Do you pay any attention to what is said at teacher conferences? Teacher conferences are hard to overlook, because they generally create their own share of headlines, whether for the right or wrong reasons.

For the past number of years, the conferences have been dominated by issues that are very pertinent to teachers' lives, such as the challenge of discipline, and pay and conditions, including the contentious issue of supervision and substitution.

This year's crop of conferences appear likely to be relatively quiet affairs, but only time will tell. In the past, news stories have ranged from the serious, such as reporting a president's comments on teenage drinking, to the telling of blue jokes at conference dinners. Who knows what these conferences will bring?

Are they good or bad for the public image of teachers?

I am tempted to ask what could manage to damage the public image of teachers further? It is a source of wonder to me how a formerly highly respected profession seems to have slipped so far in public esteem, due in no little part to our friends in the media. However, the behaviour of certain delegates at conferences tarnished both themselves and the wider membership.

Does anybody outside the profession pay the slightest heed to them?

Indeed they do. The Department of Education and Science pays great heed to what happens at conferences. They provide an opportunity to gauge teachers' mood and morale.

Ministers also pay attention, not least because they sometimes have to run the gauntlet at them. Noel Dempsey reinforced a reputation for arrogance by trying to dictate the conditions under which he would attend. It will be interesting to see what reception Mary Hanafin gets. She has done everything possible to distance herself from Noel Dempsey's style, even to the extent of sending teachers appreciative Christmas cards rather than attendance inspectors last year.