How teachers' deal crumbled in frustration

IT TOOK almost two years to negotiate, and only weeks to negotiate, and only weeks to unravel. Although backed by narrow majority of all teachers, the Government's £66.7 million offer on pay and conditions for the State's 40,000 teachers stands in tatters after being rejected by both second level unions.

It won't be easy to find a way forward from the fiasco. For all its complexity and expensive price tag, the deal simply crumbled before the sustained onslaught of frustrated, angry and disappointed teachers.

Young and old, urban and rural, each brought his or her own grievance to bear on the offer. The complex package was only as strong as its weakest proposal, as teachers refused to make the leap of faith asked of them.

The stage is set next week for the most militant conferences for years, although the anger of the rank and file may he directed as much at the union leaderships as at Ms Breathnach.

Barring an unexpected outbreak of moderation, second level teachers seem set for a collision course with the Government, one which could result in industrial action in schools within weeks.

Their decisions next week could have a crucial bearing on other public sector pay negotiations, as well as tipping the balance with the union movement for or against another national pay agreement in succession to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).

The Minister for Education fought hard in Cabinet to obtain more money for a deal with the teachers. Ms Breathnach eventually secured a commitment of £66.7 million from the Department of Finance on the understanding that this was a last offer.

With the benefit of hindsight, the Minister's present problems can be traced back directly to an error of judgment made last autumn. It was in August - just a fortnight before the schools were to reopen, but when most teachers were still on holiday - that Ms Breathnach's Department issued its controversial and ill timed circular Time in School.

The circular set out to "secure" the length of the school year, and to stamp out the practice of unauthorised school closures. If its aims were laudable, the delivery was clumsy. So much so that the protests against it were led by school managers, who for years had been campaigning for exactly these measures.

The managers pointed out with ample justification that schools had already prepared their schedules for the year, and could hardly change them at a fortnight's notice, even if the staff and students were around in mid August to be told about the changes. The Department later tried to "clarify" the document, but the damage had been done.

Worst of all, teachers saw in the Department's fiat a declaration of mistrust in the staff who run the schools, and a breach of Ms Breathnach's frequently expressed call for partnership in education. Teachers felt they were being treated like the pupils they taught, by being told to account for their hours, and they didn't like it at all.

Both the ASTI and the TUI have conducted post mortems on the rejection of the Government offer by their memberships. The ASTI has come up with a list of more than 20 elements of the package with which its members are dissatisfied. The TUI is concerned that the Department demanded its own definition of change and flexibility from teachers - longer hours and extra duties but refused to recognise the flexibility already shown by the profession.

The Government offer did little to encourage the hopes of part time teachers of a full time post: at the other end of the scale, its provisions on early retirement proved profoundly disappointing to many older teachers.

Improving the terms of the deal on early retirement, however, would prove hugely expensive. A cheaper option for the Minister to consider would be to "adjust" the requirements for extra productivity contained in the offer. After all, both sides agree that teachers already give far more extra productivity on a voluntary basis than is stipulated in the package.