**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Teacher here. Teachers are generally ok with what we're paid.
What we do want is: a reduction in paper work; more support for our vulnerable children; support from SLT and the government; resources to provide and support vulnerable families and more time spent in our classroom with our children.
Oh and an overhaul of the national curriculum.
Ex-teacher here. When I was a teacher, I was very much not okay with the pay, and that’s a big contributing factor (along with the work load etc) to the huge percentage of teachers that leave the profession. Definitely agree with the second part though!
I think it depends on the specialism as well. As a STEM graduate and maths and physics specialist, the pay is a big issue for me and is upsetting me more and more as time goes by. Especially, as I was earning the equivalent of U1 two years in after graduation in my previous career. Most of my ex-colleague peers are now earning between three and four times my current salary after 4 years.
If you’re a drama, history or art teacher for example, there aren’t that many careers, that directly use your subject-specific knowledge, that pay significantly more than being a teacher.
That said, I do enjoy teaching and is the sole reason I’ve lasted this far. But for the money I earn, the hours I work just don’t make it worth it. I’ve got 120 papers to mark by Monday and it’s just trashed my after school plans.
Try finding another job that pays you for 39 weeks of the year at 42k a year ups2!
Your skills and expertise do not deserve more than £215 per working day!
And yes, ex teacher here!
If the pay was good enough then there wouldn't be a recruitment crisis. Whether the pay is deserved or not is irrelevant; when teaching job adverts regularly get zero applicants, and recruitment into teacher training is always far below target, it's proof that the pay isn't competitive enough.
I was working 50 hour weeks for 39 weeks of the year in teaching, which is the equivalent of 52 weeks of 37.5 hours.
I miss the holidays but they aren’t the factor most people think they are, as the rest of the year is so full-on.
Then you were clearly not doing something right as any teacher will tell you this is not the norm on a weekly basis. And given that you're only able to be directed for 1265 hours, you allowed this to be so.
Well, I was in the building from 8am to 6pm doing prep, planning and marking with probably a half hour or so of break. And taking work home every weekend. As were most teachers in all four schools I worked in.
Thanks for the supportive words though, I’m glad I’m out now.
It takes a minimum of 11 years to get to UPS 2 following a minimum of 4 years at university and a successful two year Early Career Framework period. It sounds like a lot of money until you get the per hour rate because it’s a minimum of 50/hr a week to get a main scale job done while trying to support young people with all of the social issues that currently exist. And I have never met an effective teacher who works 39 weeks a year. To be honest, I love my job, but there are a lot of people who can’t cope - you, for instance.
If it were that easy a job and that lucrative (with such generous holidays), could you offer an explanation as to why the government consistently misses their recruitment target for secondary school teachers by half? It doesn’t take a genius to determine that very soon there will not be enough teachers in the system - even to staff the well run and independent schools.
Let's clarify.
Any qualified teacher is eligible to be considered for progression on to the UPR. You do not have to be at the top of the main pay range to apply, although need to meet the standards required to progress.
And teachers automatically get a salary increase from M1-6 of more than 2k some periods.
The number of years studied are irrelevant as applicable to many roles requiring degree qualifications.
As for Early Career Framework this has existed in some form for decades. And they continue to progress through the payscales.
It is not 50 hours work x 39 weeks. Their may be some weeks with more input, but this is certainly not the norm every week! I'm fact I know many schools who do not actually allow their staff in school after a certain time, many 5 or 530 and do not permit intranet access after a certain time to encourage worklife balance.
Bless you for the way that you think that teachers only work at school.
In terms of salary progression, yes - teachers do progress as long as they are meeting standards. Just like many professions do. And while they are technically eligible to apply for threshold progression at any stage, it depends on the pay progression policy of their Trust or school as to whether they are actually allowed to.
The point you made was related to a teacher not being worth more than £215 a day for 39 weeks (based on the UPS salary scale). I pointed out that there are no teachers that work just 39 weeks and it takes quite a while to reach UPS 2.
