Maths teachers should be paid more than PE teachers

[noblegiraffe]

Maths teachers should be paid more than PE teachers because there is a critical shortage of maths teachers and we have plenty of PE teachers.

What would people think of this? It was a topic that came up on the teacher polling app Teacher Tapp a while back, with mixed opinions.

I’m not saying that maths teachers are more important than PE teachers, or have a more difficult job (I’d rather teach bottom set Y9 than supervise rugby in the winter). But as a retention tool? Some say that it’s already happening with teachers of shortage subjects more likely to be waved up the pay scale, or hired on a higher point or given a meaningless TLR, but it’s all ad-hoc.

The DfE throw money at people to train in shortage subjects, but then there’s no extra money to retain them. Although in maths next year maths students will be getting a retention bonus after 3 and 5 years, the initial bursary has dropped significantly and NQTs could well still be starting on M1, and there is nothing for teachers already in the system.

What do people think? (Obviously I say maths because I’m a maths teacher, but the same argument would go for other serious shortage subjects). Should market forces determine subject pay scales?

Whats funny is the amount of people that take the tax free bursary and never set foot inside the classroom after they have completed the course.

Take the money and run.

perhaps everyone hates maths teachers because some of them start divisive threads like this?

That would be a weird extrapolation.

I believe salaries of PE teachers and maths teachers should be the same, however, supplements and other variables should be used to enable the employer to get the mix of teachers that they require.

*Well, there we are noble that's who we need to attract. People with ethics, who love their subject and are capable of working with young people.^

Well that would be the ideal, wouldn’t it, piggy. Unfortunately teaching-as-a-vocation isn’t really cutting the mustard and things are reaching (have reached?) crisis point so perhaps we need to do teaching-as-a-job?

I’m not particularly motivated by money, but the PP who characterises people who are interested in work that is financially rewarding as greedy money-grabbers isn’t being particularly realistic about the situation. 8 years of pay cuts and being paid below the market rate - you don’t need to be particularly ‘greedy’ to think that’s a bad deal.

is science not, in fact, miles ahead?

In terms of straight numbers, yes, but science teachers make up 20% of the workforce and 18% of heads, humanities teachers are 8.3% of the workforce and 14.6% of heads.

The point is we work together. Schools are communities. Everyone has a role to play we work together. Each student is different and special, with different and special needs. We value each student and we value each subject.

If we start to say this is more important, that counts for more, we will pay you more, the that all disintegrates.

Do you really want schools to reflect the market economy. Think about it for a minute. So you really want subjects to be valued by economic necessity. Screw art, screw drama, PE - what a joke.....

You know, you know students who live for PE or Food Tech. You know them, you teach them but you don't value their teachers?

The disaffected student who is kept in school because he is on the football team - have you not taught that lad?

But YOU the almighty maths teacher deserve more money than the PE coach who drives him to games.

Market forces - 'all praise to the market and fuck the kids' I'm not signing up to that. In fact I will stand on picket lines, and watch you and your ilk cross them, while I fight for schools to remain as communities supporting each other.

This is why we need maths teachers! To help us to not just be befuddled by the numbers!!

Perhaps we need to appreciate that we are teaching children first and foremost rather than subjects which may level the playing field somewhat. I do understand however that the government demands results in what they believe are the 'more academic' subjects at the expense of a more holistic education no matter what they profess. This sadly is their shortsightedness. It would be a shame to subscribe to a hierarchical notion of subjects and reward the people who teach them. Teaching a certain subject does not make a better or more worthwhile teacher. Children's needs stretch way beyond understanding equations, photosynthesis and appreciating poetry. All subjects are of value as are the people who teach them. When we validate all teachers for what they teach we in turn validate children for what they are good at and passionate about. Therefore compensation should be equal because we need to be skilled in teaching children not just content. Over the years I have not needed to use many of these so called more important subjects to the degree they were taught but I have needed many of the other skills and the knowledge sets I gained from the other subjects and activities I engaged with in school.

In fact I will stand on picket lines, and watch you and your ilk cross them

You don’t know me at all, this thread isn’t about me and I was quite clear in my OP that I didn’t think one teacher was more important or had a more difficult job than the other.

But while you’re holding hands and singing songs about community, thousands of children don’t have qualified maths teachers and the situation is getting worse.

So we improve the situation for ALL teachers. We stand together, we point out how unfair it is. We join with each other and do our best for the whole of education.

I'm not signing songs, I'm campaigning and arguing and debating and writing letters and fighting for all of education. All of education, for all teaches and all pupils.

If you divide us you weaken us. You are buying into their narrative, by posing the question you are making it legitimate.

I don't know you, but I know the questions you ask, I know what you post about and I am extremely disappointed that you would post something as divisive as this.

This is an interesting debate.

On the one hand, looking at the shortage subjects - Maths, Science, MFL, Technology - it strikes me that these are mainly 'skills' subjects, where graduates are pretty employable elsewhere - not just in teaching. Whereas, although humanities graduates are clearly very employable in many fields, I'm guessing these are mainly areas requiring graduates (any graduate) than someone needed for a knowledge of geography for example. So for someone who loves their subject and wants to use it in their job, other subject areas have fewer options than the shortage subjects.

