Gavin wants to get rid of the upper pay scale

[noblegiraffe]

Because nothing says ‘fuck you, experienced teachers’ like paying them the same as someone a couple of years in.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832425/SoS_to_STRB_Sept_2019.pdf

He’s asking the pay review body to ask whether there is still a case for the upper pay scale, and says he wants a flatter pay structure.

How will this work when UPS teachers are expected to take up extra cross-school responsibilities in order to justify their pay point?

The idea of UPS was to keep teachers in the classroom and not necessarily have everyone hunting down management responsibility to gain more pay

I think this is still important and should be rewarded.

I just hope that this isn’t the start of dismantling the pay and conditions completely -it’ll be longer days and longer terms next-to get the working parent vote...

That’ll help with retention, not!

But the problem is that that original idea has become eroded, now that schools seem to attach various whole school responsibilities to being on UPS. It should be enough to simply be a good and experienced classroom teacher, but that has gone by the wayside.

Let whoever desires it take on whole school responsibilities and reward them with a TLR. You do the work, you get paid the extra money. But the pay should be decent for everyone, because the core job carries the same responsibilities whether you are in Year 2 or year 10.

(Disclaimer: I was previously UPS1, then leadership spine, then left teaching altogether!)

I would like to know the percentage of experienced primary school teachers on UPS compared to secondary teachers - where I am, as a primary teacher, UPS really does go with extra responsibility and lots of schools can't afford to pay it so teachers stay on M6. I was leading whole school projects on M4 and only got a TLR 3 (about £500) when I made a fuss. Certainly no TLRs for leading English/Maths round here either.

It might well be school specific because there would be plenty of secondaries who have a high turnover of staff that never get to UPS and/or restrict progression for financial reasons too.
My secondary school didn’t pass on the last pay rises to those on UPS to save money, for example.
I think that the general abuse of teachers’ pay scales across the board is a scandal, personally.

I am M6. I've almost at the end of my second decade in teaching. When returning after a gap for children, I took a paycut as pay portability had been scrapped by then. Since then, i've stuck at M6 - sometimes with tlr, sometimes not. Primary is a different ballgame to secondary. In a small rural school, some with mixed form classes, somewith one form entry, teachers are expected to lead subjects without tlr unless it's maths or english. Our budgets are so tight we haven't had any of the payrises yet and if we do, it's likely it will cost us our one shared TA between three classes! No teacher that is not an nqt, or"free" trainee has been employed in 5 years. It might be different in larger primaries,but smaller ones are screwed.

ingle
I'm secondary core and on UPS with TLR award.
Ultimately there is such a shortage of vaguely competent core teachers in our area that strong staff with good results are sought after. My school values keeping experienced staff and then recruits the best NQTs we can do we have a mixed body of staff.
The alternative is some of the new wave of trainees who know less about English than current Year 7s and report schools for workplace bullying because they were told to plan their lessons and/or read the text before teaching it (all real examples). Keeping someone on UPS who'll stay for the best part of a decade is a much more appealling offer for a school with good results than a revolving door of mixed bag NQTs.

I think perhaps nice village primaries have enough interest from experienced teachers that they can dictate not paying above mainscale. I agree Chloe it's a scandal in primary and secondary. Wouldn't mind so much if the media didn't report a teacher of 10 years will be on X amount as though it were a given! Then people think teachers are complaining about much higher pay than the reality of what they receive.

Wouldn't mind so much if the media didn't report a teacher of 10 years will be on X amount as though it were a given! Then people think teachers are complaining about much higher pay than the reality of what they receive.

Absolutely-this x 100!

Am still cross remembering that advert a few years ago suggesting that ‘great’ teachers would make £65k or whatever it was!

I think there was about 3 teachers paid that if I remember correctly.

I've been stuck for a decade. Part time. Ignored.

Luckily I moved schools and new head was brilliant when I asked about going up pay scales.

fedup
Wasn't that something like half a dozen lead practitioner/AST teachers at the top of the Lead Practitioner/AST scale in inner London with the weighting?

Sounds about right. So many people complained about that ad, yet I think it still stood!

Well, this thread makes me realise how fortunate we are in my school.

Science has a HOD (Biology), head of chemistry, head of physics and a second in science. I am UPS3 and mentor Science PGCE students but I offered. It is not expected.

Most subjects have a HOD and a second, even the smaller departments.

We are waved through UPS and there is no performance related pay, performance management, etc. We have a supportive coaching model, where only recently more experienced staff on UPS have been asked to coach. Up until last summer, the coaches were exclusively SLT.

