Teacher salary pro rata?

[JackSheepskin]

So I might be an idiot… but I’ve seen a lot recently about how teachers aren’t paid for the holiday periods, their salary is pro rata and paid equally over 12 months.

Therefore if I saw a job advert for £60k, does that mean you don’t actually get £60k but whatever remains from that salary after the additional 6 weeks holiday is taken off? Or is the salary advertised already pro rata?

I am a school financial burser. Teachers are paid for 52 weeks per year. Other staff (premises / admin / teaching assistants etc) are usually paid 43/44 weeks for working term time or term time plus insets.

To add, the exception for support staff are nursery nurses who are paid for 52 weeks (this is why no schools recruit nursery nurses anymore)

do you earn 60K? Where do you teach? What do you teach?

I do not earn £60K
I teach in England

@Sherrystrull

The comment that started this whole discussion?

Plus a few others.

Are you reading the thread?

exactly the opposite in fact! It is often only the very inexperienced and nieve that go for management jobs in teaching.

I have done it, but it was totally incompatible with family life, and I resigned from it pretty quickly. Compulsory Saturdays, etc

In my last school, not one single manager had children. We were amazed to see a mother appointed as HOD at one stage, but she lasted less than 6 weeks

thank you

@Flora56

Why don't you just be a teacher then is such a lazy argument.

The obvious conclusion to that is, if you think its that shit, why arent you leaving?

Why are you so invested in the salaries of a profession you clearly hate? To the point you want to spend all evening talking about a profession you have clear impressions of. Genuine question.

Also a wider question, why are people so obsessive about a profession they don’t work in - yet could easily sign up for if they have the education (due to the huge vacancies). It’s truly odd.

Problem is - teachers are. It kind of is the argument.

The only answer I have seen to "so why is there a recruitment and retention crisis?" on these types of threads is always something along the line of teachers not knowing how good they have it and never having had other jobs and of course other jobs are just as bad if not much worse.

Yet this recruitment and retention crisis hasn't only been going on for a few weeks. Why is it that the teachers who leave aren't rushing back into their cushy teaching jobs working 9-3 for 40k with loads of holidays and lots of perks? Surely when they see what the big bad real working world is like they'd regret their choice? Surely they would all realise their mistake and return to teaching? Which would mean crisis averted.

Except that doesn't happen.

If it's that you think they wouldn't be able to get a job again as a teacher after leaving, I can tell you I left teaching three years ago and still constantly have agencies asking me if I want work. Now agencies might not be ideal but I know I'd get a job very quickly if I wanted to return.

I've done several other jobs as well as teaching and teaching was by far the worst.

In my experience, bullying was rife and experienced teachers or teachers whose face didn't fit were bullied out of the place.

As far as it being family friendly hours, one of the reasons I left is because I wanted to have a child and wanted to be able to spend my evenings and weekends with them.

I guess there's loads more I can say but in the end, i really would like those of you who think teaching seems like a good deal to have a go at it. I'd love there to be enough teachers to teach my son properly when he's old enough. I'm very concerned about the state of things but I (obviously) fully support teachers who want to leave.

@Lostinalibrary

What job are you moving on to?

You aren't answering my question.

Why does stating how many hours I work mean I'm saying I work hard than anyone else?

Again, you are misunderstanding and it appears projecting a chip on your shoulder about teachers.

I think you need to read the thread.

It's very confusing isn't it. The declared position that teacher's don't get paid for holidays is widely accepted, whereas the vast majority of other salaried jobs include an annual paid holiday entitlement.

So, irrespective of any of the other 'entitlements'/negatives that come with any job - I just calculate it that for the days that teachers are paid to work they are paid more highly, per annum, than most other jobs that are paid the same annual salary that includes the far lesser statutory/basic holiday entitlement.

Can’t answer the questions? Shocked -although not surprised. No higher earners annoyed you today?

I'm sure the people constantly critising teachers will be pleased to know how high the risk of suicide is.

@Sherrystrull

I have answered your questions

Where did I say you said you worked harder than anyone else?

