As many readers of Schools Week will be painfully aware, for 14 years, teachers and school leaders have suffered real terms pay cuts – fuelling the worst recruitment and retention crisis in living memory.
It’s an urgent problem that needs a solution. In practice, the crisis means children do not have the right teachers to meet their specific learning needs, classes are overfilled, and schools become dependent on costly supply teachers.
This week, the country’s biggest academy trust, United Learning outlined a misguided and divisive proposal that could make the situation even worse.
The trust wants to offer staff the ability to opt out of the national Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) and enrol in a private defined contribution scheme, whereby contributions to their pension would be reduced in exchange for a higher salary.
We are clear that this shortcut is not the solution – it could leave teaching staff dangerously shortchanged in their retirement.
It is a clear case of ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’. A decent employer should not be asking dedicated teaching staff to forego part of their pension to make up for a shortfall in their salary.
NAHT, along with other education unions, is concerned with not only the principle of this proposal but also the way the call has been made for others to follow through the media.
Having to choose to alleviate immediate financial hardship in return for hardship in old age is no choice at all. It should not be for individuals to carry the failure of 14 years of austerity.
We absolutely understand the day-to-day cost-of-living pressures facing many families right now. Many leaders and teachers are grappling with sky-high rents, ever-increasing mortgage payments, student loans, energy bills and often paying out of their pocket for additional resources for their pupils– whether that’s notebooks, food or clothing.
It is disappointing that an academy trust so catastrophically misunderstands the long-term impact of their proposal.
The proposal put forward by United Learning raises far more questions for the sector than it answers.
First, we don’t know how the proposed changes will impact teachers throughout their careers – a blog suggests that ULT will ‘offer… flexibility to change contribution rates or move between schemes year by year’.
This is a recipe for confusion and mis-selling. And we have no clarity about how moving away from ULT would be dealt with.
Second, the TPS is a vital part of the professional terms and conditions package that is provided for all teachers working in state-funded schools. This could fundamentally disturb sector-wide terms and conditions or undermine the current pay scales.
Third, we do not know whether fewer contributions may destabilise the teacher pension scheme for those who have paid in. It is reliant on everyone’s contributions.
What is really needed is government action to restore teaching as an attractive career proposition for graduates. That means restoring teacher pay to 2010 levels and reforming pay and conditions.
These dangerous proposals, if adopted, could undercut efforts to work with the new government to do that just and come up with fair, sustainable solutions to the severe recruitment and retention challenges facing schools.