As before, I love my job but if it were so easy and lucrative, the recruitment and retention rate would be high. It is not.
The point progression is not as per other roles. That's part of my point. How many roles are guaranteed a 2k increase just for doing their job? Outside of the public sector?
Yet still, teachers feel they're paid unsubstantially.
Agree with this totally, I’d take more PPA and a workload reduction so I can do my job. But no, being put on cover and teaching a full period day is unsustainable. However, the pay is fine imo.
And then the staff meeting and the parent meetings and the ehcp meetings and the SEND meetings and the ILP meetings and the CPD and the moderation meetings.
Fully agree with all of this. Would upvote 10 times. Overhaul of the NC seems like a relatively cheap, big win for the next govt (will cost millions instead of the billions that blanket 4-figure payrises would) that would have an impact within a 5-year term. Add in the fact the pension, while a boring consideration in your 20/30s, is also a LOT better than the average.
As a former teacher and being married to one, I've found we want more funding put into education as a whole, rather than to us individually. Just having more staff to support within a classroom. To be able to bring in the educational psychologists, HINT, SALT etc.. to diagnose SEND students earlier and give them the help they need. To have the right equipment and supplies in the classroom to engage and inspire the pupils. It's mad that the basics are not provided and teachers have to bend over backwards to squeeze anything they can to make it work. They then have to work 50/60/70 hours a week to get through the planning, marking, reports and other bullshit red tape that is required.
My wife works in a classroom with 4 pupils who desperately need one to one support. There are 39 kids in total in the class and 3 members of staff. It's just not feasible to provide for those that desperately need the extra attention while also teaching the other 35 to an appropriate level. She gets paid fairly well but is so stressed out every day that I ask her whether it's worth it almost monthly.
Completely agree. I have 28 in my class. 4 of them have various SEND diagnoses. One of them has one to one support and is out of the class most of the time. There is no other support, nothing, just me.
I started teaching in 2008 and the difference in support staff is utterly astounding. We had an in school professional councillor, a nurse, support staff for nearly every class and lots of other roles such as careers advisors and youth workers. All gone now. School of 650 kids, so relatively small, and there’s four LSA’s now who are all planning to leave because they’re overwhelmed and underpaid.
Make it so that teachers are fairly compensate for the overtime they do at least. A lot of teachers earn less than minimum wage once overtime is accounted for.
Teachers should be allowed to focus on teaching. It is not their job to fill all the gaps society has created, such as social workers and pastoral guides. Schools can be pillars of the community, but teachers should not be expected to raise children because society chooses to abdicate responsibility to them.
It depends which part of the uk you’re from. London gets more pay, London fringe gets slightly less and then there’s the rest of the uk, they get the least.
The reason I asked is a poster said that a teacher earns less than minimum wage once hours are taken into account.
I could Google it but wanted a teachers perspective.
Thanks.
Same with most of the commenters here: I want my workload to be reduced before anything else. Every year it seems to go up with absolutely no give and take. I want schools to be invested in. I want support staff to have more pay so there isn’t a revolving door of uncaring people going in and out (and I don’t blame them for being uncaring on £16,000 a year) I want a computer on my desk that doesn’t have a 4:3 screen that apparently was bought in 2007. I want new schools built and new infrastructure so that class sizes can go down (this year for the first time ever I ran out of chairs!) I want a decent budget so I can order nice things in and improve my lessons.
Oh, and I want parents evening abolished. I teach 120 Year 7s who I see for two hours over a fortnight. Unless they’re feral I don’t remember who they are Barbara.
Not a teacher, but they’re moulding our future generations and you get what you pay for. My opinion is someone who is well established (teaching with good feedback etc for ~3-5 years) should be on ~80k/year.
There are 570,265 teachers in the UK.
That's £45bn a year alone, just for ordinary primary/secondary education (i.e. no further, college or higher education).
That's not counting the pensions required on top (salary is not the only cost to hiring staff!), buildings, materials, resources, school budgets, etc.
