A bitter debate between parents and the Minister for Education has been re-ignited over the most effective way of teaching children with autism.
The war of words has focused mainly on the merits of applied behavioural analysis (ABA), an intensive form of one-to-one tuition which can bring about dramatic changes among some autistic children.
Many parents maintain that with proper early intervention, many children have a chance of escaping the most severe effects of their condition. Studies over the past 40 years indicate that up to half of pre-school children with autism who receive this form of tuition can go on to mainstream primary schools without additional support.
The Department of Education is more sceptical and says ABA is just one of a number of treatment options. It says there is no definitive evidence to show that one approach is better than another and therefore will not fund special ABA programmes.
Given the entrenched views on both sides, it is little surprise that dozens of claims have ended up in court in recent years. The Ó Cuanacháin case - which made the headlines last week when the High Court adjudicated on the issue of legal costs - captured just how fiercely this battle is being fought. Over the course of seven months, different educational approaches were debated in forensic detail with expert witnesses. With hundreds of cases already settled, and up to 150 parents considering taking similar legal actions, the war of attrition in the courts looks set to continue.
This is an unsustainable route - both for parents who are desperate to see their children progress and for the department which is bogged down in expensive and lengthy legal proceedings. One possible solution is to refer disputes over the methodology of children's education to a form of independent mediation, staffed by a panel of independent and qualified professionals. Such a panel could consider the opinions of both sides, the assessments of various experts, and make binding recommendations on a child's education needs.
The current system, in which the department effectively has complete control over what method of education a child receives, does not make sense. Neither does it make sense to lock parents out of the process of deciding a child's education, especially when legislation in this area emphasises the value of parental participation. What does make sense is a system which involves everyone in a meaningful way and helps to rebuild trust between parents and the education authorities. The alternative is maintaining a dysfunctional system which serves the interests of no one. Parents will continue to fight for their children's rights and the department will continue to defend its current policy in the courts.
And if that continues children who are in vital need of appropriate early intervention will continue to miss out on the precious opportunity of reaching their full potential. There must, surely, be a better way.