Teacher pay

Original post by RogerOxon

Whilst I agree, I do think that there are a couple of issues with teacher pay:

1. Pay difference between those that free-wheel, and those that put in a lot of effort for their kids;
2. Pay difference between cheap and expensive areas.

These sorts of jobs are great if you live in a cheap area. The benefits are very good, and often overlooked when comparisons are made to private sector pay. Good teachers put a lot of work in outside of term, but some don't.

I think the teachers who supposedly free-wheel probably work in schools that are on the down. There is certainly no place to hide in the school I work. I do sympathise with teachers who work in expensive areas, but it is a bit more complicated as ever since schools are paid per student and that filters down to teachers pay. There is no wiggle room. Conversely, outcomes are generally better in more affluent areas so if anything there is an argument that perhaps teachers who work in difficult schools should be paid more. It is swings and roundabouts.

Reply 22

Original post by hotpud

They go up the pay scale. By the time you end up on UPS 3, you are on £40k. Not bad for 39 weeks work.

I know it is an unpopular opinion, but teachers are very well paid when you take into account holidays and pension provision.

FWIW, I agree I am well paid for the area I live in and if/when I get UPS, I will be even more well paid. I'm not disputing that.

However, I trained it Bristol and have colleagues who still work there. On M1/2, it's very hard to live in Bristol, unless you have a partner earning a similar or greater salary. In my subject (science) I know schools in Bristol struggle to recruit, because there are other, better paid options. The more "difficult" schools will often struggle to recruit and keep staff across a range of subjects.

The students in Bristol still need to be taught, and often it's the least affluent students in and around the city who lose out.

I guess I'm suggesting more geographical weighting to take into account the cost of living in certain areas. It's not like the whole of the UK outside of London has the same cost of living.

If I had no ties, I'd definitely move up north, where my salary would likely go even further.

Reply 23

Original post by RogerOxon

Whilst I agree, I do think that there are a couple of issues with teacher pay:

1. Pay difference between those that free-wheel, and those that put in a lot of effort for their kids;
2. Pay difference between cheap and expensive areas.

These sorts of jobs are great if you live in a cheap area. The benefits are very good, and often overlooked when comparisons are made to private sector pay. Good teachers put a lot of work in outside of term, but some don't.

I don't know a single teacher who "free wheels". If you can suggest a school where this is possible, I'm all ears.

Reply 24

Original post by SarcAndSpark

FWIW, I agree I am well paid for the area I live in and if/when I get UPS, I will be even more well paid. I'm not disputing that.

However, I trained it Bristol and have colleagues who still work there. On M1/2, it's very hard to live in Bristol, unless you have a partner earning a similar or greater salary. In my subject (science) I know schools in Bristol struggle to recruit, because there are other, better paid options. The more "difficult" schools will often struggle to recruit and keep staff across a range of subjects.

The students in Bristol still need to be taught, and often it's the least affluent students in and around the city who lose out.

I guess I'm suggesting more geographical weighting to take into account the cost of living in certain areas. It's not like the whole of the UK outside of London has the same cost of living.

If I had no ties, I'd definitely move up north, where my salary would likely go even further.

I agree. I am based in the North West and it is exactly the same. The places a young upward looking teacher might want to hang out are expensive mainly because they have all the amenities a young teacher about town is attracted to. But that isn't to say there aren't cheaper alternatives. Same with Bristol. Sure, if you want to live city centre or Clifton then you certainly don't get what you pay for. But that doesn't mean there aren't cheaper alternatives. Teachers on teachers salaries are not priced out of the profession yet.

Reply 25

Original post by hotpud

I agree. I am based in the North West and it is exactly the same. The places a young upward looking teacher might want to hang out are expensive mainly because they have all the amenities a young teacher about town is attracted to. But that isn't to say there aren't cheaper alternatives. Same with Bristol. Sure, if you want to live city centre or Clifton then you certainly don't get what you pay for. But that doesn't mean there aren't cheaper alternatives. Teachers on teachers salaries are not priced out of the profession yet.

Yes, you don't have to live in Clifton, but if you teach somewhere centrally, the commute is hellish if you live out the outskirts of the city. And if you live outside the city, you may as well teach at one of the many schools around Bristol, which leaves the schools in the center struggling for teachers.

Whether or not you think teachers are priced out of the profession, the reality is some schools struggle to attract staff for this reason (in part) and this does hurt the students.

Reply 26

Original post by SarcAndSpark

Yes, you don't have to live in Clifton, but if you teach somewhere centrally, the commute is hellish if you live out the outskirts of the city. And if you live outside the city, you may as well teach at one of the many schools around Bristol, which leaves the schools in the center struggling for teachers.