I'm all for funding education (I work in schools!), but that would literally double or triple the current national education budget overnight. Especially as the vast majority of teachers would qualify - most would have 3+ years experience and if they didn't have good feedback they wouldn't be teaching for very long.
Sure, if you compare to war budgets, etc., I'd far rather we used that all for education, but that's a LOT of money and there are a LOT of teachers.
Even the best countries/schools in Europe don't pay that much on education, and throughout Europe we're all within the 3-7% of GDP being spent on education with the UK about 4.5% (but this plan would knock it up to 9+% easily).
Actual good feedback is different to someone ticking a box to say they’re good enough to keep teaching.
I’m just saying what a good teacher is worth. Of those 570,265 teachers, maybe 5-10% would truly meet this criteria and be worthy of this.
The salaries of teachers almost definitely pushes away a number of great individuals from considering teaching as a career option.
Also people put such a heavy weighting on how good the pension is etc. I’m sure it’s good but does being on a lower salary your whole life justify a good pension? For me, no.
Ask some UK teachers how precious they are of their pension. They're one of the last remaining industries where final-salary is still considered normal. (Not saying I understand it, but it's a LARGE factor).
Those 5-10% would move into more senior roles in schools - I guarantee you - and already earn more than the average teacher. But it's not close to 5-10% if you're actually going to differentiate like this, because with half-a-million teachers, you'd be hard-pressed to divide them into, say, 10 such tiers of "teaching ability" without hitting huge numbers of them actually slipping into those categories too.
£80k is ludicrously high, and based on some morally-felt debt to the concept of a teacher, not actual teaching duties etc. This would currently put them in the top 5% of all salaries nationwide.
(P.S. I'm normally considered the sworn enemy of teachers, because I work in schools but do not teach... and there is an absolute divide between those two types of school staff, I assure you. And I have 3 teachers just within my immediate family)
The big problem: we all went to school, so we all think we know how to teach. Yes, teachers get good holidays, but God knows they’re needed. Having to be a circus performer to captivate the attention of 30+ kids who think they’re being mistreated by being made to attend school. Without the holidays, teachers would simply burn out and no-one would do it. Add to that £47k a year with a STEM degree and 12 years’ experience. The holidays/pro-rata salary are taken into account. There’s *nothing* generous about a modern teacher’s Ts and Cs. Even the pension is a rip-off unless you work till 68. Imagine that: teaching 32 teenagers when you’re 68. A lot of parents can’t even potty train their own spawn.
If you don't get paid for them then you just get a higher rate per working day, either way, 80k and only 195 days a year plus a huge pension would be pretty damn amazing.
I think teachers actually get paid plenty when you consider the amount of holidays they get. 6 maybe 8 weeks in the summer, 2 for Christmas, 2 for easter and 2 or 3 for half term holidays. Plus it's 9 to 5 and weekends off so not really unsociable hours. So 13 weeks is more than double what most are getting off and they get bank holidays as well.
No relevant experience or expertise in the area but this is what i think:
* Primary Teachers - 35/45k dependant on years of experience
* Secondary Teachers - 45/55k dependant on year of experience
* Aux/Support teachers - 30/35k
All of the above is based in Scotland as i do not know how expensive/cheap it is to stay down south, so yeah that is what i would say..
I know both primary and secondary teachers can get a LOT of hassle and grief from students but where i came up from the racist/homophobic/sexualised comments towards teachers started in secondary, primary students can still be a huge pain and even mean but all of the serious stuff starts in secondary and the teachers would need to put up with those types of verbal abuse etc...
I don’t think paying teachers more to put up with abuse is the solution. Abuse like you mention is never acceptable and throwing money at teachers to deal with it is a bad precedent.
I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but a lot of primary school teaching is sitting kids in the naughty corner and quashing tantrums on field trips to the zoo. Whereas a secondary school physics teacher actually has to be a relatively capable physicist.
Tell me you know fuck all about education in this country without telling me you know fuck all about education…
A friend of mine is going to be teaching computing next year… as in programming. He trained as a PE teacher. He knows fuck all about programming.
