Agenda item

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 model has been limited to part-time engagement, which affects overall figures. However, new face-to-face provision has now been introduced in both the north and south of the county to enable increased attendance and more flexible engagement. There has already been measurable progress, with PRU attendance increasing by around 10% and overall attendance by around 3%. The expectation is that the new provision and improved engagement approaches will continue to raise attendance over time.

How are we improving broader outcomes beyond exam results, and ensuring pupils gain the skills needed to function effectively (for example, functional literacy)?

There is a strong emphasis on improving literacy as a core part of the curriculum. This includes robust assessment on entry, targeted interventions, and staff training to address literacy gaps. Close work is taking place with school improvement services and other PRUs to strengthen teaching in this area. At the same time, outcomes are recognised as needing to be assessed more broadly for this cohort. For many pupils, progress includes re-engagement with education, improved behaviour, social development, and readiness to sit qualifications. These are tracked through individual “pen portraits” showing progress from entry to exit. While exam results remain important, these qualitative improvements are considered essential indicators of success for vulnerable learners.

How do we know that learners are leaving with functional literacy, given wider national concerns about literacy levels?

Functional literacy is being addressed through a structured approach, including diagnostic assessments, targeted teaching, and specialist support. The service recognises that literacy gaps are often linked to disengagement and exclusion, so early identification and intervention are a priority. Progress in literacy is monitored through pupil-level assessment and intervention, and is supported by professional learning for staff. While specific quantified outcomes were not provided, the approach is designed to improve pupils’ functional literacy as part of their overall development.

Why was face-to-face provision for medical learners not implemented earlier, and how long has the current approach been in place?

The previous reliance on online provision developed in response to a very rapid increase in pupil numbers, particularly following COVID. The service expanded from around 25 pupils in 2020 to around 120 by mid-2025, requiring a scalable and immediate response. Online delivery allowed the service to meet demand quickly when in-person capacity was not available. In addition, there was an initial expectation that demand might reduce post-COVID, which did not occur. Over time, it has become clear that demand for medical and anxiety-related provision remains high, leading to the development of new in-person provision.

How useful was the Estyn inspection, given that it took place shortly after the new head took up post, and did it raise issues that the service had not already identified?

The inspection was considered helpful despite taking place very early in the new head’s tenure. It provided constructive feedback on both strengths and areas for improvement at a critical point. Importantly, the findings closely aligned with the service’s own school development plan, indicating that the leadership team already had a clear understanding of the service’s strengths and weaknesses. This alignment reinforced confidence in the direction of improvement, helped validate the internal self-assessment, and supported staff engagement by confirming that the priorities identified internally were the correct ones. Although the timing was challenging, it ultimately proved a useful and strengthening process for the service.

Why are the three groups of young people taught together, and is this driven by convenience or by intended benefits in outcomes?

The three groups – permanently excluded pupils (PRU cohort), medical learners, and ALN bespoke pupils – are recognised as distinct, with different needs and reasons for being in the service. Provision is therefore largely delivered separately, with different centres and approaches tailored to each group. However, there is a conscious effort to identify opportunities where bringing pupils together is beneficial, rather than doing so for convenience. This is being explored carefully on a needs-led basis, particularly where shared activities can support social development, confidence, and engagement. For example, some medical learners may benefit from wider experiences offered within PRU settings, and vice versa.

The overall approach is to maintain consistency in standards, curriculum principles, and expectations across the service, while adapting delivery to suit each cohort. Where groups are brought together, it is done selectively and with clear purpose, aiming to support development rather than simply streamline provision.

Chair’s Summary:

Thank you to the officers for this report. The committee wishes to extend its thanks to everyone involved in the service. The report was moved.