1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Advice: offered 'promotion' with no pay increase

Discussion in 'Pay and conditions' started by want2teachuk, Jun 16, 2015.

  1. Hi everyone. My head has offered me Year leader role from September for FS1. We have 80 children and are three form entry primary. Historically we have always been staffed with two full-time teachers, one of whom has always been an assistant head with responsibility for Early Years leadership. In September I am expected to be the sole full time teacher, (with part time teacher as 'support') and my responsibilities will rise from 40 children to all 80, with the associated rise in paperwork, assessments etc, as well as the other leadership duties involved such as organising and welcoming new intakes, transitions to Reception, mutli agency work and so on.

    Head has said he cannot give me a TLR for this although every other year leader in our setting receives one. He has also said he cannot recommend jump in scale points without scrutinising end of year data and progress although this strikes me as unfair seeing as 2 of my last 3 leaders have left under cloud of inaccurate data.

    Do I have to accept this role and increase in duties with no extra pay or can I legitimately say no thanks without burning my bridges?

    Is it worth speaking to union or do I sound bitter? I genuinely don't mean to, but can see any last traces of free time evaporating into thin air if I do this!

    Many thanks
     
  2. frustum

    frustum Star commenter

    I'd talk to your union - it sounds like a pretty ridiculous workload even without any formal leadership responsibilities. My worry is that even if you say no to "year leader" you may still be expected to do a fair amount of what's listed, as it's not clear who else could. Perhaps you should ask what will happen if you say no.
     
  3. Compassman

    Compassman Star commenter

    Well it should be a straight no unless you are offered more money.

    Why is that so many HTs think they can get more work out of staff without paying extra? Oh that's right too many teachers are scared of saying No.
     
  4. DYNAMO67

    DYNAMO67 Lead commenter

    I don't agree with Compassman entirely. Some people will do things for a degree of career advancement. If you were looking, ten months down the line to be applying for this sort of role elsewhere then it could be a good idea to suck it up, show you can do the job, and increase your likelihood of getting a promotion elsewhere.

    I don't agree with this 'us and them' mentality that Compassman suggests all of the time either, reality is that with budget cuts in real terms, schools will look at increasing responsibility without pay that people got previously.

    That said, you have every right to say that you are not interested unless the post is properly paid. That looks to be your thinking. I can't disagree with you either. Unless you see a benefit such as the one I stated before that is not financial then don't do it. Any roles forced on you as sole F/T teacher should be bought up with your Union.
     
  5. coppull

    coppull New commenter

    It will be good for your career development is the phrase used, to ask people to do a lot more work for no more pay. The HT was using same message forty years ago.!!
     
  6. Morninglover

    Morninglover Star commenter

    The above posts give some advice - I would just add that should you decide to do it for no money, make it clear before you start that there will be a time limit:

    'Thank you HT for this opportunity - I'm happy to do it without the equivalent remuneration that others doing similar posts in our school receive because I can see it will be good for my career progression, but I'd like it to be clear before I start that I am only prepared to do it for 1 [or 2 maybe] years on this basis....'



    Otherwise you may be doing this for nothing for the rest of your career...
     
  7. chriszwinter1

    chriszwinter1 New commenter

    You might want to arm yourself with the STPCD, and quote paragraph 47 at the headteacher, should the need arise. It says:

    This does not mean that they can be expected to take on the responsibility of, and accountability for, a subject area or to manage other teachers without appropriate additional payment. Responsibilities of this nature should be part of a post that is in the leadership group or linked to a post which attracts a TLR1 or TLR2 on the basis set out in paragraph 20.
     
  8. Compassman

    Compassman Star commenter

    Sadly the 'us and them' mentality is very prevalent in schools at the moment.

    As for budget cuts. It's not the OPs fault that there's no money so why the hell should they work for nothing. Teachers seem to think they are doing charity work....no it's a job and you should be remunerated appropriately.

    Teachers should stop doing things for free and then if people want the jobs doing they should pay for them then the true cost of education will be seen.
     
  9. GLsghost

    GLsghost Star commenter

    On what basis is the Head suggesting you cannot be paid when the others are?

    They aren't a different gender to you, by any chance, are they? I was thinking 'like work' and all that...

    ...or age...?
     
  10. frustum

    frustum Star commenter

    I'm wondering if it's on the grounds that the other year leaders are managing other teachers, whereas because the OP will be the only teacher (bar the part-timer), they will mainly be managing non-teachers. I can't see how being the only teacher responsible for 80 children involves less responsibility than when you have two other teachers to help you, but there we go.
     
  11. Coolgiraffe

    Coolgiraffe Occasional commenter

    That amount of children is well above the guidelines of one teacher and one TA to 26 nursery children. The paperwork will be a nightmare. Will the TAs and part time teacher be there early enough and stay late enough for all that setting up and record keeping... and paid for doing so?

    It sounds like too much workload to me x
     
  12. Jolly_Roger1

    Jolly_Roger1 Star commenter

    Being offered the opportunity to have your workload and responsibility at least doubled with nothing other then the 'satisfaction of it' seems a bit low on quid pro quo. Did this Head say why they could not offer any pay increase for this job? Surely, this Head can have little respect for the OP as this offer is implying that all the extra work is of no value. Sounds a bit like exploitation!

    Wearing the 'us and them' hat, it might be worth looking for ulterior motives. Setting you up to fail as you buckle under the workload at no extra cost to the school springs to mind.
     
  13. DYNAMO67

    DYNAMO67 Lead commenter

    Compass man:

    I agree with you. It is not the op's fault. It is a reality for the moment though. Like it or not, the ht is probably trying their luck. The op doesn't have to accept though. That will be up to them. I agree with fill fan's stance 100%

    Jolly Roger

    This is going to sound harsh but...., you are so negative. All of the time. I know you have had a bad experience. I am sorry for this, but your posts can come across as scaremongering. Not every ht is out to do people over. There are some unpleasant folk, you have evidently been on the receiving end. But to suggest that this is a mechanism to get rid of the op is not based on any fact given
     
  14. Jolly_Roger1

    Jolly_Roger1 Star commenter

    @Dynamo: You are quite right in suggesting that I, along with many others on here, have been on the receiving end of some very unpleasant people, leading to some very unpleasant experience, both of which have coloured my judgement. In the OP's case, I think that adage 'Si vis pacem, para bellum ' would apply. It would do them no harm to look at the head's 'offer' from all angles, including the negative ones.
     

Share This Page