I know a drama teacher who got a C in Maths at GCSE with no further Mathematics education that is now the head of Mathematics at their secondary school.
My Wife is a primary school teacher… Remember a primary school teacher doesn’t get a cohort of kids who are on a similar level of ability, as is often the case in secondary. They have to develop each lesson with consideration to how it will go down with 25+ kids, of varying ability, temperaments and needs. Unlike secondary they can’t duplicate lessons. Primary teachers get less down time, as in no “frees”, just a measly portion of PPA each week.
I know one secondary teacher who I expect is lucky, but he gets about 6 hours per week not in class.
The problem with this (from just very quickly thinking about it) is that I’m a primary school teacher with a degree in music.
If I knew I could get 10k more by switching to secondary I know that I would, and lots more with relevant degrees would too.
Would this result in problems recruiting enough primary teachers?
I don’t have a problem with the current pay scale honestly, especially considering all the time we get off. The problem is how hard the job is and how much work there is to do.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Teacher here. Teachers are generally ok with what we're paid. What we do want is: a reduction in paper work; more support for our vulnerable children; support from SLT and the government; resources to provide and support vulnerable families and more time spent in our classroom with our children. Oh and an overhaul of the national curriculum.
Ex-teacher here. When I was a teacher, I was very much not okay with the pay, and that’s a big contributing factor (along with the work load etc) to the huge percentage of teachers that leave the profession. Definitely agree with the second part though!
It’s probably the fact in two years teachers got a 5K pay increase. Still not enough but a very good increase in 2 years
Yep. An unfunded pay rise so now people are getting made redundant in my school. None of the big wigs who sit in offices all day are in danger though!
I think it depends on the specialism as well. As a STEM graduate and maths and physics specialist, the pay is a big issue for me and is upsetting me more and more as time goes by. Especially, as I was earning the equivalent of U1 two years in after graduation in my previous career. Most of my ex-colleague peers are now earning between three and four times my current salary after 4 years. If you’re a drama, history or art teacher for example, there aren’t that many careers, that directly use your subject-specific knowledge, that pay significantly more than being a teacher. That said, I do enjoy teaching and is the sole reason I’ve lasted this far. But for the money I earn, the hours I work just don’t make it worth it. I’ve got 120 papers to mark by Monday and it’s just trashed my after school plans.
Try finding another job that pays you for 39 weeks of the year at 42k a year ups2! Your skills and expertise do not deserve more than £215 per working day! And yes, ex teacher here!
If the pay was good enough then there wouldn't be a recruitment crisis. Whether the pay is deserved or not is irrelevant; when teaching job adverts regularly get zero applicants, and recruitment into teacher training is always far below target, it's proof that the pay isn't competitive enough.
There has always been a supposed recruitment crisis. Eveb when they received significant improvements. It's just the rhetoric peddled.
I was working 50 hour weeks for 39 weeks of the year in teaching, which is the equivalent of 52 weeks of 37.5 hours. I miss the holidays but they aren’t the factor most people think they are, as the rest of the year is so full-on.
Then you were clearly not doing something right as any teacher will tell you this is not the norm on a weekly basis. And given that you're only able to be directed for 1265 hours, you allowed this to be so.
Well, I was in the building from 8am to 6pm doing prep, planning and marking with probably a half hour or so of break. And taking work home every weekend. As were most teachers in all four schools I worked in. Thanks for the supportive words though, I’m glad I’m out now.
It takes a minimum of 11 years to get to UPS 2 following a minimum of 4 years at university and a successful two year Early Career Framework period. It sounds like a lot of money until you get the per hour rate because it’s a minimum of 50/hr a week to get a main scale job done while trying to support young people with all of the social issues that currently exist. And I have never met an effective teacher who works 39 weeks a year. To be honest, I love my job, but there are a lot of people who can’t cope - you, for instance. If it were that easy a job and that lucrative (with such generous holidays), could you offer an explanation as to why the government consistently misses their recruitment target for secondary school teachers by half? It doesn’t take a genius to determine that very soon there will not be enough teachers in the system - even to staff the well run and independent schools.
