Agenda item

·          

Members sought clarification about funding and whether the proposals will be realistically be delivered.  Officers explained that in relation to the building proposals outlined, every one is either on an existing site or there is a project which is a well established project.  Areas have been identified in order for the provision to be put in. It has been included as part of the wider asset programme.  Some will not be in place for September 22 but will be in place not long after that.  There is no major risk with the projects.

Members queried the amount of places that would be available in September 22.  Members were advised that there are interim agreements in place where we needed, but some of these planned for September 2023 have been factored in alongside the out of county planning.  There were no plans for all places to be funded and filled by September 22.

·          

In relation to funding and transport, the modelling around out of county and the transport position has not yet been fully worked through.  It is affordable within the delegated budget currently but modelling not fully completed.  It will be necessary to see whether all the projects will be progressed.  The consultation responses have helped with this information.  It is hoped that there will be a spread of additional learning needs (ALN) provision across the city.  There would then be an expectation that the transport costs across the city per pupil would reduce.  This is not a final position. 

·          

Members sought clarification in relation to the involvement of parents in the placement of children with ALN to help ensure that  schools were not passing on the responsibility of those children rather than keeping them in main stream education. Officers advised that a specialist place is not a default for children with ALN.  Specialist placements are only considered if they cannot be accommodated in the school.  Parents are closely consulted;

they have the right to comment on placement.  A number of children could be placed in either and the parent’s views would tend to be given the greatest weight.

·          

Members referred to a number of the responses which raised some questions about staffing capacity and skill levels and the need for training and queried what forward planning has taken place to ensure that staff with the right level of skills and will be there in a sufficiently timely manner. Members were advised that meetings have taken place with the special school heads; work will be done with schools on an individual basis as schools will have different challenges. There needs to be a tailored approach for each of the proposals.  Not all places will be filled at one time, therefore staff will be staggered as well.  Schools will need to be employing and developing more specialist staff over the next few years. 

·          

Members also referred to the responses from the Welsh medium sector; generally speaking the responses were positive and favourable but there were a lot of responses raising the issue that Welsh seemed to be a less developed provision and the lack of a clear pathway for parents from foundation to secondary school.  This may lead to an exodus from Welsh medium education, particularly during the transition phase between primary and secondary school.  Members were advised that the Glantaf proposal is key.  It is very ambitions and will push the city forward significantly.  Funding information is awaited from Welsh Government in relation to that.  This is not a final set of proposals, this is getting things moving in the right direction. Welsh medium SRB provision needs to be built up in the primary sector as well.  Options are currently being considered.  When the WESP was brought forward there was commitment to half of the schools being Welsh; there will be an expectation that there will be SRB provision in those schools as well.  It will grow over time as the WESP develops. 

·          

Members stated that several times there has been mention of this not being the final stage in the process; there is reference to a final options paper and financial evaluation.  Members were advised that there are not fixed time scales at present but it will be put together over the next few months. 

·          

Members queried how the transition would be managed when SRB provision would be put into schools that currently do not have that type of provision.  In terms of no SRB in the schools currently looking to put provision, how is that going to be managed and how are you gong to manage that transition?  Officers advised that the development of the Court School at Fairwater will not be part of the existing school building, it will be a new build on the same site and the school and children would not transfer until such times as the school was ready for them.  There would then be extra places that would grow over time.  That project is not planned for delivery for a few years yet as it is a big build project.  The Court School is part of Band B, for which there is a full visioning exercise, it is not just expansion. 

·          

Members queried a comment about ALN provision being centred in areas of Cardiff where the population is predominantly white; the comment does warrant a bit of thought about the needs of the BAME community and whether that adds another level of resourcing issues to consider before the places are opened up.  Members were advised that it is not the final set of proposals, plans in certain areas are still being considered, particularly in the Fitzalan catchment area.  Officers believe that they have presented a good mix.  There are some areas of deprivation and other areas as well.  It is important to get the spread across the city; these are the proposals being brought forward immediately but there will be others that will come forward in due course.