The State and the Minister for Education and Science have a legal duty to ensure the quality of education available to students. The board of management in a school has legal responsibility for the quality of the education available to the children in their school. Quality has to be evaluated.

Most parents of primary school children are familiar with the fact that the school inspector visits schools from time to time to examine the work of the school, to advise and support the principal and staff, or to oversee the work of a young teacher in their probation year. There has been no such process in the private second-level sector.

School evaluation is a function of the inspectorate in the Education Act. Through "whole school evaluation" the inspectors from the Department of Education and Science will carry out an evaluation of the quality of education being provided by a particular school.

All the evidence shows that for the individual child, the quality of their teacher is the most important factor. The well-being and educational rights of children cannot be safeguarded without assessment of the work of that teacher.

Commitments have been given by the Department of Education and Science, in the documentation on whole school evaluation, to evaluate the quality of teaching. In discussions with the Department the National Parents Council - Primary was assured that the whole school evaluation process would include the evaluation of individual teachers. This commitment is given the status of a legal duty for the inspectorate in the Education Act. We are dissatisfied with this aspect of the process in the pilot project.

As far as can be seen, while there may be some appraisal of the work of individual teachers, this is neither recorded nor reported upon. In these circumstances, how can an individual teacher who needs to be supported in particular ways get that support arising out of the appraisal?

There are deep concerns that what we are seeing happening here will serve only to further deepen and embed a negative culture, which views the appraisal of teachers as a no-go area for the Department. This negative attitude will underpin the resistance to the supportive assessment of a teacher's work and delay the possibility of moving on to more open systems, including peer review.

The role of the school principal under the Education Act will be seriously undermined as a result of not getting from the whole school evaluation team of inspectors the appraisal of the work of individual teachers.

There are also serious concerns at the commitment given to teacher unions that the results of whole school evaluation will not be used for comparative purposes. It is difficult to understand how this commitment could have been given by the body which has the responsibility to look closely at the evidence for what is working in schools, and what could work better. This kind of supportive comparison could improve schools through the sharing of understandings about good practice. It could have a significant impact in tackling literacy problems.

In reality the pilot phase of whole school evaluation cannot accurately be described as "whole" school evaluation. As carried out, it did not engage the whole school community. The absence of input from the key stakeholders - the students - and another essential stakeholder group, the parents, represents a fundamental flaw in the process. Any evaluation that focuses only on the providers of the service and does not give the users of the service an opportunity to be heard, cannot be termed evaluation. It is a partial review. There is a dangerous flaw in the methodology of the inspectorate.

The reports of the whole school evaluation must be available to parents, prospective parents and, in appropriate format, to students. The Education Act provides for this. It is hard to understand why this aspect of the new legislation was also ignored in the pilot phase.

The teacher unions, at primary and second level, have taken very differing stances on whole school evaluation and on the Partnership for Prosperity and Fairness negotiations.

Instead of resisting evaluation, the teaching profession as a whole should be actively looking for ways of assessing the quality of their work and being accountable for a high-quality service for students.

Teachers are professionals working in an accountable public service with a multibillion pound annual budget. What gives some union leaders the view that they won't have this work assessed? Teacher unions have, of course, legitimate concerns about pay and conditions. Some seem to have got professionalism and union concerns confused.

Irrespective of any negotiations with teacher unions, National Parents' Council - Primary strongly supports both whole school evaluation and the assessment of the work of the individual teacher. Nothing should happen that could seek to water down provisions in the brand-new Education Act.

The Minister has a responsibility for children and will get a lot of public support for standing firm on the issues of whole school evaluation and teacher assessment.

Those who are resisting should stand outside the box and look in - look at this from the point of view of the students and their parents.

Fionnuala Kilfeather is the chief executive of National Parents Council - Primary.