Plenty of TLRs available for HOY, assistant HOY, literacy and numeracy coordinators...the list goes on.

The school isn’t particularly wealthy but the head looks after the staff well and it’s appreciated. People go above and beyond what’s expected because of the supportive environment. It’s an outstanding boys non selective school in the top 10% schools in the country.

Just goes to show how a school can be managed well. I worked in a Harris school before which was polar opposite and completely toxic.

@Inglenooks where are you? In our SE large primary we have tlrs for leading english and maths but not for anything else.

Just goes to show how a school can be managed well. I worked in a Harris school before which was polar opposite and completely toxic.

I won’t go back to working in one either.

Your current school sounds great-kudos to how it is run and why, often, happy teachers = happy students!

@pinksquash13 Am in the Midlands. Re @mintysmoons I've mentored BEd/PGCE students since being on M4 I think, possibly even M3 - certainly wasn't asked, given any extra time etc. Very much just an expectation this was part of the job.

I’m not sure I’m happy with the idea of an M3 teacher deciding whether a PGCE student passes or fails.

I’ve had student teachers in my classes from early on, but their ITT mentor has always been someone experienced.

My subject mentor on one of my placements was NQT plus 2, so I guess would have been on M3, and this wasn't unusual on my course. There was a more experienced head of ITT in the school, but it was ultimately my subject mentor who graded me against each of the teacher standards. I think to be fair, had she ever wanted to fail me on anything, she would have had to present hard evidence to my uni tutor, and I would have had a chance to put my side across too.

Obviously it's part of the problem with not retaining enough experienced teachers- there's no-one really experienced with the time to mentor trainees, so it's sold to people early in their careers as a chance for career development, and potentially doesn't lead to a good experience for the trainee or the mentor.

The approach to pay is also the same as minty's at my school, although we now have a new head with a more MAT background.

In terms of ITT, though , we do have a second year teacher this year mentoring a trainee. My misgivings fell on deaf ears. I think she was enthusiastic and was the only person who didn't have other responsibilities.

I'm due to go up this year (was last year but my school make you jump through hoops and I'd been on maternity leave so didn't bother applying).

Anyway my plan is to work my arse off this year and then apply for leadership posts full time next year now my children are approaching school age.

I've been part-time for the last few years and it has affected my career. I had a frank and open discussion with my headteacher but of course instead of listening to me he just gave me a load more extra responsibility. My union would probably have a fit!

we do have a second year teacher this year mentoring a trainee

Blind leading the blind. Second year teachers still need mentoring themselves.

Another consequence of UPS teachers being deliberately managed out of schools and replaced with NQTs is that there just aren’t enough mentors to go around everyone who needs one.

I am mentoring the second year teacher. She doesn't seem to feel she needs it, mind!

It's the state of play, though. Our HoF can't be on UPS yet, I wouldn't think.

sansa
I was M3 when I started mentoring, but had already got years of experience training etc in a previous career, other relevant experience, and was supported by my school to do the ITT mentoring. I enjoyed it then and still do now.
I didn't have any pass/fail authority on my own as all subject mentors had to make their case to the school ITT lead, who was excellent.

I don't think it's for everyone and I think schools should consider carefully who they put to mentor, but I don't think being early in career is automatically bad.

I'd be gutted if a mps teacher, especially one on m3 mentored me! Surely they need mentoring themselves and are still learning?

balls
It depends on the school and the teacher in all honesty.

I've had colleagues who are M6/UPS who were any of the following: poor mentors, couldn't be bothered, only interested in creating mini mes, still insist that a good lesson caters for learning styles, generally promotes in trainees and NQTs fads from 10/15 years ago, tells trainees they need more "buzz" in their lessons, they need to get the students on side before expecting too much work out of them, lesson feedback was more about talking about tasks than pedagogy.

I've worked with colleagues on M3/4 who were fab mentors, didn't claim to have all the answers, were actively involved in their own CPD, good at promoting reflection, offering advice, signposting to relevant colleagues, spends time keeping up to date with research.

The M3/4 colleagues may not have 8 years of experience, but they would make a better mentor.

Obviously, there's some new staff who would be utterly unsuitable to mentor (thinking about a colleague who's M1/2, has weaknesses in their own practice but is seeking to run before walking), and there's some amazing experienced staff who do all the things that the M3/4 person above does and has the benefit of time as well.

I'm not entirely convinced that time served should automatically be a criteria for taking additional things on.