In demand teachers should be on a higher pay grade

[Winterday1991]

Teachers who have high level degrees from good quality universities and teach in demand subjects such as maths, physics, chemistry etc should be paid at a rate equivalent to what their peers would earn in the private sector. For example starting salaries of £50k.

As I understand it, the current teacher pay scale means that drama, music teachers and low quality graduates are paid the same as high quality teachers. As teaching has low barrier to entry for graduates, and there is a shortage of teachers for certain subjects surely salaries should be treated as they would be in the private sector and paid the market rate. Why does the government not implement this to get more high quality graduates into teaching?

@Physicsgrad1984 That is worrying, a reverse after several years of growth. As someone who left the ranks of physics teachers yourself, what would have persuaded you to stay? (I also left, but only to teach a subject with even fewer specialists...)

@Physicsgrad1984 as an experienced teacher about to start my 30th year of secondary Music teaching, I would like to remind you that whilst there is no doubt that STEM subjects are important - indeed my DH and both DDs are STEM graduates/students/PhD - in isolation, STEM subjects are not the answer to all the country's woes. We need creative thinkers. To get creative thinkers, kids need the opportunity to be creative in a safe space with experts in delivering a broad-based creative curriculum.

My DH with his STEM PhD invented & patented a medical device which won awards, for which he credits me for giving him the idea when I dragged him round an art gallery. Seeing problems or issues through only one narrow prism without breadth of knowledge is sadly looking the way this country is going.

To the EYFS teachers here, you have my utmost respect. In the last 5 years, I have also done some primary teaching, albeit mostly subject-specific. OMG, one hour of YR and Y1 and I needed a long sleep. I did a day's supply teaching for Y4, a class I knew very well but it nearly killed me. Teaching A level Music or EPQ requires more preparation, but is less stressful.

To the other Music teachers on this thread, I hear you and respect you. This holiday I have ordered and marked up scores for the works my state school orchestra will be playing next term (sorted the music before we broke up). I still need to make arrangements of a couple of pieces for my choir, but that's always tricky because it's only Y7 & 8 and so I only know half of them until we get going. I've also drafted an itinerary for a music tour for next summer so that can be launched mid-September, to give families the maximum time to pay for it. But yes, OP, I'm just a lowly music teacher, obviously less worthy that the great STEMers (insert sarcasm emoji) and I don't get paid any extra for running extra-curricular groups every lunchtime, when my STEM colleagues piss off-site for a walk. However, I can silence a class merely by looking at them, and my EPQ results yesterday were great.

Congrats malbec on fab results and on keeping the arts going.

I commit even worse sins than you. I teach sociology.

Thanks @Piggywaspushed . Nothing wrong with what you teach. I bumped into a former student last week who is on her final placement before becoming a SW. She has promised to come into school to do a talk to 6th form on careers outside STEM 😇

I had a very confusing (to the students, not to me) few years teaching a STEM subject (Physics, no less) and two different humanities. So you'll hear no arguments from me about the need to be well rounded!

@Malbecfan I have seen many an otherwise apathetic and disaffected pupil just come alive when singing or playing an instrument. It’s one of the things I love about watching my school’s productions: I get to see the kids who struggle with my subject (I am a science teacher, sorry!) absolutely light up doing something they love. And I have enormous respect for the teachers who bring that out of them.

I’ve long argued against the “two cultures” phenomenon: in particular I’ve always felt that we need scientists to communicate better and people working in the media to understand science better. I always encourage my pupils not to specialise too early and to keep their options open as long as they can.

@ZebraDanios what a lovely post! I agree with what you say about not specialising too early. Interestingly (well to me) is that the rest of my household who have all studied STEM degrees are all also decent musicians too. I find that A level musicians who study Maths too have a definite advantage with some aspects of the course. When I rule the world, I would push for more of a Baccalaureate qualification for school leavers to ensure breadth of experience.

Apologies for the late reply.

