Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

Select Committee Public Open Forum ~ Guidance

Our Select Committee meetings are live streamed and a link to the live stream will be available on the meeting page of the Monmouthshire County Council website

If you would like to share your thoughts on any proposals being discussed by Select Committees, you can submit your representation via this form

·      Please share your views by uploading a video or audio file (maximum of 4 minutes) or;

·      Please submit a written representation (via Microsoft Word, maximum of 500 words)

You will need to register for a My Monmouthshire account in order to submit the representation or use your log in, if you have registered previously.

The deadline for submitting representations to the Council is 5pm three clear working days in advance of the meeting.

If representations received exceed 30 minutes, a selection of these based on theme will be shared at the Select Committee meeting.  All representations received will be made available to councillors prior to the meeting.

If you would like to suggest future topics for scrutiny by one of our Select Committees, please do so by emailing Scrutiny@monmouthshire.gov.uk

No public submissions were received.

To scrutinise the EAS Business Plan.

Ed Pryce presented the report and answered the members’ questions.

Challenge:

In the Spring, the Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education are expected to agree syllabi to start in September 2022. Our SACRE meeting is scheduled for 9^th March – do we need another meeting in February? What’s happened with the publication of the guidance – this was expected in January?

We facilitate SACRE, on behalf of its members. I will pass on your concerns about the 9^th March meeting to my colleague, James Kent, and ask him to respond to you and the other members directly.

Chair’s Summary:

Thank you for this comprehensive report and presentation. It has been particularly helpful to hear about strategic plans and regional partnerships, and the more high-level discussion. It is good to hear that it is a self-improving system, and for there to be cross-fertilisation from other authorities. Schools will especially appreciate the support of a school improvement partner following the very difficult circumstances wrought by the pandemic. ‘Agile, timely and responsive’ actions will help schools. The committee is happy with the report and EAS’s plan.

To consult the Select Committee on the changes to the funding formula.

Nicola Wellington presented the report and answered the members’ questions.

Challenge:

Could there be a further explanation of the difference between the two models? Which will be the better option?

The two models are very similar in what they propose. If we were to go for funding with a higher amount on pupil numbers, then schools with larger pupil numbers would gain more, whereas if we were to go for the 70% funding then they would have slightly less. The working group didn’t have a preference with these models but felt that both should be put out for schools to consider, and are committed to the principles of pupil numbers and additional learning needs, rather than any other driver for the formula.

Anonymity in the table of responses is understandable, but can anything be drawn from looking at the responses from schools – is there a link to the size of the schools and their responses, or a delineation between secondary and primary school responses?

Looking at pupil numbers, some headteachers might be able to work out which school is theirs. Our comprehensive schools have larger pupil numbers so with these two models we will see that the secondary schools will gain funding, and smaller primary schools will lose funding. Where schools have high levels of statements, and school action plus statements in place, then moving away from higher funding for ALN and doing it on pupil numbers and additional learning needs, schools will lose. This is why they were very clear that they want that transitional funding in place, to allow schools to move from the old model to the new (this will be in place for up to 3 years), and to minimise the disruption in terms of funding, staffing and – most importantly – support for those pupils.

Is it still the case that if a school has more pupils in special needs than others then they will get more funding, and if a child moves schools the funding goes with them?

In terms of the new model, the proposal is that the funding will remain in place for the whole of the financial year, which will give the schools the flexibility to plan the funding and staffing for that financial year. If a pupil leaves, to go to another school, the funding will not move. Under the old system the funding would have moved, resulting in the member of staff supporting that child being made redundant, in most cases. However, if a family with a child with additional learning needs moves into the county, the council will be able to provide funding on a one-off basis, to provide support for the first financial year, but following that, the child would be on roll at the school properly and attract funding under this new system.

Has there been any feedback on a 75% and 25% funding split? What effect would that have?

This was discussed at the working group; they preferred the 70/30 or 80/20 versions, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Note the 2pm start for the Special meeting on 31^st January. The 3^rd March date will remain in place.

The minutes were confirmed and signed as an accurate record, moved by Councillor Groucott and seconded by Councillor Powell.

·         Special Meeting – 31^st January 2022 at 2.00pm

·         Next Meeting - 3^rd March 2022 at 10.00am

·         Special Meeting – 31^st January 2022 at 2.00pm

·         Next Meeting – 3^rd March 2022 at 10.00am