General Chat Thread, Teachers get 2.45% pay rise in General; Originally Posted by derer1
Where I used to be, the HT was on 95k+, and a *large* number of teaching ...
16th January 2008, 05:36 AM #31
Those comments by that dept. head were disgraceful...what a loon.
Originally Posted by derer1
I really feel quite strongly that some of the high saalries for teachers and salary discrepencies between teaching staff and support stafff is an abuse of taxpayers money.
Obviously we don't want under-achieving schools and teachers to be de-motivated. But 95K for a head teacher!!!!! How on earth any any but the top .1% of heads can justify that kind salary is beyond me......particularly as they have an army of staff to assist them in their objectives who do a lot of the really difficult nuts and bolts work. And no doubt deputy heads are on similarly executive salaries. Have a look in the Times and see what kind of jobs attract that kind of money - and try and imagine the pressures involved, the kind of experience you'd need for such a position, the amount of travelling you'd need to do, and what the implications would be for you as a result of poor performance in the post.....or the very real threat of redundancy.
Now compare that to the role of a head teacher - i'd rather be a head teacher any day as it's a cushy job in comparison.......teachers have got nothing to complain about.
Last edited by torledo; 16th January 2008 at 06:42 AM.
16th January 2008, 12:43 PM #32
Did anyone watch that "What Britain Earns" that was on last week?
Even I was a bit surprised when they were asking people "How much would you have to earn, to be in the top 10% of earners in the UK?"
Everyone interviewed overestimated this by miles - the correct answer...
So 9 out of every 10 people in the UK earn less than 46k - kind of puts those teacher salaries into perspective - dunnit.
16th January 2008, 01:02 PM #33
Quite a lot of Schools use LEA pay scales, so support staff come under the Local Government pay agreement.
Originally Posted by apoth0r
16th January 2008, 01:10 PM #34
Interesting read in guardian yesterday about single status reform and who is going to pay for it all..
16th January 2008, 01:37 PM #35
Very interesting. School workers are taking their employers to court and winning equal pay claims because the schools are illegally paying them less than they should. Now school HT's are complaining about it.
Originally Posted by russdev
Well if any of these 100k 'managers' actually knew how to manage staff, by following employment law, then they wouldn't be in that mess in the first place.
16th January 2008, 02:03 PM #36
I do agree but can see heads view of well lea should pay for it as we followed their advice.
16th January 2008, 02:23 PM #37
The trouble is moneybags heads are being setup effectively as managing directors of their schools with those kind of salaries - so that involves understanding everything about how a modern school is run - so that's H&S, finance, employment, man-mangement, recruitment of supprt and anciliary staff....trouble is most have no business background, no experience in aspects of running a successful organisation so they're completely out of their depth in tackling these aspects without a high level of assitance.
Originally Posted by CyberNerd
Lucky for them they have business managers, bursars, office managers, IT managers to take the heat of them.......and yet a school business manager will likely earn less than half of what the head, aka the MD, earns.
I've seen heads underaking online training in the recruitment and management of staff....the training consisted of a multiple choice questionnaire on aspects such as grounds for dismissal and the hiring process, can't remeber the site they access it from....
The questions and answer options were literally a statement of the bleeding obvious - because any detail into employment laws or any legalise beyond laymans understanding in the training would be beyond what their schoolmaster brains can deal with.
MD's and senior managers in industry are sharp as a button and can deal with incredibly complex aspects of management and have often spent years as directors of companies before getting the top job - they deserve the £100K salaries....
Headteachers in general don't deserve anywhere near the figures that their position currently pays.
16th January 2008, 03:06 PM #38
I used to think along the same lines that teachers, Heads and Deputy's were overpaid but since i've been a governor at the school for the last 18 months my opinions have change dramatically. Yes we do have some crap teachers that don't deserve their pay but that is true of all professions, i'm sure that everyone on Edugeek thinks that they are excellent at what they do but we know that a % of us must be crap, i'm pretty sure I could do better for my school, I don't know everything I maybe should and when I read post's on here I know there are gaps in my technical knowledge. My respect for the SLT here is huge, the things that they have to take on and have responsibilty for is immense far more than I ever realised, the Head and his staff at the end of the day have the potential to mould a youngster into a mature young intelligent adult and kick them off on their future career path......not sure I would want that responsibilty.
16th January 2008, 04:42 PM #39
- Rep Power
@Vegas - if you work in a school you do have part of the responsibility for affecting the career path of pupils. I dont have to teach(officially- but do train staff and pupils when tasks are more complex or new) But I do have to provide equipment to allow staff to teach. You may not think you directly have an influence on the pupils in school, but by doing my job I allow staff to carry out their teaching using ICT in all lessons, not just IT.
As you have said, there are some good staff and there are some crap ones, that goes for teaching, IT support and that also includes senior management. I think the problem is that the senior management in schools has often come through a teaching background and do not always have the business like experience needed in schools now. Surely the rise of 2.45% is supposed to be in line with the cost of living? If teachers are overpaid (debateable - lets be honest, most of us think we should be paid more) then their actual salaries scales should be looked at and not the rise they will get this year.
