an examination of teachers’ pay · graduate progression over the first five years of a career,...

Incomes Data Services 23 College Hill London EC4R 2RP Telephone: 020 7429 6800 Facsimile: 020 7393 8081 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.incomesdata.co.uk

An examination of teachers’ pay

A report for the National Union of Teachers by Incomes Data Services

August 2008

This report was prepared by Incomes Data Services (IDS) on behalf of the NUT. It was researched and written by: Nicola Allison Angela Bowring Jessica Evans Alastair Hatchett Incomes Data Services 23 College Hill London EC4R 2RP Telephone: 020 7429 6800 Facsimile: 020 7393 8081 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.incomesdata.co.uk Copyright © Incomes Data Services 2008

Contents

1. Key findings 1

2. An assessment of the current teachers; pay structure 3

2.1 Background 3

2.2 Teachers’ pay settlements compared with the whole economy 6

2.3 Earnings growth and pay drift 7

3. Pay and progression in teaching compared with other graduate professions 11

3.1 Graduate progression 12

3.2 Graduate progression by sector 13

4. Comparing teachers with other occupations 17

5. Graduate applications 23

IDS – An examination of teachers’ pay, August 2008

1

1. Key findings

• Reform of the pay structure for teachers was started in 2000, to aid teachers’

recruitment and retention. It offered higher salaries more quickly and access to a higher

pay scale.

• This was in the context of the Government’s public sector pay policy, which saw an

expansion of public sector employment, initiatives on recruitment and retention, and

generalised pay modernisation between 2000 and 2004, followed by what is effectively

an incomes policy for the public sector from 2005, with pay increases to be kept below

2.5 per cent.

• Looking at pay settlements over the period 2002 to 2007, teachers did consistently

worse than the whole economy median in every year except 2002 and 2005.

• The forthcoming teachers’ pay increase of 2.45 per cent from September 2008 is

significantly lower than all-items inflation (currently 5.0 per cent). Similarly, the 2009

‘indicative’ pay increase for teachers of 2.3 per cent which is due to take effect from 1

September 2009, is below the forecast rate of inflation of 2.7 per cent.

• The settlements gap between teachers and the rest of the economy is not being closed

by additional earnings growth. Pay drift (the difference between average earnings

growth and the pay settlement) was negative for teachers in 2006, and minimal in 2007,

indicating that the opportunities for additional earnings growth for teachers have

disappeared. Zero pay drift for teachers is also forecast for the current period.

• It could be argued therefore that new pay structure introduced in 2000/02 has reached

its full value and will now deteriorate over time. The pay structure has gone through the

cycle, with the high proportion of teachers who were previously stick at the top of the

main pay scale now stuck at the top of the upper pay scale (31 per cent in 2007),

leading to the low or negative pay drift.

• Pay data from IDS research on graduates has been used to see how much teachers

would be paid if they progressed at the same rates as graduate recruits in other sectors.

A band D teacher at the top of the pay scale, ie after five years, received £29,427 in

band D. This would be 8 per cent higher, at £31,699, if the IDS median, giving typical

graduate progression over the first five years of a career, had been applied. The


2

equivalent figure for average graduate progression would be £34,709, some 18 per cent

higher than the M6 figure.

• Using average earnings figures for different occupations between 2003 and 2007, ie

since the new pay structure was introduced, teachers’ earnings growth has been below

that of chemists, biologists, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and medical

practitioners.

• Data on the most popular career sector for graduates show that teaching went from

being outside the top five before 1999 to being the most popular choice in 2005. Since

then, however, it has fallen back, to third most popular in 2008.


3

2. An assessment of the current teachers’ pay structure

2.1 Background A major reform of the teachers’ pay structure began in 2000 with the creation of the Upper Pay

Scale and the subsequent shortening of the main pay scale from nine points to six. The main

aim of these changes was to set higher salaries to aid recruitment and retention, and

simultaneously to give higher rewards for good teachers to stay in the classroom rather than

move into management roles.

Initially the Upper Pay Scale (UPS) was to have five scale points and progression to the first

point from the top of the main pay scale was to be strictly performance based. In reality around

180,000 teachers moved to scale point 1 on the UPS from the spring of 2001 with increases

backdated to September 2000. Progression up the five-point UPS was to be discretionary and

performance-based.

