The general secretary of the main teachers’ union, the NASUWT, Matt Wrack, is, it is fair to say, a man of the left – unafraid to challenge the status quo, not least within the Labour Party. A former head of the Fire Brigades Union and president of the TUC, Mr Wrack is relatively new to the role, and indeed to the world of education, yet he already looks set to prove a formidable advocate for his members’ interests.
There is nothing wrong with that – it is, after all, what he was elected to do – and it may mean that the country is reminded of the vital role teachers play in the material and cultural wellbeing of the nation. It may also, however, mean trouble in schools next year.
Indeed, Mr Wrack all but acknowledges as much in his interview with The Independent: “I think that teachers at our union, undoubtedly, by our conference next April, it’s inevitable there will be a discussion about industrial action. I think at least it will come up as an option for people to consider.”
As it happens, Mr Wrack has a strong case. Ironically, it rests less on socialist principles or egalitarianism than on brutal market realities. Britain, a country that relies on human capital as much as any other kind to pay its way in the world, is short of teachers. Demand is high, especially in maths, science and computing; supply is insufficient. That means pay is set too low. It is an argument drawn from Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx – and it is the most persuasive one Mr Wrack has.
While so much attention has been focused by all the main parties on the “growth” project and, post-Brexit, stagnant investment in plant, machinery, infrastructure and innovation, far less has been said about making the next generation of Britons globally competitive. Given Britain’s poor demographics, it is more essential than ever to ensure that a highly productive cohort of younger workers is able to support an increasing number of ageing retirees, many of whom will require extensive health and social care. Meeting these economic imbalances and international challenges will require building on the genuine improvements in school standards achieved by the last government – but doing so with a newly energised and more resilient teaching profession.
There is no escaping the centrality of pay and conditions to attracting talented people into teaching – and retaining them. AI is not yet able to supplant teachers, and nor will it be for some time. Mr Wrack and his counterparts in the other teaching unions will know that it is not just salaries that matter, but classroom discipline and the resources needed to do the job properly.
The National Foundation for Educational Research reports that some 90 per cent of teachers considering leaving the profession in 2024 cited high workload as a factor, while pupil behaviour has become one of the fastest-growing contributors to stress since the pandemic.
Workloads – including marking, class preparation and ever-expanding bureaucratic demands – now eat into weekends as never before. Teachers are encouraged to instil civic values such as tolerance, only to find themselves caught in the crossfire of culture wars. How, for example, should multiculturalism or gender be discussed with the young? There is no longer any clear consensus, leaving teachers in an invidious position. And while accountability and transparency are essential, Ofsted can be a blunt instrument. If pay (including pensions) were higher, such pressures might be tolerable; as it is, they stretch professional commitment beyond breaking point.
Long-term teacher shortages remain acute in the secondary sector, particularly in Stem subjects. It should be intolerable that school staff with no formal qualifications in science are pressed into masquerading as physics teachers. Yet it is retention, even more than recruitment, where the crisis now appears most severe. According to the School Workforce Census, one in five teachers in primary and secondary schools leave the profession within two years of qualifying, rising to more than a quarter after just three years.
There are simply better-paid and more amenable options available to people in their twenties. It is dispiriting to see young teachers with a genuine sense of vocation forced out of the classroom because they cannot afford the lives their contemporaries can – and because prospects for future improvement remain so poor. The 5.5 per cent pay award recommended by the teachers’ pay review body and agreed by ministers helped restore starting salaries to roughly 2010 levels, but it falls well short of correcting the disparity between supply and demand.
This exposes a significant weakness in the government’s strategy. The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has made some progress towards Labour’s manifesto pledge to recruit 6,500 more teachers, though the Commons public accounts committee has criticised the plan as “vague” and “uncosted”. Keeping good people and experienced teachers in the profession into their sixties, however, remains the greater challenge. AI may, in time, help by relieving teachers of routine tasks and boosting productivity – and, potentially, salaries too. Mr Wrack would be wise to embrace that prospect rather than resist it.
Soon enough, then, teachers may follow doctors and take strike action in pursuit of better pay and conditions. It will be framed as a confrontation between unions and the government, or as Mr Wrack versus Ms Phillipson. In truth, it is also a debate about how much the country is prepared to invest in its children – and in those who teach them.
