils were key priorities. Parents were often taken to local schools to explore reasonable adjustments, with every effort made to keep children in their communities where possible. A Member questioned the legality in terms of the Equality Act and also asked where the six schools featured on the priority list for refurbishment or rebuild. The Officer explained that while not all sites could achieve Category A accessibility, reasonable adjustments were made to comply with the Equality Act and ensure pupil choice. Accessibility was a key factor in prioritizing projects for funding, but decisions also considered WG criteria and other factors. Adaptations could be made to accommodate pupils, and accessibility alone did not guarantee inclusion on the funding list. The Member asked how community facilities in schools were being used outside school hours, and was there data on community engagement. The Director of Education and Inclusion Services noted that an annual report was usually provided on survey findings and development works, with a focus on community engagement and school investment. She suggested considering a future report to capture data on community use of school facilities, including leisure services, as usage was extensive. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing reported that an April 2025 survey showed 90% of schools offered activities for children outside school hours, while 38% provided services for families or the wider community which was up from 21% in 2022. Further work was still needed, and additional data from Leisure services could be explored. The Chair agreed this could be considered as part of a future work programme, with the possibility a joint item with community services and bringing in leisure as well to report on the usage from that perspective. (Note: An introduction to the new Head of Access and Inclusion Services was made at this point in the meeting.) A Member sought clarification around the naming of new schools. The Officer explained that naming a new school followed a formal process led by the temporary governing body. This included community consultation, feedback from staff, governors, and pupils, with suggested names shortlisted and put to public consultation. The governing body then made a final decision, which was ratified by Cabinet. The Member asked for clarification around the MIM model, and any other model being looked at as part of the SCfL. The Lead for Strategic Planning and MIM explained that the MIM model was a revenue-based funding approach where the private sector funded projects and the Council repaid costs, similar to a mortgage. It included both construction and 25-year building maintenance under one contract. Three schools were built under a single MIM contract, as larger-scale contracts were more viable. WG initially allocated £500m for MIM, but rising construction costs post-COVID and the Ukraine war, had led to funds being redirected to college projects, as councils had alternative capital funding. Current MIM funds were fully allocated, though future use of the model remained possible. A Member acknowledged it was great to see the investment through the county, and sought clarification on how this good news was being shared. The Officer noted that while she was not on social media, the team actively promoted projects through social media, press office updates, videos, and images on the Council website. Newsletters were shared with schools and local communities during construction. The Officer welcomed further ideas to enhance promotion of Council investment. The Member added that it was important to look at other ways of spreading the good news, not just social media. A Member felt that a more targeted media campaign would be useful. A Member sought clarification around how RCT was doing in relation to other county boroughs in regard to the categories of schools. The Officer confirmed RCT was the second largest local authority by number of schools and third by pupil population. Surplus capacity data existed across authorities, though challenges varied by geography. It was agreed to ask WG if anonymized category data could be shared with Members, if available. The Service Director stated that RCT’s capital investment in schools was exceptional, ranking highest in Bands A and B, with Cardiff second. Significant annual support from Cabinet for repairs and maintenance ensured schools remained safe, watertight, and warm, a level of investment envied by other local authorities. It was RESOLVED to: 1. Acknowledge the contents of this report. 2. Consider whether they wish to scrutinise any parts in greater depth.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. 2. Consider whether they wish to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing advised that the purpose of the report was to provide Members with an update on school attendance data across the local authority and the actions of the Attendance and Wellbeing Service to increase attendance levels. Also included within the report was a summary of the barriers to attendance. The Officer then took Members through the report. The Officer advised that due to timing issues, it had not been possible to provide some good practice models to be delivered within the meeting but extended an invitation for Members to attend a community focused school conference on Wednesday. A Member queried the timing of the report and the inclusion of individual schools data. The Officer explained that half-termly reports had previously been circulated to schools and promised to members, but these were no longer available due to changes in school management information systems. Work was underway with the data team to develop a new approach, potentially using Power BI to provide live data instead of relying on half-termly reports. He apologised for the lack of detailed individual school reports, attributing it to the system changes. The Member sought clarification with regards to the correlation between