SINCE its publication in January the Education Bill has spawned yards of newsprint and hours of broadcast debate. Its fabric has been tugged this way and that as various interest groups firm up their positions and attempt to shape the Bill to their liking.

It is only now, in the wake of the PCW agreement, that the teacher unions are giving the Bill their undivided attention. It's likely to dominate the unions' annual congresses this week, by way of emergency motions, as the agendas were drawn up before the Bill was published.

All of the partners in education - management, teacher unions, religious and parents' unions - are lobbying for changes in the content of the Bill. Naturally, the proposed changes reflect the varying interests of these bodies and, as such, many are contradictory.

The Minister for Education is well known for her love of the word "consultation". However, Alice Prendergast, president of the TUI, refers to the swift passage of the Bill through its second stage, saying that the TUI would appreciate a more thorough debate in the Dail at the committee stage. "This is very important legislation and, while we welcome a good deal of the Bill, we feel a democratic debate is required," says Prendergast.

Almost all interest groups are adamant that an education Bill is needed - the question is whether the fabric of the Bill can hold, with only a few minor tucks and stitches, or whether we will see a repeat of the Universities Bill's amendments saga? The other spectre that is looming large is whether the Bill will be passed before a general election is called, and, indeed, if it will be passed at all. If a general election is called for early June, as predicted, the Bill would have to make a very swift passage through the Dail and Seanad for it to be put to the vote. To judge by the response of the ASTI alone, amendments will dominate the committee stage. The union has published a booklet which contains 27 proposed amendments. John White, assistant general secretary of the ASTI, notes that the biggest change proposed in the Bill is the establishment of the 10 regional education boards which are given a "very authoritative role".

The ASTI's major concern is that these boards will eat up scarce resources. However, if this problem is overcome, White says that the boards could play an important supportive role for schools.

He points to the ASTI's second amendment which adds "temporary withdrawal units and tuition centres for severely disruptive and/or disturbed pupils" to the list of support services in the Bill. Discipline is a problem, says White, and there is currently no real way of coping with these pupils. The only real method is suspension and expulsion - both of these are extreme and bring their own problems, he adds.

AS to the role the regional boards might play in decentralising power, he says that paradoxically the boards may have the opposite effect. Many second level schools are intimately linked with their communities - formalising this could dilute this feeling of identity. The Irish system is not a highly centralised one, he says. Schools have a high degree of autonomy:

they have decision making powers with regard to entry, suspensions and expulsions, choice of curricular programme, textbooks and school ethos.

The ASTI's briefing document on the Bill states that ". . . in this context, the very act of supposed decentralisation has the potential to create powerful regional boards that will gradually weaken the current measure of self governing autonomy of school."

White says that the omission from the Bill of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is a major flaw. "The NCCA has no statutory base. It is merely an advisory body... it could be abolished in the morning," he adds. While he would like to see it put on a statutory basis, he says that it should continue in its advisory role. "The curriculum in Ireland has never become politicised like it has in Britain. One of the reasons is the widespread consultation through the NCCA."

Charlie Lennon, general secretary of the ASTI, has expressed concerns about he proposed appeals mechanism in the Bill. The Bill states that where the decision of a teacher or a school materially affects the education of a student then the parent or student over 16 can appeal. "If that is the situation there will be millions of appeals over a year in any one school," says Lennon. He describes the proposed appeals mechanism as the Bill's single most damaging proposal.

The other second level union, the TUI, has taken up a different stance to the ASTI. "We have been in favour of the education boards for a long time," says Alice Prendergast. The TUI has three main concerns about the Bill to protect the conditions of members to protect and defend public sector education and to have continuing and enhanced professional involvement in national and local education planning.

Prendergast is concerned that the Minister's powers are being transferred to the education boards and that the boards will now be the final recourse in the case of dismissal. "People who have transferred via amalgamation from the vocational sector to the community and comprehensive sector currently enjoy the protection of the VECs," she adds. "But the situation now is unclear. We have taken legal advice and it appears that past circular letters (from the Minister) cannot be relied upon unless they are included in the Bill. All of the past will be gone at a stroke of the pen."

The whole area of inspection as a minefield, says Prendergast. The Bill puts a new role and new powers in place for the inspectorate - something which has not been negotiated with the unions. "Is this the future for industrial relations - to enact a Bill first and talk to the unions later?"

On the appeals issue, the TUI is not against an appeals system but parents should be appealing against a school rather than an individual teacher, she says. A proper mechanism with an independent chair should be considered and a tribunal could serve as a final appeals resort.

THE INTO shares ASTI concerns about the resources that would be needed to put education boards in place but it will work with any structure that is proved fair and equitable, comments John Carr, the INTO's general treasurer designate. "Whatever structure is put in pace must be funded over and above the education budget," he says.

"We don't have difficulty with ownership of schools but we do have a strong view on the management. There should be equal representation of the patron, teaching staff and parents." Carr says that the union has serious problems with the school plan as outlined in the Bill. "In our plan, teachers sat down and worked out the school plan for the year. It tended to be aspirational in nature... we would have a concern from the educational point of view that, if the school plan is used as an accountability mechanism, the aspiration element will abate. Teachers will put in it only what it is possible to achieve. The emphasis has shifted from the plan to the product."

He says that the proposed appeals mechanism is cumbersome and unnecessary and that the INTO believes that this whole section of the Bill should be reviewed and replaced. The Minister has said that of a teaching council Bill is next on the agenda, according to Carr, but he believes it should have been prepared in tandem with the Education Bill.