£19,000 per-rata? What would this actually be?

[Stunnnnd]

www.teachfirst.org.uk/academic-mentors

This is a coronavirus mentor scheme.
It says if you get the job, you would be paif £19,000 per year (pro-rata dependent on start date).
At the moment, it is only open to qualified teachers but will soon open for non-qualified.

I am currently a primary supply teacher and i'm not sure whether to apply for it.
The only thing putting me off is the pay.
Am I right in the assumption that £19,000 would actually be around £13,000-£14,000 when pro-rata is taken into account?

If so, I find this quite an offputting pay for qualified teachers and then I think maybe I should stick with supply, but then again it's uncertain how much work there will be but I did enjoy supply last year.

But maybe i'm wrong and misunderstanding. Can I have some advice?

I wonder if they were aiming at recruiting last years’ set of “qualified” teachers, who perhaps, if they were doing a year long PGCe course, are not really qualified at all??

Why they would pay qualified and unqualified teachers the same
Because they can.
The money dropped out of the supply market as soon as Learning Cover Supervisors/TAs could be chucked in the classroom (no disrespect, I have been both).
Seeing as schools could take on non QTS and many supply staff were deemed to be glorified babysitters (again, no disrespect I have been subject to crap supply, have been a supply and have been a childminder) it isn't a respected role.
Agencies were ruthless back in the day with margins but had schools by the balls - that's no longer the case and it will be what the Covid impact will be. I am scared that there will be little work. How many staff are going to be doing inset or out on trips?

The teaching first ad though reminds me of the idea of recruiting retired teachers for Summer school. I just wonder whether the govt want a bank of teachers and non-teachers to use for a second wave. As I said, I am cynical.
I haven't read the advert yet - does it say they will place you or recommend you to schools long-term? I am restricted geographically. I also don't want to be anyone's scapegoat as a TA or LM for pupils getting the interventions not making the sufficient progress given they have had 4 months out of education (and yet I was told for primary that next year's outcomes for SATS were still expected to be on par).

I missed out the word interesting
yes pepper I wondered that too. How many (Not quite) NQTs are there without a job currently and how were they going to complete their course?
Add to that the government saying that Covid had increased PGCE applications, because graduates feared unemployment, it will be interesting too what happens with teacher recruitment and retention.
That might have a knock-on effect on the supply industry for the following year too.

One week training for QTS
Two weeks for grad

small groups
1-1
revision lessons
additional support for shielding

That covers a multitude of sins, OP!
I am having the same quandry as you. I do like with supply being able to choose where I go and where I return to, if I return. So being matched with a school...
good luck to you OP in any case and thanks for the info

Lop off 20% for working term time only. (So you get paid for the equivalent of working 4 days a week)

If you do less than absolutely full time, Mon-Fri, say an hour and a half less a day, take off another 20% for that. You will probably still end up working every lunch and break. And before school. And after school. It's all about the Children, you know. And somebody has to be in the playground whilst the teaching staff have their breaks or meetings.

Then take that total and divide it over 12 months and you'll have an idea of the gross wage.

Take off your pension (worse than the teachers' one), tax, NI, etc. Allow for the costs of travel and being suitably attired in expensive professional business attire. And whether it has implications for your length of service, as support staff work isn't counted, so your length of service is zero.

Think of how much you get as supply now. Compare the two. And take into account you don't have any rights that teaching staff do, because you're going to be on a support staff contract. And who goes first when a school is skint or needs to pay the consultancy fee for a logo and uniform rebrand as part of the dragging it back from a crappy Ofsted report and covering the cost of the new and improved shiny young things that are going to be part of SLT? That's right, support staff.

Then there are the less tangible things. You're not a teacher, you're support. Some people will speak to you differently - and not just kids and parents, I mean SLT in particular.

In addition, if it's like the standard Teach First, you'll also have to attend study groups on Saturdays and Sundays. And if you leave, the contract says you owe them money. A fuckton of it. And they're targeting frankly, the shittiest schools. No nice little outstanding secondary for you - massive amounts of deprivation, violence, poverty of opportunity, aspiration, a culture of desperation, exercising crowd control - and hopefully persuading a few disenchanted and disenfranchised kids to do five minutes work. Assuming you get a head who thinks you're there to be a cheap cover supervisor. After all, they'll get a teacher effectively - no problem you doing all the planning and marking as well, is there?