This wholesale movement of so many teachers showed how many had been stuck on the main

structure maximum salary before the UPS was created. It also showed that head teachers used

the new possibility of progression as a retention measure. The degree to which progression

was entirely performance-based was immediately questioned.

Classroom teachers pay structure from 1 September 2007

Main pay scale Band D National, £pa

Band C Fringe, £pa

Band B Outer London, £pa

Band A Inner London, £pa

M1 20,133 21,102 23,118 24,168

M2 21,726 22,692 24,501 25,548

M3 23,472 24,438 26,247 27,327

M4 25,278 26,250 28,053 29,328

M5 27,270 28,239 30,432 31,584

M6 29,427 30,393 32,751 33,936

Upper pay scale

U1 31,878 32,847 34,650 37,809

U2 33,060 34,026 35,832 39,666

U3 34,281 35,250 37,164 41,004


4

The main pay scale was shortened to six points with effect from September 2002. The aim

here was to accelerate teachers to the top of the scale to get a higher salary earlier, as the

STRB had identified the fact that teachers were leaving the profession in their third, fourth or

fifth year of service because they had to wait until the ninth year of service to get to the scale

maximum.

A further reform of teachers’ pay came from the STRB recommending a form of zonal pay

whereby four pay structures were introduced with significantly higher salaries for UPS teachers

in inner London to aid retention among experienced teachers in their thirties who were either

leaving London or leaving teaching. The zones/bands ranged from band A for inner London to

band D for national outside the ‘fringe’ area of the South East.

Public sector pay policy All these changes came as part of a wide number of pay and structural changes in 2000 and

2001 as the Government responded to recruitment and retention difficulties across the public

sector. For example in June 2000, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, announced an increase in

the joint London allowances for the Met Police to £6,000 a year. Then in November 2000, the

Prime Minister, Tony Blair, announced that extra pay supplements were to be made available to

nurses and other key NHS staff in areas with full or near full employment. The main police pay

scale was also shortened at this time in much the same way as that for teachers and with a

similar intent.

This plethora of initiatives to aid recruitment and retention came after a long period of pay

restraint in the public sector which has started in 1993 when the Conservative Government

imposed a 1.5 per cent ceiling on all public sector pay rises. Thereafter, pay increases had to

be funded through existing paybills. This policy ran until Labour came to power in 1997 at which

point the new Labour Chancellor, Gordon Brown, said that the policy would be maintained for

two more years until 1999.

The policy of pay restraint in the public sector came up against the tightening of the labour

market that occurred in the second half of the 1990s, thus producing the recruitment and

retention issues to which the Government then had to respond. The period from 2000 to 2004

was then one in which the Government funded an expansion of jobs, initiatives on recruitment

and retention and generalised pay modernisation. One of the central planks of pay

modernisation was to improve public service delivery and to have more well-trained staff doing

their jobs effectively in the front line rather than gaining higher salaries by moving into

management – whether teachers, nurses or midwives. The creation of the UPS was part of this


5

overall strategy, as was the subsequent creation of the Advanced Skills Teacher role for those

above this grade who are expected to act as mentors to other teachers.

Progression to the new maximum Between 2001 and 2007 teachers progressed through the pay scales in the normal way, and

the newly-created headroom provided by the UPS allowed progression for those previously on

the main pay scale maximum. The upper pay scale was established in 2000 and implemented

in 2001. Teachers who progressed to UPS2 in 2002 were then eligible to progress to UPS3

from September 2004.

There is evidence that this labour market initiative had a very good impact on teacher retention.

By 2007 over half of full-time teachers in band D were on the UPS and 35 per cent of

secondary school teachers in band D were on point 3 of the UPS. This is the new scale

maximum on the UPS because the top two points were eliminated earlier.

Proportion of full-time teachers on each scale point

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 U1 U2 U3

Band A (Inner London)Band B (Outer London)Band C (Fringe)Band D (National)

%

Spine pointSource: Survey of teachers' pay

Research conducted by ORC International on teachers’ pay in 2007 shows just over 50 per

cent of both primary and secondary teachers in band D (the national scale outside the South

East) were on the upper pay scale. In London and the fringe area there was a minority of both

primary and secondary teachers on the UPS. There are lower proportions of teachers on the


6

UPS in London because of the youthfulness of the teacher workforce in the London area,

including those who leave London or leave teaching at a critical point in their careers, between

four and six years’ service. The ORC survey suggests that 45 per cent of all classroom

teachers (52 per cent of primary teachers) in inner London were in their first five years of

teaching. The corresponding figures for England and Wales (band D) was 33 per cent (35 per

cent in primaries).

