Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

GDST Trustees

309 replies

Common · 02/02/2022 04:40

How has the GDST Board of Trustees managed to create the first strike by staff in 149 years?

Cheryl Giovannoni and her board have treated a unique educational institution in the UK based on values, ideals and morals like a business because they fundamentally fail to comprehend the ethos of service that powers the GDST.

OP posts:
MoirasWigStand · 10/02/2022 20:12

I was on a picket today, and many parents were very supportive. Lots of parents worked in unionised workplaces like Universities, the NHS etc. The teachers were not happy to be on strike, and very upset about the effect on pupils.

Everyone has the right to be in a union, collectivise and bargain with their employer. It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom for terms and conditions, just because other people in the private sector have it worse.

sleepyhoglet · 10/02/2022 20:29

@Phineyj

Surely well if the management wouldn't negotiate on anything then they only have themselves to blame for the industrial action. This is people's livelihoods.

I find it particularly distasteful when I imagine that they required teachers to teach from their homes, with their own equipment, during the lockdowns (however difficult and stressful that may have been) and no doubt are requiring hybrid learning in the classroom (simultaneously teaching kids in room and kids at home) and probably require staff to continue planning and teaching from home when they do have Covid 'if they're well enough'.

One school I came across (not GDST, chain academy) docked a colleague's pay as she was off with Covid longer than the 11 days. She caught it on a school trip and was severely ill.

All absolutely true. Being off sick just doesn't happen. It's easier to go in than to send a whole days worth of planning
Fishingeveryday212 · 10/02/2022 20:36

@Surelyitscoffeetime why don’t you apply for a job in a private boys school?

Surelyitscoffeetime · 10/02/2022 20:59

[quote Fishingeveryday212]@Surelyitscoffeetime why don’t you apply for a job in a private boys school?[/quote]
I’m looking but nothing coming up sadly. I’m outside London so limited options

Phineyj · 10/02/2022 22:08

Some single sex schools set up reciprocal discounts for staff with schools for the other gender. I think they should all consider doing this. It's daft to offer a massive perk to some staff parents but not others based on the gender of their DC.

WombatChocolate · 11/02/2022 19:10

When people talk about the number of schools which have left the TPS, it can be a bit misleading. The majority of those that have left have been small schools, with most being Prep schools - by very nature, smaller usually than senior schools.

The schools that remain are the majority and include the bigger, more successful schools.

When teachers look to move job or area now, the first thing they look at is whether a school they are considering is in the TPS. If they aren’t, they don’t apply. Schools that withdraw are already facing more difficulties in attracting good teacher….and it’s obvious really isn’t it. Why would someone with a choice of schools go to a school with a significantly worse pension scheme.

So parents should consider this too….no doubt it’s sold to them as meaning lower fee rises, but the fact recruitment will be more tricky isn’t mentioned. Top schools needs to attract great teachers. Parents expect good teachers when they pay. Clearly not all teachers anywhere are great, but a key thing for schools recruiting is to have a good pool of applicants so they can choose the best. Schools not in the TPS will become 2nd choice or last choice employers. Not everyone will leave instantly. Some will and some will stay because of their stage of life, but over time, people leave and it will be harder for schools to recruit top quality teachers.

1forward2back · 11/02/2022 20:39

@WombatChocolate We’ve got a son and a daughter and we’ve asked at every school we are looking at. I think you were right two years ago but now it’s not the case. Big schools are either out or looking to come out. All the Alpha Plus schools are out including big schools like Wetherby. Schools like Emanuel, Reeds etc. are saying they will leave. And as more leave there will be a mass exodus. I’D guess that in three years hardly any will still be on the scheme. Most industries have moved away from that sort of scheme.
As a parent paying two lots of fees I can’t afford fee increases to cover pensions and that would make me withdraw my children more than a worry about the quality of teachers. The reality will be with the numbers of schools leaving the pensions (every single school we’ve looked at is considering it or already out) teachers who want to work in the private sector (and that is what independent schools are - a business) will not have a choice of loads of schools who are still in the scheme. The real choice will be state or private and the differences there are enormous. The quality of teachers will not, in my opinion, go down - at an offer holders event at a school coming out we were told they just had 20 applicants for a maths teaching job, without the pension being offered. The perks in the private sector are massive. There will always be teachers who want jobs in that sector and want to get out of the state sector.

