In a decision on Thursday, January 11th, 2024, the Rutland County Council Cabinet unanimously voted to recommend the closure of The Parks Special Nursery School

Oakham CofE Primary School & Parks School Construction 2011

 

In a decision on Thursday, January 11th, 2024, the Rutland County Council Cabinet unanimously voted to recommend the closure of The Parks Special Nursery School, situated within Oakham Church of England (CE) Primary Academy. This difficult decision came after a public consultation period and careful consideration of all options.

The Parks, Rutland's only specialist nursery catering to children with moderate and severe learning difficulties, speech and language needs, autism, and physical disabilities, has faced uncertainty for over a year. Despite strong community support, including the "Save The Parks School" campaign, the Cabinet concluded that maintaining the school was no longer financially viable.

Cllr. Gale Waller (Libdem) Leader of the Council, acknowledged the gravity of the decision, stating, "This was not an easy choice, and we recognise the emotional impact it will have on families and staff at The Parks. We truly appreciate the tireless dedication of the school's team and the vital role they play in supporting vulnerable children."

The proposed closure date is for the end of August 2024, allowing time for a phased transition of children to alternative provisions. The Council emphasised their commitment to working closely with families and ensuring a smooth and supportive transfer process. Additionally, support will be offered to the dedicated staff of The Parks in exploring future employment opportunities.

The decision sparked immediate reactions. Supporters of the school expressed disappointment and anger, questioning the Council's priorities and highlighting the irreplaceable service The Parks provides. Some even raised concerns about the availability of suitable alternative placements for the vulnerable children affected.

On the other hand, some acknowledged the financial constraints faced by the Council and emphasised the need for responsible budgetary decisions. They expressed hope that the closure could offer an opportunity to strengthen and expand similar support services within the wider Rutland community.

The Cabinet's decision is expected to be ratified by the full Council at its next meeting. In the meantime, the focus remains on ensuring a smooth and supportive transition for children and staff, minimising disruption to their lives and education. This challenging situation undoubtedly calls for open communication, ongoing support, and a continued commitment to providing quality education and care for all children in Rutland, regardless of their needs.

“We know many people feel incredibly strongly about The Parks and don’t want it to close. It has provided fantastic care and support to children with additional needs and it’s clear from the consultation that families who have accessed the provision over many years have had an overwhelmingly positive experience. During this same period, SEND support in mainstream schools and nurseries has increased substantially. With demand for special nursery places falling, it’s recommended that The Parks should close and funding be used to further increase the SEND support available in mainstream settings across the County, including expansion of the Designated Specialist Provision at Oakham C of E.”

Councillor Tim Smith, Cabinet Member for Children and Families

Rutland County Council 2012

The Parks Special Needs Nursery Consultation

Independent Review for Rutland County Council

Commissioned review of the Parks Special Nursery Consultation running from

November 1st 2023 to December 3rd 2023 undertaken by Maureen Morris OBE

Background

I am a parent carer who has been involved in Co-production work since 2007, firstly for my own Parent

Carer Forum, as a Regional Representative for the National Network of Parent Carers Forums (NNPCF)

and latterly as one of the Co-chairs of the NNPCF. I retired from the NNPCF in 2019. I have also

undertaken work for a number of Local Authorities and Parent Carer Forums both directly

commissioned or on behalf of the charity for disabled children Contact.

Context:

I was approached by Rutland County Council on November 6th 2023 to ask if I would be able to provide

independent oversight into the public consultation regarding the possible closure of the Parks Special

Nursery provision. I was commissioned to provide an independent review of all responses as they

came in, identifying where feedback to the public would be beneficial through the Questions and

Answers provided on the Council website. I was also asked to collate an overview of key themes and

to independently inform the Council if any viable option proposed through the consultation could be

considered.

The launch of the public consultation was held on November 1st 2023 at the Wisteria Hotel, Oakham

and the request for Independent Oversight was made at that launch meeting. Owing to a technical

issue with the hosting website, the inbox designated for responses to be made to the Counsil was not

available immediately and it was agreed for the Consultation to therefore be extended to run until

3rd December 2023.

Following the initial meeting requesting my support it was agreed to hold weekly Teams meeting with

a named officer from Rutland County Council and it was envisaged that my work would amount to

around 3.5 hours per week depending on the number of responses from the public that were received.

I would also provide suggestions to queries received based on my experience. With a final report when

all the consultation period finished.

I was sent the briefing paper outlining the situation with the Parks and also notified of a Facebook

group set up “Save The Parks special school Oakham”. I have had two Zoom meetings with Rutland

Parent Carer Voice and am grateful for their time and input. The members of Rutland Parent Carer

Voice I spoke to did not express any views either for or against the proposal.

Review of responses received:

Between November 13th and December 4th, I was sent 92 responses from 80 individuals. Some were

follow-on emails, and some were sent twice. A number were copies of a template letter posted on

the Save the Parks Facebook page and while I do not discount these responses, they added nothing to

the consultation other than 6 people had taken the time to send them in. A small number came from

people who did not live in Rutland and, upon reflection, I have included them in the responses. Where

there was a response from an education practitioner either within Rutland or from outside the county,

I made the suggestion that someone from Rutland County Council should engage with the sender.

These education practitioners were:

1. The Head Teacher of a school outside of Rutland who currently takes a number of children from

Rutland and was concerned that the school would be asked to accommodate a larger number of

children due to the closure of the Parks and this would be detrimental to the children in which is the

school catchment.

2. The manager of one early education provision within Rutland who expressed concerns about

children with significant needs having an impact on staff and children in their provision without

substantial increase in funding and staff training

3. The governing body of Oakham C of E Primary school asking for clarity regarding the future if the

Parks were to close

I have been told that these practitioners have been contacted by officers of Rutland County Council

to discuss their concerns, with assurances provided, or to ensure that the relevant information was

made available to them. A response was also received from an independent provider of Alternative

Provision who was exploring the possibility to expand into the area.

Suggestions from the responders who wished to ensure that the Parks Special Nursery School

remained open included:

A) The Parks could be used during the holidays and evening as a holiday club to enhance provision in

the area.

I cannot see that this would be a practical solution to the situation that Rutland County Council

finds itself in currently. The difficulties include staffing adequately during the evenings and

holiday. Also, repurposing the classroom during the evening and holidays then returning them to

be used by those attending the Parks during school hours along with funding for such a venture

would be impossible.

B) Rutland County Council should offer places to neighbouring local authorities, with responders

saying other LAs “would snap their hand off” to obtain a place.

Neighbouring LAs have already got the opportunity to commission places in the Parks and none

have taken up this opportunity.

C) A number of responders quoted the fact that the Parks is currently rated Outstanding by OFSTED

and that Rutland County Council should use this as an opportunity to “showcase” the model.

However, it is my understanding that there is no other Special Needs Nursery in England, if there

was a perceived need for such a provision by other LAs then surely other LAs would have taken

the opportunity to investigate the model since its last full inspection by OFSTED in 2016 when

there were 8 pupils on role.

A number of responders have indicated that, in their view, Rutland County Council has in recent times

have made it more difficult for parents to apply to the Parks, referring to “moving the goal posts”

“discouraging parents from applying for the Parks”, and “raising the threshold for entry into the Parks

which has been done with a view to making it easier to close the school.” I have seen no evidence of

these allegations and can therefore make no comment.

There were also queries raised about the decision regarding the closure of the Parks not going before

a full Council meeting. Rutland County Council constitution identifies this as an executive decision;

as an executive decision it must be made by Cabinet and can’t be made by Council.

Conclusion from the independent review of responses:

Closing any much loved and valued provision was always going to be emotive, however on reading

the responses the large majority were talking about the experience of pupils who went to the Parks

Special Nursery School some years ago there were only a very few who had current experience of the

Parks as it is now, and I feel more weight should be given to the responses of these people. It is my

understanding that families of children who may have been candidates for the Parks, as with all

Rutland resident children who are identified as potentially requiring additional support, are currently

being supported by officers of Rutland County Council while going through the EHCP (Education Health and Care Plan) process or whose children have been recently diagnosed, and this will continue even after a decision regarding the future of the Parks is made. This is a statutory process that all Councils must adhere to - the recent Local Area Ofsted identifies that this is a successful approach in Rutland.

I looked carefully through the responses and found nothing to indicate that the consultation was not

done in a lawful way or that there were any innovative solutions given or suggested to ensure that the

situation at the Parks could be changed.

Maureen Morris OBE

27th December 2023

Agenda Item 6

Report No: 02/2024 PUBLIC REPORT

CABINET 11 January 2024 FUTURE OF THE PARKS SPECIAL NURSERY SCHOOL Report of the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services

Strategic Aim: Healthy and Well

A County for Everyone

Cabinet Member(s) Responsible: Cllr T Smith - Portfolio Holder for Children and Families

Contact Officer(s): 

Dawn Godfrey Strategic Director Children and Families dgodfrey@rutland.gov.uk 

Gill Curtis Head of SEND, Inclusion and Learning gcurtis@rutland.gov.uk

1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Summary 1.1.1 The Parks Special Nursery School is a registered nursery school located on the same site as Oakham Church of England (CE) Primary Academy but maintained by the Local Authority. The Parks offer includes support for children with moderate and severe learning difficulties, as well as support for speech, language and communication, autism and physical disabilities. The Parks is designated as a nursery school; however, all children currently being taught at the school are of primary school (reception) age, which is outside the age range that the Parks is set up for. There are no children accessing a special nursery place this academic year and Rutland County Council is not aware of any children of nursery age needing specialist nursery provision from September 2024. 1.1.2 Following a review of the provision at the Parks by a group of experienced, independent SEND (Special Education Needs and/ or Disabilities) professionals which took place over two and a half years, it was identified that there were issues with the operational sustainability of the Parks. This was due to its size and scale; places at the Parks places are expensive and the nursery has very small pupil cohorts which does not offer the best early education experience to set children on a positive path in their education, where socialisation with other children is a key positive early experience. 1.1.3 It was agreed at Cabinet on 12th September 2023 to go out to consultation on the future of The Parks provision, following the process set out in the Department for Education (DfE) guidance ‘Opening and Closing Maintained Schools - Statutory guidance for proposers and decision makers’ (January 2023). Consultation opened following the public launch on November 1st and closed at midnight on Sunday 3rd December. 1.1.4 80 individual people submitted a response through the dedicated parks consultation inbox over the consultation period. These were reviewed by an independent reviewer and, whilst all respondents raised some concern related to the proposal to close the Parks, there were no representations which offered any viable alternatives to closure. 1.1.5 The local authority is the decision maker on a school closure proposal and needs to have a position by mid-February 2024, when children’s school places are communicated to parents for the start of the academic year September 2024. 1.2 Recommendations 1.2.1 Cabinet considers the outcome of the consultation and the feedback from the independent reviewer and approves the closure of the Parks Special Nursery School with effect from the end of the academic year, August 2024.

1.3 Reasons for Recommendations 1.3.1 Rutland County Council’s ambition is to be a County that promotes inclusion, which supports all children and young people with Special Educational Needs and or Disabilities (SEND) to lead healthy, independent, and safe lives, focuses on their abilities not their disabilities and, wherever possible, have their needs met locally. (Rutland SEND and Inclusion Strategy 2021). 1.3.2 Following an independent review of the Parks, it was identified that the current arrangement was expensive and did not reflect the national and local aim for more children with special educational needs to be educated within their local mainstream early education or school setting. 1.3.3 The Parks is no longer operationally viable and continuing to keep it open does not make best use of limited resources. The Parks Special Nursery School has very small pupil cohorts which does not offer the best early education experience to set children on a positive path in their education, where socialisation with other children is a key positive early experience. Numbers over the past 6 academic years are shown below: 

Nursery year         children in Parks    Reception year children in Parks    Year 1 children in the Parks

2018- 2019            3                             3 

2019-2020             1                             4 

2020-2021             5 

2021-2022             2                             5                                                        1 

2022- 2023            2                             5                                                        1 

2023-present         3

1.3.4 The number of children legitimately requiring ‘specialist’ nursery places has declined. Children are placed there often because of lack of places to progress to at Reception, or by parental preference, rather than LA recommendation. The Designated Specialist Provision (DSP) at Oakham CE Primary School provides additional educational support so that children’s special needs can be met within a mainstream school setting, rather than a separate special school. Oakham CE Primary School DSP offered 20 places for children with EHCPs whose primary needs are Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Moderate Learning Difficulties but historically did not offer places for Reception Year children. Therefore, the Parks had supported children through Reception and even into Year 1. 

1.3.5 Following negotiations, a new specification and a revised Memorandum of Understanding has been agreed with Rutland Learning Trust. From September 2023, a further 4 places at the DSP were commissioned and this now provides education from Reception age to the end of Year 6, supporting the aim to increase places for school-aged children and young people with SEND within Rutland schools. 

1.3.6 The proposed changes to the delivery model for nursery-aged children will provide the opportunity to invest more in supporting children in their local mainstream early education settings when this is in their best interest and builds on the strengthening of the emerging good practice already being identified through the development of the SEND and Inclusion Early Years Pathway. Whilst there isn’t any dedicated specialist SEND provision in Early Years settings, many practitioners are highly skilled and experienced in supporting children with SEND and in promoting inclusion so that children with additional needs can benefit from receiving their early education offer with their peers. 

1.3.7 The funding currently allocated to the Parks would support the development of further additional places for statutory school age children with SEND at the Designated Specialist Provision (DSP) at Oakham CE Primary school.; if the Parks remains open, this funding would not be available for the provision of additional places for children with SEND within in a Rutland school. Additionally, the space currently utilised by the Parks would be required to support the expansion of the primary DSP and would not be available if the Parks remains open. 

2 REPORT 2.1 Introductory Paragraph 

2.1.1 The Parks Special Nursery School is on the same site as Oakham CE Primary School but is a separate Ofsted registered nursey school occupying 2 dedicated classrooms, with access to shared spaces in the primary school. However, Special Nursery Schools are now extremely rare in the UK and, if available, they are usually designed to meet the needs of children with multiple and very complex special educational needs. As a specialist provision, the Parks was not set up to meet every

child’s additional needs and there are nursery-aged children with an Education, Health and Care Plan whose needs would not be able to be met at the Parks.

2.2 Options Considered

2.2.1 Prior to consultation there were 2 options identified for Rutland County Council. There was the potential for further options to be presented during the formal consultation period; however, no viable options were received. 2.2.2 OPTION 1 - to continue with current arrangements. Whilst this may be viewed more favourably by some Rutland residents, this reduces the opportunities of young children to engage in an educational, social and emotional offer accessed with their peers with a local mainstream early education setting which sets them on a pathway for a positive educational trajectory, and would not support the aim to ease the continued pressure on the High Needs Block. 

2.2.3 OPTION 2 - to proceed with closure of the Parks Special Nursery School with effect from the end of the summer term 2024. This option would offer challenges for the Council, however, would enable funding currently restricted to provision in the Parks to be utilised more effectively to better meet the wider needs of children with Special Educational Needs and/ or Disabilities. This option would be building on the already strengthening offer across the mainstream sector, so that there would be no loss of quality or quantity of provision, or of expertise and specialism locally, because this will be provided in maintained provision. In addition, arrangements will be more accessible and convenient for Rutland parents and children.

2.3 Background 

2.3.1 In 2019, Rutland Schools Forum SEND Recovery Plan triggered the development of the SEND and Inclusion Early Years Pathway which examined the current education arrangements for children or young people with Special Educational Needs and/ or Disabilities to ensure they were either fit for purpose, or to plan for a future alternative model. The Pathway sets out a model for more Rutland children to benefit from completing their education within a mainstream early years and primary school setting where this was in their best interest. 

2.3.2 As a result, two proposed changes were identified: To work with the Early Years sector to enhance the confidence and capability within mainstream early education settings so that they were more able to successfully support children with emerging wider needs AND to undertake a review of existing resources, both expertise and finances, starting with the Designated Specialist Provision at Oakham CE Primary School and the Parks Special Nursery provision. 

2.3.3 All early education providers who receive government funding from the local authority are required to have due regard to the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (2015). There are currently 32 registered early education providers in Rutland, made up of 14 nurseries, 14 childminders and 4 school-based EY provisions and, at the last Childcare Sufficiency Assessment there was 28% vacancy across the county indication of availability of places for Rutland families. 

2.3.4 A key priority within the Pathway was further improving the quality of the early years

offer across Rutland settings to better meet the different needs of young children, with a focus on early identification of need and timely early targeted intervention This would utilise the funding available early in the SEND system to help prevent children’s needs from escalating and assisting in more positive long-term outcomes. 

2.3.5 To promote the shift from a dedicated to an integrated education approach for children and young people with SEND, the Local Authority recently appointed a specialist SEND Early Years teacher to support early education providers. This further enhances the SEND and inclusion support available to children which includes a significant programme of training and resources to promote inclusive practice across Rutland’s early years and childcare provisions. This is providing early education staff with increased specialist skills and confidence to effectively support children with SEND in mainstream settings. This was reflected in responses to the consultation; only 2 respondents raising a concern over the availability of suitable provision identified themselves as working within the early education sector.

2.3.6 A Speech Language Therapeutic Senior Practitioner has been working on early communication skills acquisition with all settings since 2021. Once the arrangements for Reception Year children with EHCPs (Education, Health and Care plans) had been secured, focused work started with the wider sector. An Early Years Specialist Social, Emotional and Mental Health Teacher, funded by Early Years (EY) Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant underspend was commissioned to help Private Voluntary and Independent Early Years settings put into practice the learning they gain through our Early Years learning programmes. This hands-on practitioner helps grow confidence and adjust practice to support children with emerging needs to thrive in a mainstream setting and not escalate into more specialist support. Both providers work on whole settings practice to develop a sustainable system. Both these initiatives are already having a tangible impact on confidence in SEND practice for practitioners and received great feedback from parents. Additional therapeutic support is planned through Delivering Better Value grant funding to help individual children.

2.3.7 The impact of this programme of professional development and support is seen in improved provider confidence and capacity to offer a wider choice of places for children with additional needs. In September 2023 the Council undertook an early education and childcare survey of parents and carers to gain a better view of parental need, which built on the feedback from the parental views gathered through the annual Childcare Sufficiency Assessment process undertaken earlier in the year. The outcomes of these surveys enable the Council to review the impact of actions taken, to identify potential gaps in provision and to better direct resources. 100 responses were received to the September survey, and responses involved 155 children aged 0-6 years old, with a good mix across the age groups. Questions were asked specifically on whether any children under the age of 6 years currently received any special or targeted support with a total of 47 responses saying yes, and of these, 83% felt their child was getting the support they required, which demonstrates the impact of the programme of support, and the improved confidence within the early education sector.

2.3.8 This reflected the OFSTED/CQC inspection report from May 2023 which found that “High-quality inclusion support for practitioners in the early years provides them with the confidence to identify and assess children’s needs.” 

2.3.9 Changes to the delivery model provide the opportunity to invest more in supporting

children in mainstream settings. Working with key stakeholders, the provision arrangements will be adjusted to meet forthcoming needs, serve more children and families in Rutland and develop sound and sustainable Early Years arrangements linked to the Family Hub Programme, aligned to Rutland’s SEND and Inclusion Strategy and in line with the SEND and AP (Alternative Provision) Improvement Plan, seeking for more effective inclusion of children in their preparation for adulthood.

2.3.10 Parents and carers who have concerns that their young child may have additional needs are able to access advice and support through the Family Hub https://www.rutland.gov.uk/rutland-information-service/family-hub or the Local Offer https://www.rutland.gov.uk/rutland-information-service/send-local-offer.

2.3.11 To enable the Authority to ensure that the offer for families with children with SEND was achieving Rutland’s vision to support all children and young people with SEND to lead healthy, independent, and safe lives and, wherever possible, have their needs met locally (Rutland SEND and Inclusion Strategy 2019), a group of experienced, independent SEND professionals were commissioned to undertake a review of the special provision at the Parks School starting in 2020. The focus was to examine the current arrangements and to ensure they were either fit for purpose, or to plan for a future delivery model. This included establishing a working group, independently facilitated by experts in the field of SEND and education, comprising of Rutland County Council officers, school leaders, parent governors and teaching staff from the Parks and Oakham CE Primary School, to develop a more inclusive Early Years pathway and widen the early education offer for children with additional needs.

2.3.12 This review, which took place over two and a half years, identified that there were issues with the operational sustainability of the Parks due to its size and scale. Recommendations from the review included strengthening inclusive leadership, strengthening inclusive relationships, shared design and understanding and refreshing the existing SEND and Inclusion Strategy in line with current outcomes of recent national reviews. This resulted in the development of the Early Years Pathway which sets out to develop SEND provision which is fit for purpose, meets demands and needs and remains flexible to ensure these criteria continue to be met. It also invests in the early years providers locally in order to build sustainable confidence in inclusion across the sector.

 2.3.13 The Early Years Pathway aims to ensure best value, whilst offering access to support for more children, including those with emerging needs and those for whom an Education, Health and Care Plan is not appropriate. The intent is to increase opportunities for children with SEND or emerging needs to access mainstream Early Years education closer to home, where this would be in the best interest of the child. This is delivered within the early education offer in Rutland, enhanced by a suite of services and support for the child and the wider family, arranged in partnership between Rutland County Council SEND and Inclusion Service and the early education provision, to include therapeutic support and wider family hub arrangements. This would reduce the need for long journeys and give children with additional needs the opportunity to form friendships with other local children their age. 

2.3.14 These services would be intended to help prevent children’s further escalation and improve families’ confidence and individual family functioning while this enhanced,

more holistic support package, would be focused on a transition to mainstream for the majority, for the next step in their journey. For those young children with more complex needs, whose needs historically would not have been met at the Parks, we will continue to work with families and specialist education providers to ensure they receive the high-level of targeted support they require. Where children with SEND are not attending a nursery or childminder setting, Rutland County Council’s Early Years Inclusion team will continue to provide support via home visits.

2.3.15 As a result of the outcomes of the independent review, it was agreed at Cabinet on 12th September 2023 to go out to consultation on the future of The Parks provision. 

2.4 Consultation

2.4.1 Consultation on the closure of The Parks Special Nursery School followed the process set out in the Department for Education (DfE) guidance ‘Opening and Closing Maintained Schools - Statutory guidance for proposers and decision makers’ (January 2023). The reason cited for the proposed closure was that the Parks is no longer considered viable and that there will be no loss of quality or quantity of provision or of expertise and specialism locally as this will be provided in maintained provision. In addition, arrangements will be more accessible and convenient for local parents and children. 

2.4.2 Consultation opened following the public launch on November 1st and closed at midnight on Sunday 3rd December 2023. 

2.4.3 Consultation responses have been reviewed by an independent reviewer, Maureen Morris; Maureen is a parent-carer herself and has worked as a parent participation consultant nationally for a number of years, as well as being an associate of the charity Contact for families with disabled children. She is highly experienced in gathering the voice of parents, carers, and children. 

2.4.4 Maureen reviewed all of the respondent e-mails, noting the comments, questions and responses as they came in. Her review took into account the impact on the author, the number of responses and the themes emerging, and questions were raised with Council staff as they arose which enabled officers to respond to key themes and provide feedback. The Council has published questions and answers on Rutland County Council’s website, and these can be found at https://www.rutland.gov.uk/theparks . 

2.4.5 A total of 80 individuals submitted a response through the dedicated parks consultation inbox over the consultation period, though there are 92 actual responses because of additional comments sent in following publication of the Q & A document on the website. Maureen rated these as Green - A concerned citizen who may have some knowledge and/or experience of this complex issue. This knowledge may or may not be current and/or the respondent has given no viable solution; Amber - Respondent has or has had a relationship with The Parks Special Nursery School, perhaps directly or indirectly. The decision may or may not have an impact on either their setting or them personally; Red - Respondent may be directly impacted by any decision regarding The Parks Special Nursery School or may have a solution which should be or has already been considered by Rutland County Council. 70 were rated green, 3 as amber and 7 as red. 

2.4.6 Whilst all respondents raised some concern over the proposal to close the Parks,

with some very personal case studies relating to children who had attended over the past 10 years or more, there were no representations which offered any viable alternatives to closure. As these representations were received, responses to emerging themes were made through the updated Q & A documentation on the website, which sometimes then resulted in further representation. However, these representations made to the Council did not offer any viable solutions to the issue raised. All representations have been collated and published with these papers (Appendix A) following careful checking and redacting to ensure all identifiable personal details have been removed.

2.4.7 The independent reviewer, having carefully analysed all representations, considers that there were no viable alternatives to closure offered as an outcome of the consultation. She supports the proposal to proceed with closure of the Parks and to make more effective use of the wide-ranging resources available to families, such as the Family Hub and Early Help, and to education providers through the expanding programme of professional development and support. The Parks Special Needs Nursery Consultation Independent Review for Rutland County Council has been completed by Maureen and can be found in Appendix B. 

2.4.8 It is our recommendation that the closure of the Parks Special Nursery School is confirmed, and the next steps are actioned prior to the cut-off date for communicating special school places in February 2024.

3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECOMMENDATION 3.1 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 3.1.1 Special Needs Education is funded by the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) High Needs Fund. The development of the Early Years Pathway, with changes to the delivery model as described above, is key within the Council’s Recovery Plan, providing the opportunity to invest more in supporting children in mainstream settings and thereby contributing towards to easing the deficit in the Dedicated Schools Grant. The deficit on the DSG this year is c£600k with the total deficit being £1,918k. 3.1.2 The cost of maintaining a place in mainstream DSP provision would be £10k per place. The Parks has a minimum Funding Guarantee of £250,719 for the 7.5 placements which was agreed to help the school with budgeting when the Council issued a formal letter stating its concerns of the finances of the Parks. This figure was agreed as from 2017/18 to 2021/22; however, the Council had been funding more than this in every year other than 2020/21 which was impacted upon by Covid. 3.1.3 Removing the Parks from the offer in Rutland, in line with the Delivering Better Value programme and the SEND Recovery Plan, which would enable further investment in the Designated Specialist Provision at Oakham Primary Academy and across the early years sector. 

3.1.4 Following negotiations, a new specification and a revised Memorandum of Understanding has been agreed with Rutland Learning Trust. From September 2023, this now provides education from Reception age in the Designated Specialist Provision (DSP) at Oakham C of E Primary School. Investment in the DSP, resulting in an additional 4 places in September 2023 and a further 4 in September 2024, will be compromised if the Parks remains open because the funding will be

subsumed within the funding required to keep the Parks operating. 

3.1.5 More choice and better support closer to home means we can invest more money into mainstream SEND support locally. Rutland’s High Needs Funding can then be shared more equally among providers to widen the support available to a greater number of young children, leading to better outcomes for everyone.

3.2 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS This section has been approved by Sarah Khawaja, Head of Legal and Democratic Services. 

3.2.1 It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that they act in accordance with the relevant legislation and have regard to statutory guidance when seeking to close a maintained school. 

3.2.2 Consultation on the proposal to close The Parks Special Nursery School was carried out according to the Department for Education (DfE) guidance ‘Opening and Closing Maintained Schools - Statutory guidance for proposers and decision makers’ (January 2023). 

3.2.3 If the decision is made to close the school with effect from the end of the academic year, August 2024, the Local Authority will continue to consider all legal implications associated with disestablishing a maintained school as specified in Annex C of the statutory guidance: Proposals for school closures. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63d1357ed3bf7f3c44bcd6b9/Openi ng_and_closing_maintained_schools_Jan_2023.pdf 3.2.4 Within one week of making a decision, the Local Authority MUST publish their decision, and the reasons for such a decision being made, on their website

3.3 Risk Management Implications The main risks to this Report and the Council achieving its objectives are as follows: 

3.3.1 Risks associated with the closure of the Parks – Finance and Viability 

3.3.1.1 Assessment of Risk – High 

3.3.1.2 Mitigation: The school is not financially viable under current arrangements and if the decision is made not to close, it will continue to add pressure to the High Needs funding. Closure of the Parks, in parallel with the delivery of the High Needs Recovery Plan and the Early Years Pathway, will ease the deficit on the High Needs Block. Financial resources can be redirected to provide a more sustainable approach to meeting the needs of children with additional needs, with skills and expertise available in early education settings across the county. Specialist provision will continue to be provided for those young children with complex needs where it is required. 

