Because they can't just shift employers to manage wage increases like private sector employees are concerned, and that government can fix their wages by legislation.

Its amazing how many people who would balk at the idea of a wage cap, seem to be ok with public sector workers having been frozen at a 1% pay increase cap for 7 years.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

But how was their pay 7 years ago?

The private sector makes money and wages reflect that, or should do. Public sector pay is a reflection of government ability to spend. Blair's Labour overspent the public purse and this is the result.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (06 Jul 2017 10.48am)

Spot on with the last 3 paragraphs. The worst thing to happen to teaching was the invention of excel spreadsheets! Death by data.

Edited by nickgusset (06 Jul 2017 1.35pm)

Pretty poor. There are high earners in the civil service, and people who've been their a long time have the benefit of really good contracts. However, when I joined the Court Service the pay was about 4.50 an hour as an AO, about 1.50 less than I was getting as a temp in the summer holidays as a student.

Long timers, and higher ranks the pay is pretty good. But for most AO's who joined after 1996, its pretty poor - Even EO's are around 2004/5 were only getting paid about 20-25k if they'd joined after 1996. Given that's managing a team of six to ten people that's pretty poor.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Teachers go to work to educate pupils. That should result in grades of an acceptable standard. If teachers hit acceptable standards, then they should be rewarded accordingly.

From what is posted on here and also on hysterical sites elsewhere, teachers care a lot about pay, so I disregard what you are alluding to that 'teaching isn't really about pay' and is about some sort of Good Will Hunting, let's find the truth and free our minds together fantasy, or is some 'calling' that is in your blood or another part of your body.

Your final paragraph is not the sort of gibberish I expect from you.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

I didn't leave teaching because of pay personally, I can't speak for others of course. I grew up on Stockwell Council Estate in the eighties. The pay of a secondary school teacher was definitely an over achievement in relative terms.

Personally I don't think that teachers being paid in accordance with student results works. Though a form of that already exists de facto anyway.

If you are teaching a top set of students then that is going to be quite easy, as you just need to provide them with the information and they will pass the exams for you.

If you teach a lower set then that becomes a far harder job. If a child doesn't have the ability then they don't have the ability. All you can do is maximise their potential. We don't want to punish the best teachers for taking on the hardest jobs.

The natural consequence of pay like you suggest would be mixed ability classes. I'm not sure that most of us would want our children in mixed ability classes.

However, if a class performs above its expected result based upon previous performance then what you say has a point....But essentially Matt that is what happens anyway.

But personally I'm more interested in structural reform of teaching.....I'm not going to sit here and say teaching has a more moral case than do the NHS or Policing or the Prison service.

I see the sense in pay restraint if that is what the economy requires....I just find the Mp pay raises as completely unacceptable. The expenses scandal was not a valid excuse for what has happened there.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)