ONE lesson that must be learned from the much-delayed implementation of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work for teachers is that "national pay agreements do not provide a suitable framework for negotiating on the introduction of sweeping changes in education", the president of the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland told the convention.
"The issues are too complex and the sums of money available are far too restricted," Mr Johns Mulcahy said. This was one reason ASTI had recommended that its members reject Partnership 2000, although most other unions accepted that agreement.
Mr Mulcahy said that at a time when multinational high-tech companies and business groupings such as IBEC recognised that spending on education was a strategic investment rather than a cost, it was "a matter of national concern" that investment in students continued to fall far below the levels in other developed countries.
He noted that in the most recent OECD survey Ireland was 12th out of 14 EU countries in terms of expenditure per second-level student, and had the highest pupil-teacher ratio in the European Union.
"Deep was our disappointment when money was not provided in this year's Budget to increase the capital programme for building at second level and reducing class sizes."
The ASTI president strongly urged the Government to make special provision for badly-needed subjects like languages and information technology.
Last week's Forfas report had estimated that there were only three computers per 100 students in second-level schools in 1995; much of the equipment used was unsuitable for modern multimedia applications; and little use was being made of instructional software or computer-aided learning.
"As yet our Government does not have a policy for promoting the integration of information technology into the curriculum. Are our students to be the last in Europe to avail of the benefits of this revolution in communications?" he asked.
Turning to the Employment Equality Bill, he said its Section 37 still legalised discrimination on religious grounds in church-run schools. "We shall not accept discrimination against any member on these grounds, and we will fully support any members threatened with dismissal on the basis of their personal and private beliefs"
Mr Mulcahy said everywhere he looked "the professionalism of teachers is under attack and teachers are being `deprofessionalised'". In England "the teaching profession is being constantly and deliberately undermined by sustained attacks one standards in classrooms and training colleges".
He feared the Government "seems to be catching the same disease". Nowhere in the Education Bill was the word "profession" mentioned in the context of teachers, he added.
Mr Mulcahy strongly attacked the vagueness of the Bill's section dealing with appeals. "It would seem that decisions on school organisation, for example, relating to homework, to classroom assessment or subject allocation can all be subject to appeal. It means that teachers' time will be given over to manufacturing paper trails to cover themselves from irksome appeals rather than preparing lessons and actually teaching."
He asked what sort of wrong messages would be sent if a student who appealed against a severe sanction for possession of drugs had that decision reversed; or if a bully was able to successfully overturn a similar sanction on appeal; or if a victim of sexual harassment was forced, because of the appeals system, to stay in the same school or even the same classroom as the harasser.
He also strongly criticised the Government for failing to mention the White Paper's proposal to set up a teaching council in the Bill, an omission he called "an indictment of Government indifference to the professional status of teachers".
The omission of any mention of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment from the Bill was "inexplicable, inexcusable and, indeed, insulting to all those involved over the years in curricular planning", he added.