3.3.1.3 Residual Risk - Medium 

3.3.1.4 Record of Risk: within High Need Fund Recovery Plan

3.3.2 Risks associated with the closure of the Parks – Profile 

3.3.2.1 Assessment of Risk – high 

3.3.2.2 Mitigation: There is reputational risk associated with any school closure. Local Authorities must ensure that, when closing a school that there will be no loss of expertise and specialism and that any replacement must be more accessible and convenient for local parents. The review of the Parks and the subsequent development of the Early Years Pathway and the associated programme of professional development and support for the Early Years sector has strengthened the the expertise across the sector, with specialist provision being available where this is required to meet specific complex need. Consultation offered stakeholders to respond and to offer alternative viable options to closure, but none have been received. 

3.3.2.3 Residual Risk – medium 

3.3.2.4 Record of Risk: within High Need Fund Recovery Plan

3.4 DATA PROTECTION IMPLICATIONS 

3.4.1 A Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA) has not been completed because there are no identified risks or issues to the rights and freedoms of individuals 

3.5 EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS 

3.5.1 An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) screening has been completed. No adverse or other significant issues were identified. A copy of the EqIA can be obtained from gcurtis@rutland.gov.uk 

3.6 COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS 

3.6.1 The Council has a duty in accordance with S17 Crime and Disorder Act 1988, when exercising its functions, to have due regard to the likely effect of that exercise of those functions on and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area (including anti-social behaviour). 

3.6.2 This duty has been considered and there are no community safety implications relating to the recommendations. 

3.7 HEALTH AND WELLBEING IMPLICATIONS 

3.7.1 Children who attend education settings have full benefits of their learning environment, peer and community connections and relationships. These are evidenced to improve long term resilience, aspiration, and wellbeing. 

3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS 

3.8.1 On 11 January 2021 Rutland County Council acknowledged that it was in a climate emergency. The Council understands that it needs to take urgent action to address it. 

3.8.2 There are no environmental and climate change implications associated with the Recommendations. 

3.9 PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS 

3.9.1 There are no procurement implications associated with the recommendations. Recommendations. 

3.10 HR IMPLICATIOINS 

3.10.1 If the decision is made to close the school with effect from the end of the academic year, August 2024, there will be HR implications for those members of staff currently on the payroll of the Parks. As a Local Authority maintained school, the LA (Local Authority) will be responsible for ensuring all appropriate HR processes are followed for those members of staff. 

4 BACKGROUND PAPERS 

4.1 There are no background papers to the report. 

5 APPENDICES 5.1 Appendix A: Consultation Responses 

5.2 Appendix B: The Parks Special Needs Nursery Consultation Independent Review for Rutland County Council

An Accessible Version of this Report is available upon request – Contact 01572 722577.

Park Special Nursery School Consultation – Anonymised representations.

Green - A concerned citizen who may have some knowledge and/or experience of this complex issue.

This knowledge may or may not be current and/or the respondent has given no viable solution.

Amber - Respondent has or has had a relationship with The Parks Special Nursery School, perhaps

directly or indirectly. The decision may or may not have an impact on either their setting or them

personally.

Red - Respondent may be directly impacted by any decision regarding The Parks Special Nursery School

or may have a solution which should be or has already been considered by Rutland County Council.

GREEN

Date received and anonymised representation.

1 2/11/23

Part of me thinks, what is the point in writing this email, and putting my input in, it probably

won’t be read, my voice won’t be heard, no positives will come of this.

I have come to realise and learn how lonely the SEN world is, and how very uneducated

people are of the SEN community.

**

I truly believe we have been failed, there is very little support, knowledge and understanding

of autism, I was one of those uneducated people once, I had no understanding of autism, I

wasn’t really aware of it. It was only due to my research I really started to understand, my **

clearly has autism, it was clear as day looking back at videos and pictures as a baby, huge red

flags, not responding to name, nonverbal, no understanding, no sense of danger, stimming, no

eye contact ….

I showed my concern, I reached out to professionals and they responded with ** is a boy,

they are lazy…… bringing my first child up who has autism, was a challenge, an completely

unexpected journey, and sadly very lonely, with zero support.

Then the parks happened, ** started at the parks non verbal, ** needs a quiet space, a lot of

empathy, the best knowledge and understanding of autism and lots of patience. The staff

have been so brilliant, they have supported me, been a shoulder to cry on, became my child’s

second family, the family we needed but don’t have. They are the family I can hand ** over

too who has very little communication using Makaton and visual learning to communicate. **

was there a whole year! They have changed ** life. They have made a positive impact on **

future, setting ** the right direction, teaching ** in ** own unique way, listening to ** when

he needs to be heard, ** wasn’t quite ready to shine. But the parks found ** and **is

absolutely shinning.

Every child needs the opportunity and the chance…. People are becoming more aware of

autism, Rutland has military families, so there are always children moving to the area and

many would benefit from the parks, people are unaware it exists, family’s need help to be

guided and supported, help make people aware that there are places and services out there

to give you support. A child’s first 5 years are the most important years of their life, in those

years you learn so much, what you learn will guide you down the best path uniquely created

for you, leading you to a successful happy life, add additional needs into the mix, a child is

having to learn harder and more unique to meet their needs. I really struggle to see how a

mainstream provision can provide this, it is not the same. And unfortunately, you just don’t

get it, and clearly not willing to see the beauty in the parks, and give them the chance, and

instead of shutting them down, embrace the parks, make it bigger again, give children the

support be the better county. A SEN child needs:

•the right setting

•the right knowledge

•the understanding

• the patience 

•the support

•the passion

•the empathy

•the love

•the guidance

•the space

•the family

All that was given to my ** in just a year! ** has had the best educational start to life, and

found ** beautiful path…

**identifying personal details redacted.

GREEN

3/11/23

I want to convey my support for this facility to remain open.

I feel it’s vital that there is a facility in Rutland that specialises in supporting those that have

complex needs. We are an ever growing community and if this is lost it will never be replaced.

I do not have any links to Parks and I don’t have a child with special needs, however in my

wider family we do have children with complex needs and we have witnessed their parents

fighting tooth and nail to get the support they needed. In fact in one case they took the local

authority to court and won their case, this could have been avoided had common sense

prevailed.

Politicians do not understand the stresses and strains of raising a child with complex needs,

simple tasks can be difficult and challenging.

Such facilities like Parks unlock the potential for a child with complex needs, which is taken

through to adulthood. This can enable someone to live independently. Closing Parks will not

only impact on the ‘here and now ’but it will be felt for years to come. The decision could

potentially create a ticking time bomb for the future.

I fully support Parks remaining open and I will support any campaign that is fighting this, I

have already signed the petition.

GREEN

3/11/23

**

Today, I was shocked and saddened to hear of the possible closure of The Parks School.

Shocked because SEN children have as much right to an education within their area as any

other child and saddened to think that the most vulnerable in our communities have yet

again, been targeted as scapegoats for a budget. With fewer children, parents and teachers

involved, the idea is to take the low hanging fruit. It disgusts me.

Where are these children to go? Taxi them miles from their homes causing distress and

possible difficulties for their parents? Take them out of their own environment where they

grow up? Spend a fortune on taxi’s and carers each day with parents not always sure that the

same people will be awarded the contracts each term – with children then having to get used

to another set of drivers and carers?

I understand that budgets have to be met – but why is it always the most vulnerable who are

targeted. These children have their whole lives in front of them. The education and social

development that our grandchild received at The Parks was exceptional, enabling ** to move

forward and develop to the point where we can see her now contributing to society in some

small way.

I vehemently oppose your proposal to close The Parks School in Oakham and urge you to have

some common humanity and find a way to cater for our young children.

**identifying personal details redacted.

GREEN

3/11/23

I am contacting from my company a stage 4 approved AP working with Cambridgeshire,

Peterborough, Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire and Rutland.

I have just read the article regarding the closure of The Parks. Is there any way we can assist

and support this - we have 3 AP venues in the area and looking to expand in to neighbouring

LAs?

GREEN

3/11/23

I am writing to express my deep frustration and disappointment regarding your decision to

recommend the closure of The Parks School. ** I am appalled by your apparent disregard for

the specialist needs and rights of the youngest and most vulnerable children in Rutland.

It is clear that your decision is primarily motivated by financial concerns. While it is true that

specialist education can be expensive, it is crucial to remember that our SEN children have the

same legal right to an education as their peers. Many of them require the support and

expertise of specialist staff in a small specialized environment in order to thrive academically,

socially, and emotionally. While some children with EHCPs may be able to cope in mainstream

schools, they may have achieved even greater success and been happier in a more specialized

setting.

Rutland currently holds the shameful distinction of being one of the only counties in the

country without a Primary or Secondary Special School. As a result, the council is forced to

send significant numbers of SEN children out of county to access the specialist provision they

require. This not only incurs substantial costs in terms of securing school places and

transportation, but it also means that families like mine are left with limited options and are

at the mercy of neighboring counties. While we are grateful for the opportunities provided by

these counties, the provision may not always be suited to our child's specific needs. It is also

important to note that these schools are bursting at the seams with children from their own

county. Surely, these funds spent on educating and transporting our children out of county

could be better spent thus allowing The Parks to remain open.

Rutland needs to retain its only Special School, The Parks and take proactive steps to ensure

that early years children with SEN receive the specialist support they need from a much earlier

age. This includes issuing EHCPs for early years children and providing meaningful early

intervention services. It is appalling to hear that the council has been systematically refusing

to issue EHCPs for those in early years settings, therefore resulting in the decline in the

number of students at The Parks, making it appear financially unsustainable. By doing so, you

are playing with the rights of the most vulnerable members of our community, which is truly

shameful and unacceptable. It is essential that you prioritize the needs of these children and

provide them with the specialized education and support they require.

Closing The Parks School will not only have a detrimental impact on the students and families

currently attending, but it will also leave a significant gap in the provision of SEN education in

Rutland. Sending these children on to early years nurseries that are ill-equipped to nurture

these additional SEN children is not appropriate but also disrupts their social and educational

development. It is crucial that Rutland has its own Special Schools to cater to the unique

needs of these children and provide them with a nurturing and inclusive learning

environment.

Furthermore, the council's refusal to issue EHCPs in a timely manner is a clear violation of the

rights of these children. Early intervention is crucial for their development, and by delaying

the provision of EHCPs, you are denying them the support they need at a critical stage in their

education. This approach is not only unjust but also short-sighted, as it will likely lead to

greater challenges and costs in the long run.

I implore you to reconsider your decision to close The Parks School and instead invest in the

education and well-being of our youngest children with SEN. They deserve equal

opportunities and access to quality education, and it is the council's duty to ensure that these

rights are upheld. Please prioritize the needs of these vulnerable children and work towards

providing them with the specialized education and support they require.

RED

3/11/23 (first representation)

**I truly think closing the parks is a mistake. The parks is needed and wanted but getting the

EHCP to get in is taking to long and is to difficult a process. I know of several family's hoping to

attend the parks in sept 24. Unfortunately you are ill informed and wrong in your

assumptions. Maybe spend some time with the families who need the parks and humbly learn

just why it must endure.

**

The Parks is warmth and nurture, and caring, The Parks is calm, and steady, and inclusive. The

team there are peaceful and engaging, thoughtful and perceptive, supportive and enabling.

We tried a mainstream pre-school first, we were nudged firmly in that direction. It was lovely,

the staff kind and friendly. They remain friends to us to this day, and watch our journey with

interest. But mainstream was too busy, it was sudden and loud, it was far too bright, it was

too fast and too unpredictable . . . I stayed EVERY session, I was always visible and accessible

to **, yet still ** only managed an hour at a time. Sleep was non-existent, food was refused,

** screamed every night, **broke things, smashed things. ** tried to interact, but ** couldn't,

the quantity of other children bemused **, we saw no way to help **.

So we got our EHCP, on our second try.

We had found our harbour, we had found The Parks

From our first visit to The Parks we found where we belonged. Not just **, but our whole

family have benefited. There is more sleep,** has tried school dinners, **uses gentle hands,

** manages a whole school day and is sad to come home. They celebrate every achievement

with us, they offer unwavering support and advice, they helped us through half-terms

unending holiday with links, regular texts, and support packs.

The Parks has a place, and a purpose, and it is powerful.

The Parks and its staff have given ** the right beginning on her journey, and I will forever

support and fight for it to be every child's right to have an appropriate educational place in a

setting that meets their needs.

22/11/23 (second representation)

**

Do not make such a massive mistake. We need this school

**story part 2

What does The Parks do?

**ago, ** non-verbal and at a lovely mainstream preschool. Yet ** never said a word, never

made a sound. When ** laughed it was silent, when ** needed something ** made no

attempt to ask or gesture or sign - ** just endured, existed on the very edge of those around

** ago, ** started at the parks. ** knows all ** letters and colours, ** numbers, ** shapes; ** fruits and vegetables and, if you have ever had the joy of accompanying us to Rutland Farm Park, ** chickens - and all her not-chickens. ** can ask for food, ** can request a drink, ** can ask for **shoes,** toothbrush, and **big sister. ** can tell you when ** hurt, when ** tired, when ** sad, and when ** is happy, **laugh is loud and rich and beautiful and often. This time, you need to know I'm still an exhausted mother, I've waited four years for ** voice . . . to hear **, to talk with **, for ** to say mummy. This week I got my wish, when ** said it to me for the first time.❤️🥰 What does the parks do? It reached ** when I could not, it nurtured ** in ways I'd not thought of, it calmed **, redirected **, taught ** and enabled **, it engaged **. The parks, and its staff, gave ** a place that allowed **, at ** own pace and in ** own time, to find ** voice. Closing The Parks would be a travesty, so like my **, I'm not remaining on the edge anymore, I'm using my voice and asking you to help us save The Parks. 28/11/23 (third representation) ** Please read ** stories, please think very carefully what you are taking away from my child and future children. We tried mainstream, it didn't work for her. We have days to save The Parks....... What's a day? 12:15 am - ** is awake in my bed, asking for ** school, we cuddle and I shush ** as ** big ** needs to sleep, ** dad needs to sleep. 01:30 am - We give up, ** asks to put on ** "cosy" and ** "Christmas feet", so we can go downstairs. We put The Grinch on TV (which will play, on a loop, until ** leaves for school), we move the cats off he sofa, we doze, and chat, and ** asks for ** school. 04:00 am - We have breakfast - white cereal, 3 biscuits, juice in ** cup, half a banana ** asks for ** school. 06:00 am - ** asks for ** school again. We get dressed, ** in in ** blue Stitch T-shirt, we pack ** lunch box, snack, and swim stuff. ** asks for ** school - ** waits by the front door. 08:30 am - Off to school - asking for ** school, without separation anxiety or reservation, just pure joy and delight, ** walks away from me, ** doesn't look back. 3.30 pm - Home from school, we have tears - ** wants ** school. 4.30 pm - Teatime: peanut butter crackers, 3 slices of cucumber. ** asks for ** school. 7:00 pm - Supper and sleep medication, then bath-time, still ** asks for ** school. 8:00 pm - Bed time, we talk about school. 

What is one day to ** it's being at school, ** school, The Parks. It is structure, routine, joy, and

expectation. it is safety, calmness, nurture, and learning. It is freedom, understanding, and

acceptance. It is just what ** needs.

What's a day?

A day is time, it's time to sign the petition, it's time to email the council, it's time to support

and to protest.

That's all we need, time. That's all The Parks needs, time . . . .preferably years of it.

**identifying personal details redacted.

GREEN

4/11/23

Having worked ** and seen the difference it makes not just with the children but their

parents/carers

Removing this facility will profoundly affect the development of not only the existing children

but future children as well.

The effect on the parents of these children will also be significant in terms of transport and

time to out of county Special Needs Setting.

GREEN

4/11/23 (first representation)

I would like to state that although I was not at the meeting last night I feel completely

betrayed that RCC is planning to close the parks school.

You state it isn't financially viable. However, all schools struggle and it would be more

financially detrimental to the public council in the long run to close it and have a huge impact

on the community. We spend more on social care for adults because we didn't invest in their

futures or ehcps for homeschooling as there would be no where accessible for the children.

Costing so much more in tutors, programs and therapies to compensate for what would of

save money to simply have a school like the parks.

 It is so clearly needed because;

* It is providing an early years setting where children with SEN or need support and cannot

cope in mainstream nurseries

* It had been invested in by the public to improve facilities from the put door play area by

tesco to hydrotherapy pool access lift.

*There are many SEN children in the area that access or awaiting access to the parks. We have

the highest amount of sen children in the country according to one of your surveys

*It has expert staff who are trained to support and teach SEN children in a specialist setting.

And over county's are over subscribed.

*Sending children to other settings would cost money in travel for RCC and its constituents,

not to mention local nurseries have stated they can't cope. They are not built for the

environment needed.

* my own child attended the parks and would not be where he is today if it wasn’t for the

limited class size and teaching support the school provides

* The public WANT and NEED the school. It is an important part of our community and

education. EDUCATION SHOULD BE A PROPRITY FOR ALL INC DISABLED. To close it would be

discrimination.

* It would compromise the RCC promise to work with parents and listen. The whole project

you have created to work with us, would be undermined by shutting the school.

In addition to this you have made it harder and harder to access defeating the object of its

purpose. You now need an ehcp to get a placement at the parks where before it was a special

setting to gather evidence for an ehcp for children who clearly don't cope in mainstream 

settings because it is simply top busy.. The council provided a 121 and they still stated he needed a place at the parks. The parks is a specialist setting designed to be calm and accommodating to ** needs including ** sensory disorder. Your facts stating there is no need are incorrect, in fact there are children now struggling at nurseries. This has a huge impact on their development and mental health as well as their families. The parks offer support you state you as a council are geared to provide but to remove the parks would be a huge step backwards which would cause irreparable damage to children in need. Where are these children suppose to go if mainstream nurseries have already stated they are overwhelmed and not equipped for these young children. Where are they suppose to get their ehcp and gather evidence. Out of county is not practical or sensible. We can not stick a 2 year old on transport, if it was your child, how would you feel about it all. Over the years you state we have supported up to 8 children in the park. This is simply incorrect when ** was referred ** had to wait for a space and they already had around 12 children at the parks and he could only access 2 days a week. As well as the childminders because your report stated **needed the specialist intervention and opportunity to gather evidence for the ehcp. The parks should change its entry requirement to no ehcp as it was in 2015 and you should allow out of county children to be referred from towns such as melton. To make financially viable. As we send children to birchwood. We should be sharing the load and thus save money doing so. There are other ways to save money without making a detrimental impact to our community or putting families and children through unnecessary hardship and mental stress. Thank you for your time and I hope you take these comments seriously. 5/11/23 (second representation) Please note some incorrect facts in this report and some observations… It is incorrect that The Parks can only support a maximum of 8 children at a time. We had 13 children on role one year and regularly a number greater than 8. There have been waiting lists at times. It is very mysterious that suddenly there are ‘no’ children below reception age requiring a place. I question how this has come to be. The parks have witnessed MIRACULOUS transformations and progress in the children who attended e.g. a child going from non verbal to verbal like my child ** and for their families The council has tried to close The Parks previously and failed due to public opinion. Because The Rutland Hub has already been set up and is running with the remit to support children below Reception however this is not being successful as many request ehcps still and being pulled form mainstream nursery settings Mainstream placements are NOT suitable for many children with SEN, for a myriad of reasons. I support change and progress and a teacher ** created a model of The Parks moving forward which fulfilled the criteria of what the report team said they wished for the children of the county. I feel that this was conveniently swept under the carpet. I fully understand the Council’s need to save money, with proper and full consultation this could have been achieved whilst still meeting the needs of ALL children to an outstanding standard. We may never see this happen now as your email for 30 days didn't work initially as I emailed and had mailer failure delivery and had to wait 3 days to send. This is my second email to highlight some facts. 30 days is not enough when it actually equates to 20 working days if emails are staffed. 30/11/23 (third representation)

I would like to address serious concerns regarding your questions and answers published on the website. It is far from clear as your responses do not marry up to each question of what is being said. Further more simple facts like the name of the school are not accurate e.g. It is not Oakham primary school. We have many primary schools in Oakham. I have attached some comments with regard to each section. I would also like to add its highly inappropriate that this decision is going to cabinet rather than public on the 11th January. Especially when that is clearly not enough time to truly review publlic commenrs and feedback. It is also unethical as the lead officer is ** who has on more than one occasion verbally stated she wanted to close the school before the consultation began. Not to mention most of the cabinet (if not all) are from the same political party. Therefore the views of the constituents representated by Rutland are unbalanced and is all one sided. Therefore it fails the principle of demoacracy vote for decisions as important as this. Furthermore please attached a screen shot for one of the minutes from one the meetings with **. Whereby it states that the send lmprovemenr plan. DBV had stated it was to be carried out over the next 18 to 24months to work on improving SEND provision for long term goals. The key work streams of need identified that are specifically relating to my Objection are the following; Building additional resources within school support partnership to avoid special placements. Since when did avoiding disability needs become a priority. If a sen placement is need the needs of the child come first not whether they can fit in your policies or budget. That is unlawful. And the second point states the goal is to improve community and parental support. Closing the school is the exact opposite of the support and improvement. The school was rate outstanding by ofsted. Surely ita absurd to close a school that is needed (as there 7 children in Rutland wanting access not 2) despite what your report states because case officers have said don't name it as a provision. I do hope you reconsider expecially after the BBC has covered this story again this morning on the news. **identifying personal details redacted.

AMBER

4/11/23

I have grave concerns around this proposal. Many children who started at The Parks have

latterly moved on to Birch Wood Area Special School, a Leicestershire County Council

maintained school. These are children who have complex needs, rarely if ever met within a

DSP. I would like to know more detailed evidence (figures) that children with severe and

complex learning disabilities are having their needs met within Rutland schools.

Birch Wood School has been under increasing pressure to take children over number, this has

included children from Rutland where there is no specialist provision. This year we have 227

on role. Our DFE net capacity assessment suggests we are significantly over number. Our

planned admission was 190. This year our numbers have crept up again and this has included

EYFS children from Rutland. LCC continue to invest in specialist places, RCC have not. I feel this

is creating an inequality in accessibility for Rutland parents. 

Greater inclusion is very important within mainstream, but denying complex children access

to appropriate support is a social justice issue. The Parks was a valuable resource to your

families, its closure is a great loss to some of the most vulnerable in your community. 

GREEN

5/11/23

Absolutely shocking these children need the school. As a father of a child with special needs

these schools are to far and wide apart to close them. ** goes to Willoughby at Bourne and if

that closed, we would be stuck where to send ** so to hear what's being proposed has made

me angry and you have my full support

**identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

5/11/23

I would like to email to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed closure of the

Parks Specialist Nursery. I am a parent of a child in Melton Mowbray who has an ehcp. When

my daughter was younger we desperately wanted for our daughter to attend the Parks after

mainstream and an educational psychologist stated ** needed a specialist nursery. We were

refused a place due to being out of county! It was our nearest specialist nursery despite being

out of county! The fact that Rutland County Council state there is not sufficient need is down

to its ridiculous criteria it has put in place to access it, not because there isn’t need! I am

absolutely disgusted to hear that this is even being considered before changing the

admissions process as if the admissions process was changed, many more families would be

accessing it!

**identifying personal details redacted.

GREEN

6/11/23 We are greatly concerned at the Council’s proposal to close The Parks Special School and would ask you please to re-consider. The school provides absolutely essential levels of care and education for pupils with special needs – needs which can only be addressed in a purpose designed facility and by teachers with a particular skills and understanding. That is what The Parks provides and there is no other similar facility in Rutland. To remove this provision and suggest that the pupils go elsewhere is a dereliction of the Council’s duty to the Rutland community which you represent. We understand that the proposal has been made because of the cost of running and maintaining the school. However, to close the school now would be an extremely shortsighted position to take. The cost of transporting children elsewhere and the on-going cumulative cost of their health care as they grow up will far outweigh any short term economic benefit. You also have a responsibility to consider the mental distress that will be caused to the pupils and the distress and added difficulty posed to their parents that closure of The Park will inevitably cause. Please do not make this decision.

GREEN

6/11/23

** attends this amazing school. Due to the hard work, dedication, amazing skills and love of all

the staff ** has become verbal, can use the toilet, interact, read, write, try different foods. **

is flourishing and growing. The staff also support the family in such a wonderful way. We 

know how privileged we are to have such an amazing school which is down to the hardworking and amazing staff. The school has helped nurture a wonderful future for ** This constant threat of closure is unacceptable to the staff, the children, their families and the community. This school is so very needed and instead of this constant closure threat it should be celebrated and held high as a school of excellence and inspiration. ** Identifying personal details redacted 

RED

7/11/23 (first representation)

I am emailing yourself with the discust that you are planning on closing the Parks special

school.

Personally for me this will affect my little family, ** we are on the autism pathway for a

diagnosis as well as global developmental delay as well as non verbal. We have just received

** school admissions letter which we cannot complete as mainstream schooling isn’t possible

for him. He has already been assessed by an educational psychologist that was paid by

yourselfs which states he needs specialist setting. We are going to be inputting a request for a

ehcp thishis week with a lot of evidence that he needs specialist.

As far as I’m aware the dsp unit which you are suggesting to parents is still classed as

mainstream as it’s not 100% specialist. Will it have the expertise and experience the parks

teachers have, I very much doubt it….

If we refuse dsp and you close the parks the next option for my child is Birchwood in Melton if

we can get him in there. My concerns are ** I do not and will not send ** over there at that

young age because yourself dedcided to close the parks. I know of 2 other parents who are

wanting the parks next year for reception so that’s 3 children for the parks.

As a parent I want the best for my child and the parks is.

I know it, our family do, ** nursery teachers know it and also speak to your inclusion officers

you employ they can tell you that too…

Please can you listen to the parents of Rutland and accept of this school closes there will be a

lot of disadvantaged children that won’t get the support they need.

18/11/23 (second representation)

I am a parent who is wanting to send my child ** to the parks special school in September

2024 when ** should be starting primary reception like all of ** other peers. We have

recently received ** school admissions letter which we cannot doing anything as mainstream

schooling isn’t possible.

** is on the waiting list for a autism diagnosis as well as being developmentally delayed and

has the learning age of a 18 month old. ** is also non verbal ** makes sounds but you cannot

have a conversation at all with ** and ** doesn’t understand basic tasks that are asked of **

ie putting ** coat on and eating with a knife and fork. ** is also in nappys and has no way to

tell us when ** needs to go to the toilet.

At the minute ** is a mainstream nursery who have been fantastic with **and offer **

support but ** doesn’t learn there like the other children ** age do. ** is happy and settled

there and is happy with the environment but there expertise only goes so far. Also with **

being happy there it gives me and my husband time for ourselves as selfish as that sounds

Half the reason we chose the nursery for ** as it is next door to the parks to the surroundings

are familiar to **.

Last Friday ** nursery with request from myself and my husband have issued a application for

** to be assessed for a ehcp.

The dsp unit that has been spoken is more to help children with additional needs and help

them to be integrated into mainstream settings. But I can guarantee I will be pressured into

naming it as the school we want to send ** regardless of ** needs just because it’s the easiest

option. We have also been told by inclusion about birchwood in Melton but personally I do

not want to send ** to a primary school out of county just yet at the age of **.

If ** was to access the parks ** will have the chance to use the speech therapists,

occupational therapists the lists go on.

In summery I feel like that the expression lamb to slaughter will be * if parks is closed next

year. So please challenge to comments of no child that needs access to this school.

** Identifying personal details redacted

RED

7/11/23 (first representation)

** attended the parks

** needs the parks.

** due to start school Sept 24, ** autism diagnosis ehcp draft, **needs the parks school like

so many other children past and present.

8/11/23 (second representation)

Past parent hopeful present parent.