deprivation and attendance and whether there was definitive correlation between those schools where there had been an investment in the family engagement officer model and improved attendance. The Officer explained that initial data showed a significant improvement in attendance during the first year of having family engagement officers, with over 90% of funded schools improving, which was above the average. However, more recent figures indicated that improvements had slowed, with progress now similar to overall school trends, suggesting reduced gains once the role became embedded. The Member sought clarification in terms of the causes of absence and whether this also included lateness. The Officer advised that absence reasons were based on family reports and not independently verified, with illness often disputed by schools, accounting for nearly half. Bullying was reported at only 0.07%, aligning with low school returns, and a previous review confirmed most cases were isolated and did not meet the WG definition. The Officer also clarified that figures excluded lateness, and the wellbeing response model allowed schools to request visits for any emerging or existing attendance issues, focusing mainly on attendance rather than punctuality. The Member sought clarification around the causes of absence in relation to transport. The Officer advised that transport accounted for 4.06% of absences, affecting 57 learners (18 primary, 39 secondary). While this appeared higher in secondary schools, it reflected the fact that most wellbeing visits were to secondary learners. Initial transport issues at the start of term, particularly in the Rhondda, were reported anecdotally but had since settled, and schools were no longer seeing ongoing problems. The Member asked for more information in respect of Inclusive Attendance Limited, particularly with regard to the outcomes of a recent presentation and whether specific schools were being targeted. The Officer explained that Inclusive Attendance Limited delivered a well-received conference and provided schools with e-learning resources and further support options, funded centrally until 5th December. Targeted meetings were also held with five secondary and all-through schools in September to offer tailored attendance and well-being support and discuss additional external assistance. A Member sought clarification around data held for Children Looked After, in respect of attendance and exclusions. The Officer explained that data on children looked after was not included in the current report due to changes in management information systems, which prevented mapping figures from children’s services. Historically, these children had shown higher attendance than average pupils. With regards to exclusions, the Director of Education and Inclusion Services noted that detailed data on outcomes for looked-after children, including exclusions and attendance, was previously provided to the Corporate Parenting Board and could be reviewed again. Permanent exclusions were closely monitored and challenged, and the data was expected to be favourable, with efforts to gather further intelligence if needed. A Member asked whether there was data showing the effectiveness of attendance incentives in secondary schools. The Officer explained that the local authority encouraged appropriate incentives for attendance, moving away from 100% attendance rewards to avoid exclusion of pupils with unavoidable absences. Instead, schools were advised to focus on no unauthorised absence and involve pupil voice in designing schemes. Effective incentives were often low-cost, such as early lunch pass or meetings with the headteacher. Many schools used apps to award points for attendance, behaviour, and engagement, with positive reinforcement proving most successful when balanced appropriately. A Member asked how the issue of persistent absence among FSM and ALN learners, was being addressed to achieve improvement. The Officer explained that support for free school meal learners included family engagement officers, hardship grants, and PDG funding, which the local authority now oversees instead of the Central South Consortium. Work was underway with WG and other authorities to identify best practices, as the attendance gap for FSM pupils, especially in secondary schools, had doubled since pre-pandemic. For ALN pupils, the Officer noted ongoing concerns and highlighted collaboration with Inclusive Attendance to promote inclusion and regular engagement with schools. The Member asked how the MIND pilot project was being evaluated and what criteria would determine its wider rollout. The Officer advised that the MIND project was led and funded by MIND, with the local authority supporting school selection and project design. Currently, it operated in one RCT school and one in Merthyr, with potential expansion dependent on additional funding, which MIND was seeking. The project’s outcomes were monitored using a national tool, and regular meetings were held with MIND to review progress and measure success. A Member asked what assurances and oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure fixed penalty notices were issued proportionately, with attention to safeguarding and avoiding disproportionate impact on vulnerable families. The Officer explained that while the local authority administers fixed penalty notices, decisions rest with headteachers under legislation. The code of conduct sets clear criteria, and schools are encouraged to use notices sparingly and consider family context. Monitoring occurs to ensure compliance, but variations in school practices have prompted consideration of updating the code. FSM learners, who attend less frequently, are more likely to receive notices, making equity a challenge. A Member sought clarification around the primary data and what data could be collected from the 17 secondary schools. The Officer explained that national comparative primary data was unavailable because WG