Because it's what was paid - try telling HMRC it's just a headline.
Outrage at Headteacher's £200k pay package
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Because it's what was paid - try telling HMRC it's just a headline.
They don't provide a better service, they provide a different service where they can select which kids they teach, and then not to teach them if it turns out that a child is too difficult to manage, or won't get the grades required to make their stats look good. That is totally different to the obligations required in the service provided by the state.
State schools might have large costs associated with bureaucracy and monitoring but for the large part it is necessary bureaucracy and monitoring. I'm sure none of us want to return to the days when unmonitored schools were little more than factory sweatshops.
But for the umpteenth time, head teaching a school is not directly comparable with a management role. I'm not sure what relevance the number of employees you have responsibility for is to what you're worth?
Sure, you don't need fantastic leadership skills to run a school badly. From the information we're given, the head teacher has done a great job, and if any single job is worth such a bonus, I can't think of a better one than somebody providing the next generations with a better life.
With teachers and a head teacher in the family, I know just how hard their jobs can be - and I believe they earn every single penny. Good on him I say.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
The money would be better spent on getting teachers who can actually do their job properly. The same applies to manager in the NHS. On both counts the authorities think they can save on the wage bills by offering less that what's required to attract the right calibre staff. Then find out that the school/hospital is "failing" and needs an expensive manger to sort the mess out. Good staff require minimal management.
It is somewhat different, but does the solution of lumping everyone together rather than trying to restrict the impact those that are difficult to manage/teach on others work well?
Why is our education results so poor then? If the bureaucracy is necessary, surely it must be some other part of the educational setup?
If that much bureaucracy is necessary to make up for the lack of structural efficiency drivers, should the structure not be altered?
What makes the role different? Headteachers do little 'frontline' teaching work, instead spending most of their time inspiring, leading, getting the right people, setting the right tone and justifying themselves to their superiors, as well as a certain amount of budget management and performance management. Sounds exactly like a middle management position to me.
What do you think that headteachers do that is different from middle management in the private sector?
Being in a position that a lot of people aren't, I can speak from experience on this subject and say that if this guy has turned a school around in such a deprived area, then frankly there are very few jobs in the world that deserve more money.
Teachers are massively undervalued in todays society, they are taken for granted and work harder than the vast majority of us ever will for very very little reward or recognition.
What teachers need to be able to do their job properly, without added pressure, stress and bureaucracy (when they get more than enough of that already) is a higher management structure within their school that supports them, guides them and provides a good long-term strategy for improvement, as well as actually being clued up on what their teachers do day to day. It sounds like this guy has done just that, or at least some of that, and has the school performing. So frankly, reward him for it.
And before you say I'm just bitter/biased or whatever, no I am not a teacher and never have been.
Teachers are massively undervalued in todays society, they are taken for granted and work harder than the vast majority of us ever will for very very little reward or recognition.
What teachers need to be able to do their job properly, without added pressure, stress and bureaucracy (when they get more than enough of that already) is a higher management structure within their school that supports them, guides them and provides a good long-term strategy for improvement, as well as actually being clued up on what their teachers do day to day. It sounds like this guy has done just that, or at least some of that, and has the school performing. So frankly, reward him for it.
And before you say I'm just bitter/biased or whatever, no I am not a teacher and never have been.
Except Doctor, Surgeon, Nurse, various positions in the armed forces, various positions within the police force, firefighters and so on.
Actually it doesn't exactly work like that, people seem to be on the understanding the headteacher is the one that gives pay rises, it doesn't work that way for me, it depends all on the Government for me. Giving students laptops is to give students the opportunity of learning for the future as they call it, as most things are now done on the computers, they also don't get them for free, the students have to pay for them over time if they can't afford to pay the money on the spot. A headteachers post is more than budget spending and running the school, they also are a part of several commitees to improve schools as a whole across the country, as well as providing opportunities for students who want to be teachers or by doing support work for schools.
No-one who works at all a school can get sacked on the spot, you have to build up several pieces of evidence to support your case before you go filing it off, most staff's contracts enable the teacher or support worker security so they can't get sacked on the spot.
Basically, the whole of your points are completely invalid and un-true.
Last edited:
By "lumping everyone together" you mean not streaming children based on an examination such as the 11-plus? I think it's a worthy goal to allow children to develop mentally in their early teens and not make a decision that has a massive impact on their futures at 11 years old.
I don't claim that our system is perfect, far from it, there are serious failures that must be addressed right now. However the future is not more private sector involvement. There are plenty of countries around the world who have excellent state school systems, many of them our partners in the EU and yet for some reason we refuse to copy them, instead choosing to persist with the myth of competition and choice to drive up standards.
Maybe part of the reason is that in other countries teaching is seen as a high value profession. You ask the brightest students in France or Germany what career they want to go into and they'll tell you Medicine, Engineering or Teaching. Ask the same question in the UK and most of them will say investment banking /facepalm.
Teaching in this country is not a high value profession, it's seen as something you do if you can't get a job in your chosen career or don't have a chosen career. You'll get high levels of stress but never a corresponding level of financial rewards and you'll be the first to get the blame if little Jamal starts sexually harassing his classmates. This needs to change. Frankly if this head teacher is as good as he appears to be then he's worth every penny in my book.