** has been well known to the local authority for over a year,** has a diagnosis of autism an

agreed draft plan (for months) I have been told lies, I have told any and everybody ** needs

the parks, its going to panel, ** should start the parks on this date(amazing) to then be told by

the school oh ** been put forward for the dsp/mainstream. They cant meet **needs, So I

emailed for an update, told (I will ring you Tuesday) nothing, I emailed for an update a couple

more times and nothing ,eventually I was told again it was going to panel for the parks, if

agreed only for a few months, I believe the local authority is ignoring and lieing about these

children who desperately need the parks school and fobbing parents off to meet there own

narrative, this school has proved it is very much needed, but unfortunately to many parents

are being detered with the very famous saying ( they will be fine in mainstream)I have been

told it with my ** children, mainstream is not suitable for everyone, and the nail in the coffin

for me was, it is going to panel for the parks but there is a place in Sept 24 for a school in

Grantham, WHY does it have to go to panel for a local school, you know our home town, but

Grantham is a given, I and many others think,(cover up) to meet the local authority needs, it is

disgusting that a few people that have no knowledge or experience with a diagnosis or

additional needs gets to decide the fate of so many of the most vulnerable in our society.

** has missed so much valuable time in a setting because Rutland County Council want to

close THE PARKS for the sake of saving a few quid, the future of our most vulnerable is worth

so much more.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

7/11/23 Good Morning ** I think it will be a bad idea for you to close the parks because we have seen the benefits of the work the staff have done to help improve the children's education. Plus, 

we have good friends who had their own children go to the parks. They have seen such a

massive difference in their own child or children. The Parks has been a part of Oakham all our

lives. we have seen the good and dedication of how much work the school and staff do to help

the child or children and for the parents of the children. Please could you re think about the

closure. it's about the children and they would have to go out of town and that would cost

you more money in transport to take the children to the nearest place replacement setting.

Other parents may not have the best income with sending their children out of the county for

school because their have different kind of need that other school may not have the best

understanding or knowledge support the children or child. this will make it hard for

grandparents who pick up their grandchild up from the park. If your decision to close down

the parks will have a very deep effect on the whole of Oakham and other schools like the

parks pleas think long and hard on what you are going to deicide

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

7/11/23 from 2 different people

9/11/23 from 2 different people

25/11/23 from 2 different people

My name is ** and I am a Rutland resident. My address is **. My connection to the Parks is

none. I have a deeply held moral belief that education is a basic human right, and it is the

responsibility of a civilised society to care for its most vulnerable, which OFSTED recognise the

Parks is “outstanding” in so doing.

I object to the proposed closure of The Parks on the following grounds: (delete as

appropriate).

• I believe that there are children for whom The Parks is an essential provision, because they

would simply not be able to cope in mainstream nurseries, even with additional support. T**

will have an enormous negative impact on the children themselves, because children will miss

out on early intervention which could help their development.

• I do not believe that mainstream nurseries have the skills, expertise, experience or facilities

in house to meet the needs of highly complex and disabled children, particularly those with

significant physical disabilities, who need highly adapted communication environments,

extremely small class sizes.

• I believe that the cost of supporting these children in mainstream nurseries will cost more

than educating them in the Parks, because they will require expensive additional equipment,

changes to the environment, and specialist support staff. It will cost the council less to

support these children together in a small group in The Parks, where they can share

specialised staffing and equipment.

• I believe that the evidence is that early intervention for children with SEND is vital, and for

some, the intensive, specialist intervention that The Parks can offer them cannot be replicated

within mainstream provision.

• I do not believe that in the long run, closing The Parks will save council money, as without

t** important early, intensive intervention, more children will end up needing specialist

schools, which will mean sending even more children out of county to get the support they

need.

• I believe the challenging behaviour that would be seen from disabled children who are

struggling to cope in mainstream provision would be distressing both for them and those

around them, having a negative impact on everyone, and potentially place all children at risk.

• I believe that for many of these children, they would not be able to form meaningful

relationships with their age-peers because their developmental levels are so different. In

order not to feel isolated, they need to be with those with similar needs to them.

• I there are children with disabilities who need The Parks because their needs will not be fully

met mainstream Reception classes, even those in the DSP and will need specialist provision. If

the Parks were kept open, it could be adapted to provide t** provision, and therefore include

more children.

• I do not believe that children who need The Parks would be able to access a mainstream

curriculum, even if it is highly differentiated, without being isolated and marked out from

their peers.

• I believe that within a mainstream environment, they would be included “in name only” in

reality leading almost a parallel experience to their mainstream peers, and gaining little if any

benefits from being around non-disabled peers.

• I do not think it morally right to reduce specialist provision for the most profoundly disabled

and vulnerable children, so that more can be spent on those who’s needs are such that they

are able to access mainstream.

• I do not agree that at a time where across the country other counties are building more

special school places, that Rutland should be reducing the special school places. I do not

understand why Rutland is different to every other county in that it does not have any

children who need specialist education in reception.

• I do not accept that all parents with children with the complex needs for which The Parks

caters would prefer their children educated in mainstream nurseries or in the designated

specialist provision, and I believe in parental choice as per the code of practice.

• I believe that if The Parks closes, more parents will go to tribunal to get specialist provision

for their children, which will incur additional legal costs to Rutland County Council.

• I believe that rather than a falling demand for the sort of “outstanding” education The Parks

provides, it has instead been made harder and harder for parents to access. For many years,

The Parks was oversubscribed, and has accommodated 13 children in the past.

• I do not feel that all the options for making the Parks viable have been fully explored,

including but not limited to;

o facilitating quicker access for those children who’s needs have not been fully diagnosed

o facilitating access for those children with significant needs who have not yet completed the

EHCP process

o expanding provision to include KS1

o using the facilities and staff in the holidays to provide more cost-effective respite care for

children with disabilities.

• I do not think it right that young, highly vulnerable and disabled children should have to be

bussed out of county to access specialist support. Aside from their welfare, it is expensive and

not environmentally friendly.

• At a time when other local authorities are investing in more special school places, I object

that Rutland County Council are reducing their provision.

I have grave concerns over this proposal – on financial, practical and moral grounds, both for

the children and families whom The Parks serves, and the wider community. I therefore object

in the strongest possible terms to the proposal, and I urge Rutland County Council in the

strongest possible terms to pursue strategies which would make The Parks viable without

closing it or reducing the provision that it is able to offer.

** identifying personal details redacted 

GREEN

7/11/23 (first representation)

I would like to voice my thoughts on the proposal to close The Parks school.

To confirm the details as asked in the consultation, my name is **. My relationship to The

Parks is an individual who thoroughly believes that the setting should remain open to support

our most vulnerable children and provide them with the opportunities and support they need

to be successful.

To explain my points. Frankly, I believe the proposal to close The Parks is ludicrous and quite

honestly discriminatory to some of the YOUNGEST and MOST VULNERABLE children.

The consultation stated that The Parks was ‘no longer financially viable’. My question here is,

what has been done to MAKE The Parks financially viable?

Going back to my discriminatory point. The consultation proposes to send children with SEN

of nursery age into ANY nursery. How does this promote inclusion when the sole purpose of

The Parks school is to provide a setting for these children to allow them to access education.

By putting these children in any given nursery, which are catered for mainstream education,

children with SEN will become lost due to the busy, over stimulating and intense environment.

The Parks school is catered to provide a nurturing, low arousal environment with staff

numbers to support these children. Furthermore, by the closure of The Parks and these

children entering other nurseries, other children will miss out due to adult attention needed

to be taken away to support these SEN children.

My next point would come to the consultation argument of ‘The Parks has been under

subscribed’. Firstly, pardon? Who is responsible for providing places for The Parks? The

council. Who has not been referring children to The Parks? The council? Who wants to shut

The Parks because there are not enough children on role? The council! How on earth does this

make sense? Further coming back to my point of, what has the council done to make The

Parks financially viable BESIDES turning away children?

The Parks is a place where children thrive. They can access their potential. Families of the

children are supported. The school is rated Outstanding by OFSTED. Yet the council wants to

close it? In the words of the council ‘Special Needs nurseries are increasingly rare across the

country’. Okay? Surely that’s even more reason to keep The Parks open!

My next point would come to the proposal to put SEN children in any nursery. Aside from

saying there are no children that require these special nurseries, that’s ridiculous because 

there are. That’s not even a discussion point. There are these children, because the council

WANTS to put them in a mainstream nursery! It’s a contradiction by the council.

The council claims they want to use the money from The Parks closure to support EYFS SEN

children. Okay. So nursery age children with SEN get to suffer from this? Really? So the council

plans to take from these vulnerable children and make their education worse by taking away

their support, taking away their opportunities and taking away their inclusion? The council

claims by putting these children in a mainstream nursery is inclusive. How? Because they’re

together? I, an English man that speaks no other languages, could be put in a room full of

Germans, speaking said German, but I wouldn’t feel included. I’d feel lost, not have a clue

what was being said and almost certainly wouldn’t want to go back.

I’d also like to argue the point that Oakham C of E has said they can take children of reception

age in the DSP (Designated Specialist Provision). Whilst the school has a classroom and shared

access across the school with The Parks, what’s to say they can meet the needs of EVERY

reception aged child with SEN in the DSP? The offer in The Parks is still different with smaller

groups, children of THEIR age and an inclusive curriculum of their age appropriate level. As I’m

sure you know, there have been many special schools in the past which have said they can

meet needs before 6 months down the line realising actually, that setting is not best for that

child. The DSP is an equally fantastic environment which I will take nothing away from, but

when there is a class with children aged from 4 to 8, is this really appropriate and inclusive for

these children? Or would these 4 year olds be better having their needs met in The Parks with

a curriculum more suited to their age, a classroom more tailored to their needs and while

children of their age. To me, that says inclusion.

I personally feel there are many, many, many other points to make in support of keeping The

Parks from closing. Such as there are no specialist staff in mainstream nurseries to support

these children, SEN children having difficulties in accessing a mainstream curriculum or even

the argument of ‘will t** actually SAVE the council money’ due to sending children out of

county to have specialist education needs met.

These children don’t have a voice for this matter. We are that voice. As someone that was

failed by the councils approach to education, I do not, nor will not, lay down and listen to such

proposals knowing how many children will suffer from these proposals.

Surely the fact that over 2000 people have signed a petition to keep The Parks from closing

and it has even be covered on ITV News is enough evidence to suggest the people of Rutland

DO NOT agree with this proposal?

I am more than happy to discuss any of this further should it be needed. However with any

luck, the council will come to their sense and realise this idea is ludicrous and discriminatory

as previously stated at the beginning of my email.

I would also be incredibly interested to know the number of emails sent to t** proposal with

how many are against the closure of The Parks and how many are in favour, which I would

assume from the public consultation, the coverage in ITV news and the outcry on social

media, would be close to zero.

21/11/23 (second representation)

Thank you. There is one particular comment I would like to address in the consult Q and A. It

states there are 11 children under the age of 5 with an EHC. From previous comments the 

council have said there are NO children that would benefit from The Parks. Surely these

children could come to The Parks which would mean they would be OVERSUBSCRIBED.

21/11/23 (third representation)

I’m very much aware that under 5s refer to nursery and foundation age, but this is still 11

children which COULD access The Parks. You’ve also just said ‘majority’… how much is

majority? And majority still isn’t ALL. That still leaves some which would benefit from a special

education setting.

It can be made clearer but regardless of it they are nursery age or foundation age they are still

able to attend The Parks, and for some this may be the better option rather than DSP. Whilst

the DSP at Oakham C of E is excellent, it isn’t suitable for all children just because they have an

EHC.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

07/11/23

My connection to the Parks is that I have a deeply held moral belief that education is a basic

human right, and it is the responsibility of a civilised society to care for its most vulnerable,

which OFSTED recognise the Parks is “outstanding” in so doing. I also work in an additional

needs school and previously worked in nurseries and I’ve seen how the importance of existing

provisions. Nurseries are not set out to provide support that is being asked of them and

private nurseries are still run in a way to make money…something that I fear could get in the

way of getting support for the most vulnerable. The parks has also helped ** to thrive in

mainstream/special needs schools.

I object to the proposed closure of The Parks on the following grounds.

• I believe that there are children for whom The Parks is an essential provision, because they

would simply not be able to cope in mainstream nurseries, even with additional support. This

will have an enormous negative impact on the children themselves, because children will miss

out on early intervention which could help their development.

• I do not believe that mainstream nurseries have the skills, expertise, experience or facilities

in house to meet the needs of highly complex and disabled children, particularly those with

significant physical disabilities, who need highly adapted communication environments,

extremely small class sizes.

• I believe that the cost of supporting these children in mainstream nurseries will cost more

than educating them in the Parks, because they will require expensive additional equipment,

changes to the environment, and specialist support staff. It will cost the council less to

support these children together in a small group in The Parks, where they can share

specialised staffing and equipment.

• I believe that the evidence is that early intervention for children with SEND is vital, and for

some, the intensive, specialist intervention that The Parks can offer them cannot be replicated

within mainstream provision.

• I do not believe that in the long run, closing The Parks will save council money, as without

this important early, intensive intervention, more children will end up needing specialist

schools, which will mean sending even more children out of county to get the support they

need.

• I believe the challenging behaviour that would be seen from disabled children who are

struggling to cope in mainstream provision would be distressing both for them and those

around them, having a negative impact on everyone, and potentially place all children at risk.

• I believe that for many of these children, they would not be able to form meaningful

relationships with their age-peers because their developmental levels are so different. In

order not to feel isolated, they need to be with those with similar needs to them.

• I believe there are children with disabilities who need The Parks because their needs will not

be fully met mainstream Reception classes, even those in the DSP and will need specialist

provision. If the Parks were kept open, it could be adapted to provide this provision, and

therefore include more children.

• I do not believe that children who need The Parks would be able to access a mainstream

curriculum, even if it is highly differentiated, without being isolated and marked out from

their peers.

• I believe that within a mainstream environment, they would be included “in name only” in

reality leading almost a parallel experience to their mainstream peers, and gaining little if any

benefits from being around non-disabled peers.

• I do not think it morally right to reduce specialist provision for the most profoundly disabled

and vulnerable children, so that more can be spent on those who’s needs are such that they

are able to access mainstream.

• I do not agree that at a time where across the country other counties are building more

special school places, that Rutland should be reducing the special school places. I do not

understand why Rutland is different to every other county in that it does not have any

children who need specialist education in reception.

• I do not accept that all parents with children with the complex needs for which The Parks

caters would prefer their children educated in mainstream nurseries or in the designated

specialist provision, and I believe in parental choice as per the code of practice.

• I believe that if The Parks closes, more parents will go to tribunal to get specialist provision

for their children, which will incur additional legal costs to Rutland County Council.

• I believe that rather than a falling demand for the sort of “outstanding” education The Parks

provides, it has instead been made harder and harder for parents to access. For many years,

The Parks was oversubscribed, and has accommodated 13 children in the past.

• I do not feel that all the options for making the Parks viable have been fully explored,

including but not limited to;

o facilitating quicker access for those children who’s needs have not been fully diagnosed

o facilitating access for those children with significant needs who have not yet completed the

EHCP process

o expanding provision to include KS1

o using the facilities and staff in the holidays to provide more cost-effective respite care for 

children with disabilities.

• I do not think it right that young, highly vulnerable and disabled children should have to be

bussed out of county to access specialist support. Aside from their welfare, it is expensive and

not environmentally friendly.

• At a time when other local authorities are investing in more special school places, I object

that Rutland County Council are reducing their provision.

I have grave concerns over this proposal – on financial, practical and moral grounds, both for

the children and families whom The Parks serves, and the wider community. I therefore object

in the strongest possible terms to the proposal, and I urge Rutland County Council in the

strongest possible terms to pursue strategies which would make The Parks viable without

closing it or reducing the provision that it is able to offer.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

8/11/23

I am very sad about the proposed closure of the The Parks School and hope that the plans for

this can be reconsidered

I used to be a member of staff at The Parks and have seen first hand the difference the

specialised staff and environment can make to the children who through no fault of their own

need so much more support to find their way in life.

I have seen children arrive who were considered to be on the path of special school, make so

much progress, cognitively, emotionally and behaviourly, that the need to go go down that

path has changed. The early specialised interventions that are put in place can be individual to

each child, and adapted quickly if needs be. They are able to be in a safe environment that can

cater to behavioural issues without judgement, something that is equally important to

parents.

Those other children who continue on to Special School obviously have needs beyond what

their named primary school could offer so obviously have needs beyond what the usual early

years setting can provide. I know that over the years the Early Years settings have vastly

improved with coping with children with additional needs but The Parks is a place for those

children who may well have been down that route and it hasn’t worked or whose needs are

more extreme from the beginning.

The parents also receive the support and understanding that The Parks gives which is

invaluable to them. They are able to get advice at a time when life may be incredibly stressful,

at a time when they may well be grieving for the child, the life, the future that they had

envisaged for their child and family. There they are given hope without judgement, not always

easy to find.

I find it hard to believe that there you feel there are insufficient children to warrant keeping

this amazing school available to those who need it. We saw many times in the past numbers

at the start of a school year drop but within a few weeks new children arriving and suddenly

been up to full capacity.

This school is about community, supporting those families who need more for their child than

they could ever have expected and certainly did not wish for .The opportunity of receiving 

what The Parks can offer can, or could, be the make or break factor to those families staying

together and their mental health as only people who have been in that situation, and to a

degree those who work with those families, can fully understand. I hope the people making

this decision can put their hand on their heart and say that if this unique and fantastic

resource - The Parks School -is to close that they are sure that the alternative for these

families will as good if not better for those that need it.

Its one of those things, who never know who that will be but I know if it was any of my family,

or friends family who found themselves in that situation, it The Parks that I would want them

to go to.

Sometime we just need to look at what is the right thing to do, not allowing money to dictate

and how we should to be a caring supporting world.

AMBER

8/11/23

In terms of my relationship to The Parks I do not have one however I do work in Early years

within Rutland.

 I object to the proposed closure of The Parks on the following grounds:

For me as an early years professional I recognise the need to be inclusive but when speaking

about children with complex needs it is not always possible to give them the best education in

a mainstream environment that does not have access to appropriate facilities or specialist

training. In terms of mainstream nurseries and other early years settings taking on what the

Council proposes is no children (there are children that need The Parks school but the council

is ignoring that) I do not feel it is feasible given the strain the Early Years sector is under and

the massive recruitment issue that is happening locally – many of the local nurseries already

do not have enough staff so how will they be able to provide children with complex needs the

level of care they require and frankly deserve. Not only is my concern to do with lack of staff it

is also lack of funding how will nurseries and other early years settings cover the cost of

providing for a child or multiple children with complex needs when as a council you are

already decreasing funds for SEND children. I do not believe that in the long run, closing The

Parks will save council money, as without this important early, intensive intervention, more

children will end up needing specialist schools, which will mean sending even more children

out of county to get the support they need. It is not fair to families of these children or the

children that the council is considering shipping these young children off to other counties. On

that point it is neither cost effective to do so or environmentally friendly.

As someone that has worked with a child with complex needs and someone who currently

works in the early years I believe the evidence is that early intervention for children with SEND

is vital, and for some, the intensive, specialist intervention that The Parks can offer them

cannot be replicated within mainstream provision. I am also concerned that the challenging

behaviour that would be seen from disabled children who are struggling to cope in

mainstream provision would be distressing both for them and those around them, having a

negative impact on everyone, and potentially place all children at risk. I equally do not agree

that all parents want their children in mainstream as they themselves know that is not in the

best interests of the child but where will they go if The Parks is closed.

From what I have heard I think the council has been avoiding and delaying children having

access to The Parks meaning that it looks to outsiders like no child in Rutland need The Parks

however that is categorically incorrect and through talking to other early years providers I

know of at least 50% of the space the parks provide would be full in 2024. At a time when

other local authorities are investing in more special school places, I object that Rutland County

Council are reducing their provision.

Have any of the council members in charge of this decision even spoken to families and spent

any time caring for these children? (you claim you have spoken to families and early years

settings but I am yet to see evidence of you doing so efficiently and as an early years provider

in your county I can confirm that I have not been spoken to).

I have grave concerns over this proposal – on financial, practical and moral grounds, both for

the children and families whom The Parks serves, and the wider community. I therefore object

in the strongest possible terms to the proposal, and I urge Rutland County Council in the

strongest possible terms to pursue strategies which would make The Parks viable without

closing it or reducing the provision that it is able to offer.

GREEN 

8/11/23

It would seem that as a council. There is some very short sited people proposing an agenda

that they have no idea of. The need for the parks is still as great as ever if only you allowed

them to run to capacity.

 As a former manager and senco of a main stream nursery that has offered lots of care for

SEN children the parks offers care and education for children that cannot access main stream

or if they do will be lost and unhappy due to the nature of how mainstream settings run in

comparison. Having fought to get children places and EHCPs for the parks and offering duel

placements. The best education and care these children got was most definitely with the

parks and not my own setting. The curriculum they used was more tailor made to their needs

which are diverse. We offered excellent parent support and care but the parks offered

something beyond that.

Staff are highly knowledgable in mainstream but not always trained to the extent of those in

the parks which will in the longrun have a detrimental effect on children.

It will also have a knock on effect of the care offered to all the other children in the setting if

staff are pulled away from their care and education.

The parks is definitely an asset to the county and if allowed to run properly should be

attracting children. Why spend money sending them out of country, costing even more when

they can access the parks and hopefully filter into oakham c of e dsp unit. Saving money.

I hope that all the views of those that actually know, are taken into consideration.

GREEN 

10/11/23

 As a teacher with 50 years' experience in special education, I write to express my deep

concern following the news of the proposed closure of the Parks School. You cannot be

unaware of the growing need for special education provision in the UK and of the long-term

implications for children, their families and wider society entailed by any loss or reduction of

such.

Rutland should be at the forefront of creating more opportunities for children who have

additional needs, rather than curtailing their life chances. It is incomprehensible that this

retrograde step is being taken at a time of heightened understanding of the importance of

special education and that this irreplaceable school faces closure.

Rutland simply cannot afford to lose this dedicated specialist school. I urge everyone involved

in this decision to carefully weigh the consequences and avoid the harm and distress that will

inevitably follow the loss of the Parks School. 

GREEN 

12/11/23

My connection to the Parks is that my ** children are at the Oakham C of E School. We chose

the school partly because of the Federation with The Parks School: we suspected that one of 

my children might need additional support due to global developmental delays, and we knew

that there was a wealth of expertise in SEN at the Federation.

I personally object to the proposed closure of The Parks on the following grounds:

I believe that there are children for whom The Parks is an essential provision, because they

would thrive in mainstream nurseries, even with additional support. Effective early

intervention with SEN is crucial and I think the closure would remove that opportunity for

children. Mainstream nurseries do not have the skills, expertise, experience or facilities inhouse to support children with complex needs, whether cognitive, behavioural and/or

physical. For instance, mainstream nurseries cannot provide very small group sizes or

specifically adapted environments.

There is a non-negligible risk to the wellbeing and safety of non-SEN children, and staff, in the

mainstream nurseries because staff will not be able to manage behavioural issues of some

children with SEN which can manifest in physical or verbal abuse of other children and adults.

It is clear that nurseries are already suffering from chronic underfunding, and most barely

surviving financially. I do not think The Parks' budget, spread thinly across these settings,

would be enough to remedy this. I am concerned that the extra pressure would harm staff,

increasing staff turnover, and might tip nurseries into financial non-viability.

 It seems to me morally wrong to reduce specialist provision for the most profoundly disabled

and vulnerable children, so that more can be spent on those whose needs are lesser such that

they are able to access mainstream education. It also seems morally wrong to remove

parents' choice to explore specialist, non-mainstream support for their child(ren).

I doubt that the economic evaluation has accounted properly for the cost of supporting

eligible children to the same standard as offered by The Parks, if these children are spread

across a number of mainstream nurseries, especially with upfront costs of equipment and

adaptations to facilities, plus funding specialist support staff. It seems likely that The Parks

closure may incur costs to health and social care and more widely at a later stage in these

children's lives because they have been denied the appropriate level of early intervention. For

example, if children later need to be transported out of county to specialist schools.

** Identifying personal details redacted 

RED

13/11/23

I am currently **. During this time I have been able to work with numerous children with

special educational needs and disabilities, as well as being able to offer support to their

families.

As mentioned by the council 'there are very few examples of this type of provision elsewhere

in the country' - surely this is something that Rutland should be proud of and ensure the

continuation of The Parks.

I have been able to see the importance of this school and the huge benefit for our young

children starting their educational journey. They are able to access play and learning in a

much quieter environment which is best suited to their individual needs, which then enables

them to make good progress. Not all young children are able to thrive in busy noisy

environments. Surely all children, including our youngest and those with special educational

needs and disabilities deserve the best possible start to their education. 

Although no nursery age children are presently attending this setting, there are, and will be

children currently attending nurseries around the county who would greatly benefit from

attending The Parks School.

Surely Rutland County Council should continue to provide this much needed special nursery

provision which the whole county can be proud to support. Do not make the mistake of losing

this facility and all that it offers to our children and families in the community now and for

those to come in the future.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

14/11/23

 First of all I would just like to say I am not a resident of Rutland but of Melton Mowbray

however I know families in Rutland as I have ** Send Children who attend Birch Wood

School.

Your proposal to shut The Parks School is shocking to me as a parent, it is such a huge support

to families who have a child with SEND with no or little support, as we all know the purse

string for support are extremely limited.

My story in Melton, which I doubt is unusual country wide, is that I have a now **year old

child with autism and Global Development Delay and PICA. ** started at a mainstream preschool when he was 2. ** cried every day for the whole time **was there - for 4 months.

Eventually the pre school asked me not to bring **back any more! At this time there was also

no SEND pre school provision in Melton **could attend either. As a parent it is soul destroying

knowing there is nowhere to place your child where they will be happy and safe. I mean surely

they have the right to learn like every other child! This will now be the reality for all the

families now and in the future in Rutland.

The emphasis at Rutland council worryingly seems to be on getting SEND children into

mainstream education, where I'm afraid for many young people this is just not appropriate,

each child should be given the education they deserve. I'm so thankful my** are having a

fantastic education that is catered exactly around their needs in a calm setting, not just

dumped in a loud mainstream because it's cheaper and closer to home.

Poor Rutland children. I hope in time like the rest of the UK you will be decided to invest in

SEND provision, not take it away.

** Identifying personal details redacted 

GREEN

17/11/23

 I have been aware of the plans for closure for some time, and I have a clear understanding of

the funding issues that we as a council face, however whilst we have a great school offering it

would appear that this decision to close fails to consider several important points

Where will those children that clearly can’t manage in main stream go and at what financial

cost

What will the impact to the children having to travel? What is our role for children? It should

be to give the best start in life?

What is the impact on the wider family, financially, mentally, and sociallY?

Long term costs balance against short term saving does this make sense?

Who are we here to support the SEND side of school is at braking point, not enough capacity

to help in early years, not enough capacity in secondary school, I know students who have

travelled all the way through our schooling system and gone onto University for them to be

diagnosed with Dyslexia, what would have been the outcome if we had the support in place

earlier?

Are we failing a few to make ends meet? Are we making the route in to complicated? EHCP’s

hoops to get through.

If we expanded the offer and had children from neighboroughing areas could it be better use

of funds?

Please think very carefully about the reasons and if we save some money will this be put back

into the system to train additional staff to support those displaced, to enable them to thrive in

a main stream setting, support them with all needs duetary, educationally and emotionally

RED

17/11/23

I am writing to you to express my concerns over the recent decision to close Parks School.

We have moved to Oakham in **, therefore we are a new resident in the area. Our reason for

moving to this area was to be specifically in the blue light zone for Leicester Royal Hospital,

there are two articles written about us, one explaining how severe our previous county was

lacking the understanding, knowledge and resources for our **

The reasons I am writing to you as a mother of a child with additional needs is that we have

fought ** entire life to achieve support for ** and ourselves. We've upped and moved our

lives not once, but twice having to live in London just to ensure **gets the right healthcare

which actually in turn, saved ** life. Dare I say it, mine too. There is no way I'd of coped

having a baby born that was unable to survive due to lack of quick thinking and proper

healthcare. As a mother who has frantically and tirelessly fought to ensure we have the right

support around us I am devastated to hear that a school ** would have know doubt of been

going too is now closing.