By this point, you will have probably worked out that you'd be better off getting a job in a supermarket, as you'll have more opportunities for overtime, plus the ability to take holiday during the year, not just when everything is at its most expensive. Or stay as agency. You'll be treated better - and when it comes down to it, you can always walk out of a booking, which you definitely cannot do with TeachFirst.

Working in education has unfortunately become like being in a corporation. Results at all cost. It's so sad.

Is no one else concerned that a qualified teacher doesn't know what pro-rata means?

Not really @SkiingIsHeaven as it depends on whether it is paid term time only and how many hours they consider the school day to be. I don't think it's that the OP doesn't know what the actual term means. I'm a full time teacher contracted for 27.5 hrs per week (ha! Do more like 55) but I imagine the £19,000 could be for 37.5 hours which would be impossible to work. If so it sounds like a disgustingly low rate for a qualified teacher and shows how little the role will be valued.

@SkiingIsHeaven I do know what pro-rata means. If you read my OP properly, my OP was for help to try and see if others could work out what the actual rate would be as there wasn't much information on their site.
@Subordinateclause pretty much summed up my confusion.

@SupplyTeacherakaCannonFodder yes I am very put off by it after this thread so thank you everyone! The pay is criminal for a qualified teacher and as one poster mentioned - perhaps they would take advantage of having a qualified teacher but on the cheap.
I do worry about supply but who knows what September/October will bring

@MitziK Have you had experience with TeachFirst? I had never really heard of them before this job post.
Your post pretty much summed up everything I was thinking.

@Everyonetakeiteasy It's a shame more money is not put into education. This country seems to want everythimg cheap when it comes to children's learning.

Not when it sounds like they might be using pro rata in the non standard way.

I'd be checking what they mean as in how it translates into £ per month worked.

Pro rata usually means the full time full year salary is £19k per year but you get 60% of that if you work 3 days per week for example.

But with school roles you have to account for the fact that you don't work the full year but are entitled to be paid for some of the holidays due to legal minimum holiday allowance.

But it is lower than standard teaching salaries so it shouldn't be a standard teaching post, they can't expect to pay teaching assistant rates but get qualified teacher work.

But seeing as some qualified teachers want an education job but not a teaching job, there's probably a market for what is on offer.

Yes the salary is low, but if it's term time only and you have DC, you still have the very valuable advantage of being off for all the school holidays, which is worth a lot in childcare you don't have to pay for, so even though it shouldn't be a factor to justify the low salary, practically it makes a big difference if you're in this position and comparing with a job outside education where you might have to work and pay childcare in the school holidays.

I'm worried about them opening this up to non-teachers. It's like they're dumbing down education completely!

How can non-teachers teach!?

It's a madly low salary for a qualified teacher.... Any teacher seriously applying for it, please don't...

Otherwise you're perpetuating the myth that as a vocational job it shouldn't be paid properly....

Don't join in...!! You're oppressing your teacher colleagues...

I can't see any male dominated profession tolerating this...

Can you ring them up and ask? It's worth checking.

Don't want to give you false hope but a friend of mine applied for a part time job that was "£15000k pro rata" so thought Ok so for three days a week I'll be getting £9k , then it turned out £15k was the pro rated salary ! She was thrilled.

It looks like a way into teaching for graduates, or someone newly qualified who hasn't secured a job this year. I think they're prioritising qualified teachers and then taking on graduates if they haven't filled the roles. I've only skim read but they're providing a weeks training for qualified teachers and two weeks training for qualified.

I think £19,000 pro rata is a level 2 TA pay(14,000 - 15,000 depending on hours each day) so very low for a qualified teacher. I think it's basically a TA role, some TAs do work as mentors now but would be on a TA 3 grade for that, so this salary is taking this piss for anyone but a graduate who is thinking of going into teaching and wants experience before making up their mind.