Pay awards for teachers compared to whole economy median pay settlement/forecast RPI

0

1

2

3

4

5

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Teachers' pay award

IDS median paysettlement/forecast RPI

%

2.2 Teachers’ pay settlements compared with the whole economy The bar chart shows the differences between teachers’ pay settlements and the IDS median

pay settlement, between the years 2002 and 2007. This shows that teachers did consistently

worse in every year with the exception of years 2002 and 2005. In 2002, according to the IDS

pay databank, the teachers’ pay settlement was around 1 per cent greater than median pay

settlements across the economy. And in 2005, again according to the IDS pay databank,

median pay settlements across the economy were .05 per cent lower than the teachers’ pay

settlement in that year.

Teachers’ pay awards in 2008 and 2009 compared with inflation forecasts Median pay settlements are currently close to the all-items RPI, the key pay bargaining

measure, so this has been used to forecast how teachers’ will fare for the next two years.


7

According to the terms of the latest pay settlement for teachers covering the years 2008 to

2010, teachers are due a basic pay rise of 2.45 per cent from 1 September 2008. This is

significantly lower than the average quarterly all-items inflation forecast of 4.6 per cent for the

third quarter of 2008. Similarly, the 2009 ‘indicative’ pay increase for teachers of 2.3 per cent

which is due to take effect from 1 September 2009, is below the forecast rate of inflation of 2.7

per cent.

Difference between the teachers’ pay settlements and IDS median settlements

Teachers’ pay award

IDS median settlements Difference

2002 3.5 2.54 + 0.96

2003 2.9 2.96 - 0.06

2004 2.5 3.01 - 0.51

2005 2.5 + 0.75 3.20 + 0.05

2006 2.5 3.14 - 0.64

2007 2.5 3.76 - 1.26

Teachers’ pay awards in 2008 and 2009 compared with inflation forecasts

Average quarterly all-items inflation forecasts at 9 July 2008 %

Teachers’ pay awards %

2008 3rd quarter 4.6 2.45

4th quarter 4.6

2009 1st quarter 4.2

2nd quarter 3.4

3rd quarter 2.7 2.3

2.3 Earnings growth and pay drift Is the settlements gap between teachers and the rest of the economy being closed by

additional earnings growth for teachers outside of the pay settlement? The evidence shows

positive pay drift for teachers between 2003 and 2005, so that earnings growth was above the

pay settlement, but negative pay drift in 2006 and minimal in 2007, indicating that the

opportunities for additional earnings growth for teachers have disappeared.


8

If we compare the value of teachers’ pay settlements with the growth in teacher earnings

between the years 2003 and 2007 as measured by ASHE, it can be seen that in 2003 for

secondary and primary school teachers the 4.6 per cent growth in earnings was greater than

the value of the pay settlement at 2.9 per cent and implies that teachers were moving up the

(relatively) new pay scale. This was not the case for special education teachers for whom

earnings at 2.9 per cent were exactly in line with the pay settlement.

The situation for special education teachers was reversed in 2004 in that earnings for this

group increased by 4.8 per cent against a pay settlement of 2.5 per cent. Earnings growth of

2.8 per cent for secondary teachers grew by slightly more than the settlement value of 2.5 per

cent while earnings growth for primary school teachers at 2.1 per cent was slightly lower than

the 2.5 per cent value of the pay settlement. This could be because of a contraction in the

number of primary school teachers in that year.

Comparison of teachers’ pay settlements with growth in average annual earnings of full-time teaching professionals (ASHE)

Secondary teachers Primary teachers Special education

teachers Pay settle-ment growth pay drift growth pay drift growth pay drift

2003 2.9 4.6 +1.7 4.6 +1.7 2.9 0.0

2004 2.5 2.8 +0.3 2.1 -0.4 4.8 +2.3

2005 2.5 + 0.75 5.0 +1.75 6.2 +2.95 3.8 +0.55

2006 2.5 0.8 -1.7 1.4 -1.1 5.1 +2.6

2007 2.5 2.9 +0.4 2.6 +0.1 - 0.4 -2.9

In 2005, it appears from the ASHE figures that all three groups of teaching professionals

experienced earnings growth above the value of the pay settlement. In this year the settlement

was staged and gave 2.5 per cent from 1 April 2005 followed by a further 0.75 per cent from 1

September 2005. Earnings for secondary teachers grew by 5 per cent, and they grew by 6.2

per cent for primary teachers. The growth in earnings for special education teachers was 3.8

per cent.

