14 Reasons cutting NQT pay is a bad idea

Cuts to NQT Pay – 14 Reasons its a bad idea.

  1. Education scrutiny committee did not support this cut to NQT funding. They were not listened to.
  2. As an identified “saving” any money not spent on these salaries will not be used to improve education funding. This is purely a cost cutting exercise.
  3. Starting salary on point 1 is £33000 not £38000. This compares to £29000 in Guernsey who are struggling to recruit teachers.
  4. NQT’s who have a family will not be able to afford to live in Jersey with average rental costs of around £20,000 per year. This removes a whole cohort of applicants.
  5. Single people coming to Jersey face effective tax rates of 22% plus rental of around £15,000 per year for a reasonable 1 bedroom flat. This makes the salary significantly less attractive.
  6. NQT’s often bring large debts from student loans that cost £250 per month in repayment when they work in Jersey.
  7. Comparing salaries to London is meaningless as there is no national pay structure in the UK following the advent of academies, free schools, studio schools and the break up of local authority control.
  8. DfE figures show that numbers recruited onto ITT (Initial Teacher Training) courses fell by nearly 14 per cent between 2010/11 and 2014/15.
  9. In 2015/16, the only subjects where the Teacher Supply Model (TSM) recruitment target was met were English, History and PE. This shortfall represents 3400 fewer secondary trainees entering the profession than were needed.
  10. DfE figures show that in the 12 months to November 2015 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) over 50,000 qualified teachers in England left the state sector.  This equates to one in 10 teachers leaving the profession and is the highest number of teachers leaving in the last decade. The number of teachers leaving as a proportion of the total number of teachers in service, known as the ‘wastage rate’, is 10.6 per cent.4  The same figures reveal that more than 100,000 potential teachers have never taught, despite finishing their training.
  11. An NUT survey of leadership group members carried out in March 2016 found that nearly three quarters (73%) of school leaders were experiencing difficulties in recruiting teachers, with 61% saying that the situation had hot worse (42%) or much worse (19%) over the last year. The greatest problem areas were in Maths (36% of schools leaders were struggling to recruit in this area), science (34%) and English (23%).
  12. The States can ill-afford to lose valuable teachers at any time, but especially not in the present context of sharply rising pupil numbers.  Securing teacher supply for the future and preventing teacher wastage requires action to make teaching an attractive profession in comparison with other graduate occupations, in particular by offering professional levels of pay and by reducing workload to manageable levels. The States appear to be doing the precise opposite of this.
  13. We believe this move will create a transient staff who stay for a short time, realise the high costs of living and move on. This is not good for schools and young people.
  14. There is no information on the knock on effect of other teachers pay. Will there be a 2 tier system that pays inexperienced teachers less and gradually drives down salaries of all? This is a race to the bottom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *