Now that the ABS has released average earnings figures for November last year, we can update the figures on where teacher pay stands in relation to the average.

Male average ordinary time earnings for November, 2010, were $1356.90 (c$70,801 pa), $483.60 (55.4 per cent) more in real terms than the December, 1974 equivalent.

In 1975, a beginning teacher was paid 118.8 per cent of MAOTE (The Secondary Teacher, No. 4, May, 1981). That would be $84,112 today. A beginning teacher is paid $55,459 today, $28,662 (33.8 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.

In 1975, sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division, reached after seven years) was paid 166.2 per cent of MAOTE. That would be $117,671 today. A teacher with seven years’ experience is paid $69,946 today, $47,725 (40.6 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained. The top unpromoted teacher salary is now $81,806 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), $38,856 (30.5 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.

In 1975, a senior teacher was paid 189.8 per cent of MAOTE. That would be $134,380 today. Today’s equivalent, a leading teacher, starts on $84,536, $49,844 (37.1 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained. A leading teacher, subject to successful performance reviews, can now reach $89,423, $44,957 (33.5 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.

As I explained previously, the situation with principals is more complex because they are no won salary packages, with different proportions of their packages going into superannuation. They may also package other items (e.g., cars).

In 1975, a principal in the top classification was paid 252.1 per cent of MAOTE. That would be $178,489 today. A principal in the top range now and in the Revised Superannuation Scheme starts on approximately $118,354, $60,135 (33.7 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained. A principal, subject to successful performance reviews, can now reach approximately $133,446, $45,043 (25.2 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.

We can sum up the situation thus:
A beginning teacher today is paid slightly more in real salary terms than a beginning teacher was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a beginning teacher was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a beginning teacher was in 1975.

A teacher with seven years experience today is paid less in real salary terms than a teacher with seven years experience was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a teacher with seven years experience was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a teacher with seven years experience was in 1975.

A teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale today is paid more in real salary terms than a teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale was in 1975.

A leading teacher in the first year today is paid less in real salary terms than a senior teacher was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a senior teacher was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a senior teacher was in 1975.

A leading teacher in the top level today is paid slightly more in real salary terms than a senior teacher was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a senior teacher was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a senior teacher was in 1975.

A principal at the bottom of the top range is paid slightly more in real salary terms than a principal in the top classification was in 1975, is paid slightly more in real salary package terms than a principal in the top classification was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a principal in the top classification was in 1975.

A principal at the top of the top range is paid more in real salary terms than a principal in the top classification was in 1975, is paid more in real salary package terms than a principal in the top classification was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a principal in the top classification was in 1975.

None of this means that we must immediately restore teacher and principal pay to the exact relativities that existed in 1975. There is no intrinsic argument that 1975 was the right year and, for example, 1965 was the wrong year. That is not the point. The point is that the change in relativities has been so great that, arguably, the average ability of those training to be teachers has fallen and that in the long run, this will have a detrimental effect on student learning.

My choice of 1975 has nothing to do with the Whitlam government. The only reason I chose it was the VSTA prepared a lot of information on that year for its 1981 salaries case. Nor is the fact that there was a wages explosion under the Whitlam government in the slightest bit relevant. The CPI since 1975 is the same for everyone. The MAOTE earnings changes include whatever clawback there has been from that wages explosion over the past 36 years.

Riddler,

I am so relieved to know my posts are “just coherent enough to merit a proper response” (4.47:23pm, 20/2). I was shaking in my boots that they might not meet your standards of abusiveness, rudeness and false claims about what I have said and why I have said it. It is like being talked down to by year 7 student. Sadly, I can’t give you a detention for your unacceptable behaviour.

You ask me to answer two questions that you claim “I’ve never responded to” (8.25:23am, 23/2).

“1) Have classics and grammar classes increased or decreased since 1975?”

