Statements on Special Educational Needs - 21st February 2008

Statements on Special Educational Needs - 21st February 2008
Senator David Norris: I wish to share my time
with Senator Ross, with the agreement of the
House.
I welcome the Minister and agree with many of
the points made by Senator Joe O’Toole regarding
the effort she has put into this area. However,
I believe she is misguided. Autism is now recognised
and identified as a condition but it is very
complex. One does not speak of autism on its
own, but rather an autistic spectrum. That means
that each child needs an individual assessment,
which is not provided at present.
The Minister is wrong when she refers to fully
qualified teachers. While they may be fully qualified
as primary school teachers, they do not have
the professional, focused expertise that is absolutely
necessary in dealing with this situation. The
O´
Cuanacha´ in family visited this House recently.
Theirs is a celebrated case, with which I will not
deal in great detail now. However, I have read
some of the transcripts of the court case and it
appears the evidence was unmercifully dragged
out. That raised the costs enormously. I know
they are not being pursued for those costs but
they still have been left with an enormous bill. It
seems that the case was an attempt to give a
bloody nose to the front-runner to intimidate
others and discourage them from taking a
similar action.
The young man at the centre of this case was
assessed by numerous psychologists but has been
denied the treatment that is regarded as appropriate
by his parents and by the psychologists, on
the say so of civil servants. This is what is behind
the statement by Deputy Mary O’Rourke in the
Da´ il recently. She obviously did not make that
statement for partisan motives.
Many Senators spoke on the Disability Bill in
this House. We fought a battle to try to ensure
that the Act would be rights based. However,
despite everything we did, as the Bill was passed,
the caveat of “resources allowing” was added.
That means there is no right to an individual
assessment of needs for children with autism,
which is absolutely vital for them.
I refer to an article published in The Irish
Times on 15 February. I will not list all of its
authors, but it was written by the leading scientists
in the field, working in universities in
Northern Ireland and the Republic. They begin
by stating that they were dismayed, yet no longer
surprised, by the justification given by the Minister
for depriving so many children with a diagnosis
of autism of the only scientifically validated
treatment approach to autism, ABA. This contradicts
the Minister’s comments, which are also
contradicted in a letter I received from a senior
research scientist. He stated that, as a former
research scientist, he can testify that ABA is the
only remediation approach for which there is a
strong peer reviewed scientific basis for its effectiveness
in helping the children in question.
The Minister refers to it as teaching behaviour,
but it is not a question of teaching behaviour.
Children with autism manifest behavioural problems,
such as hand-clapping, head-rocking, selfharming
and so on, which means that it is impossible
for them to have real access to education
before the behavioural problems are addressed.
As such, ABA plays a clear role. Having qualified
primary teachers does not address the situation.
To dismiss the matter as only teaching behaviour
is, with the greatest respect to the Minister,
incorrect.
The idea that there is a range of methods and
that the eclectic approach is appropriate is disturbing.
We all know that autistic children do not
respond positively to changes in routine. If an
eclectic approach is taken, they may find it disturbing
and their learning may not be assisted.
The article in The Irish Times stated:
The unbiased literature reviews and related
research of the task-force undoubtedly found
that following the method of applied behaviour
analysis was by far superior to other
approaches. ABA was also consistently advocated
by other bodies which had researched
this same issue (eg New York, California,
Canada).
The next article is also from The Irish Times. The
first paragraph praises the Minister and no one
suggests that she has malign intentions, but it is
suggested that the children have been failed in a
number of ways. At pre-school level, part-time
home tuition with a primary teacher is primarily
offered. Few of these teachers are available or
have the relevant teaching qualifications, leaving
it to overwhelmed parents to source it. There is
the question of age. Everyone states that it should
not be based on age specifically, but on intervention
from the point of diagnosis, which must
be early. What of the millions spent in fighting
court cases?
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: Had the millions that
have been spent been applied in these situations,
the Minister would not need to ring-fence 12
schools, divide and conquer and fight off the
other schools. It is down to the Civil Service.
Acting Chairman (Senator Maurice Cummins):
The Senator’s five minutes have elapsed.
Senator David Norris: The same situation
applies to capping. Were the intervention permitted,
it would stop a considerable number of
people ending up in institutions, another saving.
Even on the crude basis of a cost benefit analysis,
we would be ahead of the game with ABA.