The ASTI's position on bench marking has been vigorously challenged. If it is acceptable to the TUI, the INTO and other public service unions, why is it not good enough for the ASTI? I believe there are still compelling reasons why benchmarking should be rejected by ASTI members, despite the current Labour Court proposals.
How much do we know about benchmarking? The recent Buckley Report presented itself as the "First Benchmarking of Key Public Service Posts to Private Sector". The Buckley review body engaged Hay Management Consultants to evaluate posts within their terms of reference. The instrument used by Hay was "The Hay Guide Chart and Profile Method of Job Evaluation - an internationally recognised method of sizing and valuing individual jobs".
The frequency with which the consultants' reports are referred to as justification for the recommendations of the review body suggests Hay played a major role in the Buckley Report.
Could secondary teachers not accept benchmarking which uses such "internationally recognised" methods? The trouble is that none of the Hay job evaluations was published with the Buckley Report and it is difficult, if not impossible, to get them. Would not Defence Forces personnel like to know on what basis their Chief-of-Staff was downgraded by Buckley from having the same standing as the Garda Commissioner to meriting £20,000 less per annum?
How can teachers accept benchmarking if (1) they have not got proper access to the instruments and criteria being used to evaluate them; (2) they do not know the qualifications and expertise of those doing the research; and (3) they have not got access to evaluations already done for Buckley which would throw light on the process? There must be transparency.
Is the benchmarking body competent to evaluate teachers? It is to be chaired by a High Court judge. Its membership consists of a former secretary-general of the Department of Finance, an outgoing director-general of IBEC, a chief economist with Davy Stockbrokers, a management consultant and two senior trade union figures.
Has such a body got the expertise to evaluate any caring profession?
Why should teachers with many years' experience and much further training along the way be evaluated by people who have little or no knowledge or experience of education? Would teachers dare sit on a board evaluating stockbrokers?
Is it not also obvious to any neutral person that this benchmarking body is heavily weighted towards the business/financial sector? The presence of "representatives" of the Department of Finance and IBEC is enough to destroy any confidence that teachers might have in it.
The philosophy and approach to education of these organisations are based on a deeply ingrained cost-cutting culture and would not be shared by many in the teaching profession.
The presence of two trade union leaders who have been big players in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions should be reassuring. However, this is not the case because congress and the Government are united in their opposition to the ASTI's opting out of the PPF in its present format.
It is also difficult to see how the Labour Court's recommendation with regard to a single "expert", nominated by the teacher unions, will redress the lack of balance in the benchmarking body - especially as this person will not be on the benchmarking body and will only be part of a subordinate "secretariat".
The work of teachers and schools should be modelled on and very closely linked with the role of parents in the home rather than just being an induction programme for the world of work. While teachers should do all they can to prepare students for life after school, their primary responsibility is to assist parents in fostering students' overall personal development and well-being.
In addition to promoting learning and self-discipline, they must also be at one with parents in providing a secure, caring environment for children. While this might be an optional extra in much of the business world, it is essential in schools and particularly for students experiencing difficulties.
It is claimed that the Hay Guide Chart, which was used for benchmarking by the Buckley review group, can "show up the job structure in quantitative terms" using "a detailed, analytical, quantitative technique".
How can an instrument such as this assess the qualitative aspects of a caring environment? Is it possible to break up all the personal interactions between teachers and students into discrete parts and measure them all on a points scale?
Caring professions cannot be benchmarked in this way. If attempted, what is likely to happen is that the non-quantifiable caring parts of the work (e.g. giving encouragement/affirmation to each student; supporting students in time of need; working closely with parents for the good of their children, etc.) will be undermined and marginalised in favour of the more measurable aspects.
The British experience provides us with clear evidence of this happening. Are those parents who advocate benchmarking fully aware of the long-term implications of what they are supporting?
CARING professions, including teaching, should be evaluated by people who understand what these professions are about. Evaluation, as applied to education, should be part of a system that supports and empowers teachers and facilitates the development of young people.
Benchmarking is a mechanical, quantitative, incomplete instrument which does not do justice to the complexity of the human spirit. If introduced, it will prevent students from reaching their true potential in the broadest sense and lead to increased teacher demoralisation.
I believe the leadership of the TUI and the INTO are misguided in their present policy on benchmarking. They are adopting a short-term, utilitarian approach that is not in the best interests of education in the long term.
Benchmarking should not be used as an industrial relations tool to get a pay rise. Neither should teachers be persuaded into accepting it by a peripheral involvement in the process or by other enticements. It should be adopted or rejected solely on educational grounds. This Trojan horse should not be allowed into our education system.
Teachers have many reasons for striking, e.g. to get a pay rise, safeguard the status/worth of the profession, recruit good candidates, etc. Underlying all of these, for some, is a battle for the soul of education. On the one side, largely unquestioned by the media, are those who want to impose the values and practices of the business world on our schools. On the other side, you have the more holistic approach of ASTI members.
Engaging in this battle will, sadly, hurt the students and understandably anger many of their parents. If, however, we refuse to take a stand, generations of young people will suffer. Teachers, and anyone else who understands what is going on, have a huge responsibility to preserve and foster what is so good in the Irish education system.
Kevin Lewis is a guidance counsellor at St Mary's College in Rathmines, Dublin