Damian Hinds and his Department for Education are to be congratulated. To a point.
Despite the considerable and understandable complaints from many parts of the schools sector, it is worth putting on the record that Hinds et al have battled against strong political headwinds to deliver a significant above-inflation pay rise for the newest and least-well-paid members of the teaching workforce.
Hinds’ team recognised that the era of frozen pay across the board must come to an end and 3.5 per cent for those on the main pay scale is not to be sniffed at.
That this cash was found from within the department in part at the expense of other, valuable initiatives demonstrates both the determination of Hinds and his team not to pass on the bulk of the £508 million cost to already cash-strapped schools but also the intransigence of Philip Hammond and his Treasury in refusing to cough up the money.
Education ministers recognised that while pay is not the key determinant in the profession’s well-publicised recruitment and retention crisis, it, of course, plays a part. Reducing workload and reforming schools’ audit culture will take a generation; putting more cash in an overworked teacher’s pocket is as quick as an electronic transfer.
So, as I say, well done on that bit.
However, it cannot be ignored that, according to the respected and politically neutral Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), some 60 per cent of teachers will still get a pay cut in real terms in 2018-19. That is because with inflation running at 2.4 per cent, those on the upper pay scale are getting 2 per cent and leaders 1.5 per cent.
School leaders disappointed
This is disappointing. Not least of all because these pay deals are likely to do nothing, or worse than nothing, for the retention of experienced teachers and the dwindling pipeline of potential school leaders.
But all this slightly misses the point. To illustrate what I mean, let’s think about why most teachers go into teaching. Yes, they want to be able to pay the mortgage, take care of their kids and possibly get to go somewhere warm for a fortnight once a year, but no one ever set their sights on a career in the classroom because of the big bucks.
Most go into teaching owing to a sense of public service, because they like kids and because they want to play a part in their education. They believe in the power of teaching, the power of their subjects and the alchemy that can take place in the classroom.
But to make this magic happen, the education sector needs a lot more money. Not just for salaries but to seal the leaking roofs, to stop the redundancies, to end the closure of departments, to pay for new equipment, to subsidise residential trips - in short, to ensure that children get the things they have told us are important to them. There is growing evidence that it is the wider funding crisis that is driving the deep problems in retention every bit as much as pay cuts and the workload epidemic.
Hinds’ ability to sell the new pay settlement is really not helped by the fact that not only did the Treasury recently agree to fund a generous pay rise for huge swathes of the nursing population, it also followed up with billions of pounds in new investment for the NHS. Reeling from 8 per cent cuts since 2010 (the IFS again), teachers and heads would quite understandably like a bit of that action.
Teachers are hopeful people and they want - need, even - their workplaces to reflect this hope: after eight years of cuts, too many schools reflect the politics of austerity.
Ministers are fond of pointing out that they don’t have a “magic money tree”, and yet the healthcare settlement suggests the Treasury can shake money from its boughs when it’s persuaded of the political necessity.
Over to you, Damian.
Ed Dorrell is head of content at Tes. He tweets @Ed_Dorrell