WombatChocolate · 11/02/2022 21:26

It's interesting what you say, and yes it will be fascinating to see what happens in the coming years.

I think the situation is a bit more complex. Schools have withdrawn, but it's mostly Preps, smaller senior schools (more likely to be girls' schools and those outside the south-east, where pupil numbers are much lower). HMC represents the larger, historic schools which were historically boys schools and either still are or are now co-ed and those schools have been keen to remain in the TPS. It is used as a selling point to attract teachers (and you'd be surprised by how hard even very top schools can often find it to have a big pool to choose from in expensive cost of living areas) and also a selling point to parents. The larger schools are making clear it doesn't mean rising fees, but it does mean quality teachers.

One of the reasons why some schools withdrew early, was they feared further rises to employer contributions. The pension revaluation which means employer contributions can change, is increasingly looking like the 2024 implementation won't see increased charges for employers. So, schools which have absorbed the costs and think it's worth it to maintain staff, should be okay for the next few years and another evaluation beyond that one will be a good few years off. There should be more certainty for schools.

I agree that there could be a tipping point. At some point, perhaps after the next 2 revaluations, if costs to employers rise again, more could leave and after a certain point, many more might go, feeling there is no advantage in staying in. Some elite schools might stay as a way to make themselves especially attractive. I don't think we are at that point yet, nor as close to it as you think. The big names all remain within it. The top tier schools of HMC remain within it.

Any school pulling out is bound to emphasise numbers leaving and play down recruitment issues. However it's worth bearing in mind that there's a massive recruitment crisis across teaching. Fewer people are training and people are leaving both the independent and state sector. Often the independent sector isn't seen as a much better option - lots of independents pay less than state schools (you'd be surprised how many) and some of the features of weekend work and longer school days with extra curricular mean people are leaving or not keen to switch from state. Again, parents might be told there's a huge pool of applicants for every job, but in much of the south-east it isn't the case, partly because of the huge cost of living.

It's a tricky one for parents to judge. Teacher pensions sound expensive and parents understandably don't want fees to rise too much. Of course schools have lots of choices to make about where they spend their fees all the time - new buildings, other facilities and staff. There are choices within each, and staff will always be a key resource. Parents pay their fees expecting good teachers. Longer term, poorer pensions will make recruitment harder still at the start of teacher careers. Teaching pays reasonably but isn't well paid compared to many careers, but a reason people put up with that, is their pension is worth 1/3 of their entire rewards package - if that's removed, the whole thing becomes less attractive. Those who might have trained with an eye to an Independnet school career might choose something else. There's enough bad press about the job already to mean that even if the time of a downturn in the economy, when teacher recruitment usually rises, even less people applied to train. Schools do worry about filling vacancies with high quality people, whatever they might say to parents. Even those that are top 20 and pay well, often don't have many applicants.

Anyway, we will see. It could be that in a number of years the climate will be quite different and the schools will all or mostly be pulling out. I don't think it's imminent and that means that for a good while yet, it really will become a 2-tier system of the attractive schools within the pension and the less attractive that have left. Perhaps you're right and that won't last too long. However, the ones that left first or are leaving now will be impacted in their staffing. It might not be easy for parents to spot it or to be able to see the consequences - what else could they compare to - everyone only knows the experience they are getting. But if you were one of the first to withdraw, perhaps 4-5 years down the line, with the steady, even if low churn of staff, and you might see quite a different staff in terms of qualifications and quality. That's something schools have to assess isn't it I suppose - are they happy to pick from a smaller pool of applicants? Will it impact the education they offer? Will parents notice? Will it impact their place in league tables etc.

As a parent I would certainly be interested to know if schools I was considering sending my children to remained in ir had left. I wouldn't just see it as a direct correlation to fees, but also be thinking about the impact on my children in their final years of schooling, in terms of the staff that might be there then as a consequence.

