Agenda item

The Committee received the Service Report Card for the School and Family Support Team, as detailed within the circulated report.

Members were informed that the School and Family Support Team sits within the broader Inclusion Service and encompassed a number of different service areas that provided support to schools, governors, parents, pupils and other Council service areas. It was highlighted that the team delivered a broad range of services that included school admissions, governor training, education welfare and safeguarding.

Members highlighted that there had been a successful multi-agency response, co-ordinated by the Council, to the Measles outbreak in 2013/14 and commented that they would have liked to have had more information about this at the time. Officers explained that the information had been reported previously and the Council had presented evidence to a Welsh Government select committee, which had commended the Council for its approach. It was a good example of the breadth of areas that the Service deals with.

Members noted that there were around 100 school governor vacancies in Neath Port Talbot and asked if this was usual or if there were any particular problems in recruiting governors at the moment. Reassurances were given that this was not above the national average and parent governors was the highest level of vacancies, which correlated with them being the highest percentage of seats. It was noted that the Service had been trying to drive recruitment.

Members noted that there were 17 Local Authority appointed school governor vacancies in across Neath Port Talbot. It was queried if consideration was given to Members who were within the catchment area of the school, rather than just those from the ward where it was based. Officers highlighted that the current Policy stated that it had to be a ward Member. However, due to recent developments with the Schools Improvement Programme Members outside of wards had been contacted as a bigger trawl was required for the new school developments. It was agreed that the Policy required updating.

Members requested that numbers as well as percentages were included in future reports. It was highlighted that in some cases there were numbers in the table and percentages included in the description, which made it more difficult to correlate.

Members noted that in relation to improving safeguarding procedures, practices and understanding one of the barriers was inconsistent reporting to the Local Authority. Members asked officers to elaborate on this and asked what actions were being taken to address it. It was explained that the majority of schools reported any incidents immediately, however, there was a small minority that did not. Meetings were being held with school to emphasise the importance of immediate reporting.

Members noted that the number of secondary school exclusions had dropped and it was queried what the reason was behind this. Officers explained that a lot of work had been undertaken to revamp the Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) Service, which had had a positive impact. It was highlighted that there was a graduated response to behaviour and it was recognised that there would be occasions where pupils would need to be removed from the school setting and a second nurture centre was being developed to offer more intensive support. There was also a highly skilled Well-being Team in place for school support.

Members asked what was the protocol for reporting exclusions and officers explained that the vast majority of schools followed the 24 hour statutory guidelines to inform the Local Authority. There were a couple of schools that had not and they were being reminded of their obligations.

It was queried if alternative options were considered before the permanent exclusions route was taken. Officers explained that there were pupils in the system that were a legacy of the previous system, mainly at Key Stage 4. It was highlighted that work was being undertaken to transfer those pupils back into schools and some would also receive enhanced support. It was noted that early intervention and prevention was key to developing this service. An example was given that a statutory assessment for a pupil in year 6 was too late and identifying pupil needs and putting the right support in place at an early stage was crucial.

Members queried what was meant by the managed moves mechanism. It was explained that this mechanism was used when a pupil was, for instance, at risk of permanent exclusion and a trial move of school would be undertaken. If the move had positive results then the move would be made permanent.

Members asked which organisations were worked with in partnership to support young people who had been excluded or were Not in Education, Employment or Training. It was confirmed that there was a suite of organisations that the Council worked with, such as LEAP and Baglan Bulldogs. It was noted that a lot of the Services were commissioned through Family Support Services. Members queried what the acronym LEAP stood for and officers informed them that they were not sure but the initiative was LEAP to learn and offered an alternative curriculum to young people.

The Committee asked if some headteachers were reluctant to issue Attendance Penalty Notices. Officers informed Members that some headteachers were keener than others to issue notices. However, the Local Authority’s stance remained consistent and there was some evidence that they worked. It was a step before court and kept people out of the criminal justice system. However, it was recognised that it was not suitable in all circumstances. In some instances families had to be sensitively handled and the Education Welfare Officers would work with family and the school. Members provided examples of where concerns over pupil attendance had assisted with identifying families that required support.

The Committee queried if some Local Authorities had abandoned the practice of issuing Penalty Notices, especially as there was a test case in England going through the justice system challenging the Notices. Officers confirmed that the Notices were still a statutory responsibility for all 22 Local Authorities in Wales. It was highlighted that it was an Education Through Regional Working (ERW) policy and was consistent through the consortium. The Welsh Government was awaiting the outcome of the case in England before issuing any further guidance. It was noted that the Welsh Government guidance was different from English guidance. One of the key differences was there was no 10 day discretion rule in the English guidance. Members requested an update report on Attendance Penalty Notices once the outcome of the English court case was known.

Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.