It's a disgrace..

TestTransmission

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0129/autism.html

There is so many families in this situation having to pay fees so their children can have education and hopefully integrate them into mainstream schooling.
My sister is actually a Applied Behavioural Analayst and she works in one of these schools,it's a non profit private school and they do it all with any government funding.
I find it amazing that the politicians can give themselves huge pay rises and gladly not see children getting the education they deserve.

Anyone agree/disagree??

Kiith

This is a pretty heavy topic, and this is after-hours, so be prepared for some...unusual responses. Personally, i'd say that the government should fund at least part of this fee, although i dont see how it could possibly cost upwards of €5 million.

Blisterman

The government spent €5 million, of tax payers money to fight that case, when it would have cost a fraction of that, to provide the education in the first place.

Dudess

Very tough. Having done a little journalistic research into the whole area, the general consensus is that autistic children thrive under the ABA system.

Kiith wrote: »

This is a pretty heavy topic, and this is after-hours, so be prepared for some...unusual responses.

Maybe, but serious topics are discussed here too, and with plenty of intelligent and insightful input. Yes, serious topics seem to be idiot magnets but that just adds an interesting dimension to it. So, in short, leave my After Hours alone! :mad:

tallaght01

It's only a disgrace if that type of education has been shown to be VERY beneficial to autistic children.

It may well be. I have no idea, but I'd like to see the opposing arguments, and the reasons why they lost the case.

tallaght01

This is what the story says about the ruling :

rte wrote:

Seán has access to some State-funded ABA tuition at his school in Co Wicklow.

However, Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled there was not sufficient evidence to determine that the model of education provided by the State was not appropriate.

Morlar

Blisterman wrote: »

The government spent €5 million, of tax payers money to fight that case, when it would have cost a fraction of that, to provide the education in the first place.

I know I will get flamed for this but what the hell. The govt were forced by the parents to defend their position - this ended up costing €5,000,000.00 which the judge decided it would be unfair to burden the parents with. So the govt has to pay their own defence costs.

If the govt simply caved to begin with they would thereby set a precedent whereby any child requiring ANY kind of specialists at any point would have to have one paid for by the state. This would imo eventually boil down to one on one specialists for everything and would eventually be re-challenged to include attention deficit disorder etc

I can see how it is rough on the parents in this case however I can also see that the state is not a bottomless pit of money to hire one on one specialists for every developmental problem that any child may ever have.

AngryBadger

I sympathize with the familys situation, however as stated the ruling was that the education being provided was adequate. It's not simply a case of "well that €5,000,000 would have paid for the lads education", if the government caved on this then suddenly they would have a bill of many times this sum to provide an education they have judged to be unnecessary.

Lux23

ABA works with some autistic children and if it is having a definite affect on them, then the government should either provide ABA teachers or pay a big portion if the fees in these schools.

My brother is autistic and at nearly 20 has never said more than a couple of words. I wonder if he was born 2 years ago what he could have achieved? Its sad. At least if you have a child like that these days there are people out there who know what to do with them.

TestTransmission

ABA has been proven worldwide to improve an autistic childs/teenager with social skills and linguistic skills.
I have been told this first hand by ppl who work in this area(they have witnessed it themselves).Their point is that if the money is provided for these kids at an early age,they will sooner be integrated into mainstream schooling and of course then college.This will actually then cost the government less money in the long run,as they will develop into hard working developed adults(paying taxes like everyone does).
Im just sorry that more ppl just dont feel this way..

Sleepy

Is it just me or is it pretty stupid to run up a legal bill of 5 million when there's no guarantee you'll win either the case or costs?

I'd also like to see the breakdown of that legal bill - no doubt it's the usual extortion by the legal profession. I don't blame the government for this one (rare, I know), I blame the greedy prick who let this couple run up that amount of debt with them.

Simple option for the family - don't pay the lawyers, who's going to go after them for the bill? It'd be terrible PR for any legal firm.

Mr. Incognito

Well, the problem with ABA is that it is not a cure or treatment for autism, it merely rewards socially acceptable behaviour and discourages unacceptable social behavor. It's not a "treatment" per se as the government contents more of a training, for lack of a better analogy like teaching your dog to be obedient.

On the linguistics point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis

Language: ABA and discrete trials are seen as less effective for improving the ability to use language to communicate effectively

I can see how it would be beneficial for parents to have a more obedient child but ABA is not a "cure" for autism.

TestTransmission

SetantaL wrote: »

Well, the problem with ABA is that it is not a cure or treatment for autism, it merely rewards socially acceptable behaviour and discourages unacceptable social behavor. It's not a "treatment" per se as the government contents more of a training, for lack of a better analogy like teaching your dog to be obedient.

On the linguistics point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis



I can see how it would be beneficial for parents to have a more obedient child but ABA is not a "cure" for autism.

