GREAT deal more than the future of education hinges on the outcome of the Government's £67 million pay and conditions offer currently being voted upon by the three teacher unions.

If the package is approved by the three unions representing the State's 40,000 teachers, there will be major changes in the way our schools are run. The path will be smoothed for further legislative and policy reforms and the Minister for Education will have secured industrial peace in the crucial run up to the next elections.

But if one union rejects the deal - even though an overall majority of teachers are in favour - a quite different scenario could unfold. The Easter conferences would be turbulent affairs. Teachers at some conferences would vent their anger at their leadership; at others, delegates would attack the other unions which voted "no".

Industrial unrest could follow, culminating in strikes and the disruption of the exams this summer. Planned reforms would be postponed and Niamh Bhreathnach's image would suffer, perhaps irrevocably.

This was the fate of Gemma Hussey, the last Minister for Education to fall foul of widespread industrial action more than a decade ago.

This time around, the consequences could be even greater. In industrial relations circles, there is talk of a domino theory. According to this teachers reject the present deal, thereby undermining the Programme for Competitiveness and Work; this adds to the unrest already evident in other sectors; the ICTU then decides against renewing the PCW and strikes break out in education and other sectors.

Things are unlikely to be so clear cut, but the mood of the strong teacher union bloc is certain to have a significant bearing on the future of national wage agreements - if the teachers are happy, then the industrial peace is more likely to be secured.

But what are the chances that teachers will reject the deal? Far higher than might be expected, given the sums involved and the 18 months of talks it took to produce the package.

Only the INTO is certain to produce a vote in favour. In the ASTI, the issue is "on a knife edge" according to the union leadership. The TUI is also split, but a narrow "yes" vote is now expected.

E&L's contact with rank and file teachers reveals a surprising degree of apathy and even ignorance about the Government's offer. This is in spite of the fact that the main points of the deal have been known and written about for up to a year.

Several teachers were unable to say how they would benefit personally and were inclined to follow the voting advice provided by their branch or union head office.

Among secondary teachers in particular, there is a widespread feeling that the package delivers less than it promises. True, there is early retirement at 55 years - but the requirement for 35 years' service means that very few second level teachers will qualify at that age.

True, promotional posts will be filled by open competition - however, once the new posts are filled, the incumbents are free to hold them for as long as they wish. So competition will only arise when a postholder retires - if falling student numbers do not obviate the need for the post.

Already, it is clear that the debate within the unions is not primarily about money - current pay levels for teachers mean that the Revenue Commissioners may be the greatest beneficiaries of the increases proposed.

Nor is it primarily about early retirement, which will affect only 300 teachers a year. In addition, few teachers are put out by the requirement that they put in an extra 15 hours a year for non teaching activities, as this would take place during the existing school year.

SIMILARLY, the proposal that second provide supervision for absent colleagues for two hours a week only applies where this does not increase the total teaching hours to more than 22 per week. But since most teachers already teach 22 hours, they will not be affected.

It is the proposals on school management, and teachers' reactions to the changes involved, which will determine whether the package is approved or rejected. For some teachers, it is a case of "what's in it for me"; for others, there are fundamental questions of security and reward.

"The money means nothing to me, the extra duties are not a problem. What I'm interested in are the new posts, the new way of filling them. On merit and the responsibilities which are attached. This is the chance for me and many other younger teachers to stop stagnating, and progress in our careers," says Chris Garvey, an ordinary teacher in his thirties in north Dublin.

The opposing view comes, not surprisingly, from older teachers: "The result will be division in schools, the introduction of market type competition, leapfrogging, stroke pulling..." says one, who prefers to remain anonymous.

At this stage, opposition to the package seems strongest in Dublin, in fee paying schools, and among senior, male teachers. Those in favour tend to be primary teachers, junior staff, women and principals.

The range of issues already raised reveals the complexity of the package. The major issues in the debate vary from union to union, as the following summary shows.