Is there anything wrong with a Headteacher earning £276k?

[gzagee]

So there's this big hullabaloo about a certain headteacher in SE London who earn in excess of £276k

Report here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... 76000.html

Just watched the London News and many parents at the school seem to have nothing but praise for the work Mr Elms has done in improving their childrens' education.

However, it would seem the govt and the education watchdog reckon he earns too much.

So, would you have any qualms if the Head of your child's school earns far more than the national average or, do you think they should be highly rewarded for their work?

Thoughts?

[Est83]

Teaching is a job with a real purpose, and I have nothing but admiration for those who do it poperly. Teachers deserve a damn good wage... but £276k is F**KING RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Forest]

reading through it he seems to of earned it?

"Mr Elms was paid £231,400 with a further £45,123 in pension contributions.

Officials said the sum was made up of £82,714.37 basic salary, £10,000 for out of hours work and arrears of £9,317 for work done in 2008/09.

He also received payments totalling £102,955 for work for Labour's City Challenge programme, aimed at tackling under achievement in disadvantaged areas."

can you quarell with it when you see it like that?

[Git]

More than 30 languages are spoken at the Tidemill Primary School and it was described as "outstanding" in an Ofsted report in 2008. It had previously been described as "failing" before Mr Elms took it over in 2001.

It is now ranked top in Lewisham and 16th nationally for "value-added" - the measure of the progress the children have made since they entered the school.

^

That's the most important part, the children, innit?

[Fabrestuta]

Yes I do have a problem with it, especially when most teachers, normal teachers, get paid a pretty average salary.
You see this shit in America, schools with padded stats to attract money and the headmaster/headmistress gets all the credit, its all bollocks. I am sorry but no school head deserves £276k a year, especially when the peeps doing all the work get a fraction of that amount.

[Arsenal Tone]

Yes I do have a problem with it, especially when most teachers, normal teachers, get paid a pretty average salary.
You see this shit in America, schools with padded stats to attract money and the headmaster/headmistress gets all the credit, its all bollocks. I am sorry but no school head deserves £276k a year, especially when the peeps doing all the work get a fraction of that amount.

Yeah, that's about ten times what the teachers will be on!

[dunkdafunk]

From gunner2018's number break down, it looks like it is earnt.
Why shouldn't we pay the best performers more?

I am sure the teachers at that school will get paid more depending on the performance of the school as a whole.

And I am sure that the head is working because he loves his job, and has real passion for his school, I doubt he is that focused on earning loadsa money.
Why would he be a head teacher then?

[ManicDefender]

In all fairness to the guy, it looks like the money has ben earnt. It's just the way the media generally reports these kind of stories. If his actual salary was £276k then that would be a completely different issue.

Regardless it sounds like he is doing a fantastic job with the school

[IMF]

I want to be a headteacher.

276k no matter what way you earn it is a joke of a wage when the next highest paid person at his school is probably on less than a quarter of that.

But the again bankers bankrupt the country, we bail them out and they still get paid a hefty bonus by RBS. WTF?

[IMF]

Just read the article... a PRIMARY school headteacher? No way does he deserve that!

Not surprised one bit to see Labour paid him £100K on top. Overspending morons.

[Est83]

From gunner2018's number break down, it looks like it is earnt.
Why shouldn't we pay the best performers more?

I am sure the teachers at that school will get paid more depending on the performance of the school as a whole.

And I am sure that the head is working because he loves his job, and has real passion for his school, I doubt he is that focused on earning loadsa money.
Why would he be a head teacher then?

Because otherwise schools will only allow little geniuses to attend their precious schools for the sake of extra funding, and forget about the average/below average kids.

Also, there will be too greater focus on exam results as a way of proving performance, as if there could be any more of an emphasis on tests and assessment! This would not be good. Exams often test a chid's "school knowledge", which is basically learnt facts that are recited in an exam fashion. Really this just tests memory, not true conceptual knowledge. And, a greater focus on exam results would mean that an above average child groing from an 80% mark to 85% will be deemed more valuable, whereas the dyslexic kid who goes from being illiterate to achieving average reading and wrting skills will be forgotten.

Individual progression needs to be mapped and assessed, generalised and then expressed in a consensus as exam results are. That will give the true representation of the achievments of schools... but unfortunately OfSted suck dick!.. all day every day!... for ever and ever! They suck!

[IMF]

[Libertine]

In all fairness to the guy, it looks like the money has ben earnt. It's just the way the media generally reports these kind of stories. If his actual salary was £276k then that would be a completely different issue.

I agree MD.
The media have portrayed it as if he got paid £276k for one years work as a headteacher, which clearly isn't the case.

[ProudGooner]

Is there anything wrong for a Head Teacher to earn £276k / anum when some footballers earn that much in a week.

No.

Is there anything wrong with Head Teachers earning £276k / anum when some doctors (who save lives) and soldiers fighting on the frontline dont even earn half of that.

Yes.

I think your pay should be dependant on the importance of the role you pay in society. Our society is really f***ked up in that sense. Entertainers that provide something that is not vital to our survival earn exponentially more than people that play key roles in the survival and the day to day running of our society.

For example Rooney gets paid over 100k per week for what? He kicks a ball and provides entertainment. We still lived when football was not around. Tomorrow football could die out and be replaced by another sport. It is not vital to our survival or to the well being of our society.

On the other hand a Doctor, Nurse dont get paid anywhere near what Rooney gets paid. They save lives on a daily basis. Their role, to me, is more important and vital. Engineers, IT Professionals have revolutionised our world they earn nothing near what footballers or other entertainers earn. I cannot see how as a society we can justify this.

[Forest]

I think your pay should be dependant on the importance of the role you pay in society.

Id be a billionaire if that was the case