That is not the question you first asked of me. You first said, “The Education Department and Union suck at education. They've eliminated classics, grammar, etc, from most schools” (7.16:17pm, 4/2). Saying “eliminated…from most schools” is a long way different from “decreased”.

I replied with,
“The English courses of any school I taught in had grammar in them” (5.15:55pm, 6/2).

You replied with, ” Classics & Grammar have been killed off in schools” (4.58:15pm, 8/2). Saying “killed off” is a long way different from “decreased”.

The short answer to your question is that classics and grammar classes have decreased in schools since 1975. If you had put it that way to begin with, I would have accepted it.

“2) Why have parents been flocking out of the public system? Do they like paying fees instead of getting a free product? If it's the teacher quality in public schools that's falling, why has the catholic system been able to draw students away with teacher salaries that you concede are no higher than your own?”

I answered the first and second parts of that list in the letter I quoted from and linked to earlier (4.56:34pm, 11/2). I could go through all your posts to see if you have previously asked me about Catholic schools as opposed to all private schools, but to save my time, I won’t. Parents choose Catholic schools for the same sorts of reason as they choose other private schools, with the additional component of faith.

You continue this bizarre habit of responding to things from weeks ago. I can only assume you type a reply, find it's too long, and then slowly and agonizingly post it, bit by bit, over the days that follow. I don't know why you bother, everyone else seems to manage to reply in real time with only 4 posts per day. I promise you, your rants are not special enough to require that you inflict them on us in all their unedited glory. But if your posts to date are any indication, it's probably beyond your skills to edit them down anyway.

Chris, even taking only that singular claim, that they've "eliminated classics & grammar from most schools", your response was not a refutation to even that initial point, because whether or not they had it at your particular school really has no bearing on whether it was eliminated from most schools, a claim you still haven't disputed or provided any evidence for, except to repeat "but my school had it". I explained why this was not evidence some time ago ("cigarettes didn't cause cancer in my grampa, therefore they don't cause cancer in most people"), but maybe I can expect you to reply to that post a week from now.

The end result is you are now, in a very shady and backwards way, accepting my initial point was correct. This makes you look stupid for disputing it for so long, and no engaging with me when I asked you questions like "tell me more about grammar/classics at your school, is grammar a separate unit, or part of English?" (which you never did).

So moving on to the next part of your response to another of my points, an article you linked to earlier (but in reference to a different point made by longweekend, not by me), and the relevant part was not quoted in your post. I realise you have a high opinion of yourself, but I doubt most people here are clicking on links you give when they're seemingly unrelated to their points.

Your letter to the editor and post at 4:56 makes these claims in the following order:
1) The government can't give away their product,
2) Parents are paying tens of thousands of dollars a year for students to have a better peer group
3) Parents expect results from this,
4) But it doesn't work, because "you will see that while private school education does give students an advantage in university entry, it does not give them an advantage in success once there", and "The success of students at private schools is not due to the private schools. It is due to the students who go there. If you took the students from a high-performing private school and put them in an average government school, that government school would become high-performing" But,
5) Parents continue to leave the public sector.

On point 1) we can agree, but overall this is a very foolish response for the following reasons:
1) If the private schools aren't working, parents are idiots for pulling their kids out of the public system. Your claim that their kids would be just as effective in public schools basically requires the parents paying tens of thousands to go private to be fools.
2) Of course, you concede a certain type of effectiveness, in that their peer group is better. But this isn't much of an answer, because:
a) Most systems for uni entry in Australia are either based on an individual metric (like the HSC), have separate schools for high school (yrs 7-10), and college (yrs 11-12, when it counts to your ATAR), or simply don't have systems that require a good peer group to score high. Even in the ACT system, perhaps the most dependent on peer group, there is plenty of evidence of a kick-ass student being able to do well regardless of their peers (a girl from Lake G, perhaps the worst college in the ACT, got the highest score about 5 years ago). So there is no logical reason to pay all this money for a peer group that logic says won't affect your score