27% turnout yet they are still going on strike.

[dowie]

The average across the whole profession (excluding Headteachers and specialist skills teachers ) is £32.2k according to that .....which is comparable to the average salary of Doctors within the same parameters, in fact more than a comparable Doctor if you remove specialist skills from the equation.

You've got to be kidding - its comparable to Doctors within the first few years... hardly the same parameters at all... they do F1/F2 and within a couple of years into a specialisation they're on circa 50k... as per the bracket you posted earlier... they can progress up to 70k or so... they then tend to qualify as consultants in that specialisation and earn 100K + or more if taking on private work...

assuming they don't specialise then once qualified as a GP within a few years they're on 70k as a salaried GP until they can become a partner in a practice... then its also a six figure sum....

for most teachers it isn't normal progression to become head teacher and earn 100k etc...

However we were taking about Starting Salaries and the figures are a matter of public record with Starting Salaries ranging between £21.5 and £36.5k depending on various factors, which is comparable to starting salaries for Doctors.

Starting salaries aren't too relevant at all in the grand scheme of things when one career is on track to earn 100k+ and the other less than half that.

It wasn't silly until you expanded the comparision to include self employed practice-owning GPs....

And in any case the average is not £100k, at least not according to official figures when comparing salaried GPs to salaried experienced specialist Teachers.

You're aware of how GP practices are run? Its not silly to include them its a large % of them..... the average salary for GPs is over 100k... If we're looking at doctors in general then you're looking at different specialists, some of whom will take on private work too.

 

[dowie]

Neither are the job roles in any way comparable, so i'd hope people will stop trying to compare the simpletons that are teaching staff to GPs and doctors.

The comparison is just the pay... not the job they're doing. I believe Castiel is trying to indicate that the pay level is comparible to that of Doctors... it isn't.

 

[Castiel]

The average across the whole profession (excluding Headteachers and specialist skills teachers ) is £32.2k according to that .....which is comparable to the average salary of Doctors within the same parameters, in fact more than a comparable Doctor if you remove specialist skills from the equation.

You've got to be kidding - its comparable to Doctors within the first few years... hardly the same parameters at all...

Note the links and the references in both cases to both STARTING and EXPERIENCED salary ranges.

Starting salaries aren't too relevant at all in the grand scheme of things when one career is on track to earn 100k+ and the other less than half that.

They are when we were talking about starting salaries for graduates. And a teacher can, with the right career progression earn in excess of £100k also.

The comparision illustrates that Teaching is not necessarily as low paid as some people assume, and the very fact that starting ranges and earning potential can be compared with the medical profession illustrates that.

You're aware of how GP practices are run? Its not silly to include them its a large % of them..... the average salary for GPs is over 100k...

Yes I am, and that is why I referenced PCT SALARIED GPs as opposed to all GPs...and in any case the two sets of figures I gave are for both salaries and contracted GPs.....

All sourced from official NHS figures, not the media.

 

[Castiel]

The comparison is just the pay... not the job they're doing. I believe Castiel is trying to indicate that the pay level is comparible to that of Doctors... it isn't.

Given relative required skills and qualifications it is, in fact when you compare the two relative to the qualification and training required, Teachers stack up exceptionally well, particularly those with TLR or who move up the scales into Head of Year and Head teaching scales.....

The comparison is really only to illustrate the fallacy that teaching is poorly paid.

 

[dowie]

Note the links and the references in both cases to both STARTING and EXPERIENCED salary ranges.

that's the problem.. you're comparing ranges... badly... you compared a range that a doctor would go though and get to the top of around his/her mid 30s... with a range where the top end reflects a small subset of teachers

They are when we were talking about starting salaries for graduates. And a teacher can, with the right career progression earn in excess of £100k also.

A doctor can, with the right progression, earn in excess of 500k... they're not the norm though... what % of teachers earn in excess of 100K? Its average earnings for a GP....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567887/Average-salary-for-a-GP-leaps-to-110000.html

The comparision illustrates that Teaching is not necessarily as low paid as some people assume, and the very fact that starting ranges and earning potential can be compared with the medical profession illustrates that.

