NEW personnel functions with an inspectoral role for A post holders and school principals could result from the implementation of Partnership 2000, the successor to the PCW. In return for the composite terms of the agreement - including both the basic terms of 7.25 per cent, in addition to the 2 per cent local bargaining element - teachers will be required to embrace particular principles of change. One such principle is "management of performance at all levels", increases above the composite terms of the agreement may be offered to the new grades of assistant principal and principal for new duties.

Teachers are habitually involved in change and innovation. But the change now being sought would fundamentally alter the ethos of the schools and, indeed, of third level colleges. The current ethos is one of common endeavour among colleagues, driven by professional commitment to students. The restriction of personnel functions to principals and of inspection to an external inspectorate has, on the whole, worked well.

In the third level sector, the new system could involve stronger personnel functions and a new role in lecturer appraisal for heads of department.

The case for these changes has not been convincingly argued. Many teachers believe that their implementation would seriously damage a successful system. The changes merit free debate among the partners in education. Such free debate is not possible in circumstances in which teachers may be denied even the basic pay increases of Partnership 2000 unless they agree to implement them.

The continued existence of the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme, which could be used instead of Partnership 2000 to secure pay increases, is incompatible with the designs of the Department of Education. The decisive criterion of pay comparability in the existing. scheme would be in conflict with the determination to force through major changes at the point of a pay rise. The elimination of the existing scheme within six months is, therefore, proposed.

On average, a teacher pays twice as much income tax as a self employed person. Yet ICTU have provided a table to unions which shows that the after tax income of a teacher will increase by less than that of a self employed person and by a full 1.5 per cent less than that of an employee in the private sector.

THE speculative explanation centres on a 1 per cent reduction in employee PRSI in the private sector, a 0.5 per cent increase in public sector PRSI and unchanged self employed PRSI. It is, however, clear from the table that the promised £900m in tax reductions will be spread over all tax payers including the self employed. As Partnership 2000 places a ceiling on pay only, the agreement will lead to a substantial transfer of wealth away from the PAYE sector.

Teachers at all levels have played a key role in providing the educated workforce which is central to the current economic boom. Partnership 2000 falls far short of due recognition.