Much has been written about the benchmarking process. Perhaps it is time to give a positive point of view. The term has been applied by the Government to evaluate pay rates appropriate to public sector jobs, including primary and post-primary teachers.

Across-the-board pay comparisons are not new, a comparable exercise has been carried out every four years for decades by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. Commonly referred to as the Buckley pay commission, it could as easily be termed the Buckley Benchmarking Body.

Pay comparisons within benchmarking should be acceptable to teachers, particularly since public acknowledgment by the Government that teachers' pay has become depressed. The Labour Court also found that teachers have "a sustainable case for a pay increase". It stated clearly that the Benchmarking Body's terms of reference "do not require it to introduce individual performance-related pay nor to link pay to productivity".

Benchmarking is, therefore, essentially the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) mechanism that will enable teachers' pay to be increased visa-vis comparable private and public sector employees. Surely, teachers have been seeking such a mechanism for years.

Benchmarking, however, has not been unanimously accepted by teachers, largely because the meaning of the term has been the subject of extended debate within the profession.

Much of the media debate has been based on speculation that benchmarking potentially involves an output-driven exercise comparable to Japanese business measurement techniques and/or an undertaking comparable to the British system of performance assessment.

All teachers agree that neither of these scenarios would be appropriate or acceptable within the Irish system, which values individual differences and recognises varying educational needs.

Measurement of teacher value, based on a narrow system of pupil examination performance or some form of teacher-evaluation techniques, would undermine the broad developmental roles of teachers and the continual contributions they make to developing the potential of pupils, regardless of social circumstances.

The INTO is confident that benchmarking in the Irish public service is not based on Japanese business measurement techniques, nor British educational measurement methodologies. The INTO believes benchmarking is simply a straightforward exercise of evaluating the rates of pay appropriate to various jobs within the public service.

Our confidence is based on our review of the terms of reference for the Benchmarking Body and the job evaluation scheme that has been developed. The terms state that it is planned to conduct "an in-depth and comprehensive examination and analysis of teaching grades" involving "a thorough investigation of the differences between public service and private sector employment".

This means they will evaluate the role of a teacher (duties, objectives, responsibilities, constraints etc) in relation to private sector and public sector roles, assessing disparities in terms of contributions, responsibilities, rewards etc.

The meat of this exercise clearly lies in the merit of the evaluation process being conducted. As mentioned earlier, the Benchmarking Body has developed a job evaluation scheme specifically for its job comparison purposes.

The validity of this tool in an educational context and the acceptability of it to teachers are dependent on the extent to which it is based on assessment of qualitative inputs rather than quantitative outputs. In other words, the extent to which it examines the broad skills and contributions made by teachers (the qualitative dimension) rather than the measurable performance of pupils or the outcome of teachers' evaluations (the quantitative dimension).

Teachers have, quite rightly, argued that any form of evaluation must be based on the qualitative dimension if it is to do justice to the ethos of Irish education and the broader contributions of teachers.

Assessment of documentation released by the Benchmarking Body reveals that the job evaluation tool that they have developed is focused at the qualitative input level.

Their model consists of seven factors involving: (i) knowledge and skills; (ii) judgment; (iii) leadership/teamwork; (iv) accountability and responsibility; (v) interpersonal/communication; (vi) physical demands and co-ordination; and (vii) conditions and emotional demands.

Each of these reflects what employees bring to their work (qualitative inputs), rather than what results from their work (quantitative outputs).

Applying these factors to the role of a teacher, Deloitte & Touche management consultants advise that it is likely that the evaluation will include consideration of:

The prerequisite in-depth subject education and the ongoing training in advanced teaching methods (knowledge and skills).

The continual requirement to assess the needs of individuals and the constraints of situations (judgment).

The level of responsibility for the wellbeing and development of others (leadership/teamwork).

The requirement to be responsible and answerable for actions and decisions that impact on others (accountability and responsibility).

The essential demand to communicate effectively with pupils, parents, colleagues, support agencies, departmental officials and others (interpersonal/communication skills).

The physical requirements, including stamina, standing for hours and voice projection (physical demands and co-ordination).

The often stressful social and emotional demands, particularly in areas of educational disadvantage or when working with pupils with behavioural difficulties (conditions and emotional demands).

IN PREPARATION for the benchmarking exercise and to satisfy ourselves that the role of a teacher could stand up to external evaluation, the INTO commissioned Pearn Kandola, a firm of expert occupational psychologists to carry out an independent assessment of the competency requirements of the role of a primary teacher.

Having assessed the skills and contributions of teachers in their various roles, the experts produced a series of in-depth competency frameworks consisting of elements such as managing others; influencing others; decision-making; planning and organising; commitment/ dedication and resilience.

The results of their work provide exhaustive support for the significant qualitative contributions made by teachers, relevant to the job evaluation factors to be used by the Benchmarking Body.

On the basis of their research, the experts concluded that the role of a teacher was "complex, wide-ranging and comparable to managerial professions". We are confident this independent expert support further substantiates our case for remuneration consistent with comparable private and public sector employees.

This is why teachers should not fear the benchmarking process. Benchmarking recognises the qualitative dimension and is essentially about justifiable pay comparisons. We believe the issue is in the terminology.

John Carr is general treasurer of the INTO