The teachers' conferences this week have once again exposed the deep chasm that appears to exist between the ASTI and the other teaching unions, the TUI and the INTO.
Where the INTO and the TUI concentrated on debates on education issues, the ASTI conference was once again dominated by the union's bitter internecine feud. While the ASTI conference did see a series of very good debates on such issues as student indiscipline and a possible return to ICTU, for most the conference will be remembered for the scenes on television of unruly delegates and the leadership arguing about procedure. It is fair to say the public, and probably the vast majority of the union's 17,000 members, will be dismayed - yet again - by these scenes.
It is clear that the union needs to pause and reflect on its future as Mr Noel Buckley, who resigned this week as national organiser, has advised. He called on the union to look forward instead of replaying what he calls the "old tapes". He also wants the ASTI to focus on policy rather than personality.
Many fair-minded people will be uneasy at the way in which some in the union are attempting to pin all the blame for its troubles on Mr Charlie Lennon, its widely respected general secretary. If only it were that simple. Mr Lennon - a vastly experienced figure who has been involved with teaching unions for two decades - advised against the ASTI's decision to cut itself adrift from the ICTU and the other teaching unions. But others in the union decided not to heed this advice. Perhaps it should be these people - and not Mr Lennon - who are called to account.
This week's teachers' conferences were also dominated by a series of speeches made by the Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey. The Minister has brought a good deal of vision and flair to the education agenda. Delegates across the three unions were impressed by his mastery of the brief and determination to shake things up. There is a strong sense that Mr Dempsey - a former guidance teacher - has an intuitive understanding of the education agenda.
For all that, many are puzzled by his decision to launch a new consultative process for education. Mr Dempsey's objectives are laudable. He is anxious to ensure that the education debate moves beyond what might be described as the "usual suspects" - the teaching unions and the Department.
But is another bout of consultation really necessary? The education system has been endlessly probed and analysed by a series of reports, review bodies and committees over the past decade. The problems have been well diagnosed and all parties have been consulted. What is required now is action and decision-making. The hope must be that the new consultative process is not simply a way of delaying some difficult decisions - and side-stepping some others.