Probably not much. As I have said before, physics is a dying subject in Britain and most of Britain's engineering industries are in the toilet. There's not much point in students taking A-level physics in Britain and then taking subjects like civil/mechanical/electronic/electrical/maritime/materials/aerospace engineering at degree level because there isn't the industry to support these graduates in Britain. Britain's economic model seems to be built on the premise that if a subject isn't financially valuable to the country's economy, then it's not worth studying.

In fact I tell A-level students and 1st year engineering and physics degree students of my experiences in British industry, the projects and contributions (in fields like computational fluid mechanics and thermodynamics) that I have made to companies in Britain and the sorts of engineers that I have encountered in places like Redcar and Teesside. Companies like the Materials Processing Institute which is nothing more than the left overs of the once thriving British steel industry. I tell students about the the self absorbed engineers that I have encountered there who show no effort in encouraging enthusiasm in science, because they know they're working in a dying and desperate industry, so they merely use students and workers to do projects for them so that they can get funding from the government in order for them to get a wage for themselves and put food on their tables. I tell A-level and degree level students to think for themselves and don't bother doing projects in dying and fruitless industries which won't provide you with any useful knowledge or skills that will help you in the future.

I actively encourage A-level students to think twice about A-level physics and taking the subject further to degree level in Britain because most universities, even Russell Group ones, only want "bums on seats". At the end of the day, they don't care if you get employed or not, they just want the students to pay their fees. I encourage maths and computer science at A-level but not physics. Not in Britain. Not unless the student plans to leave the country afterwards.

So, do you want more physics teachers and students, or fewer? I'm now thoroughly confused.

It appears to be
I am great because I have physics qualifications
You would be foolish to get physics qualifications
They who have physics qualifications are all losers and nerds.

I had a very confusing (to the students, not to me) few years teaching a STEM subject (Physics, no less) and two different humanities. So you'll hear no arguments from me about the need to be well rounded!

I started teaching in 1970 and in the first few years the only subjects I never taught were Music and French, and I mean I was timetabled for most subjects as well as my own, Maths! I even did Technical Drawing, now obsolete, where I was a couple of pages ahead of the class all the time but as a result even today I can draw in 3-D freehand.
I've not looked at the whole thread but, reading the OP's inital comments, surely the greatest talent a teacher can have is to be able to teach their subject irrespective of their degree level or University. I had a Physics teacher for my A levels, brilliant degree from an excellent University but he couldn't teach for toffee, he couldn't see why anyone had a problem understanding.

Sorry, I don't think I made my position clear. I was merely giving you a brief run down of my career as well as my take on the industrial landscape of Britain based on my experiences. I completed my undergraduate MEng degree in engineering in 2008, a masters in applied physics in 2011 and a PhD in solid state physics in 2016. I was working in whatever engineering jobs I could find in Britain, in between those years. I'm telling you from my own industrial experiences that Britain is industrially dead. Two industries that I have worked in/done projects in are the steel industry and semiconductor industry. For my MSc in applied physics I did work at Teesside at a place which is now called the Materials Processing Institute. This is a waste of time place, the UK steel industry is dead and there's nothing useful for an engineering/physics student to learn here for their future career. The engineering managers at this place know this, but they encourage students to do projects here so that they can get further funding from the government and that pays their salaries. They don't care about the engineering/physics students, who go there in the hopes of building a career and a future. My PhD topic was semiconductor nano-materials related. Again, the UK semiconductor/electronics industry hubs in places like Newport and Swansea are ghost towns. They're not making big achievements and engineering/physics students going into this industry in the UK will struggle for the rest of their lives. The fact that there is a physics teacher shortage in Britain is ok, because it is not a subject that Britain will miss much.

I now work as a data scientist. Right now I'm on project for a private bank. In my work I'm using maths and computer science. I write python code to build dataframes from SQL databases and then I write machine learning models using complicated maths to forecast some outcome for my clients. I don't use any physics that I studied. In my current job, I don't apply any of the stuff that I studied in my physics and engineering degrees related to computational fluid dynamics and experimental techniques to model turbulence and heat transfer (like particle image velocimetry and laser induced fluorescence) that I applied on the steel project. Neither do I use any of the techniques that I learned to use in my physics PhD, such as x-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy. It was just a big waste of time because there are no industries in Britain to support graduates with this level of physics knowledge. So physics is a useless subject right now in Britain.

