Pay Rise Reguarding Qualifications

[sarah09]

Hi, i have just been reading a topic on pay rises. Yes i agree that acording to your role eg, deputy should be paid more. But my unrest is does any one else think that just because you have more qualifications you should get get a pay rise, surely peoples curcumstances are different. xx

 

 

 

 

Thanx sarah

[Inge]

We used to have qualification pay rise to encourage staff to go for the qualifications and show that we appreciated all the hard work. It was often done in own time unpaid so we felt some recognition was deserved..

 

It would entirely depend on setting and how it was structured.. we had all level 3 staff or working towards for years now because of this enhancement, all wanted and were willing to put in the work for what was in effect a minor increase.

 

all were happy with the arrangement but then all gained the qualifications... could see it being an issue for long standing experienced staff not willing or able to do the qualification...

 

Inge

[Sue R]

Hi Sarah,

 

I see where you are coming from, but if staff members choose to undertake further study to improve qualifications and ensure better practice, then the setting will ultimately benefit; a consideration in the form of a wage rise would seem to be a wise move by employers to keep the increased expertise 'home' rather than risk losing it.

 

We are a Day nursery - what about other settings??

 

Sue

[Rea]

I do think wages should somehow be rated on experience too, a difference between a newly qualified L3 and an experienced one. Not siure if thats done anywhere though but it would certainly help in someplaces I've been.

[Sue R]

Hi Rea!!

 

Yes, we do have a pay system related to that , although minimally.....

 

I agree it should be used more universally and strongly - reward folk who are good but don't feel able to study further and, in a link to my earlier post, those who do!!

 

Sue

[Cait]

Our new level three (when she's finished) won't be paid the same as our experienced NVQ3, simply because she won;t have the incremental rises based on experiences and further training courses undertaken. She will take on more roles in the Preschool and get these incremental rises as she goes along - things like being responsible for H&S for example

[Sue R]

Cait,

 

Interesting, and having been in a Pre-School I understand, but those sorts of responsibilities are what's expected of qualified Level 3 Nursery Practitioners in Daycare.

[Cait]

No, I mean responsibilities that I can delegate - proper responsibilities, so someone else is senco, someone is responsible for h&s, someone else has behaviour etc.

[Sue R]

No- really Cait, that is the case when you are qualified in Daycare!

 

Obviously proper training is available and used, but if you are L3 - that's it!!

 

Our setting, however, gives new L3s a breathing space, but it's excellent staff development

[calicojo]

We have bands in each pay grade so that a newly qualified lvl 3 wouldn't get as much as a more experienced one but the bands do overlap so an experienced lvl 2 at the top of her band wouldn't immediately get more to be a lvl 3 but would after time moving up through the band.

 

Only introduced these bands 2 years ago so what will happen when all staff are at top of bands i don't know!

 

Jo

[HappyMaz]

But my unrest is does any one else think that just because you have more qualifications you should get get a pay rise, surely peoples curcumstances are different.

What circumstances are you thinking of sarah?

 

It is a complicated issue - as others have said I believe that there should be a monetary reward for practitioners who are prepared to gain qualifications.

 

If it is a straight comparison to two people with roughly the same leve of experience/service but one has a level 3 and the other is unqualified then I'd say the Level 3 person should be paid more than the unqualified. However when the unqualified person is experienced and has updated her skills without necessarily gaining a formal qualification and may therefore have more 'on the job' knowledge than a new level 3 person, that muddies the waters somewhat.

 

Another factor may be when you advertise for a level 3 qualified practitioner and someone with a level 4 or higher applies. I don't think in this situation I'd offer any more money because the job itself calls only for a level 3.

 

Luckily this is not a problem I suffer from - all our Level 3/working towards Level 3 practitioners are equal in status and job function so it is fair that they should get the same hourly rate once they have achieved.

 

Maz

[Inge]

we were pre-school as worked same as Sue, if level 3 you were expected to undertake a responsibility and do the relevant training.. so no enhancements for that in our setting... new level 3 had a breather but they too were quickly used when they had their pay rise...

 

we did try enhancements for experience but it became so complicated..

