Minutes:
The Chief Executive reported that four questions had been received under Standing Order 35 from Mrs Sue Whiting and two questions had been received from Mr Richard Carter.
(A)
Mrs Whiting, a member of the public, asked
the following questions:
“Now that the Children and Families Act 2014 has received Royal Assent and
the provisions within the Act are required to be active from September 2014
could the Chair please answer the following questions with regard to the
provision available in Leicestershire?
1.
A report to the Children and Young People’s Service
Overview and Scrutiny Committee in January 2011 stated that 8 children with
Dyslexia were being educated ‘out of county’ at a cost of £118,602, yet in June
2013 Councillor Ould stated that “Leicestershire does
not hold information about specific provision for dyslexia across the
county.” In a separate letter dated 23rd
May 2013 he stated that “Local offer will require schools and local authorities
to produce information about the services available to children and young
people with special needs, including Dyslexia”.
Does Leicestershire now have information about the provision for
children with Dyslexia both within the county and any further out of county provision
that is still needed to cater for children with dyslexia “because the
educational needs of the individual young person are highly specialised?”
2.
In Leicestershire Criteria for Cognition and Learning:
Specific Learning difficulties multi agency protocols
include the Rose review on Dyslexia, Guidance on Dyslexia Friendly schools and
Equality Act 2010.
Feature 3 for identification states low self esteem, anxiety, frustration, task avoidance. Speech and language difficulties may also be
apparent.
(a)
What are the current waiting times for a child to access
the services of CAMHS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services],
Educational Psychologists and Speech and Language Therapists?
(b)
If a child is ‘at risk’ of becoming a young offender, are
these waiting times in any way different?
(c)
What will the impact of cuts to Educational
Psychologists, CAMHS, Speech and Language and Young Offenders Service be on
these waiting times?
3. On 28th October 2010 Councillor White wrote “We do not hold data on
Leicestershire children that would allow us to provide an analysis of
co-morbidity - the extent to which children with one area of difficulty
(dyslexia) also experience another area of difficulty (mental health
difficulties).
However, case work experience in our Educational
Psychology Service suggests that there is a strong link……
Children’s anxiety provides the bridge from one area of
difficulty to the other. Many young
people with Dyslexia experience anxiety, and if this is not dealt with, it can
lead to longer term mental health problems.”
Does Leicestershire now have provision for gathering and monitoring this data
so that early correct teaching and health provision can be provided?
4.
In December 2013 Olivia Loder
aged 11 wrote to Michael Gove, “The reason I’m writing is to tell about how
state schools treat dyslexics and that we feel like we have no potential and
feel like the thing you found on the bottom of your shoe and that’s not
nice.”
The reason I am asking these questions is because I still get contacted by
parents who are desperately trying to help their children to have the correct
provision of education. By the time they
contact me I usually have to tell them how to access CAMHS either via the
school medical officer or their own GP.
A recent contact had already gone to their GP and CAHMS, but the
education provision was not there.
(a) Does
Leicestershire now have any information on schools which have qualified staff,
as set out in Leicestershire Criteria?
(b) Are there any
primary schools that are dyslexia friendly or at least dyslexia effective in
identifying and putting early provision in place so that children don’t develop
anxieties and need CAMHS referrals?”
Mr Spence replied as follows:
“1. Mr
Ould CC was correct to say that “Leicestershire does not hold information about
specific provision for dyslexia across the county.” However, we do hold specific information
about children educated out of county because we have a particular
responsibility for them. The 2011 statement reflected our knowledge that of the
children being educated out of county, 8 of them were dyslexic.
Under the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice, schools and
early years settings are expected to implement a range of observations and
assessments and measure the child’s progress against interventions as part of a
‘graduated response’. Schools and early years settings can seek advice from a
range of agencies/services e.g. Area SEN Co-ordinator (SENCO), Specialist
Teaching Services, Early Help, Area Special School Outreach and Child and
Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) as well as LPS. Schools and Parents can make a request for
statutory assessment and access additional top up funding if necessary to contribute
to a child’s support needs in school. Representation from parents for
placements ‘out of county’, i.e. in independent or non
maintained special schools, are infrequent, indicating that families,
schools and professional are in agreement that children’s needs can and are
being met by the graduated response as set out above.