Perhaps you're right and suddenly there will be a mass exodus. I think it will need an external event to prompt that. Another big increase in employer contributions could well have that effect. That's not on the cards at the moment. Schools are no doubt watching carefully and seeing what's happening. I do t think we're as near the tipping point as you think. Look into exactly which schools and which type have gone. You'll see the market is polarising. There are increasingly the bug successful schools, and those struggling. That's been happening for sometime and actually lots of Preps and smaller schools (especially girls schools or those outside south east) have merged or closed. The pension costs pushed some that were clinging on over the edge. But there are also schools which have always had big numbers and are even more popular since Covid made people think fees might be more worth it. They want to retain their competitive edge. The TPS is quite a key way to do this.

TheReluctantPhoenix · 11/02/2022 22:02

I think people are missing the bigger picture here.

@1forward2back, I would be curious to know what ‘can’t afford a fee increase to pay for pensions would look like’. Are we talking not being able to ski in the Feb half term, or turning the heating down as you would be worried about your fuel bill?

Teachers, and especially most in private schools, have had a lot asked of them in the pandemic including, arguably, personal health risk, mixing with large amounts of contacts in surroundings which amplify viral spread (aka classrooms). This, while the majority of parents have been doing very well, working from home.

In addition, it strikes me that a lot of private school parents either don’t know or don’t care about why they are paying 3-4x as much for schooling as funding for a state school place. The teachers aren’t paid 3x as much, for sure, and the classes are only about 20% smaller.

So, where is the money going? Often there are lots of staff to support drama and music, very flashy buildings refurbished every few years and a large pastoral and management structure.

So, when schools tell teachers that pensions are unaffordable and parents claim they cannot pay more fees, there are plenty of other choices; less flashy buildings refurbished over a longer cycle, less co-curricular, smaller more streamlined management inter alia.

The idea that the sole solution is a pay cut for teachers isn’t realistic. I don’t think many parents would be up for a pay cut to support the customers of their businesses, regardless of the form it took.

Egtimestwo17 · 11/02/2022 22:33

Especially when teachers in the GDST have technically had pay cuts for years as pay has been frozen as inflation increases.

That + the 20% pension cut = an impossible position

DrDreReturns · 11/02/2022 22:43

I live next door to a private school. They are always building something, it must cost a fortune.
Schools are a people business, without good teachers they are nothing. If they can't recruit and retain quality staff then I worry for their future.

MoirasWigStand · 12/02/2022 09:24

Quite a few private schools up north have decided to stay in TPS after collective organising of teachers.

hupfpferd · 12/02/2022 09:50

They do give generous bursaries though.

I'm a bit mixed on it. I don't think you can just take something away though so they either need to keep existing staff on the original contract or you have to compensate in another way - a bonus maybe depending on years served etc...

Egtimestwo17 · 12/02/2022 09:56

Bonuses are not going to amount to the 20% cut in pension, it doesn’t build any sort of security for when you are most vulnerable and leaves staff in a worse place. And yet this is all in the name of saving 4 million pounds across 23 schools- when savings are absolutely not essential as demonstrated by the £139mil they have signed off spending on buildings over the next 3 years.

prh47bridge · 12/02/2022 10:01

@DrDreReturns

I live next door to a private school. They are always building something, it must cost a fortune. Schools are a people business, without good teachers they are nothing. If they can't recruit and retain quality staff then I worry for their future.
Construction of new buildings, capital works on existing buildings and the like affect the cash flow of the school. If they do too much, they will run out of cash. However, it doesn't directly affect the income and expenditure account, which is where contributions to TPS come from. If GDST spend, say, £35M on buildings this year, the impact on their income and expenditure will be £700k per year for the next 50 years. For a charity with income of over £250M a year, that is peanuts. Indeed, it is dwarfed by the impact on their accounts of their defined benefit scheme for support staff (now closed to new entrants and future accruals) and two local government defined benefit schemes used for some support staff. Over the last two years these have resulted in a charge of over £24M to the income and expenditure account.

They do, or course, need to be able to attract good teachers. If the result of withdrawing from TPS is that GDST is unable to attract good teachers, it could end up costing them a lot more than they will save.

prh47bridge · 12/02/2022 10:07

@Egtimestwo17

Bonuses are not going to amount to the 20% cut in pension, it doesn’t build any sort of security for when you are most vulnerable and leaves staff in a worse place. And yet this is all in the name of saving 4 million pounds across 23 schools- when savings are absolutely not essential as demonstrated by the £139mil they have signed off spending on buildings over the next 3 years.
Even if they cancelled all the spending on buildings (which may be impractical - some of it may be essential spending to maintain existing buildings), it wouldn't save enough to cover keeping teachers in TPS. When all the building work is finished, the total impact on the income and expenditure account will be no more than £2.78M a year, whereas we seem to be agreed that TPS costs them £4M a year. It would help but other savings would be needed to make up the shortfall.
prh47bridge · 12/02/2022 11:11

I have to say that I'm still puzzled by the amount of pension it is said people are losing. Figures of £10,000 and £12,000 a year have been quoted. If we accept that a 20% reduction is correct, that equates to a pension of £50k-£60k per annum in addition to the state pension, so total annual income of £60k-£70k. Are people really expecting this level of pension or am I missing something?

TheReluctantPhoenix · 12/02/2022 12:35

@prh47bridge,

I am slightly confused where you are coming from in this.

You seem to be a real expert in trees but to have minimal knowledge of wood!

If a school with annual income of £15 mil is spending £500,000 say on a combination of refurbishing old buildings and building new ones, that is 3% of total income, regardless of how it is accounted for. And I suspect this could be an underestimation.

I don’t think that anyone can deny that the change in pensions has to mean one of three things: coming out of the TPS (involving a real pay cut to teachers), increasing fees by 3-5%, or cutting costs elsewhere (co-curricular, management or facilities).

Why is it assumed that the only solution is a cut to teachers’ salaries?!

After all, a rise in fees will have (on average) far less effect on the parents than coming out of the TPS will have on the teachers. And there is little evidence that enough parents would leave to cause schools to have to close.

prh47bridge · 12/02/2022 12:52

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@prh47bridge,

I am slightly confused where you are coming from in this.

You seem to be a real expert in trees but to have minimal knowledge of wood!

If a school with annual income of £15 mil is spending £500,000 say on a combination of refurbishing old buildings and building new ones, that is 3% of total income, regardless of how it is accounted for. And I suspect this could be an underestimation.

I don’t think that anyone can deny that the change in pensions has to mean one of three things: coming out of the TPS (involving a real pay cut to teachers), increasing fees by 3-5%, or cutting costs elsewhere (co-curricular, management or facilities).

Why is it assumed that the only solution is a cut to teachers’ salaries?!

After all, a rise in fees will have (on average) far less effect on the parents than coming out of the TPS will have on the teachers. And there is little evidence that enough parents would leave to cause schools to have to close.[/quote]
I'm coming at it from understanding how accounts work.

Capital works such as refurbishing old buildings and building new ones affect the balance sheet and only minimally affect the income and expenditure account. Yes, the cash to fund the new building has to come from somewhere. Whilst spending £500k may represent 3% of total income, it won't appear as such on the balance sheet. It will be an increase in fixed assets and a corresponding reduction in current assets. If it was a business and you were looking at profitability, the money spent on capital works would only have a small impact on profits.

From an accounting perspective, that is because the capital works give you an asset that has a value and will last a number of years before it has to be replaced. It would therefore give a misleading picture if you charged the cost of building that asset to a single year's profits. It makes sense to spread the cost of that asset over its lifetime.

It therefore follows that not spending £15M on acquiring a capital asset does not free up £15M for current spending. If the asset concerned would last 50 years, it frees up £300k per year for current spending. If you spent the entire £15M in one year on current spending, you would show a massive loss for that year.

I am not, by the way, saying that the only solution is a cut to teachers' pensions, just pointing out that focussing on capital works is not enough to solve the problem.

1forward2back · 12/02/2022 12:52

£137mill over three years, over 23 schools is not actually much at all, it’s under 2mill per school per year. With the old buildings these schools are in, and the need to keep up with demand, it’s not a lot, when spread over the schools. The 20% figure as @prh47bridge says, seems over inflated. The gdst website states a 20% empoloyer contribution form from the 24% - even though the schemes are different, it surely can’t be 20%! My father taught all his life and ended up with a £28k per year pension. He also had to work until he was 65 as early retirement was not an option.

Phineyj · 12/02/2022 13:00

TPS is a final salary pension. It's not unusual for an independent school teacher, maybe with some management responsibilities, to be on £50-60k by retirement.

In practice there is a gender pay gap in pensions as well as the more usually referenced gender pay gap in earnings. So female teachers may have gaps in contributions due to maternity which make the likely retirement income gap worse. Of course females are overrepresented in teaching. There also seems to be an uplift of RPI plus 2% applied to TPS accruals which stops if you leave (I have not quite grasped this bit, the Maths dept have been trying to explain Smile).

It's difficult to make a like for like TPS / DC comparison due to the very low interest rates making annuities poor value.

Finally, I think I said this up thread but having to actively invest a pension "pot" is not something most teachers were expecting to have to do. Most are ill equipped in terms of knowledge (no doubt this is true of the general population, however).

Regarding the fees, I expect parents would pay more (the increase in real terms has been huge) but schools have to position themselves according to what they perceive the competition to be.

It's worth a Google of 'oligopoly'.

Long story short, it means passing risk from the employer to the employee.

prh47bridge · 12/02/2022 13:21

@Phineyj

TPS is a final salary pension. It's not unusual for an independent school teacher, maybe with some management responsibilities, to be on £50-60k by retirement.

In practice there is a gender pay gap in pensions as well as the more usually referenced gender pay gap in earnings. So female teachers may have gaps in contributions due to maternity which make the likely retirement income gap worse. Of course females are overrepresented in teaching. There also seems to be an uplift of RPI plus 2% applied to TPS accruals which stops if you leave (I have not quite grasped this bit, the Maths dept have been trying to explain Smile).

It's difficult to make a like for like TPS / DC comparison due to the very low interest rates making annuities poor value.

Finally, I think I said this up thread but having to actively invest a pension "pot" is not something most teachers were expecting to have to do. Most are ill equipped in terms of knowledge (no doubt this is true of the general population, however).

Regarding the fees, I expect parents would pay more (the increase in real terms has been huge) but schools have to position themselves according to what they perceive the competition to be.

It's worth a Google of 'oligopoly'.

Long story short, it means passing risk from the employer to the employee.

Yes, I know TPS is a final salary pension (actually a bit more complex than that from what I've read), but even when I was in a defined benefits scheme, I never had any expectation that my pension would equal my final salary. Even on the most generous scheme I was in, around two-thirds of my final salary is the most I could expect. I'm not familiar with all the details of TPS. Maybe it allows teachers with enough service to have a pension equal to their final salary. I'm just a bit surprised.

Agreed that direct comparisons are difficult. And, of course, with a defined contribution scheme you don't have to take an annuity. You have other options.

Agree that defined contribution schemes move the risk from the employer to the employee. That also means the employee gets the benefit from a DC scheme if it outperforms expectations, but I would agree that DC schemes currently tend to have worse outcomes for employees than defined benefits schemes.

TheReluctantPhoenix · 12/02/2022 13:36

@prh47bridge,

But, if large expenditures are incurred every 5 years, and they are amortised over 50 years, that game only last so long. Surely you can see that?

And, the facilities/buildings issue is only a small part of a larger post that I made.

How can you think reducing teachers’ salaries is better than raising fees 3-5% , which I believe is about the quantum to keep in the TPS. Why tax the poor to subsidise the rich?

prh47bridge · 12/02/2022 13:58

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@prh47bridge,

But, if large expenditures are incurred every 5 years, and they are amortised over 50 years, that game only last so long. Surely you can see that?

And, the facilities/buildings issue is only a small part of a larger post that I made.

How can you think reducing teachers’ salaries is better than raising fees 3-5% , which I believe is about the quantum to keep in the TPS. Why tax the poor to subsidise the rich?[/quote]
Yes, I know that. A charity cannot continue capital spending if it runs out of cash. But imagining that stopping capital spending frees up the entire amount for the income and expenditure account is wrong.

Where have I said that reducing teachers' salaries (actually their benefits, not salaries but never mind) is better than raising fees? Pointing out that stopping the capital spending programme, even if it is practical, doesn't solve the problem does not mean that taking teachers out of TPS is the only solution.

Anjo2011 · 12/02/2022 14:55

Just because you send your child to a private school, it doesn’t necessarily mean the parents/family are ‘rich’ and can easily absorb a 3 to 5% fee increase. Many of us don’t have a pot of money , contrary to opinion by some schools. Perhaps there needs to be some give on both sides but I don’t foresee that happening.