Between 2000 and 2001, fewer than three per cent of teachers in second-level schools were inspected by the Department of Education. And unlike in Britain, the results of inspections are not made public. Emmet Oliver asks ifparents, pupils and taxpayers have a right to know how schools are performing

The cigire. A six-letter Irish word that can make the blood of even the most confident teacher run cold. The visit of the cigire or inspector to the school has always been a cause for fear, trepidation and even mild panic in staffrooms across the State.

Teachers tend to be a defensive species and the entry of an outsider into that most sacred of domains, the classroom, is rarely welcomed, even by teachers in the prime of their careers.

The arrival of an inspector (usually a former teacher) carrying a clipboard makes most teachers feel a little vulnerable and anxious. The reaction of individual teachers varies.

For some the inspector represents the Department of Education poking its vindictive nose into the real business of teaching. For other teachers the inspector is there to catch them out, pure and simple.

For a small minority, the inspector is an unacceptable and unwelcome visitor out to crush their reputation. For another group the inspector is there to assess their teaching and it is time to turn on the charm.

Whatever the correct perception, these fears are somewhat groundless. To begin with, in purely statistical terms, the inspectors are unlikely to be knocking on the door of the average teacher very often.

As the old joke goes: "What do you have to do to get a visit from an inspector? Be very unlucky".

Most teachers have not been inspected much throughout their careers. Once when they were a trainee and maybe once after that. "The presence of an inspector on the school premises is a pretty rare event," one teacher admitted recently.

In the years 2000 to 2001, the classroom performance of one second-level teacher in 35, or fewer than three per cent, was inspected by the Department of Education.

Reading the 2001/2002 figures in the accompanying panel one might conclude that while the number of inspections are relatively low, at least a certain portion of teachers have their performance assessed. But these inspections are subject inspections.

In other words, inspectors assess teachers as part of a subject group - is the teaching of history or English, for example, up to standard in a certain school? There is little inspections of individual teachers, regardless of their subject.

Inspection of individual teachers happens only fleetingly, normally at the request of a board of management or principal. The reality is that second-level teachers, in particular, can go for years without being inspected by anyone. As indicated in the panel opposite, for good or ill, this is certainly not the case in Britain where inspections come around every few years. They have to, it is a statutory requirement.

Teachers in this State are inspected and the inspections are traumatic for the teacher, but the approach seems pretty rudimentary compared to the regime in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. For example, there is no minimum level of inspection required here.Depending on local conditions, a teacher can go through their whole career without their employer (the Minister of Education in this case) or his representative witnessing their teaching performance in the classroom.

Why is this? Well the problem is not necessarily one of inspectors running scared of teachers.

Department of Education inspectors are currently involved in far too many tasks. Most of them admit this privately themselves. Just consider the number of areas they currently have to handle: State exams, the NCCA, teacher-training matters, school development planning, special needs, school discipline, expulsions and the teachers' registration council.

There are few areas where the long arm of the inspectorate does not reach. Seeing as inspectors are supposed to be the ultimate guarantors of quality and standards in our schools, one has to ask should their limited resources be stretched in such a flagrant and unthinking way?

The rules for National Schools spell out how important their role is: inspectors are the agents of the Minister and supply him with such local information as he may require for the effective administration of the system. In other words, inspectors are the eyes and ears of the Minister and, by implication, the taxpayer. They are the last line of defence. The problem is that line is being stretched to breaking point.

The other problem is that the teaching profession, with a few honourable exceptions like the INTO, has done little to embrace the concept of inspection.

For example, the ASTI still supports a policy, which some argue is in contravention of the Education Act, which says the union will support any member who refuses to teach in front of an inspector.

The ASTI is also refusing to co-operate with the new inspection system, Whole School Evaluation (WSE). This is due in schools some time in the future and has been criticised by some parents' organisations as being too mild.

It may be, but Department of Education still insists that WSE reports on schools will not be released to parents or the public, even though an opinion poll last year by Irish Marketing Surveys showed a clear majority of the public favours more evaluation of teachers' performance.

But teachers have been steadfast in opposing the new inspection regime. The former ASTI president Don McCluskey was unequivocal at the union's annual conference two years ago.

"It is a load of rubbish to say that teachers won't be named", he said. "In my school, there are two senior history teachers. If there was any criticism, it would be as clear as daylight who was being referred to."

Whatever about conflict with teachers, the credibility and status of the inspections are surely undermined by the total failure of the Department to disclose any information to the public or school community.

While there is hardly a groundswell in favour of importing the British system, the current system here means that virtually no information arising from inspections enters the public domain. This is not the case in countries like Britain and the Netherlands, where inspection reports are available on the Internet for all to see.

The inspectorate does not even publish an annual report giving its assessment of quality in our schools. It provides any information it has only to the Minister. Individual school reports are kept under lock and key, with even parents' associations rarely given a chance to see the information.

The inspectorate has fought over the last three years with the Information Commissioner to stop any inspection reports reaching the public. It believes if the information is disclosed, parents would react and possibly pull their pupils out of schools perceived to have been harshly criticised in the reports.

But as the Information Commissioner, Kevin Murphy, recently pointed out, surely taxpayers, who pay for the running and operation of virtually every school in the State, should have a right to know how schools are performing, at least in some general sense - such as WSE? The answer is apparently, an emphatic "no".