In the media reports, it all seems so simple. Surely teachers must be balloted on a proposal to pay them £27 per hour for supervision and substitution duties which they currently perform free of charge.

But what if the story is not that simple and the central executive committee (CEC) decision is actually in the best interests of the ASTI members? Be forewarned, there are serious and complex issues at stake in these proposals that teachers must reflect on and discuss.

Now is a time for calm, strategic thinking. The supervision and substitution proposals are much more complex than a simple pay offer because they increase our contract hours, worsen our working conditions and will fundamentally change the ethos and culture in our schools.

The culture and ethos in our schools of voluntary duties, flexibility and professional collegiality enriches our educational service. Over the years teachers, in return for their basic salary, have given generously of their time and expertise to the school community. During the pay campaign, teachers were shocked and disillusioned to realise that their dedication could be so unappreciated by a Government indifferent to the caring professions.

In seeking a general pay rise the ASTI is, in fact, preserving the caring culture and ethos in our schools. But where are the supervision and substitution proposals leading us when the third "s" - namely salary - is the key issue? Do we want a culture in schools where teachers measure their contribution in hours and minutes, pounds and pence?

If every aspect of our work is to be negotiated like an industrial contract, then our first attempt is a lamentable effort. The proposals on offer were very disappointing.

In the talks the unions had sought a substantial, pensionable allowance within 22 contract hours. The TUI put a figure of £2,200 on the allowance. But the proposals on offer were £1,000 per annum before tax, non-pensionable and would increase contract hours to at least 23.5 hours. Surely a supermarket-type hourly contract is inappropriate for a caring profession and a rate of £27 per hour is a derisory offer?

The proposals lack the operational details and clarity that would avoid varying local interpretations and disputes.

Extra-curricular activities are excluded from these proposals and would be one of the first casualties. The grossly underpaid part-time teachers would be further exploited under these proposals. A myriad of special claims and token deals is not what ASTI members have campaigned for. The way forward is through a general ancillary duties allowance of at least £3,000 per annum - pensionable.

A motion was proposed at the CEC meeting to put these proposals to a ballot of members. An amendment to recommend a rejection of the proposals was taken first, and passed. Then the substantive motion was defeated. The general consensus at the meeting was that this was a very poor deal.

Our experience in previous ballots shows us the futility of putting a poor package to ballot. It simply creates despair, confusion and division. The essence of representative leadership is to negotiate real and substantial terms that can be recommended to members. It is not the essence of democracy to put flawed proposals to ballot.

How could you offer teachers a ballot on a £1,000 annual payment for additional contract hours - non-pensionable - when they refused a £1,700 lump sum from the Labour Court earlier this year?

Teaching is a demanding and stressful career, despite the myth of short working hours. Teachers leave home at 7.30 a.m. and arrive home at 6 p.m. in most cases.

Supervision and substitution are not identical or simple tasks, but are demanding duties that involve the loss of breaktimes, lunchtimes, class preparation times and correcting times. We must value our professional expertise and ensure that it is adequately remunerated.

At the end of the meeting, the officers of the union proposed the motion that is now going to ballot - withdrawing from voluntary supervision and substitution. We must assume that they intend to use a positive vote in the ballot as leverage in future negotiations. It is in everybody's interest to reach an appropriate, professional agreement as soon as possible and restore industrial harmony.