Head Teacher's Pay Becomes a Political Football
The war of words over bonus culture rages on, but this time it is a public sector employee who is at the centre of the storm.
It has emerged that head teacher Mark Elms has been paid over £200,000 in basic pay, bonus, and back-pay (just under £20,000 in overtime accrued over two years). The GMB union is furious that he and a number of other select head teachers are earning more than the prime minister.
It appears Elms has become a scapegoat for a widely adopted set of practices aimed at luring the most talented head teachers to certain schools.
On the face of it, Elms' salary does look extravagant when so much spending is being cut from public spending and other education workers are facing unemployment. The amount he has been paid would pay for about six front-line teachers.
But, if you compare it to top levels of private sector pay, his remuneration doesn't seem quite to horrific. Elms is responsible for turning around a failing primary school and was described by Ofted as outstanding in his achievement there. If he had been a business leader and managed to turn around a failing business, saving 400 jobs, would anyone have quibbled about his bonus? Possibly not.
We have many instances of business leaders being handsomely rewarded for driving businesses into the ground and very little has been done to curb this. Now we have a professional with a track record of success being rewarded with far less than is considered normal in the banking sector, say -- being pilloried.
For decades, the government has had a hard time trying to attract talented individuals -- especially men -- into teaching, when they can earn so much more managing a hedge fund. The way Elms is being treated will probably reinforce the view that teaching is a dead end for anyone with ambition. His pay reflects his ability to raise millions of pounds in funding for the school and anyone who can do that can reasonably expect an above-average remuneration in the private sector.
Should Elms want to leave education, I'm sure his talents wouldn't go unwanted, although it's a sad indictment on the education system that such a talented and useful individual should be disincentivised to stay where he can do so much good for the local community.
It does also seem surprising that a trade union should want to limit public sector pay and jump to the defence of the PM's pay-packet (which is only on £140,000 a year). Why make the comparison with the PM anyway, when so many other people earn multiples of that salary?
It's probable the GMB is using this issue as a political football to fight a remuneration process outside of public (and union) control, and hence fight education moving further into private hands. Elms' salary was topped up by the school governors who wanted to keep such a valuable asset as he is, continuing to raise money for them.
There's certainly a whiff of pots calling the kettle black here, with union leaders' pay and perks also under scrutiny -- but they aren't paid for by the public purse so they are free to award themselves whatever hikes they feel they deserve, much like the banking sector. Which is where people with Elms' talents are more likely to stay.