Not necessarily an 11 plus exam, but there needs to be recognition in the system that not everyone thrives in an academic environment, that academic learning is not the be all and end all of education, that not all kids are equal, and that it is not acceptable to disrupt the learning of others. Germany, for example, has a split education system, and also much better general results and employability than we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany
There are (again) very few that run their education systems as we do, even those that have excellent state setups. We need evidence based rather than dogma based practices, and we need to free schools from the highly centralised control that is present in the UK system and not present in most other systems throughout Europe, especially those that perform better, along with the obsession with treating everyone the same in the UK system that certainly isn't present in the more successful systems.
Maybe our statist approach to teaching hasn't helped in this regard, nor has the complete lack of performance management? (Remember, the GTC and ofstead estimated there were 17000 incompetent teachers in the profession, but only 17 teachers have been struck of for incompetence in the last 40 years (Source))
Is it possible we have a low opinion of teaching because many of our teachers are low quality? I can certainly recall having a few excellent teachers, but most of the rest could only be described, being generous, as mediocre.
I don't actually have a problem with the amount this head teacher is paid if he is as good as reported, but he is the exception, not the rule.
My family's been heavily involved in education for many years now, so I guess I can see this from both sides. To someone from outside, it might look like a horrendous amount of money, but you can guarantee that he's earnt his pay there.
My mother's been sent in as a headteacher of a failing private school and has managed to turn it around in 3 years or so. She was working with funding from a larger private school, but with a very small and sometimes uncooperative staff base and only part-time administrative support. She's worked on a just-sub-50k salary and does a standard 8-till-8 day. On a long day, that can involve staying until 10 or 11.
People don't really appreciate the effort required to turn a failing school around. To do that in the sort of school and the sort of area we're talking about here is another ball-park again. From the reports of the parents there, I'd say the guy seems to be pretty exemplary and probably deserves every penny.
My mother's been sent in as a headteacher of a failing private school and has managed to turn it around in 3 years or so. She was working with funding from a larger private school, but with a very small and sometimes uncooperative staff base and only part-time administrative support. She's worked on a just-sub-50k salary and does a standard 8-till-8 day. On a long day, that can involve staying until 10 or 11.
People don't really appreciate the effort required to turn a failing school around. To do that in the sort of school and the sort of area we're talking about here is another ball-park again. From the reports of the parents there, I'd say the guy seems to be pretty exemplary and probably deserves every penny.
Exactly how many children do you come in to contact with? Now if you had said popstar, footballer or "I want to be famous" I might have possibly thought you had some sort of point, but once again (like your original post) you take a pop at the banking system again. It's OK, we get it, you are a socialist and hate the bankers as the ultimate expression of capitalism. I don't think I have ever heard a kid go "I want to be an investment banker!"
Not really the case at all, speaking as someone who has (just) started down the (eventual) teaching path and as someone that knows a fair few teachers.
I must be one of the few who doesn't see a problem with this and actually feel sorry for the bloke to be singled out. The school does really well and he's clearly doing a better than average job in there and his pay claims are a victim if typical sensationalist media. His actual pay appears to be quite average just under 100k with the other 100k coming as part of the City Challenge programme and is actually split over 2 years, so claims "200k a year" are wrong anyway. I don't know the details of the programme but can't imagine it being unlimited so it's not like he'll be earning that every year.
It wasn't his wage though, even including bonuses. It included backpay totalling over £70k, 50k of which and his 50k of bonus for this year were from a specified government scheme, none of it was just awarded for good performance. He was set targets and surpassed them.
His wage was, and still will be ~£80k. That seems a lot for a primary school headteacher than me, but I'd rather a lot was paid to get good people for the job, than not enough.
I couldn't agree more. The 11-plus system is archaic.
I guess I'm a good example here. I failed the 11-plus, but was borderline and was allowed to re-sit. I got exactly the same mark the second time around and on the strength of recommendations from my primary school, my case was taken to appeal but was rejected. My parents had the option of sending me to the local comprehensive school, which has an awful reputation and equally bad results, or to pay for my education. Thankfully, they chose the latter. I got good GCSE and A levels, I got a degree from Oxford and I'm now doing a PhD. Without their sacrifice then, I wouldn't be where I am now and I owe them everything.
Not everyone's parents would be a) prepared or b) able to do this for their kids, but it's a fact that children (and boys especially) aren't really developed enough by 10-11 to accurately determine if they should be streamlined up or dumped down at this point.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
On the same BBC page is a link to teachers demand for 10% rise or strike action, that's at least £3,000 a year average, apparently there's also thousands of teachers who are so bad that they are asked to resign but then move to another school & just carry on .
Perhaps they should take their mammoth holiday allocation - must add up to about 3 months in total - off them & make them do training instead of waiting till it's term time & then having 'training days' where the kids have to have days off.
Whingeing money grabbing teachers
Perhaps they should take their mammoth holiday allocation - must add up to about 3 months in total - off them & make them do training instead of waiting till it's term time & then having 'training days' where the kids have to have days off.
Whingeing money grabbing teachers
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
This is exactly what I was about to say when I got into the thread.
My store manager was on more than him in tescos and he's a grade A retard.
A head teacher is an important job and one which must be earned through years of experience and such.
Last edited:
But its like saying "Cleaner paid £200k"...and then pointing out it was 10 years wages. Ok so the guy got it in one year, but it's back pay and bonuses for other things. No where near as bad as people are pointing out.