We moved here under the circumstances that we could sleep easy knowing we had the

resources to ensure a smooth and safe upbringing of **after the hideous start we had to

being SEN parents.

Parks school is just a short walk away from our business which we have also upped and moved

to Oakham. Our entire life has been moved here after research and deep thought into this

huge risk we made as a family. To hear that this school is closing when ** could have gone

here is something of a disaster in our eyes. As a mother who has seen ** fight for her life not

once, but three times. I could have relaxed about her being in a safe and understanding

setting just around the corner from me whilst I work.

We are business owners in Oakham and also residents, we have specifically moved here to

access what we felt was a fantastic school for ** along with the amazing healthcare we

receive in this postal code.

We cannot see this school close without showing you our need for the place to remain open. I

need the support with **, I need ** to be safe and cared for in an environment in which **

can be equal.

Somebody with ** goes their entire life being looked at, stared at, discriminated against,

ignored so much so there are many documentaries on television about it. Discriminating facts

such as "do not resuscitate" notes being put on their medical files should they ever get the

super strains Covid-19. From the moment of them being in the womb, they are disregarded by

humankind as "abnormalities" 

I am just about sick and tired of people, those of whom disregard this school as no longer

important in the community and suggest to close it. It is SO needed. Non of us know when we

may have a child with additional needs, it just happens sometimes. You could have a perfectly

smooth pregnancy and birth of a child to later uncover they need special care. These are our

family, our friends and not just my kid, this can happen to anybody around us which is why

this school is the most important school in the community because it is community.

I have recently seen a ridiculous article in the Stamford news about Rutlands council giving

away FREE bus rides to encourage Christmas shopping over the month of December, is that a

waste of money that could of been used to save this school? Budgets can't be that tight.

What disgusts me is that parks school has an outstanding ofsted report, they are the rarest

reports to find!!! What peace it would have brought me to of sent my daughter here.

** We are working on ** EHCP as we speak. I work three days a week, deducting our nanny's

wage from my own salary so I know ** is safe and looked after. ** cannot go to a mainstream

nursery, we tried. ** managed four days before we were blue lighted to A&E at midnight, **

had contracted three viruses. Common colds and a sick bug. Typical children would fight this

off naturally, yet I sit with ** in a&e alone - my new baby at home with ** dad, I sit there and I

remember the rushed mothers taking their kids to nursery full of colds and flus, thinking

nothing of it because they have to work.

** The reason parks school differs is because all of the parents are aware of these extra

needs, they know some kids are more vulnerable than others. Teachers are trained to notice

when ** is unwell, they know to call me and don't put it off because I'm at work and nursery

is just childcare. Nursery is not childcare to me, nursery is an essential developmental help to

**. It's a requirement that we go to work to earn money back from the costs of ** healthcare

as a baby, funding the hotels ourselves in London as the hospital would only accommodate

**.

We have fought since the moment we became aware that our unborn baby had special needs

and we will fight until the end for her. We are exhausted.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

17/11/23

I am disgusted hear that you are closing the school when there is a great need and children

are being turned away saying that it will be closed before it is ratified!! Think of the effect on

the children and also the parents who need the support. I think this should be a top priority.

Have you actually been directly involved and actually seen what these families have to cope

with every day?? Yours Prayerfully 

GREEN

17/11/23

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the proposal to close the Parks School in Oakham.

My qualification to speak **

I note the statements regarding the reasonings for the closure and consider these to be

fundamentally flawed by error and manipulation of facts, and that therefore the proposal is

not valid.

That the school Is not needed due to lower numbers on the role. This figure has been

manipulated by officers. Officers have made conscious and publicly obvious efforts to

discourage parents and carers from applying for places at the school. This is not “urban myth”

– parents have come forward to state that this is the case and that they have been placed 

under firm and improper pressure to not apply for thi school for their children. It is

anticipated that a number of those affected will contribute to this “consultation”. This may

have been because of failing to fully understand the forthcoming guidance (some of which is

quoted at the end of this contribution).

That it is right to share the SEN funding equitably between children. This is a nonsense in

principle as children have varying levels and types of need which will require varying types

and degrees of support. As such it will never be possible to have equitable distribution of SEN

funding – unless some children are given more care than they need, and some are left to

suffer less care than they need. Is this what RCC is proposing to do?

That each child “costs” £30k compared to £12 k elsewhere. This figure is a misrepresentation

of fact and impact. A, The fact is that by discouraging numbers on the role the fixed

overheads have had to be shared between a smaller number of children thereby creating the

impression that the cost per child “must be” so high. This figure has only been reached by the

improper pressure placed on parents and carers to not apply – thereby reducing numbers on

the role thereby increasing average fixed cost per child. This is entirely a matter of officers’

own making and is not implicit in the running of the special school. Increasing numbers on the

role will reduce the average cost per child (it is noted that variable costs rise on a stepped

basis dependant on carer-per-child ratio requirements). B The impact of closing the school

will not “save” £18k per child as the proposal might be read as implying. The truth is that all

the fixed costs of the school will remain and will be carried by another budget. It is further the

case that those children who cannot be supported in mainstream settings (and it is a known

as fact that such children exist withing Rutland) will have to be transported out of County at

the Council’s cost to settings that are distant from the children’s family and support

networks. Transporting children out-of-county is already a serious budget issue for the

council, and closing the Parks School will only exacerbate that problem with further increased

costs.

That OFSTED will not issue an “outstanding” verdict in Rutland if this proposal does not go

forward. I refer in this matter to the SEN and alternative provision improvement plan March

2023 which is quoted below. Ignoring for a moment the loss of confidence in OFSTED which

appears to be in disarray – the responsibility of the Council is to ensure best outcomes for

the children for whom it is responsible. The matter of how that is graded by an outside body

is at best a moot point, being an indicator only and not being the objective of any policy. The

best outcomes for our children must be the overarching measure of the policies that go

forward rather than pleasing third parties.

That all children should be in mainstream settings. I refer again to the SEN and alternative

provision improvement plan March 2023 which is quoted below .Implicit in this is the word

“inclusive” The leader of the council has used the word “integrated” This IS NOT THE WORD

USED BY GOVERNMENT. Children at the Parks School already meet the requirement as they

are treated in an inclusive way attending both assemblies and performances and other events

as applicable to them. Children from the C of E school are encouraged to engage with

children at the Parks School. It is appreciated t** was not found to be the case in all (or

indeed many) schools that were visited as part of the initial research for the report, however

the failing of other schools should not impact on the Parks School and the Oakham C of E

School which have successfully created t** “inclusion” partnership as required under

forthcoming guidance.

Summary: Officers have made a clear, obvious and concerted effort to “run down:” the Parks

School by pressuring parents and carers to not apply. This may be a result of

misinterpretation of the forthcoming guidance This has manipulated the figures for

attendance and thereby the average cost per head. This is easily reversible by keeping the

Parks School open and increasing the number on the role - this would be in the best interest

of children now and in the future by giving the greatest opportunity to achieve best outcomes

- which should be the over-riding objective of the Council. As it happens this is likely in the

best interest of the Council by avoiding further pressure on the transport costs to out-ofcounty placements.

SEN and alternative provision improvement plan March 2023

Para 11 page 8

For children and young people, this means they will be able to access and regularly attend the

most appropriate early years setting, school or college for their needs – be this mainstream or

specialist

Para 13 Page 8

Critically, we agree with what we heard during the consultation; that the national system

should be co-produced with families, children and young people so we can build their

confidence that the system will meet their needs quickly and effectively

Para 21 page 11

Longer-term placements to support return mainstream (question – how do you have long

term placements if you close the alternative provision?)

Annexe C page 96

Alternative provision taskforces will help deliver wraparound support in alternative provision

in schools (question - so why close it if it is in the guidance?)

Online reference

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63ff39d28fa8f527fb67cb06/SEND_and_altern

ative_provision_improvement_plan.pdf accessed 17/11/2023

GREEN

18/11/23

This must be the most stupid badly thought out proposal you ever cam up

with.

Clearly you have no idea how difficult it is for a child with SEN,

physical or mental disability or other complex needs to cope with even

going to a "normal" nursery or a "normal" school.

I remind you that the Parks looked after children born to military

nurses & serving militaty who had served in Iraq - BABIES BORN WITH NO

EYES !

Im old enough to remember babies born victims of thadiomide. How do you

expect a child with no limbs to attend "normal" nursery or "normal"

school? Just becasue thalidomide stopped being used does not stop

disabled chilren being born.

Then you have babies brain damaged at birth. Really - go to "normal"

nursery? Go to "normal" school? o the staff at thes eplace have proper

training to dela with a child who is not just doubly incontinent but

also terrified of loud noises i.e other children !

Then you have children on the "so-called" spectrum and that usually

means not able to cope with crows, loud noises, bright lights etc. Oh

and other children ! These ar echildren who may be hightly inteligent

but also totally unable to do "normal" things and may go feotal under a

table or bang their head against a wall just to shut out the noise they 

can hear that most people cant hear - or pick up chemical smells form

people that make them fearful, upset, anxious.

If they dont get the right care and the right support physically &

mentally they will grow up to be depressed suicidal and worse.

And you insane people think that the current teachers can provide all

this extra care when schools are already oversubscribed & you keep

giving permissionfor more new houses attracting more people with kids

who need mainstream school ND SPECIAL SCHOOLS like The Parks.

Go away and think PROPERLY and find the money to keep open this vital asset.

And YES ** with autism is suicidal due to not getting proper support

in secordary school of college. And due to not finding out ** dyslexia

problem until ** was ** & then having that only done PRIVATELY !

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

18/11/23

Personal details only provided 

GREEN

19/11/23

I have worked in the parks and have since moved to another area of the country and have

worked in several other SEND provisions - NOTHING like the parks,

The parks is by far the best place and does the best work with the children they have.

I saw more results from the children in the parks than I have seen in any other early years

setting for children with SEND.

If you choose to close (the wrong choice ) the parks school you will be closing the best

provision you have for SEND children.

For a council with no other SEND provision to be closing the only provision they have is

Despicable ! If only there could be other parks all over the country.

You should be using it as a place to set the standards for SEND early years provisions.

GREEN

20/11/23

I wish to add my name to the closure of The Parks School. I have no one who attends the

school but I urge not to close it. I became aware of it by handing of leaflets outside Tesco

store in Oakham. Please don’t shut it.

GREEN

20/11/23

I am emailing you to express my concern over the proposal to integrate Parks School into a

state Primary School.

** worked at the Parks School for over 20 years and I find it difficult to believe there is not a

need for a school for children with special needs.

From the Warnock Report onwards, there have been cries to integrate special need children

into main stream education and these children have suffered as a result.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

21/11/23 Received via text

I think the parks is so important because the little ones need their lovely friendship to be with

friends feel safe and be happy friendship is important and a mainstream setting could be

terrible children who are disabled or autistic often get bullied and don't have any friends

That happened to me as little girl when I was with mainstream children in the 1980s and I

don't want it to happen to children today because it still does I've seen little girl left out at

mainstream school it's horrible the parks school was the only one I felt safe in at that time

please don't take it away from them they will have no Friends and get bullied possibly please

listen

I'm also concerned as to what happens to.children with dissabilty when they are too old to go

to the parks as it now only goes up to five years old I am concerned that there are two many

children struggling in mainstream schools and classes it breaks my heart to see a child being

bullied or just playing by themselves in a corner or wandering around because they have no

friends I have learning disabilities and anxiety and that happened to me as a little girl and it

still seems to be happening to kids now having a teacher sit next to you in class isn't much

good when you are out in the he playground getting ignored or called names it's just so cruel

and it doesn't seem to be going away sorry but please listen

GREEN

21/11/23

Having spent my professional career in Early Years Training and now, retired and living in

Oakham, I note with interest your consultation on the Parks School. The residents of Rutland

obviously have a very special facility here for children with extreme special needs. The Ofsted

rating reflects the expertise of the staff and the progress of the children in their care. It also

reflects the value of a beautiful modern purpose -built building, including the facility of a

swimming pool and the ability for the children to be in contact with students from the

adjoining Primary School.

Even though the present children will not be affected, I feel it would be a great mistake to

lose this facility for future children in our county.

I do appreciate, however, that we must live in the real world and that, particularly at this time,

cost is one of the core elements that RCC cannot disregard. As I understand it, at present the

school is under used being only attended by 2 children. I imagine that the criteria for getting

into the school is quite specific, with children probably needing to be statemented before

being allotted a place. This is often a slow process for families and statements are not lightly

given.

There are, however, many children in the county who have special needs integrated into our

primary schools.

Is there some way of redefining the remit of the Parks School so that it can cater for a wider

range of children, perhaps on a sessional basis?

Is there a possibility of widening the scope of the staff as a support system for staff in main

stream education who educate children with diverse needs?

As there are only 6 nursery schools of this type in the country, could spare places be offered

to out -of- county children to make use of the school and staff and provide extra income for

RCC?

Over the past few years, and especially with the pandemic, children and their education seem

to have suffered adversely. Even though the general population of Rutland is on the older side

I think it is very important to prioritise the needs of the young and future generations.

I have no links with the Park School.

GREEN

21/11/23 phone call

It wont affect me as my children and grandchildren are grown up but I am worried about

where these children will go. We seem to be losing all our education for those who are not

academic.

GREEN

21/11/23

I was horrified to learn that RCC is proposing the closure of The Parks Special School in

Oakham.

This school’s status has been granted Outstanding by Ofsted and serves local children who

cannot be integrated easily into mainstream state nursery and primary schools in Oakham.

With regard to RCC’s objectives as outlined in your Corporate Strategy, it states you fully

support equality, diversity and inclusion.

Quote:

Young people of all abilities will have the benefit of a positive and inclusive education, so that

they can learn, do well and realise their ambitions.

Rutland will be a county where everyone can reach their full potential.

How can you, therefore, justify closing The Parks School?

Those children certainly will NOT be reaching their full potential if they have to travel further

away from their homes or integrate into other state schools. They would NOT be catered for

as you state in your Corporate Strategy -the need for inclusive education- this is best provided

for by the school they currently attend, which is outstanding.

Is it simply a matter of funding? If so it would be really interesting for Rutlanders to know

how much we are spending on the salaries of the Chief Executive and Senior Staff at RCC.

Maybe a cut in salaries to help local children with SEN, complex needs and disabilities would

be a solution?

I would welcome your comments.

GREEN

45 21/11/23

My husband and I have lived at this address for ** years. I have been grateful to have had no

personal family need for what the Parks offers but over time as a local I have heard of families

whose young children and parents have been supported by the school. We are now all aware

of the importance of care for the first years of a child's life and while main stream primary

schools have certainly developed their knowledge of youngsters with extra special needs in

order to help them, I believe the Parks School must offer that little bit extra for these sensitive

children. I am sure the Parks School should survive.

GREEN

46 22/11/23

Please register my disquiet at the proposed closure of the Parks special needs school, which

has been of enormous benefit to Rutlanders who need that specialised schooling over many

many years.

I have no relationship, past or present, with the school other than as a concerned citizen of

Rutland. The county I moved to when I was ** and am now ** – nearly a local. But I am aware

of several old pupils of The Parks who benefited greatly from its presence and availability.

Please reconsider the proposal to close.

GREEN

22/11/23 I am writing to object to the closure of the Parks School. It is an essential school for children with many developmental disorders who would simply not cope in mainstream education. If one were to look solely at the financial implication of running such a school then, logically it should be expanded to facilitate taking on older children who are failing in mainstream education facilities who too have developmental disorders, surely out of area referrals would create a financial gain? from nearby councils, such as South Kesteven, Melton Mowbray. I appreciate that the correct numbers of staffing would need to be factored in with the necessary skill set, however surely a national call for suitable educators could be found? Rutland being a very attractive place to live. Please rethink this short sighted closure plan.

GREEN

22/11/23 (first representation)

Where do I even begin with my response to the consultation … I’ll start with my personal story

for context.

** was diagnosed with a rare genetic condition at the age of ** years & ** months, the

geneticist said the main thing we could do to help our ** was early intervention to help **

reach ** potential, whatever that potential may be.

**

We had a lovely health visitor in Rutland who was extremely supportive and saw **- **

suggested we stop comparing ** to other children as it was not helpful and I can’t thank her

enough for that kindness. Our inclusion officer tried to push us to put ** into a mainstream

nursery setting, when I asked if any nurseries were fully trained on makaton the response was

that some of them should at least know some - would you drop an Italian child into a uk

nursery and just expect them to be ok? No! I also wasn’t happy that they would be able to

give ** the medical or emotional support that ** needed to be safe. No mention was made of

The Parks School. So we stayed at home and accessed baby groups when we could.

It took a few months for me to be convinced to go to sunflowers support group as I wasn’t

sure we would fit in - I adore ** just as ** is but it can be difficult as a new parent to accept

that your child is different and the future is very different to what you expected. It was at

sunnies that a parent told me her son was at The Parks School and it was actually in the same

building. The Speech and language therapist who supported us because of my **regular

choking suggested that the parks would be perfect for ** - **would get all the early

intervention he needed including regular speech therapy to try to help him eventually speak.

Sunflowers arranged for me to speak with the Senco, we then arranged to have a visit to the

school and on that visit we just knew it was the right place **

**started part-time at The Parks ** and it became apparent that ** needed a huge amount of

adult support and a personalised transition plan to gradually increase **hours, fitting this

around operations and recovery times.

The Parks team are amazing. They really cared for ** and also for us as a family. We knew **

was safe there and that staff would contact us if there were any concerns. When you have a

child with a disability who is preverbal and needs constant 1:1 attention it’s very difficult to

find anyone able to take care of them, so not only did The Parks look after **, but because we

knew ** was safe it meant we could actually relax a little and essentially have some respite -

which was very much needed given how he doesn’t like to sleep!

The Parks team are quite frankly remarkable. They didn’t just look after ** they cared for **

and helped ** to flourish in ways we didn’t dream possible. We always felt so involved with

everything at school and loved seeing photos and hearing the stories of things they’d been

doing. I still laugh at the thought of ** sticking green play doh on ** keyworkers face and

trying to say bogeys.

We can never thank them enough for everything they did not only for our gorgeous ** but

also for us as a family. The support they gave me saved me on many occasions. I remember a

staff member running out to the car park to check I was ok after drop off because they

thought I looked upset .. they really do go above and beyond for the whole family.

If it hadn’t have been for The Parks ** wouldn’t have attended nursery, instead we would

have been trying all the interventions on our own at home until he was old enough to look for

a specialist placement out of county. The parks helped us secure an EHCP, then developed **

confidence and abilities to such a degree that ** was able to stay at a specialist unit attached

to a mainstream primary where he lives.

Without the early support from The Parks team ** wouldn’t have coped in the unit. ** now

has friends he can see out of school and feels like part of ** community. I worry more about

** options for secondary school as that is where our county seems to be lacking for SEN

children sadly.

The support we received from The Parks and a local support group had such an impact on our

lives **. I find it very difficult to put into words just what The Parks means to my family as it

has so many feelings uattached to it, it became like a second family to us and we will be

forever grateful to them.

From a financial viewpoint ** I fully understand the need to balance the books. However,

what is being proposed by RCC doesn’t do this long term. Had The Parks school not been there

for ** he would have gone straight to an out of county special school when he was old enough

- so the council has saved lots of money on expensive out of county specialist primary age

placement and transport costs.

The proposal to close The Parks looks like a short term gain to satisfy the Delivering Better

Value project. It has been stated in the proposal that closing The Parks isn’t about money.

On one hand RCC say the money saved on The Parks will be spread amongst the other settings

to improve inclusivity, yet on the Q&As it states ‘£250,719 - This money will not be taken

away from the school but will be used to enhance the offer at Oakham Primary School. This

will be done by increasing the number of places in the school’s Designated Special Provision

(DSP) from September 2024’

So which is it?

Are RCC really going to pay the DSP £250,719 to extend by 4 spaces? Or is this another error.

Also, at the last early years working group meeting it was stated towards the end of the

meeting that due to the improvements implemented so far there were no gaps to be seen

except for communication - so if there are no gaps why take the money from The Parks to put

into other nurseries or the DSP? (depending which line it is).

I am considering resigning from the early years and inclusion collaboration working groups for

a number of reasons.

Reason 1 - The staff at the early years group kept raving on about how successful the SSP is

and when a colleague of mine raised a family we are aware of that it isn’t working for it was

brushed under the carpet.

I am now personally having to support this family who’s ** is on the verge of being excluded

from a 2nd mainstream primary school to apply for an ehcp themselves. The current school

has told them to look at alternative and specialist school provisions but without an ehcp they

cannot get a space at a specialist school! The process is 20 weeks so what are they supposed

to do in the meantime. An ehcp should have been applied for long ago, this child is in year **

and he was known to be struggling since nursery so why is it taking so long to actually help the

children who desperately need it?

The family as a whole are suffering due to RCC letting them down. **

RCCs decisions have a huge impact on families not just the child with SEN and you are

currently letting them down. The SSP is being used to look more ‘attractive’ than an ehcp

therefore punishing families who actually need help and support. We are told that the nurture

nest is only for children with attachment and trauma issues - what about the school based

trauma you are inflicting on the children by forcing them to stay in the wrong environment. It

is great to hear of the SSP successes and the children it is helping, but it needs to be

recognised that the current system isn’t working for everyone.

Reason 2 - at the ‘Working together to support children and young people with SEND’ event in

April the group identified 4 initial areas to look at/improve on - colllectively parents, RCC &

other professionals.

1. Review of the Aiming High Short Breaks Criteria

2. How do we ensure good Early Years provision for all?

3. Special school provision

4. Ensuring all school staff have the skills to identify and support neurodiverse children and

young people.

1&2 working groups to start June, 3&4 groups to start September.

I’m pretty sure the lack of specialist school provision was priority 1 or 2 based on votes in the

in person event in the morning. And it wasn’t just parents who voted for it. At the last early

years group I asked why the meetings on the lack of specialist provision hadn’t started yet as

they were due to start in September.

The answer I got was

‘Well it’s never going to happen is it!’ .. leaving me gobsmacked!

Then ‘It’s not on the political agenda’ & ‘nobody is building new specialist provisions’

So basically the working together only happens on the topics RCC want to work on and they

ignore the other ones identified in collaboration?

I honestly feel so disappointed and for want of a better term let down. I genuinely wanted to

work with the council to improve things for SEN children and families but when collaboration 

is a lie and just being used as a tick box to say ‘we are working with parents’ it is just not

acceptable.

Reason 3 - at the consultation launch RCC staff member mentioned the collaboration groups

and stated that parents had helped work on this pathway (of closing The Parks). However that

is completely untrue! RCC staff member reassured the early years group at the meeting

before the launch that The Parks proposal had absolutely nothing to do with our group!

Apparently ** was supposed to come and apologise to parents at the last meeting however

she didn’t come and it was left to RCC staff member to apologise who wasn’t even at the

consultation launch.

The higher levels of RCC SEN staff just seem to not care at all or be completely incompetent.

Per proposal ‘More choice and better support closer to home means we can invest more

money into mainstream SEND support locally. Rutland’s High Needs Funding can then be

shared more equally among providers to widen the support available to a greater number of

young children, leading to better outcomes for everyone.’

But by taking away The Parks you are giving LESS choice and support. No matter what

alterations you propose to make to mainstream nurseries there will always be children that it

still isn’t suitable for. Where do they go?

If there is no Parks School they will either be at home until they are old enough for school

(probably expensive out of county specialist), so not only do they miss out on early

intervention and development skills it also means parents are unable to go to work.

Alternatively, they will be in an unsuitable environment causing harm to them and also to

other children. Nurseries are struggling for staff and do not have the capacity to support more

children with needs. I’ve been told that parents are already choosing to remove children from

nurseries because they have been hurt by a child with needs when they’ve become

dysregulated. Nurseries have already had Senif funding cuts this year so how is RCC giving

them more support to help SEN children?

The term increased parental confidence keeps cropping up. A parents confidence has no

impact on a child’s actual needs, the needs are there no matter how a parent may feel about

a setting. Trying to insinuate that parents only want The Parks school or other specialist

provision because they are too worried is quite frankly insulting. Parents are the experts on

their children and should be respected as such.

RCC staff have stated that all SEN parents just want specialist provision and see an EHCP as a

golden ticket! Families want the correct provision to meet their child’s needs whatever that

might be. I personally want my **to be educated in an environment where ** feels safe,

happy and with ** alike peers, where ** can feel ** own kind of ‘normal’ and be proud of **

achievements.

Sharing funding equally is a ridiculous aim - children will always have varying needs and

therefore need varying amounts of funding and support. Fair isn’t everyone getting the same

thing, fair is everybody getting what they need in order to be successful. We want children to

thrive not just survive!

When ** attended The Parks School ** didn’t have an ehcp and there were waiting lists for

spaces. The Parks helped us apply for an ehcp - I’m a relatively capable person but as a parent 

I would not have had the thought or capacity to apply for an ehcp when my sleep deprived

focus was simply on surviving and keeping my child safe.

The requirement to have an EHCP to access the parks was put in place by RCC subsequently.

Expecting parents to sort out an ehcp when they are struggling to come to terms with their

child’s needs and just trying to survive is both ludicrous and cruel. Especially when RCC is

attempting to reduce the number of EHCPs it issues to children. If they can’t get an EHCP how

can they get a place?

Putting that barrier to entry in has stopped access and reduced numbers - intentionally to run

The Parks down to close it?

The Parks also used to take children from out of county. This again was stopped.

The proposal states that RCC are not aware of any children needing The Parks. That is a

ridiculous thing to say. Just because RCC are not aware of any children does not mean they do

not exist. I am aware of a number of both nursery and school age children who do want to

access the provision. I have also been told that a family were told not to consider The Parks

because if would be closing - this was a year before the consultation launch! Very naughty!

Yet another family was advised not to consider The Parks this year as there weren’t any

nursery age children there - the children currently in the parks are aged under 5 and it is a

setting that matches the provision to what children need so that is completely irrelevant and

demonstrates RCCs intention to put families off using the Setting.

With all of the new housing developments bringing more families into the county there will

more than likely be even more children with needs here. Obviously this can not be accurately

predicted as a figure but as a common sense approach we know this is likely to be the case,

especially when one family even moved to Rutland because of The Parks School.

** (sunflowers) run sessions once a week term time for 2 hours (including a swim in the

hydrotherapy pool that was built as part of The Parks relocation) at Oakham C of

E. (Sunflowers) are a completely self funded organisation and volunteers have a vast amount

of SEN knowledge between them - as SEN parents, the head of the old The Parks school,

former nursery school workers etc.

For many families **(sunflowers) are the only respite and support they can access. ** offer

them a safe space and the opportunity to talk to others who are in a similar

situation. Sunflowers are full and currently have a waiting list of 6 families needing support.

We know that some of the families do want to access The Parks School and if councillors wish

to speak to these families we are more than happy to ask them.

So the statement that there are no children under 5 with SEN needing The Parks is incorrect,

and RCC have been told repeatedly that we are full and have a waiting list so should be aware

that there is a need for The Parks.

RCC have made no attempt to make The Parks school viable. As ** involved in the early years

pathway, after ** the initial shock of having the future of ** school questioned ** then

became excited at the thought of being able to help and support even more families and

children. ** came up with ideas of services The Parks could provide if it was not at full

capacity (so had less than 7.5 Full time equivalent or 15 part time children on role) such as

providing AET training, providing makaton and communication training, providing a portage

service, providing a sensory equipment library, supporting nurseries & eyfs settings and

parents with training on communication/behaviour/anxiety etc, outreach support, nursery

staff shadowing sessions etc as stated in the minimum funding guarantee 2022-23 which was

agreed on 29/3/22 with RCC.