In 2006, this situation was reversed, with secondary and primary school teachers experiencing

average earnings growth below the value of the pay settlement of 2.5 per cent. The curtailment

of the scope for pay progression was again evident in 2007. The value of the settlement for

2007 was 2.5 per cent against earnings growth of 2.9 per cent from secondary teachers and of


9

2.6 per cent. This implies that many teachers have reached the top of their pay range and are

relying on the basic pay award for any increase to pay.

Difference between pay settlement and average earnings growth for teachers

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Secondary teachersPrimary teachers

%

According to the STRB’s 2008 report ‘pay drift’ among teachers has become negligible.

Leaving on one side IDS’s view that planned progression should not be seen as ‘drift’, the

Department for Children, Schools and Families has forecast pay drift of –0.7 per cent for

teachers in 2008/08 and zero pay drift for 2008/09 onwards. The STRB understand this to

mean that future growth in the teachers’ overall pay bill would be driven almost entirely by the

annual pay award.

This all means that a combination of progression stopping at the new scale maximum and staff

turnover at key points such as after four, five and six years has brought about zero drift in the

pay bill.

In effect it could be argued therefore that a new pay structure brought into play in 2000/02 has

now reached its full value but that this value is now deteriorating, and will continue to do so

given the indicative low pay increases for teachers in 208 and 2009. It is often remarked among

HR managers in the private sector that most new pay systems have a useful life of up to seven

years before they lose their capacity to deliver.

Other figures on the spine point distribution of full-time classroom teachers taken from teacher

pay surveys between 2002 and 2007 confirm this trend. In 2002 around 44 per cent of teachers


10

were bunched on upper pay spine 1 but by 2007 the figures show that 31 per cent of all

teachers were at the top of their pay range. For secondary teachers outside of London and the

south east this proportion rises to 35 per cent and for special school teachers also outside of

London and the south east this rises to 36 per cent.

Proportion of full-time classroom teachers by spine point distribution

2001 %

2002 %

2003 %

2004 %

2007 %

Main scale 1-5* 34 31 32 33 32

Main scale 6** 21 21 15 14 13

Upper pay spine 1 44 44 16 15 12

Upper pay spine 2 0 4 37 31 11

Upper pay spine 3 0 0 0 8 31 Source: Teachers’ pay surveys. Note: No teachers’ pay surveys were conducted in 2005 and 2006 *1-8 in 2001 **9 in 2001

With zero pay drift, teachers’ pay will only rise by the annual awards for the foreseeable future.

This reduction in movement through the scales has come at a time of an incomes policy for the

public sector for the five years from 2005 to 2010, with increases to be kept below 2.5 per cent

in relation to the CPI inflation target of 2 per cent. And this is happening at a time of higher than

anticipated inflation.


11

3. Pay and progression in teaching compared with other graduate professions

Pay and Progression for Graduates is an annual publication by the IDS Executive

Compensation Review which provides information and analysis on the state of the graduate

market. One part of the report looks at how successful employers have been in holding on to

their graduates recruited in past years and tracks how much their salaries have progressed

since starting work with them.

Every year IDS asks employers to provide us with the current salary details of graduates they

took on five years ago, a group termed ‘five-yearlings’. In order to work out the salary

progression of this group five-year salaries are charted against the starting rate for the current

intake of graduates. For example, in the most recent report published in February 2008, five-

yearlings are those taken on in 2002. To calculate the salary progression of these five-

yearlings, we subtract the 2007 starting rates – as provided by employers – from current

average salaries over the five-yearlings in the same organisation. The difference, expressed as

a percentage, is the ‘salary lead’.