 

Inge

[Sue R]

What circumstances are you thinking of sarah?

 

It is a complicated issue - as others have said I believe that there should be a monetary reward for practitioners who are prepared to gain qualifications.

 

If it is a straight comparison to two people with roughly the same leve of experience/service but one has a level 3 and the other is unqualified then I'd say the Level 3 person should be paid more than the unqualified. However when the unqualified person is experienced and has updated her skills without necessarily gaining a formal qualification and may therefore have more 'on the job' knowledge than a new level 3 person, that muddies the waters somewhat.

 

Another factor may be when you advertise for a level 3 qualified practitioner and someone with a level 4 or higher applies. I don't think in this situation I'd offer any more money because the job itself calls only for a level 3.

 

Luckily this is not a problem I suffer from - all our Level 3/working towards Level 3 practitioners are equal in status and job function so it is fair that they should get the same hourly rate once they have achieved.

 

Maz

 

Maz, you are amazing as usual!

 

And yes, just because you have that Level 4 Cert - don't expect more money if going for Level 3 job!! - nice one!!

 

I can't think of any situations Maz hasn't covered - Beau, is there a Competition there?? (only joking!!)

[Guest]

Another factor may be when you advertise for a level 3 qualified practitioner and someone with a level 4 or higher applies. I don't think in this situation I'd offer any more money because the job itself calls only for a level 3.

 

I agree with that Maz. I am returning to work in a pre-school that was advertising for a nursery practitioner with at least level 3. The salary was already stated in the ad but just because I hold the FD I didn't expect to have to barter with the proprietor. I've accepted the job at the money offered for a L3 practitioner but mostly because I need a job to do the BA and also jobs fitting in with school and the kids are really hard to come by now.

 

However, what about those settings which advertise for a level 3 practitioner but actually want someone with a higher level qualification? To my mind, this is a bit sneaky, you advertise for a L3, offering L3 money and then hope someone with a higher level comes along. I'm sure there are not many, but believe it or not, I had an interview at the beginning of the summer holidays where this was exactly what happened. I think in this instance, a higher rate of pay should be offered.

 

Sorry, I'm confusing myself now but hope I'm getting my (bad) point across!

[Guest]

I agree with that Maz. I am returning to work in a pre-school that was advertising for a nursery practitioner with at least level 3. The salary was already stated in the ad but just because I hold the FD I didn't expect to have to barter with the proprietor. I've accepted the job at the money offered for a L3 practitioner but mostly because I need a job to do the BA and also jobs fitting in with school and the kids are really hard to come by now.

 

However, what about those settings which advertise for a level 3 practitioner but actually want someone with a higher level qualification? To my mind, this is a bit sneaky, you advertise for a L3, offering L3 money and then hope someone with a higher level comes along. I'm sure there are not many, but believe it or not, I had an interview at the beginning of the summer holidays where this was exactly what happened. I think in this instance, a higher rate of pay should be offered.

 

Sorry, I'm confusing myself now but hope I'm getting my (bad) point across!

 

I had a job in a school (Lsa foundation 2) and hold a level 4 certificate. The job didn't specify rate of pay or qualification level.

Once I had started I was on Pay scale 1 (didn't mean anything to me at the time) which I then discovered is LESS than the dining room assistants!

 

My other grind was that I was also more appropriately qualified than the 'HLTA' who yes has worked hard to achieve the status but new absolutely NOTHING about EYFS as she was from a KS2 background and spent 1 afternoon getting the children to write out the number bonds to 20!

 

It is these type of injustices that make me cross.

[Marion]

Can I just throw in that higher qualifications in a school setting would not affect wages.

My nursery nurse did her EYFD when it was first introduced (5- 6 years?) and remains the lowest paid member of the support staff ...

[Guest]

I think the idea of pay scales linked to qualifications/experience or courses attended is great but in reality the funding of these scales is (for us) not possible. To enable settings within the PVI sector to be able to meet these ideals then NEG funding needs to be more realisitc and take into consideration the high quality commitment, experience and qualifications that many pre-school staff already hold. I have a fantastic staff who give my setting much more than they are actually paid for and I often feel guilty that I am unable to pay them more!!

