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 Apologies were received from Councillor Williams.
2.1 The following declarations were made in respect of agenda item 5: · Councillor Cowles declared a personal interest due to being a governor at Abersychan Comprehensive School and Blaenavon Heritage VC Primary School. · Councillor Seabourne declared a personal interest due to being a member of the management board at the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU). · Councillor Thomas declared a personal interest due to being a governor at Nant Celyn Primary School. · Councillor Watkins declared a personal interest due to being a governor at Cwmbran High School and Our Lady of the Angels Primary School. · Victoria Horlor declared a personal interest due to being a parent governor at Ysgol Panteg.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 1st February 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 The second action denoted on the sheet was currently in progress. An update would be provided at the next meeting. 4.2 The Committee noted the action sheet.
5.1 The MD gave a brief introduction to the report, highlighting the following areas: • The Business Plan specifically highlighted EAS priorities within Torfaen. • This report was reflective of a much wider spectrum that needed to be looked at in its entirety to accurately monitor performance in both teaching and leadership. 5.2 Following Members’ questions and comments, the following main points were made: • DoE - All schools within Torfaen were given the opportunity to take part in a self-evaluation exercise as part of the Celebrate, Share, Support, Refine (CSSR) Teaching approach. Schools within Estyn statutory categories were given significant support by both the Local Authority and the Education Achievement Service (EAS) in line with the CSSR Teaching approach. • DoE – There was a recent change of Headteacher at Abersychan Comprehensive School and regular meetings were held in order to ensure any support required was provided. In addition to this, all schools had at least an annual meeting in which the development plan and progress was evaluated. These meetings could also be held half-termly or termly dependant on the level of support required. • MD – There was a recent visit to Abersychan Comprehensive School to discuss the support EAS could provide and whether any changes recently made were having the desired effect on school performance. There were details shared with leadership at Abersychan Comprehensive School regarding professional learning for staff. • DoE – All schools within Torfaen were currently being transferred to the new Additional Learning Needs (ALN) framework. Part of this work ensured that the transfer was moving at the correct pace per the guidance set by Welsh Government. • DoE – Cwmbran High School had been within Estyn statutory categories for a significant amount of time but the recent full monitoring report from Estyn showed appropriate progress made. The feedback from Estyn complimented the strength of the Leadership team and the impact that was having across the school. • DoE – The new Headteacher at Cwmbran High School had been in post for 18 months and there was a new Deputy Headteacher. Previously the school had been destabilised due to frequent change of Headteacher. • MD – The new Leadership Team and Governor Board was giving Cwmbran High School consistent leadership which was sustainable. • MD - OLEVI training was commissioned and core funded by Torfaen County Borough Council to improve the quality of teaching and learning. This training was linked to a recommendation made by Estyn in respect of improving outcomes for learners, particularly in secondary schools. • MD – OLEVI training was offered to all schools and Headteachers were able to choose the staff they felt most appropriate to undertake this training. • MD - Ysgol Gymraeg Gwynllyw and St Albans had chosen not to access OLEVI training due to differing needs and robust development training already being in place. • MD – There were many forums and opportunities for any concerns with training to be raised. • MD – The attendance for EAS workshops was not as high as desired but Headteachers would make appropriate decisions regarding what training and workshops were needed for their staff. These sessions were recorded and available for schools to access. • AD – It was believed that one governor per school attended the professional learning training. The exact figures would be shared with the Committee after the meeting. • AD – Governors were asked to complete an annual survey, allowing feedback to be gathered. An issue that arose frequently was the lack of video recorded training sessions, however, 95% of sessions were recorded and a link was emailed to each governor after each session. There was consideration of promoting these sessions through other forms of communication to improve the uptake in training. • MD – There was work to be undertaken by Schools, the EAS and the Local Authority to improve governor training. Consideration needed to be given to governor schedules, the voluntary nature of this position and the need to retain governors. • HoL – Governor recruitment was a challenge. There was work being undertaken to help promote the role