Should new teachers get paid more?

[nappyaddict]

My sister is in her 2nd year of teaching. She teaches Year 6. It works out that her take home pay is only 70 pound more than her boyfriend who has no qualifications and works as a chef in a small pub, on 6.20 an hour and works 48 hours a week.

Of course it's not total job security, nappyaddict- it's just better than in many other jobs. Dh's profession depends to a great extent on the hiring of casuals: job security in that context is for a few weeks at a time. Universities couldn't get far without their temporary work force: people (with PhDs and publications lists) whose contracts are for one academic year at a time. So in that context, teachers aren't doing too badly. The truth is that most teachers do manage to keep in employment for the best part of their career.

'fivecandles, I forgot to mention that if your DP puts that extra £500 into his pension before tax then you will still be eligible for child benefit (yet another way in which the whole proposal is farcical)'

Is that allowed? That's very interesting thanks clem

I'm happy but not ecstatic with my pay, there's nothing fair about rates of pay across industries so I try not to dwell on it really. I do think the factoring in the holidays is a bit of a red herring. I'd personally prefer to have less holidays and a more manageable working week, I do 12 hour days on weekdays and at least one full day at the weekend, I generally spend the holidays ill . . .

GetOrfMoiLand Most people I know do not work at home on their days off or in the evening without being paid for it.

Teachers can progress up the payscale very quickly so I don't think their pay is bad. I think the fact that there are too many teachers at the moment in many subjects and areas suggests that their terms are attractive. We of course earn less than other similar professions as our holidays are taken into account.

From talking to older teachers I think many teachers do work longer hours and more is expected of us in the holidays so maybe there is an argument for more pay but I think there are other issues to address.

LadyeeBlahBlah I would have thought it quite obvious that someone who is not teaching because of a great passion ore sense of vocation would work less hours than someone who has that sense of their job. As I said on a another thread I get in about 7am, by half seven most of our staff are in. They start leaving about 5pm. Many of us are being booted out at 6pm by the caretaker and we are taking bags of work home with us. But s others have said this is balanced out by the holidays.

My husband works in the private sector and works beyond his hours. He is in his office working now.I think when you take into account my holidays he may work more hours than me.

I agree it is not just teachers who work long hours and beyond their contract, but is anyone saying any different.

I think most teachers on here have sounded super reasonable! No one really moans about their pay- and that is the case in RL too. People do - quite fairly- want people to understand that they work more than 9-3 because this is often misunderstood. It is being forced into having to say this constantly that makes teachers often sound as if they are whining! (Obvs some do, but many are happy with their lot) Like I said, I think many other professions are overpaid.

I think that the problem with teachers' pay is that there is a relatively low 'ceiling'. Senior management in a fairly large primary will be earning just under £40k. This is the max amount possible if they want to continue classroom teaching. After that there's nowhere to 'go' salary- or job-wise

That is true. People often say that if you don't like it you should move, but in teaching (and other public sector jobs) there is no large private sector equivalent where you could go to look for better pay.

I also never understand why people act as if the long holidays in teaching are a surprise, and if only they had known they would have done it themselves!!

I do think senior management in a primary are underpaid. They earn more in a secondary setting

I'm a secondary school teacher and I don't necessarily feel underpaid. When I lived and worked in Scotland I got by very nicely, even on the lowest point of the scale; now that I live in London, a few points up and taking into account outer London weighting, I do get pretty skint sometimes. But in comparison to many of my graduate friends I've got it easy, financially.

My DP is also a teacher and was advised against becoming one by his university lecturer because he was overqualified. He has a four-year upper-second class honours degree in Pure Maths from a Russell Group university, and of course a PGDE from the same uni. His university friends are earning a fortune working as acctuaries and the like, but he enjoys his job and is moving up the pay scale pretty quickly.

What bothers me is that lots of people in teaching, even at my own school, are less qualified and less experienced than me and somehow have managed to get themselves contracts worth considerably more than mine. Wouldn't happen in Scotland...

I do feel underpaid. I have a 2:1, a PhD in a relevant field to my teaching, relevant experience in that i previously taught undergrads, postgrads etc but like all the new staff at my school when i started teaching last sept i went onto point 1 - the system has changed in the last few years and those discretionary points are non existent/very hard to find (possibly depends on area/school?) despite the fact that allegedly i am teaching a shortage subject.
I love my job, i find it far more fun, more interesting and challenging than my last job but 1 year in and i am still earning a lot less than i was 15 years ago (ie only a couple of years post PhD).

I am a senior teacher so earn over 50K a year however 10 or so years into my career I earn less than I did in my previous job. That does not mean I am underpaid now or even when I was a new teacher it means I was just overpaid before.