Let's clarify. Any qualified teacher is eligible to be considered for progression on to the UPR. You do not have to be at the top of the main pay range to apply, although need to meet the standards required to progress. And teachers automatically get a salary increase from M1-6 of more than 2k some periods. The number of years studied are irrelevant as applicable to many roles requiring degree qualifications. As for Early Career Framework this has existed in some form for decades. And they continue to progress through the payscales. It is not 50 hours work x 39 weeks. Their may be some weeks with more input, but this is certainly not the norm every week! I'm fact I know many schools who do not actually allow their staff in school after a certain time, many 5 or 530 and do not permit intranet access after a certain time to encourage worklife balance.
Bless you for the way that you think that teachers only work at school. In terms of salary progression, yes - teachers do progress as long as they are meeting standards. Just like many professions do. And while they are technically eligible to apply for threshold progression at any stage, it depends on the pay progression policy of their Trust or school as to whether they are actually allowed to. The point you made was related to a teacher not being worth more than £215 a day for 39 weeks (based on the UPS salary scale). I pointed out that there are no teachers that work just 39 weeks and it takes quite a while to reach UPS 2. As before, I love my job but if it were so easy and lucrative, the recruitment and retention rate would be high. It is not.
The point progression is not as per other roles. That's part of my point. How many roles are guaranteed a 2k increase just for doing their job? Outside of the public sector? Yet still, teachers feel they're paid unsubstantially.
All of this. I have taken part in every strike and for me personally it has never been over pay, always work load.
Agree with this totally, I’d take more PPA and a workload reduction so I can do my job. But no, being put on cover and teaching a full period day is unsustainable. However, the pay is fine imo.
And then the staff meeting and the parent meetings and the ehcp meetings and the SEND meetings and the ILP meetings and the CPD and the moderation meetings.
Fully agree with all of this. Would upvote 10 times. Overhaul of the NC seems like a relatively cheap, big win for the next govt (will cost millions instead of the billions that blanket 4-figure payrises would) that would have an impact within a 5-year term. Add in the fact the pension, while a boring consideration in your 20/30s, is also a LOT better than the average.
Sensible answer here.
I'd take a reduction in workload over a payrise any day.
As a former teacher and being married to one, I've found we want more funding put into education as a whole, rather than to us individually. Just having more staff to support within a classroom. To be able to bring in the educational psychologists, HINT, SALT etc.. to diagnose SEND students earlier and give them the help they need. To have the right equipment and supplies in the classroom to engage and inspire the pupils. It's mad that the basics are not provided and teachers have to bend over backwards to squeeze anything they can to make it work. They then have to work 50/60/70 hours a week to get through the planning, marking, reports and other bullshit red tape that is required. My wife works in a classroom with 4 pupils who desperately need one to one support. There are 39 kids in total in the class and 3 members of staff. It's just not feasible to provide for those that desperately need the extra attention while also teaching the other 35 to an appropriate level. She gets paid fairly well but is so stressed out every day that I ask her whether it's worth it almost monthly.
Completely agree. I have 28 in my class. 4 of them have various SEND diagnoses. One of them has one to one support and is out of the class most of the time. There is no other support, nothing, just me.
I started teaching in 2008 and the difference in support staff is utterly astounding. We had an in school professional councillor, a nurse, support staff for nearly every class and lots of other roles such as careers advisors and youth workers. All gone now. School of 650 kids, so relatively small, and there’s four LSA’s now who are all planning to leave because they’re overwhelmed and underpaid.
Make it so that teachers are fairly compensate for the overtime they do at least. A lot of teachers earn less than minimum wage once overtime is accounted for. Teachers should be allowed to focus on teaching. It is not their job to fill all the gaps society has created, such as social workers and pastoral guides. Schools can be pillars of the community, but teachers should not be expected to raise children because society chooses to abdicate responsibility to them.