typically releases it in February, causing significant delays. Current all-Wales figures combine primary and secondary data, despite requests from the Attendance Task Force to separate them, making it difficult to assess local authority performance by phase. The Officer explained that data for the 17 schools could be reviewed, either by requesting it from the schools or checking internally. Although no report currently pulls this information automatically, it could be compiled individually across the 17 schools. The Member sought clarification around the £5k breakdown of the hardship fund, which schools were included and which not, and how this was being advertised. The Director explained that the hardship fund was a small amount per school and not widely advertised to avoid high demand. Schools, particularly those with family engagement officers, used their knowledge of families to allocate funds flexibly, complementing the PDG grant. The fund supported educational resources, extracurricular activities, family engagement, and removing barriers to wellbeing, attendance, and learning. Schools appreciated the additional £5,000 resource, and information on its use has been collected. The Director agreed to look into this further and provide a response. The Member, referring to section 6.8 feedback suggested that the feedback survey should be refocused to ask respondents what problems they faced and how the school’s approach contributed to their child’s non-attendance. The Officer explained that feedback links were sent for every closed case, including those taken to prosecution, though none prosecuted this year provided feedback. Previous feedback, even after court action, was positive. The current survey focuses on the attendance and well-being service to inform improvements, but the Officer agreed it could include additional questions to gain insight into barriers to attendance and would explore this further. A Member asked if parents/carers knew how to report an absence e.g. some absence can be authorised, and if the school was aware of this. The Officer explained that absence reporting processes varied across schools, with some using the Bromcom home app and others relying on phone lines with dedicated absence options. There was no single system in place, but the data team was working to roll out Bromcom for greater efficiency. Schools were also encouraged to maintain vulnerable pupil lists so safeguarding concerns could be followed up even when absences were self-reported via the app. A Member sought clarification around the unauthorised absence figures and why RCT’s were higher than the average for Wales. The Officer explained there were two views on unauthorised absence: some saw it as difficult to address because parents were not providing valid reasons, while others viewed it positively as schools challenging absences rather than accepting them. Incentive schemes were encouraged to reward no unauthorised absence, promoting communication and engagement with families to reduce such cases. The Chair summarised the Committees request for additional data for the 17 schools, secondary schools, and overall school data would be provided when available, despite system challenges, and also sought clarification on hardship fund allocations and how they were shared among schools. It was RESOLVED to: 1. Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. 2. Consider whether they wish to scrutinise in greater depth any matters contained within the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the information provided. 2. Consider whether any further information is required on any aspect of the report or the work of the Education and Inclusion Services Directorate.
The Director of Education and Inclusion Services explained that the purpose of the report was to provide an update on the progress made against the recommendations for improvement identified following Estyn’s inspection of the Education Services in Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council in January 2023. The Director then took Members through the report. The Chair sought clarity around whether Estyn would need to come back and assesses the local authority on the particular responses to the recommendations, or whether there was a need to submit a return to demonstrate this improvement. The Director explained that the local authority was not in any follow-up category, so Estyn would not revisit to review progress against recommendations. Termly meetings were held with the local authority link inspector, where updates were provided on various aspects. Some updates related to the recommendations, but they often focused on schools causing concern and national priorities. The local authority shared information openly with Estyn regarding its performance. A Member, referring to the third recommendation and mention of the Central South Consortium, sought clarification around collaborative working. The Director advised that the school improvement model had changed in September, significantly strengthening opportunities for collaborative working. Strategic priorities were routinely discussed with Improvement Partners, now based in local authorities. Grant funding had been used to release a headteacher from Ysgol Gyfun Rhydywaun and her senior leadership team, to provide school-to-school support, focusing on whole-school approaches to managing behaviour and reducing exclusions. This work was in its early stages, and the headteacher also held a role within the school improvement service. The report referenced a revised “team around the school” model introduced during the previous year, involving school improvement colleagues to ensure strategic focus on behaviour. Conversations with school leaders were considered essential to drive lasting change and reduce exclusions. Regionally, professional learning and curriculum support were informed by schools’ strategic priorities. An analysis of school leaders’ focus areas shaped the Central South