£10k To Teach In Worst Schools

[wagnerk]

£10k To Teach In Worst Schools

The best teachers are to be offered £10,000 "golden handcuffs" payments for working at the worst performing secondary schools.

The deal will form a key plank of measures to improve social mobility, which are being unveiled by Gordon Brown today.

Research suggests children in Britain are less likely than those in other developed countries to move up the social ladder and get better jobs than their parents.

Ministers believe enhancing GCSE results for kids from poorer families is crucial if the problem is to be addressed and society made fairer.

To read the whole article, see here.

-Ken

[webman]

Unions have long argued that the top teachers should be paid more. But there are concerns that hundreds of thousands who do not benefit may feel resentful of their colleagues.

Paid even more?? They're not royalty. They're not football players. They're instantly-replaceable babysitters for 30 kids at a time ( in a nutshell )

For crying out loud. Are we dealing with a bunch of babies here? In business this situation would encourage the lower-paid employees to do better and work harder to achieve the higher salaries. Oh no, not in education. Stamp you feet and complain to your union - that's the way to do it.

[K.C.Leblanc]

I think this could be counter productive. I wouldn't send my child to a school that was using these measures.

[enjay]

In business this situation would encourage the lower-paid employees to do better and work harder to achieve the higher salaries. Oh no, not in education.

But the difference with business is that companies pay different amounts depending on the job, typically including financial extras for the less pleasant things; schools on the other hand have standardised(ish) pay scales. "Difficult" schools which pay the same as the others will always have staffing issues - why get paid £x to get abused all day when you can go to a different school and get paid the same amount to spend the day around nice polite children? If the working conditions suck, all the schools really can do to entice people is pay them more.

[webman]

But the difference with business is that companies pay different amounts depending on the job, typically including financial extras for the less pleasant things; schools on the other hand have standardised(ish) pay scales. "Difficult" schools which pay the same as the others will always have staffing issues - why get paid £x to get abused all day when you can go to a different school and get paid the same amount to spend the day around nice polite children? If the working conditions suck, all the schools really can do to entice people is pay them more.

You make a very good point. But these "under performing" schools already have teachers. Is paying some of them more really going to do any good or better?

[enjay]

Is paying some of them more really going to do any good or better?

Not directly, but what it might achieve is to make the teachers stay longer, meaning the schools have a more consistent, experienced, familiar staff and don't have the time and expense of constant recruitment and induction. It also might serve to encourage more people to apply for positions when they advertise, and therefore give a greater likelihood of getting a good teacher.

[tech_guy]

Hmmm, this image springs to mind:

[beeswax]

It doesn't work out as that much over three years really. Once tax is deducted you're probably talking of £2000+ a year. While I appreciate this is a big difference for us techies, would it really make a teacher stay at a "difficult" school for three years?
My wife and I wouldn't have gone to university without full grants being available (I'm talking about the '70's here). Perhaps they should look at reintroducing these to reduce educational apartheid.

[enjay]

£2k a year could make that difference, depending on the financial situation of the individual, e.g. to a debt-ridden NQT it could be the difference between being able to afford to live there and not.

I agree about the re-introduction of grants, but money must also be spent further down as not everyone can/wants to go to uni - assisted pre-school places was a good move.

[beeswax]

£2k a year could make that difference, depending on the financial situation of the individual, e.g. to a debt-ridden NQT it could be the difference between being able to afford to live there and not.

I agree about the re-introduction of grants, but money must also be spent further down as not everyone can/wants to go to uni - assisted pre-school places was a good move.

I agree that more should be spent on extra teachers in the early years where some children almost need one-to-one tuition.
I suppose if NQT's can only afford to live in the areas where the poorest schools are then perhaps the government shouldn't be offering the extra money, in fact it should be reducing the salaries of teachers.

[dave20046]

Why don't I get paid more for working in one of the highest security school in south yorkshire It's a warzone, only worked here a couple of months and I've already had to restrain a child. £10k wouldn't go a miss...