One last post ,what exactly would you say should be done with children with autism?........nothing...just let them rot.
Im not saying im some type of expert or trained on the subject but i dont believe everything i read in wikipedia

Mr. Incognito

Hey- I'm not expert on social intergration nor am I am I in any position of power, all I'm highlighting is why the Supreme Court doesn't class ABA as an "education", merely conditioning. But then again, wouldn't it be great if there was a public outrage, the government funded ABA so the autistic kids would sit quietly down the back and your sister gets a large raise. Yipee.

FakeRedHead

SetantaL wrote: »

Well, the problem with ABA is that it is not a cure or treatment for autism .

You are mistaken.

ABA most definitely is a treatment for autism. It is the main educational therapy that is used to help those with ASD learn.

It is not about obedience training. It is about breaking down learning into small parts and rewarding the child when that part is mastered. Many children with ASD don't have the urge to learn as typical children do and have to be encouraged to do so with reinforcers or rewards.

It is enormously successful as a therapy for autism especially if used when the child is very young. I have seen a number of children who had no language or learning skills at age two or three reach typical level in most areas after two years of intensive ABA teaching.

Not all children with ASD are this lucky. It depends on the nature of the autism there to begin with. But at least it gives them a chance.

It costs approximately €45,000 pa to educate a child using ABA methods, substantially higher than the unproven 'eclectic' model the Dept of Education currently favours.

Those who begin ABA before the age of 3 are often able to enter mainstream schooling at age five with very little additional supports.

By denying children the chance to receive ABA therapy, the government is being shortsighted. Instead of giving these children the chance to lead full independent lives they are risking them being a burden on the state as adults.

Nightwish

My sister is an ABA tutor. She first worked for the Saplings school, which gets very little government funding. Now she works privately for 2 autistic children, 1 of which has improved so much can now go onto mainstream school next year. If he didnt have early intervention ABA he would never have been able to do so.

I find it appalling that the government dont entertain the ABA teaching model. My family tried to make it an election issue in our area. We were paid a lot of lip service by the various politicians who of course didnt do anything. I feel so sorry for the O Cunachain family. My sister and her colleagues were in Dublin last year with them to show their support. There will be a lot of families with children now further disadvantaged because of the ruling.

tallaght01

Does anyone know the studies that show ABA is working well?

It's all very well one person saying they do, and others saying they don't. But where's the hard data?

I've not seen data either way, but I'd be very interested in reading it.

kona

jackncoke wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0129/autism.html

There is so many families in this situation having to pay fees so their children can have education and hopefully integrate them into mainstream schooling.
My sister is actually a Applied Behavioural Analayst and she works in one of these schools,it's a non profit private school and they do it all with any government funding.
I find it amazing that the politicians can give themselves huge pay rises and gladly not see children getting the education they deserve.

Anyone agree/disagree??

yes and no.

yes the kid should recieve a proper education to whatever standard is achievable with a kid with this problem.
No they shouldnt be allowed in a public school.

also the parent are crazy over the fact they have to pay legal fees.

for €5m they could have built their own school, employed trained teachers and charged other parents in the same boat for their kids to attend too.
id say they would have gotten a grant too

FakeRedHead

The definitive study was done by Lovaas in the US and published in 1987.

Nothing comparable has been done in the UK or Ireland yet (and never will be if the government gets its way).

This is a summary of the Lovaas study.
http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=528&a=3345

These are some other studies showing the same findings.
http://www.lovaas.com/research.php

Can anyone find a study showing the 'eclectic' model is superior or that ABA doesn't show results?

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

Does anyone know the studies that show ABA is working well?

Bringing in the, "one teacher, one student" point might be more productive given the forum it's in. Or perhaps the schools are not hospitals argument for a change.

It's becoming a sacred cow at this stage.

WhiteWashMan

from AH

Nevyn

kona wrote: »

yes and no.

yes the kid should recieve a proper education to whatever standard is achievable with a kid with this problem.
No they shouldnt be allowed in a public school.

So you disagree with the dept of educations inclusive eduction model ?

Nevyn

Blisterman wrote: »

The government spent €5 million, of tax payers money to fight that case, when it would have cost a fraction of that, to provide the education in the first place.

The government does not see it that way, as it would set a precedent to provide it for all children on the autism spectrum that would need it.

DublinWriter

jackncoke wrote: »

Anyone agree/disagree??

They'll just have to get in the queue behind kids requiring speech therapy, orthadonics, cystic fibrosis sufferers while Bertie & Co. gives away €60 million of our tax money to the UK government to promote N.I. as a business venue.

FakeRedHead

kona wrote: »

No they shouldnt be allowed in a public school.

Autism is a spectrum....there a million different varieties of it.
Some people with autism have lower than average IQs, some have much higher than average.
The government isn't suggesting inclusion of every child with autism into mainsteam.
It depends where they are on the spectrum.

There are a number of options depending on the type of autism:
1. ABA schools (very few places....expensive).
2. Autism 'electic' units of 6 attached to special schools (cheap).
3. Autism 'eclectic' units attached to mainstream schools (cheap).
4. Mainstream school (the cheapest).


