The controversies over the job-sizing of senior promoted staff show no signs of easing. There can be few people who did not expect the outcome to be one of winners and losers, even if some have been taken aback by the extent of the swings and the roundabouts. As we report in our coverage of the primary sector this week (ScotlandPlus, pages 2-3), one head gaining pound;4,000 while another post drops by pound;3,000 in value is not a recipe for a settled profession. And the schools where the assistant head is job-sized at a higher salary than her line manager depute, as their head reports to us (Letters, page 2), is most certainly a recipe for confusion, if not ridicule.
It is worth reminding ourselves, as the Scottish Executive and the Educational Institute of Scotland assuredly will, that this was an agreed regrading exercise based on the responsibilities of posts, not the workload they involve. So either the job-sizing toolkit is fatally flawed or something very peculiar has been happening to the managerial duties of promoted posts which have produced such apparently fluctuating results.
The problem at present seems a combustible one. As we have argued before, explanation has to come to the rescue of the exercise. It is time heads were raised above the parapet.