A Chara,
Mr Tommy Francis, President of ASTI, informs us (Irish Times, April 10th) that the first reason his members rejected the recent Government package of proposals was due to their perception that principals would use their influence at interview boards for promotional posts "in a way which could destroy good staff room relations".
He goes on to say. "We must discuss with principals, through our advisory structures, why this perception could be abroad." These statements by Mr Francis and I welcome them as potentially very useful illustrate one of the clear anomalies in the Irish education system, which demands attention.
The White Paper on Education places great emphasis on the role of the principal in the delivery of change within the system. It has been likened to that of a chief executive officer within a company. The larger the type of school, the more this comparison holds.
But within our educational system the principal, for the most part, belongs to the same trade union as the other teachers in the school. As such, the principal is subject to the same trade union discipline as the teaching staff in the school.
As is generally known, teacher unions have carefully worked out policies and procedures on the workings of schools. Yet the role of the principal and that of the teaching staff may be very different, with obvious in built tensions between them.
You reported (April 9th) that the ASTI had questioned the loyalty of a rival group representing secondary school principals (SSPAI). You quote the secretary of this group. "There's no one else to look after the interests of principals within the ASTI. We're a tiny minority, 250 principals out of 13,000 members."
The ASTI has drawn up grievance procedures forbidding principals to hold executive positions in both ASTI and any of the main school management bodies. It also says that "public statements which undermine ASTI policy will be dealt with by internal disciplinary procedures.
Very few people could be so foolhardy as to seek to interfere in the workings of trade unions. But there does appear to me to be a dichotomy here, in the efficient functioning of our schools, which is of public importance.
Promotion by merit is becoming more and more the norm in most of society. As your editorial (April 12th) says, customer satisfaction is becoming a central principle of all public service, and schools cannot operate in isolation from society.
I agree that promotion by seniority has given staff rooms a calm atmosphere in the past, but this procedure cannot remain tenable for much longer. Posts of responsibility in community schools and vocational schools have for long been filled on merit. Presumably principalship appointments are also made on merit.
Yours, 52 Gilford Road, Dublin 4.
