Jump to content

The years of discontent, 2022/23


101

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

It effectively does nothing of the sort.

What does that odd way of describing how teachers are paid achieve, beyond providing you with a fruitless angle of attack?

It's simply a meaningless technicality that you've pounced upon, because you mistakenly think that it's helpful to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

None of it really matters in the end. Market forces will dictate pay. No one gets paid well out of employer generosity.

 

Erm, market forces do not dictate the pay of the vast majority of teachers in Scotland. If they did, then it would in all likelihood be lower than it currently is. The 'employer' is a local authority as a function of the state. 

The same applies to countless roles that are performed within the public sector. You can justify increases (or relative reductions) in pay based on need and social value, but stating that the market has somehow established the existing rate of pay for their roles is nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Another excuse for the Record to fill a page from digging up dirt from social media about someone with no public profile ie, not a celebrity or politician etc. I wonder how much they pay hacks at that level, they might have to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

Cant help but think those parents whinging about their precious wee cherubs seeing pornographic images should have better control of their kids internet useage and appear to be the far bigger issue than a poorly paid teacher supplementing her income with essentially modelling work. That said I now fully support no further pay rises for teachers in the hope that more take to only fans, this indeed includes Welshy. Also in a totally unrelated matter im currently looking to learn more about physics, anyone know a tutor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Another excuse for the Record to fill a page from digging up dirt from social media about someone with no public profile ie, not a celebrity or politician etc. I wonder how much they pay hacks at that level, they might have to do the same.

Funny they never seem to do these stories on journalists? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Erm, market forces do not dictate the pay of the vast majority of teachers in Scotland. If they did, then it would in all likelihood be lower than it currently is. The 'employer' is a local authority as a function of the state. 

The same applies to countless roles that are performed within the public sector. You can justify increases (or relative reductions) in pay based on need and social value, but stating that the market has somehow established the existing rate of pay for their roles is nonsense. 

Teachers' pay is not reliant on market forces in quite the same way that private sector jobs often  are, but it's not entirely divorced from them either.

It's necessary for teachers' pay to be broadly aligned with that received by others with similar  levels of education, or recruitment will become a huge problem.

At present, most people recognise that there's a need for teachers, and a need for them to be reasonably capable people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Teachers' pay is not reliant on market forces in quite the same way that private sector jobs often  are, but it's not entirely divorced from them either.

It's necessary for teachers' pay to be broadly aligned with that received by others with similar  levels of education, or recruitment will become a huge problem.

No it wouldn't, because the demand of applicants for teacher training places is several times higher than the supply of places allocated and funded by the government every year. 

I've no problem with public sector jobs being allocated and paid on a non-market basis, but to pretend that Scottish teaching needs to offer the current terms or else graduates will all do something else is wishful thinking. We produce an enormous number of graduates each year who could enter the teaching profession with postgraduate training - and there are nowhere near enough 'graduate jobs' (not that they're the benchmark of quality work) in Scotland to employ them instead.

So the meaningful comparison is not between a teaching job and another professional job, but rather between teaching and the median salary in the country. Because many of those who are capable of teaching end up with no job at all after university, or one not even remotely tied to their degree. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, virginton said:

No it wouldn't, because the demand of applicants for teacher training places is several times higher than the supply of places allocated and funded by the government every year. 

I've no problem with public sector jobs being allocated and paid on a non-market basis, but to pretend that Scottish teaching needs to offer the current terms or else graduates will all do something else is wishful thinking. We produce an enormous number of graduates each year who could enter the teaching profession with postgraduate training - and there are nowhere near enough 'graduate jobs' (not that they're the benchmark of quality work) in Scotland to employ them instead.

So the meaningful comparison is not between a teaching job and another professional job, but rather between teaching and the median salary in the country. Because many of those who are capable of teaching end up with no job at all after university, or one not even remotely tied to their degree. 

There are logical flaws here.

Would there be more applicants to teach than places, if salaries were unattractive for graduates?

Measuring pay against the median salary is not especially useful, because earners at that level aren't usually (yet) equipped to do that particular job. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

There are logical flaws here.

Would there be more applicants to teach than places, if salaries were unattractive for graduates?

If there are logical flaws in the argument then you've failed to identify them. 

If teacher salaries were already aligned with the market, then there'd be a near equilibrium between the demand for teacher training posts by applicants and the supply of funded places available. The private market and other, comparable non-teaching posts in the public sector would after all sweep up the rest of the demand with their equivalent wage and condition packages. That's not and has never been the case.

In a market-driven model, access to teacher training in Scotland would be significantly widened and/or broken up into more varied training paths, and then the increased supply of qualified teachers would lead to an overall fall in wages for employed teachers. 

Quote

Measuring pay against the median salary is not especially useful, because earners at that level aren't usually (yet) equipped to do that particular job. 

Well no, there are plenty of people who earn £31k per year (or less) and are perfectly equipped to do their job - through a combination of qualifications, training and experience. Many of them being graduates who could have transferred over to teacher training but either opted not to do so or were unsuccessful in obtaining a funded place due to demand outstripping supply (an inefficient market). 