I tell my students, based on my experiences, if you want my advice on selecting subjects that will lead to a successful career that will put money in your account then pick maths and computer science. Learn pure maths and statistics and become proficient in coding especially in python, R, C and php. Become proficient in SQL coding. Dump physics, because it is a scopeless subject in Britain.

Is my position clear to you now?

That's cool if you feel that way brother! Let physics die in your country. It's a tough subject and not many have the ability to understand it plus it is an economically useless subject to Britain right now. So if you feel that you can get better physics lessons from some reject off the street as opposed to a high calibre Russell Group grad in the subject, then you go for it!

I tell my students

What students, you’re a data scientist?

Physics is highly in demand where I teach.

ALL teachers are in demand and hard to recruit and the entire profession is due a far better payrise than 6.5%.

I'm not sure I agree with @Physicsgrad1984 . My DH has a PhD in a niche subject where various STEM disciplines converge. He works in the UK after wasting time (IMO) teaching at a RG university. His present employers simply cannot recruit sufficient people in the UK who understand analogue electronics. One of his colleagues is 80, but the company cannot afford to let his skills and expertise retire. This is something that is still very much required in the UK, but is not on a school curriculum. The remedy seems to be that those people at the DfE, Ofqual and the like need to get together with what remains of British manufacturing and design specifications that lead into jobs rather than messing around with abstract concepts that are only useful to perhaps one student per year.

Brief?!

Dreadful idea. My worst teachers at a grammar school in the 80’s were Maths, Chemistry and Biology. Best teachers were Art , French and Latin.

The computer studies teacher was exceptionally dire too. He was very clever!

You have a huge misconception there. Most private schools actually pay lower than the state sector. I’m also not sure why Drama and Music teachers are grouped in with the low quality ones. The creative subjects are also important for children to learn and for some, that’s where they find their passion and pursue their future careers.

That's cool if you feel that way brother! Let physics die in your country. It's a tough subject and not many have the ability to understand it plus it is an economically useless subject to Britain right now. So if you feel that you can get better physics lessons from some reject off the street as opposed to a high calibre Russell Group grad in the subject, then you go for it!

You're lack of comprehension is amazing, brother! Nowhere have I said I wanted Physics to die, yes love, it's a tough subject and tough subjects need teachers who can teach it. You may describe teachers from non Russell group Universities as 'rejects off the street' but many are fine teachers who would laugh at your patronising crap. One of the most successful Physics teachers I know, in a school where Physics is one of their most popular A level subjects, is from a non RG University.

@Physicsgrad1984
Can I summarise your points as follows?

1. Physics is a tough subject at A-level.
2. It can therefore only be taught by the academic elite.
3. The only reason to study physics at university is to (a) go into industry and (b) earn lots of money.
4. Industry in the UK is collapsing.

If that's a fair summary, I would agree with 1. and partially with 4. although I don't think that the picture is as dire as you do (from your bad experience).
There is a direct contradiction between 2. and 3. (where do physics teachers come from if not university courses?)

I disagree with 2, and with 3(a), and with 3(b). Does that help clarify things? Happy to share the experiences of myself (0.5 of a degree in physics, 3.5 degrees and rising in other subjects, and 20+ years of teaching experience) or my DW (2 degrees in physics plus one other STEM) if you would like the anecdotes, but they're no more relevant to the actual question in the thread than yours, are they?

Any old fucker can do maths. Takes actual skill and technique to play an instrument. Priorities are all wrong. Plough more money into the arts.

I private tutor a couple of kids in my spare time. I'm Indian and my name gets around my community. I get calls from Indian folks asking me for help in tutoring their kids who are taking physics at GCSE and A-level. From what my students tell me, they have non degree level qualified physics teachers at school. As an Indian I would rather not see Indian kids suffer from a lack of qualified teachers, especially given that Indian kids are pound for pound the second highest academic achievers in UK schools and I want it to stay that way (or for us to beat the Chinese who are ranked number one) :).