And why am I slightly offended that this topic was moved from AH?
Scientology can be 'mainstream' but not 'autism'?
Is that going to get me banned.....I'm new here :rolleyes:

fly_agaric

Morlar wrote: »

If the govt simply caved to begin with they would thereby set a precedent whereby any child requiring ANY kind of specialists at any point would have to have one paid for by the state. This would imo eventually boil down to one on one specialists for everything and would eventually be re-challenged to include attention deficit disorder etc

Autism is a bit more serious of a condition that "ADD" or "whateveryerhavingyerself disorder"!

<sarcasm>But anyways, good to know the Irish govt will always fight tooth and nail to make sure special pleaders who might cost the good ship IrelandInc money which could be wasted better eslsewhere shut up + crawl back under their rocks where they belong..:)</sarcasm>

Morlar

fly_agaric wrote: »

Autism is a bit more serious of a condition that "ADD" or "whateveryerhavingyerself disorder"!

Yes yes thats exactly what I said autism and 'attention deficit disorder' are exactly the same - you didnt change a thing there.

The courts cannot intervene to help this child. I really wish the media and so many ill-informed people would let up on a system that would love nothing more than to help children in this situation but simply are not allowed to.

Marc Blacam and Conor Mahony have written on this and though both argue that the situation is not ideal but that the court cannot usurp the power of the executive to control the public purse. ( See, particularly, Mark de Blacam “Children, Constitutional Rights and The Separation of Powers” Irish Jurist (2002) )

As for those who said that the parent's legal team deserved not to be paid because they "took advantage" of them; this is a spurious argument. Solicitors and barristers are required to inform their clients of all the potential pitfalls and costs in taking a case like this. The Government were equally required to use their full resources to defend this claim as it is immensely dangerous precedent to set. If the Supreme Court were to grant an injunction in this case requiring education to be provided it would have two main effects:

1) It would set a precedent whereby all similar claims had to be given similar rulings and thereby tying the Government's hands potentially into the region of 100's of millions over an unlimited time frame, taking these funds out of the Government's powers to distribute for the public good no matter what the economic climate.

2) It would trigger an immediate Constitutional crisis over seperation of powers and probably, and I really do not feel this is an exaggeration, cause the collapse of the current constitutional set-up as it pertains to the relationship between the Oireachtas and the judiciary as the judiciary had usurped Executive authority ultra vires.


Ultimately, sad as it is, the courts are not the proper power for this. The ballot box and the media are the proper tools in a democracy to rectify this situation. The courts do not deserve the vitriol currently directed at them.

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote: »

As for those who said that the parent's legal team deserved not to be paid because they "took advantage" of them; this is a spurious argument. Solicitors and barristers are required to inform their clients of all the potential pitfalls and costs in taking a case like this.

Why is it a spurious argument? Any provision of credit in business is subject to terms and conditions. Would a bank be allowed to provide a customer with a loan to the tune of 5 million knowing the only way that customer can repay it is if they win a bet with their bookie?

Of course they're not, it's irresponsible lending and the banks are prohiobited from extending speculative credit of this nature for the very reason the legal representation in this case shouldn't have: they've put their clients in a position which will surely bankrupt them.

I'm not a legal expert but from what you're saying there was never any chance the couple in question could win the case as it wasn't a decision the courts had the power to make. Surely the couple then have the right to refuse to pay the legal bill as their legal team were guilty of malpractice in agreeing to take this case before the courts?

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Surely the couple then have the right to refuse to pay the legal bill as their legal team were guilty of malpractice in agreeing to take this case before the courts?

First off the legal team were not guilty of malpractice. The previous case law in this area suggested that costs would not be punitive on the applicants though there is an argument that there was a strategy to make the costs an issue to prevent cases like this from becoming more common as the problem continues to exist. I actually believe the court may have been attempting to help the issue along, refusing to award costs in an attempt to bring public pressure to bear on the issue. From a technically legal standpoint the family's legal team knew full well the possible ramifications of their action and accepted it.

From a legal standpoint the courts were technically right in the refusal to award costs. This area of law is well established and if the case failed it would be unreasonable to burden the respondent with the costs just because they were more financially capable of paying them. In a civil action against a non-State funded respondent this would be outrageous and the precedent surely carries through to taxpayers funds?

For those reading this and who aren't too up on the law you can read the judgment at www.courts.ie (it's not up yet but it usually takes a few weeks) or look at the very similar judgment in the case of Sinnott v Minister for Education, albeit the costs issue was not as relevant, just in terms of provision of educational facilities in vindication of socio-economic Constitutional rights.

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote: »

From a technically legal standpoint the family's legal team knew full well the possible ramifications of their action and accepted it.

This is what I have issue with, whether the family were prepared to go 5 million in debt or not, the legal team do not have the right to grant them that amount of credit when they have no realistic chance of repaying this unless they're granted costs in court.

Banks are open to litigation if they engage in reckless lending. If an institution which is licensed and regulated by the state can't grant this level of credit without extensive credit checking and a thorough examination of the borrowers ability to repay the debt, I fail to see how a solicitor has the right to allow someone go so far into the red without having to accept that if they lose the case they'll have to write this off as a bad debt.