The teaching unions last week opened a ballot for members over whether to accept or reject the “final” pay offer from the Scottish government and councils.
But we don’t really need to wait until 20 November, when the ballot closes, to know what the outcome will be. An estimated 30,000 teachers - roughly 58 per cent of the teaching population - took to the streets of Glasgow two weeks ago to march for a rise of 10 per cent. They look set to reject the “divisive” offer resoundingly.
The education secretary, John Swinney, was keen to make sure that teachers knew exactly what was on the table before voting. Amid accusations of interfering in a legitimate trade union ballot, he wrote to teachers last week. He insisted that a 10 per cent rise was “unaffordable” and the offer on the table was “fair”, a view he echoes in his monthly column (see page 8).
But it will be abundantly clear to teachers that the offer - which is 3 per cent across the board, with further uplifts for classroom teachers depending on the stage of their career - is not 10 per cent, and for most of them it is nowhere near.
For school leaders - principal teachers, deputes and heads - there are no added extras; they are being offered 3 per cent.
To those outside of the teaching profession who may have faced meagre pay rises or none at all for years, on the face of it, this might seem like a fair deal. But we should all get behind teachers. We need to resist making this into a race to the bottom, because if we are going to attract enough teachers in the future, which is to everyone’s benefit, we need to look at pay. Pumping extra money into the education system to close the disadvantage gap and for schools to spend on summer camps, professional development or breakfast clubs cannot work without the right people on the ground. And at present, the stark reality is that those people are often absent.
A review published earlier this year on the first two years of the Attainment Scotland Fund - the millions being invested in closing the poverty-related attainment gap - found the recruitment of staff was a “significant challenge” for local authorities and schools. It said: “This put extra pressure on schools and impacted negatively on the success of planned interventions, leading to frustration and underspend.”
The constant refrain is that people don’t get into teaching for the money, but it is safe to assume that they want a rewarding job and - to put it simply - a nice life. It is not clear that teaching ticks all of the boxes when it comes to these basics.
Stories about the long hours that teachers work, the stress of the job and the lack of resources and support abound. The government needs to turn that narrative around, but in the short term it needs a hook to persuade those who are considering teaching as a career to make that leap of faith, and it needs to keep the staff it has got. Pay is a means to that end.
Of course, it would have been refreshing if paying teachers properly had been part of the government’s plans from the off, given that education is its top priority and teacher pay has been the elephant in the room since college lecturers went on strike last year over pay and won. Now, college lecturers earn £40,000 at the top of the pay scale - roughly 10 per cent more than classroom teachers, who currently earn a maximum of £36,480.
There is also a historical pattern to pay negotiations: approximately every 10 years teachers fight for a substantial pay rise and, with the McCrone deal implemented in 2001, that time is certainly upon us again.
The government could have been proactive and worked with the unions to reach a deal, but instead it has chosen to force the profession to show its teeth.
@Emma_Seith
