The Minister for Education, Noel Dempsey, has told the three teaching unions that he may not be attending their forthcoming conferences unless they abandon the traditional format. Is he right to reject a "dated model" or will he just inspire an Easter Rising?

'It will be like Hamlet without the Prince," said one of the more literary teaching union figures yesterday as he reflected on Noel Dempsey's likely absence from the Easter teachers' conferences.

Dempsey's decision to skip the conferences (unless the unions agree to replace the traditional ministerial address with a forum on the future of education) has dismayed the teaching unions. The Minister wants to replace this "dated model" with a forum modelled on the Your Education System (YES) roadshow, taking place at 17 venues across the State.

For the unions, the significance of his decision is beginning to sink in. For them, the Easter conferences are the highlight of the year. The whole rhythm of their year is based around the build-up to the conferences.

Yesterday morning, the unions were putting a brave face on things. But privately, they are furious. One senior figure described the move as "breathtaking in its arrogance. Dempsey is treating us in a disdainful way. . . the way he is going, he will be left with few friends among teachers".

So how did it come to this? How and why did a Minister for Education choose to put himself on a collision course with the three teachers' unions, representing over 40,000 members?

One education figure explains: "The truth is that various ministers have grown wary of the antics at teachers' conferences in the recent years. Michael Martin was not impressed. And Michael Woods (who was barracked at an ASTI conference two years ago) was appalled. The only question was who would have the political courage to pull the plug on the whole thing?"

Step forward Noel Dempsey. Since coming to Marlborough Street, Dempsey has been characterised by an unwillingness to accept the status quo. He has never signed up to the cosy view that we enjoy one of the best education systems in the world.

While he acknowledges its merits, he is also scathing about its shortcomings. One of his favourite themes is how the debate on education has come to be dominated by what he has called the "usual suspects" - presumably the teaching unions.

On occasion, Dempsey has betrayed his exasperation with this. Last year he said: "The pace of change (in education) can be excessively slow and sometimes the lowest common denominator prevails. We have had a tendency, over the years, of disagreeing rather than confronting and dealing with what needs to be done."

Dempsey's first round of teacher conferences as Minister came last Easter. He came away distinctly unimpressed.

Dempsey was known to be especially angry at his treatment at the TUI conference. After the ministerial address, the TUI president launched into a scathing attack of Dempsey's stewardship.

Derek Dunne, said the Minister had spoken about a new vision for education, yet his Department was "dumping on" teachers and failing to provide the necessary resources to run their programmes. Teachers, he said, had delivered in the past and would deliver in the future. "But we are not going to be dumped on and we are not going to do it without the tools and resources. We are not going to have the experiences of the past foisted on us again."

On the fees debate, which was raging at the time, Dunne said: "You did a fine job, Minister, in ridding the country of plastic bags and we compliment you very much for that. I would say to you, Minister, let that be your legacy. Don't be known for ridding us of free fees at third level."

For one observer, this was good knock-about stuff, typical of the kind of address delivered by union presidents to the their troops. But, it appears, Dempsey came away with the view that this kind of exchange achieved very little. After Dunne's speech, he said pointedly that he would address the issues raised in "an atmosphere of mutual respect and partnership".

In his letter to the three unions - details of which became known this weekend - he said the current format places an onus on confrontation rather than real communication and listening.

Few - even among the teaching unions - would fundamentally disagree with this. But the Minister has left himself vulnerable to the charge that he is being too prickly and too high-minded. But Noel Dempsey, of all people, is unlikely to be concerned about such a charge.

On RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland yesterday, the INTO general secretary, John Carr, pointed out how the annual conference provides an opportunity for teachers to hear directly from the current minister - while also giving him or her the opportunity to talk to ordinary teachers. It is, he said, an exercise in democracy.

Last night, it seemed likely that all three teaching unions will reject the Dempsey proposal to incorporate a YES meeting at their conferences.

It now seems virtually certain that the Minister will not be present at the Easter conferences. One source said: "They are our conferences and we will run them as we wish. How would Fianna Fáil like someone re-arranging their ardfheis?"

Noel Dempsey is not commenting on the controversy until the three teaching unions respond formally to his letter. But he is said to be totally unfazed by the criticism he has received from the teaching unions

Said one source: "He wants to have a real debate on education and he is unapologetic about it. Yes, he knows that much of what goes on at the conference is a game. But does the Minister have to play along?"

Dempsey's move: The response so far

• John White, acting general secretary of the ASTI, says there is little to be gained from holding a YES meeting at the union's annual conference. Hundreds of teachers had already attended these meetings and made their contribution. Others plan to do so over the coming weeks.

• The TUI was the only union to invite former education minister, Patrick Cooney, to its conference in the mid-1980s, despite the then government's failure to deliver a pay award in full.

One source said yesterday: "The Minister is always treated with respect at our conference. We abide by the old liberal principle; we may not agree with what someone has to say, but we defend their right to say it."

• At a conference on special education needs, INTO members reacted angrily to the Dempsey move.

Noreen Flynn, a teacher in Dublin, said that having attended a recent YES meeting, she would not favour a repeat of the process at congress.

The south Dublin YES meeting was not well structured, it was dominated by a number of individuals and, because of this, many issues of concern were not raised. She said the INTO congress provided for raising priority issues in a democratic manner.

Brendan O'Sullivan, a teacher in Kildare said that if the Minister turned down the invitation, he was certain the opposition spokespersons on education would be delighted to avail of the opportunity.

No Minister: Noel Dempsey gives his apologies

The following are excerpts from the Minister's letter to the teaching unions.

'I know that the model of the Minister addressing the various conferences is one of long standing. Having seen this model in operation, I feel that we might all get greater benefit from a changed format.

. . .In some respects the annual speech has become something of a set piece with the Minister setting out his/her views on some of the bigger issues. . . Generally, the Minister's speech is followed by a speech by the union president in which his/her perspective is set out. By its nature, this process can place more weight on the setting out of positions than on real communication and listening.

. . . The Your Education System (YES) is a process that places a great deal of emphasis on listening. . . There would be real value in using the occasion of your conference to input, to the YES process, the views of those attending on the major issues facing the education system in the years ahead. The time slot allocated to the Minister's speech and subsequent response might be used for this purpose.

. . . I realise that what I am proposing represents a change from traditional practice. That said, I think we have to ask ourselves if the historical approach continues to serve us well.

I feel there would be much more to be gained from the type of format I am suggesting. Basically it represents a movement from the dated model of set piece speeches in favour of a real listening exercise at which the views of your membership on educational matters could be captured as part of a wider process.'