18th January 2008, 09:24 AM #40
I don't think this is even about how much teachers earn, but more about how little we earn and the sheer difference between our colleagues. I once quizzed a few teachers:
"How much do you think I earn?"
They were actually surprised by the actual answer, some were even shocked. To them, we are earning the same as they are, but it's simply not true as we all know.
Our pay is the real theft, we are scraping the barrel in terms of salaries and it's sad to say it but the only real way to progress in Education in terms of pay is to train as a Teacher, become a teacher then work your way up to Head Teacher. Or as an alternative, flee Education altogether and go into industry. Which is the easier option?
At any rate, I'm not angry about how much teachers earn, but more about how little we earn. Everyone needs money, but it seems we're not getting any more when the rest of the world is!
Last edited by Friez; 18th January 2008 at 09:29 AM.
18th January 2008, 10:02 AM #41
Had the same kind of akward moment with a bunch of Teachers in the staff room. A few had moved recentlya dn were talking about gardens mortgages and the rest. I think I choked at one point when someone mentioned their mortgage repayments. This seemed to prompt one of them to ask me about where I live so told them still at home not likely to change. When they asked woudln't I like my own flat or something I told them "My pay is your mortgage repayment." The whole area went to that akward silence.
I'm hoping they didn't just move on with out a thought afterwards & gave some a a thing to think about.
18th January 2008, 10:24 AM #42
Move into industry and with the appropriate training in a few years you could be an IT consultant earning more than any head-teacher. It's not rocket science i.e you don't need to know java , you just need to be lucky enough to receive the right training and experience in certain specialisms.
Originally Posted by Friez
Best opportunities would be for graduates.
The money is there in IT, even the big money isn't restricted to short-term contracts. A consultant can earn 6-figure salaries annualy over 3-4 year periods. That's regular income, no interruptions for years with the same company....because often consultants are required for the full-lifecycle of a project, and in a lot of instances are kept on way beyond the end of an implementation. That's the type of job to aim for....you could retire in less than 10 years because you'd also be paying a lot less tax on that income than say a headteacher - who pays 40% on the bulk of they're annual salary.
An IT consultant will use an umbrella company to avoid paying the rates of tax that someone in the same position, but a full-time employee, would pay.
So in defence of high public earners such as headmasters, while they do command extraordinary salaries they do pay an awful lot of tax. And i'd imagine they pay quite a lot out for their final salary pensions aswell.
So there we have it......heads receive a lot of taxpayers but pay a lot of tax.
consultants don't receive taxpayers money but pay very little tax as a propotion of they're income - now that's what i call the entreprenurial spirit. In defense they do have to pay their own expenses such as training (which they claim tax relief on) And don't have the luxury of sick pay, payed holiday et.al (dontchya feel sorry for 'em ?.......nah!! didn't think so). There's plenty of ways they can protect themselves via insurance policies against long-term sickness and such like.
Neither role is particularly ethical imo - especially when you consider most IT techs in schools are struggling on meagre salaries losing a quarter to the taxman every month. And unlike high earning senior teachers, most of whom would be 40+, young IT technicians haven't benefited from the property boom madness - so don't have six-figure equity to fall back on and feel smug about.
I agree, the balance needs to be redressed, in favour of low payed it professionals.
Last edited by torledo; 18th January 2008 at 10:30 AM.
18th January 2008, 10:38 AM #43
There used to be (may still) a big noticeboard outside churches with a banner display called "Wayside Pulpit" with a regular eye-catching slogan. These were very soon amended with witty grafitti. I remember one was
"THE WAGES OF SIN ARE DEATH!" to which someone had added
"BUT THE HOURS ARE GOOD"
I think that possibly sums up why we are here.
The funniest one I saw was
"BUT KEEGAN SCORES OFF THE REBOUND" (shows how long ago it was).
18th January 2008, 10:52 AM #44
Consultants receive a *lot* of taxpayers money. Much of the BSF is going to consultants, and I know that individual district councils are spending a lot of money (hundreds of thousands) on consultant reports for schemes like working in partnership etc. Anyone with an income over £35k pays 40% tax on earnings over that. I'd happily be in a 40% tax band!
Originally Posted by torledo
18th January 2008, 12:03 PM #45
If you're directing that to me directly, I have a BSc in Computing and know way too many programming languages including Java, (Visual) BASIC, PHP, PERL, C/C++, ASM and more besides. I've coded games that have been played by huge numbers of people on the Internet yet I work in a School, while I have a great deal of advanced technical skills on paper my status looks like this:
Originally Posted by torledo
Single White Male, Graduate Student.
Status is everything. Go figure.
Last edited by Friez; 18th January 2008 at 12:09 PM.
By JayR in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 8th March 2010, 12:51 PM
By thomazo in forum Network and Classroom Management
Last Post: 29th June 2007, 01:23 PM
By Samson in forum General Chat
Last Post: 22nd June 2007, 03:04 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)