2. (a) CAMHS services
are commissioned by the Leicestershire Partnership Trust on behalf of the NHS. There has not been sufficient time between
receiving this question and needing to provide the response to be informed of
the waiting times – this will be provided as soon as the information is
received.
(b) CAMHS
Community Teams provide specialist assessment and interventions for children
and young people with significant mental health difficulties. Waiting time targets
following referral are as follows: urgent referrals are assessed within 24
hours; routine referrals are assessed within 13 weeks. For emergencies there is
a 24 hours ‘on call’ service which accepts telephone referrals from GPs or
A&E. The risk assessment tool used
through the referral process identifies the vulnerabilities present, including
youth offending.
(c) Educational
psychologists continue to be accessible to schools through a twice yearly
planning meeting with school SENCOs. For children too young to be in schools,
referrals are allocated at Early Years Panel. Direct contact with concerned
parents is always available from the LPS Advice Line: 0116 3055100. The Advice
Line is available every working day during office hours.
As a result of the County Council’s budget pressures and the Medium Term
Strategy agreed on 19th February 2014, a number of services will
have their budgets reduced. For the
Psychology Service the budget reduction is 18% and the service will be
reorganised as part of the transformation of Children and Young Person’s
Services as an outcome of reforms needed to address the demands of the Children
and Families Act. Every effort will be
made to minimise impact on early year’s settings, schools, children and
families. These changes are unlikely to impact CAMHS waiting times because
these services work at an earlier level of support than required for those
children and young people with significant mental health difficulties. However, there is a need to review the
current pathways for mental health support at all levels and at the meeting of
the Health and Well Being Board on 13th March 2014, a proposal was
agreed to begin this review which will include all relevant stakeholders and
will be led by Public Health.
In respect of the
waiting times for SALT (speech and language therapy), the national target is 18
weeks from referral to treatment. This
is contractually binding in the Leicestershire Partnership Trust contract with
the CCG’s. The provider will be expected
to maintain these times despite any cuts to provision. These are monitored
monthly through performance mechanisms.
3. As previously stated; ‘We do not hold data
on Leicestershire children that would allow us to provide an analysis of
co-morbidity - the extent to which children with one area of difficulty
(dyslexia) also experience another area of difficulty (mental health
difficulties)’ i.e. in this case anxiety. However, it should be noted and is recognised in the question, ‘case work experience in our
Educational Psychology Service suggests that there is a strong link’ between
dyslexia and anxiety, consequently, casework on individual specific cases,
assessment and interventions are alerted to this, as are other professional
e.g. Learning Support Service and it is also part of dyslexia training in
schools.
4. (a)&
(b) Leicestershire does not keep a central record of staff in schools across
Leicestershire who have undertaken additional training or qualifications for
specific types of
Mrs Whiting asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to Question 1:
“The 2011 statement reflected that 8 children that were dyslexic were being
educated out of county; what were the figures for 2012 and 2013?”
The Director of Children and Family Services, on behalf of
the Chairman, undertook to respond to this question in writing.
Mrs Whiting asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to Question 2(a):
“When will details
of the waiting times be available?”
The Director of Children and Family Services, on behalf of
the Chairman, undertook to respond to this question in writing.
Mrs Whiting asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to Question 4:
“Would the Local
Offer include information about the Special Needs Teaching Service being an approved
provider of training for dyslexia?”
The Director of
Children and Family Services, on behalf of the Chairman, confirmed that the
Local Offer would include information about any provider of any service that
was relevant.
(B)
Mr Carter, a member of the public, asked the
following questions:
“Residents who live in close proximity to Cossington Church of England Primary School are increasingly confused and concerned about the mixed messages that are being given by the LEA [Local Education Authority] about the school, and the effects that the different proposals would have on their homes.
Contextual information.
1. In evidence to an appeal in March 2012 about insufficient capacity at Rothley Church of England Primary School (Land at Brookfield Farm March 2012 APP/X2410/A/11/2161715) the LEA stated that “there would be no spare capacity in 2015 at either Mountsorrel or Cossington primary schools.” It then went on - “It was the LEA’s view that because of physical site constraints at Rothley Primary School, the additional capacity was likely to be provided at Cossington, subject to a feasibility study.” The LEA clearly signaled that there were strong grounds to seriously consider increasing the capacity of Cossington school.
