Peter Lyons: Shrewd bargaining undermines pay parity with primary teachers

COMMENT

The secondary teachers' pay claim appears settled. It is amazing how an impending election year and a resurgent Opposition can inspire reasonableness in politicians.

The present situation contrasts starkly with the previous bitter and lengthy secondary teachers' pay round.

The real losers of the current round appear to be primary teachers, as disparities in conditions of work for primary and secondary teachers widen.

The Post Primary Teachers' Association has shrewdly focused on non-monetary gains for its members by targeting increased non-contact time in recent pay rounds.

This has improved conditions for secondary teachers while circumventing the requirement of pay parity with primary teachers.

Pay parity acts as a stumbling block to secondary teacher claims because it increases the potential costs of a settlement to the Government.

Any pay increase gained by secondary teachers should, in theory, be extended to their primary counterparts. This now appears to be under threat.

Major discrepancies between pay rates for primary and secondary teachers were a feature of the school system until the previous National Government introduced pay parity.

Secondary teachers viewed this move as a possible hindrance to their claims and a potential dilution of their bargaining power.

It led to various justifications of why they should be paid more, given that many primary teachers now also hold degree-level qualifications. Most primary teachers do a three-year degree. Secondary teachers usually do a degree and then a one-year teaching diploma. This lends support to the argument for differing starting rates.

But one of the key arguments put forward by many secondary teachers to justify higher pay than their primary counterparts is that they are subject specialists.

This has several flaws. One is that many teachers in secondary subjects do not hold degrees in the subject they teach.

For example, many teachers of senior economics hold geography or history degrees, with several economics papers in their degree.

Another flaw is that the syllabus taught in most secondary subjects is a very small part of the wider subject. It is generally an introduction to the subject.

While it is important that teachers have a mastery of the subject syllabus they are teaching, this is a fairly narrow part of the broader subject.

But the major flaw in this subject-specialist argument is evident to any secondary teacher who has tried to teach their subject to a student who cannot read or write and has slipped through the cracks into secondary school.

If students have not already acquired basic skills in numeracy and literacy, they are unlikely to succeed at secondary school.

It is futile and divisive to try to justify differing pay rates for a teacher of senior physics compared with a new-entrants teacher based on one being a subject specialist and the other teaching essential learning skills.

However, the main reason some secondary teachers resent pay parity is that it potentially diminishes their pay bargaining position. This concern is understandable, given the historical militancy of secondary teachers compared with primary teachers, notably their willingness to undertake lengthy industrial action to support their pay claims.

There are probably several reasons why primary teachers have been less militant. Primary teaching has had a far higher proportion of women teachers, many of whom are second income-earners.

Another is that those attracted to primary teaching are generally altruistic in their motives for teaching.

They teach because they care about the educational wellbeing of their students.

This is also true of secondary teachers. The difference is secondary teachers' contact with the students they teach is usually limited to an hour or so a day in their particular subject area. Primary teachers see their students virtually all day.

The sad irony is that this benevolent trait, essential in a good teacher, precludes the pecuniary self-interest and bloody-mindedness necessary to undertake lengthy industrial action to gain equitable pay and conditions.

Many secondary teachers would welcome a decoupling of their pay claims from those of primary teachers.

Their motives for doing so are pure self-interest and sadly necessary if they are to keep their chosen profession viable.

The shame is that for all the rhetoric of catching the knowledge wave, our society lacks the resolve to provide all teachers with the pay and conditions that attract and retain people of the highest calibre.

* Peter Lyons teaches foundation studies at Otago University.