Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

School Direct Salaried Pay Problem Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hi,

    I am starting a school direct (salaried) position in September and have been told my salary will be £12,000.

    I will be employed as an unqualified teacher and I know the salary for this usually starts at £17,368 for London fringe (which is where my school is based).

    I asked about the difference in pay and was told the £12,000 is due to having a 60% teaching timetable. As it won't be 100%, you don't get the full unqualified teaching wage.

    Does this sound right? Correct? Normal?

    I am currently a TA earning only 2 grand less than what I would be on this school direct route, seems bizarre to go up the pay scale so little.

    I don't know where to go from here in approaching this issue with my school, any help/advice is much appreciated.

    Thanks for your help,
    J
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesshall28123)
    Hi,

    I am starting a school direct (salaried) position in September and have been told my salary will be £12,000.

    I will be employed as an unqualified teacher and I know the salary for this usually starts at £17,368 for London fringe (which is where my school is based).

    I asked about the difference in pay and was told the £12,000 is due to having a 60% teaching timetable. As it won't be 100%, you don't get the full unqualified teaching wage.

    Does this sound right? Correct? Normal?

    I am currently a TA earning only 2 grand less than what I would be on this school direct route, seems bizarre to go up the pay scale so little.

    I don't know where to go from here in approaching this issue with my school, any help/advice is much appreciated.

    Thanks for your help,
    J
    To be honest, it sounds fair enough to me.

    Bear in mind that this is a training course. Yes, you will be responsible for classes which is why it's paid. But you're not a qualified teacher and the school has to provide you with support and training during the year.

    Trainees doing a PGCE have to pay £9,000 for their training (although there are bursaries available) and I know that on my second placement I was teaching a 60% timetable too.

    The main thing is that once you have completed your training year, you will be starting work as a qualified teacher on a minimum starting salary of £22,000 (£23,000 in the London Fringe area). Depending on your specialism, you may have the chance to negociate starting at a higher pay point (M2 is £25,000 in the London Fringe) given your experience.

    Basically, whilst it's not as much as full unqualified teacher's pay, you're not getting a terrible deal for a trainee and you have the potential to earn double that next year, so I suggest just getting on with it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myrtille)
    To be honest, it sounds fair enough to me.

    Bear in mind that this is a training course. Yes, you will be responsible for classes which is why it's paid. But you're not a qualified teacher and the school has to provide you with support and training during the year.

    Trainees doing a PGCE have to pay £9,000 for their training (although there are bursaries available) and I know that on my second placement I was teaching a 60% timetable too.

    The main thing is that once you have completed your training year, you will be starting work as a qualified teacher on a minimum starting salary of £22,000 (£23,000 in the London Fringe area). Depending on your specialism, you may have the chance to negociate starting at a higher pay point (M2 is £25,000 in the London Fringe) given your experience.

    Basically, whilst it's not as much as full unqualified teacher's pay, you're not getting a terrible deal for a trainee and you have the potential to earn double that next year, so I suggest just getting on with it.
    Thanks for the advice. I have no idea what is considered acceptable or not.

    My point is, I am being taken on as an unqualified teacher. There is a pay scale for that. If I am way below the pay scale, whats the point in having one? If the school is just going to set a completely different rate. It doesn't matter if I am paying for the training or not. I am being hired by the school nevertheless and will a member of staff from day one. As well as training, I will have duties as a teacher, which is essentially what they are paying me for.

    £12,000 seems like very cheap labour when I have to be in school Monday to Friday and work the same hours as fully qualified teachers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesshall28123)
    Thanks for the advice. I have no idea what is considered acceptable or not.

    My point is, I am being taken on as an unqualified teacher. There is a pay scale for that. If I am way below the pay scale, whats the point in having one? If the school is just going to set a completely different rate. It doesn't matter if I am paying for the training or not. I am being hired by the school nevertheless and will a member of staff from day one. As well as training, I will have duties as a teacher, which is essentially what they are paying me for.

    £12,000 seems like very cheap labour when I have to be in school Monday to Friday and work the same hours as fully qualified teachers.
    You're quite right that it's a form of cheap labour for the schools. Which is one of the why personally I don't think this approach to teacher training is appropriate. Also, being thrown headlong into all the responsibilities of a teacher doesn't leave as much time for reflection and thinking critically about the system you're working in.

