Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
1.1 No apologies were received.
2.1 Members made the following declarations of interest: · Councillor Liam Cowles declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 as he was a governor at Abersychan School and Blaenavon Heritage VC Primary School. · Councillor Janet Jones declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 as she was a governor at Blaenavon Heritage VC Primary School. · Councillor Colette Thomas declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 as her relative worked at Abersychan School, her grandson attended Cwmbran High School and she was a governor at Nant Celyn Primary School. · Councillor Jayne Watkins declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 as she was a governor at Our Lady of the Angels RC Primary School. · Councillor Lucy Williams declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 as she was a governor at Pontnewydd Primary School and Woodlands Community Primary School. · Victoria Horlor declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 as she was a governor at Ysgol Panteg. 2.2 The CLO left the meeting.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 16th March 2022 were confirmed as an accurate record.
5.1 The DCOPE outlined the report and confirmed that the Local Authority (LA) had taken action to address the Estyn inspection results almost immediately, in April 2022. The actions taken so far were outlined in paragraph 4.5 of the report. 5.2 The DCOPE explained that Appendix 3 had been created for the recent improvement conference with Estyn, where the LA set out its success criteria. He added that this document would evolve over time and confirmed that a lot of work was yet to be done; however a committed body of staff were in place in order to achieve it. 5.3 Following Members’ questions and comments, the DCOPE and DCOLE made the following main points: • As current headteachers were School Improvement Partners (SIPs), it was important to ascertain their capacity to support, and not overload them. The current model was based around the number of staff used by each school, and the hours of support on offer. The Education Achievement Service (EAS) created the posts of Senior School Improvement Partners in order to monitor activity and make sure notes of activity were kept up-to-date. • LA and EAS partnership meetings were taking place regularly, where actions were agreed and rigorously followed up. These meetings provided quality assurance on various reports and made sure that SIPs were conducting face-to-face work in schools, such as learning walks, book reviews and evaluations of School Development Plans (SDPs). • Each school had a support plan in place, with termly check-ins, and schools in special measures had half-termly check-ins via multi agency meetings, involving Estyn, Welsh Government (WG), etc. • Each term the SIPs would conduct a range of in person activities that formed part of the self-evaluation process, and this term the theme was quality of teaching. • The LA holds termly or half termly check-ins with the EAS regarding each school, where any issues could be addressed. The EAS produce a participation report, which would highlight why a particular school may not be engaging with them as much as expected, as there were a variety of reasons for this. • It was important that the new team planning template and work of staff within the Education department linked in with the other plans and activities of the wider Council and its ‘golden thread’. • The Education department had been keeping in touch with other evolving plans within the Council, such as the County Plan and the Children’s Services Development Plan (CSDP); however this work would be ongoing for some time and required constant adjustments in order to reflect any changes. • A culture of performance was not something that could be switched on or off, and it would take a lot of work and time in order to achieve it. The LA needed to involve everyone more than it previously had regarding performance, and widen the levels of knowledge, responsibility and accountability. It was important to note that Estyn did not find a lack of processes during their inspection, but these processes needed refining. • With regards to the above, staff had a lot of knowledge and the leadership within Education were learning from them. Progress in this area needed to be monitored and relationships, support and challenge would be vital going forward. Leadership within Education were confident that a far more engaged workforce would be evident in 12 months’ time. • The Education Extended Leadership Team (EELT) had been created and was a useful forum that had built its own programme. This term the EELT would be addressing performance management targets. • As members of the Committee were aware, a national shift around performance statistics from individual schools had limited the amount of information that that could be shared with bodies, such as overview and scrutiny committees. Going forward officers and members would need to consider the information that was held regarding schools, such as SDPs and tracking data, and agree when and how this information would be used. • The EAS were commissioning work around what assessment for schools would look like going forward, and overview and scrutiny had a role to play in this. Officers wanted to reassure members that they were not alone in being concerned regarding changes to available data, and that everyone involved wanted the best for learners. • Officers acknowledged members concerns that a gap existed around training and development for councillors who were not school governors and were confident that this could be easily addressed. The DCOLE confirmed that he would be discussing this issue with the Education Monitoring Task Group and the Executive Member. • Annual surveys with headteachers around support provided by all council services may appear