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 10th November 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting. It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 9th December 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting, subject to the following amendment. In relation to page 23, paragraph 5, it should read decisions that have been made that are outside of his remit, not decisions that have been made that are outside of your remit.
RESOLVED to: • Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
RESOLVED to: • Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
Apologies of absence were received from County Borough Councillors S Hickman, J Smith and E Watts, Co-opted Member Mrs T Sweetland-Hodges, and the Senior School Improvement Officer, Mr S Williams.
The Senior Solicitor - Litigation explained that a blanket personal declaration for those present who are members of a Governing body and / or a school mentioned is within their ward, would be declared in respect of Agenda Item 3. 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’s School is named in the report and also my employer, the University of South Wales.” Ø County Borough Councillor P Binning - Item 3 – “My son’s School is named in the report.” Ø County Borough Councillor J Brencher - Items 3 – “I am a Governor at Maes-y-Coed Primary School and a Governor at Ysgol Bro Taf, who are present here this evening.” Ø County Borough Councillor N Morgan - Item 3 – “I am a past employee of Coleg Y Cymoedd.” Ø County Borough Councillor J Elliott - Item 3 – “I am working as an agency worker for Coleg Y Cymoedd.”
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 10th November 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting. It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 9th December 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting, subject to the following amendment. In relation to page 23, paragraph 5, it should read decisions that have been made that are outside of his remit, not decisions that have been made that are outside of your remit.
It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 10th November 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting. It was RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the 9th December 2025 as an accurate reflection of the meeting, subject to the following amendment. In relation to page 23, paragraph 5, it should read decisions that have been made that are outside of his remit, not decisions that have been made that are outside of your remit.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to: • Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer advised that the purpose of the report is to provide Members with an overview of the Post 16 curriculum offer across RCT Secondary and Through Schools and to update members on the development of Medr. The Officer then took Members through the report, alongside PowerPoint presentations from Coleg Y Cymoedd and Ysgol Bro Taf. A Member highlighted that the behavioural outcomes presented by Ysgol Bro Taf demonstrated the importance of positive role models in raising aspiration and suggested exploring how post?16 learners could return to schools without sixth forms to provide such role?model opportunities. The Member also queried retention rates, at paragraph 4.9, for learners choosing Bryn Celynnog Comprehensive School for post?16 study, noting concerns about low numbers and retention, and asked whether current transition arrangements sufficiently support all pathways. Further clarification was sought, at paragraph 4.11, on how post?16 support, and funding are accessed by all learners, including those outside sixth forms, and on the availability of destination data for A?Level students, including their pre?16 school pathways. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer welcomed the suggestion of using older pupils as role models and agreed to explore this further with schools, including post?16 learners returning to their former schools, could be considered as part of ongoing development work.. While some activity already occurs through school councils and visits from former learners, the Officer recognised the positive impact seen within alternative provision and the junior apprenticeship programme. She advised that while many learners continue to choose sixth?form routes, a significant proportion now transition to college. Specific retention data for learners progressing to Bryn Celynnog Comprehensive School will be sought from the data team. The Officer noted that enhanced transition work is already taking place between Pontypridd schools and Bryn Celynnog, including activities in Years 9 and 10, to support learners’ understanding of post?16 options. The overarching priority remains ensuring that each learner accesses the pathway most appropriate to their individual needs, whether in a sixth form or alternative post?16 setting. The Officer explained that all post?16 providers receive transition funding, which supports a range of transition activities accessible to all learners. Schools are encouraged to collaborate with neighbouring schools to maximise access to events such as university and apprenticeship sessions. The Officer assured Members that the Local Authority works to ensure every learner receives information about the full range of post?16 opportunities, reflecting recent recommendations from the Senedd’s Children and Young People’s Committee. She explained, with regard to destination data for learners leaving Coleg Y Cymoedd at age 18, that university destination data is held by Careers Wales, who do not currently share this automatically with the Local Authority. Discussions have recently begun with the data team and YEPS colleagues to find a more efficient method of accessing this information, as gathering it directly from each school