The INTO appears poised for a long and bruising conflict with the Minister for Education after Mr Martin this week refused to countenance the union's long list of demands for better staffing and increased resources for primary schools. After last week's selected protests in Dublin, the INTO plans five further one-day stoppages next month. Should this fail to bring a response, the union appears ready to launch a nationwide protest.
In many respects, this dispute does not seem dissimilar to other such teachers' protests. In the now traditional manner, both sides are staking out their positions and talking tough. But there is nothing routine about this dispute for the two principal protagonists. The INTO general secretary, Senator Joe O'Toole, clearly believes that the demographic profile and our economic growth provide a unique opportunity to support what has always been the underfunded primary school sector. For his part, the Minister - whose strong performance in Education has been widely acknowledged - may view the INTO dispute as an opportunity to show that there is plenty of steel behind that amicable political persona. Last week's heated exchange between the two men on Morning Ireland has, no doubt, helped to raise the temperature further. During the programme, Mr Martin gave no quarter to Senator O'Toole, accusing him of "changing the goalposts" once in negotiation and of reneging on various agreements. Senator O'Toole angrily rejected this criticism.
It is to be hoped that the dispute between these political heavyweights does not obscure the very important issues raised by the INTO. The stark reality is that primary education is well-regarded, despite rather than because of the support services available to teachers and school managements. For generations, primary education has been expected to muddle through with very high pupil-teacher ratios, a chronically underfunded system of remedial teaching and scant facilities. The demands made by the INTO are no more than the kind of educational services that other modern EU states already take for granted. They include a maximum class size of 30 pupils and the provision of a remedial teacher for every school. The INTO is also seeking to bridge the £127 million funding gap between State support to primary and post-primary pupils; a not unreasonable demand in a society which claims to cherish all its children equally.
It may be that the INTO would have been better advised to identify its main funding priorities, instead of sending an exhaustive list of demands - costed at almost £150 million - to the Minister. It may also be the case that the union has been slow to acknowledge the very real progress that has been made in some schools - especially in deprived areas.
For all that, the INTO is right to press the case for substantially increased funding for primary schools. As it has pointed out, additional funding has been found to support an additional year at second level and the abolition of fees at third level. There is no reason why primary education, which has such a formative influence on the shape of our society, should continue to lose out.