Teachers demand 10% pay rise

stephen163

Davesnave wrote: »

That's very generous of you! What is your evidence that 'a lot' of teachers aren't deserving of your beneficence?

Have you also good, empirical evidence of a strong correlation between, say, the level of student degrees and subsequent good performance in the infant/junior classroom?

How about a few less sweeping generalisations on this thread? We could start by re-naming it 'Some teachers demand a 10% pay rise.'

I've been through the school system, my mum is a teaching assistant and my sister is a secondary school teacher. I too have worked in several primary schools doing after school clubs trying to get kids interested in engineering.

They all say the same thing - you get good teachers and you get bad teachers. Some are monumentally bad. Out of the many teachers, therefore, by the rule of proportionality, 'a lot' will be bad and undeserving of a pay increase because they add so little value. Conversely, a lot will be excellent.

Therefore 'A lot' is not a generalisation in this case. 'Most' is a generalisation. I was careful with my wording.

Lastly, I stated that better pay would increase applications. More teachers equates to more better quality teachers as you have a greater pool to choose from. Also, greater pay would increase the calibre of the applicants. I assumed this to be self evident, unless you wrongly assumed that I meant only academic performance in my definition of 'better quality graduates'. By better quality, I meant those who possess the desirable qualities (e.g., classroom presence, motivation) to excel. Better pay would, I am sure, encourage more people like this to enter the profession - but at what cost?

MyLastFiver

Really2 wrote: »

The point I was making is it is the lack of transparency when advertised causes the distrust. (local government nearly always now put scale and rate of pay)

Believe it or not not everybody can or will search the internet for that, they just believe it is a closed door.

Read through my posts you will then see what I have been saying.

as for the last bit why be so silly? I clearly said on advertising for jobs!

There is nothing to hide it would be good to let the general public know what teachers earn what is the problem.

It would most probably help the "public image" if people could see most jobs were under £35K.

I realise I'm coming into this argument late, but:

Teachers' pay scales are completely transparent, in the public domain and very easy to find, as others have pointed out.

Adverts for teaching jobs do not specify a figure because every candidate's salary will be different, depending on their length of service. So you might see on a job advert "MPS", meaning Main Pay Spine. The figure will differ depending on whether the successful applicant is on point 1 of the Main Pay Spine (because they are in their first year of service), or Point 6 (because they are in the sixth year) etc.

There is no subterfuge and no "hiding" of salaries. Teachers' pay is as transparent as it can possibly be. I can't see how you can assert otherwise.

Really2

MyLastFiver wrote: »

I realise I'm coming into this argument late, but:

Teachers' pay scales are completely transparent, in the public domain and very easy to find, as others have pointed out.

Adverts for teaching jobs do not specify a figure because every candidate's salary will be different, depending on their length of service. So you might see on a job advert "MPS", meaning Main Pay Spine. The figure will differ depending on whether the successful applicant is on point 1 of the Main Pay Spine (because they are in their first year of service), or Point 6 (because they are in the sixth year) etc.

There is no subterfuge and no "hiding" of salaries. Teachers' pay is as transparent as it can possibly be. I can't see how you can assert otherwise.

Well you obviously did not read the rest of my posts before posting. I have posted what I mean several times and many on here understand what I am saying. I am not going through ut again.

It was a point to raise support for teachers it is not transparent and it is not hidden.

But some facts when advertising on what a scale equates to would perhaps get past the idea that all teachers are very well paid.

Davesnave

stephen163 wrote: »

I've been through the school system, my mum is a teaching assistant and my sister is a secondary school teacher. I too have worked in several primary schools doing after school clubs trying to get kids interested in engineering.

They all say the same thing - you get good teachers and you get bad teachers. Some are monumentally bad. Out of the many teachers, therefore, by the rule of proportionality, 'a lot' will be bad and undeserving of a pay increase because they add so little value. Conversely, a lot will be excellent.

Therefore 'A lot' is not a generalisation in this case. 'Most' is a generalisation. I was careful with my wording.

Lastly, I stated that better pay would increase applications. More teachers equates to more better quality teachers as you have a greater pool to choose from. Also, greater pay would increase the calibre of the applicants. I assumed this to be self evident, unless you wrongly assumed that I meant only academic performance in my definition of 'better quality graduates'. By better quality, I meant those who possess the desirable qualities (e.g., classroom presence, motivation) to excel. Better pay would, I am sure, encourage more people like this to enter the profession - but at what cost?