I'm not a teacher but I do read contracts for a living and I think the whole 'pro-rata' thing has been misinterpreted. By my reading, it would be a salary of £19,000 for a fixed, full-time position for the academic year - if you start the training at the earliest point (Oct 2020). But if you joined the scheme in Jan 2021, for example, you would receive proportionately less (because the contract has less time to run) but you would receive the same monthly salary.

There are so many other factors to consider too. How much you earn as a supply teacher, how dependable those earnings are, whether they will be impacted by Covid (for better or worse). This sounds like a role where you will be working closely with smaller groups of children who have fallen behind during lockdown - would this add another string to your bow, wiuld you enjoy building longer term relationships with these kids or do you prefer the 'jump in, jump out again' approach of supply teaching? Are you looking for stability and potentially a full teacher's position (in which case this may be a way in) or content as you are?

Actually, I don't think this is such a bad deal (if it's how I'm reading it) when put in context.

The job isn't that of a qualified teacher. It's providing focused tutoring in a 121 or small group context in a school setting, or external support to those shielding. So my assumption is that there is no prep and no take home of the job - it's targeted at intervention.

I have a job that's paid a certain rate. I wouldn't expect to get the same salary for choosing to take a lower-qualified role in the same industry regardless of why I did so.

(FYI, I work in the education support sector and we hire ex-teachers because their experience is valuable to us, and we pay more than 19k pro rata . But many have little to no non-teaching experience and can be varied in their level of business experience so do take a step back when they start with us. You can't just expect to command the same salary when switching roles.)

They're presumably hiring teachers into the programme first because the training period is shorter, and they may find themselves with enough who have QTS who've chosen this route for whatever reasons.

And as for the tutoring - I did tutoring of my fellow sixth-formers and I was damn good at it. I created revision guides and anthologies that are still used by my school. Tutoring is a skill very distinct of teaching, and a lot of school children do it informally.

Of course teachers are valuable and should be valued, but I don't see the need to froth about an opportunity that has come out of very specific circumstances and isn't anywhere near the job of a teacher.

I think there will be loads of supply next term given that teachers will be off self isolating due to COVID symptoms as well as normal sickness.

Standard salary will is paid for 37.5 hours a week. As support staff you will probably be paid for a shorter day, although expected to work longer. Although this will depend on the role and the school. You will probably only be paid for 4 weeks holiday so that would 39 teaching weeks (if including inset) plus 4 holidays so 43 out 52 weeks of the years. Again this will depend on the school and if you are required to work summer clubs.

So assuming you were paid for the lower 32.5 hours a week, the same as a teacher, and for 44 weeks of the year, also the same as a teacher, then the job could pay as little as £14,566 before tax, national insurance and pensions contributions.

Don’t know where that random “will” came from.

I think this is not a bad rate of pay for a new graduate who is thinking of becoming a teacher, and wants some hands-on experience. It sounds to me that that is the sort of person they are targeting the advert at. If my daughter had graduated this year she might have been interested - she's hoping to train as a teacher next year.

Obviously not a good rate of pay for a qualified teacher.

Fuck all, that's what it is. Salaries are so shit now, I got paid £17,000 for a basic office job in London in 1998.

@MitziK, that was a bloody brilliant post! I’ve been to the same place and got the same t-shirt.

You're not a teacher, you're support.
You’re actually lucky if you’re called support staff. A lot of places say non-teaching staff, ie defining you by what you’re not.

Some people will speak to you differently - and not just kids and parents, I mean SLT in particular.
Better get used to being told, “You can’t tell me what to do. You’re not even a teacher.”

By this point, you will have probably worked out that you'd be better off getting a job in a supermarket
I honestly think they deliberately use the confusing pro rata wording in advertisements for support staff roles because if they were honest about how much you’d actually get paid you wouldn’t even consider it.

@ Winecrispschocolatecats
I'm not a teacher but I do read contracts for a living and I think the whole 'pro-rata' thing has been misinterpreted.
With respect, I’ve seen a lot of adverts for school staff and what’s described above is how it is.