Sir, - Last week I wrote to Mr Charles Lennon, general secretary of the ASTI, and resigned from that association. I am a secondary teachers of 20 years' standing. It was with no joy that I felt I had to make this decision.
Let me say at the outset that I feel secondary teachers are seeking a pay claim which has justification. Consequently, albeit reluctantly, I have engaged in work-to-rule and strike-day practices. I did this even though I was aware that by so doing I was in fact disadvantaging my students, most of whom cannot afford to "keep up to speed" by availing themselves of private grind schools or one-to-one tuition. However, I am not willing to be a part of any further procedure which threatens the future of these young people in a more grotesque way than has happened already.
When, last Saturday week, the ASTI decided by a huge margin that public examinations were to be put in jeopardy and that ordinary members of the association were to be precluded from expressing any opinion on this matter, I finally realised that it did not speak for me.
Few enough of our ageing force of secondary teachers (I include myself here) know anything of the reality of the pressures faced by today's Leaving Certificate students. There was no points race in those far-off days when most of us could enter university on the strength of two "C" grades at higher level. In the meantime, competition has seen to it that the stakes have been raised. A handful of good honours grades is now a necessary prerequisite before one can enter onto even the lowliest "Mickey Mouse" course. Times have changed. Pressure has, for some of our students, become almost unbearable. To add to this by interfering with the integrity of our public examinations, is, I feel, unsustainable. To my mind it is immoral.
I conclude by calling on my colleagues to help preserve the sanity of our students and the credibility of our highly esteemed public examinations. There are still many ways in which industrial action may be pursued short of holding our pupils, to whom we should have first loyalty, to ransom. - Yours, etc.,
Colm McElroy, (Ex-member, ASTI, Dublin NW), Infirmary Road, Dublin 7.
Sir, - I would like to concur with the comments of Joe Coy (March 15th) and applaud him for his courage in submitting the letter. As he implies, the issue is no longer about the teachers' "legitimate pay claim", but rather the method of determining the claim. I would suggest that Mr Coy is not as isolated among the ASTI membership as he suggested in his interview on the RTE News at One programme. - Yours, etc.,
Padraic J. Fogarty, Westbrook, Barna Road, Galway.
Sir, - Marion Healy (March 14th) made a tactical error in pursuit of her argument. She mentioned the nurses ("these responsible positions")!
Yes, as a nurse myself of 30 years experience, I am proud that my profession, unlike the teachers, responsibly provided essential services throughout our dispute. - Yours, etc.,
Mary McGrane, Marley Avenue, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Sir, - My 15-year-old son will be sitting his Junior Cert exam in June, should it go ahead. I enquired if he was stressed due to the teachers' dispute with the Government, as suggested by Barbara Johnson (Opinion, March 12).
"Not a bit," he declared. "In fact I support the teachers' claim as do most of my class."
So, pray tell, what is the PRO of the Catholic Parents' Association so hysterical about? - Yours, etc., Michael O'Donnell Ard Bhaile, Old Youghal Road, Cork
Sir, - Your Editorial's reference to the "carefully crafted findings of the Labour Court" (March 15th) leads me to question whether the writer actually read those findings. Leaving aside the many errors contained therein ("excepting" for "accepting", "excercise" for "exercise", etc. - has anyone in the Labour Court heard of proof-reading?), the document is long on aspirational flannel and short on specifics.
The brief given to the court was to make recommendations to the parties for the resolution of this dispute. This it has manifestly failed to do. It should surprise nobody that its findings were summarily rejected. - Yours, etc.,
Seamus Kelly, Claremont Crescent, Glasnevin, Dublin 11.