Recipe for tears
When the job-sizing exercise first came about, I thought it would result in principal teachers of big departments such as maths, English and modern languages being awarded more.
This, according to your issue of August 22, is what the Executive insists too. However, it is definitely not the case. I know for certain that our principal teacher of home economics was job-sized at point 4 of the new scale, the same as the principal teacher of maths and the same as me.
Yet in home economics the department presented approximately 45 candidates for examinations. In modern languages we presented 176 candidates. The number of staff in the departments I have compared would also indicate that maths and modern languages should have a bigger weighting but this does not seem to have had any bearing.
I am at a loss to understand how the job-sizing exercise can have any credibility.
(Name and address supplied)