Sir, - So, the second level teacher unions have rejected an offer worth £67 million of the taxpayers' money, on account of the most minimal productivity, measures within the package.
And I note (April 1st) that the second level teachers believe that these productivity proposals' could be changed "without affecting primary teachers"! Does it count with them at all that these minimal productivity measures could not be changed, without removing the only elements of the proposals that would make a difference to the quality of the education and the educational well being of the students?
The 15 hours per year of additional work time which is part of this package will allow teachers to take part in essential non teaching activities which are essential both to their own professional development, and to the students' education, such as preparation for new curricula at second level, without reducing yet further an already disastrously short school year. The public will no doubt remember the debacle which we all witnessed last September when the same teacher unions wanted the Minister for Education to pay several million pounds so that there would be paid substitutes in classrooms, while teachers prepared for the introduction of new curricula. These 15 hours would at least provide a small measure of time out of class for such key educational activities, without depriving the students yet again of essential teaching time, or costing huge sums which could be better spent on improving the educational services to pupils.
The proposals that tasks be specified for posts of responsibility which attract additional pay, and that people be appointed to these posts on the grounds that they are the best people for the job must seem to most workers as a most basic aspects of good work practice. It is surely extraordinary that any group of professionals could produce a sustainable argument that they should resist these proposals.
These proposals represent the most minimal of changes to outdated practice which should never have been allowed to develop. Now the second level unions seem to be prepared to put in jeopardy the whole process of moving ahead with essential educational reform in order to resist them.
Let the Minister and politicians of all parties take note. Any watering down of the benefits to students in this package might placate the teacher unions, but the Minister, and any other politician who might support such a move will incur the wrath of the public, parents and students in heavy measure. It is time for all those politicians and officials of the Department of Education who have the interests of students at heart to stand their ground. - Yours, etc.,
Ballinteer Avenue,
Dublin 16.