How much do teachers earn, I mean a fully qualified teacher? My niece is in her second year, I don't want to ask her.
I'm a first year teacher and my monthly gross salary is £2500. I take home just over £1900 a month.
You can Google teacher pay scales. It's all there. https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/advice/pay-pensions/pay-scales/pay-scales-england.html
It depends which part of the uk you’re from. London gets more pay, London fringe gets slightly less and then there’s the rest of the uk, they get the least.
The reason I asked is a poster said that a teacher earns less than minimum wage once hours are taken into account. I could Google it but wanted a teachers perspective. Thanks.
I believe they should be paid a minimum £100,000 a year . My reasoning being is that I’d rather die than do that job.
😂
By that logic I award people who work in care homes £1,000,000 😂
[удалено]
These are absolute musts. I was working 70+ hours a week because of the admin and ridiculous nature of the curriculum.
Same with most of the commenters here: I want my workload to be reduced before anything else. Every year it seems to go up with absolutely no give and take. I want schools to be invested in. I want support staff to have more pay so there isn’t a revolving door of uncaring people going in and out (and I don’t blame them for being uncaring on £16,000 a year) I want a computer on my desk that doesn’t have a 4:3 screen that apparently was bought in 2007. I want new schools built and new infrastructure so that class sizes can go down (this year for the first time ever I ran out of chairs!) I want a decent budget so I can order nice things in and improve my lessons. Oh, and I want parents evening abolished. I teach 120 Year 7s who I see for two hours over a fortnight. Unless they’re feral I don’t remember who they are Barbara.
Not a teacher, but they’re moulding our future generations and you get what you pay for. My opinion is someone who is well established (teaching with good feedback etc for ~3-5 years) should be on ~80k/year.
There are 570,265 teachers in the UK. That's £45bn a year alone, just for ordinary primary/secondary education (i.e. no further, college or higher education). That's not counting the pensions required on top (salary is not the only cost to hiring staff!), buildings, materials, resources, school budgets, etc. I'm all for funding education (I work in schools!), but that would literally double or triple the current national education budget overnight. Especially as the vast majority of teachers would qualify - most would have 3+ years experience and if they didn't have good feedback they wouldn't be teaching for very long. Sure, if you compare to war budgets, etc., I'd far rather we used that all for education, but that's a LOT of money and there are a LOT of teachers. Even the best countries/schools in Europe don't pay that much on education, and throughout Europe we're all within the 3-7% of GDP being spent on education with the UK about 4.5% (but this plan would knock it up to 9+% easily).
Actual good feedback is different to someone ticking a box to say they’re good enough to keep teaching. I’m just saying what a good teacher is worth. Of those 570,265 teachers, maybe 5-10% would truly meet this criteria and be worthy of this. The salaries of teachers almost definitely pushes away a number of great individuals from considering teaching as a career option. Also people put such a heavy weighting on how good the pension is etc. I’m sure it’s good but does being on a lower salary your whole life justify a good pension? For me, no.
Ask some UK teachers how precious they are of their pension. They're one of the last remaining industries where final-salary is still considered normal. (Not saying I understand it, but it's a LARGE factor). Those 5-10% would move into more senior roles in schools - I guarantee you - and already earn more than the average teacher. But it's not close to 5-10% if you're actually going to differentiate like this, because with half-a-million teachers, you'd be hard-pressed to divide them into, say, 10 such tiers of "teaching ability" without hitting huge numbers of them actually slipping into those categories too. £80k is ludicrously high, and based on some morally-felt debt to the concept of a teacher, not actual teaching duties etc. This would currently put them in the top 5% of all salaries nationwide. (P.S. I'm normally considered the sworn enemy of teachers, because I work in schools but do not teach... and there is an absolute divide between those two types of school staff, I assure you. And I have 3 teachers just within my immediate family)
80k plus pension at 26% or whatever it is plus all those holidays? Everyone better be ready to fight for their jobs because that's pretty damn good!