That's a long way of saying, "My argument is based on supposition and you should understand what I mean by 'better quality graduates' without further elaboration." Fair enough.

Personally, I think those who make good teachers, find their way into the profession for reasons other than pure money rewards, so I doubt that simply raising pay levels would, in itself, raise the calibre of applicants. Obviously, anyone well-qualified, requires a reasonable reward for their work, but, beyond that, there are incentives and disincentives which persuade people to enter or leave the profession.

Chief among disincentives cited by those I've known leave, have been the general erosion of teachers authority, the endless and often futile changes passed-down from government and the lack of opportunity for true creativity within the curricular staitjacket. Some merely transfer to the private sector, of course, where at least they can be sure of a modicum of respect and civility, something that is increasingly absent in state schools.

Fail to put those things right, and those who can will walk, not teach, regardless of the salary.

wisbech_lad

simongregson wrote: »

I actually agree with this, the government always quotes £35k as a normal teaching salary whereas it only applies to those with 12 years experience.

But surely most teachers have 12 years experience? A graduate would tend to join mid-late 20's, retirement age 65, so therefore the average/ median experience level is more than 12 years I would guess.

Having said that, a sister switched to teaching at 45, after working as a teaching assistant for a few years. Because she could only find a part time job, and has to commute, she was actually better off when she was doing the PGCE! (grants etc) But she isn't teaching for the money, she's teaching because she wants to, and feels passionately that teenagers should be taught the subject she specialises in (food science/technology/nutrition, though she also teaches biology & general science)

Of course, helps that she & her OH have paid off mortgage, decent savings, etc.

Her school is in a more rural area though, with relatively low living costs, and pretty strict discipline. So teaching there (1) pays relatively well compared to local wages and (2) she's teaching A level, at a well run school, so almost no classroom control problems. The worst thing, according to her, is the petty politics/ gossip in the staff room, but even so, staff turnover is zero.

simongregson

wisbech_lad wrote: »

But surely most teachers have 12 years experience? A graduate would tend to join mid-late 20's, retirement age 65, so therefore the average/ median experience level is more than 12 years I would guess.

You are forgetting the huge number who leave the profession within the first few years for a variety of different reasons! Many come to teaching later in life or leave for other jobs, just as with most careers these days.

Government advertising strongly suggests that you will be on a higher salary than can be expected, and in particular the government have very successfully created the impression that teachers are overpayed as you will witness from some of the assumptions of other posters in this thread!

Jonbvn

My view of this issue is best left to the Daily Mash
LOL!

lostinrates

Davesnave wrote: »

Personally, I think those who make good teachers, find their way into the profession for reasons other than pure money rewards, so I doubt that simply raising pay levels would, in itself, raise the calibre of applicants. Obviously, anyone well-qualified, requires a reasonable reward for their work, but, beyond that, there are incentives and disincentives which persuade people to enter or leave the profession.

Chief among disincentives cited by those I've known leave, have been the general erosion of teachers authority, the endless and often futile changes passed-down from government and the lack of opportunity for true creativity within the curricular staitjacket. Some merely transfer to the private sector, of course, where at least they can be sure of a modicum of respect and civility, something that is increasingly absent in state schools.

Fail to put those things right, and those who can will walk, not teach, regardless of the salary.

Davesnave, I like this post.

The thing with evaluating schools and teachers, is, exam results, and even great academic teaching aren't the be all and end all. Nor is university entrance IMHO. Employment might be, but would be almost impossible to ascertain and very expensive to even try.

*Cariad*

Can we just remember that this isn't *every* teacher, just those who are with NUT.
I'm a teacher and am content with my wage, and am thankful that I have been able to get a job - Wales being quite difficult to get a permanent contract.
I am also one of the saddos who can't wait to get back to work to see the little ones!:o

Davesnave

lostinrates wrote: »

Davesnave, I like this post.

The thing with evaluating schools and teachers, is, exam results, and even great academic teaching aren't the be all and end all. Nor is university entrance IMHO. Employment might be, but would be almost impossible to ascertain and very expensive to even try.

That's very true LIR, particularly in primary, where exams have skewed and narrowed the curriculum and teachers, forced by circumstances beyond their control, have also taken on roles that would have been seen as 'parenting' in earlier times.

Believe me, if we had the same kids coming into primary schools as we had in, say, the seventies, results would be different, and not just in an academic sense!