It's frankly bizarre that you think people on a full-time salary of just over £30k per year across the country are more often than not glorified trainees tbh. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, virginton said:

If there are logical flaws in the argument then you've failed to identify them. 

If teacher salaries were already aligned with the market, then there'd be a near equilibrium between the demand for teacher training posts by applicants and the supply of funded places available. The private market and other, comparable non-teaching posts in the public sector would after all sweep up the rest of the demand with their equivalent wage and condition packages. That's not and has never been the case.

In a market-driven model, access to teacher training in Scotland would be significantly widened and/or broken up into more varied training paths, and then the increased supply of qualified teachers would lead to an overall fall in wages for employed teachers. 

Well no, there are plenty of people who earn £31k per year (or less) and are perfectly equipped to do their job - through a combination of qualifications, training and experience. Many of them being graduates who could have transferred over to teacher training but either opted not to do so or were unsuccessful in obtaining a funded place due to demand outstripping supply (an inefficient market). 

It's frankly bizarre that you think people on a full-time salary of just over £30k per year across the country are more often than not glorified trainees tbh. 

I didn't say it was "market driven".  I said it was not entirely divorced from such forces.  If it was, they could save the tax payer a fortune by giving teachers twenty grand a year.

Of course I know that you get graduates earning the median wage or less.  I was once one of them, so again, I don't know why you're going in on that.

As for your last paragraph, it's bizarre that you think it makes any sense in the context of this discussion.  I genuinely don't know what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I didn't say it was "market driven".  I said it was not entirely divorced from such forces.  If it was, they could save the tax payer a fortune by giving teachers twenty grand a year.

Well no they couldn't, because teaching is a public sector job and a profession. No government would get away with actually applying 'market' (lowest possible) wage rates for that job.

They also couldn't get away with massively differentiating between the wages of teachers in the most urgently needed or valuable subject knowledges, compared to primary school teachers (for example). Yet if the wage structure was actually aligned to the market, that would also be in place and there wouldn't be as acute a shortage of teachers in certain subjects. 

The wages of teachers - just like the majority of public sector roles - are entirely divorced from genuine market forces. Which is justified, but makes pretending that the terms are actually reflecting the market utter nonsense. 

Quote

 

Of course I know that you get graduates earning the median wage or less.  I was once one of them, so again, I don't know why you're going in on that.

 

It's not about some graduates earning the median wage or less for a while - although I'm sure that your Victoria Cross is in the post. It is the career-long reality for a large chunk of the wage-earning population, now that there are over 300,000 students in higher education on an annual basis.

https://www.sfc.ac.uk/news/2022/news-89795.aspx

The idea that teacher's wages and conditions need to track with other professional jobs is therefore false. So long as the terms of a teaching job remain better than the vast majority of non-professional jobs for the same level of education/skills/experience, then there will always a surplus of qualified applicants for training posts. 

Quote

As for your last paragraph, it's bizarre that you think it makes any sense in the context of this discussion.  I genuinely don't know what it means.

The only thing that is bizarre here is your 'those people earning £30k aren't yet equipped to do their job' claim. It's above the maximum pay ceiling for many roles in the Scottish economy regardless of the amount of training and experience those workers have. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Not sure if Im being whooshed here but you dont need a tutor. There are good books on all levels of Physics from Nat 1 through to degree level. They'll have all the stuff you'll need with things like StackExchange, and maybe even on here, available for asking questions if you have any. I'd be happy to help out and there's probably others on here willing and able too.

😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

It's as good a way as any as defining "very well paid." 

 

Without wishing to keep the kettle boiling on a topic that is so based in subjectivity,  I was discussing "well paid", not "very well paid".

So, for the avoidance of doubt - I believe teachers are well paid.  I do not believe they are very well paid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, virginton said:

Erm, market forces do not dictate the pay of the vast majority of teachers in Scotland. If they did, then it would in all likelihood be lower than it currently is. The 'employer' is a local authority as a function of the state. 

The same applies to countless roles that are performed within the public sector. You can justify increases (or relative reductions) in pay based on need and social value, but stating that the market has somehow established the existing rate of pay for their roles is nonsense. 

The job market is a market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hk blues said:

Without wishing to keep the kettle boiling on a topic that is so based in subjectivity,  I was discussing "well paid", not "very well paid".

So, for the avoidance of doubt - I believe teachers are well paid.  I do not believe they are very well paid. 

That's fine.

The discussion started when Oaksoft said "Teachers are very well paid. Period."

 That's the claim that's been contested.  However, he's now moved on to offering Physics tuition to randy people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



That's fine.
The discussion started when Oaksoft said "Teachers are very well paid. Period."
 That's the claim that's been contested.  However, he's now moved on to offering Physics tuition to randy people.


However, he's now moved on to offering Physics tuition to randy people.

[emoji849][emoji849][emoji849][emoji2957][emoji2957][emoji2957][emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's fine.

The discussion started when Oaksoft said "Teachers are very well paid. Period."

 That's the claim that's been contested.  However, he's now moved on to offering Physics tuition to randy people.

Yep, I saw that throughout the discussion but I was consistent with my choice of words during my exchange with CCH.

Thank f**k I'm not into Physics! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...