would create a substantial and duplicated workload. The Officer confirmed that work is underway to resolve this and that an update would be provided at a future meeting. The Member noted that the 2024 report had highlighted the need for a clear overview of all available provision. She felt that the Committee had received a clearer picture regarding alternative provision but remained concerned about the continued lack of destination data. She requested additional information on the ten sixth forms, including the number of pupils attending each and the schools from which they had transferred, emphasising concern about whether pupils were progressing into provision funded by the authority, particularly Bryn Celynnog. She also sought clarification on a point in the presentation indicating that all pupils had selected Coleg Y Cymoedd, asking whether this referred only to the alternative curriculum cohort or to all Year 11 pupils at Ysgol Bro Taf. The Member observed that, although the data on post?Year 11 study appeared stable, the actual number of students progressing had decreased by around 60, equivalent to several courses. She requested information on the number of students enrolled on each course at each location and highlighted the importance of identifying particularly small classes, noting that such cohorts can present challenges. While acknowledging that provision is covered by budget, she expressed interest in understanding where any potential issues may arise. The Member expressed concern regarding the utilisation of Bryn Celynnog Sixth Form, noting that it is intended to serve as the catchment-area provision for students in the Pontypridd Valley. The Member reiterated the need to ensure that the Council’s investment in the facility is benefiting the pupils for whom it was intended The Member referred back to the earlier presentation and noted reference to the need to collaborate with another local school to ensure the long?term sustainability of the alternative provision and asked which school this related to. The Member further observed that while the overall pass rate was strong at 86%, a small number of pupils achieved lower grades. The Member sought clarification as to whether pupils achieving lower grades would have the opportunity to re?sit examinations to improve their outcomes. A Member stressed the importance of ensuring accurate and consistent data throughout the report and highlighted inconsistencies in the data presented including in Welsh average figures. At 5.11, Year 11 destination data is recorded as 2.4%, stated as being in line with the Welsh average, yet the figure at 5.9 shows the Welsh average as 2.3% and At 5.13 (page 43), Year 12 NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) data shows the Welsh average as 0.9%, while the preceding page reports 0.7%. She also commented that describing the performance as “stable” was overly positive and that the narrative should more clearly reflect that the figures show a decrease and that improvements are required, including a reported reduction of 60 pupils and grade decreases referenced on page 45. The Officer thanked Members for highlighting the data inconsistencies and confirmed that the figures had been provided by colleagues. The Officer would review the data and provide clarification. Regarding destination data and the specifics of how many learners had gone from Ysgol Bro Taf to Bryn Celynnog, she explained that they did not currently have access to that level of detail and would need to consult schools and the data team to determine whether such information could appropriately be shared in this forum. In respect of course enrolment numbers, the Officer confirmed that this data could be provided and that work was already ongoing to review which courses attract higher uptake and which require additional support. The Officer also addressed comments made about GCSE outcomes, noting that many learners within alternative provision or junior apprenticeship programmes had been out of school for extended periods. For these learners, achieving any GCSE grade represented a significant accomplishment. While opportunities for retakes existed, the Officer emphasised the importance of recognising and celebrating these achievements. The Deputy Headteacher, Ysgol Bro Taf, clarified, in relation to the post 16 destination, it was 100% of the pupils currently on the alternative curriculum that had applied to go to Coleg Y Cymoedd. In response to a query on collaboration with a local school, it was confirmed that discussions were at an early stage. The aim was to ensure the stability and sustainability of the provision, particularly regarding costs, and a nearby school was being considered to enable potential shared transport arrangements. The Deputy Headteacher further explained that pupils from Ysgol Bro Taf were following a Level 1 pathway. Many had been predicted to achieve no grade if remaining in a mainstream setting; therefore, achieving a Level 1 grade represented a significant accomplishment and provided a foundation for post?16 progression. One pupil who achieved a Level 1 pass in Numeracy would be entered for the intermediate maths paper in the summer, reflecting their ability. The Head of Service Transformation, Admissions and Governance explained that data sharing is governed by specific agreements, and much of the destination information is provided by Careers Wales. The points raised were noted, and discussions are ongoing with the GDPR team to establish a comprehensive data?sharing agreement with Careers Wales. She confirmed that officers would review and clarify the discrepancies identified in the report, as the data had been drawn from different sources, and would ensure the underlying basis of each source is clearly understood and reflected accurately. A Member, in relation to risks under the new