Parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) said that they were disappointed by the council’s response to their petition on school holidays and after-school activities.
SEND Us A Break campaigner Helen Irving presented a petition signed by almost 1,400 people to Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet highlighting the “insufficient childcare services and short breaks” for parent and carers.
Labour cabinet member Mitchie Alexander responded to the petition, saying that there were 678 sessions in the summer, of which 418 were specialist sessions for children and young people with complex needs.
Councillor Alexander said that there was a need for longer sessions in the holidays and more sessions for children with complex needs.
Campaigners were unable to respond in the meeting but have said since that they felt angry and disappointed with the council’s response.
SEND Us A Break said: “The response from the council and the statistics they provided about the childcare they had offered shrouds the real situation here.
“(The) sessions they refer to are half days and the council doesn’t say how many children with SEND these sessions were divided between.
“Many children with SEND, particularly those with complex needs who need one-to-one or two-to-one support, were only offered four days across the whole of the six-week summer holidays.
“In October half-term, children with complex needs were offered one day from 10.30m to 4pm and we already know that in the Christmas holidays the provision for children with complex needs is no more than this.
“For those families accessing the childcare provided over the summer, there were many occasions where the provision did not appropriately meet the child’s needs for all kinds of reasons.
“(These included) inaccessible premises, disengaged agency staff providing one-to-one support and, in some cases, basic needs were not met.
“In contrast, children without SEND can access a vast array of holiday clubs with all kinds of activities in all different geographical area of the city.
“Parents can access clubs five days a week if they need to be able to work.
“There is a real issue of inequality here. Parent-carers already have a much higher parental load to carry in parenting/caring for a child with SEND. This places an enormous burden on families – practically, emotionally and financially.”
Helen Irving spoke when presenting the petition to the cabinet, saying that she got through the summer holidays by taking three weeks’ leave, one unpaid, and relied heavily on friends and her employer’s flexibility.
Another parent, who asked not to be named, has three children, one of them with permanent physical and severe learning disabilities.
She said that she found it challenging to work to provide financial support for her family so that they could continue living in their house which was suitable for her child’s needs.
She said: “Last summer was very challenging. It took hours and hours of work trying to put in place childcare to meet his needs. Arrangements weren’t finalised until very close to the start of the holidays.
“Some arrangements fell through. Another arrangement did not meet his needs. And all of this caused a lot of stress and more unpaid time off work than I could manage.”
The short day offered during the half-term break meant that she had to take most of the week off work, without pay.
The council was working with special schools to organise after-school clubs and wraparound care, she said.
And the council was also understood to be working with the Parent Carers’ Council (PaCC) on some of the details.
The risk is that if a parent can no longer cope and a child with complex needs is taken into care, the council will face a bill that is much more expensive than the cost of respite care.
The “listening” Labour council who repeatedly deny that their new Cabinet system and process changes reduce public participation, when this article gives a good example of exactly that happening: “Campaigners were unable to respond in the meeting but have said since that they felt angry and disappointed with the council’s response.”
It’s absurd that at a public council meeting on something so important as support for children with special educational needs and disabilities that parents could not respond to councillors at the meeting because of process. Instead, parents were forced to listen to a load of drivel and excuses form councillors and essentially silenced instead of being able to communicate their concerns about the council’s position at the meeting properly.
Beyond shocking.
You’re conflating not liking an response with not listening, which is completely untrue in this instance. Especially since the context of the petition was agreed with.
A clearer response on next steps and how to address this challenge is reasonable though. This article doesn’t specify if that was mentioned at all.