    But the "cheap labour" approach is fairly typical of all kinds of training routes. For example, I know plenty of people who have done apprenticeships, earning far less than the minimum wage but doing the exact same job as their fully paid colleagues.

    Presumably you knew that £12,000 was the Schools Direct salary when you applied for this training route? Otherwise you could consider a different ITT course.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by myrtille)
    You're quite right that it's a form of cheap labour for the schools. Which is one of the why personally I don't think this approach to teacher training is appropriate. Also, being thrown headlong into all the responsibilities of a teacher doesn't leave as much time for reflection and thinking critically about the system you're working in.

    But the "cheap labour" approach is fairly typical of all kinds of training routes. For example, I know plenty of people who have done apprenticeships, earning far less than the minimum wage but doing the exact same job as their fully paid colleagues.

    Presumably you knew that £12,000 was the Schools Direct salary when you applied for this training route? Otherwise you could consider a different ITT course.
    I didn't know about the salary until after the interview process etc. I accepted it because the programme is connected to and working in partnership with the school I work in currently as a TA. They wanted to train me, have been supportive in my application and I kind of just got caught up in it all. I also got on a PGCE route but declined due to the debt I'd be in. It wasn't feasible in my situation.

    I think my school is underpaying full stop. I am earning £9000 as a TA. With friends in other places who were on £16000- £17000 as a TA and offered 20-23k on the School Direct Salaried route (which yes, might be generous, but it's within the pay scales atleast). Finding out this information is what riled me up and made me question just how little I was getting.

    I find this really hard to accept. Not because I'm greedy but because I don't want myself and anyone else in my school (and I presume this is happening) being underpaid.

    J
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Er no - you should be paid on the unqualified teachers pay scale as you've highlighted. It doesn't matter what timetable you teach. Definitely question this!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This doesn't sound right to me. Even if you are teaching 60% of the timetable (which is strange as by the end of the PGCE one is teaching 80%) you are still in school and essentially TA-ing for the rest of the time. Unless they are giving you 40% non-contact time?

    I know some SD QTS only scheme charges trainees for additional PGCE qualification but it doesn't seem the case here. However, the gov has significently reduced the grant for primary SD this year, which may be the main reason for the salary rather than the 60% timetable. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/funding-...ear-2016-to-17

    Money aside (as long as you can live by, since you wouldn't have the time for entertainment), the most important thing you should look for is whether the school values and supports trainees, rather than using them as cheap labour. (The same goes for non-salaried route/ PGCE.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As you can see some schools direct salaried training providers offer a lot less! Therefore £12,000 is amazing for primary our local primary schools offer £5,000 as stated on their website, "So what will my training salary be?The following figures are offered for guidance but are subject to changes in national pay scales and to NCTL funding:Primary: 9.5 month contract: salary range £5,161 to £9,031" it appears it's £15,000 minus the £9000 tuition fees then a percentage based on hours teaching not observing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesshall28123)
    Thanks for the advice. I have no idea what is considered acceptable or not.

    My point is, I am being taken on as an unqualified teacher. There is a pay scale for that. If I am way below the pay scale, whats the point in having one? If the school is just going to set a completely different rate. It doesn't matter if I am paying for the training or not. I am being hired by the school nevertheless and will a member of staff from day one. As well as training, I will have duties as a teacher, which is essentially what they are paying me for.

    £12,000 seems like very cheap labour when I have to be in school Monday to Friday and work the same hours as fully qualified teachers.

    £17,368 is the wage for an unqualified teacher with a full timetable, so £12,000 seems reasonable for a 60% timetable. Are your £9000 fees paid, or do these come out of the £12,000. I seem to remember someone on another thread had been told they were only getting £3000 salary after fees had been charged!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No definitely not right. I worked inner London and was paid unqualified teachers pay.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I did mine 2014 this was the norm with other trainees too, it could have changed in the past two years. If this is the case that amount seems exceptionally low. It is pretty full on.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Are you sure this is school direct? My current school offers SCITT but the salary is really awful (approx £600 per month). I have frienda who have done School Direct and have been paid £22,000 per year.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.