It really can't be, your comparison is flawed. Starting salaries are irrelevant long term and earning potential, as far as teaching is concerned, is skewed with a fat tail towards the high end.... given that the high end corresponds to the average for the medical profession they're not particularly comparable salary wise.

Yes I am, and that is why I referenced PCT SALARIED GPs as opposed to all GPs...and in any case the two sets of figures I gave are for both salaries and contracted GPs.....

All sourced from official NHS figures, not the media.

Its not a true reflection of what they earn, you're aware of how GP surgeries work yet you want to just compare the GPs at an earlier stage of their career where they're not partners in a surgery. Though tbh.. even the salaried GPs, once qualified for a few years, are earning significantly more than most teachers.

 

[Xordium]

Just as an aside I am currently trying to get into teaching - specifically science you know that subject they don't have enough teachers for. However, because my qualifications are over 5 years old I have to do an access course to demonstrate 'current ability'. The two qualifications I hold which are over 5 years old are MD and PhD ... grrr really ******* annoying tbh. Wonder why I am bothering I really do.

 

[Jon33]

Just as an aside I am currently trying to get into teaching - specifically science you know that subject they don't have enough teachers for. However, because my qualifications are over 5 years old I have to do an access course to demonstrate 'current ability'. The two qualifications I hold which are over 5 years old are MD and PhD ... grrr really ******* annoying tbh. Wonder why I am bothering I really do.

Madness, is that for a PGCE? Which Uni?

When I did mine a couple of years ago we had people who had PhDs from 10+years ago.

EDIT: I should probably apologise now for how incredibly opinionated and aggressive I'm going to be on this subject, there's a strong element of bitterness in me towards this subject, the way some teachers teach, what they teach, the way they act, how incredibly naive and short sighted some teachers are to the world around them, and lastly how stupidly selfish some are.

Made some changes, mrbios.

 

[Castiel]

that's the problem.. you're comparing ranges... badly... you compared a range that a doctor would go though and get to the top of around his/her mid 30s... with a range where the top end reflects a small subset of teachers

I m a comparing specific starting salaries of two newly qualified graduate professions to illustrate that a Teacher can earn relative to other graduate starting positions.....Both have specific stated ranges and the comparison is valid. The actual top end is largely irrelevant (and in fact I never mentioned it as being important until you decided to inject GPs into the mix).

In fact on reflection given the relative standard of education and degree status needed to be a Doctor compared to a Teacher , a better comparison would be between Nurses and Teachers, but that really wouldn't suit your idea that Teachers are poorly paid even more so than Doctors.

A doctor can, with the right progression, earn in excess of 500k... they're not the norm though... what % of teachers earn in excess of 100K? Its average earnings for a GP....

Indeed, but then a Doctor is far more skilled and educated to a much higher level than a School teacher....if we widened the scope to consider Teaching in its entirety (as you want to do with Physicians it seems) then we would also have to consider professors and their earning potential related to their work (which in some cases can be in the millions, and in any case a Vice-Chancellor would expect to earn in excess of £300-£400k), but just as trying to skew the point I was adequately making with the inclusion of non-relevant medical positions (i.e, Contracting business owning GPs) so is considering the wider scope of teaching in that format.

It really can't be, your comparison is flawed. Starting salaries are irrelevant long term and earning potential, as far as teaching is concerned, is skewed with a fat tail towards the high end.... given that the high end corresponds to the average for the medical profession they're not particularly comparable salary wise.

The figures simply do not support that, as I stated I gave the official figures from both professions in a comparative scenario to demonstrate that teachers with a similar level of education can earn consummate with other professions....and this includes Doctors.

Its not a true reflection of what they earn, you're aware of how GP surgeries work yet you want to just compare the GPs at an earlier stage of their career where they're not partners in a surgery. Though tbh.. even the salaried GPs, once qualified for a few years, are earning significantly more than most teachers.

You show me a business partner in a school and a head teacher that owns the school that he runs then you will have a comparison...until then the only comparison you can make is between Salaried Headteachers and Salaried GPs. It was you that introduced Gps, not I...they are not necessary to demonstrate the point I was making about relative graduate starting salaries.

