Maths teachers should be paid more than PE teachers

Yes, agreed noble, I just think people took the bait. But I would still argue that money, therefore, is not a full solution. I do think as soon as it becomes known that some people are being paid more for doing the same jobs as others, discontent rises ,and a potential retention problem is created in another subject area.

But, let's face it, it is already being addressed in many schools by making heads of Eng, ma and Science AHTs by default.

It’s already happening

Well that makes it ok then. If everyone else is doing it or saying it then I can. As teachers don't we discourage this type of thinking in our students.

As you correctly identify this is a national problem that is reaching crisis point. The government needs to address this nationally. It is not just maths and science as other posters identify English and MFL are also facing recruitment crises.

If we firefight with short term destructive measures we will weaken the whole system. This is a government issue that needs addressing by the government. Sticking plaster solutions will not work in the long term.

We need to use platforms like MN to make wider society aware of the absolute necessity to fund education properly if people want their children educated by professionals. The government must address this issue.

Rushing to apply market forces where they are not relevant or useful and will cause long term damage is short sighted and ultimately very harmful.

I don't necessarily think some subjects should be paid more than others.... you'd have to pay me a million to teach pe outdoors in northern Scotland in the winter. I do think that contact time should be subject based. The making workload for English is much greater then maths no matter what my colleagues say 😂

So one of the conundrums about teachers pay is: Lots of them (especially on MN) want collective bargaining so they are all paid the same, but the same teachers individually also want to be able to move schools to get a promotion and be paid more
I don't think you get how a promotion works.
Your actual job changes.
Promotion is not a pay rise.
Would teachers accept a contract for a pay rise contingent on staying with the same school for x amount of years?
So in order to be paid properly and not have a real terms cut year on year, I'd have to sacrifice applying for promoted posts for a number of years?
Ummm no thanks.

Why not do the revolutionary thing which is get a handle on workload, increase PPA time a little and then move the pay scales up in line with inflation?
Only speaking for myself, I'm not bothered about megabucks and anyone entering teaching for the money is doing the wrong thing. They need to make the career more attractive.

walking being paid more because of a promotion is an entirely different thing!

I think the issue here angharad is that people are arguing paying more to some people for doing the exact same job with the same contract, the same hours ... not entirely ethical?

And, as usual, this ahs turned into a 'STEM is so important' thread. Just like to point out there is a growing shortage of English teachers and an absolute crisis in MFL. And I don't think those two are necessarily about professionals who could be paid £££££ elsewhere.

Salary tends to rise and fall with demand in other areas so why not teaching?

The young graduates I’m referring to aren’t going to other schools, rather they’re getting out of teaching. I am 49 and I’ve been teaching close to 30yrs and I’ve never known such low staff morale. I’ve never seen so many NQTs offered just a 1yr contract, nor so many young teachers leave within the first 5yrs post qualification. Here, in SE commuter belt, we struggle with both recruitment and retention in no small part due to house prices. Incidentally, despite the national picture, this LA also struggles to recruit primary teachers. We are heavily reliant on supply cover across the ages and there’s always lots of advertised vacancies.

So one of the conundrums about teachers pay is: Lots of them (especially on MN) want collective bargaining so they are all paid the same, but the same teachers individually also want to be able to move schools to get a promotion and be paid more.

Now surly that is double standards? "I dont like the market, I should be paid more but I am quite happy to use the market to be paid more".

Which is it? Would teachers accept a contract for a pay rise contingent on staying with the same school for x amount of years?

at anyone thinking primary teaching is a nice little job for mums. I wouldn’t leave secondary and return to primary for double my salary. I’m not kidding! Working until midnight and most of Sunday? No way! My workload is still heavy but at least it’s now manageable.

And it really isn’t just about pay. If you don’t want to teach then teaching will destroy your soul. It’s all very well offering large, tempting salaries to maths grads to entice them into the classroom but what is the point if they’ve gone again by the following summer? It’s ok for me, I’m pushing 50, p/t and reasonable senior so I get some say in my timetable. NQTs have no such luxury. As a collective they are earning less for double the stress. I shudder at the thought of being newly qualified these days.

I think qualified teachers are outdated anyway. (Or that's what my son's school's mat head seems to think). After all, all you need is passion and want to make a difference...

Anyway, while I agree on papaer, I don't in the 'real world'. I bit like PRP. It works on paper, but not when you start to break it down.

It would probably help if new teachers were not given bottom set Y10 or even worse resit Y12.

You're all wrong. Drama teachers should be paid the most because they put in all the extra hours and evenings (on top of an English like marking load).

It just doesn't work. Get the teachers to argue amongst themselves. Divide and conquer...

There is a chronic shortage of primary teachers in London. It's a huge problem.

I honestly don't think it would make a difference. I don't believe there are people out there who would just love to be maths teachers, but only if it paid more.

Perfectly happy for teachers to be paid much more providing it goes hand in hand with effective performance management.

I had no idea that teachers in shirtange subjects weren’t paid more. It seems fairly straightforward that if you can’t recruit and retain a particular skill in your school/company you in some way make it more attractive, probably through the benefits package. My company has 3 parallel pay scales, the one you are on depends on your skills and the job role you are in. Which skill sets and job roles are eligible for which salary scale are all available on the HR website. There’s no resentment and infighting, people know if they want to be on one of the technical salary scales they would need to retrain in that technical discipline - occasionally people do. All the pay scales are externally benchmarked and depending on the need for the various skill sets the gap between them narrows or widens as necessary. This enables the company to employ the staff it needs. I can’t honestly understand why schools don’t work the same way - although overall funding for schools would probably become a problem if they were trying to seriously compete for maths and science graduates and would obviously need to continue to pay other subjects at least as well as they do now.

Trouble is with economics, is that price is not based on value, but on supply and demand.

And a teacher, in say London with a new family, who is trying to work out how to achieve a reasonable standard of living —make ends meet—, may well be tempted by other options. And more tempting other options are likely to present themselves to maths/science teachers than others.

So you give up trying to teach maths or you work out how to retain maths teachers. Money won’t be everything but it will play it’s part.

Ishouldntbesolucky that's it exactly. If we have a teacher who has excellent pastoral relationships with the students and keeps them in education is that less valuable than maths?

Teaching is so much more than the sum of it's parts.

Less data, more teaching improve the job for everyone.

This is an interesting debate.

On the one hand, looking at the shortage subjects - Maths, Science, MFL, Technology - it strikes me that these are mainly 'skills' subjects, where graduates are pretty employable elsewhere - not just in teaching. Whereas, although humanities graduates are clearly very employable in many fields, I'm guessing these are mainly areas requiring graduates (any graduate) than someone needed for a knowledge of geography for example. So for someone who loves their subject and wants to use it in their job, other subject areas have fewer options than the shortage subjects.

Also, there's the question of pay. Most of those shortage subjects attract a decent rate of pay elsewhere. So teachers of those subjects are pretty employable and don't have to stick at teaching if they've had enough of poor conditions / ridiculous demands etc.

On the other hand, a teacher does far more than just teach their subject. Things like being a form tutor, parents evenings, teaching PSHE etc are common for everyone, so it wouldn't be fair to pay shortage subject teachers more. But there again, something needs to be done. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than to improve the job for everyone. Less data, more teaching.