of a governor, such as a page on Torfaen County Borough Council website which explained the role and signposted interested parties to the relevant person. • HoL – Several Member sessions had been undertaken and Members were encouraged to promote governor recruitment through word of mouth. • HoL – Cluster training had been suggested by EAS as this had been positive within another Local Authority. These sessions were likely to run as one cluster per term on a two-year cycle. Headteachers were encouraged to share the positives of cluster-based training. • AD – Cluster training sessions had been a powerful tool as it allowed governors to have the opportunity to work together and form relationships. • AD – Governor training sessions were evaluated at delivery and any feedback was recorded. These evaluations were distributed to Chairs of Governors and Headteachers. However, further work was needed in this area to triangulate the impact of governors’ work on Leadership in schools. • HoL – The Estyn thematic report was shared with both Members and Governors by EAS and had been well received. During recent inspections, the role of governors had not been identified as a recommendation and had actually been recognised as a strength in respect of one school. • DoE – All schools were closely monitored in order to ensure any shortcomings identified were being addressed. Any schools that had been in statutory categories for a significant amount of time were subject to half-termly multi-agency meetings. These meetings would look at any progress made on the school’s development plan. • DoE – All secondary schools were met with on a termly basis in response to the Estyn recommendation to improve outcomes for learners, particularly in secondary schools within Torfaen. • DoE – No Torfaen school was subject to an active warning notice, nor were statutory powers being used. • DoE – The data in respect of free school meal learners (FSM) was limited as it consisted of only one year’s worth of data. Secondary schools were encouraged to focus on supporting learners with external challenges, which had a positive impact on all learners. Whilst there was a focus on closing the gap between FSM and Non-FSM learners, there would also be focus on improving learning for all students. • MD – If there was a significant gap in learner attainment at the end of key stage 4, it needed to be seen how this issue was being addressed for all learners throughout the entire school provision. The data represented only a fraction of a larger, holistic enquiry into how best to support vulnerable learners and ensuring all learners were receiving the highest quality education possible. • MD – Primary schools in Torfaen did continue to engage with School Improvement Partners during the Action Short of Strike period, although this was not at the desired level. There had been a commitment made to move forward from this period, rather than attempt to catch up as prompted by Welsh Government and Unions. By the end of the current term, all schools would have engaged with the School Improvement Partners. • HoL – Feedback in respect of the CSSR teaching approach had been positive and it was often stated how useful and supportive this was. This approach helped share best practice between schools. • MD– Headteachers had been heavily involved in the continual development of the CSSR approach. If negative feedback was received, there would be steps taken to change the approach to rectify the identified issue. • DoE – The CSSR approach did not ask additional requirements of the school but rather provided the school with external quality assurance. • MD – The figures within paragraph 4.4 of the report were reflective of national Estyn reports and were mostly representative of primary schools. There was still work to be undertaken within Torfaen surrounding Independent Learning, but the figures were consistent with national figures. This was an area that was continually discussed with schools. • DoE – The data within appendix one was publicly available on the My Local School website. This data was technical by nature and had been simplified for the appendix. • AD – The technicality of this data was due to the point scoring system for grades that was introduced in 2012. The “Capped 9” system was fairer and allowed for learners to be better evaluated than previously but was complex in nature. There would be consideration into attempting to simplify this data further for the report and appendix. • DoE – This data within appendix one represented one aspect of school performance and the teaching and learning taking place each day was most important. • AD - “Capped 9” was a measure to ensure learners were not being entered for too many qualifications and were instead entered to the best nine qualifications for them, whether this be GCSE’s or accredited alternative qualifications. • AD – The family groups in respect of performance was not to make schools feel like they were competing but rather allowed for easier comparison between schools. • MD – Previously there had been no comparatives for schools so family groups had been introduced to help monitor performance. Schools also saw the benefit of these family groups as it allowed networks to be built between similar schools. • AD – Each point on the graph on page 39 of the report was representative of approximately a quarter of a GCSE grade. The current position of Torfaen was positive and showed balanced learning. • AD – The comparison by thirds table on page 40 was a new model as of January 2023. Schools were focusing on all thirds within this table and addressing the variability. • DoE– A thematic review of teaching and learning was undertaken by School Improvement Partners each term and identified any good practice within schools in Torfaen. These discussions were shared with Headteachers. • AD – The use of “one significantly in line” on page 40 of the agenda was a typing error. • MD – The development of numeracy and literacy was included on the vast majority of school development plans. There was a broad offer of support provided to schools in order to help develop learners’ numeracy and literacy skills. Support staff in school were critical to helping lower ability learners in developing these skills. Schools would also measure these skills through personalised assessments. • MD – As a result of the pandemic, some learner’s numeracy and literacy skills had not progressed. • DoE – There were fluctuations with learner attainment in science due to significant staff changes in certain schools. These cases had already been identified as issues within the schools and were actively being addressed. • HoL–Thematic reviews between the school and School Improvement Partners would look at learner progress in literacy in the upcoming summer term. • AD – Assessments at the end of key stage 2 had not been in place since 2018. • MD – Schools within Torfaen worked with an external facilitator with the purpose of understanding learner progression and building on prior knowledge. • AD – There was a national variance in respect of Welsh Baccalaureate as some schools opted to not enter learners for these measures. Torfaen was normally well above averages in this respect. • DoE – Results were cohort specific. The variance in respect of Ysgol Gymraeg Gwynllyw seemed large but in actuality only represented a small number of learners. • AD – There was a mistake within the table on page 43 of the agenda and the total number of schools should total 6. It was noted that the desired goal would be for zero learners to have no qualifications. • DoE– There were bases being purchased for Year 1 learners to help ensure learners were provided the correct provision for the best life chances possible. 5.3 The Chair thanked the DoE, HoL, AD & MD for their contributions to the meeting and they left the meeting. 5.4 Recommendations On completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee concluded by offering the following comments and recommendations for consideration: Recommendation 1 – Members were concerned that recent school governor surveys had shown that a lot of governors were unaware that recordings of the majority of governor training sessions existed online. Members recommended that EAS officers explore improvements around communications with school governors, in order to raise awareness of, and inform governors of how to access the recorded training. Recommendation 2 – In light of the recent positive feedback and good attendance of the Croesyceiliog cluster training for governors, Members recommended that further cluster training be rolled out across Torfaen, where appropriate, which would also assist with networking and sharing of best practice amongst schools. Members recognised that a holistic approach was required in order to increase attendance and awareness around governor training, and was the collective responsibility of schools, chairs of governors, the LA, the EAS and Members. Recommendation 3 – Members acknowledged the positive feedback and ability to share best practice amongst the 16 out of 33 schools in Torfaen that had voluntarily participated in a Celebrate, Share, Support, Refine (CSSR) teaching approach to date. Members were pleased that officers were keen to increase the number of schools participating in a CSSR teaching approach and therefore recommended that this work be explored as soon as possible. Recommendation 4 – Estyn stated that in 50% of schools inspected in Torfaen between Autumn 2022 and February 2024, leaders need to ensure teaching extends opportunities to develop pupils’ independent skills. As a result, Members recommended that the EAS consider producing a strategy to support schools in building this into their school-specific strategies, including examples of best practice for different age groups. Recommendation 5 – Members commented that Appendix 1 of the report was difficult to digest and welcomed the willingness of EAS officers to simplify future iterations, where possible. As a result, Members recommended that a simplified version of Appendix 1 be produced in terms of future iterations of the document, for the benefit of both Members and the public, and suggested that sections of thematic reports could supplement the data reports in order to give a holistic view and aide Member questioning in future.
6.1 The 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 ALN transformation.
7.1 The date of the next meeting was noted. 7.2 The meeting ended at 11:44.
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.