[sarah09]

What circumstances are you thinking of sarah?

 

It is a complicated issue - as others have said I believe that there should be a monetary reward for practitioners who are prepared to gain qualifications.

 

If it is a straight comparison to two people with roughly the same leve of experience/service but one has a level 3 and the other is unqualified then I'd say the Level 3 person should be paid more than the unqualified. However when the unqualified person is experienced and has updated her skills without necessarily gaining a formal qualification and may therefore have more 'on the job' knowledge than a new level 3 person, that muddies the waters somewhat.

 

Another factor may be when you advertise for a level 3 qualified practitioner and someone with a level 4 or higher applies. I don't think in this situation I'd offer any more money because the job itself calls only for a level 3.

 

Luckily this is not a problem I suffer from - all our Level 3/working towards Level 3 practitioners are equal in status and job function so it is fair that they should get the same hourly rate once they have achieved.

 

Maz

Thanks Maz and every one elses views, its just a staff member would like to start the foundation degree course, but because she wont be able to get full funding has declined from achieving the course. So because of money situation has lost out of gaining a higher qualification,

Sarah x

[Bliss]

Bands sound a good idea, but not sure how they would be structured?

We are sessional pre-school, reliant solely on government funding, and have no other form of income. We have nowhere to go to find extra money, even though we are all expected to contsantly update our qualifications. Hence, we have lost 5 longsanding members of staff over the past 18 months who have all completed level 3, then left to go into higher paid jobs (mainly as TA's in schools).

 

We do not give wage increases dependent on qualification alone, as we have fantastic, enthusiastic, motivated, hard-working level 2 who would earn less money than a level 3 who leaves the job on the doorstep as she leaves, and refuses to take on any extra roles, eg. co-ordinator roles and doesn't really seem to understand the EYFS, even though she only gained level 3 last year, and has worked with us for over 6 years!

 

Ad yes, we are reviewing our appraisal and supervision procedures!

 

We did once give an extra "pocket" of money to a member of staff for taking on the Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator role, but after a month she came in with a huge bag of paperwork, books and information, dumped it on the desk, and said she didn't have time to do it!

[hali]

i think banding of some sort is a good idea - everyone needs to know where they stand

 

- but going by personal experience - i was paid very well where i was - going to another job im going to be on a lot less unless i do nannying (much simpler - no paper work!!!!! ) - it just dosnt make sence and is very demoralising!!!!!!!-

[Guest]

within my company, i wont receive any extra money once i have done my foundation degree. they feel i have chosen to do it - valid, but they are gaining from my knowledge and i feel saddened that they are prepared to 'loose' me. there is no incentive for staff to further their knowledge as it doesn't seem to feel like it is appreciated or valued.....

[HappyMaz]

What an interesting debate.

 

It says a lot about our profession that we are committed enough to gain qualifications over and above those we technically need to do our jobs. So Marion's nursery nurse will never be recognised for her dedication in getting her Founation Degree because there is no pay scale that will accommodate her. In some ways I would ask why she should receive more money salary than a colleague because she has undergone further training that isn't part of the person specification for her job? Yet her school - and every child or family she supports - undoubtedly benefits every day from the knowledge and understanding she has developed throughout the learning process.

 

There is indeed something wrong with a system where early years settings are so underfunded and that where money is available it is spent so unwisely. I'm not saying that we should be rewarded for every bit of extracurricular training we do - sometimes we want and need to do things for the pleasure of gaining new knowledge and proving that we can achieve things we'd only ever dreamed of.

 

I believe every pvi setting who wishes to grow their own EYP should receive the funding to do it - that means supporting Level 3 qualified practitioners through their foundation degree and beyond. However individuals are currently being denied the opportunity to do this - even though the Government has set a target for all daycare settings to be led by an EYP - because they aren't open enough hours, or aren't registered for the 'correct' number of children.