Medr framework (para. 4.7), sought clarification on the main risks to school sixth forms posed by the forthcoming Medr risk?based regulatory framework, particularly for smaller or more vulnerable sixth forms and also asked whether any specific schools were considered most exposed to these risks and the reasons for this. The Member also asked, in relation to Welsh?medium post?16 provision (para. 5.2): about the long?term plan should Cymraeg 2050 grant funding reduce, noting its current role in keeping small Welsh?medium classes viable. The Member requested assurance on how Welsh?medium choices for learners would be protected and sought clarification on whether a minimum threshold exists below which a Welsh?medium course will not run, and who is responsible for that decision. A Member noted the recently secured £375k funding bid to support the continuity of Welsh?medium post?16 provision through widening qualification pathways and enrichment and curriculum opportunities. As the award was confirmed only on 14 January, the Chair acknowledged the early stage of detail available but requested that future reports provide fuller information on how this funding will be utilised, including a clearer breakdown of the planned activity when the item returns to Committee. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer reported that the Medr risk?based framework consultation closed in December 2025, and final recommendations have not yet been published. Therefore, it is not currently possible to identify which schools may present the highest risks. The Officer assured Members that the situation is being closely monitored in liaison with Medr colleagues, and that once the final report is received, appropriate planning and support will be put in place to address any identified vulnerabilities. She added that funding had been provided last year to support Welsh?medium schools, which informed a £375k bid to Medr. Regular meetings have been scheduled with Welsh?medium headteachers and key officers to develop the bid, with further updates to be brought back to the Committee. The funding aims to support Welsh?medium learners through a detailed review of current provision, including class sizes, pinch points, and subjects with smaller cohorts, to identify best practice and opportunities to strengthen progression. Ongoing work includes the effective childcare offer already in place across Welsh?medium schools. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer added that the Council will also review approaches used by other local authorities that deliver some teaching online. While local use of online provision is currently limited to Post?16 learners, other areas in Wales employ it more extensively due to geographical factors. The intention is to explore whether online delivery could enrich, rather than replace, the curriculum by widening subject options where class sizes are small. In response to a query on decision?making around class sizes, the Officer explained that this is determined by the headteacher based on the school’s financial position and the viability of individual classes. The aim of the £375k funding is to alleviate this pressure by ensuring that an appropriate and attractive curriculum is offered, supporting learners to remain in Welsh?medium education where it is the right pathway for them. A Member queried the cost per pupil of the Coleg y Cymoedd provision for Ysgol Bro Taf learners and how this compares with the cost of delivering Years 10 - 11 within the school. The Member asked whether the arrangement is sustainable or scalable, noting that it is inequitable if only some pupils can access such opportunities. The Member also asked how feasible it would be to deliver similar provision through the medium of Welsh, given the facilities available in the college. Further questions were raised regarding current costs, sustainability, and whether earlier intervention, rather than adjustments in Years 9 - 11, would lead to better outcomes for learners. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer advised that the Council is actively exploring the development of a Welsh?medium Junior Apprenticeship programme. Discussions have taken place with colleagues and Welsh?medium schools, and the Officer confirmed that such a programme is achievable and affordable through Medr funding and school contributions. Work is underway with the intention of implementing the provision in the near future. The Headteacher of Ysgol Bro Taf reported that the Coleg y Cymoedd provision is costed on a cohort of 16 learners, including school?funded staffing for the core and life & work skills elements, and college costs for specialist provision, with the current cost approximately £7k per learner. This exceeds the school’s per?pupil budget allocation but remains broadly in line with, and slightly below, the cost of EOTAS provision (1.5 times the per?pupil allocation). The Headteacher stated that the programme therefore represents a cost?effective option offering clear benefits and good value for money. In relation to expected outcomes, the 14-19 Future Pathways Officer agreed that earlier intervention is important and should begin in Years 7–9 to better identify learners’ potential and support their progression. While current work necessarily starts at a later stage, the school is reviewing its Key Stage 3 provision to implement earlier interventions. The Officer emphasised the need to consider each learner individually, noting that circumstances can change significantly between Year 7 and Year 10, to ensure learners are placed on the most appropriate pathways as early as possible. The Principal of Coleg y Cymoedd stated that discussions with Medr regarding the Junior Apprenticeship Programme have included consideration of Welsh?medium delivery. While there is a clear aspiration to offer the programme