I know little about the internal machinations of the Educational Institute of Scotland but, in the pages of The TESS, I read about something of a falling out between a former president, Peter Quigley, and the union. I have seen a copy of Mr Quigley's letter to EIS members and, while it covers a number of interesting points, the issue of interest to me is his statement: "In the five salary settlements between 2003 and 2007, teachers lost millions of pounds through job-sizing".
This is quite an admission from a past president of the EIS (whether in favour or not). As an association, we have been calling for the review of job-sizing for some time. Until recently, we have been told by the Scottish ExecutiveGovernment and employers that there was no appetite in the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers for a review of job-sizing - in particular, that the teachers' side was not keen.
This all suggests the EIS knew that job-sizing was having a negative impact on school leaders (losing millions of pounds), but was not interested in doing anything about it.
Furthermore, in the recent pay negotiations, the EIS-dominated teachers' side chose not even to consider the issues raised in a pay claim we submitted to them. This related to the increased workload for school leaders without increased rewards and the lack of adequate pay differentials between different roles, which was having a negative impact on the supply of applicants for promoted posts.
Am I adding two and two and getting five, or is the EIS simply not interested in supporting Scotland's heads and deputes?
Greg Dempster, general secretary, Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland.