Should Heads of a single school get paid more than the Prime Minister?

[noblegiraffe]

In December the DfE wrote to 29 academy trusts (pictured) which run a single school whose heads are paid more than £150,000. 13 of those schools are in, or at risk of, financial difficulties. The DfE refuses to say which 13 because they need a ‘safe space’ (as opposed to transparency and public accountability).

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-dfe-refuses-name-financially-troubled-academies-paying

The pm’s salary is not their only benefit. They get housing plus a fucking massive pension even if they’re only PM for a short time. And then they go onto make mega bucks as a public speaker once they leave office

Yes, I think they should. I also think teachers should be paid better and performance related pay be done away with.

The public sector rule that nobody should be paid more than the PM is ridiculous. The market rate for some jobs is way more than that - for example the government run pension protection fund needs fund managers. It is one of the biggest pension funds in the U.K. and it is a false economy for the taxpayer not to be able to attract the best fund managers and actuaries.

Exactly what Chou said

Not sure that the comparison with the PM is relevant TBH. The issue is the mess the education system is in with massive amounts of wasted money and at best 'jobs for the boys/feather my own nest' attitudes to spending public money - and at worst fraudulent spending.Reading some of the financial reports on some trusts, by the DfE makes my blood boil.

My LA has numerous schools that are inadequate or financially unviable due to the nature of small school. These have an academy order. Of course no academy trust will take him on...not enough profit in those schools, some of which are now facing closure or have to be supported by an LA which is also facing massive cuts from central government.

I know that lead LA staff who are responsible for hundreds of schools earn far less than academy CEO's who are responsible for 1, 2, at best 5 schools. Just what are the justifications.

The whole thing is a complete mess!

The remuneration package for the PM is huge when you take into account free housing, a free country mansion, free travel and a massive pension. Definitely more than any Head. However, executive Heads of academies are paid too much and should be determined by performance where the bar is set really high. That should include financial sustainability, exam results, pupil progress plus a few other things. In effect it’s public money and everyone should be accountable and that includes teachers as well.

In the context that nearly half of these schools are in financial difficulty? Is it acceptable that these heads are awarding themselves a salary which appear to be well above the national odds? (I'm assuming so, since the DfE is writing to them to justify it).

If you're going to justify the salary of these heads, then why shouldn't every head be ramping up their pay?

Don't forget that the head's pay will be take out of the school funding. It's not the case that the DfE will be paying more to these heads, but that these heads will be taking a higher percentage of the school funds than other heads. Funds which could be spent on hiring teachers, or staff to support the work of teachers.

Pengggwn we are giving up our pay rises to buy textbooks. We've been giving up our payrises since 2010. That's linked to the national financial situation - austerity shouldn't only apply to those who don't get to set their own salary.

The average (secondary) headteacher salary is about £90k. To put the £150k+ in context.

Incidentally, across the country many teachers have been denied their pay progression (14% of teachers), and their cost of living payrise (1 in 5 teachers) this year. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_staffroom/a3115963-1-in-5-teachers-denied-cost-of-living-payrise-14-denied-pay-progression?msgid=74159518#74159518

These academy chiefs are cutting their pay:

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-academy-executives-cutting-their-own-pay-40

"The current CEO, Martyn Oliver, is paid less still, at £168,675. Mr Oliver turned down a formal written offer of a pay increase following his last performance review, and the trust’s executives have voluntarily refused an annual cost-of-living increase for three years.

“I understand that, as CEO of 22 academies, I am paid well,” Mr Oliver said. “However, the trust’s ultimate wish is to be able to improve the pay of staff at the lower salary bands across the organisation.

“For me, ensuring that pay restraint is exercised at the highest executive level is a significant and symbolic step towards achieving this goal.”"

Obviously it shouldn't be up to academy chiefs to voluntarily keep their pay to more acceptable levels - there should be caps. And where schools are in financial difficulties, I think it would be unethical of heads to keep an over-the-odds paycheck while making staff redundant and cuts elsewhere.

Heads don't decide their pay. This decision is made by the governing body. In local authority schools there are clear guidelines about pay ceilings. I imagine in academies there is more flexibility. I ONLY, governing bodies should be doing regular benchmarking to ensure they are paying market rates for HTs.

There are of course two possible scenarios. Firstly, that the governors have very weak control of finances and they have allowed the head's salary to rise inappropriately. Alternatively, they may be deliberately paying over the norm because they feel they need someone great to deal with their schools difficult circumstances.

Whilst we can use the PM as a potential comparison for pay, I think that it is more appropriate to compare pay with similar levels of responsibility in industry. So if we are talking about Martyn Oliver from Outwood Grange MAT, the 2017 accounts show that they have "income" of £116.1M. What would a CEO of an industrial company with a turnover of £100M plus be paid? I would suggest far more than £168675 and therefore the CEO's salary at Outwood Grange is justifiable .

If however you are talking about a single academy with a principal such as St Helens Junior Academy, from the list above, which is in effect 420 pupils strong and therefore a turnover of circa £1.5M, that is completely wrong.

Is it reasonable to compare funding for a school with turnover of an industrial company? How much control does a head have compared to an industry CEO? They are presumably rated on their profits?

I don’t know, it’s a genuine question.

What does a company with a turnover of £100 million look like in terms of staff, sites?

I wouldn't be a head either. But if the average salary of a head in secondary (the larger schools) is just over £90k and these heads are on 166% of that then either they are on too much, or the others are on too little.

So then we can't possibly compare by turnover.

And how would that compare with public sector senior staff. The responsibility for huge budgets and responsibility for a large number of schools isn't matched in public sector pay; not to the scale of academy

And what about staff. Current trend is to appoint a 'head of school' in a primary, with a pay scale less than the rate for a headteacher. Day to day you are the headteacher with all,of the accountability that brings, yet not paid accordingly because to make finances work money has to pay the executive head role or CEO.

Similar with teachers, qualified teachers not needed in an academy, jobs advertised as 'assistant teacher' on half the pay of a teacher, yet accountability is the same. Really devalues and erodes the teaching profession.
I can only think that staff need to get wise and just not take a role that is clearly underpaid. Surely academies will run out of personnel willing to take such a role.

In general, I think teachers should be paid more. It's a mass job with madder hours.
However, it does seem like an odd choice for academy heads to award themselves so highly of the school is in financial difficulty. I imagine this bounty is not passed on to the class teachers.

Perhaps head teachers' pay should be linked to the average teacher salary in their school. So by routinely refusing pay progression and cost of living increases, head teachers have to take the hit too.