IPPN

Published: 14 June 2004

Correspondence from NEWB

This week, you received correspondence from NEWB. The IPPN support office has received numerous e-mails and telephone calls from principals who are dismayed that the NEWB document includes an official deadline of July 16th for the return of data. You will have noticed that they referred to consultation with school management, principals,teachers and parents, I would like to provide some background and clarity to the situation that has unfolded:

1. Last July, the NEWB invited IPPN to nominate a representative to the "Schools Implementation Committee". This committee was constituted to work out the practical details as to how NEWB's services would interact with individual schools. A few weeks later the NEWB notified IPPN that we were not to have a representative on this committee after all!

2. When IPPN queried the withdrawal of the invitation, we were told that the INTO objected to IPPN's inclusion as they (INTO) already represented Principals. The NEWB acceded to the INTO's view.

3. IPPN subsequently sought a meeting with the NEWB. Kevin O'Meara, Darndale SNS, IPPN Dublin and I raised a considerable number of professional issues with the NEWB pertaining to their intentions vis-a-vis interacting with schools. We also pointed out that it was quite bizarre to set a deadline for returning data to the NEWB in the middle of official school holidays! We indicated that this was likely to be counter productive for the NEWB in their efforts to build professional relationships with school principals and their deputies. Let me clarify that whichever "Principals" the NEWB consulted with in drawing up guidelines which result in a deadline of July 16th for data returns, it was not Principals represented professionally by IPPN. The NEWB asked IPPN to "support" the July 16th date both during and subsequent to our meeting. IPPN refused to "support" the date for several obvious reasons and cannot understand how the "Schools Implementation Committee" decided on it given that committee included the INTO.

May I respectfully suggest that Principal teachers who are alarmed at this development, should communicate their views directly to the INTO. IPPN is a professional association for school leaders - not a trade union. We have consistently been clear in differentiating between a professional association and a trade union. We feel it is reasonable that Principals and their Deputies would expect that their trade union would protect their terms and conditions of employment. The planned erosion of official holidays is a matter for the trade union to address and is not something that IPPN can deal with other than to provide support and clarification.

Is Mise Le Meas,