** spent a huge amount of time and stress investing in the process and made many

suggestions on how The Parks could be made viable but everything was ignored as RCC had

set there minds on closing The Parks many years ago.

The comment from RCC staff was ‘it’s an LA school and if we want to close it we will!’.

If that was always the intention then why waste all of our time and I dread to think how much

money on consultants (that could have been used to help children!). I am frankly disgusted by

how the whole thing has been handled.

The Parks community special school has been consistently rated outstanding by ofsted which

is not an easy thing to achieve. This is something that should be celebrated and capitalised on

not just written off.

If you owned a restaurant that achieved a Michelin star would you just close if the number of

customers started to drop .. NO! You would use other strategies to make it profitable like

advertising, offers & take away services. Just closing an outstanding provision does not make

any business sense.

If you want to make it viable there are many options. Here are a couple of suggestions

1/ remove the need for an ehcp to access (if RCC aren’t giving them out anyway you would

have to)

2/ allow out of county children access, you expect other counties to take our children so why

not do the same? This would also bring revenue into the county

3/ facilitate a (paid?) holiday club in The Parks setting so that SEN children can actually access

something in the school holidays. Parents are struggling to access any respite/childcare in

holidays and there is a shortage of Personal Assistants (PAs)

4/ Build on the outstanding The Parks School good name and expand to a bigger specialist

provision for a bigger age range. We need our own special school - this saves money on out of

county specialist schools, travel costs, chaperone costs, in county independent specialist

schools (e.g. the shires base price £80k-£90k per child per year so 30 spaces is £2.4 million per

year - although this school is likely to be full from next academic year). If you had a suitable

provision you may also be spending less on EOTAS packages and tribunals. It would also mean

children can be part of their community amongst their ALIKE PEERS, and parents can actually

take their own child to school. To name but a few benefits! Costs are only going to increase as

specialist provisions in the closest counties to us are full therefore children will be forced to

travel even further at an increased cost.

1023/23 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST shows that out of county placements are

steadily increasing - 2021 100 children, 2022 128 children, 2023 144 children

Early intervention will save money in the long run.

The revised budget shows that RCC is predicting an increase in EOTAS costs, given that EOTAS

is only awarded when there is no school available to meet a child’s needs RCC are admitting

that in the future there will be more children who have no suitable school. Surely it would 

make sense to at least attempt to pre-empt this and work with families to provide what is

needed.

According to Leicester County Council the number of Rutland children placed at Birchwood

special school has shown a steady increase - 21/22 13 children, 22/23 17 children, 23/24 24

children. This does not include any of their other council maintained specialist provisions, or

independent specialist provisions or either of these in other counties - so I would suggest this

trend is likely to continue. At what point will RCC realise that our own in county provision

would be beneficial to everyone?

On a number of occasions I have heard RCC employees say that the government and the

green paper want more mainstream inclusion, fewer ehcps and fewer special schools. This is

not true. Yes it states that inclusion should be improved and that should happen anyway in a

civilised society. It also states the intention to implement a national standardised ehcp format

and a digitised format. It also states that more special schools are needed to meet demand. It

says that a key measure set to be taken forward by government is the creation of thousands

of places for children with SEND across 33 new special free schools - but of course Rutland

didn’t apply for special free school funding - why??!

Birchwood wanted to set up a special school hub in Rutland - RCCs response was no. RLT

wanted to set up a specialist provision in Ketton - RCCs response was no. Willoughby wanted

to set up a special school in Rutland - no!

At what point will the local authority stop having tunnel vision and realise that what the

county and our children need is more specialist provision and not less.

The parks school is registered as a community special school with the department of

education (it is not a nursery school) so please listen to the community.

The Parks school is always going to be an emotional subject and it’s contribution to the

community cannot be questioned. However, having the provision also makes financial sense if

you look at the honest facts (not the manipulated numbers) and start letting families actually

access what they need.

Councillors need to realise that parents believe saving The Parks is such a priority that we are

potentially doing it at the cost of our own children’s future journey. I know many parents who

are too scared to say anything in case RCC look on their family less favourably. It shouldn’t be

like this.

22/11/23 (second representation)

Please can you clarify what the process is on the consultation?

What do you mean by responses will be considered?

What is the ‘process’ that Maureen Morris will be independently overviewing?

How are responses to the consultation analysed and used to inform the final decision on the

proposal?

So if Mr X sends an email then what happens? And how is this used to inform the decision?

Will councillors see all emails?

Will parts of emails be used (if so who decides which bits to ignore?)

Or is it just that a number of people have opposed?

I’d be really grateful if you could explain the full process

I’ve also cc’d in my ward councillors in case they already know the answer 

GREEN

27/11/23 (third representation)

- Can I ask what qualification Maureen holds in order for her to analyse that data and what

type of analysis she is using?

- And if she isn’t using one, who is and what qualifications they hold?

28/11/23 (fourth representation)

Please find attached a response to the Q&As RCC have prepared on the parks proposal

consultation.

We believe the answers RCC provided do not give the full picture and therefore have

produced this response so the public and councillors can make a truly informed decision!

** Identifying personal details redacted 

GREEN

22/11/23

I do not have a relationship with the school.

However is a concern that the closure of such a school with no alternative service offered

could have a catastrophic impact on individual children.

What a pity that this school has been chosen to bear the brunt of budget cuts

GREEN

22/11/23

I wish to express my concerns around the proposed closure of The Parks School. As an

Educational Psychologist in a neighbouring local authority, I have first-hand experience of the

difficulties when it comes to placing Early Years children with SEND and sourcing appropriate

provision. My concerns are:

- removal of the Parks School will remove Rutland’s only maintained specialist nursery

provision. This means under 5s with SEND will be placed outside of county or in private

provisions. With the recent government proposals to remove charitable status from private

schools, the likelihood is it will cost the local authority more per pupil in fees than the existing

notional funding.

- children have a right to be educated in their local community. This is particularly important

for pupils with SEND who are disproportionately disadvantaged from a social perspective to

their peers. For pupils whose needs cannot be met at the DSP (or when that inevitably

reaches capacity), vulnerably children will be forced away from their community.

- RCC seem to be basing their decision on upcomingSEND trends for the 2024/25 cohort.

There is no information on potential need for future cohorts and as early identification of

SEND is improving, it seems short-sighted to close the school when there are likely to be

pupils who would benefit from such a provision in the future.

- equivalent specialist nurseries in neighbouring local authorities are heavily oversubscribed

meaning pupils often have to be dual-registered in mainstream nurseries as there is not

enough capacity to support them full-time. Closing the Parks School would compound this

issue further.

I urge you to reconsider the school closure - there are other facilities in Rutland which are

under-utilised yet remain open.

GREEN

22/11/23

The idea of closing The Parks School in Oakham, is the most stupid idea I have ever heard

Children who need extra support/help and live in Oakham, The Parks School is the perfect

School for these children.

 I have not needed to send my children to The Parks but I have friends who have sent their

child/children there and there have spoken highly of The Parks. 

GREEN

23/11/23

Abusive email and followed by an apology

GREEN

24/11/23

I’ve been convinced to write to you after seeing the passion and concern felt by parents and

friends of the Parks Special School.

These families are already facing many challenges and to take away the support of a local

school geared to their needs seems insensitive and unnecessary.

The early years are so important for all children, to build confidence in a supportive

environment where they will be with children and families living with simiar needs. Specialist

teaching and care at this stage will help them thrive and allow them to move on and progress,

maybe to a mainstream school.

Parents with non SEN children have choice as to where to send their children for their

education. You are taking away a vital and perhaps only option from the families that have no

choice yet need it most.

Please reconsider.

No relationship to Parks Special School, just someone affected by the passion and worry of

parents fighting for their children’s futures

PS I have read your counter proposal but still feel that the status quo is the best option for the

families concerned

GREEN

25/11/23

There needs to be a special school in Oakham for the needs of children my ** use to go there

GREEN

26/11/23

I am writing to share my concerns about the closure of The Parks school in Oakham. I chose to

send ** to Oakham C of E because there is a special unit attached as I wanted her to see that

children with special needs are part of society. My **** is a big part of our life, but in the

county ** lives in there isn’t the same provision and it’s a struggle for ** to be in a

mainstream setting. Children with special needs don’t deserve ostracised. The Parks is such a

brilliant way of blending the needs of all children in one school.

I hope that the decision to close the school can be reconsidered. I have seen through my

sister’s experience how tough it is if you have a child who needs more support. Access to the

necessary provision is so difficult to get. The Parks school is such a vital local resource.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

26/11/23

I have copied in my Ward Councillors and the Portfolio holder for Children’s. I ask that this be

shared with all Councillors.

**

The Parks Special Nursery School in Oakham consists of two classrooms attached to Oakham C

of E Primary School. The Parks caters for children aged between two to six years old, contrary

to what RCC’s website says.

** attended an amazing and local mainstream nursey during ** early years. This nursery was

amazing and gave ** all the support ** possibly could, and **made sure to fight (and yes, **

did have to fight for this,) for extra funding from Rutland County Council in order to provide

more support from ** lovely SENCO.

It became apparent that this was not enough.** had significant delays in both language and

development despite the support put in place from the nursery and support from the

inclusion team at RCC. It was decided that ** needed to attend The Parks School.

This first started as a dual placement for ** – despite the extra and specialist support in

mainstream, ** still needed a specialist setting in order to have **needs met. ** then needed

to increase ** time at The Parks to a full-time placement.

** then continued to do** foundation year at The Parks School. At this time The Parks did not

require young children to have Education Health Care Plan’s to attend their specialist preschool. The Parks were instrumental in the process of ** being secured an EHC Needs

Assessment and an EHC Plan. This was before ** were even diagnosed and support was so

difficult to access because of this, The Parks being there for **, and us was a lifeline in order

to gain the support that was needed.

The Parks taught ** to communicate with me, and then to talk. They taught **so many basic

life skills, to eat, to start the toileting journey which was more difficult for **, to begin to

understand and regulate ** emotions - which for ** needed a significant amount of high

intervention to be able to achieve.

When we entered the SEND parenting journey, The Parks was our first port of call. Through

them we met other parents and carers and were welcomed into a community that became,

and still is a lifeline to us. The Parks supported us through some truly difficult times, and are a

beacon of light and hope. They are unwavering in their empathy, compassion and support.

They understand what you are going through, as a family, and are not judgemental but

exceptionally generous in their care. Without the additional input from The Parks, I am certain

that ** would have ended up attending a specialist primary school out of county. This is

something that RCC claims to want to avoid. The provision at The Parks meant they could

attend their local primary school (the designated specialist provision unit on Oakham C of E

Primary School. Specialist units are legally classed as mainstream settings.) ** remember their

time at The Parks fondly and we all grew to love the people who work there. I simply cannot

do The Parks justice in my testimonial but I implore all those who read this to believe me that

we must save this school. The work they do is very much needed and this need is only

increasing. The Parks is part of what makes Rutland a special place, where it is a county for

everyone.

Since ** time at the school, the admittance criteria has been tightened and only children with

EHCP’s can attend, thus lowering the numbers. It is not common for young children to be

issued with EHCP’s. I believe this was a Local Authority decision to do this. The EHCP process

in Rutland is an issue in itself. The feel and verbal anecdotes (and my own personal

experience,) is that assessments are delayed and prevented by RCC. Officers and managers at

RCC will verbally advise schools and early years settings to not apply, and they say the same to

parents, despite whether children meet the legal criteria to assess. We also have a problem

with unspecific EHC plans in Rutland which do not meet the legal framework (The Children

and Families act 2014,) or adhere with the Statutory Framework, The SEND Code of Practice.

The legal test for an EHC needs assessment is contained within Section 36(8) of the children

and families act, and in brief it is met if a child has or may have SEND, and whether they may

need SEND provision to be made through an EHCP. This is a very low threshold, and we should

see more children than RCC are stating having EHC needs assessments.

The criteria for plans to be issued is slightly higher, but still a low legal threshold. This is

contained in section 37(1) of the same act. Due to the low numbers of children under 5 with

EHCP’s and the very low numbers of those being assessed, I believe there is still an

outstanding issue with RCC and the EHCP process.

The assessment process is also taking a long time and I am unsure if RCC are meeting the

statutory timeframes for these, in total an EHC needs assessment should take 20 weeks from

the request to assess, to the issuing of a final plan. If the decision is not to issue it should be

14 weeks. Any delay with this not only frustrates a families legal rights, but further prevents

children from being able to access provision at The Parks.

I am aware that there are families who do have children in nurseries who want and need to go

to The Parks. Since the announcement that only two children needed the Parks, parents have

confirmed a further child has been admitted to the Parks.

It says in the consultation that having suitable settings closer to home which reduce the need

to travel is widely understood to be better for children and their families. For children who

need The Parks, like mine, the school not being there would have pushed them away from,

and out of their communities as they could not have, and would not have been able to

continue in a mainstream nursery.

The Parks is in Rutland, closer to home than nearest non-independent (and therefore costly,)

special provision out of county, which is Birchwood in Melton Mowbray.

** attending The Parks allowed ** to progress enough to be able to attend Designated

Specialist Provision at Oakham C o E Primary school. This will have saved RCC money in the

long term. Had ** not attended The Parks ** would have needed to either go out of county to

attend a special school, or have a costly independent placement within our county. ** are not

the only children that will have saved RCC money by doing this.

I also want to highlight that Designated Specialist Provision (units on the schools,) is not

actually classed as specialist provision, but is actually classed as mainstream. Expanding this is

expanding our mainstream offer and not expanding the non-existent specialist schools on

offer. Case law is the following; (TB v Essex County Council [2013] UKUT 534 (AAC), B-M and BM v Oxfordshire County Council (SEN) [2018] UKUT 35).

I am aware that 3 schools wanted to set up specialist schools in Rutland, and all were blocked

by RCC who claimed the numbers were not there. These schools were the Rutland Learning 

Trust, Willoughby and Birchwood. The numbers are there, a large number of children are sent

out of county. The LA spend an astronomical amount of money on transport, and children

within Rutland within specialist schools are at a very high cost to RCC.

There is not space for SEND children in mainstream nurseries, I believe the childcare efficiency

study stated that there was 28% capacity in nurseries. If the plan is to admit more children

with SEND, nurseries and childminders will need significantly more support, and building

space in order to support these children, which they just don't have. This will be at a much

greater cost to RCC.

 The support to Nurseries and Childminders that RCC give is not enough, and a separate and

serious issue within its own right.

I have been told by nursery managers and owners that the Specialist Early Years Teachers

have called twice a year and that is all the support they had. I also want to highlight that

Speech and Language (SALT,) provision from NHS isn't being provided. I have had a recent

appointment with the Leicestershire SALT service telling me they just can't meet the provision

in children’s plans.

SENIF funding is now banded from £2-£8 per hour and RCC ask nurseries to use universal

funding for 2, 3 and 4 year olds to top up any difference. Universal funding is not meant for

this. The funding used to be at £10 per hour which is still not enough. How are nurseries

meant to provide 1:1 support for children that need it on £2-£8 per hour? They cannot raise

nursery fees to cover the cost for supporting SEND children as it is not allowed. They will

simply be unable to admit the children, this will cost RCC more.

I also want to ask is where is the £250,000 that is “saved” by the proposal to close The Parks,

intended to go to? The website states that it will be “reinvested into Early Years SEND support

across the county” and then later states that “This money will not be taken away from the

school but will be used to enhance the offer at Oakham Primary School. This will be done by

increasing the number of places in the school’s Designated Special Provision (DSP) from

September 2024.” This will only increase the spaces in the DSP by 4. How can a placement at

The Parks be three times higher than at the DSP, when The Parks can offer 7.5 spaces, but the

money created by closing it can create 4?

There will always be children who will need the most support and they will need places like

The Parks. You judge a society by how they treat their most vulnerable. By this attitude

Rutland are saying they want to take away from our most vulnerable children. You cannot give

everyone the same level of support; you must assess by need. We need equity and not

equality.

Closing The Parks is short sighted and will not save money in the long term. You could open it

up to out of county admissions and generate money from other local authorities. You could

make it into an efficient assessment centre again.

There are children who need the parks. I implore Councillors to talk to local Nurseries and

Childminders directly to ask about the support they currently receive and if it is adequate.

I can guarantee they will find the following; that the support is woefully inadequate, and that

there are children who need The Parks.

Finally, as a last note, on the Q&A on The Parks consultation page it states “What kind of

wider support would be available to parents of families of children with additional needs, if

The Parks were to close?” I can tell you from personal experience that the support on offer is

insulting and inadequate, and I am not alone with that judgement. Do not take away the one

thing that works, and that Rutland does well. 

Please listen to the public on this.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

26/11/23

**

I have a personal connection to The Parks which I will detail below but I also have a deeply

held moral belief that education is a basic human right, and it is the responsibility of a civilised

society to care for its most vulnerable, which OFSTED recognise The Parks is “outstanding” in

so doing.

I attended the launching of the public consultation for the closure of The Parks School on the

evening of Wednesday 1st November and was proud to be there to support the school.

However, I found that the accessibility needs of the people who may wish to attend,

particularly for a consultation considering people with additional needs, was completely

overlooked. One elderly lady arrived with a walking aid and was shocked to find stairs up to

the room but no one was there to offer her assistance or suggest an alternative accessible

route so she had to struggle up them with some help from her elderly husband. There is also

no opportunity for past pupils of The Parks or other people with communication aids, such as

Talking Tablets or PECS, who are unable to send emails or use the telephone to convey their

wishes and feelings regarding the proposal, surely their voices have as much right to be heard

as the rest of us.

You said you appreciate that everyone has very strong feelings about this but I honestly think

you have no idea of the impact that this nursery school has on families. For me personally,

when it was at the old site, it is the place that taught my ** to communicate and move

independently, this then lead to my ** to teaching there and I completed work experience

there, for a number of years it was my second home, a safe place where I was always made to

feel welcome. My ** also works for the council, ** and without the expertise and knowledge

of the staff at The Parks ** future would have been much more limited. These are the types of

children for whom The Parks is essential, those who cannot access mainstream nurseries even

with additional support and if they did it would be detrimental for both themselves and the

other children accessing the provision.

The main reason behind the closure of The Parks School appears to be because you say it is no

longer financially viable but I don't believe all options have been considered. Instead of closing

the parks to save money why not approach it from a different perspective and look at

expanding it to make money, neighbouring local authorities used to pay to send their SEND

children there and I'm certain they would jump at the chance to be able to access such a

provision again. If The Parks were to keep accepting children for their Reception year this also

increases the number of children that it could accommodate. Another option would be to

allow children and families who are awaiting diagnosis or undergoing the EHCP process to

access the provision, this would almost definitely increase the number of children on roll at

The Parks.

Also, I believe it to be untrue when you say there would be no children enrolled from next

September. The local support group for preschool children with additional needs is

oversubscribed and has a waiting list for spaces. One of the members of the group working to

save The Parks has identified at least 7 (possibly more) children whose parents would like

them to attend for next year and believe it is the most suitable setting for them. The cost of

supporting these children in mainstream nurseries is likely to be more than educating them in

the Parks, because they will require expensive additional equipment, changes to the

environment, and specialist support staff. It will cost the council less to support these children

together in a small group in The Parks, where they can share specialised staffing and

equipment. I believe that rather than a falling demand for the sort of “outstanding” education

The Parks provides, it has instead been made harder and harder for parents to access. For

many years, The Parks was oversubscribed.

One of the points made at the consultation launch was that nurseries like The Parks are very

rare nowadays, surely this is even more reason to keep it open, maintain the outstanding

provision it is and celebrate the work that Rutland do through early intervention, which many

researchers have found ultimately saves money in the long run. There are also wider financial

implications that the closure of The Parks will have. Parents who have children that can no

longer access a suitable setting, because mainstream can't provide what they need or they are

so medically complex that their lives can't be trusted with anyone who isn't sufficiently

trained, will be left with no other choice but to give up work and stay at home due to lack of

childcare. This means they will no longer be able to financially contribute to our society in the

way they would have done before but you will also be pushing those who are most vulnerable

and unable to speak up for themselves further towards the edges of society.

I feel that overall this is a very short sighted move. In the short term I'm sure it will save

money but in the long term, without the early intervention, you will have less children who

can cope in settings such as the DSP at Oakham C of E Primary School or even potentially

integrate into mainstream as they get older because they have missed out on the vital

building blocks they need for their education therefore you will be paying more to send more

children to out of county specialist schools because Rutland will have no situable provision. I

do not think it morally right to reduce specialist provision for the most profoundly disabled

and vulnerable children, so that more can be spent on those who’s needs are such that they

are able to access mainstream. I believe that if The Parks closes, more parents will go to

tribunal to get specialist provision for their children, which will incur additional legal costs to

Rutland County Council.

I believe you have also received criticism from local nurseries who are not on board with the

current plan and feel they are unable to provide the appropriate care and attention to meet

the needs of the children who attend settings such as The Parks. They have admitted that they

do not have the expertise to care for these children and are unable to provide the

adjustments they need, such as much smaller class sizes or a space to themselves. They have

also highlighted that the support and funding from the council is so little that it is already a

nearly impossible task. You said that you would like children with SEND to interact with their

peers but the children at mainstream nurseries are not their peers, they don't think and play

in the same ways, they can't build meaningful interactions with each other and the children

you are trying to integrate would end up more isolated than ever because their needs differ

so greatly.

I do not agree that at a time where across the country other counties are building more

special school places, Rutland should be reducing the special school places. I do not believe

that all parents with children with the complex needs for which The Parks caters would prefer

their children educated in mainstream nurseries or in the designated specialist provision, and I

believe in parental choice as per the code of practice. The closure of The Parks will not bring

about more choice, as the proposal states, but will leave parents with no choice but to keep

their children at home until they reach primary school age when the local authority will have

to provide transport and education out of county. At a time when other local authorities are 

investing in more special school places, I object that Rutland County Council are reducing their

provision.

As a student social worker I believe in the child's right to not be put at a substantial

disadvantage compared with their peers and for discrimination to be eliminated but I feel that

the closure of The Parks would not achieve this and I feel it is my moral duty to express my

grave concerns over this proposal both for the children and families whom The Parks serves,

and the wider community. I therefore object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal,

and I urge Rutland County Council to pursue strategies which would make The Parks viable

without closing it or reducing the provision that it is able to offer.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

27/11/23 I would like to ask you not close the Parks Special School as the outcome for the 2 - 6 year old children affected will have to endure a great hardship of having to go elsewhere at so young an age.

GREEN

27/11/23

I was saddened to learn during a recent visit to Oakham that this incredible facility is facing

closure. Although I am not currently resident in Rutland, I lived in Oakham for many years and

my brother attended the school for a short time. It follows that I am aware of the value that

the school brings, not just to those pupils, families and staff involved with it, but also to the

whole community. I do hope the public consultation is not simply a box ticking exercise and

that the proposed closure is a "done deal". I know that many share the same view as myself

and urge the decision makers to reconsider the closure of the school.

RED

27/11/23

We ** appreciate, that as a Local Authority school, the decision to propose the closure of The

Parks School is solely a Local Authority decision.

However, having been co-located with Oakham CofE Primary, we have seen that, The Parks

School has and continues to provide, outstanding care and provision for children and families

across Rutland. Some of our most vulnerable local children, many with significant learning and

complex medical needs or disabilities, have benefited and thrived from enriching

opportunities and the professionalism, dedication and love from our school staff team.

Governors largest concern is the lack of clarity around the pathways, provision and support

for nursery aged children and their families who would have benefitted from a place at The

Parks School now or in the future. This early intervention and support has been pivotal in the

success of the children the school has supported. Its value and impact helping to reduce the

stress on the overall resources in the longer term. While we recognise that our provision is

unique, rare and not a statutory obligated provision for Rutland County Council, we have

always believed that this is something to celebrate.

If The Parks were to close, further expansion and staffing resources would need to be

allocated to the Designated Specialist Provision with Oakham CofE to meet demand.

Whatever the outcome of the consultation and any resulting decision by the Local Authority,

our overarching aim is to support our staff team and the children and families which The Parks

School serves. We want to ensure that, in whatever form, we still have an integral role in

ensuring all local children with all ranges of needs and disabilities have their specific needs

met locally

GREEN

28/11/23

I would firstly like to thank the Council for listening to parents, carers and interested parties at

the introductory Consultation meeting and for involving Maureen Morris to have oversight of

this Consultation. I found the published questions on the Council website very helpful in

forming some of my arguments.

My interest in this Consultation is as a former member of Staff at the Parks School for more

than ** years, through many changes and improvments. I worked there as a **, a **, the **

Co-ordinator and an ** worker carrying out Portage with children under the age of 2 years, as

well as supporting children into main stream Nurseries and Reception classes.

I support the concept of Inclusion in main stream Early Years settings, if enough support can

be provided for the children and their families. It is the right thing for many children with less

severe SEND. Developmental input before the age of 5 years is as vital for children with SEND

as it is for all other children. However, I believe that for the best possible outcomes, many

children need a fully immersive environment, which does not just rely on a professional

expert working with the child for a short session perhaps once a week. The chidren cannot

receive the intensity of help that they may need in a busy, noisy Nursery Class.

The Staff at the Parks are able to deliver signing, communication systems, daily physiotherapy

and other treatments if required, special equipment for indoor and outdoor play and all of

this is in place for the child ALL of the time. They can work in a distraction free environment if

that is how they learn best and work in very small groups if they have Social and

Communication difficulties. I believe that this level of supportive start leads to better

outcomes for the children in the next steps of their education, particularly for children on the

Autism Spectrum or with Speech and Language problems. These children are at greater risk of

developing behavioural difficulties if they become frustrated by their difficulties in

communicating. Children with Autism in particular are helped by being in a very structured

learning environment, something which cannot be guaranteed in a main stream Nursery. I

believe that this level of input at an early age will reduce the expense to the Council of

‘rescuing’ these children at a later date when their difficulties may have increased. The extra

‘three times’ cost of providing a place at the Parks School could easily be dwarfed by the cost

of putting in more extensive support at a later date for a child whose difficulties have

increased, particularly if this has to be provided ‘out of County’.

Having established what I consider to be valid arguments for retaining the Parks School there

are other specific issues that I am concerned about:-

The Council has claimed that there will be no children requiring specialist Early Years provision

after September 2023. At the Consultation introduction meeting, parents AND an Early Years

provider stated that they have been discouraged from setting in motion an EHC Plan. One

parent also claimed that some families are not even being told about the existence of the

Parks School by other involved professionals. She had evidence of this from a parent with a

child with Special Needs.

There is a high cost to the Council in providing education and transport out of the County for

children with PMLD. In addition, they have a long, extended day because of travel times and

will be less likely to have peer friends in the area that they live. I have a Paediatric Nursing

background and therefore many PMLD children were able to attend the Parks School while I

worked there, even though I was not employed as a Nurse. I feel that Rutland should look at

the costs of out of county placements and assess whether the extra funding involved might

be more than enough to provide a Paediatric Nurse post and allow these children to be

supported in County. It would then also be possible to include some older children, who will 

never be able to access Main Stream education, in an extended setting. This would be an

argument for improving the provision and making it viable.

The School currently has an ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted report. When the school had its first Ofsted

this was also Outstanding and, in fact, the School was named as a School of Excellence in

Parliament. It seems extraordinary that such a provision is again at risk. The Council used to

boast about the School and I know personally that RAF and Armed Services personnel, who

had children with Autism, actively requested postings to the area so that their children had an

opportunity to attend the Parks. Instead of pointing out that there are very few places like

the Parks, the Council should be showing Authorities elsewhere how the best can be

provided.

There are currently very experienced Staff at the School, who are able to support children to

attend other Early Years settings, in addition to their experiences at the Parks. If the School is

closed, this pool of expertise will soon disperse and be lost, with a knock-on effect for main

stream settings.

Families of children attending the Parks have always praised the support that they have

received from all of the Staff. In many cases they have only just received their child’s

diagnosis and are devastated. I have lost count of how many parents told us that they would

not still be together if they had not had support from the School in all areas. I do not believe

that the main stream Nurseries have the time, resources and (sometimes) expertise to

provide help at this level, however much they would want to.

