Why should teachers fear being rewarded financially for adapting to necessary changes? Many of the criticisms levelled at benchmarking are well wide of the mark. For instance, while critics of benchmarking agree that the school plan is a "wonderful idea", there is concern that change could be introduced into the education system by an industrial relations route, rather than through negotiation with the Department of Education and Science on the basis of educational need.

However, the difficulty for teachers for years has been that we were not paid adequately for introducing change. Benchmarking now offers us the perfect opportunity to seek that reward and to do it our way.

There is no reason for teachers to fear being rewarded financially for adapting to necessary changes. In fact we will be seeking to be benchmarked on productivity already given by teachers. To me this is industrial relations working in perfect balance with educational need.

What then of the argument that benchmarking is not appropriate for teaching, either on educational or trade union grounds? Why not? There is no doubt that the role of the teacher is complex, wide-ranging and includes pressures to be creative in terms of planning and teaching methods to accommodate all pupils. The skills are comparable to those of managerial professions.

This conclusion will form the central part of the Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO) case to the Benchmarking Body. We are prepared to use the benchmarking process to demand not only a substantial increase in the teachers' pay scale, but also the reduction of the scale to 10 years from 24, and the opening of promotion opportunities for teachers so that at least 75 per cent of them can expect to be promoted.

We will also insist on significant increases in the allowances of principals and other promoted teachers. In addition to addressing the difficulties of the teaching profession in relation to pay, this will have the added advantage of making the profession a much more attractive career option for young people.

Some critics of benchmarking suggest it is seriously misleading to describe the recent rises awarded to TDs under the Buckley report as benchmarking, and that what the TDs gained was just old-fashioned relativity. While it is correct to say that TDs will now have relativity with principal officers as a result of having their job benchmarked, it is also perfectly clear that cross-sectoral relativities were not maintained, since the Buckley report recommended different increases for different groups.

This is exactly what benchmarking is intended to do. To quote Buckley, there will "be winners and losers in the benchmarking approach". As teachers, we will argue that we have fallen seriously behind other graduate groups and that benchmarking is our opportunity to be the winners.

Others claim that benchmarking is just a new name for Performance-Related Pay (PRP). This is not the case. Indeed, in response to such concerns the Minister for Education said last March 9th: "I wish to put on record most strongly again that performance-related pay does not form any part of the new agreement or of my plans. This applies equally to the performance of individual teachers and of individual schools."

Furthermore, as part of the INTO's intensive preparation for its submission to the Benchmarking Body, we have looked closely at the negative effects of certain aspects of PRP in other jurisdictions. We are sure of two things: that under no circumstances will the INTO consider any system of payment which is dependent on pupils' progress or any form of payment by results, and that we will oppose any attempt to bring in payments on the basis of inspectors' reports. As teachers we can all agree on that. In the INTO we will tackle issues head on if and when they arise, but we should not be side-tracked by difficulties that are not yet on the agenda.

Comparing what is happening in Britain to here is like comparing chalk and cheese. Long before benchmarking was ever heard of, the education system in Britain had been brought to its knees by a series of anti-teacher measures. We all know only too well that in any negotiation process, the other side will seek to extract their pound of flesh from teachers. We as their representatives will demand the best deal for teachers. Ultimately, both sides will have to conclude with what is best for education and the teaching profession in the interests of our pupils.

Donal O Loinsigh is president of the Irish National Teachers Organisation