The data allows us to look historically at how the salaries of five-yearlings have progressed

over the past five years and relate these increases to the equivalent increases in salaries of

graduates entering the teaching profession on main pay scale M1 and moving up to the top of

the main scale pay band M6 after five years. In order to provide the clearest indication of

whether teachers’ salaries have lagged behind salaries in other professions over this period

this information is calculated across the four sectors of manufacturing, service, finance and

All sector median salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936

If IDS median salary lead 31,699 33,225 36,399 38,053

Band D National Band C Fringe Band B Outer London

Band A Inner London


12

All sector average salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936



Band A Inner London

public/not-for-profit, taking information from the five-yearlings which covers 107 organisations,

with median and average salary leads from these figures. Taking these, the M1 salary points

were multiplied by the median and average salary leads to show where the M6 salary points

would stand if they had increased over the five years by the IDS figures. To provide a further

comparison this same process was applied to looking at the salary differences by sector.

3.1 Graduate progression The results show that at M6 across all locations teachers’ salaries are below what they would

have been if an IDS all-sector median salary lead had been applied to the pay scale. The

differences between the two sets of figures are even greater if the average salary lead had

been applied. For example, at Band D a teacher at the top of the pay scale would be paid

£29,427, but this figure would stand 8 per cent higher at £31,699 if the IDS median, giving

typical graduate progression over the first five years of a career, had been used. The equivalent

figure for the average is £34,709, some 18 per cent higher than the M6 figure.


13

Finance sector median salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936



Band A Inner London

Finance sector average salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936

If IDS average salary lead 36,743 38,511 42,190 44,107


Band A Inner London

3.2 Graduate progression by sector Looking at the sectoral pattern it can be seen that when increasing the M6 pay scale by the

finance salary-lead median it produces the highest salary in comparison to the other sectors.

For example, taking teachers band A the M6 salary point is £33,936, but when using the IDS

finance sector salary lead the figure increases to £43,406. Manufacturing has the smallest lead

over teachers, but it is still positive, at £36,252 in band A.


14

Manufacturing sector median salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936



Band A Inner London

Manufacturing sector average salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936



Band A Inner London

When using average salary-leads, the service sector has the largest salary difference with

teachers, at £44,276 in band A, but is closely followed by the finance sector, at £44,107. The

manufacturing sector has the third-greatest difference at £33,774 in band A, with the public

sector having the smallest, at £37,170 in band A. The graph shows that at the average if

teachers pay had increased in line with the increases in the service sector at M6 salary would

range from £36,884 to £44,276 depending on location, while the equivalent range using the

finance salary-lead would be £36,743 to £44,107.


15

Service sector median salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936



Band A Inner London

Service sector average salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936



Band A Inner London


16

Public sector median salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936



Band A Inner London

Public sector average salary differences, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Annual salary £pa

Teacher on M6 29,427 30,939 32,751 33,936



Band A Inner London


17

4. Comparing teachers with other occupations One way of charting teachers’ salaries in relation to other professions is to use the Office of

National Statistics’ Annual Hours and Earnings Survey (ASHE). Charting data back over the

past five years, using the detailed four-digit level, median and average salaries for a number of

occupations can be viewed in comparison to teachers. All professions analysed have been

indexed against the figures from 2003, the point at which the new pay structure had been

introduced. We have analysed a variety of roles within four areas: science, engineering, health

and business and professional services, and against these categories we have compared

teachers in secondary education, and in primary and nursery education.1

By looking at these indexes against other professional roles it provides a further understanding

of the levels at which teachers’ salaries have increased over the period in comparison to other

jobs. The first charts show teachers’ salaries in relation to science professionals, from which a

Indexed median science professionals

95

100

105

110

115

120

Chemists 100.0 99.1 105.8 109.5 113.2

Biological scientists 100.0 101.7 106.3 109.2 112.9

Physicists 100.0 100.7 108.8 116.8 117.8

Secondary educationteachers

100.0 103.7 108.1 110.8 113.1

Primary & nurseryteachers

100.0 103.7 109.1 110.9 111.9

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1 ASHE data includes teachers at all level, including head teachers. The data for special needs teachers was not included, as the sample was not felt to be reliable enough.