You are attempting to compare a contractor with a salaried job, which is flawed.....

Average Salaried GP earnings in 2009/10 was £58k, this is comparable to a headteacher average of £56k and given the relative qualification and responsibilities it is arguable that the Salaried GP is underpaid or the Head teacher is overpaid.....

The average income before tax for salaried GPs in the UK in 2009/10 was £58,000 for those GPs working in either a GMS or PMS (GPMS) practice (compared to £57,300 in 2008/09).

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publi...arnex0910/GP_Earnings_and_Expenses_200910.pdf


Ergo, Teachers (in comparative positions) are not necessarily as poorly paid as you are suggesting.

 

[Biohazard]

This thread is turning gay. Lets bring it back to education or militancy!

Up the workers!

 

[Pestilence]

Rabble rabble rabble!

 

[Castiel]

Just as an aside I am currently trying to get into teaching - specifically science you know that subject they don't have enough teachers for. However, because my qualifications are over 5 years old I have to do an access course to demonstrate 'current ability'. The two qualifications I hold which are over 5 years old are MD and PhD ... grrr really ******* annoying tbh. Wonder why I am bothering I really do.

That is pretty insulting to be honest, given the relative qualifications of Teachers, (who in a lot of cases seem woefully under qualified for the subjects they are teaching our children, particularly at secondary level) I only have to discuss a few topics with the relevant teachers at my sons school to realise that they are essentially teaching from Study and Teaching Aids rather than any actual in depth knowledge base themselves. The Languages and R.E teachers actively avoid me at parents evenings now.

 

[Dolph]

Who has a monopoly on employment?

The state has an effective monopoly on teacher employment. National pay bargaining, along with the flat pay scales favoured by the principle negotiators (eg the unions) is a disaster for workforce efficiency.

You can see the same thing in the NHS regional pay debate that is currently happening in the south west. The NHS groups have formed a cabal to set more local wage rates, and the unions are objecting that this interferes with their position of involvement in the national pay coordination cabal.

What should be happening is that the employers should be setting their wage rates and employment terms according to their recruitment, staff quality and retention requirements. This would benefit all parties if, as is often claimed, staff are currently being underpaid for their work in some locations.

 

[Meridian]

Surely it's an argument against centrally controlled national pay bargaining and management of a school's ability to recruit staff and to dictate how many pupils (and therefore their income and budget) they have?

I'd agree except for one thing: the schools which struggle most to recruit are the same schools which have the least money to pay extra to get good staff. How do you plan to get around that, since the only way I can see is central government interference. The other issue is that "local pay" always seems to mean keeping the highest the same, and cutting the pay of everyone else. Unless you are a senior manager, when retention bonuses really come into their own of course.

 

[Meridian]

What should be happening is that the employers should be setting their wage rates and employment terms according to their recruitment, staff quality and retention requirements.

Translation: setting wages in order to pay those who actually do the work as little as possible, leaving more money for bonuses for senior managers (as a reward for lowering the pay bill of course). That's how it works in the real world.

 

[Xordium]

Madness, is that for a PGCE? Which Uni?

When I did mine a couple of years ago we had people who had PhDs from 10+years ago..

Well let's just leave it that it was a very good Russell uni. Due to my location I am limited in which unis I can get to without it really effecting my family which I am unwilling to do for something that would be of interest to me not an essential. I do not need the wage it was to 'do something' or rather 'give something' if that makes any sense. And people wonder why my daughter went to the states to do her undergrad computing.

That is pretty insulting to be honest, given the relative qualifications of Teachers, (who in a lot of cases seem woefully under qualified for the subjects they are teaching our children, particularly at secondary level) I only have to discuss a few topics with the relevant teachers at my sons school to realise that they are essentially teaching from Study and Teaching Aids rather than any actual in depth knowledge base themselves. The Languages and R.E teachers actively avoid me at parents evenings now.

Exactly my sentiments. My lad started school the other day and the teacher did not even know the exact time they finished! This country really does my head in at times with its obsession to tick the boxes that allegedly demonstrate the criteria of success rather than actually trying to achieve something. Guess I'll just sit on my butt and play Guild Wars 2 all day!

