Teachers should receive a 1.8% premium for not working from home

[noblegiraffe]

Interesting suggestion from the NFER who say the teacher recruitment crisis shows no sign of abating.

They suggest at minimum a 3.1% pay rise this year for teachers (govt recommendation is 1-2%) but interestingly, to make teaching competitive with other graduate jobs that allow some element of working from home, teachers should receive 1.8% extra on top of that.

I think commuting costs used to be a given for any job, but now it’s something employers are going to have to start thinking about paying for if they want people in the office.

https://www.nfer.ac.uk/press-releases/teacher-recruitment-and-retention-crisis-shows-no-signs-of-abating-new-report-reveals/

Would it be the worst thing in the world if some teaching was delivered centrally via Zoom?

For example, outside lecturers, niche subjects, cross-year debates etc?

If this freed up enough teacher time to ease the workload, then it might do the world of good to the balance.

Though frankly, it would be the LA that likely managed it, and in my experience, it's LA's that really fuck up the workload.

But they've never been able to work from home so there's no change to their terms of employment nor surely to their expectations of the role. Many jobs can't be done from home, if that's your priority them it's not the job for you.

By all means give them a pay rise but what's with the bullshit? I'd like to be cabin crew but I want a bonus cos I can't work from home.

Thank you. I was just wondering really. My DC is in only in reception and her teacher has PPA every Friday PM which I thought was quite nice because presumed he could go home at lunchtime then and do it at home or flex it whenever he wants over the weekend really. But I suppose secondary must be a whole other thing with how complicated timetables are there, that does sound a bit rubbish. And ridiculous that some places wouldn't let the teacher leave site for PPA pre-covid!

Thank you for the great work you do!

There's been a change to the wider employment market. This is particularly important when it comes to recruiting new graduates to the profession. Obviously someone who's 23 and thinking about their options isn't going to take into account whether people who've been in the job years have had a change to their terms and conditions. The appropriate comparison there is with the jobs they might do instead. The competition, basically.

If there's a significant problem recruiting cabin crew, and I wouldn't know the first thing about that sector, then yes this may also be applicable there too. If there isn't then it wouldn't be comparable.

🙄

I'm totally confused about this, why do they need to be compensated? You can't work from home, it's just not an option and I really don't see how this will make teaching more attractive to high calibre candidates. Teaching is, for many, the last resort because they can earn twice as much in a better job in a much more pleasant environment.

It's not common. We couldn't come in late because we'd miss briefings and tutor time. Can't usually leave early because of meetings.

@ShepherdMoons I think you're kind of making the point though. Teaching shouldn't be a last resort for high calibre graduates.

When I started teaching I wasnt the only oxbridge graduate in either of my first 2 jobs!

But the change has been elswhere.

Imagine you are a graduate considering your career options. Previously the majority of professional jobs were onsite with quite rigid hours, so you compared teaching and this wasnt a downside of teaching, it was fairly universal.

Now, you are looking at career options and many more employers are saying flexible hours, hybrid working etc but teaching has stayed the same.

So yes, if you prefer flexible working teaching isnt for you. But we need teachers and there isnt enough. one possible solution is saying "look we cant offer flexibility but we can offer slighlty higher pay than that similar civil service role you were thinking of in recognition of that"

But that's the point. Teaching can't compete with other graduate level roles that do offer wfh. So teaching needs to improve its overall offering to entice graduates.

Are they going to level out the incentive payments? Currently there is no incentive for anyone with an arts or humanities degree to enter the profession. I understand they want to attract more maths and science graduates but why would anyone else want to join a job that sees them as lesser?

There are a huge number of jobs and careers which require an employee's physical presence at the workplace in order to carry them out.

What makes teachers so special? again

Giving teachers, or indeed trainees more money isn't going to solve the recruitment and retention crisis unless it's a LOT more money, and maybe not even then. Money isn't the reason most teachers quit teaching or the reason trainees drop out either during or soon after their training, or don't choose to train in the first place. People often take pay cuts to leave teaching. Deeper change is needed.

Teachers need to recognise for their skills they are well paid.

An equivalent profession would be social work. I'm sure social workers would love to swap their work loads and working hours and salaries with teachers.

I don't think people who are not attracted to teaching due to no wfh options would be persuaded by a small salary uplift.

In my field I refuse to apply to any employer who doesn't offer hybrid or full wfh, luckily most do. An extra 2% pay wouldn't entice me in the slightest. The benefits for me go beyond money

Well, it's the National Foundation for Educational Research. So obviously they focus a lot on teachers. They aren't offering comment on whether other sectors would see their recruitment and retention issues improve if they offered better wages. That's not their lane.

I understand the arguments from posters who think this wouldn't work because it's insufficient/the wrong incentive. But nobody has yet been able to explain why the existence of other jobs that can't be done from home is a point against the proposals.

Because you go into certain professions knowing what conditions you're walking into. You do work based placements as part of your training, you cannot tell me any graduate teacher joins a school completely blind to what the job entails?

No. I work an hour away from home and my PPA is generally P2 or P3 out of the day (for an hour).

I basically often teach for an hour - get a free period of an hour - then teach the rest of the day. I can't drive home!

Which is in fact the problem. People know what the role entails and are increasingly not actually going into it. That's what NFER are commenting on.

So that leaves us two choices. We either make the conditions more attractive, which includes consideration of how the job matches up to the alternatives that in many cases will include remote/hybrid options. Or we don't have enough people doing it.

Totally agree

Some people think that it’s an issue that kids don’t have teachers at the moment and want to do something to try to fix that.

If you are happy for kids not to have a teacher, I assume you don’t have any at or approaching school age.

However it’s also an issue for future employers if the workforce is poorly educated due to not having teachers.

Nothing.

Presumably those careers are either putting in place other measures to mitigate this, arent in shortage areas, or are also struggling to recruit and retain staff, which is also impacting on their service delivery.

Teachers need to recognise for their skills they are well paid.

No. Teachers can and do recognise that we are NOT well paid for the amount and nature of work we do. No amount of telling us we should be grateful for our salaries, pensions, working hours or holidays, or comparing our salaries favourably with what you consider similar jobs, is going to magic up enough teachers to teach this country's children.

An equivalent profession would be social work. I'm sure social workers would love to swap their work loads and working hours and salaries with teachers.

So what? Are more people going to decide to become teachers because being a social worker is worse, or worse paid?

The more of these threads I read the less sympathy I have for teachers. Do you not realise the more you moan about your jobs the more you put people off entering the profession creating a doom spiral effect? Nurses are good at this too.

How about starting some threads about the positives about the job. Encourage people into the profession. These threads are so common now it's just white noise.

No one has addressed the disparity in pay between sciences and social sciences either.

Rather than I pay rise, I think consolidating PPA time to allow for 1 day p/w WFH would fix the problem.
I quit teaching after my 1st maternity leave because of the work load. I chose to work 4 days a week, to give myself 1 day a week for planning, to lessen the load in the evenings and weekends. I still had to work evenings, weekends and holidays, but it was more manageable. That meant that I only got paid 80% despite actually working full time, but it was the only way to survive.