The Government will be surprised and dismayed by the response of the teaching profession to the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). At this writing, the Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO) is struggling to gain acceptance for the deal. The PPF has still to win the support of any Dublin INTO branch; the only question now is whether the level of support from the rural areas will be sufficient to outweigh this opposition - but this is by no means certain. The Teachers' Union of Ireland (TUI) is also battling hard to secure support for the proposed deal while, the other teaching union, the Association of Secondary Teachers, Ireland (ASTI) left the negotiating table last month and has now lodged a 30 per cent pay claim.
Given this degree of opposition, the ordinary citizen might be forgiven for believing that the PPF imposes a range of draconian measures on teachers and offers paltry rewards on pay. The truth is somewhat different. On any objective measure, the PPF represents a good deal for teachers. As the Minister for Education, Dr Woods, has pointed out, it will deliver a pay increase of more than 19 per cent over the 33 months of the deal and a cumulative 29 per cent when the Budget tax changes are taken into account.
Critically, it gives the teaching unions the capacity to upgrade the whole level of the profession by linking public-sector pay to the private sector through the so-called `benchmarking system.' This system could, for example, reward teachers for their contribution to the State's economic success, for their role in school planning and so on. The PPF also gives the profession much of what it has been seeking at annual conferences for the past decade; a total of 1,500 new teachers at primary and second level, more non-teaching time for school principals - even in smaller schools - and more generous retirement terms.
It is difficult to gauge precisely what teachers find so objectionable in the PPF. It may be that they feel overwhelmed by the rate of change in the classroom. It may be that teachers are nursing a grievance about their position vis-a-vis other workers in a booming economy. It may be that some teachers have chosen to believe that the PPF commits them to some form of individualised performance-evaluation when this is clearly not the case.
It is to be hoped that the warning from Dr Woods last night - that the benefits of the PPF for teachers will be withdrawn if they vote against the deal - will help to concentrate minds and shake some teachers out of their lethargy. One of the most depressing features of the campaign has been the very low attendance at so many branch meetings. The INTO general secretary, Senator Joe O'Toole, may be prone to the occasional rhetorical flourish but he is not exaggerating when he describes the PPF as the best deal ever negotiated for teachers. But teachers, as responsible citizens of this State, must also look to the greater good. The PPF is the best means of giving a fair reward to all workers while still protecting the overall competitiveness of the economy. Those who are opposed to the deal have still to provide a realistic alternative that would better serve the needs of teachers - or that of the wider economy.