through the medium of Welsh, this must align with learner numbers and available Medr funding. Engagement is ongoing with Welsh?medium schools, and the Principal confirmed that the model is scalable and supports the aim of equitable access for all RCT learners. He noted that the college currently delivers the only Junior Apprenticeship in Wales with a science core and expressed an ambition to be the first to deliver the programme through the medium of Welsh when circumstances allow. The Principal noted that, as a vice?chair of governors at a Welsh?medium school, governors had discussed both the benefits of the Junior Apprenticeship Programme and the drawback of learners not being able to use their Welsh language skills. He highlighted that WESP targets included ensuring equitable provision and supporting learners to continue using Welsh beyond school. The Principal expressed strong support for Medr’s aims, emphasising that any Welsh?medium offer must be scalable, appropriately funded, and centred on the needs of learners. A Member reflected on the historical perception of further education (FE) as a “poor relation” to sixth forms but welcomed its strengthened position. The Member emphasised, however, that Welsh?medium sixth forms provide more than academic provision: they sustain daily use of the Welsh language and vital social and cultural experiences. Concern was expressed that concentrating too many opportunities in FE could weaken pupils’ Welsh?language use and connections. The Member noted personal experience of the benefits of Welsh?medium post?16 education and encouraged Coleg y Cymoedd to continue engaging outwardly with schools as well as drawing learners in. A Member asked for clarification on the NEET data, specifically the ‘support declined’ category. The Member queried what happens to these vulnerable learners once support is declined and what, if any, further support is available to them. In addition, a Member requested clarification on what is included within ‘day services’ and asked whether Year 11 pupils who become pregnant or become parents are subsequently revisited to determine whether they wish to return to education. The Youth Services Manager explained that ‘support declined’ refers to young people who, after leaving school in September, are contacted by staff but choose not to engage with the voluntary support offered. While support can be provided through YEPS, one?to?one or group work, or signposting to other services, the service must respect the wishes of those who decline. In relation to ‘day services’, the Manager clarified that this typically applies to young people with Additional Learning Needs (ALN) who may access up to 15 hours of provision per week. Under the national YEPS framework, engagement must exceed 16 hours per week to be counted as education, employment or training; therefore, those receiving day services remain recorded as NEET, despite the support they receive. He added that, in relation to pupils who become pregnant or young parents, staff leave contact cards so they can re?engage at any point or access support immediately if they wish. The Manager also clarified that the earlier NEET figure should read 2.4%, in line with the Welsh average. A Member noted that the report did not reference the wide range of enrichment activities undertaken across RCT schools and Coleg y Cymoedd to support learners’ post?16 pathways, including work?related opportunities, higher education engagement and apprenticeship preparation. Including these in future reports would provide a fuller picture and assurance of ongoing support for learners. She also raised concern about performance at section 7.5 being consistently below the Welsh average, noting the significant areas highlighted in red. Clarification was sought on how the attainment gap is being addressed across all grade ranges. The Member further observed that the report did not set out the wider challenges, particularly regarding the recruitment, training and retention of teachers able to deliver Level 3 qualifications. Given the evolving curriculum and changing labour market, she requested information on how these challenges are being managed to ensure sustainable delivery, including in Welsh?medium settings. Finally, in relation to attendance, the Member welcomed the strong improvements reported but asked for further detail on the pupils showing significant declines and whether specific interventions are in place or if additional underlying challenges may be affecting their attendance. Clarification was sought if careers and work related education was still aligned to the Gatsby benchmarks. The 14-19 Future Pathways Officer stated that, due to the wide range of enrichment activities across schools, she would prefer to provide Members with an additional paper outlining this work in full, noting that CWRE is now a mandatory cross?cutting theme and enrichment opportunities are embedded across year groups. She confirmed that schools still use the Gatsby Benchmarks as a measure of excellence, though less formally than in 2019, and that work is underway with Careers Wales to transition to the new national Quality Mark. Annual reviews with schools continue to monitor how CWRE is embedded across the curriculum. Addressing concerns about performance data, the Officer confirmed that school improvement partners are working closely with schools to share good practice and support improvement where needed. On the challenges of recruitment and retention, the Officer noted that this is a key element of the £375k Medr bid, with initial focus on Welsh?medium schools before extending learning and support across all RCT schools. Work is also planned to strengthen networks for new teachers and support their development. The Deputy Headteacher, Ysgol Bro Taf, provided a detailed response, reporting that pupils are facing individual challenges affecting engagement, and the school is working closely with families and partner agencies to provide tailored support and identify appropriate learning pathways. The Chair thanked colleagues from Ysgol Bro Taf, Coleg y Cymoedd and officers for their attendance and contributions. The Chair noted the value of the detailed discussion and confirmed that the Officer would provide further information in a supplementary report or through future work programme arrangements. It was RESOLVED to: • Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to: • Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