 

The head of the CWDC told us all at the EYP conference that she was proud so many of us have taken on board the EYP agenda, especially when there was never a guarantee of higher salary levels. If we don't - or are unable to - recognise our qualified members of staff by some kind of salary enhancement then we run the risk that our sector will lose these practitioners. At best they'll go into allied jobs where their skills will not be lost altogether, but I fear many will review the hard work they've done to get their level 3, look at their salary levels and decide that job satisfaction doesn't pay the bills and will certainly not provide a big enough pension. For far too long we've provided early years services on a shoestring and relyied heavily on the goodwill of practitioners - heaven knows I've provided enough of that free goodwill myself in the past and will no doubt continue to do so because I am passionate about what I do.

 

All eyes in the PVI sector will be on how the roll out of 15-hour entitlement this year will be managed by settings, and for those of us not involved in this scheme, how it will affect the NEG and therefore our budgets for 2010 onwards. I pay level 3 staff a modest enhancement when they qualify which if I'm honest just comes out of the salary I would otherwise pay myself. Certainly as an EYP I earn less than I did as a supervisor. That is something I can choose to do in the short term, but honestly if I will also be expected to subsidise our 15-hour offer then this will need to change.

 

I'm sorry for this party political rant and thank you if you've read this far. Our staff are our best asset and fly in the face of that old saying that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. The Government's agenda for a graduate led profession will need serious investment a lot earlier than when a person embarks on a pathway to EYPS. If would be a great start if we could pay a realistic hourly rate to reflect the qualifications and experience needed to do a job whether it be a nursery assistant, lead practitioner or whatever. Otherwise I really fear for the profession, and for the quality of experience we can offer for our youngest children.

 

I'm aware that this is a demand for change without having set out how I think we can achieve it - but my brain just isn't big enough to answer that question. In the meantime, do what I can to recognise my own staff's ongoing commitment to CPD and I know that most providers and employers will be doing the same. Big changes often start with the smallest voice calling in the dark - but that relies on someone hearing the call and taking action.

 

I'm off for a cup of tea and to think about what I need to do next. There's room on my soapbox now for anyone who feels so inclined...

 

Maz

[MrsWeasley]

Personally, a pay rise doesn't make me feel appreciated (not that I'm saying I feel unappreciated!) - although I happily took a pay rise, and would any other time one was offered! How many people get their pay checks and think "Yeah, I'm really valued and appreciated in this job" ? I think there are other ways to show someone your appreciation - a special evening to celebrate the member of staffs achievements, etc.

 

I suppose it depends on what kind of person you are, I would've done my NVQ even if I knew there would be no pay rise at the end. I did it for me - and for the children. The thing that makes me feel good about gaining a qualification is that I can now use all my knowledge to help my key children to learn as much as possible.

Edited August 26, 2009 by MrsWeasley

[HappyMaz]

I would've done my NVQ even if I knew there would be no pay rise at the end.

Now she tells me!

[Bliss]

Maz for prime minister!

[Guest]

This is a very interesting thread as its something i have been thinking about over the last few weeks, as a ouple of years ago we introduced a pay scale dependent on expereince and qualifications but i'm now in the position that my supervisor could be on the same money as a pre-school assistant as my assistant has just completed the degree..... my supervisor doesnt want to do any more qulifications and has been in the role for years but my assistants are all progressing up with qualifications.. It doesnt seem right to have an asiistant on equal pay with a supervisor....... who has all the responsibilty of her role....i'm still unsure what to do about this situation but it has been good to read others thoughts through this thread....

[lynned55]

Maz, what a lot of sense you talk. Far more then our so called leaders and betters do!!

The idea of a graduate led workforce is/was a brilliant idea but I truly believe it was never thought through properly. Most of us just cannot afford to pay our staff (or ourselves) whether they be graduate, NvQ or non qualified a decent living wage from NEG funding alone and as this is the only form of funding for so many of us it's not likely to change anytime soon. At the risk of fanning the flames even further I think this government is relying on the goodwill of EY's staff to achieve its goal. My daughter has a Masters and like so many others worked very hard for it and is still paying for it but there is no way she would have taken a job paying £7/8 an hour & to be honest I wouldn't have wanted her to,but people expect us to