Whether or not you think teachers are priced out of the profession, the reality is some schools struggle to attract staff for this reason (in part) and this does hurt the students.

I'm sure you are right and fair point. It makes for an interesting though about how a publicly funded enterprise like schooling might have to track market forces. I'm not sure I like the idea of some schools getting more money and teachers being higher paid just because of where a school happens to be. It feels a bit wrong.

The more socially progressive model we currently use is to fund schools based on the needs of their students rather than the needs of their staff.

Interesting thoughts.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 27

Original post by hotpud

I'm sure you are right and fair point.

I mean, I'm a science teacher too, so the shortage subject thing is also an issue. I just know some schools in Bristol that really struggle to get and keep staff for lots of reasons, and I think similar does happen in some areas of the (non-London) south east.

On a personal level, the pay is fine, but I know the pay does cause issues for some schools, and perhaps more geographic weighting would be good?

Reply 28

Original post by SarcAndSpark

I mean, I'm a science teacher too, so the shortage subject thing is also an issue. I just know some schools in Bristol that really struggle to get and keep staff for lots of reasons, and I think similar does happen in some areas of the (non-London) south east.

On a personal level, the pay is fine, but I know the pay does cause issues for some schools, and perhaps more geographic weighting would be good?

I edited my last post. What do you think?

Reply 29

Original post by hotpud

I'm sure you are right and fair point. It makes for an interesting though about how a publicly funded enterprise like schooling might have to track market forces. I'm not sure I like the idea of some schools getting more money and teachers being higher paid just because of where a school happens to be. It feels a bit wrong.

The more socially progressive model we currently use is to fund schools based on the needs of their students rather than the needs of their staff.

Interesting thoughts.

I somewhat disagree with this- schools mostly get funding due to their geographic area. Some areas are very well funded and others recieve significantly less- obviously pupil premium and some SEN students attract extra funding too- but individual schools are not really funded according to student need. The reality is that many schools are not funded properly, and do make staffing decisions based on cost, which I feel is also wrong.

I do understand what you say about schools getting additional funding due to geography feeling wrong, but this already happens in London, so why can it not happen elsewhere? I think in general, schools which have vaccancies they are struggling to fill for whatever reason should be able to offer some kind of premium or golden hello at least- I get why you feel this is wrong BUT it is also wrong for students to be without teachers.

The reality is there are many schools without, for example, a specialist physics teacher- not a single one on staff. I think that's pretty unacceptable too, and something does need to be done to ensure students can access specialist teaching- whether that's changes to pay, or conditions or something else.

Personally, I am more fussed about the long term future of the country, and students getting a good education than "value for money" for the taxpayer.

Reply 30

Muttley79

Original post by hotpud

I'm sure you are right and fair point. It makes for an interesting though about how a publicly funded enterprise like schooling might have to track market forces. I'm not sure I like the idea of some schools getting more money and teachers being higher paid just because of where a school happens to be. It feels a bit wrong.

That's what happens now - London weighting plus inner/outer - it means two schools very close can offer different pay. Coastal area also struggle to recruit good staff as do schools without A level teaching

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 31

Original post by SarcAndSpark

I somewhat disagree with this- schools mostly get funding due to their geographic area. Some areas are very well funded and others recieve significantly less-

I don't think that is the case. From what I can gather, local authorities or schools get funding per pupil. And there are only three geographic zones in England around London. PP and SEN get more and obvious over subscribed schools attract more funding than undersubscribed schools even if the wage bill might be the same.

As for some schools having lots of money. Welcome to the joys of the academy which can attract private investors and philanthropists who are often happy to spend big if it means having a gym named after them. The flip side is such academies can also employee overpaid "executives" who simply suck the system dry.

Reply 32

Original post by hotpud

I don't think that is the case. From what I can gather, local authorities or schools get funding per pupil. And there are only three geographic zones in England around London. PP and SEN get more and obvious over subscribed schools attract more funding than undersubscribed schools even if the wage bill might be the same.

As for some schools having lots of money. Welcome to the joys of the academy which can attract private investors and philanthropists who are often happy to spend big if it means having a gym named after them. The flip side is such academies can also employee overpaid "executives" who simply suck the system dry.

Each LA gets funding per pupil. Some LAs get significantly more than others. Hackney, for example, gets £7873 per secondary pupil (or got in 2019-20) whereas Wiltshire gets £4886. Multiply that by 1000 odd pupils in the average secondary and you can see that there's a big funding gap.

There's more details on how it works here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-funding-formula-tables-for-schools-and-high-needs-2019-to-2020

and here: https://www.gov.uk/topic/schools-colleges-childrens-services/school-college-funding-finance

Reply 33