Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Neill was proposed by Councillor Buckler and seconded by Councillor Newell. Councillor Neill was appointed.

Councillor Buckler was proposed by Councillor Pavia and seconded by Councillor Newell. Councillor Buckler was appointed.

John Crook and Jill Bond. Cabinet Member Laura Wright.

None.

None.

Peter Davies introduced the report and answered the members’ questions withLeader Mary-Ann Brocklesby, Paul Jefford and Matt Gatehouse:

Is the council being sufficiently realistic and ambitious in its approach to AI, given that the report proposed a three-year period to ‘build the foundations’, while many organisations are moving more rapidly. Could an emphasis on caution result in an approach that appears slow or unambitious, particularly if, by the second year, continuing to focus on foundations no longer reflects the pace of change elsewhere?

The programme is intentionally front-loaded, with significant investment and activity taking place early in the three-year period. He explained that trusted external partners would be used initially to accelerate delivery and establish capability, after which the council and the Shared Resource Service would increasingly bring that capability in-house. This approach is designed to balance pace with control, enabling faster progress in later years once the necessary foundations and skills are embedded.

The council cannot afford to take no action but must also avoid fragmented or poorly governed adoption of AI. The purpose of the programme is to establish a strong ‘bedrock’ that ensures safeguards, governance, and alignment with public service values, rather than simply proceeding quickly. Unregulated adoption of AI can lead to unintended negative consequences, and that the council’s approach is intended to ensure human-centred decision-making is maintained.

The approach is not about delaying progress, but about enabling early and tangible benefits within a controlled framework, citing examples such as developing a ‘single view’ of a child, homelessness, or debt to support early intervention and prevention. The approach seeks to combine pace with responsibility, ensuring improvements in outcomes for residents while maintaining the council’s core principles.

What are we doing about prioritising and selecting from the 160 AI use cases?

The initial focus is on a small number of high?priority, shared use cases agreed across the four authorities. The ‘AI front door’ (customer-facing interactions) and ‘single view of a child’ are already identified as priority workstreams for year one. In addition, approximately three further use cases per authority will be selected for early implementation, based on collective agreement. A collaborative approach is being used so that one authority can lead on a use case, and others can adopt it, allowing faster scaling and shared benefit despite limited capacity within the Shared Resource Service.

How are we balancing customer-facing improvements with internal organisational benefits?

Both strands are being developed in parallel. The customer-facing element focuses on improving access to services, particularly through online and telephony interactions such as chatbots handling common enquiries (e.g. waste collection queries), which helps free up staff time. The internal element focuses on productivity tools, such as AI supporting document drafting, translation, redaction for information requests, and internal knowledge access (e.g. HR policy queries). This dual approach is intended to reduce administrative burden internally while improving responsiveness and access externally.

What do we mean by AI bias, and how are we addressing it?

AI bias refers to the risk of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Dr Morwenna Wagstaff introduced the report. Jacob Parkinson answered the members’ questions with Dr Wagstaff:

Are the alternative qualifications used within the Pupil Referral Service suitable and effective for learners, given that GCSEs are often not appropriate for many pupils?

The current alternative qualifications are considered appropriate and as effective as possible within existing options, and they are selected carefully to be engaging, practical, and suited to the needs of pupils. The service works collaboratively with neighbouring PRUs to identify the most suitable qualifications available and seeks to ensure they are as hands-on and relevant as possible. Pupil voice also informs the selection, with learners given some choice over subjects to help increase engagement. Examples include BTEC Sport and Health and Social Care, alongside core GCSEs in Maths and English.

However, it is recognised that the current system is not ideal, and the service is operating in an interim position. There is a strong expectation that the forthcoming vocational GCSEs (VCSEs) will improve the offer, as they appear more practical and tailored, with subjects such as construction, mechanics, and animal care. While these are not yet fully implemented, there is cautious optimism that they will better meet learners’ needs.

Are the qualifications currently available engaging and meaningful enough for pupils, or is there a need for wider or improved alternatives at a national level?

The qualifications currently being delivered are considered the best available and are chosen specifically to maximise engagement and relevance for the cohort. Staff are confident that they are doing as much as possible within current constraints to provide meaningful educational experiences. At the same time, there is clear recognition that the national offer is evolving and that improvements are needed. The introduction of new vocational GCSEs is seen as a significant development, potentially offering a broader and more appropriate range of pathways for pupils whose needs are not well met by traditional academic routes. While their full effectiveness is not yet proven, the breadth and practical nature of the new qualifications are viewed positively and are expected to better support future cohorts.

How are we addressing the very low attainment outcomes (e.g. limited Level 2 achievement and very low maths and English attainment), particularly for different groups such as medical pupils, ALN pupils, and excluded learners?

The outcomes are recognised as a concern and are broadly in line with similar PRUs, though below mainstream expectations. Work is underway to strengthen both the curriculum and teaching quality, including improving how qualifications are delivered and learning from other PRUs. New in-person provision has been introduced to better engage learners, particularly those previously accessing only online provision. It is expected that these changes will begin to improve outcomes, alongside continued focus on staff development and curriculum design.