Consortium’s professional learning offer. The Director highlighted the need to upskill school improvement officers in inclusion and inclusion leads in school improvement, with significant scope for future development. Data sharing was described as open and collaborative. Schools causing concern were discussed in cross-service meetings, with school improvement colleagues and heads of service involved. Emerging issues were addressed through timely, joint interventions. For example, at the start of the autumn term, intelligence on schools causing concern was shared, leading to joint visits by the Head of Achievement and Wellbeing for secondary and through schools in RCT and relevant Improvement Partners, with agreed actions monitored regularly. The Member, noting the Welsh Language Immersion Service had been inspected by Estyn in October 2025, asked if a link to the report could be circulated to Members of the Committee. In addition the Member asked for clarity around what development was being made with regards to the extension of that service on a wider basis. The Director acknowledged this had had proved to be a very positive inspection, and the report was due for publication on the 19th of December 2025, after which she would circulate. She added that the service had grown significantly over three years. The next consideration was the secondary aspect, with close monitoring of demand at that level. Estyn particularly valued the model’s continued support for learners who needed ongoing assistance, which had worked well, including for children with ALN requiring more intensive, bespoke provision. Promotional and marketing data had been captured as far as possible, with plans to build on this to improve understanding of its impact. The Member asked whether expanding the Immersion Service at secondary level could provide an opportunity to re-engage pupils who had some primary education in Welsh but chose not to continue at secondary, thereby promoting renewed Welsh language engagement. The Director advised that the success rate had been very high, with only two cases where children may not have continued, though circumstances were unclear. Ongoing support was provided for one learner, including out-of-county provision to ensure continuity. If demand increased and grant funding confirmed in March, priority would be given to expanding provision, as numbers had risen, and children were retained in the sector. Any action contributing to the 2032 target would be continued and built upon. She added that after cross-referencing with the original WESP plan and its 10% target projections, progress was not linear but nursery and three-year-old numbers were on track, which was encouraging given the ambitious growth target. However, further work was needed to increase Year 1 numbers. The Temporary Head of School Organisation & WESP acknowledged that, despite high transition rates, some children left earlier with a good level of Welsh, so expanding secondary provision was important, alongside a major marketing campaign to target those learners, not just those leaving at the end of Year 6. The WESP report discussed pupils leaving at Year 5, which was also being addressed. Work was ongoing to strengthen secondary provision, with plans to continue into Year 4. A Member asked whether junior apprenticeships would be expanded and offered in more schools. The Director reported that the junior apprenticeship programme, launched in September, had been very successful, with overwhelmingly positive feedback from pupils and families. Although early days, careful selection of participants contributed to its impact, even benefiting those who returned to school more motivated. Five secondary schools were involved, and other schools expressed interest in expansion. The programme was cost-effective, funded through per-child allocations and a college partnership bid, and aimed to improve engagement and attendance among learners with poor attendance. It would feature in the new strategic plan for the next four years, with ongoing efforts to secure additional grant funding in collaboration with the college. A Member asked whether the new Welsh Language Act’s challenging targets for Welsh in Education and staff language ability had been considered and how these would be incorporated into the WESP. The Director confirmed that the Welsh Language Act was on the agenda for upcoming secondary and primary headteacher meetings and was referenced in the education strategic plan as a key focus. Although early days, significant work would be required, including integrating it with the WESP and adjusting targets and plans accordingly. The Temporary Head of School Organisation & WESP explained that the Welsh Language Act followed a lengthy consultation but was too early-stage to include in the September WESP update. Presentations had been attended with WG, which was still developing guidance, expected by the end of 2026. Headline dates indicated legislation, and a new code would be introduced by the end of next year, with local authorities updating WESPs accordingly. Schools would incorporate requirements into development plans by 2029–2030 and achieve full compliance by 2035–2036. All schools would be re-categorised into five tiers, starting with 10% Welsh teaching and progressing to 50% and 80%, representing a major change requiring significant work and support. It was RESOLVED to: 1. Consider the information provided. 2. Consider whether any further information is required on any aspect of the report or the work of the Education and Inclusion Services Directorate.
The Chair thanked Members and Officers for their engagement, and Officers for answering very detailed questions from Members. The Chair advised that the next meeting would take place on Tuesday 9th of December. The Chair advised Members that the December meeting would be the Director of Education and Inclusion Services final meeting as Director.
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.