Planning lessons? Check. Curriculum development? Check. Assessment for Learning? Check. Manage behaviour effectively? Adherence to the teachers’ standards at all times? Most definitely.
We’re all expected to demonstrate the same knowledge and skills, so why is there such a huge disparity in pay between teachers in schools and those in FE colleges?
Much of the problem stems from colleges themselves. Job descriptions for Maths and English teachers are often vague, stating, for example, that is desirable for a candidate to have or be working towards a teaching qualification – without clarifying whether this is QTS, QTLS, or something else entirely.
This enables colleges to pay the absolute minimum, because they do not have to employ a teacher with QTS and therefore pay them to scale. Those who are attracted to the more laid-back environment that college life promises after school burnout take a financial hit if they decide to make the switch.
It happened to me, and it has happened to many others.
While schools in the state sector have to follow the pay scales set by the DfE, with most academies and many independent schools also choosing to, FE colleges can set their own levels.
The UCU has recommended pay levels, which are shockingly far below those of schools, but colleges can choose to ignore even these. Essentially, they operate as private businesses and pay what they want.
It’s unsurprising, really. The 2010 coalition government and the successive Conservative governments that followed it battered sixth form and FE colleges with severe funding cuts, resulting in redundancies, courses stopped and some colleges closing.
In essence, these governments did not see the value of post-16 education, refused to properly invest in them, and colleges have never financially recovered. Those who have absorbed the brunt of this brutal financial battering are the teachers in these organisations.
A career in FE is no longer financially tenable
One particular effect of this policy climate has been the devaluing of many teaching staff by renaming them ‘lecturers’. By doing so, colleges are able to introduce an element of the casual university employment market, where lecturers are often employed on a zero-hours basis, and are only paid for the hours they teach.
Many maths and English teaching positions in colleges are now advertised on a per-hour basis. These often go unfilled, thus perpetuating recruitment problems. Meanwhile, those who do accept these zero-hours terms often find their hours being drastically cut at short notice, meaning that a career in FE is no longer financially tenable.
We can’t pretend this doesn’t affect students too. Constantly changing teachers, some of whom are qualified subject specialists and many of whom are not, does not help them pass their resits.
Reinforcing this devaluing of FE teachers is the idea that we are facilitators rather than teachers. No, we are not. Students often need to be explicitly taught the Pythagoras theorem, or need scaffolding and modelling to even attempt extended writing.
This is teaching. Any other name is just a way of deskilling us so that we can be paid less. Let’s see it for what it is and not give in to it.
This situation is exacerbated by decisions relating to teaching and learning, along with recruitment, being made by heads of departments who themselves are not subject specialists.
For example, it is fairly common for a head of maths to have a vocational background, or for a head of English to be ESOL-trained but not hold a PGCE in English (or even in some cases, QTS of any kind).
The new Labour Government must stop burying their head in the sand about the pay and recruitment crisis in FE. They have listened to the NEU and the STRB. Now, they must listen to us:
- Create enforceable pay scales similar to those in schools.
- Only use qualified teachers to deliver GCSE maths and English courses.
- Ensure heads of departments are subject specialist.
- Talk up the hard but often unseen work that college teachers do.
- And invest in a diverse range of courses that inspire students to pursue their goals.
Labour’s economic mission relies on skills, and those depend first and foremost on skilled teachers. This isn’t a mission that can be delivered on the cheap.
Your thoughts