Teachers get a good deal for what they do compared to other professions. They have a good career pathway with financial rewards that place them in a good position. There really is no need to strike. But and it's a big but you can hardly blame them when this is exactly the behaviour that is consistently demonstrated by our so called 'betters'. It appears the government is only willing to tackle one-side of the problem and they are fully supported by an evangelical right-wing pro-business crowd who are sufficiently comfortable to stand by whilst they themselves are not effected.

That you are able make such significant changes on such a small turnout is quite shocking really. But enough about the government ... it is equally worrying when you have it applied by unions. Such small turnouts demonstrate that neither unions or political parties are representing or engaging with those they should be representing.

 

[Trifid]

What should be happening is that the employers should be setting their wage rates and employment terms according to their recruitment, staff quality and retention requirements. This would benefit all parties if, as is often claimed, staff are currently being underpaid for their work in some locations.

The NHS trust I work at do just this. It resulted in an extra day off compared to Agenda for Change but slightly less pay. The end result is not really any different.

 

[Dolph]

Translation: setting wages in order to pay those who actually do the work as little as possible, leaving more money for bonuses for senior managers (as a reward for lowering the pay bill of course). That's how it works in the real world.

Why is salaries tending towards the most efficient distribution a bad thing? This was the reason for the caveat about if they are underpaid...

 

[Dolph]

I'd agree except for one thing: the schools which struggle most to recruit are the same schools which have the least money to pay extra to get good staff. How do you plan to get around that, since the only way I can see is central government interference. The other issue is that "local pay" always seems to mean keeping the highest the same, and cutting the pay of everyone else. Unless you are a senior manager, when retention bonuses really come into their own of course.

Failing schools should be closed or completely transferred from the failing management team, so as long as the restrictions on place numbers that protect failing schools are removed, I don't really see a problem.

I also don't share your irrational hatred of managers, and have seen the benefits of being able to negotiate individual pay (not local pay, local pay does not solve the problem.)

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

On the news today, well yesterday technically.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19521535

Union membership halved since the 1980s, not just under the tories but also under new labour.

I have worked in unionised and non unionised environments, were the staff any worse treated in the non unionised, I would say a definate no, in fact I would argue they were probably treated better. When I have worked in unionised environments (and I do so now) I personally think the unions become so petty, obstructive and in general clearly seen to always be after more and more the senior management look to fall back as they expect this position, so initial offers of pay rises, changes to conditions etc are always worse than they are genuinely willing to give.

I still fall back to an issue about graduates, there are just too many damn graduates now, expecting an almost average starting salary and a much higher salary long term than the average. When I was at school most of the teachers were not graduates, and some did incredibly well at bringing real world experience into the classroom, a collegues other half was a new teacher, she did work hard and lots of hours, but a significant proportion were at home in front of the TV planning lessons, marking work etc. a lot was as she was basically starting from scratch. The next year when updating for the next class it was significantly lower.
When I went to 6th form I had to split between my College and A secondary school 6th form as I was doing Computer Science and that was not taught at the 6th form. The difference in the teachers was unbelievable. The second year of my Computer Science course one of my 2 teachers (lecturers strictly) left and she was replaced with what I can only describe as a career teacher, we rebelled, officially complained and out original teacher agreed to come back to finish our course. Our original teacher was an AI expert and due to my location in the East fo England it was a very heavy area for US air force bases at that time, she was basically subcontracted to them due to her skills. Was night and day difference between someone who was and had done the stuff in the real world vs a text book reciting teacher who could offer no real world situation to support or explain a topic.

 

[j0s]

A doctor can, with the right progression, earn in excess of 500k... they're not the norm though... what % of teachers earn in excess of 100K? Its average earnings for a GP....

Some academy headteachers can earn in excess of a 6 figure salary, in Lincoln the head of the academies earned over £200k per year.

As Priory Federation of Academies chief executive, Richard Gilliland was reportedly earning more than £200,000 per year, one of the county’s highest paid public servants.

http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2012/04/...estigation-found-ceos-inappropriate-spending/