They won’t same old. It’s just teachers are the trolling of choice this evening.

Posters on here can say until they're blue in the face that they think it's a good deal.
But the bottom line is that the retention and recruitment crisis would seem to indicate that it's not. The pay that is being offered is not enough to entice people to train or to stay in the job once there.

Because most of those spouting off about teachers do not have the required level of education to become teachers

I don't think it's pay that is the real problem - more a lack of management skills by SLT which includes an inability to adapt to changing requirements and needs.

As well as an over-reliance on 'frameworks' and issued guidance depending on the flavour of the school. Which isn't surprising or unexpected given that most SLT are drawn from teaching staff, who are skilled in teaching and not management.

Another thing that strikes me is the male dominance of SLT roles which is completely imbalanced when you consider that the majority of teachers are female. Whilst we all really know why that is (women have the majority of childcare responsibility) it seems that many men can climb that greasy SLT pole far easier than many better-suited women can. Hence not the best people are managing the majority of schools.

Pretty sure they'd add it to mine if they thought they could 😂😂

Scottish teacher here to clear up the many misconceptions on this thread.

Firstly, those are the pay scales AFTER the wage rise which we campaigned and went on strike for. We got a significant pay rise last month.

Secondly, those are for promoted teaching posts. It’s very difficult to get to that point in the secondary sector - it’s not like the “good days” where we had subject leads - we now have faculty heads. If I was to be promoted, I’d be in charge of 4 different subjects, only one of which I’m qualified to teach. Typically, these roles are taken up by older members of staff (my current boss is 55, has been in the job since the hood ole “subject lead” days (20 years) and won’t retire for another 10-12 years. There is roughly 1 promoted teacher on the salary scales quoted here for every 15 non promoted staff members.

Thirdly, the tax rate changes (as of this month) mean that teachers in Scotland are paying 41% income tax on almost their entire pay rise, so a 10% increase is actually less than 6% in their pockets.

there is no teacher in England on £60k a year.

the top of the pay scale for teachers is £41,604. That’s after about 15 years. And if your school allows ypu to progress. Then you cannot move schools due to ageism and schools not wanting ups staff. Theyre more likely to employ an inexperienced, likely to quit trainee.

if that teacher was also head of maths or science in a large secondary school they might get the very highest TLR of £14,030.

so the highest paid teacher in a large secondary will possibly be on £55,634.

there might only be two teachers in the full staff on that.

lots of schools dont even advertise posts offering more than m6, or if they do they wont employ someone on the UPR. So actual realistic max salary of staff applying for the job you didn't see is £36,961.

the max a teacher in inner London could earn is more at £50,935. Again, if you add the TLR of the maths and possibly english head of department who might possibly £14,030 the yes possibly the head of english and the head of maths in a large inner London secondary school will possibly be earning roughly £60k.

but no, that isnt most teachers. And no Scotland isnt the same as England.

but dont let facts get in the way of your inexplicable obsession with a profession you're not even in.

I agree it’s not just the pay. I think it is multiple things. The pay is low - considering it’s a masters level profession. People go to uni for 4 years to qualify. In reality, for hours worked - teachers don’t often hit minimum wage. Especially primary. Where they are subject leads, TLR and all the rest of it. This can happen on M1 in a small school as an ECT. Bonkers.

Young male leaders are often disproportionately represented as SLT in a heavy female work force. Probably another reason pay doesn’t matter as “it’s a woman’s job” see this thread for reference.

All the box ticking and scrutiny by people who haven’t worked in a classroom - again - see this thread for reference on a smaller scale.

Oh, other countries value their teachers. They pay them and respect them in line with the academic qualifications and the importance of their role. In England, teachers are low paid compared to their global peers and not respected. Again, see this thread for reference. Only in England (more prevalent) do people think they know the job because the once went to school. Thinking that minimum wage and responsibility go hand in hand with someone who educated to masters level. People actually actively hate teachers as a sport here.

Many reasons - that is just the start.