Why the 'pay-rise' for teachers may not be a pay-rise...

[Bayum]

To the dissatisfaction of some headteachers and Daily Mail readers, Hinds recently announced a 3.5% rise for teachers on the main payscale (MPS), 2% on the upper pay scale (UPS) and 1% for leaders.

This forms a bit of an issue. Do schools award pay rises that will take some teachers on the upper echelons of MPS that will overtake those starting on the UPS? How about the fact that leaders should have a positive difference between their highest paid staff member and the SLT team?

Unfortunately, there is still a ways to go for some teachers to see the payrise of 3.5%. Though the government is funding the extra 2.5% from the 1% schools should have already budgeted for, some will be told that they just can't justify the full 3.5%. On the other hand, some will justify no award of more than 1% and use the additional non-ringfenced funding to put towards their current deficit or to stay out of deficit. Some staff will have union involvement, others may accept that it is what it is and not take the 3.5% increase.

It's fantastic that someone is finally seeing the issues that have been played down for the last few years: retention of teachers, the stress of the job, the downward trend of teachers joining the profession and many more, but there is still much more needed to be done.

Exclusive: Heads tell teachers they can’t afford pay rise
But schools that fail to pass on full pay rise to teachers will face an 'industrial relations disaster', warns heads' union

Some schools have already told their teachers they cannot afford to give them the recommended pay rise announced this week, despite being promised extra money from the DfE.

The warnings have raised the prospect of industrial action at schools that do not pass on the full 3.5 per cent pay rise to all teachers on the main pay range, as announced by the DfE on Tuesday.

Education secretary Damian Hinds told schools they would have to finance the first 1 per cent of the award, which he said they should already have budgeted for.

He said the DfE would fund the rest through a new £508 million teachers’ pay grant.

However, although maintained schools must raise the pay of teachers at the maximum and minimum points of their pay ranges in line with the DfE's announcement, they have flexibility over what to pay those in the middle of the scale.

Academies have more freedom over pay, although in practice many choose to mirror what is offered in schools run by local authorities.

Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the NEU teaching union, told Tes: “We have already heard from members on the last day of term [when the pay award was announced] whose school leaders have said, ‘Well we can’t afford to pay’.”

She said the union has written to members in leadership positions to say “We expect the award to be paid in full to all members”, and said the NEU would be “monitoring that situation very closely”.

Dr Bousted said this was the first time a pay award had been partially funded with extra money for schools, and although school funding is “in crisis”, heads will have already budgeted for a 1 per cent pay rise.

She added: “We will support members who wish to take action in any school where the award is not implemented in full.”

However, Valentine Mulholland, head of policy at the NAHT headteachers' union, said it was “highly unlikely” that schools would fail to pass on the pay rise to teachers and use the DfE’s pay grant for other priorities.

She told Tes: “When schools have been funded to deliver this, they will want to deliver this because they are concerned about their teachers.

“Even those that are in horrendous deficit where the governing body may say, ‘Actually, we think we shouldn’t pay more than 1 per cent, and we will keep this to address our deficit’, I think they would be advised by the leadership team that that would be a decision that would drive them into an industrial relations disaster.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “The department has guaranteed £500m to fully fund a pay rise for all teachers. All schools will receive enough funding to deliver this pay rise.”

https://www.tes.com/news/exclusive-heads-tell-teachers-they-cant-afford-pay-rise

 

[PeterC]

SNIP
This forms a bit of an issue. Do schools award pay rises that will take some teachers on the upper echelons of MPS that will overtake those starting on the UPS? How about the fact that leaders should have a positive difference between their highest paid staff member and the SLT team?
/SNIP

Experience and ability at a lower grade can be worth more to an organisation than an inexperienced manager. No problem except among the Hyacinth Buckets of this world.

 

[Bayum]

Experience and ability at a lower grade can be worth more to an organisation than an inexperienced manager. No problem except among the Hyacinth Buckets of this world.

It is, but regardless, the pay of SLT HAS to be higher than the workforce below them.

 

[PeterC]

It is, but regardless, the pay of SLT HAS to be higher than the workforce below them.

Well I have only worked in the private sector where they have this silly idea of rewarding value rather than status.

 

[DarloRich]

you mean a Tory announcement might not be accurate......................

