pomunder, That the majority of teachers are anti-VIT tells me that they do not understand what being a member of a profession is all about. I have given a reference above to a lengthy discussion of the VIT, so I won?t repeat everything here. I think doctors understand the function of the Medical Practioners Board, which does not include promoting the medical profession. I think dentists understand the function of the Dental Board, which does not include promoting the profession. The problem with the VIT is the false expectation that it would promote the profession, an issue I have discussed in the reference I gave earlier. That is not its role, but an addition made by someone in a backroom about nine years ago, an addition which I have asked in my submission to the review to be removed. The only way in which it promotes the profession is indirect: it guarantees the ethics and professional standards of those in it. This is, I think, clear to all other professions with registration authorities. If teachers are unhappy with the VIT, they can participate in elections for its council, something that most do not even bother to do and something that doctors and dentists do not even have the right to do in their equivalents. If teachers want to promote their profession, they can support union action, which most of them also do not do. The establishment of the VIT was an important step in reprofessionalising teaching. You would think with the higher teaching loads, abolition of the time allowance pool, fuzzy limits on class sizes and long-term decline in pay, teachers would focus their criticism on the government, not the authority which protects the standards of their profession.