Teachers' pay parity preserved, but writing on wall

By DITA DE BONI

A key proposal that would have effectively scrapped pay parity between most secondary and primary teachers has been dismissed as a "typing error".

But the findings of an independent arbitration panel on the secondary teachers' dispute still clearly point to secondary teachers being paid more in future than their primary colleagues.

When the panel released its findings on Tuesday, it made a distinction in pay between university degrees, which most secondary teachers receive, and the College of Education and polytechnic degrees that primary teachers normally undertake.

The difference would have automatically meant higher pay rates for most secondary teachers. Sources close to the negotiations saw the move as further confirmation that the panel was recommending the end of the four-year-old pay parity deal.

But educationists were assured yesterday that the panel's specific reference to a "three-year university bachelor's degree", giving teachers an entitlement to higher wages at the start of their career, was a "mistake". Some called it an "over-correct use of English".

The arbitration panel itself refused to comment on its wording, referring inquiries to the Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard. But it is understood protagonists in the pay parity debate were contacted earlier in the day by people close to the panel to be assured that the wording of the findings was wrong.

Despite the rapid change in wording, the overall findings of the panel strongly support a move away from pay parity.

The proposed pay settlement would restore a pay margin between teachers who begin their careers with a three-year Bachelor of Education degree (usually primary teachers) and a three-year bachelor's degree plus a one year's teacher training diploma - the general requirement for secondary teaching.

A small number of primary teachers who have university degrees would benefit from the deal.

More generally, the panel supports higher pay for secondary teachers because they face "unique problems" over the NCEA assessment system and a population bulge of students that will cause severe recruitment and retention problems. Neither problem applies to primary teachers.

Auckland College of Education principal John Langley said he was delighted and relieved that a distinction between College of Education degrees and university degrees had not been drawn after all, though the distinction seemed fairly clear in the original wording.

"There are still some issues that concern me ... some of the things I've heard the head of the PPTA say during the entire dispute with the Government about primary teachers and pay parity have been incredibly sad." He and the NZEI - the primary and kindergarten teachers union - still favoured one union and one contract with the Government on a unified pay scale, and was disappointed that pay parity, which had been hard fought for, was always under fire during pay disputes.

"If the PPTA doesn't believe in pay parity they should just come out and say exactly how they feel and what they don't like about it. The way the teaching profession is divided over pay parity must undermine our credibility with the public, ultimately."

National's education spokesman, Dr Nick Smith, who spent much of the day lambasting Trevor Mallard's performance over the entire teachers dispute, said National had never intended that primary and secondary teachers be paid exactly the same when pay parity was introduced in the late 1990s.

He said the arbitration panel had raised the right questions about parity.

"If you've got a person with a high-level qualification and an equivalent amount of experience then the amount they are paid should not vary. But that's been conveniently interpreted as meaning primary and secondary teachers get the same pay.

"The argument has always been about qualifications ... and the academic rigour and the period of study that goes into a qualification."