However when I read threads from posters boasting that they can get more on benefits than many teachers it does make me wonder.

I did my PGCE in 2008/9 and my course was a masters level course. It gave me credits towards the Masters in Education which the government want ALL teachers to do. They want teaching to be a masters level profession. Most people feel that a job requiring a masters level qualification should pay more. However, there are no plans to pay more than the current payscales once you have the full masters qualification.

Finefatima "An NQT teacher earns about £17 an hour."

I've just added up my average weekly hours when I was in my NQT year (last year) and I did 40 hours a week at school (that is allowing an hour for lunches and breaks (usually less though due to detentions, duties, clubs, and marking). Add to that approximately 4 hours most evenings and, if I was lucky with childcare, about 5 hours during the day at the weekend, that would take it up to, on average 69 hours per week - this takes me to just over £45.5k per annum if I was paid at £17 per hour.

But of course that assumes no work in the holidays. Today (1st day of half-term) my kids are in playscheme and I was in school at 9am today to do some marking and planning. Taking a small break now from GCSE assessments so that I don't go mad, but I need to try and get at least one more class marked before I go home.

No, I'm not complaining. I love my job (best of the three jobs I've done in the past) and love doing the actual teaching bit. It's just the rest that takes so much time. Don't tell me not to take work home - I have 3x35 min periods free per week, and am involved in music clubs after school twice a week. If I didn't take work home I would go in with unplanned work and the 300 students I teach every week wouldn't have their work or homework marked.

The starting salary seems fairly low but the pay progression in teaching is really quick. My DH has been a teacher 8 years and earns double his starting salary. He's also a much better teacher now than when he started, so it's all relative.

Will the government at least be paying for teachers to do the masters in education, if they don't plan on paying them any more salary?

The local education authority paid for my MIL to do a masters in education last year, she's a headteacher. I would think it very much depends on whether your school or authority choose to pay for you though. They'll probably make a masters compulsory for new teachers but not current ones.

Just had a look at the pay scales linked earlier on. It looks like a NQT earns a bit more than a newly qualified midwife. You could argue that a midwife should be paid more, they do a 3 year specalist degree, they have to undertake continuous professional development often in their own time, they don't get long holidays, they often don't get a break during their shift, they work unsocial hours and they make descions on a daily basis that could make the difference between life and death both for the mother and baby.

So the problem is if you increase teachers' pay then you have to look at increasing the pay of other professions.

Viva

So your midwife gets paid after 3 years of study and the teacher doesn't, in fact the teacher is building more debt through PostGraduate study during that 4th year

I said 3 years of specific study. Most teachers do a general degree that they could use for anything and then spend a year learning to be a teacher. Midwives spend 3 years learning to be a midwife, and then lots go on to do PG study. I'm doing my Masters now.

I don't really know the answer to the OP. It does seem crap that a teacher earns similar to a chef, though he could be a very good chef who brings lots of money into the pub and is worth it, plus he will work long and unsocial hours. The teacher is likely to go on to earn more after a few years.

When I first qualified as a midwife I realised I could earn more stacking shelves in Tesco on the night shift.

Yes, I understood that you said that

My point was that it is 3 years (unless I have misunderstood you)

Teachers (primary) will quite often do a 4 year specific degree or (secondary) a degree in the subject for 3 years (essential study if you are to teach at Level 3) and then a 4th year of Teaching PG work

I have a Masters, lots do ... I am simply referring to the additional £20k+1yrs debt that the midwife receives BEFORE the teacher can earn anythng

Some teaching courses have been condensed into 3 years Talker2010

and a BEd did allow the teacher to start 2 points up on the old pay grade provided it was a good honours level

A bachelor of education (BEd) course enables you to study for your degree and complete your initial teacher training at the same time. A BEd is an honours degree course in education. Course content may vary according to the university or college providing it, but all BEd graduates receive qualified teacher status (QTS) in addition to their degree. www.tda.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/teacher-training-options/bachelor-of-education.aspx

I didn't realise that a specific teaching degree was a 4 year course, it would make sense to have some sort of 3 year teaching degree. But yes I get your point about the midwife can start work a year before a teacher could. However in the long term run of a career this wouldn't really make much difference. What I'm trying to say is that I don't thinka teacher's salary could be increased without also increasing nurses and midwives pay. IMHO I don't think that saying they've studies for 4 years as oppsed to 3 is a valid reason for saying they should be paid more than those jobs. Especially when you look at unsocial hours and life and death responsibility. If nurses/midwives have their pay increased then the police, fire service, paramedics, Drs, prison service will soon start complaining that they don't earn as much as teachers and nurses and it will just carry on.

Anyway NHS are having a 3 year pay freeze at the minute. There isn't the money in the economy to pay public sector workers more.