 

[Dai Corner]

Well I have only worked in the private sector where they have this silly idea of rewarding value rather than status.

I remember overlapping pay scales when I worked in the private sector some thirty odd years ago. It meant a high-performing member of staff could be rewarded and hopefully retained until a more senior position became available. Or he could stay in the role he enjoyed and was good at instead of being promoted into one he was unsuited to.

 

[ComUtoR]

It is, but regardless, the pay of SLT HAS to be higher than the workforce below them.

Why ?

 

[najaB]

It is, but regardless, the pay of SLT HAS to be higher than the workforce below them.

In my last job there were two pay scales - one for 'regular' employees and another for managers, with different terms and conditions. My net take home pay went down when my job was re-classified as a management role.

 

[DarloRich]

Why ?

surely as a manager you should be paid more than those you manage? There is a higher level of responsibility and a greater workload in dealing with and leading a team

 

[najaB]

surely as a manager you should be paid more than those you manage? There is a higher level of responsibility and a greater workload in dealing with and leading a team

You would think so. However, it often isn't the case. In my last role at least two in the team earned more than our manager.

 

[Bayum]

Why ?

I’m not leadership so I’m not certain.

• The ISR must start above the pay level of the ‘highest paid classroom teacher’.

https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/Leadership Group Teachers.doc

Again, the pay ranges of deputy head teachers and assistant head teachers must start above the pay level of the ‘highest paid classroom teacher’. The pay ranges of deputy head teachers and assistant head teachers may be re-determined when new appointments are made or where the responsibilities of existing postholders change significantly or, as with head teachers, at any time where it is considered necessary to retain a postholder.

So the pay for the member of staff on the lowest leadership pay scale should be two pay points higher than the highest earning non-leadership class teacher.

 

[DarloRich]

You would think so. However, it often isn't the case. In my last role at least two in the team earned more than our manager.

Same in my place. A symptom of long service and not looking for promotion

 

[ComUtoR]

surely as a manager you should be paid more than those you manage? There is a higher level of responsibility and a greater workload in dealing with and leading a team

I do agree in principle. I have worked as a Manager and the salary rarely reflects what you state. Higher Management levels often come with perks and benefits too. Company car, increased holiday, bonuses, private medical etc. That is also part of the salary package. It's not always just the cash.

What I'm interested is what people believe and think justifies a higher rate; rather than 'just because' The comment up the thread raised the point of paying by value over status. I also have a friend in the NHS and their pay scales are a nightmare and also rarely reflect responsibility, workload etc.

At my TOC our DMs are notoriously known for getting less than a Driver. :/ Again, my Management history shows me that sometimes your title/status doesn't reflect pay. I was retail and stores were graded. Regardless of my status as a Manager. Someone in a larger store got a higher salary but they were supported better with a multi layered management system so their workload was a lot lower, yet they were automatically paid more :/

There are Trainees at a different TOC that get paid more than our Drivers. Pay scales are also very regional or market dependent. Automatic pay increases because of status or going up the ladder is much deeper than just getting paid more than your juniors.

As I said, I am very interested to hear reasons why people see Management pay as always higher by default.

 

[DarloRich]

As I said, I am very interested to hear reasons why people see Management pay as always higher by default.

I agree that it isnt higher by default.

 

[gg1]

I'm sure I read a while ago on this forum that it's common for train driver managers to be paid less than the drivers they manage.

 

[najaB]

I'm sure I read a while ago on this forum...

Yeah, two posts above yours!

 

[gg1]

Yeah, two posts above yours!

Whoops

That's what happen when you only quickly skim through a thread before responding.

 

[underbank]

surely as a manager you should be paid more than those you manage? There is a higher level of responsibility and a greater workload in dealing with and leading a team

Why? They're completely different skill sets. The typical practice manager in a GP surgery will be paid a lot less than the senior GPs they're managing. Stobart lorry drivers are paid more than their line managers who are controlling their journeys/pickups, etc. Management is often basically an administrative function of workload planning, resource allocation, administration, etc. which is a pretty standard across various industries. Yet, in some industries you need very highly qualified/experienced individuals to actually do the work meaning their "worth" to the organisation is a lot more than the people managing them.