DOUGLAS WEIR’S article two weeks ago, “Who will want to be a principal teacher?”, will no doubt provide fodder to the educational chattering classes in the great “national debate”. But my concern is with more immediate matters, in particular Professor Weir’s misunderstanding of the agreement A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century.

His discussion on the posts of subject principal teacher and chartered teacher leads him to conclusions unwarranted by a reading of the actual agreement and unsubstantiated by any body of evidence. If only the article had concluded after his second paragraph - “For decades principal teachers have been the boilerhouse of the secondary school . . . my school could have achieved little or nothing without the commitment of the principal teachers of subject” - I would have been writing today in praise of his profound understanding of Scottish secondary schools.

Unfortunately the article continued with a mixture of assertion, misinterpretation and even a speculative rewriting of the agreement to reinvent the chartered teacher as a “born again” principal teacher.

It may well be the case that “over the next 10 years, the secondary school will go through a dramatic change”. How often have we heard that before? Hardly a decade goes by without someone uttering these immortal words. Yet, must this change necessarily lead to the demise of subject principal teacher?

There are more than 7,000 principal teacher posts to be job-sized - is he suggesting that most of these will be job-sized out of existence? If so, he fails to distinguish between a job-sizing exercise, which is in the agreement, and a staffing restructure of PT posts, which is not in the agreement. I would refute the suggestion that the present PT structure has broken down. And in the words of the old refrain - “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Where is the evidence that the post of subject PT will prove incapable of delivering the curriculum required over the next 10 years? If there is an alternative model on offer, where is it? In which schools will the experiment be “piloted”? How will teaching and learning benefit and how will it raise attainment? Crucially, how will it be evaluated to determine if the new model actually delivers improvement?

To be fair Professor Weir offers not one, but two alternatives. First, he refers to “early models of such a new structure as in Aberdeenshire or West Lothian”. While I have no knowledge of the position in West Lothian, I have it on good authority that the proposed new structure in Aberdeenshire was subject to an abrupt and dramatic “about-turn” when common sense eventually prevailed. Watch out for the adverts in the appointments pages.

Professor Weir’s other alternative, the one requiring “only a small adjustment to the criteria”, would convert the chartered teacher into a “curriculum leader” (and how long before education authorities would add on managerial responsibilities to this “promoted post”, thus taking us back to the subject principal teacher?). Furthermore, this new “curriculum leader” would require the supervision of a “curriculum manager” - a post that doesn’t even exist in the agreement’s new career structure.

Alas, Professor Weir is merely a participant in the management game known as “let’s pretend”. Players pretend that the agreement is the “McCrone report”, rather than the real, negotiated agreement, A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century. Professor Weir finds himself alongside frustrated local authority representatives pursuing their own agenda in trying unilaterally to rewrite a negotiated agreement.

Contrary to Professor Weir’s assertion, it is not at all “curious” that the job description of chartered teacher in the agreement is the same as the job description of a teacher. On choosing the chartered teacher route, teachers don’t want that route to lead out of the classroom. They want, and voted for, a career structure with rewards based on classroom excellence, not for one based on “responsibility for curriculum leadership, development and strategy”. Were it otherwise, it is highly unlikely an agreement would have been concluded.

We should let A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century be exactly that - a profession that is well motivated, well resourced, well trained and well able to deliver a service fit for 21st century learners.

John Gray is principal teacher of history at Oldmachar Academy, Aberdeen.