Agenda item

a)    Officer presentation

b)    Committee questioning and discussion

c)    Formation of comments and recommendations

Invitees:

-          Sarah Morgan (Head of Education)

-          Geraint Willington (Education Achievement Service (EAS) Director: Resources, Business and Governance)

-          Marc Belli (Education Achievement Service (EAS) Principal School Improvement Partner)

-          Ed Pryce (Education Achievement Service (EAS) Assistant Director: Policy and Strategy)

The Head of Education introduced the report. The Education Achievement Service (EAS) Director: Resources, Business and Governance and Education Achievement Service (EAS) Assistant Director: Policy and Strategy gave an overview of the report.

The Committee asked the following:

• The Committee queried the importance of baselines for measuring school improvement. The EAS Assistant Director advised against ranking schools but saw baselines as necessary. He emphasised caution when setting baselines, focusing on working with schools over older methods of ranking schools. The Committee asked why few schools had set baselines. It was clarified that EAS, not schools, were setting baselines for themselves to highlight schools that required support. 

• The Committee enquired about EAS's role. They were advised EAS was working with a 40-school regional sample but did not know which schools were involved in the sample. The Committee sought to understand EAS's input on choosing the sample schools and sample size. The EAS Director explained an independent advisor determined 30 was the minimum sample size, with 40 being above minimum based on constraints. The EAS Assistant Director further explained restricting the sample helped maintain better continuity in EAS's work. The Committee asked why the EAS were not aware of the sampled schools' identities. The EAS Assistant Director stated this reduces bias towards those schools.

• The Committee queried if EAS impacted School Development Plans. The EAS Principal School Improvement Partner noted schools set their own plans, with EAS supporting their needs. The EAS Assistant Director stated this was based on the 40-school sample, not all schools. The Head of Education explained schools evaluate themselves, with Officers helping to analyse development plans' focus on aims and objectives.

• The Committee noted the increased funding gap for EAS and asked if students would get priority with additional funds. The EAS Director: Resources, Business and Governance explained EAS strived to work within provided funding, ensuring funds went to the right place.

• The Committee asked if EAS would use technology like Artificial Intelligence (AI). The EAS Assistant Director noted they do not directly implement technology changes in schools, as this responsibility lies with the local authority, but they do encourage schools to facilitate its use. The EAS's internal team uses technology and training is being created to address schools' fears around AI. The EAS Principal School Improvement Partner stated AI should be incorporated, not used as a replacement.

• The Committee questioned if Wales struggled academically compared to other countries due to cost constraints and spending cuts The Head of Education stated accurate comments could not be made on ’Wales’ academic achievement, which was a complex issue, but literacy and numeracy were high EAS priorities.

• The Committee raised concerns over bias from self-evaluation. The EAS Assistant Director: Policy and Strategy stated supported self-evaluation allows more collaborative and accurate evaluation rather than in isolation.

• The Committee asked how schools viewed EAS's involvement in schools. The EAS Assistant Director noted annual surveys and headteacher feedback groups highlighted the staff found EAS involvement was helpful, with a critical but supportive approach. The Committee queried if school staff could give anonymous feedback. The EAS Assistant Director confirmed options for anonymity existed.

• The Committee asked officers if there were areas for EAS improvement. The EAS Assistant Director noted key priorities are highlighted in the report such as focussing on outcomes in school plans.

The Committee thanked the officers for attending.

Conclusions

• The Committee praised the EAS partnership for its excellent work in providing financial support for schools, noting this was encouraging for Members to hear and emphasised the importance of maintaining this practice.

• The Committee expressed that the report seemed very layered and required repeated reading to fully grasp the content. Suggestions were made to make future reports less drawn out, avoid copy and paste content, and aim for more concise and understandable presentation.

• The Committee commended the involvement of EAS School Improvement Partners in analysing School Development Plans during meetings with schools to discuss priorities, emphasising the importance of tailored plans.