Also, there's the question of pay. Most of those shortage subjects attract a decent rate of pay elsewhere. So teachers of those subjects are pretty employable and don't have to stick at teaching if they've had enough of poor conditions / ridiculous demands etc.

On the other hand, a teacher does far more than just teach their subject. Things like being a form tutor, parents evenings, teaching PSHE etc are common for everyone, so it wouldn't be fair to pay shortage subject teachers more. But there again, something needs to be done. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than to improve the job for everyone. Less data, more teaching.

Ishouldntbesolucky that's it exactly. If we have a teacher who has excellent pastoral relationships with the students and keeps them in education is that less valuable than maths?

Teaching is so much more than the sum of it's parts.

Less data, more teaching improve the job for everyone.

Trouble is with economics, is that price is not based on value, but on supply and demand.

And a teacher, in say London with a new family, who is trying to work out how to achieve a reasonable standard of living —make ends meet—, may well be tempted by other options. And more tempting other options are likely to present themselves to maths/science teachers than others.

So you give up trying to teach maths or you work out how to retain maths teachers. Money won’t be everything but it will play it’s part.

I had no idea that teachers in shirtange subjects weren’t paid more. It seems fairly straightforward that if you can’t recruit and retain a particular skill in your school/company you in some way make it more attractive, probably through the benefits package. My company has 3 parallel pay scales, the one you are on depends on your skills and the job role you are in. Which skill sets and job roles are eligible for which salary scale are all available on the HR website. There’s no resentment and infighting, people know if they want to be on one of the technical salary scales they would need to retrain in that technical discipline - occasionally people do. All the pay scales are externally benchmarked and depending on the need for the various skill sets the gap between them narrows or widens as necessary. This enables the company to employ the staff it needs. I can’t honestly understand why schools don’t work the same way - although overall funding for schools would probably become a problem if they were trying to seriously compete for maths and science graduates and would obviously need to continue to pay other subjects at least as well as they do now.

Perfectly happy for teachers to be paid much more providing it goes hand in hand with effective performance management.

I am extremely disappointed that you would post something as divisive as this.

It’s already happening. See the thread in the staffroom. See comments on this thread, maths teachers being bumped up the pay scale, being given TLRs for nothing, being promoted. What do you think the head who has advertised unsuccessfully for a maths teacher and is desperate, who is considering creating a fake TLR to encourage applicants should do? Write a letter to her MP instead? What would you say to her? ‘No, stand firm, there’s a principle at stake here, I’ll teach maths for you’?

If it were done officially, then it would be out in the open, potential trainees wouldn’t look at the meagre pay scales and think that was all that was on offer and perhaps the DfE would put a bit more cash in the staffing budget so that the school could afford to staff their maths department and pay for a librarian?

I’m a fan of the national pay scales, I like that a primary teacher is as valued as a secondary teacher, because it could well be seen as a nice little job for mums and paid pin money if people had their way. But pay scales are falling apart anyway. Performance-related pay, academies, it’s a mess. Who’s benefitting? CEOs getting paid well over the odds. Men. The odd maths teacher, but nowhere near enough. If you want them back, you have to be able to argue with the head who needs to hire a maths teacher right now when there aren’t enough to go around.

I honestly don't think it would make a difference. I don't believe there are people out there who would just love to be maths teachers, but only if it paid more.

There is a chronic shortage of primary teachers in London. It's a huge problem.

You're all wrong. Drama teachers should be paid the most because they put in all the extra hours and evenings (on top of an English like marking load).

It just doesn't work. Get the teachers to argue amongst themselves. Divide and conquer...

Evil it might catch some people who are meh about being a maths teacher, like the look of the holidays and are now not actively put off by the pay? It might keep some of the teachers who after 3 years of slog are sat on M2 looking at their classmates who are raking it in in industry or who are being headhunted by the private sector or international schools?

At the moment we have trainees lured in by the bursary who are looking at the long slog up the main payscale once they get a job and who are thinking ‘sod that’.

It’s not about workload, 8 It’s about kids not having a qualified maths teacher at all.

It would probably help if new teachers were not given bottom set Y10 or even worse resit Y12.

Schools also shouldn’t be allowed to routinely give NQTs one year contracts. If a teacher is a wavering at the end of a tough year, then having to reapply for their own job might be the nudge they need to leave teaching.

I think qualified teachers are outdated anyway. (Or that's what my son's school's mat head seems to think). After all, all you need is passion and want to make a difference...

Anyway, while I agree on papaer, I don't in the 'real world'. I bit like PRP. It works on paper, but not when you start to break it down.

at anyone thinking primary teaching is a nice little job for mums. I wouldn’t leave secondary and return to primary for double my salary. I’m not kidding! Working until midnight and most of Sunday? No way! My workload is still heavy but at least it’s now manageable.

And it really isn’t just about pay. If you don’t want to teach then teaching will destroy your soul. It’s all very well offering large, tempting salaries to maths grads to entice them into the classroom but what is the point if they’ve gone again by the following summer? It’s ok for me, I’m pushing 50, p/t and reasonable senior so I get some say in my timetable. NQTs have no such luxury. As a collective they are earning less for double the stress. I shudder at the thought of being newly qualified these days.