infrequent; however it was important to recognise that headteachers were very busy and had many other opportunities and forums in which to raise any issues. Officers would rather issues were raised quickly, in order to resolve them quickly. • An external peer review of self-evaluation and performance management systems would be commissioned, and discussions were currently ongoing with the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), to consider who was best placed and available to conduct the review. It was important to get a mix of people and experience on the peer review team. • The first version of the shared ambitions document was created during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and headteachers were involved. A consultation around the document was due to start later in the current term, and it was important to align it with the CSDP. It was hoped that the document would be completed by April 2023. • In the past, the creation of team plans had been a fairly siloed process, without enough challenge and engagement. This had now changed and the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) within Education were reviewing and helping to modify plans, with more dialogue taking place. Alignment work was being conducted regarding 2022/23 team plans and the 2023/24 team plans would be co-constructed by individual teams and the SLT. • With regards to monitoring progress against the Post Inspection Action Plan (PIAP), it was possible that a monitoring item could return to the Committee, and further reports could be shared more widely amongst all members of the Council. • The LA had very good systems in place that captured a lot of data around such areas as exclusions, attendance, sports development and play services; however it was important that this information was made more accessible and used more widely regarding tracking and performance. A tool around accessing data had been piloted within Social Care and the DCOPE confirmed it had been a success. • WG had published school improvement guidelines to make it clear what information schools should collate and what the LA and EAS could draw upon. The LA were keen to create a bespoke Torfaen model, in partnership with the EAS and all Torfaen schools, as this work was new to everyone, and learning could be achieved together. • Annual reviews of performance and 6 monthly catchups were held with staff to determine successes and challenges, and to ascertain what professional learning had taken place and what was needed. The SLT would then review needs, both shared and specific. Due to the Estyn inspection results it was clear that more emphasis on the above was required, and the DCOPE confirmed that he and his staff were focussing more time on this than in previous years. He stressed that a very committed workforce was in place; however purposeful development was required. • The Torfaen Youth Alliance (TYA) was a relatively new format, and although officers recommended items for them to consider, the TYA set their own agenda. The TYA was not the only consultative group used by the LA; however engagement with the Participation Officer would be beneficial in order to widen the feedback of information. • It would make sense from a presentational perspective to merge Appendices 2 and 3 in future; however they were developed for different purposes on this occasion, as Appendix 3 was designed specifically for the recent improvement conference with Estyn. • Although the Council’s corporate performance management framework existed in order to drive improvements, it was decided that a Torfaen Education version was also required; however it was in sync with the corporate version. The DCOPE outlined the main features of the Monitoring and Evaluation Report (MER) and agreed to share a copy of the MER with members of the Committee. • The MER provided staff with clarity of expectations, and it enabled the SLT to evaluate the information and respond accordingly. • It was agreed that the members’ suggestion of using red, amber and green (RAG) ratings against each activity on the PIAP would be beneficial in order to pinpoint performance issues and allow for progress to be clearly viewed and challenged. • Although similar topics were discussed by various interlinked groups on different levels, officers were confident that no unnecessary duplication was occurring; however feedback around this was always welcome from everyone involved. 5.4 The Chair thanked the DCOPE and DCOLE for their contributions to the meeting and they left the meeting. 5.5 Councillor Caroline Price entered the meeting. 5.6 On completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee concluded by offering the following comments and recommendations for consideration: Recommendation 1 – Ensure that those Elected Members who aren’t on a Governing Body also receive relevant training, as part of their professional learning, as they may be missing out on valuable learning/information. Recommendation 2 – Consider amending Appendix 2 of the report (Post Inspection Action Plan), so that the success criteria and intended impacts can be viewed more clearly, against the proposed actions. Recommendation 3 – Consider using colour code RAG ratings against each activity on the Post Inspection Action Plan, so that progress can be clearly viewed and challenged, where appropriate. 5.7 Whilst discussing the recommendations, members also requested that a copy of the PIAP, including progress updates that were presented to the Improvement Board, was circulated to members of the Committee on a regular basis.
6.1 The SCI&SO presented the report and invited members to review the information contained in the appendices to the report and agree an item for scrutiny at the next meeting. 6.2 The Committee agreed to scrutinise Pupil Attendance – Persistent Absentees.
7.1 The date of the next meeting was noted. 7.2 The meeting ended at 3.10pm.
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.