How are we addressing very low attendance figures, particularly for medical learners and the overall PRS cohort?

Attendance levels are influenced by the nature of the cohort, particularly medical learners who are often too unwell to attend full-time provision. The current medical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Dr Morwenna Wagstaff introduced the report and answered the members’ questions with Jacquelyn Elias:

Is the current funding model for Additional Learning Needs sustainable, and is sufficient funding following the child, or is pressure on ALN provision contributing to school deficits?

Funding for Additional Learning Needs is largely delegated directly to schools, with a smaller retained element for exceptional or unforeseen cases. There is a strong system in place to understand needs early – particularly through early years forecasting – and to plan provision accordingly. However, increasing demand and complexity of need are recognised as creating pressure on school budgets, and this is acknowledged as an ongoing challenge. The approach taken is to use robust data and evidence from reviews such as this one to clearly demonstrate need and justify any future requests for additional funding. The emphasis is therefore on evidence-based planning and forecasting, rather than assuming current funding is fully sufficient.

What does an evidence-based approach to literacy in Specialist Resource Bases actually involve – does it focus on one method such as phonics, or a broader approach?

The approach is broader than any single method. The aim is to ensure consistency across all Specialist Resource Bases, using interventions that are supported by evidence and guided by educational psychology expertise. While elements such as phonics or decoding skills may be used, the approach is tailored to individual learners. Each child typically has a personalised programme, delivered at an appropriate pace and focused on small steps and overlearning to ensure progress is secure before moving on. The intention is not to apply a single uniform method, but to combine evidence-based practices with highly individualised delivery.

What is being done to support meaningful work placements for learners in Specialist Resource Bases, and are there examples of success?

There are already examples of successful work placements for post?16 learners within Specialist Resource Bases, with schools actively identifying suitable opportunities and supporting pupils into them. While these opportunities can be challenging to secure, there is clear evidence that they can be delivered effectively. The work is ongoing and is seen as an important measure of success for ALN provision, particularly where learners transition into employment or supported work placements. The intention is to expand this further through collaboration and continued development of opportunities, recognising the importance of real-world outcomes for learners.

How can we reduce the number of pupils placed out of county, given that 37 remain in external placements and local therapeutic provision appears limited?

There has already been significant progress in reducing out-of-county placements over time, with many more pupils now supported within Monmouthshire. However, it is recognised that further development is needed, particularly in relation to social, emotional, and mental health provision. Work is underway to expand local provision to better meet these needs, including developing new approaches aligned with emerging demand patterns. It is expected that this will reduce the number of external placements over time.

At the same time, it is acknowledged that a small number  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Dr Morwenna Wagstaff and Dr Lucie Doyle introduced the report. Dr Doyle answered the members’ questions:

How can we demonstrate that the trauma-informed programme is actually improving outcomes such as attendance, attainment, and long-term progress, rather than relying on qualitative feedback like confidence and relationships?

The trauma-informed programme has so far focused primarily on preventative work through whole-school professional learning, rather than direct intervention with individual pupils. As a result, it is more difficult at this stage to link the programme directly to quantified pupil outcomes such as attendance or attainment. Evidence to date is therefore based on changes in staff practice and understanding. This includes increased staff confidence, a shift in how behaviours are interpreted (for example, viewing behaviour as communication), and stronger use of trauma-informed language and approaches across schools. Documentation and feedback from schools also show these changes in practice.

The next stage of development is expected to focus more on measuring longer-term impacts, including how this improved staff capacity translates into measurable pupil outcomes. In addition, more targeted elements of the work – such as enhanced trauma-informed practice and specific interventions – are now being introduced, which should make it easier over time to evidence direct impact on learners.

If you had complete flexibility, what two things would you change to improve the service supporting vulnerable learners?

More time would be the key enabler. This would allow greater capacity to work preventatively with schools and also to provide timely support in response to individual pupil needs. The service is already valued by schools, but increased time would enable deeper engagement both at a system level and at the level of individual cases. Beyond this, strengthening collaboration would be a priority. This includes closer working not only with schools but also with wider services outside education, as well as ensuring that the voices of young people themselves are more strongly embedded in shaping provision. The overall view is that the service is already focusing on the right areas – particularly preventative work and workforce development – but that greater capacity would allow these approaches to be expanded and strengthened further.

Chair’s Summary:

Thank you to the officers for the report and all of the staff’s work. The report was moved.

Noted.

Officers noted that an answer has been given to the query on the Action List: there are 13 private children’s residential homes currently active in the county.

Members should have received an invitation to People Committee on 18^th June for the WESP item. Note that a Special meeting has been added on 8^th September, to which the Procurement Annual report has also been added. There will be a slightly later start to the pre-meeting on 30^th June, and therefore possibly the meeting itself.

The minutes were confirmed.

30th June 2026 at 10.00am.