Teachers get 2.45% pay rise

[Oops_my_bad]

I think that some staff *do* deserve a pay rise however - I know that in the place I work, some teachers are on less money than I am Oddly its these teachers who are probably the best, they work longer hours, have happier more motivated classes (from what i've seen) and generally are more conciencious. Yet the ones that are bloody useless are far, far too overpaid. In fact as a tax payer some of the wages I find quite disgraceful! :eek:

 

(obviously you are privy to financial information before I get flamed)

Edited January 15, 2008 by TeddyKGB

[mattx]

Did the teachers ever strike on Grange Hill ?

[russdev]

Hands up al those who went and googled to see if they did or not and then spent next 20 mins looking at grange hill fan sites...

 

Russ

Edited January 15, 2008 by russdev

[webman]

*looks around*

 

Nope, just you Russ

[derer1]

Where I used to be, the HT was on 95k+, and a *large* number of teaching staff were on 50-70 and up. I was on 18k, then 20k, and the rest of the IT staff were on 10-16k.

We went back and forth a lot on this - always we had the 'we pay well for the area' argument thrown at us. Well yes, it's a deprived rural area - but when you can earn more shelf-stacking in the Tesco's down the road. No money for training, no money for payrises - yet year on year the HT got his payrise (over 100k by now I'd imagine) and the teachers paychecks got fatter and fatter.

 

I did have to control my reaction to a department head telling me, with a straight face, that 'if I wanted money, I wouldnt be in teaching' - pray tell what - bank robbery?

Same dept head also justified the reason for the abysmal pay for technicians by saying we 'werent paid to think'

 

Guess what department? ICT teacher.

[torledo]

Where I used to be, the HT was on 95k+, and a *large* number of teaching staff were on 50-70 and up. I was on 18k, then 20k, and the rest of the IT staff were on 10-16k.

We went back and forth a lot on this - always we had the 'we pay well for the area' argument thrown at us. Well yes, it's a deprived rural area - but when you can earn more shelf-stacking in the Tesco's down the road. No money for training, no money for payrises - yet year on year the HT got his payrise (over 100k by now I'd imagine) and the teachers paychecks got fatter and fatter.

 

I did have to control my reaction to a department head telling me, with a straight face, that 'if I wanted money, I wouldnt be in teaching' - pray tell what - bank robbery?

Same dept head also justified the reason for the abysmal pay for technicians by saying we 'werent paid to think'

 

Guess what department? ICT teacher.

 

Those comments by that dept. head were disgraceful...what a loon.

 

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.

Edited January 16, 2008 by torledo

[SpuffMonkey]

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...

 

£46,000

 

So 9 out of every 10 people in the UK earn less than 46k - kind of puts those teacher salaries into perspective - dunnit.

[K.C.Leblanc]

I briefly worked in the housing offices of a certain unnamed council and to be perfectly honest, the job is shit, the wage is shit, and you don't need a single brain cell to do it.

 

Quite a lot of Schools use LEA pay scales, so support staff come under the Local Government pay agreement.

[russdev]

Interesting read in guardian yesterday about single status reform and who is going to pay for it all..

 

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2240609,00.html

[CyberNerd]

Interesting read in guardian yesterday about single status reform and who is going to pay for it all..

 

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2240609,00.html

 

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.

 

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.

[russdev]

I do agree but can see heads view of well lea should pay for it as we followed their advice.

 

Russ

[torledo]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Vegas]

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.

[pallen]

@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.

[Friez]

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!

Edited January 18, 2008 by Friez

[TechMonkey]

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.

[torledo]

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!

 

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.

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.

Edited January 18, 2008 by torledo

[laserblazer]

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

 

"JESUS SAVES!"

 

reply

 

"BUT KEEGAN SCORES OFF THE REBOUND" (shows how long ago it was).

[CyberNerd]

consultants don't receive taxpayers money but pay very little tax as a propotion of they're income

 

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!

[Friez]

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

 

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:

 

Single White Male, Graduate Student.

 

Status is everything. Go figure.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Friez

[broc]

I have worked in the IT Industry for over 35 years, with 30 years in the private sector. I ended up as a Consultant working for a Global IT Company before I retired 5 years ago. My employer billed my time at between £1000 and £1400 per day, and in those days I was probably paid as much as a Head Teacher at a poor school.

 

BUT I had no life; I lived out of a suitcase, I was away Mon-Fri most weeks, working 10-14 hour days. My 'patch' covered Europe...... with long spells in the USA. I missed my children growing up; at weekends all I wanted to do was relax & unwind, every Sunday evening I could feel the tension rising as the prospect of another week away loomed.

 

Yes I was paid very well; I paid plenty of tax too. My family reckoned I would be dead at 55 because of stress, or having fallen asleep at the wheel. I will be 56 this year, with every prospect of living a while longer because of my lifestyle change.

 

I consider myself fortunate to have had a long & successful career in IT, but when it comes to enjoying what I am doing I have to say working at my school is the best thing I have done in the last 10 years!

[zag]

I consider myself fortunate to have had a long & successful career in IT, but when it comes to enjoying what I am doing I have to say working at my school is the best thing I have done in the last 10 years!

 

100% agree with this, Im 29 and have worked in industry in a stressfull job already, then moved into education. Its all about a lifestyle change and having job security, 13 weeks holiday and a far less stressfull life make it totally worth it.

[torledo]

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:

 

Single White Male, Graduate Student.

 

Status is everything. Go figure.

 

I wasn't directing that comment at anyone in particular - i was making the point that money can be made in IT, and people particularly self-employed IT consultants can and do make a lot of money with the right skillset.....

 

Just because you know all those programming languages and other skills means jack if you don't have the skills that are in demand and can command a premium. In fact, typically being a programmer is not a lucrative specialism whatever language you program in. That's not a slight on you - and i'm sure you couldn't care less that some oracle financials consultant somewhere is commanding £800 a day despite having probably half the all-round IT knowledge of you're good self - but that's just the reality of the situation. You might think you have the right skillset to command much higher pay, but you don't, infact very few of us do - i know i certainly don't.....

 

Like broc i know of consultants who earn £800+ a day, and earn that amount on projects on a daily basis as they are effectively full-time employess in all but status. Others work on a contract basis. There is a lot of travelling and that missed time with you're children you can never get back - but a lot of people would say it's for they're childrens financial security that they are doing that kind of work.

 

As I said these days self-employed consultants can conceivably retire within a decade after going it alone having paid off the mortgage and put they're kids through private school, but not everyone can choose that career direction. Job satisfaction and happiness is all very well - but it doesn't always pay the bills, particularly at the current expensive standard of living, and they're something to be said for not being burdened with a large debt for the rest of you're life. No-ones going to hand it you on a plate...you've got to go out there and earn that money and you're certainly not going to get rich if you take the 'easy' option of working in a school or being any other wage slave. It's probably better for work-life balance but not for long-term financial security.

Edited January 18, 2008 by torledo

[torledo]

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!

 

There are many different types of IT consultants targeting different sectors. Sure public sector specialists are in effect receiving tax payers' money but consultants working in the corporate sector aren't, consultants for instance who work on projects for FTSE 100 companies - and there are a lot of IT consultants working for global brands. It was these i was referring to - sorry, should have clarified that.