The Head of Inclusion Services advised that the purpose of the report is to provide Members with an overview of learners who are Electively Home Educated (EHE) in Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) and an overview of the offer of services provided to learners who are EHE. The Officer then took Members through the report. A Member expressed concern about the reported increases, acknowledging the national trend, and asked whether any analysis had been undertaken to understand the causes and what actions had been taken in response. They also sought clarification on monitoring arrangements, noting that Welsh Government (WG) recommendations are non?statutory. The Member requested detail on the monitoring undertaken locally, whether it exceeds the recommended level, and information on outcomes for young people compared with those in mainstream education. The Chair added that the reasons listed for EHE were broad and requested further data on their distribution and greater detail behind them. The Chair also referred to section 4.2 of the report, which outlines best practice for initial, three?month and annual visits, noting that these visits are not mandatory. Clarification was sought on the Council’s current approach, including whether best practice is being met and whether existing resources allow full compliance. The Head of Inclusion Services advised that, having recently joined the authority, she had initiated a review of current processes to address the questions raised. She explained that a detailed analysis of the reasons for EHE was not yet available but could be provided in a future report. The service is scrutinising its data more closely, targeting specific demographic areas, and exploring links with other services to support growing demand. Regarding monitoring, she confirmed that due to capacity constraints, approximately 600 children and two staff, only one annual visit is currently achievable. The review will consider options to increase capacity to align more closely with best practice. The Officer advised that meaningful comparisons between outcomes for EHE children and those in school was limited, as WG guidance states that home education should not be directly compared with school?based provision. While exam outcomes for EHE learners could be explored, this data is not routinely available. The Officer confirmed that this could be considered as part of the ongoing review and reported back. The Head of Service Transformation, Admissions and Governance confirmed that the authority has a robust case management system. Once a child becomes EHE, the school submits the notification, and the child is recorded immediately. The system holds full details, including the child’s address, previous school, curriculum stage and reasons for EHE, in line with WG requirements, and all correspondence and evidence provided by parents. Members were assured that comprehensive records are maintained, including educational information submitted by parents. The Officer also noted that a dedicated officer supports Year 10 - 11 learners and works closely with the college, maintaining detailed records for over 150 Year 11 pupils. The Chair highlighted the significant rise in EHE learners, increasing from 157 in 2019 to 636, noting the associated risks and pressures this places on current processes. While acknowledging the recording systems outlined by officers, the Chair expressed concern about the robustness of wider arrangements and welcomed the review being undertaken. The Chair suggested that the Committee may wish to consider writing to WG regarding the need for stronger, potentially statutory, guidance, given the substantial national and local increases and RCT’s position as the ninth highest authority in Wales. A Member agreed with the Chair’s comments, emphasising the need for updates on progress and clarity on the level of support and funding required. The Member supported the suggestion to write to WG, stating that if the current legislation is inadequate, it should be reviewed and amended. The Principal of Coleg y Cymoedd reported that the college had seen a notable rise in EHE learners over the past two years, many presenting with higher levels of need. Systems for tracking and applications had been strengthened, with 38 learners already identified for the next academic year. He advised that this trend had been raised with the Minister for Post?16 Education and that the college would be submitting evidence to WG as part of its call for evidence on post?16 provision. He emphasised the college’s commitment to partnership working with RCT schools and inclusion services to support EHE learners and ensure that, where college is appropriate, no barriers prevent their progression. The Head of Service Transformation, Admissions and Governance highlighted that when a child becomes EHE, they are removed from the annual Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) return, which informs the WG’s Revenue Support Grant. As a result, the local authority no longer receives funding for that child once they leave the school system. The Head of Inclusion Services noted that, in addition to the existing grant, further funding had already been allocated to increase capacity within the EHE service, which had been an early priority. She invited any interested Members to participate in the ongoing review, emphasising the importance of community involvement and partnership working with education officers. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing advised that the ‘attendance’ category within the reasons for EHE was broad. A deeper review undertaken two years ago found that most children recorded under this category were not known to the Attendance and Wellbeing Service and were not on a prosecution pathway, indicating that parental perception, rather than service involvement, was the primary factor. He noted the need to improve communication with parents to avoid misconceptions about prosecution influencing decisions to home educate. In response to questions on outcomes, he clarified that EHE learners are not required to sit formal examinations, which limits the availability of outcome data. However, schools do offer opportunities for EHE pupils to sit GCSEs, BTECs, or vocational qualifications if they choose. A Member expressed significant concern regarding the lack of available data, particularly in light of rising EHE numbers. The Member queried how the authority identifies younger children who have never been registered with a school and whether they are being home educated. Concern was raised about the adequacy of educational standards given the current practice of one annual visit, and questions were asked about the measures used to assess educational outcomes as well as asking how safeguarding concerns can be effectively addressed, questioning how the authority can be assured that EHE children are safe. The Member also requested information on the proportion of EHE learners who would be eligible for free school meals, and on longer?term learner outcomes, including attainment of core GCSE qualifications, noting the impact this may have on future opportunities and on parents’ decisions regarding home education. In addition, the Chair referred to the guidance at section 4.1, which states that children must receive an “efficient and suitable full?time education,” and asked how this is defined and assessed. The Chair sought clarity on the criteria used to determine whether an education meets this requirement. The Head of Inclusion Services outlined the WG guidance on determining whether education is “suitable and efficient.” Local authorities are required to see and communicate with the child and consider the parents’ approach, the child’s progress, and the quality of learning experiences, recognising that home education may differ significantly from school provision. She explained that the Council’s policy reflects this by offering initial and annual visits, requesting reasonable evidence of learning where appropriate, and ensuring engagement is supportive but statutory. Evidence may include discussions with the child, examples of work, or parental reports. She acknowledged that the guidance is broad but confirmed it is the framework within which officers must operate. She explained that parents may legally decline a visit, but the local authority must still be satisfied that a suitable education is being provided. Where engagement is limited, officers carry out a proportional risk assessment using information from partner agencies. If concerns remain, national guidance permits escalation to School Attendance Orders or Education Supervision Orders. She confirmed that safeguarding duties apply equally to home?educated and school?educated children. WG guidance emphasises multi?agency cooperation, information sharing, and the importance of seeing the child wherever possible. The Council’s policy includes pathways for children missing education and close working with health and social care, with risk?based decisions made where access to the home is refused. The Head of Service Transformation, Admissions and Governance confirmed that the service holds data on whether a learner was eligible for free school meals at the point they became EHE, which could be used to produce a breakdown. She added that the authority can identify children who have never attended school by using birth record information, which allows officers to track whether a child is on a school roll or being home educated. The Member asked whether the authority actively tracks children identified through birth records who do not subsequently appear on school rolls. The Head of Service Transformation, Admissions and Governance explained, in respect of children not on the school register, that the authority receives birth data from registrars via a data?sharing agreement with the Health Board, including children’s details and National Insurance numbers. This enables reconciliation to identify children not appearing on school rolls. However, challenges arise where children born within the health board area attend school in another authority, or where names have changed. She noted that not all Welsh authorities receive birth data, meaning a comprehensive approach would require an all?Wales system. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing explained that children missing education are monitored by the Attendance and Wellbeing Service. All children born in RCT are recorded on the Capita system, and after the term in which a child turns five, a report is run to identify any who have not registered at a school. These cases are proactively followed up with families or recorded as Children Missing Education (CME) for further investigation. He noted that families often move between authorities before age five, meaning some children born elsewhere may not yet be known to RCT. A WG pilot, in which RCT participated, attempted to match education and GP records to identify children missing education, though data?matching inconsistencies created anomalies. An independent review of the pilot has been commissioned, and further guidance from WG is awaited. Borders between authorities continue to pose challenges for tracking children aged 0–5. A Member highlighted safeguarding concerns, noting that some families encountered through community work, including at food banks, may not be registered with services and may be difficult to engage, particularly where language barriers exist. The Member expressed concern that Traveller families and certain ethnic groups may be going under the radar, creating significant gaps in safeguarding oversight. The Member noted that the increase to 636 EHE learners was significant and asked whether the Council could seek support from post?COVID recovery funding, given the likely impact of the pandemic on rising numbers. The Member also highlighted pressures arising from the Additional Learning Needs (ALN) Act and the growing resource implications, suggesting these factors could strengthen the case for additional funding from WG. They further observed that many EHE learners may have additional needs or anxiety?related issues, and that home education may sometimes be used as a default route for older pupils, particularly around age 14. The Member supported the proposal to write to WG and suggested including these wider pressures, post?COVID impacts, ALN demands, and safeguarding concerns linked to mobile phone use, in that correspondence. The Head of Inclusion Services agreed that wider community engagement, including with parent carers and organisations such as food banks, should form part of the review. She expressed interest in exploring whether additional funding streams could support increased capacity and confirmed she shared Members’ concerns regarding rising EHE numbers. She noted that some funding had already been set aside to strengthen capacity but emphasised the need for further collaborative work with other services and stakeholders, which would be a key element of the review. The Chair welcomed the proposal for wider stakeholder engagement, noting the value of understanding parents’ and carers’ reasons for choosing EHE and the support they require, including possible early interventions. The Chair also acknowledged the number of pupils who return to school and queried what additional support could be provided through available grant funding. The Head of Inclusion Services agreed and emphasised the importance of earlier, preventative intervention to reduce the number of cases escalating to EHE. She stated that prevention should be a key focus alongside intervention. A Member highlighted concerns arising from engagement with a home?educated young person, noting that the child’s account differed significantly when speaking privately compared with in front of parents. The Member stressed the importance of creating safe opportunities for children to speak independently, as their experiences may not always align with what is reported, and emphasised the vulnerability of some EHE learners. The Chair reiterated that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility and reminded Members of their corporate parenting duties, emphasising the need to remain vigilant and report any safeguarding concerns where necessary. The Head of Attendance and Wellbeing advised that professionals, including elected Members, should report any children who may be missing education. A referral can be made via the Children Missing Education page on the RCT website, where a form is available to notify the Attendance and Wellbeing Service. She noted that, due to GDPR, the service is often unable to provide feedback to referrers, but all referrals are investigated. The Chair noted that, while the Committee’s discussion had rightly focused on concerns arising from the significant increase in EHE numbers, gaps in guidance, and limited data, it was important to acknowledge that EHE can be a positive and appropriate option for some pupils. The Chair emphasised that many parents and carers provide high?quality education and that the Committee’s questions reflected the need for clearer information, stronger evidence and a fuller understanding of the reasons behind the increase, rather than criticism of EHE itself. A Member noted that the figure of 636 EHE learners equated to the size of a small school, raising concern. While acknowledging the positive aspects of home education, the Member asked what professional tutoring or support the local authority provides or facilitates. They referenced examples in other authorities such as tuition in libraries or care homes, and support with examinations, and sought clarification on what support and engagement is offered to parents and children in RCT. The Head of Inclusion Services advised that WG funding allows the local authority to offer enrichment resources and practical support, including online curriculum materials, funded qualifications and examinations, some arts activities, forest school sessions, and community engagement events such as monthly coffee mornings. These are intended to strengthen relationships and improve oversight. In response to the Chair, the Officer confirmed that the authority does not provide private tuition. She clarified that financial responsibility for education rests with parents once they elect to home educate, and the grant is not sufficient to fund individual tuition. However, opportunities for group tuition or other innovative support models could be considered as part of the ongoing review. A Member welcomed that RCT ranked ninth rather than higher, though expressed concern that EHE numbers continued to rise despite the authority’s strong school provision. They requested a breakdown of post?16 destinations for the Year 11 EHE learners referenced in section 5.6, including how many progress to further education, work?based learning, employment or become NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training). The Member also asked how many EHE learners sit formal qualifications and suggested comparing their outcomes with those who remain in school to support parental decision?making. The Member further queried what happens to the 10% of learners whose post?16 destinations are not tracked. Finally, they welcomed the high number of pupils returning to school and emphasised the value of engaging with those families to inform prevention work. The Head of Inclusion Services confirmed that a full breakdown of post?16 destinations could be provided in an additional report. She welcomed the suggestion to include information on formal qualification outcomes, noting this could support families’ decision?making when considering EHE. She acknowledged that while 90% of destinations are currently tracked, this falls short of the aim of reaching 100%. Efforts to engage with the remaining families continue, and where families do not respond and concerns arise, cases are escalated to statutory services. She emphasised that attempts to engage with all families are ongoing and do not cease. A Member referred to paragraph 6.3 of the report, noting that expanding statutory duties and rising EHE numbers were creating capacity pressures, with staff working under strain. The Member asked what measures were in place to support staff and what actions were being taken to ensure the long?term sustainability of the service. The Head of Inclusion Services explained that rising demand, particularly relating to ALN assessments for EHE learners, was creating significant capacity pressures. Additional panels and a complex?case meeting process had been established to support decision?making on whether to maintain or cease Individual Development Plan (IDPs) for EHE pupils. She noted that funding had been set aside to increase capacity and that the review would also focus on strengthening early intervention and prevention, working with families and schools at an earlier stage to reduce avoidable escalation into EHE, while recognising that electing to home educate remains a lawful parental choice. A Member noted the value of the discussion and drawing on an example from England, queried how funding follows learners with significant needs in Wales when those needs relate to school refusal rather than a diagnosed ALN. They asked what support would be available in RCT for a comparable case and whether WG should review resourcing for such circumstances. The Head of Inclusion Services explained that the WG grant has two purposes, supporting the local authority to discharge its statutory duties and providing limited enrichment and engagement activities for EHE learners. The grant is not substantial and would typically fund only one post with a small amount remaining for support. She noted that the authority supplements this funding significantly through ALN grants. Where a child has a local authority–maintained IDP equivalent to an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) in England, the associated additional learning provision may attract financial support. If families cannot deliver the required provision at home, the local authority can fund these elements. This funding comes from the authority’s core budget, not WG. The Member suggested that EHE learners should be included in PLASC returns so that associated funding would follow them, enabling the local authority to provide greater support and potentially encourage their return to school. The Member acknowledged that some families provide strong home education but maintained that many children would benefit more from attending school. The Chair highlighted Section?7.4 (page?68), noting the value of hearing directly from service users, learners, and practitioners to provide real?life insight into the impact of funded online curriculum resources, accredited qualifications, and enhanced face?to?face activities such as drama, art, and Forest School. The Chair requested that future reports include examples from pupils, parents, or carers who have benefited from this support, and encouraged efforts to gather the views of families who electively home educate, where willing. The Chair further asked that a future meeting, within next year’s work programme, include an update on the ongoing review and progress against the future developments outlined in Section?8, with accompanying evidence of work underway. In conclusion, the Chair proposed that the Committee write to the WG expressing concerns regarding the absence of statutory guidance on EHE and the resulting limitations on local authorities’ ability to robustly monitor and support EHE learners. Members indicated agreement. The Chair further proposed that the letter also raise the funding issues discussed, including PLASC matters, with Members in agreement. The Chair thanked officers for their detailed reports and responses, and extended thanks to the Principal, Coleg Y Cymoedd, for his valuable contribution to the final item. It was RESOLVED to: • Scrutinise and comment on the information contained within this report. Consider if any further information is required.
The Chair reminded Members that the next meeting of the Committee will be held on 23rd April as a special meeting to consider safeguarding matters relating to the North Wales case review and RCT’s response. Members were also asked to retain 17 March in their diaries, as it is likely, although not yet confirmed, to be a joint meeting with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the Notice of Motion on home?to?school transport and subsequent actions. Confirmation is subject to approval by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 10th February. The Chair closed the meeting by thanking Members for their engagement and contributions.
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.