2. The Development Control and Regulatory Board at a meeting on 13th February 2014 refused an application for a further 5 year temporary permission for 3 mobile classrooms at Cossington Church of England Primary School. The Applicant informed the Board that it had “no plans” in place in the event of a refusal. Accordingly, the Board granted an 18 month extension with the recommendation that permanent classrooms be built instead of the temporary mobiles. They also indicated that they would “be minded” not to renew any subsequent applications for temporary classrooms.
3. Residents
concerns about Cossington Church of England Primary
School:
· temporary mobile classrooms have been sited at the school for over 35 years
· temporary mobile classrooms provide over 50% of the teaching space
· 88% of the school intake comes from outside the school’s catchment area
· 82% of the school intake comes from Sileby school catchments
· high volumes of traffic are generated because of out-of-catchment journeys, which create a highway hazard
· the mobiles are sited in a narrow corridor of land which is bounded on two sides by residential properties that are only 5 metres away at their narrowest point
· indoor PE activities takes place in a Hall which is 5 metres away from the boundaries
· the staff car park is sited in a narrow corridor of land that is bounded by residential properties
· residents adjoining the school suffer considerable noise, light and traffic nuisance because of the close proximity of the school
Questions
1.
Is there capacity at the two Sileby Primary Schools to enroll all the children in their
catchment areas?
2. Cossington school has been left stranded by demographic change and significant constraints on its site render its suitability for further development problematic, so what plans does the Board have for the School?”
Mr Spence replied as follows:
“1. There are currently 652 pupils that live in the catchment area of Sileby and there are 525 places available at the two
schools in the village; Highgate Community Primary
(210 places) and Sileby Redlands Community Primary
School (315 places). The 84 remaining
pupils choose to attend other schools.
Historically Redlands retain 54% (238) of their catchment pupils and Highgate retain 61% (127) of their catchment pupils. There is crossover of pupils attending either
Highgate or Redlands from each other’s catchment
area. However, of those not attending
one of the two schools in the village, 88 are on roll at Cossington
Primary School and 115 pupils choose to attend other schools nearby.
In order for Sileby Highgate
and Sileby Redlands Primary Schools to take all of
their in-catchment pupils both would need some extension. The Development Control and Regulatory Board
was advised on 13th February 2014 that there are already phased proposals to
increase Highgate Primary to 420 places in the future
to address additional pupils from housing gains in the area. There are currently no plans to extend
Redlands Primary, particularly as gaining access onto the site would need careful
negotiations with third parties.
2. The planning of school places falls within the remit of the County Council’s Children and Young People's Service. There are no significant constraints on development of the Cossington School site. However, it should be noted that parts of the site sit within a conservation area, and this would require careful consideration, but the temporary classrooms and hall are positioned just outside of the conservation area. All of the temporary accommodation on the site is of a good condition, hence there are currently no plans made for replacement.
In terms of demographics, there are 18 pupils that live in Cossington, 14 of which choose to go to their in-catchment school, the remaining 4 pupils choose to attend other schools. Cossington Primary school is made up of 13% in-catchment and 87% out-catchment (the majority of which come from Sileby). The school is designated as rural by the Department for Education. In accordance with the County Council's draft strategy for the future provision of school places, the Council is committed to maintaining a good network of provision in all parts of Leicestershire, particularly rural areas, with a presumption against closing schools unless absolutely necessary for educational reasons or should they become unsustainable. The future development of accommodation at the school is now under review by the Children and Young People’s Service following the recent Development Control and Regulatory Board decision.
The attached catchment map shows the relationship and close proximity of Cossington Primary to the two primary schools in Sileby.”
Mr Carter asked the following supplementary
question:
“Could you please
clarify whether the Local Authority will require additional planning permission
if and when the temporary structure is removed?”
The Director of
Children and Family Services, on behalf of the Chairman, undertook to respond to this question
in writing.
Supporting documents: