Two mothers from Brighton have been prohibited from entering a primary school following a dispute about the educational provision for their children, who have special educational needs and disabilities.

Louise Stevenson, 44, and Dionne Boxall, 46, both have sons attending Moulsecoomb Primary School located on The Highway in Brighton.

Their children, nine-year-old Aaron and nine-year-old Teddy, both require additional support with their learning and development.

The families stated they have reached a breaking point regarding how the school has handled their sons’ requirements.

The school has denied these allegations, stating that its employees dedicate considerable effort to meeting each child’s needs and collaborating with parents and guardians.

According to the mothers, the boys were overlooked during a school photography session and did not receive their academic reports until they repeatedly requested them from staff members.

Additionally, the mothers claimed the children were prevented from playing together in the playground or participating in school excursions because the institution lacks sufficient personnel, despite the boys receiving supplementary local authority funding.

Louise admitted that the situation caused her to lose her composure and use profanity when addressing the headteacher.

She expressed that she did not feel remorseful about this outburst, which resulted in her being barred from the school grounds until September 24.

Following the incident, she acknowledged to her children that her behaviour was inappropriate, though she maintained she would not change her response if given another opportunity.

Aaron has been diagnosed with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and additional mental health challenges, with his mother reporting that his developmental age falls below his chronological age.

Teddy also experiences a developmental age that is younger than his actual age, along with developmental language disorder, a condition affecting communication abilities, and heightened sensitivity to sound.

Approximately two years prior, both children were assigned to a dedicated class for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, designated as the Malala class, by the school’s previous leadership.

During this period, the boys received support from a staff member described as excellent, and their mothers reported that the children settled successfully, demonstrated improvement, and their conduct showed marked development.

In late March, on the concluding day of the school holiday period, the families were informed that the existing class structure would be discontinued and their sons would be taught by an alternative educator.

Louise stated that an electronic message arrived that morning, leaving both women taken aback.

According to Louise, Aaron was legally entitled to a transition strategy to facilitate his adjustment to the new teacher, but this arrangement was not established.

The proposed plan to have both the departing and incoming educators present in the classroom for a fortnight to assist the boys reportedly extended for only three days.

As the children experienced difficulties adapting to the change, the mothers submitted multiple formal grievances regarding the revised class arrangement.

When assurances of improvements were offered, Louise and Dionne initially accepted them in good faith, but they assert that these commitments were not honoured.

On July 14, the situation escalated when Aaron experienced an anxiety episode prior to arriving at school, trembling on the grass area outside the premises, due to uncertainty about his upcoming placement.

Louise then confronted the disabilities coordinator about her son’s immediate future.

Upon receiving no satisfactory response, she removed her children from the school premises, including her younger daughter Rosie.

She explained that she felt confident that if she managed to get Aaron through the school doors, she would inevitably receive a telephone call reporting problematic behaviour.

The headteacher approached Louise as she was departing at approximately 8.50am.

When the headteacher inquired whether everything was acceptable, Louise stated that she saw red and lost her temper, directing profanity at the headteacher.

This interaction resulted in her temporary exclusion from the school grounds.

The correspondence issued to Louise, prohibiting her entry to the school premises, stated that as a consequence of this occurrence, she was forbidden from accessing the school grounds with immediate effect.

The prohibition would remain until September 24, 2026, and until such time as the headteacher was satisfied that future contact with the school, whether conducted in person, by telephone, electronic communication, or through online platforms, could occur in a respectful and suitable manner.

The children’s conduct has deteriorated, and Teddy received two suspensions prior to the summer break.

While Aaron will not be returning to Moulsecoomb Primary School, Teddy is scheduled to resume attendance in September.

Dionne has been informed that any additional incidents involving misbehaviour could result in permanent expulsion.

She noted that during her 25 years of transporting children to and from Moulsecoomb Primary School, none of her offspring had ever been suspended.

The school has proposed that the boys attend a specialist facility situated on the premises, which operates under the administration of Brighton and Hove City Council.

However, the mothers stated they were informed that the children would only be permitted entry in a temporary capacity.

The mothers have established an internet-based petition concerning the school’s approach to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, which had accumulated 205 signatures at the time of publication.

Louise expressed her belief that every child deserves acceptance and equality.

She stated that the institution must recognise that all children hold significance.

The families described themselves as completely drained from their efforts to secure an education for their sons, emphasising that this had always been their sole objective.

A representative for Moulsecoomb Primary School stated that the institution firmly denies any suggestion that pupils have been subjected to discriminatory treatment at the school.

While it would be unsuitable to publicly address matters pertaining to individual children, the school’s employees dedicate substantial effort to supporting each pupil’s requirements and collaborating with families.

As a mainstream educational establishment, the school expressed satisfaction in providing specialised amenities, including a sensory room and activity room, to assist all pupils with their educational development.

Positions within the school’s autism provision are distributed by the local authority according to individual requirements.

Moulsecoomb has received commendation for its dedication to supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities.

The school continues to prioritise establishing a secure and supportive environment where all pupils can learn and develop, as well as maintaining a safe and supportive working environment for all staff members.