1
NUT Supplementary Submission to the School Teachers’ Review Body
March 2009
Commentary on
Consultees’ Submissions
to the STRB
National Union of Teachers
Supplementary Submission to the
School Teachers’ Review Body
March 2009
National Union of Teachers
Hamilton House
Mabledon Place
London WC1H 9BD
In this supplementary submission, we address a number of specific issues raised in other organisations’ evidence. We look forward to meeting the STRB and giving oral evidence on 12 March.
1The evidence submitted to the STRB by other organisations shows a high level of consensus around the issue of teachers’ pay. We are pleased to note that even the Secretary of State does not argue for a pay award of lower than 2.3 per cent. NEOST’s concerns at the proposed 2.3 per cent are not shared by other consultees and are not supported by detailed arguments.
2We are pleased to note that our position, that a pay increase of 2.3 per cent would be insufficient, is reflected in the joint union submission (from ASCL, ATL, NAHT, NASUWT and Voice) as well as those from BATOD and UCAC.
3It is clear that a number of consultees also share our reservations about teacher supply. Although secondary targets are reducing, the TDA notes that Initial Teacher Training places for priority subjects will “continue to be extremely challenging” and identifies recruitment to English as a growing concern (TDA, paragraphs 12-13). The TDA also reports problems with retention (TDA, pages 7-9). Even the Rewards and Incentives Group (RIG) expresses concern in relation to a number of teacher supply issues, as detailed below.
4We note the TDA’s analysis of graduate starting salary (TDA, paragraphs 14-16). It is clear that the TDA recognises the importance of starting salaries, describing them as “influential” and noting that a number of professions outside teaching offer substantially higher starting pay (TDA, paragraph 16).
5We agree with the TDA when it highlights the need for salaries to be competitive enough to attract enough able and committed trainees into teaching (TDA, paragraph 7). The need for commitment to teaching as a career is a key issue.
6In this context, we are disappointed at the Secretary of State’s response (Secretary of State, paragraph 2.27). The Secretary of State focuses on the current economic circumstances, arguing that these have improved the attractiveness of the teaching profession. His very emphasis on “current” economic circumstances betrays a short term view of the teacher supply issue, when the Government needs to take a strategic, long-term view.
7The Secretary of State attempts to obstruct the STRB’s recommendation of a higher pay award by stating that “the centre” would not be able to meet the costs of such an award (Secretary of State, paragraph 3.30).
8Of course the Government could meet these costs and should not seek to prejudge the issues in this way. It has already invested significant sums to support the financial sector. If it had the political will to engage with the issues, it would see the need to invest in teachers and would be able to do so.
9RIG acknowledges that teachers have received below-inflation pay increases in recent years. Instead of going on to address the impact of this period of pay cuts, RIG focuses on teacher pay comparisons going back to 1997. It is notable in this context that the teacher unions who are signatories to the RIG evidence do nevertheless argue for a pay increase higher than the indicative 2.3 per cent in their separate joint submission.
10We do not deny that there were some improvements in teachers’ pay after 1997, though these were not sufficient to reflect the value of the profession and the contribution of teachers. Indeed in our May 2007 evidence to the STRB we noted that the imposition of low pay awards on teachers would lead to a “boom and bust” where improvements made since 1997 were undermined, leading to teacher supply problems (NUT May 2007, paragraph 10).
11It would be inappropriate and misleading to look at any real terms gains for teachers in isolation from the position of teachers’ pay relative to comparable professions. Any comprehensive analysis of teachers’ pay needs to include what the profession has to offer compared to other graduate employers.
12Many of the new teachers we need to attract into the profession over the coming years would have been at primary school in 1997. Comparisons of pay levels with those of 12 years ago, under a different pay structure which did not include the performance pay elements in place today, will be meaningless to such potential recruits. In the meantime, low pay awards will continue to erode much of the improvement made since 1997.
13As noted above, RIG itself goes on to acknowledge significant teacher supply problems. These include: retention of teachers in the early years of their careers; the high proportion of the increase in teacher numbers attributable to unqualified teachers; and the need to compensate for the high levels of retirement due to the age profile of teaching (RIG, pages 15-18). RIG has not made the connection between the emergence of such teacher supply problems and the worsening position of teachers in pay terms.
14The submissions from both RIG and the Secretary of State use pay comparisons that we regard as inappropriate (RIG, pages 27-29; Secretary of State, page 23). RIG and the Secretary of State make a favourable comparison between teachers’ average pay and the pay of nurses, police officers at sergeant and below, and fire service officers at leading fire officer and below. We do not believe that it is appropriate to compare teachers with these jobs, many of which do not share the graduate level professional entry requirements of teaching.
15As we noted in our February submission, teachers themselves believe that their pay should be comparable to that of lawyers and doctors (NUT February 2009, paragraph 20).
16The Secretary of State goes on to look at teachers’ average pay compared to that of graduates generally. The definition of graduates used by the Secretary of State includes graduates in jobs which do not require a degree (Secretary of State, page 37). This is not appropriate. Teaching is a graduate-level profession and the comparison that needs to be made is with other graduate professions. Many graduates will not be in graduate-level employment. Looking at the average pay of all graduates will not give us a true comparator.
17Our position is evidence-based and seeks to identify appropriate comparators for teachers, taking into account their professional status and their value to society. The research we have commissioned from Incomes Data Services includes comparison between teaching and graduate professions. We urge the STRB to acknowledge that this is the appropriate comparison to make.
18The evidence from the Secretary of State gives an illustrative teacher paybill increase for 2008-09 of 2.12 per cent – lower than the 2.45 per cent pay award for September 2008. Salary drift for classroom teachers is expected to be negligible over the period 2008-09 to 2010-11, averaging barely 0.1 per cent across the three years. (Secretary of State, pages 25-26.) We noted in our February submission that increases in teachers’ average earnings will be driven by the value of the pay award for the foreseeable future (NUT February 2009, paragraph 73). The data on pay drift included in the Secretary of State’s evidence support our point.
National Union of Teachers
March 2009