I am not convinced that placing some children with SEND in an ordinary Nursery setting is

truly ‘inclusive’. From my own experience I have seen many occasions when, after a short

while, the child lags behind their peer group’s attainments, resulting in them almost becoming

isolated, with their key worker providing experience away from the rest of the group,

particularly if their difficulties are disruptive for group learning. My daughter-in-law works as

a TA in a main stream Reception Class. She has had experience of the difficulties of including

a child with Downs Syndrome, with no language and behavioural difficulties, which mean that

she refuses to sign. Her frustrations have sometimes meant that she has been aggressive and

hurt members of staff. This became so disruptive for the rest of the children that she has

been taught and played with away from her peers - hardly Inclusion!

In conclusion, the Parks School is an amazing place. There were moves to close it in the past

and current and past families fought to retain it then. Ex pupils spoke out against the closure.

I don’t believe that the arguments are very different now, the loss to future children and their

families would be incalculable. I would beg the Council to reconsider at the decision Council

meeting next year.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

28/11/23

Firstly I will explain my connection to the Parks School. My name is ** and I was a Teaching

Assistant at the Parks for ** years leaving my position there in **. I was highly trained ,

through the school, gaining a foundation course in **, Level 3 ** and I was trained as a **,

working with very young pre school children/ babies and parents in a home situation. My Job

was primarily to work with Autistic children from the age of 2 and a half to 6 in the Autism

classroom.

Every single day our team members would work with individual named children on a key

worker 1:1 basis , we would have group sessions which concentrated on confidence building

and social interactions, I specialised in art therapy and led groups and individual sessions to

promote creativity and let the children express themselves and be themselves through

sensory art.

The most important years of a child’s developmental life, as we all know, is from birth to the

age of 5, this is a vital, proven statistic for a child without developmental issues so is even

‘more important’ for those young children who have Special Educational Needs.

The Parks Nursery School always was and most definitely is a place to nurture these special

children, what ever their disability and also very importantly their families who feel so

vulnerable due to this frightening and life changing situation they find themselves in. The

highly trained staff are there to access needs, provide interventions with regards

communications and social integration, care for and support family members and hopefully

help these very young children get ready to face their world their own way with the hope they

will integrate through into a school placement, if appropriate. The communications systems

that are taught at The Parks are so important for SEN children to be able to move forward in

life and learn to ‘communicate’

I feel tthis school most definitely needs to be kept open and expanded in an ever growing

county, and keep providing valuable learning and life skills. As the Department of Education

have stated for 24 – 25 in their improvement plan, ‘…All children with Special Needs and

disabilities should receive the support they need with earlier intervention, consistent high

standards and less bureaucracy’.

Please, please reconsider. I have seen first hand what this special school achieves for the SEN

children of Rutland and their families , it is a vital and hugely important resource for the

county and we should support, be proud of and promote it as a Centre of Excellence.

** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

28/11/23 (first representation)

 **

I wish to express my concerns over the proposed closure of the Parks school.

I would like to start by stating that disability is indiscriminate of age, race, gender and

economic status. Anyone can become disabled, or be diagnosed as such, at any point in their

lives. The children who attend the Parks are born with their disabilities, be they physical

and/or neurological. As one sign at the recently held protest to save the Parks school said;

“would you close it if it were your child”?

From a personal view point, the proposal to close the Parks is one that I wholeheartedly

oppose.

**

The Parks school is listed on the DfE website as a community special school, able to

accommodate 8 full time pupils. The school has been rated “Outstanding” by Ofsted in it’s last

two Ofsted inspections. This rating is the highest accolade that Ofsted can give a setting. Is it

any wonder that the community are up in arms at the proposed closure of one of the best

schools in Rutland and the only community special school! To date, our change.org petition

has 3037 signatures from the community. The law is clear when it comes to closing a

maintained setting. The LA must provide an alternative that is more accessible than and either

equivalent to or better than what is already being provided. The DSP at Oakham C of E does

not have an Outstanding rating from Ofsted, nor do many of the mainstream nurseries in

Rutland. The DSP’s entry criteria policy also requires children to have an EHCP, making it as

inaccessible as the Parks.

To close the Parks, or change what they currently do in any way, would have a devastating

effect on SEND children in Rutland. From the details I have already mentioned about my own

children, there are children who will always need the level of intervention, safety, expertise 

and support that the Parks provide and further problems as they grow older can be avoided

by providing that crucial early intervention.

Two years ago, the entry criteria policy for the Parks school was changed from a child with an

identified need, usually through the health visiting service under a section 17 of the Children’s

Act, to a child with an EHCP. I would like to know why RCC did not follow the statutory process

as outlined by the government that must be followed when making a significant change to a

school? It is unusual for a child under 5 to have an EHCP, mainly due to waiting lists to see a

paediatrician or other services or because of delays in applying for and gathering the evidence

for the EHCP itself. The local authority employ the use of educational psychologists to assess a

child’s needs, take advice from health professionals, gather information from educational

settings, social care and of course, ask parents and carers to help provide the voice of the

child in order to form an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for children who need them.

Taking this view of assessment of need, it would be a natural consequence that the views of

SEND children, parents, carers, wider family members and the community should form a vital

part in the decision-making process, when determining the future of specialist provision in our

county. It would seem that the local authority have already decided the fate of the only

community special school in Rutland. The ridiculously timed short consultation period is

wholly indicative of this. The perpetual inconsistencies, lack of transparency and repetitive

inaccuracies within the Parks Proposal are indicative of the dim view the local authority take

of the community and their views in this process.

I am somewhat bewildered by the persistent view of many RCC staff and councillors that “we

don’t want out of county children attending the Parks”. Why?! It makes no sense at all,

especially considering that the local authority are very happy to send their older children out

of county to specialist schools instead of opening their own. There is significant irony in the

fact that the local authority have consistently permitted the building of numerous retirement

homes and complexes in Rutland over the last few years. By the very nature of old age, a good

percentage of the people moving to Rutland to buy these flats are going to need some form of

support from the local authority. This was a deliberate move by RCC, to allow the

development of such accommodation. When a local authority deliberately encourages one

group in society to take up residence in the county and deliberately cuts services to the very

bone for another group, surely that then becomes an issue of social justice in the very least.

At most, it is discrimination.

If the Parks is struggling financially, it is almost a given that increasing the amount of pupils

would mean it would become financially viable as the cost per child would lower. As ** rightly

pointed out, no matter whether you put DSP children in the building or Parks children, the

basic running costs of the school will remain. This begs the question of what advantage is it to

the local authority to close the Parks and expand the DSP? As a Michelin starred restaurant

owner, if you had had a bad couple of months of turnover, it would be nonsensical to close

your good quality business or turn it into a fast food restaurant. Both of RCC’s explanations as

to where the money saved from closing the Parks appear to be somewhat short-sighted. To

close a provision that caters for the most vulnerable children in our area to distribute that

funding further and benefit less needy children is ludicrous. There has been little mention of

this plan since the consultation was launched and it would now seem that closing an 8 full

time placed provision in order to fund another 4 places in a DSP is now the plan. Is the local

authority suggesting that places in the DSP cost more than places in the Parks?! I’m not even

going to try and explain how the maths just doesn’t add up.

It would seem that the LA have taken to calling the Parks school the “Parks nursery school.”

This is misleading the general public as it is still listed on the Dfe website as a community

specialist school which can cater for up to 8 children full time, or more children if those spaces 

are attended part time. Reducing the number of children right down to only preschool aged

children does not mean a school suddenly becomes a nursery, particularly when the

government statutory process for making significant changes to a school does not appear to

have been followed, yet again.

I would like to know if the local authority have considered the following options before

proposing the closure of the Parks? They are listed as follows:

· Allow another, well established specialist school to take over the Parks.

· Approach CIT, a learning trust based in Lincolnshire who have numerous specialist

settings on their books, including one in Leicestershire.

· Invest section 106 money into the Parks.

· Apply to the free schools program, although I am aware that the program has closed to

new applications.

· Allow the Parks to become a Community Interest Company or a charity.

· Offer the Parks to already established local charities to run.

· Look at community grants to help with the costs of running the school.

· Allow children from neighbouring counties to attend the Parks.

· Open the Parks during the holidays as a holiday club, which will benefit the economy as

well as the school because parents will be able to work.

· Extend the provision to encompass key stage one children, thus lowering spend costs.

The government guidance also states that an equivalent provision should be made available

that is MORE accessible for families without the loss of expertise and specialism. Making the

Family Hub, based at the Children’s centre, available to nursery aged/preschool SEND children

is not an equivalent and in no way better than the current arrangements. The Family Hub

building is small and facilities are limited. The support and therapy groups being proposed as

being equivalent to the support the Parks children receive are already in existence. I can

assure you, from personal experience, that the Family Hub and groups that have been

suggested are in no way suitable for a child that is distressed and dysregulated. A 6 week

makaton course is not in any way comparable to speech and language support delivered by

qualified staff in a safe, quiet and calm setting. Many nursery aged Autistic children are unable

to use alternative communication systems as they also need certain levels of understanding

that often such young children have yet to reach.

I believe that the closure of the Parks has been on the agenda for years and that RCC have

slowly been stripping away provision until there is very little left to close. The children who

need the Parks school are not going to reach their full potential in mainstream settings, let

alone survive. The damage this move will cause to the children’s mental health is untold and

an unforgivable sacrifice to make to save money. I do not believe that the closure is in

anyone’s best interests, only the local authorities budget figures. I believe the proposed

closure is a move designed to force SEND children and their families out of Rutland, which is

discriminatory and immoral.

Nurseries in Rutland are already struggling. The move to a banding system has had a serious

impact on SENIF funding. The nurseries report that the support and training they currently

receive is adequate, however, for some children, it is not enough. Physical space and the

safety of other children and staff are already being compromised. The nurseries have already

seen parents removing their children and going elsewhere because their child has been

repeatedly injured. The local authority must remember that private nurseries are businesses.

They do not have to accept children they cannot physically and /or safely accommodate and 

that there is no assessment tool available to formerly establish whether a nursery can meet

need.

Inclusion is not tantamount to integration. To integrate children who have behaviour that is

indicative of distress into mainstream settings is unsafe. It will also show an increase in such

behaviours, leading to a greater financial impact on the LA’s budget, not to mention the

damage done to the SEND children which is immeasurable. Staff will need extra training in

restraint and de-escalation techniques. The number of tribunals will rise and seeing as Rutland

is one of a handful of counties nationally who use barristers against most often, undefended

parents at tribunal, costs will rise, sharply.

I am concerned that there is a lot of talk of children who are neurodivergent. Very little has

been mentioned about children who have profound, multiple and complex needs or severe

learning difficulties. What will happen to those children? Where will they be educated? Do

they not have the right to an education in their local community? The domino effect of more

SEND children in mainstream nurseries mean that the nurseries will start to fail financially and

eventually close, meaning there will be less and less settings to cater for nursery children in

the county. The current cost of living crisis means that moving counties, let alone house, for

most families is not an option. So what happens then?

The SEND paper, which is still a green paper, states that mainstream schools need to become

more inclusive. This is a given in any society. It also states, however, that a child’s needs are

still paramount and that provision for children who cannot access mainstream must still exist.

Closing the Parks is removing the only community special school in Rutland. This will mean

that very small children who live in Rutland will either be forced to survive in mainstream

settings, who are already struggling to cope on the little funding available, or to stay at home.

For children to stay at home, this will be devastating for many families. For some children, the

increasingly diminishing choice of specialist settings means that an Education Other Than At

School package is the only viable option for them. The rise in EOTAS packages will have an

untold impact on the LA’s budget. It is a known fact that parents of SEND children seriously

struggle to work and most give up completely, forcing them into a position of poverty that

could be avoided by providing suitable care for SEND children. The local authority have a duty

of care, not only to the children who will be effected by the closure, but also the families of

those children. Forcing children to stay at home means they miss out on a vital window of

opportunity in their development. Early intervention is just that, early! In Autistic children, the

age at which their needs emerge is generally around 18 months to 2 years. Research has

proven that intervention at this age is effective and improves the general outcomes for those

children. Suicide rates amongst Autistic adults, many of whom are late diagnosed and haven’t

had the benefit of early intervention are among the highest in society at 40%.

Closing such a vital part of the SEND pathway in Rutland is no longer an education issue, it is a

social justice problem. To not provide any settings exclusively for the most vulnerable in our

county is discrimination and a breach of disabled children’s human rights.

Specialist schools provide children with a sense of safety and belonging. It allows children and

their families to form communities where they are accepted. This is vital for well being. This

can impact positively on the LA’s budget because children will feel safe and content at school

meaning they are able to learn. This in turn effects how they feel and consequently, behave at

home thus reducing the need for carers assessments, respite packages, personal budgets and

interventions from Early Help and Social Care. It will also reduce the need for further specialist

education for some children.

One of the biggest deficits the local authority has is transport. Travel arrangements for SEND

children is historically difficult and this situation will not improve by closing the Parks. The

local authority has a responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interests of the

public purse.

I am aware that Rutland are pilots for the Delivering Better Value project and the Change

program. Whilst this is positive for Rutland, it is important to remember that policy, especially

that which is being tested out, does not trump law and consequently children’s rights to a

suitable education and early intervention.

28/11/23 (second representation)

Please could someone clarify as to why people who are sending responses in to this address

are receiving multiple different automated responses?

Many thanks

 ** Identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

29/11/23 ** I was shocked and dismayed to learn of the Council’s plan to close the Parks Special School. I have a grandchild who attended the Parks when he was 4. At the age of 3 weeks he was rushed to hospital where the doctors diagnosed and immediately treated **. As a result, he has many problems including being non-verbal. He attended a mainstream nursery where the staff struggled to meet ** needs and he was referred to the Parks. Within a very short time of being there, he was beginning to form words and communicate ** needs. He stayed at the Parks for a year before moving on the Birchwood, in Melton. Without the early intervention at the Parks of highly trained and qualified staff and an environment that met ** needs, he would not have made the significant progress that he did. The Parks Special School is the only school specifically for SEND children in the county and received a result of Outstanding at its last two Ofsted inspections. This is not easily gained and should be a cause for much celebration by the local authority. The obvious course of action for the council should have been to champion this achievement and to help The Parks to become a centre of excellence for children with SEND but the authority decide that closure was the best course of action. What a missed opportunity! The council is proposing to put the children who might have attended the Parks into mainstream settings, with one to one support, which will be very partially funded by the council and an assumption that nurseries can subsidise this from the early years education funding grant for 3 & 4 year olds that central government supply to local councils, who then shamefully top-slice it to fund other things. This means that the majority of nurseries walk a very thin financial line and cannot afford to subsidise one to one support. Many of the children who present with behavioural problems are eventually diagnosed with some form of autism. This often involves children having melt down because they cannot cope with the environment, noise or just being around too many people. During a meltdown a child can become aggressive and/or violent. This puts other children attending the setting and staff at risk of both physical and mental harm. With space generally being limited, there are no quiet rooms for these children to go to, no safe spaces where they can recover or go to when they feel overwhelmed. The majority of nurseries would struggle with finding space for the very large pieces of equipment that are required to support children with physical disabilities.

 These are our most vulnerable children and we are setting them up for failure, if this goes

forward. Mainstream is not the place for these children

** personal identifying details redacted

GREEN

29/11/23

I write in response to Rutland County Council’s (RCC) proposal to close The Parks Community

Special School in Oakham.

I have a long association with the school in various roles: **

I also have a wealth of professional knowledge in the area of SEND, having worked as a

SENDCo in a primary school, Primary SEND Consultant for RCC, delivering the National SENCO

award through the University of Northampton and for the advisory organisation IPSEA. For

many years I have been a volunteer with Rutland Rotaract Family Support Centre (RRFSC)

which supports children and young people with SEND and their families and previously ran the

Sunflowers pre-school support group.

I have also recently been involved in the Early Years Inclusion collaboration group at RCC.

As the parent of ** child with a disability, I am a strong advocate of inclusive education and

opportunity but I also believe that there remains a place for alternative, specialist provision

where this is the most appropriate setting in which to meet an individual child’s needs. With

the best will in the world, some children will not manage to access mainstream nursery

provision: there appears to be no plan in place for those children, who RCC admits will exist.

Although I have a strong personal connection with the Parks School, I have tried to be

objective in examining RCC’s proposal for its closure.

 I was present at the consultation launch on November 1st and I feel the need to highlight the

disinterest and ignorance around the proposal shown by RCC officers during their

presentation, through their lack of understanding about the school, its purpose and funding.

The officer making the presentation referred to Oakham Primary Academy several times

during her presentation – there is and never has been a school of this name: The Parks School

has been federated with Oakham CofE Primary School which recently joined The Rutland

Learning Trust, which is fully supportive of both schools continuing to make provision for

children with SEND.

The RCC officer also referred to the fact that The Parks is funded for 7.5 FTE places but, “as

you can’t have half a child, I’ve rounded this up to 8”. This flippant statement shows a

complete lack of understanding of the fact that nursery aged children are not in full-time

education, and totally missing the point that The Parks is funded for, and can actually make

provision for more than 7.5 children, as those of nursery age would attend part-time. In fact,

at the time of the last Ofsted inspection in 2020, there were 10 children on roll.

It was also insulting for the officer to imply that members of the EYFS collaboration group had

been involved in discussions regarding the future of The Parks : this was absolutely not the

case and has forced an apology from RCC to members of that group.

Furthermore, information on the proposal and how to respond was not made available until

later on November 2nd, at which point the dedicated email address for responses was not

working, necessitating an extension of the statutory deadline.

This demonstrates to me that the officers involved really do not understand the nature of The

Parks and how it is run and are therefore not suitably qualified to make recommendations

regarding its future to Cabinet. Their lack of factual knowledge and failure to adhere to due

process, shows the lack of importance which is being placed on the future of our most

vulnerable children. Therefore, I believe that a decision of this magnitude affecting our most

vulnerable children, who are unable to advocate for themselves, should be presented and

discussed at full council, with the opportunity for public deputations.

The Parks Community Special School is recognised as an OUTSTANDING provision by Ofsted

which “helps children to be the best they can be.” (Ofsted 2020). Rather than celebrating the 

successes and unique character of The Parks, RCC has bizarrely chosen to use this strength

and unusual characteristic as one of their reasons to suggest its closure. However, I do not

have confidence that RCC officers are proposing suitable alternative provision for children

who might have attended The Parks.

Annex C of the DfE guidance on closing schools (under which RCC states it is conducting this

consultation proposal) states, “Where existing provision that is recognised by the local

authority as reserved for pupils with special educational needs is being discontinued, a

statement as to how the local authority or the governing body (as the case may be) believe the

proposals are likely to lead to improvements in the standard, quality and/or range of the

educational provision for these children”.

Ofsted (2020) judged the outcomes for children at The Parks as OUTSTANDING. I do not

believe that mainstream nurseries will be able to maintain this and there is no evidence that

the educational provision for these children will be improved in any way, especially as local

nursery managers clearly stated at the consultation launch that they currently struggle to

include children with additional needs due to the limited support available from RCC. Given

that most of the local nurseries are independent businesses which cannot be directed by RCC

to take individual children, there is a high risk that children with SEND will be left without

nursery places unless their parents are willing to transport them further afield or use their

energies to challenge a nursery’s decision under the Disability Discrimination Act.

Annex C of the DfE guidance also states that there is a presumption against the closure of

nursery schools and “Where proposals relate to the discontinuance of a maintained nursery

school, a statement setting out:

• the local authority’s assessment of the quality and quantity of the alternative provision (i.e.

alternative suitable schools in the area) compared to the school proposed to be discontinued

and the proposed arrangements to ensure the expertise and specialism continues to be

available; and

• the accessibility and convenience of replacement provision for local parents.”

As previously stated, I do not believe that RCC is able to evidence that the expertise and

specialism available at The Parks will continue to be available.

The proposal that the higher needs funding should be shared more equitably to benefit more

children is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It is a well-known fact, demonstrated through the Pareto

principle, that a small minority will always demand greater resource to meet their needs. It is

not equitable to withdraw funding from those who need it most and redistribute it to others.

Early, intensive intervention is proven to be cost-effective, whether this is in education,

medicine or social care. I believe the comparatively high costs of educating a very young child

at The Parks are later mitigated by their ability to access educational provision more locally

within Rutland, thus avoiding costly school and travel fees outside their locality. I know that

my daughter would not have been able to access mainstream primary school without the

intensive intervention she received to develop her communication skills during her time at the

Parks.

In the long-term this also means that children with SEND can become valued members of

their local communities, rather than absent due to travelling for their education. The Parks

school is very much part of the wider school and town community: pupils are familiar with the

school environment at Oakham CofE Primary and this aids transition if it is an appropriate

choice for them to continue their primary education there. Pupils from The Parks access the

local community, going for walks into town, to the park, visiting the church and going to buy

ingredients from the supermarket or fruits to try from the market. Small numbers and a high

staffing ratio also allow for additional activities such as taking the train to Melton Mowbray,

practising life skills which parents find daunting. The local beat officers have been known to

play Santa and his elf for The Parks at Christmas! Pupils of The Parks may not be educated 

within their immediate locality but they are educated within their community, Rutland being

such a small geographic area.

Inclusion means that children are included within their community but also with peers with

whom they can interact appropriately and to whom they can relate. Many of the young

children who would attend the Parks cannot relate to other children in mainstream nursery.

The skilled staff at The Parks are able to help children build meaningful relationships:

“Children learn how to make, and keep, friends because the teachers explain clearly to them

how to do this.” Ofsted 2020

Where children are given no option other than to attend their local mainstream setting, this

will potentially result in exclusion rather than inclusion, as they will be unable to relate to

their peers and may become withdrawn or distressed, resulting in challenging behaviours as

communication of their distress, thus alienating them further from their mainstream peers. I

believe the resulting impact on already vulnerable children’s mental wellbeing will be

immense, risking the start of a long-term, irreversible downward trajectory.

Our neighbouring Local Authorities all have some kind of specialist nursery or pre-school

provision – the closure of The Parks would mean that there is no such provision within

Rutland, severely disadvantaging very young children with SEND in the area. RCC currently has

no alternative specialist pre-school provision or support for children with SEND and their

parents, such as Portage or specialist pre-school teachers. Therefore, parents may choose to

seek alternative specialist provision in neighbouring authorities, resulting in stressful travel for

their children and the probability that they may choose to continue their primary education

within another authority in a school environment with which they are familiar, thus costing

RCC more in the long term.

Ironically, this would mean that children are having to travel further for nursery provision and

are less included in their local communities. Alternatively, parents have indicated that they

would choose for their child not to access nursery education at all, thus depriving them of

crucial pre-school experiences, education and social interactions.

Stressed, distressed and exhausted parents already have to leave the county to access the

majority of their child’s specialist health services: please don’t make them do this to access

specialist early education as well.

As a family, we have experienced first-hand the genuine love, care and concern that the staff

at The Parks show for all their pupils. They supported us through our darkest moments and

provided a safe place where we could express our distress and feel safely “held”. Our **

siblings were as much a part of The Parks family as we were as parents, and they were

supported too. To this day, over ** years since our ** left The Parks, we maintain strong

friendships with other parents and families. This level of support has not diminished over the

years and is one of The Parks great strengths – the lead Ofsted inspector was in tears speaking

about it during ** informal feedback to school governors in 2020. The Parks is so much more

than just a school.

RCC asserts that there is no current need for places at The Parks, due to low numbers and the

age of children attending. Parents and voluntary organisations vehemently dispute this. Local

voluntary group, Sunflowers, which supports pre-school children with SEND and their families,

has struggled to support the number of families needing their help recently and maintains a

waiting list for families to access their service. This is not a new issue and RRFSC also sees

waiting lists for the youngest children to access targeted activities such as swimming and

horse riding. It Is interesting to note that the number on roll at The Parks increased from 8

when Ofsted inspected in 2016 to 10 when they inspected in 2020, before RCC introduced

criteria requiring an EHCP to name The Parks for admission.

I think it is important to note that children born this month will be eligible for nursery

education in the academic year 2025/26 and that the numbers quoted by RCC for August 2024

represent only a snapshot in time. Numbers can and do change, demonstrated by the fact 

that one family is known to have moved into the area recently in order to access The Parks

setting. This is not an isolated incidence and several parents report having recently requested

places at The Parks, as well as nurseries requesting EHCPs for children they believe would

benefit from a placement at the Parks. Some parents report that they have been discouraged

from applying for places at The Parks because there are too few children there to form a peer

group.

In terms of funding, RCC states that it is no longer viable to maintain The Parks. I do not

believe that RCC has creatively explored all possibilities for using the immense wealth of

knowledge, skills and resources available at the Parks to increase support to all children with

SEND in Rutland. I do believe that any financial savings to be made will only be short term

gains, as some children may move out of county for educational provision or miss out on preschool education, resulting in a greater level of unidentified needs to be addressed at a later

stage. I also believe that there must be economies of scale to be had by keeping specialist

equipment and resources in one place, rather than trying to resource several provisions with

the same equipment. For instance, not all nurseries will benefit from access to a sensory room

or hydrotherapy pool.

As a minimum, I would expect to see a comprehensive, visionary plan for pre-school children

with SEND in place before the closure of The Parks is discussed. This would involve access to

specialist teachers for those children who might have attended The Parks and a guarantee

that outstanding outcomes for those children would be maintained.

Instead of closing this school I would like to see RCC build upon the outstanding provision at

The Parks, possibly by amalgamating it with a mainstream nursery to provide greater

opportunities for dual placements and social inclusion, whilst at the same time maintaining

the skills and specialisms apparent in the setting. Previously, the Parks was used as an

assessment setting for children with potential SEND but this is no longer possible due to RCC

processes which require an EHCP to access the provision: a return to assessment through a

dual mainstream/specialist setting would seem an efficient and cost-effective strategy. The

way to improve the universal offer to all children with SEND, in my opinion, is to work with the

Parks school to develop its services to reach more children (although according to RCC these

children do not exist), not to close it.

** identifying personal details redacted

RED

1/12/23

We, ** are disappointed to learn of the potential closure of The Parks. The Charity was

founded by staff and parents from The Parks in 1999, when a need for support for families

was identified. Historically we utilised a room within the school to offer our services. Families

who access our services have had children attend the school and many of our families have

also used the therapy pool.

We are seeing families whose children are unable to cope with mainstream settings and

together with long waits for diagnosis these families are in need of support from organisations

like ours. Travelling outside of the County for education is also a further strain on children.

The need for a special nursery setting appears to be not required from the information

supplied by RCC. The development of early years settings and the Schools Support

Partnership, on paper, appear to be in a position to support any SEND nursery age children in

the future.

We would also like to emphasise the importance of HIGH quality EARLY education for children

who have, or may have, special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), as set out in the

latest Research & Analysis review for Early Years (2023). Any delay in the early years can give 

rise to learning difficulty and subsequently to loss of self-esteem, frustration in learning and to

behaviour difficulties. Early action to address identified needs is critical to the future progress

and improved outcomes that are essential in helping the child to prepare for adult life (section

5.36, Special Educational Needs & Disability Code of Practice 0-25 years, 2015).

The Designated Specialist Provision for primary age is only available at Oakham C of E, are

their plans to expand this offer to other primary schools in the county? Will this reduce the

number of children who are receiving Education Other Than At School funding as schools

cannot meet need? Will the number of children who travel outside of county for education

now be offered places at Oakham C of E? In short can RCC be confident in the sustainability of

this plan for the long term?

GREEN

8 2/12/23 hand delivered via Library

Please do not close the Parks Special school. My nephew was there when he was young. We

need places like this

AMBER

2/12/23

I sincerely hope that my concerns will be taken with great seriousness and professionalism

into the decision of the closure of The Parks Special School.

The given reasons from RCC regarding the closure of The Parks and my argument against

these are as follows:

“The Early Years sector now has direct access to advice and support from Specialist Early Years

Teachers and Speech and Language Practitioners”.