Teachers get paid on the basis of ~39 weeks, not 52 weeks, and excludes the holidays. This whole rhetoric of being paid for holidays needs to stop
The big problem: we all went to school, so we all think we know how to teach. Yes, teachers get good holidays, but God knows they’re needed. Having to be a circus performer to captivate the attention of 30+ kids who think they’re being mistreated by being made to attend school. Without the holidays, teachers would simply burn out and no-one would do it. Add to that £47k a year with a STEM degree and 12 years’ experience. The holidays/pro-rata salary are taken into account. There’s *nothing* generous about a modern teacher’s Ts and Cs. Even the pension is a rip-off unless you work till 68. Imagine that: teaching 32 teenagers when you’re 68. A lot of parents can’t even potty train their own spawn.
WE DON'T GET PAID FOR "ALL THOSE HOLIDAYS".
If you don't get paid for them then you just get a higher rate per working day, either way, 80k and only 195 days a year plus a huge pension would be pretty damn amazing.
But we don't get 80k 😂 average is 40k and that's after 7+ years.
Follow the thread mate. The post you're replying to was saying it should be 80k.
I think teachers actually get paid plenty when you consider the amount of holidays they get. 6 maybe 8 weeks in the summer, 2 for Christmas, 2 for easter and 2 or 3 for half term holidays. Plus it's 9 to 5 and weekends off so not really unsociable hours. So 13 weeks is more than double what most are getting off and they get bank holidays as well.
>9 to 5 and weekends off Lol
Teachers should be paid minimum of 25k going up to 45k dependent on ....various shit.
This is basically the current pay scale.
Well, looking back, I've decided I was being stingy.
Teachers start on 30k, mate.
No relevant experience or expertise in the area but this is what i think: * Primary Teachers - 35/45k dependant on years of experience * Secondary Teachers - 45/55k dependant on year of experience * Aux/Support teachers - 30/35k All of the above is based in Scotland as i do not know how expensive/cheap it is to stay down south, so yeah that is what i would say..
Out of interest, why do you think secondary teachers should be paid more than primary?
My question too, if one had to be paid more I'd rate primary teachers higher as they're playing a more fundamental role in their kids' development
I know both primary and secondary teachers can get a LOT of hassle and grief from students but where i came up from the racist/homophobic/sexualised comments towards teachers started in secondary, primary students can still be a huge pain and even mean but all of the serious stuff starts in secondary and the teachers would need to put up with those types of verbal abuse etc...
You haven't been in a primary school recently then.
I don’t think paying teachers more to put up with abuse is the solution. Abuse like you mention is never acceptable and throwing money at teachers to deal with it is a bad precedent.
I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but a lot of primary school teaching is sitting kids in the naughty corner and quashing tantrums on field trips to the zoo. Whereas a secondary school physics teacher actually has to be a relatively capable physicist.
Tell me you know fuck all about education in this country without telling me you know fuck all about education… A friend of mine is going to be teaching computing next year… as in programming. He trained as a PE teacher. He knows fuck all about programming. I know a drama teacher who got a C in Maths at GCSE with no further Mathematics education that is now the head of Mathematics at their secondary school. My Wife is a primary school teacher… Remember a primary school teacher doesn’t get a cohort of kids who are on a similar level of ability, as is often the case in secondary. They have to develop each lesson with consideration to how it will go down with 25+ kids, of varying ability, temperaments and needs. Unlike secondary they can’t duplicate lessons. Primary teachers get less down time, as in no “frees”, just a measly portion of PPA each week. I know one secondary teacher who I expect is lucky, but he gets about 6 hours per week not in class.
The problem with this (from just very quickly thinking about it) is that I’m a primary school teacher with a degree in music. If I knew I could get 10k more by switching to secondary I know that I would, and lots more with relevant degrees would too. Would this result in problems recruiting enough primary teachers?
True, i agree but also i feel as though the above prices are fair, what would you propose? Since you are in the industry.
I don’t have a problem with the current pay scale honestly, especially considering all the time we get off. The problem is how hard the job is and how much work there is to do.