 At current practice I have no complaints about the early year’s specialist teacher. However, I

do feel it will be a struggle to continue with our current support from her as ** is only working

for RCC two days a week. With the closure of the parks and the DSP filling up we are likely to

see more children within mainstream early years settings. Therefore, this will increase the

needs for specialist advice and support both over phone, email and within the setting. How

does RCC plan to facilitate this not only for the 2024 cohort but for the years to come?

“We want to use our limited funding across the County to help the greatest number of

children”

One counterargument against this statement is that it does not take into account the varying

levels of need among the children in the County.

Quality over quantity: The emphasis on helping the greatest number of children may

inadvertently lead to a compromise in the quality of services provided. Limited funding

resources being spread thin may result in inadequate support or superficial interventions,

preventing the children from receiving the comprehensive assistance and support that they

require. By prioritizing quantity, the overall impact on each child's well-being and

development may be diminished.

Long-term outcomes: Allocating resources to the greatest number of children might not yield

significant long-term benefits. Focusing on particular children or groups that require more

targeted assistance can lead to more sustainable changes. Therefore, we should be Investing

in quality interventions, such as providing comprehensive education such as The Parks.

Overall, while helping the greatest number of children might seem like an equitable approach,

it fails to address the varying levels of need, may sacrifice the quality of interventions,

overlook long-term outcomes, and disregard the diverse needs of individual children. An

alternative allocation strategy that considers the unique circumstances of each child would

likely result in more effective and meaningful support which can be accessed within one

provision such as The Parks.

Further questions and concerns

Is mainstream right for all children ? What happens when the DSP is full ?

There is a growing body of research that suggests mainstream settings may not always be the

most suitable environments for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

(SEND) in the early years. Below are some studies and research findings that support this idea:

Gray, C., & Whitehurst, T. (2015) concluded that children with SEND in mainstream settings

may face challenges in accessing individualized and specialized support. The researchers

found that class sizes, limited resources, and lack of training among early years staff can

hinder the children's progress.

Bracken, E., et al. (2018) highlighted that mainstream settings might not provide an inclusive

environment for children with SEND. The research found that children with SEND received less

individualized support, had limited access to adapted learning materials, and experienced

difficulty engaging in meaningful activities within the mainstream curriculum.

Cooper, L., et al. (2018) highlighted the potential negative impact of mainstream early years

settings on children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The study found that children with

ASD may experience high levels of anxiety and stress due to sensory overload, lack of

predictability, and social challenges within mainstream settings.

These studies collectively suggest that mainstream early year’s settings may not always meet

the diverse needs of children with SEND. Individualized support, specialized teaching

approaches, and inclusive practices are essential to ensure optimal development and learning

outcomes for these children. However, it is worth noting that research also recognizes the

potential benefits of inclusive education and the importance of creating inclusive

environments (please see my recommendations below)

How does RCC plan to further support the staff working in the early year’s settings?

Children with complex needs often require multidisciplinary support involving professionals,

such as speech therapists, occupational therapists, and psychologists. By having all staff

trained in SEND, they can effectively collaborate with these professionals, ensuring a seamless

and coherent approach to supporting the child's development. Additionally, staff with SEND

training can also effectively engage and communicate with families, involving them in the

child's learning process and supporting their needs. In most settings within Rutland there is

usually only one practitioner who is designated as the SENCO. Most of the time this

practitioner does not have a qualification for this. Practitioners are not equipped with the

specific and complex training required to look after children who may require; manual

handling, hoists, peg feeding etc. Will RCC fund more appropriate training for ALL

practitioners within Rutland. Although the ‘Inclusive practice’ course and the Level 3 offered

from Dingley’s promise has been good it will not be enough to support children with complex

needs.

Will RCC be supporting settings to support the practitioners moral and mental health as the

stress levels increase with a higher number of children who require support?

Staff morale directly impacts the quality of care and education provided to children. When

staff members are happy and motivated, they are more likely to be engaged and be proactive

in their work. They are more likely to plan and deliver stimulating and developmentally

appropriate activities, ensure children's safety, and provide individual attention and support.

However, with a high stress job comes low staff morale which can lead to increased turnover.

The early years are already in a recruitment crisis which can be detrimental to the stability and

continuity of care. This can disrupt the relationships and routines established with children

and families, requiring new staff to be hired and trained if we can find any !

Will RCC be making an effort to ‘check in’ with setting to see how they are coping. This can not

simply be just about the children. Practitioners in the setting are often forgotten about when

meetings take place such a review meeting. How are the practitioners coping? With a likely

increase in SEN children the stress is likely to be heightened. This needs to be supported for

managers and all practitioners. 

What happens when nurseries are full or simply cannot take any more children who require

SEND support?

50% of my preschool children require some form of support such as SALT, 1:1, inclusion team

involvement or already have a diagnosis. I would feel great pressure to accept any further

children into my setting who already have emerging needs due to fears of the future, the

support available, the care for the other children in the setting, and of course the ability to

give them what they deserve. I know there is another Rutland setting who I shall not name

but after speaking with them in confidence they have also expressed how they will not be able

to take on many children who require support. So when we all start saying no sorry we can

not meet there needs where will these children go?

Why has there been such a Lack of further research into the cohort of 2025?

I currently have two children who are at the start of the EHCP referral. I also have one child

whose parent has started the EHCP process themselves due to starting the setting recently

and the child not transitioning well. These children are due to start mainstream school in

September 2024. These children could have potentially benefited from the use of The Parks,

however, there has been no rush from RCC to promote practitioners to start the EHCP process

nor has there been any encouragement to express to parent’s that there is an option other

than a mainstream school.

In the setting we do have children who are aged either 2 or 3 years old with potentially some

emerging needs. These children could potentially benefit from an EHCP and therefore the

parks in future cohorts such as 2025. How is RCC supporting these children if the DSP is full in

2025?

Will RCC be looking for some alternative funding to support the settings and the children who

require support ?

I have children within the setting who are currently receiving SENIF funding. Although it was

presented to us that some settings would benefit from the new banding system this has not

been the case for us. One example I can give you is child A. Child A was previously receiving 12

hours of 1:1 support per week at £10 per hour. Therefore, meaning we received £120 per

week to support the child with 1:1. The new banding system has meant that this child has

been graded at band 1 meaning they are only entitled to £2 per hour. This comes to a total of

£60 a week. This is simply not good enough and if half the money he was receiving before.

The only other funding available to children who require support is with DAF funding. This is

only accessible to those who have had a diagnosis. This does not happen often therefore

meaning not many children are able to access this funding which help to fund resources etc

for the child.

My recommendations

My hope going forward is that RCC will employ the Early years specialist teacher for more

than 2 days a week.

More inclusion officers that will come and support both the children and the staff – not just

observe for an hour.

Dual placement with The Parks for those children who require it. This will mean that they are

able to access the specialist support that they require alongside the benefits of mainstream

settings.

To help with the viability of The Parks could they not open during the holiday to provide

holiday clubs to Rutland and maybe even neighbouring counties who are also term time only.

It is so important that parent’s receive support and respite all year round not just term time

only.

** identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

2/12/23

** it (The Parks) was, and always will be a very special place. I have witnessed first hand how

outstanding this provision is, which has also been reflected by Ofsted in the last two

inspections. I have a moral belief that education is a basic human right, and all children should

have equal opportunities.

I object to the proposed closure of The Parks based on the following:

• I believe The Parks is an essential provision. Many children with special education needs will

not be able to cope in mainstream settings, even with additional support. The environment is

not appropriate, and will not enable them to thrive. They will be surviving. I have witnessed

this first hand. Often nursery’s and early years settings are too loud, and too busy which

results in children spending time alone, and away from their peers, as they cannot cope. This

is not inclusive, in fact it has such a detrimental impact on the child. It can cause extreme

cases of anxiety, frustration and dysregulation. Having seen this first hand, I know that the

challenging behaviour that can be seen from SEND children who are struggling to cope in a

mainstream provision can be extremely distressing both for them and their peers. Not to

mention, the pressure this will also have on the teaching staff. I believe we will also see a rise

in mental health conditions in early years practitioners, because of this. The council’s aim is

for more children with SEND to access mainstream, but this is absolutely not possible for

some children. Especially when children have not had the crucial early intervention, that The

Parks provides. This simply cannot be replicated in mainstream settings. With this level of

early intervention, it may even be possible for some children to access some aspects of

mainstream in the future. Early intervention involves early communication skills, which is so

important for any child. How would you expect a child who has not received any early

intervention, and is non-verbal or pre-verbal, to go into a mainstream setting and access the

learning?

• I do not believe that mainstream nurseries and early years settings have the skills, expertise,

experience or facilities in order to meet the needs of highly complex and disabled children,

such as those who need opportunities to communicate in other ways than verbal, extremely

small class sizes, and a safe, nurturing environment that will enable them to learn, and

develop. The Parks team have a wealth of knowledge and experience, as well as specialised

training, some of which that could be potentially life saving. I know this, as I worked there for

almost 10 years, and had this kind of training.

• I believe that the cost of supporting these children in mainstream settings will cost more

than educating them in The Parks, because they will require expensive additional equipment,

changes to the environment, and specialist support staff. It will cost the council less to

support these children together in a small group in The Parks, where they can share

specialised staffing and equipment. I do not believe that in the long run, closing The Parks will

save council money, as without this important early, intensive intervention, more children will

end up needing specialist schools, which will mean sending even more children out of county

to get the support they need. Also, why should they have to go out of county? I believe this

will also have a detrimental impact on the children, and their families, with more experiencing

anxiety and depression as a result.

• There are many children with SEND, in and around Rutland who NEED The Parks. As do their

families. The Parks is a lifeline to some families!

• I do not think it is morally right to reduce specialist provision for the most profoundly

disabled and vulnerable children, so that more can be spent on those who’s needs are such

that they are able to access mainstream.

• I do not agree that at a time where across the country other counties are building more

special school places, that Rutland should be reducing the special school places.

• I do not accept that all parents with children with complex needs for which The Parks caters

for, would prefer their children to be educated in mainstream settings.

• I believe that if The Parks closes, more parents will go to tribunal to get specialist provision

for their children, which will incur additional legal costs to Rutland County Council.

• It seems to have become increasingly more difficult to secure a place at The Parks. What

was once an assessment centre for children with identified needs, became only available to

those with EHCPS. I have spoken to many practitioners, parents and SENCOs who have made

it clear that there are increasing numbers of children requiring specialist support in

mainstream settings, of whom would benefit greatly from attending The Parks.

• I do not feel that all the options for making the Parks viable have been fully explored,

including:

Facilitating access for those children with significant needs who have not yet completed the

EHCP process

Expanding the provision to cater for more children.

Expanding the DSP at Oakham C of E to include nursery age children. Please note that despite

RCC claiming that children within DSP access mainstream, most of them do not and cannot.

Those children need a highly differentiated curriculum, as well as small class sizes and

appropriate areas in which they can withdraw to, if they are feeling dysregulated. If DSP

expanded to include nursery age children, it could become its own specialist provision within

the Rutland Learning Trust.

I have extreme concerns over this proposal. The Parks affects the wider community, and is a

lifeline for families. I therefore object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal, and I

urge Rutland County Council to pursue strategies which would make The Parks viable without

closing it or reducing the provision that it is able to offer.

** identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

 3/12/23

I am a Rutland resident and ** attended the parks and developed remarkably.

Where is the data regarding the number of SEN children in the county requiring this facility ?

** identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

3/12/23

I was a teacher for 34 years and have taught in both mainstream and special school settings.

Placing children in the correct setting from the offset is vital to their subsequent ability to

thrive. If a child is placed in a setting that causes them severe anxiety or lack of stimulation it

will colour their view of ‘school’ for many if not all their school years. If they find a placement 

that fits their needs the exact opposite can occur, they will see school as a safe place to learn

and make positive relationships.

Placing a child incorrectly does not only affect them but also their peers in the class.

Children who are anxious and upset take more teacher time and attention, resulting in a less

positive experience for their classmates.

I am a great believer in providing good role models for all children. Many children with a

special needs will thrive in a mainstream setting, but for those who don’t, we need special

provision such as The Parks to at least give them a positive start to school life and learn skills

which will enable them to thrive in a less specialist setting.

As well as providing support for the child, places like The Parks helps parents to come to terms

with their child’s special needs and helps them to develop strategies which can support the

whole family through the years to come.

I hope the council will think very carefully before taking away this very special school. Saving

money now may result in spending much more in the future and causing a great deal of

trauma to already grieving families who only want to see their children thriving in an

appropriate and supportive school setting. 

GREEN

3/12/23

We would like to make the following comments in relation to the proposals:

It is short-sighted to close the provision on the basis of current numbers. Rutland's population

will expand as more houses are built and the requirement for provision for children with

special educational needs in the future should be anticipated because once the provision is

closed it will not be revived.

There are some children whose needs can be met when they are integrated into mainstream

provision as long as the teachers are adequately trained and additional support resources are

forthcoming. It is also true that some children with particular needs will find this type of

provision will hinder their progress and they would be much better served in a setting geared

to their requirements.

My wife and I have spent our working lives in the education sector. Since moving to Rutland in

** I have worked in three neighbouring counties before becoming an inspector and retiring

from Ofsted in 2010. My wife has worked as a teacher in Rutland for over ** years. We both

know the importance of specialist provision for children with high needs both for the children

and their parents.

We understand that a local authority which is small will be faced with difficult choices but this

should not be an excuse for letting down.

** identifying personal details redacted

GREEN

4 3/12/23

I copy in my local councillor, so that they are aware of my views in full, and are able to, as

appropriate, represent my views as my democratic representative

I strongly object to the proposals to close The Parks. I'm a qualified teacher, with a masters

degree at distinction level in ** and have ** children with special educational needs.

My youngest ** has an EHCP. RCC refused to assess ** and only backed down when

threatened with legal proceedings. At nursery in Rutland ** was failed (they didn't even

contribute to ** EHCP assessment), and the nursery refused to have any more contact with

RCC discussing him. They spent ** DAF funding (£800) after ** was so distressed ** was not

able to continue in the nursery and had left, and the local authority early years officer, **,

knew this. They had promised to use the money on items to support ** school transition, then

the manager of the nursery, reneged on their promise. ** was not given lunchtime meals **

could reliably eat at nursery for over a year, despite us asking, and professionals

recommending that ** restricted diet be accommodated. We were told by the nursery that it

was OK, because ** had a good snack, but other children still had a lunch they were able to

eat. As a consequence ** never accessed ** full entitlement because ** had to come home at

lunchtime. ** is currently in mainstream school, but ** accesses only 10 out of 32.5 hours

education per week. RCC provide ** with no alternative education. So RCC's claim that ** is

"maintaining their education in mainstream" is disingenuous to say the least. I know of several

children in mainstream schools who are accessing school part time because their SEND needs

are not met - my ** was one such child - for three years ** never attended beyond lunchtime

on only 4 days a week, and RCC did not ensure ** had a full time education.

I don't feel the local authority has explored sufficient ways to make The Parks financially

viable, including relieving the excess demand for specialist places in other local authorities

(which they would pay for) and using the asset effectively in the holidays to provide respite,

and considering whether The Parks could be expanded to include KS1 and KS2, absorbing

capacity from other local authorities subject to availability (which would thus reduce the

cost). Equally, have MATs been approached to see if they would consider taking on The Parks

/ establishing it at an alternative location?

I feel that The Parks has been rendered under-capacity by RCC policy changes that have made

it more difficult to access at a time where parents and nurseries are discouraged from

applying for EHCPs, and they take around 6 months in any case. RCC officers are actively

discouraging parents from applying for EHCP assessments even when the children meet the

legal criteria for one; I met a 4 year old boy in reception the other day who is minimally

speaking and can only use 2 words together, yet he has no EHCP. Imagine, for a moment, how

you would function in our workplace if you could only put two words together, with minimal

speech. Now imagine how the child can be expected to cope in a class of 30 with a single

teacher, make friends, participate, and engage at times when he does not have 1:1 TA

support. I saw the boy at a party weep, sob, and cry with sheer frustration and sadness at

times when he wanted to play, but did not have the communication support he needed to tell

his peers what he needed or wanted; he cut a sad and lonely figure, playing alone. "Included"

in the party, but segregated by virtue of the fact that without constant adult support, he was

unable to effectively communicate with peers who are verbal and do not use and understand

signs and symbols. But according to RCC, he doesn't need an EHCP. My point, is that RCC's

definition of 'need' does not always reflect children and parents' experience. So to say that 'no

children need' The Parks, is in reality "we do now know of any children who in our opinion,

the Parks is needed, although they may well feel differently if they knew it was an option."

Just because RCC does not know of children in November that need specialist provision for 10

months later, does not mean that they do not exist. There are few schools, who are full a

whole 10 months before an academic year. Firstly, just because you don't know about

something, does not mean they don't exist. RCC does not know precisely how many children

have a diagnosis of autism, but it does not mean that those children it does not know of

simply cease to exist, or do not have their associated needs. Presumably RCC are unaware of 

how many children are on part time timetables, (otherwise surely they would be providing

them with full time education), yet ** was on a part time timetable for 3 years without RCC

providing him with full time education. Either RCC accept that there are children in

mainstream education who are not receiving their entitlement to full time education whom

they are failing, or they accept that there are those they don't know about yet clearly still

exist. They cannot have it both ways.

I feel that closing The Parks will in fact cost the LA more, as they will need to provide specialist

provision at settings across Rutland, rather than enjoying economies of scale of having

complex children in one place, sharing resources and expertise. It may cost the LA more in the

long run because it will result in more parents seeking specialist, out of county provision. DSP

provision is intrinsically for those children who are able to, in a meaningful sense, access

mainstream provision - otherwise, it is segregated education. To suggest that a child who is

never in lessons with their mainstream peers and has no contact with them except at

lunchtime and assembly is included, is absurd. Will all the children and staff at Oakham C of E

be trained and continuous users of Makaton so that these children can have meaningful

relationships with their peers at breaktime, and lunchtime, and access these lessons? Will

small class sizes of 5 (a standard figure for the autism provision at Birchwood) be provided for

those children who need very small group sizes in which to learn? Will children who display

behaviour that challenges stemming from their diagnoses be welcomed and accepted in

mainstream classrooms, when they may shout out, hum, sing, to manage their sensory needs?

Will a a child who regulates himself by opening and closing doors be permitted to sit by the

door, repetitively opening and closing it throughout the lesson? Will children be encouraged

to bounce on yoga balls, and regularly leave their seats, in order to move, despite the obvious

distraction to other pupils this may cause? Will the teachers all use makaton and adjust their

curricula and activities so that minimally speaking children are included? Otherwise, what

access to mainstream education will these children realistically have?

There is confusion as to what benefit closing the Parks will achieve. One the one hand, we are

told that the funding will go entirely to Oakham C of E to create additional DSP places, but

how will the support the children with complex needs who are in mainstream nurseries?

Where will these children go when their needs are such that they are a risk to themselves and

others without the sort of intensive, continuous support in a quiet environment that the Parks

provides. How will nurseries (who are businesses) be compelled to accept children who

without highly specialist support pose a risk to themselves and others? How would they keep

safe a child who repeatedly and without warning, bangs their head on objects? Or a child who

initiates play with other children by hitting or pushing them? Without constant, highly skilled

staff? On a pedagogical level, how will nurseries be expected to educate children who are 4

and learning early numeracy and literacy, alongside children who may be non-speaking and

communicate their needs physically. How will these children have meaningful, reciprocal

relationships with their peers? Would a mainstream school be expected to educate an 5 year

old alongside 8 year olds, or 12 year olds alongside 15 year olds, despite their obvious

developmental differences? So why would it be acceptable to expect nurseries, who often

lack qualified teachers to do this? Ask yourself this - if your child was studying a subject at

GCSE, say, physics. But instead of a teacher, the school had support from a visiting advisory

physics teacher from the local authority every half term or so, but the rest of the time was

taught by somebody with an A-level in geography who had been on a course to 'upskill' them,

would you consider that adequate? So why would nursery practitioners, often on the

minimum wage, be sufficiently skilled and qualified to teach children who have complex needs

requiring bespoke, evolving, highly adaptive packages of support?

There is, to my knowledge, no significant, undisputed evidence basis that mainstream

education is a causative factor in better outcomes for children with high level SEND. In fact,

children with disabilities are many times more likely to be excluded from mainstream school,

which indeed suggests the opposite. If such evidence exists, it has not been presented, and

runs counter to the findings in "The Inclusion Illusion", by Webster (UCL)

"Based on the UK’s largest observation study of pupils with high-level SEND, The Inclusion

Illusion exposes how attendance at a mainstream school is no guarantee of receiving a

mainstream education. Observations of nearly 1,500 lessons in English schools show that their

everyday experience of school is characterised by separation and segregation. Furthermore,

interviews with nearly 500 pupils, parents and school staff reveal the effect of this

marginalisation on the quality of their education. The way schools are organised and how

classrooms are composed creates a form of ‘structural exclusion’ that preserves mainstream

education for typically-developing pupils and justifies a diluted pedagogical offer for pupils

with high-level SEND. Policymakers, not mainstream schools, are indicted over the state of

affairs."

Under the model proposed for the DSP at Oakham C of E, there would be significant numbers

of children who access little, if any, mainstream education. Clearly, this is more likely to be for

children with the most profoud and complex needs, such as those catered for by The Parks,

who are not able to access mainstream classroom-based education.

Leicester City Council state that:

DSPs provide specialist provision for specific types of special needs as part of mainstream

school or academy. Children who are placed in DSPs do not require full time specialist

provision but require some additional specialist support to access the curriculum. Their time is

split between mainstream lessons and activities and the DSP. Designated Specialist Provision

(DSP) | Leicester City

Clearly, there is a positive selection bias in favour of mainstream education (more able

children tend to be placed there, who would achieve better outcomes regardless). However,

the metrics in terms of outcomes are often limited, and my understanding is that there is

within the literature no consensus that mainstream provision where children access few, if

any, mainstream classes, results in better outcomes for children - academically, socially, and

emotionally. I am concerned that educational psychology has not been consulted and

provided a report into the proposed change and explained how the needs of complex children

requiring the Parks will be met in the mainstream available, and that the mainstream nursery

provision available and the DSP presents provision that is "as good, if not better" than the

Parks.

Furthermore, how will vulnerable, disabled children who are not able to access mainstream

nurseries because of challenging behavior or complex needs be safeguarded? Do we not run

the risk that they will in fact have higher long term needs in the absence of intensive early

intervention, thus requiring longer, more intensive specialist education.

Closing The Parks may also have a disproportionately large impact on women, who, in the

absence of appropriate children for their children with complex needs, may (as more often

the primary carer) suffer a loss of income both short and long term if they are forced to stay

at home and care for the children. Has an equality impact assessment been done to consider

the?

Have local specialist provisions (all of which are full beyond capacity) been consulted to

consider the impact it will have on them? Have they been consulted as specialists as to

whether they think mainstream provision is suitable for the sort of children who need to

access The Parks? Furthermore, there is a financial risk that an organisation may enter

Rutland / a neighboring local authority and set up an independent specialist primary provision

which could offer the sort of small class sizes and specialist provision that many complex

children need. Given the high levels of success in parents achieving their chosen placement,

the could in fact cost the LA more in the long run because Independent Special schools

are extremely expensive, and in the absence of any LA specialist primary schools, and the local

maintained ones being heavily over subscribed, parents would have a very strong case. The

local authority knows this, as they spend hundreds of thousands of pounds every year on

independent specialist placements, both in and out of Rutland.

Parents have a very good success rate of getting their chosen school whenever they are

prepared to challenge RCC at tribunal, which more will do if the Parks is not available to

reassure parents that their needs can be met in Rutland. RCC is one of a handful of local

authorities who choose to pay solicitors and barristers tens of thousands of pounds to oppose

unrepresented parents, yet the number of appeals found in favour of the LA and not upheld

or conceded prior to hearing is extremely small. My home insurance does not provide legal

cover unless I have a "reasonable" chance of success (more than 50%), yet my understanding

is that of the appeals not conceded by the LA, the tribunal upholds the appeal in over 90% of

cases. Yet however impoverished the LA is, when faced with parent-carers of disabled children

without legal representation, it feels a need for teams of legally qualified personelle.

I urge the local authority to reconsider their decision, and explore ways to make The Parks

sustainable, rather than leaping to a forgone conclusion and closing it. Independent specialist

schools are often over-subscribed and run with very positive financial margins, so there is no

reason to think that specialist provision is intrinsically nonviable in financial terms. There are

so many significant risks in the plan, yet so many opportunities to use what is an

"outstanding" school so much better. I truly believe that the conclusion RCC has reached is illconceived and highly short-termist, and will deliver poorer outcomes not just for children and

families across Rutland and the wider area, but for Rutland County Council.

** Identifying personal details

GREEN

3/12/23

I write to you as a Rutland resident and parent of a child with additional needs. It is essential

that The Parks remains running to serve our community, I strongly disagree with the proposal

to close The Parks.

GREEN

3/12/23

I am a retired teacher who was based in London schools for 38 years. I have a long term

interest in SEND provision and have closely followed the debate regarding the Parks nursery.

My observations are as below

It is reported that over the past 2 years, RCC have introduced the requirements of an EHCP as

a criteria of admission. Despite this not being a statutory requirement. Given the children are

typically admitted for two years only, the need for an EHCP as a condition of admission would

seem to place a clear obstacle to entry.

It seems the assessment of likely future need is based on current numbers, I believe this is 3 

pupils, no reference is made in these numbers to Forces families who have been regular users

of the Parks. These families move around so demand will vary.

The BBC Today programme 29 November 2023 reported the UK is experiencing a significant

demand for SEND provision.

The latest OFSTED report on the Parks was based on far higher pupil numbers (10) than the

current.

FOI 10123/23 confirms the county has seen an increase in out-of-county placement from

January 21 to October 23, from 100 to 144.

I would question how rigorous the assessment of numbers has been.

I would now like to turn to the formulation of the proposal.

I believe a group of SEND professionals have been reviewing the Parks since 2019. A working

group comprising of RCC, members of the staff of the CofE, the Parks and the parent

governors concluded the current provision of the Parks was not fit for purpose and it would

be in the best interest of both the Children and Parents if future provision targeted a wider

group of children including those with special needs.

Parents I have spoken to believe the Parks operates as an independently managed RCC funded

specialist nursery school. However the ending of the Parks provision will only allow an

increase of 1 DSP place.

I therefore can only assume less provision of SEND to those who need it will be a result of the

closure of the Parks.

Therefore please record this as my objection to the proposal.

GREEN

3/12/23

As the parent of ** I support inclusive education and opportunity but also believe that there

remains a place for alternative specialist provision where this is the most appropriate setting

in which to meet an individual child’s needs.

It is odd that RCC is choosing to close a provision which is rated by Ofsted as an Outstanding

provision, a provision which ‘helps children to be the best they can be’. I wonder, how does

RCC plan to engage another provision which is likely to lead to improvements in the standard,

quality and/or range of educational provision for these children? (Annex C; DfE guidance on

closing schools). In addition how does RCC propose to ensure that the proposed arrangements

to ensure the expertise and specialism continues to be available? (Annex C; DfE guidance on

closing schools).

As a family we experienced the genuine love, care and concern the staff at The Parks show for

all their pupils. They supported us a we started our journey as a disabled family, supported us

during our dark moments and provided a safe place where we could express our feelings and

emotions as we learnt to accept that our journey was going to be different to others. Our **

siblings were as much a part of The Parks Family as we were as parents and they too were

well supported. Over **years later we maintain strong friendships with other local parents

and families. Our ** is a valued member of the Rutland community as The Parks was, and still

is, a valued and loved part of the wider community.

RCC, please think again before you finalise the proposal - stressed, distressed and exhausted

parents already have to leave the county to access the majority of their child’s specialist

health services; please don’t make them do this to access specialist early education as well.

Work with The Parks School to maintain and develop it’s outstanding and unique services, not

to close it.

** Identifying personal details

GREEN

3/12/23

I wish to record my dismay at the proposal to close such an outstanding and much needed

facility. I do not have any personal experience of the school but have friends whose children

have attended there. I do not believe that there aren't enough children in Rutland who are in

need of the expertise that only the specialist staff there can provide. There is so much new

housing being built and within the increased population there will be more children with

special needs. Other authorities in the country are recognizing that the number of children

with special needs is growing and are catering for them, Rutland isn't any different.

These children cannot cope in mainstream education, it isn't fair to them and it's not fair to

the mainstream children either. With the best will in the world there won't be

sufficient/satisfactory support for them and everyone will suffer as a result. If the closure

results in children being sent out of county that will be disastrous for them and their families.

It has been suggested that the Parks School is undersubscribed currently because it has been

made so difficult for anyone to be referred. I do hope there isn't any truth in this.

GREEN

3/12/23

I am a Rutland resident with a ** with SEND. I would like to register that I strongly disagree

with the proposal to close the Parks. As a parent of a child with SEND needs I feel it is

important to have this special provision for early years as early intervention can make a large

difference. Based on personal experience, private sector nurseries (even ones that excel in

most areas) are not fully equipped manage children with the special needs.

Whilst for several years I pushed for my child to access mainstream (non-designated

provision) education - it didn't work and I believe this has had a lasting impact on his mental

wellbeing. I firmly believe that it is important to have educational provision with

carers/educators that have the right skills and understanding that can make a lasting

impact. This is just not feasible across a large diverse range of nurseries and childminders.

The mental impact on parents of not having effective support is substantial and the ability to

provide the type of provision can make a large difference to both parental wellbeing and

economic productivity.

** Identifying personal details

GREEN

3/12/23

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent

announcement of the closure of the sole special school within the Oakham area, The Parks

Special School. As a parent of an ** child with Down's syndrome, I am very worried about the

potential repercussions this closure might have on children in our community who require

specialised education and support.

The geographical isolation of Oakham already poses significant challenges for families seeking

specialised educational services. The absence of an alternative nearby school will necessitate

extensive travel, placing an unfair and impractical burden on families and our children. For

many of us, this distance is not just a matter of inconvenience but a significant barrier that

could severely disrupt our children’s education and well-being. Transporting our children long

distances daily to access suitable educational facilities not only poses logistical challenges but

also significantly impacts their routine, comfort, and ability to thrive in an educational setting

conducive of their needs. The stress and fatigue associated with extended travel are not

suitable for children with additional needs and could hinder their progress and development.

I urge you to consider the long-term consequences of this decision on the children who rely

on the specialised services provided by The Park Special School. It is crucial to ensure that

suitable alternatives or provisions are in place to guarantee the uninterrupted support and

education these children deserve. I kindly request an opportunity for concerned parents,

educational professionals, and relevant stakeholders to engage in discussions aimed at finding

viable solutions or alternative arrangements that prioritize the welfare and educational needs

of children with additional needs in our community.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated, and I am hopeful that together, we can

explore options that will safeguard the educational rights and well-being of children with

special needs in our area.

 Thank you for your consideration

The following was received as an attachment with representation numbers 8 and 48.

The 'Save The Parks Team' Response to RCCs Questions and answers section of The

Parks Proposal 24/11/23 (response in blue)

1. Will our voices be heard?

Yes. Public consultation on the Parks Special Nursery School is running from 1 November to 3

December 2023. All responses we receive via our dedicated consultation email address during this

period will be considered. The Council has enlisted Maureen Morris to support the consultation and

provide an independent overview of the process. Maureen is a parent-carer herself and has worked as

a parent participation consultant nationally for a number of years, as well as being an associate of the

charity

Contact for families with disabled children.

● RCC were asked for further clarification on the process the responses are below:

- Please can you clarify what the process is on the consultation?

The statutory process of closing a maintained school is set out by the Department for Education:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil

e/1131568/Opening_and_closing_maintained_schools_Jan_2023.pdf

The consultation on the proposal commences with a public launch of the proposal. The proposal is

then published in key places that are accessible to the community. The Council invites

representations, comments and questions during a period of 30 days through an agreed and published

route to the Council. All comments, representation and questions are logged. All responses received

by email and other formats are being read by Maureen Morris, an external independent consultant.

Councillors are receiving regular briefings regarding residents’questions and responses. Councillors

are also having their own questions responded to.

- What is the ‘process’ that Maureen Morris will be independently overviewing

Maureen Morris, the external independent consultant, is reviewing the comments, questions and

responses as they come in, and she will take into account the impact on the author, the number of

responses and the themes raised to compile a report. Maureen Morris is providing an independent

view on the consultation process and the comments that come in. She has been fully informed of the

launch, the content of the proposal and sees all entries to the Council. She is asking questions of the

Council as they arise. From this, a report will be created and presented to Rutland County Council

Cabinet which will be published in advance of the Cabinet meeting. The Cabinet will then make a

decision on the proposal. The outcome of that decision

will be published within a week of the decision.

The DfE Guidance states that the local authority will be the decision maker on a school closure

proposal and that within one week of making a decision, they MUST publish their decision andthe

reasons for such a decision being made on their website

- What do you mean by responses will be considered? How are responses to the

consultation

analysed and used to inform the final decision on the proposal?

Each comment or question is considered by Council Officers and by Maureen Morris. Key themes,

impact on the community and the number of responses will inform the report that will go to Cabinet.

- So if Mr X sends an email then what happens? And how is this used to inform the

decision?

As above.

- Will councillors see all emails?

A log of all emails is kept, and Councillors can see these if they request to do so. Councillors are also

submitting questions and comments on behalf of constituents and are receiving responses.

- Will parts of emails be used (if so who decides which bits to ignore?)

All the comments representation and questions will be used.

- Or is it just that a number of people have opposed?

No, the content of the representations, comments and questions will be considered.

● We are awaiting responses on:

- what qualification does the independent consultant hold in order for her to analyse that data and

what type of analysis is she using?

- If she isn’t using one, who is and what qualifications do they hold?

● RCC, we’ve got to say that we find the answers you’ve given intending to clarify the

process are still actually rather confusing and unclear!

● On one hand you say responses will be looked at for themes to compile a report (which infers that

responses and comments will not be passed on in full) then at the end you state all the comments,

representations and questions will be used. But how? If this was an EHCP you’d be in trouble for not

being specific!

● Also, have all councillors been made aware that they will have to request to see emails?

2. Who has been involved in developing this proposal?

An experienced group of independent SEND professionals has been reviewing the special provision at

The Parks Nursery School since 2019. This has been done to examine the current arrangements and

make sure they are fit for purpose, or plan for a future delivery model.

Following on from this review, a working group made of Council officers, The Parks staff, Oakham

Primary School teaching staff and leadership, as well as parent governors, was set up to develop a

more inclusive Early Years offer for Rutland, targeting a wider group of children including those with

additional needs.

● The school is called Oakham C of E Primary School - not Oakham Primary School

● Oakham C of E Press Release - ‘ As it is a Local Authority school, the decision to consult on the

future of The Parks School has been made solely by the Local Authority. We believe that for a

number of years, The Parks School has and still continues to provide outstanding care and provision

for children and families across Rutland. Some of our most vulnerable local children, many with

significant learning and medical needs or disabilities, have benefited from enriching opportunities and

the professionalism, dedication and love from our school staff team. Whatever the outcome of the

consultation and any resulting decision by the Local Authority, our overarching aim is to support our

staff team and ensure that, in whatever form, we still have an integral role in ensuring all local

children with additional needs and disabilities have their specific needs met locally.’

● How were the ‘independent’ SEND consultants found? What was the tendering process?

Who paid the consultancy fees? How much were they paid? (and is this money that

could have helped SEND children?!) Which ‘pot’ did the consultancy fees come out of?

Did anyone at RCC previously know the consultants or recommend them? Were they

REALLY independent?

3. How much does it cost to run the Parks and what would you do with this money?

The funding for Special Needs education and provision comes from the High Needs Fund (HNF),

which is part of the Dedicated Schools Budget. The HNF is currently running at a deficit of

£1.3million. The Parks has a Minimum Funding Guarantee of £250,719 for 7.5 places. This is to

ensure the school and the provision has sufficient funding to maintain a safe learning environment for

students.This money will not be taken away from the school but will be used to enhance the offer at

Oakham Primary School. This will be done by increasing the number of places in the school’s

Designated Special Provision (DSP) from September 2024.

● It is 7.5 full time equivalent places so can be up to 15 children on roll part time.

● The minimum funding guarantee was only put in place 1/4/22 prior to this the school was actually

underfunded.

● Both the top-up and place funding has been static for the last 10+ years and has not kept pace with

increasing expenditure such as general inflation, staffing annual pay awards, significant pension

increases, the significant realignment of support staff pay scales in line with the living wage etc. This

has resulted in the school living off its

reserves brought forward. The place funding is centrally set and has been fixed at £10k for many

years so up until 1/4/22 the school received maximum funding of £75,000 (7.5FTE x £10k) .In order

to be fair, ensure quality and sustainability, surely the funding should be responsive to inflationary

factors which ALL other schools receive as part of their entitlement through the national funding

formula and independent providers receive through their price increases. The Parks does NOT benefit

from this. RCC is able to add an inflationary factor to the top-up funding each year to ensure The

Parks school is not disadvantaged compared to other schools or independent providers to avoid a

diminishing base line. This is why an MFG had to be agreed to make the provision sustainable.

● It is only fair to give ALL of the information to ghs public as the response you have given

insinuates that The Parks is at least 20% responsible for the high needs deficit which is simply not

true!

● The parks SAVES the council money in the long term as early intervention at The Parks fast tracks

children’s development allowing many children to then access the local DSP rather than needing

specialist out of county primary provision.

● HNF is paid for from the national budget allocation for mainstream Rutland schools. It can be

accessed for any child without an EHCP attending a mainstream Rutland School. It is also used for

supporting Rutland children with an EHCP who are educated in or out of county in mainstream or

specialist provisions.

● The High Needs Block only covers children’s placement or support costs. It does not

meet the costs associated with legal challenge, assessment costs, travel costs etc.

which is met by the Local Authority. (Per schools forum 17/6/21)

● Are RCC really going to pay the DSP £250,719 to extend? Or is this another error?

4. Will Early Years providers be able to cope with the influx of children who would

have gone to the Parks, if the special nursery closes?

There are currently no nursery age children at the Parks Nursery Special School. All children

currently at the Parks are of school age (Reception) and may be supported in Oakham Primary School

’s Designated Special Provision (DSP). In the previous two academic years, there were no more than

three nursery age children attending the Parks, all of whom did so on a part time basis. Looking

ahead, we are not aware of any children of nursery age needing specialist nursery provision from

September 2024. This means there would be no increase in the number of children needing nursery

places in mainstream settings if The Parks provision were to close.

● There are children who’s families want to access the parks - for both nursery and

foundation stage (it’s not called reception anymore!). We have a list of some if RCC

would like to see it?

● A Local SEN support group for under 5s has repeatedly told RCC staff they are full and have a

waiting list - so RCC must know there are nursery age children who want to and could access The

Parks.

● Since starting the consultation another child has started at The Parks – demonstrating how intake

can fluctuate through the year it is not always a September start date.

● Nurseries have come forward and said they have recently submitted paperwork for a number of

children they believe need to access The Parks.

● There used to be waiting lists for The Parks school when children just had to have an identified

need as criteria for entry, the staff then assisted in applying for an ehcp with evidence from the

plan/do/review cycles. Since RCC put in the barrier to entry of children must have an ehcp it has been

nearly impossible for young children to access the provision. Children are on waiting lists for ASD

pathways, to see paediatricians and other professionals so they are unable to get diagnosis, or support,

or an ehcp to access The Parks provision which they do desperately need!

● Expecting parents to sort out an ehcp when they are struggling to come to terms with their child’s

needs and just trying to survive is both ludicrous and cruel. Especially when RCC is attempting to

reduce the number of EHCPs it issues to children. If they can’t get an EHCP how can they get a

place?

● Putting that barrier to entry in has stopped access and reduced numbers - intentionally to run The

Parks down to close it?

● The Parks also used to take children from out of county. This again was stopped.

● Closing The Parks could also prevent parents from being able to work!

● With all the new housing developments bringing new families into the area surely it is common

sense that some of those new families are likely to have SEN children?

Especially as one family has already stated one of the reasons they moved to Rutland

was to access The Parks school for their vulnerable child.

5. How can nurseries and childminders afford to support children with SEND without

this

having an impact on other children?

The number of children in mainstream nurseries or with a childminder would not change if the Parks

were to close. This is because there are currently no nursery aged children attending The Parks. From

January 2024, the local authority is making additional funding available for nurseries and

childminders, so they can offer SEND support to wider range of children. This will allow the sector to

provide additional support at the earliest opportunity and improve the long-term outcomes for our

children with special educational needs and disabilities. Rutland County Council continues to provide

this inclusion funding at a significantly higher rate than

neighbouring local authorities.

● This is ridiculous - if The Parks can take 7.5-15 children each year and that setting is closed of

course the number of children in mainstream nurseries would increase!

● SENif funding to nurseries and childminders has in real terms been reduced due to the new banding

system. Where a child would have received £300 for 1:1 support (£10 x 30 hours) they may now

receive as little as £60 (£2 x 30 hours). So what is this additional funding?

● Nurseries and childminder do currently identify needs at the earliest opportunity and provide what

support they can - they then often have to apply for an ehcp to try and get children a place at The

Parks as they cannot give the level of intervention/support required due to lack of funding/support.

● Private nurseries are independent business therefore as such of they are unable to meet the needs of

children or do not have capacity they can refuse to take children (as long as it is not discrimination).

● Are RCC going to fund all mainstream settings to make adaptations such as hygiene

rooms with hoists, specialist toilet frames, extra rooms built which they can then have a small number

of children, train staff on tube feeding, sensory diets etc - so that they can meet the needs of children.

Or will it end up in a years time having to create a setting that has all this - oh wait a minute like The

Parks🤦🏻♀️

● Everyone in a civilised society wants inclusion but this isn’t it. No matter what you do mainstream

is not in the best interest of many children. And this should be about what is in the best interest of the

children - not what you think you should do to be more inclusive. By taking this route of inclusivity

you will be excluding the most vulnerable children from access to an early years education.

● Early intervention through The Parks gives children the best opportunity for success and optimises

their chances of local inclusion later in their school career.

6. How do you know that nurseries and childminders have the facilities and expertise

to support children with SEND?

The expertise of Rutland nurseries is growing rapidly and is currently the best it’s ever been,

following support from our Early Years SEN Specialist Teacher. Nurseries and childminders can

contact the Specialist Teacher at any point. They have also identified and provided bespoke training

for mainstream practitioners, to help meet the needs of children with SEND. The Council’s Inclusion

Team is providing more targeted support for nurseries and childminders who care for children with

the most complex needs. A Schools Support Partnership (SSP) has also been set up to promote

inclusion in all schools in Rutland. The Partnership provides support for Speech, Language and

Communication needs (SLC), advice for settings, training for all staff in

the identification of SLC needs, ideas for promoting good SLC development and strategies for

supporting children experiencing difficulties or delays. Rutland County Council also continues to fund

training for Rutland Early Years practitioners from entry level inclusion training to Level 3 inclusive

practice training, alongside a wide range of courses from quality trainers, such as Dingley’s Promise

and Nasen. More than 70 Early Years practitioners have now accessed inclusion training with Dingley

’s Promise. The Disability Access Fund remains available for nurseries and childminders to use for

children claiming Disability Living Allowance. This helps settings to provide the facilities or make

adaptations and adjustments to their environment to ensure accessibility for children with additional

needs.

● Have you ever tried to claim DLA for a child under 5 (or even a child over 5)? I suggest not! It is incredibly difficult to get DLA awarded, so, in reality nurseries and childminders will not be able to access The Disability Access Fund so you are effectively pushing more and more costs onto them when the sector is already struggling to remain financially sustainable. And ultimately adaptations won’t be made so children will not be able to attend. ● It is good to hear that more SEN training for nurseries and childminders is happening, however surely this is something that should happen anyway and should not rely on closing the only suitable alternative provision to do this! ● The SSP (formerly known as the EIP) was established in February 2020 and while there are some success stories it is also failing some of the most vulnerable children. RCCs intent to make the SSP support package look more attractive than the support a child will get with an ehcp to deter families from applying for an ehcp is abhorrent! And where the support has failed children and families have suffered trauma for years and having to apply for ehcps themselves in order to access a suitable provision - the ehcp process is a minimum of 20 weeks so what do they do in that time? While we understand that you need to allow strategies time to try and work, you also need to react quicker when schools and families are telling you it is not working! RCC are currently inflicting school based trauma on many children. ● Placing children who cannot access any of the mainstream educational opportunities, nor form meaningful reciprocal relationships with their peers in mainstream classes, is seclusion, not inclusion. 

7. How many under-fives in Rutland have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan

and how many have been refused an assessment or Plan in the past three years?

There are currently 11 Rutland children under the age of five (Nursery and Reception age) with EHC

Plans. A further two children under the age of five are currently being assessed. In the past three

years, we have refused to assess one child under five for an EHC Plan. This initial decision was

eventually reviewed and a needs assessment was carried out. We have not refused to issue any EHC

Plans to children under five years of ager during the past three years. There are currently no children

of nursery age being assessed for an EHC Plan and none being appealed

● This data is not current - there are a number of nursery age children who have submitted ehcp

assessment requests. There are also further families who should have been advised to request an

assessment but haven’t been.

● The parents of the child you refused to assess had to threaten tribunal to get you to change your

mind and assess. This isn’t something RCC chose to do even though they should have

8. Does this mean young children with SEND won’t get the education they have a right

to?

Children with special educational needs and disabilities will continue to receive the right care and

support in Early Years settings, whatever the outcome of this consultation. As a Local Authority, we

have a legal duty under Section 27 of the Children & Families Act 2014 to keep under review the

educational, training and social care provision made for children and young people with SEND. We

must consider the extent to which the education, training and social care provision is sufficient to

meet the educational, training and social care needs of the children and

young people with SEND. As we have referenced already, a recent Local Area Inspection by Ofsted

and the Care Quality Commission reviewed the Rutland’s provision for children with additional needs

and found these services to be among the best anywhere in the country.

● In the ofsted only 2 parents were spoken to - so how is that a true reflection?

● If you take away The Parks school there will not be sufficient APPROPRIATE placement for the

SEN and disabled children of Rutland.

9. Will children who would have gone to the Parks now have to go out of county, with

the

associated transport costs?

We want to increase opportunities for children with SEND or emerging needs to access mainstream

Early Years education closer to home. This would reduce the need for long journeys and give children

with additional needs the opportunity to form friendships with other local children their age. The

Designated Specialist Provision (DSP) at Oakham Primary School will be equipped to meet the needs

of many of our Rutland children who may have previously attended The Parks Nursery Special

School in Reception or Year 1. Our mainstream schools are also rapidly developing their expertise as

part of Rutland’s School Support Partnership (SSP). In addition to this, several primary schools are

now creating more flexible mainstream offers of

provision to meet children’s needs and are doing so effectively and inclusively. As a result, there are

lots more opportunities for children who may have attended The Parks in the past to access and thrive

in a mainstream setting. Rutland County Council does not expect the number of children travelling

outside of the county for specialist provision to change. This remains a very low number of Early

Years aged children. There are currently no Rutland children of nursery age and just three children in

Reception or Year 1 attending out of county specialist provision.

● Children who would have attended The Parks will end up having to go out of county -maybe not at

nursery age but when they reach statutory school age. Ultimately when the most vulnerable Childrens

needs can not be met in mainstream nursery the child will end up staying at home until they are old

enough to access an out of county specialist provision. The specialised early intervention received at

The Parks can fast track children’s development allowing many children to then access the local DSP

rather than needing specialist out of county primary provision (at a high placement and transport cost)

● By closing The Parks you will be preventing many children from accessing suitable

provision close to home.

● If you truly want SEN children to be able to access provision close to home then do what

families have been screaming out for for many years - build an SEN provision for

Rutlands children! If by any chance it isn’t full (which is highly unlikely) other counties

can pay RCC for places for their children bringing funds into the county.

● 1023/23 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST shows that out of county

placements are steadily increasing - Jan 2021 100 children, Jan 2022 128 children, Oct 2023 144

children. It also states this is at a cost of over £7.8 million over the last 3 years (not including

transport costs). This figure may even be understated? given that the oakham based Independent

Special provision (The Shires) has a base cost of £80k -£90k per child per year! And some of the

settings children from Rutland currently have placements at are a mix of other county maintained,

independent schools, boarding schools, distance wise as close as melton to as far as the Isle of Wight.

● We wholeheartedly believe that all children with SEND should be allowed to access the provision

which is most suitable for them, wherever that may be. However, as Rutland does not have its own

full special school families are not given that option. As a recent RCC parent/education survey

showed families really want their children educated close to home - this does not mean families want

their children in mainstream!

● Rutland SEND families want a special school in Rutland so that children can be

educated close to home in an appropriate setting with the correct approach/equipment/training etc

10. What is the Designated Special Provision (DSP) and how will they support the

reception children who used to stay in the Parks?

The Designated Specialist Provision (DSP) is part of Oakham Primary School, which is an academy

in The Rutland Learning Trust. It caters for children whose special educational needs and/or 

disabilities require specialist support over and above that which a mainstream school can normally

provide as part of an EHC Plan. The DSP provides care and support for pupils from Reception, Key

Stage 1 and 2. The DSP is designed to enable primary phase children with SEND, who require

specialist and individualised support, to continue to access and experience mainstream education by

offering them the opportunity to access aspects of the mainstream curriculum, the internal

environment and the external environment of a mainstream school as

appropriate. They do this while continuing to receive individualised specialist support within

designated DSP facilities.The DSP supports children with the following Special Educational Needs:

• Cognition and Learning - children with learning difficulties which are persistent over time,

pervasive across the curriculum and which affect, alter or slow their learning.

• Communication and Interaction needs - children with speech, language and

communication needs (SLCN) and have difficulty in communicating with others. This may be

because they have difficulty saying what they want to, understanding what is being said to themor

they do not understand or use social rules of communication. The profile for every child with SLCN is

different and their needs may change over time. Like the Parks Special Nursery, Oakham Primary

School's DSP is not intended to provide support to children who have severe or profound and multiple

learning difficulties, who are likelyto have significant levels of support requirements across all areas

of special educational needs and daily care. The provision may support children whose special

educational needs might also require emotional and behavioural support and wider adaptation. This

includes children with low to moderate behavioural support and sensory needs and may include

children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) with additional cognition and learning needs. An

explicit ambition of

the DSP provision is that children will have increased opportunity to access learning and social

opportunities alongside their mainstream peers as an integral part of the mainstream school

community. Oakham Primary School facilitate access to support as part of an EHC Plan, if required.

This includes Physiotherapists, Occupational Therapists, Educational Psychologists and Speech and

Language Therapists, to ensure provision is appropriate to the individual needs of children. There is

also a dedicated family liaison officer who provides support for families and works closely with the

staff at Rutland County Council’s Family Hub.

● AGAIN THE SCHOOL IS CALLED OAKHAM C OF E PRIMARY SCHOOL if you can’t

even get the school name correct what hope is there!

● What happens when a child starts at the DSP but it then becomes apparent they cannot meet need?

We understand that RCC has noticed children in this situation previously? If so this is not in the best

interest if the child, the school, the staff or the other children?

● Over the last few years the level of needs that children have who access the DSP have changed and

some might say increased. This has resulted in the DSP changing. In the past it had 2 classrooms

(room 1 as a quiet autism unit and room 2 for moderate learning disabilities, ASD not primarily

requiring quiet, and everything else). The DSP has since had to be restructured to have 3 pathways to

better meet the needs of the children now accessing - with an informal, semi formal and formal

pathway. The informal pathway focusing more on life skills and non mainstream curriculum learning.

The DSP has had to change significantly in order to try to meet the needs of the children, yet RCC

still want to treat it as a mainstream provision.

● The DSP is not an equivalent to The Parks. The Parks Special School is a specialist

provision, the Designated Special Provision (DSP), which is intended to fit in between

specialist and mainstream, is legally classed as mainstream provision.

Leicester city council describe DSPs as “DSPs provide specialist provision for specific types of

special needs as part of mainstream school or academy. Children who are placed in DSPs do not

require full time specialist provision but require some additional specialist support to access the

curriculum. Their time is split between mainstream lessons and activities and the DSP.

”https://mychoice.leicester.gov.uk/Categories/387

Similarly, Leicestershire describe enhanced resource schools as;

“Enhanced resource schools are mainstream schools with additional resources for particular children

with an Education, Health and Care Plan, where there is more specialist support and staff. Pupils are

not generally taught separately and are included in the mainstream classes.”

https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/education-and-children/special-educational-needs-anddisability/education-and-childcare/send-support-in-schools/choosing-and-applying-for-a-school-for-achild-with-special-educational-needs-or-disability-send 

11. How can I be sure my child will be supported as well in the Designated Special

Provision as they would have been in The Parks?

The Parks Special Nursery School and the DSP occupy the same building and much of the space is

already shared between the two provisions. This includes a swimming pool, which is used by children

from The Parks and the DSP. Many of the staff, including the leadership team, already work across

both The Parks and the DSP, ensuring the skills and expertise will remain.

The funding used to support the running The Parks Special Nursery would not be taken away if the

provision were to close. Instead, it would be used to further enhance the offer at Oakham Primary

School, including the DSP.

● On one hand RCC say the money saved on The Parks will be spread amongst the other settings to

improve inclusivity, yet on the Q&As it states ‘£250,719 - This money will not be taken away from

the school but will be used to enhance the offer at Oakham Primary School. This will be done by

increasing the number of places in the school’s Designated Special Provision (DSP) from September

2024’

● So which is it?

● Are RCC really going to pay the DSP £250,719 to extend? Or is this another error.

● Just because The Parks and the DSP occupy the same building does not mean that they provide the

same. The Parks is registered as a special school, whereas the DSP is legally a mainstream provision.

12. What kind of wider support will be available to parents and families of children

with additional needs, if The Parks were to close?

As well as support and signposting from individual nurseries, Rutland’s Family Hub has a range of

support groups for parents. This includes an Autism Support Group, Triple P ‘Stepping Stones’

parenting programme for the parents of children with SEND, as well as play and learning activities for

children with developmental needs, such as the Let’s Get Talking programme or Space to Play. Full

details can be found on ourFamily Hub website, by calling 01572 758 383 or by emailing:

familyhub@rutland.gov.uk Oakham Primary school also has a Family Liaison Officer available

to families with children in the Dedicated Special Provision, from

Reception to Year 6. Where children with SEND are not attending a nursery or childminder setting,

Rutland County Council’s Early Years Inclusion team provides support via home visits.

● Parental feedback is that the new Family Liaison Officer at Oakham c of E school has been a

fantastic addition - increasing easy quicker access to support and answers, and freeing up some of the

DSP staffs time more.

● The support groups and courses listed above already exist and have done for some

time. They are mostly not SEND specific also.

● Surely the support stated in the RCC answer is available regardless of if The Parks is closed - or

will this support be removed if The Parks remains open?

● Parental feedback also tells us that as most of a families battles over support and

provision for their SEN child end up being with the local authority they are not always

keen to attend sessions/groups that are linked to RCC.

● The local self funded SEN independent support group for under 5s is full with a waiting list.

● Playgroups do not give families respite! Children under 5 do not qualify for RCCs short break

scheme so unless they have friends/family locally who are capable of looking after their child or they

are able to access a suitable provision they get no respite from their parent caring role.

● When you have a child with additional needs this is not something you expect or plan for and the

life you anticipated with your child is often quickly taken away leaving parents in shock .. and then

feeling guilty. Parents need to be able to make connections with other parents who truly ‘get it’

parents who are going through similar experiences. They also need to be able to feel that their child is

being looked after in a suitable environment that is safe to meet their child’s unique needs so that as

an exhausted parent they can actually get a chance to breathe!

● Therefore closing The Parks will remove a valuable support to many families