18

Indexed average science professionals

95

100

105

110

115

120

Chemists 100.0 97.2 107.3 108.1 117.4

Biological scientists 100.0 101.3 106.2 110.8 116.8

Physicists 100.0 101.0 108.7 103.9 110.0


100.0 102.7 107.8 109.1 112.3


100.0 102.1 108.5 110.2 113.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

mixed picture can be drawn. Looking at median earnings, physicists saw higher earnings

growth than both secondary and primary teachers, secondary teachers kept pace with

physicists and biologists, while primary teachers fell behind slightly. Looking at average

earnings, both teaching groups saw lower earnings growth than chemists or biologists, but

greater earnings growth than physicists.

Comparing teachers with engineering professionals, mechanical and electrical engineers saw

substantially greater earnings growth at the median over the period. Secondary teachers kept

pace with civil engineers, but primary teachers fell behind. There was a similar pattern for

average earnings, with primary teachers faring slightly better than secondary.

Looking at health professionals, teachers’ earnings growth was lower than that of medical

practitioners, but kept paced or grew slightly faster than psychologists and pharmacists.


19

Indexed median engineering professionals

100

105

110

115

120

125

Civil engineers 100.0 101.9 106.9 112.8 112.9

Mechanical engineers 100.0 102.6 107.1 110.9 115.0

Electrical 100.0 105.1 112.3 109.7 120.2


100.0 103.7 108.1 110.8 113.1


100.0 103.7 109.1 110.9 111.9

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


20

Indexed average engineering professionals

95

100

105

110

115

120

Civil engineers 100.0 99.5 105.5 111.9 113.0

Mechanical engineers 100.0 103.4 108.9 109.3 116.1

Electrical 100.0 103.4 112.5 111.3 116.5


100.0 102.7 107.8 109.1 112.3


100.0 102.1 108.5 110.2 113.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


21

Indexed median health professionals

95

100

105

110

115

120

Medical practitioners 100.0 102.4 116.3 114.5 114.7

Psychologists 100.0 97.8 97.7 105.5 112.4

Pharmacists 100.0 103.6 107.0 104.6 106.8


100.0 103.7 108.1 110.8 113.1


100.0 103.7 109.1 110.9 111.9

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


22

Indexed average health professionals

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

Medical practitioners 100.0 100.8 122.9 119.9 119.0

Psychologists 100.0 98.2 92.7 101.4 108.6

Pharmacists 100.0 96.3 103.0 101.6 104.6


100.0 102.7 107.8 109.1 112.3


100.0 102.1 108.5 110.2 113.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


23

5. Graduate applications To provide another indication of whether teaching is an attractive career to a graduate is to look

at the number of applications made by graduates to the teaching scheme in relation to the

number of applications to other graduate occupations. We are able to chart this over the last 10

years using data provided by High Fliers Research Ltd, which annually produces The UK

Graduate Careers Survey, in association with The Times.

Most popular career sectors for graduates from 1999 to 2008 (Source: High Fliers Research)

Year Most popular (% of finalists)

2nd (% of finalists)

3rd (% of finalists)

4th

(% of finalists)

5th (% of finalists)

1999 Management consultancy (14.1)

Marketing (13.5)

Media (12)

Research & development (11.6)

Accountancy (10.7)

2000 Marketing (15.8)

Management consultancy (14.6)

Media (14.6)


Engineering (11.5)

2001 Consulting (15.5)

Marketing (14)

Media (13.9)

Investment Banking (10.8)

Teaching (10.1)

2002 Marketing (13)

Media (13)

Consulting (12.9)

Investment banking (10.5)

Teaching (10.1)

2003 Media (11.7)

Marketing (10.8)

Teaching (10.5)

Consulting (9.6)

Civil Service (9.4)

2004 Media (11.8)

Marketing (11.2)

Teaching (11.1)


Consulting (10.2)

2005 Teaching (12.7)

Media (12.7)

Marketing (11.7)



2006 Media (12.4)

Teaching (11.9)


Marketing (11)

Accountancy (10.8)

2007 Media (13.4)

Teaching (12.7)


Marketing (11.8)

Accountancy (11.1)

2008 Media (13.1)


Teaching (12.4)

Marketing (11.4)

Accountancy (11.2)

As can be seen from the table in 1999 and 2000 teaching fell outside the top five, and but in

2001 it entered as the fifth most popular choice for graduates. By 2005 teaching had became

the most popular choice for graduates, before falling back in the rankings. In 2008 teaching is


24

the third most popular choice for graduates. Over the ten-year period some of the most popular

professions have included the media, investment banking, accountancy and research and

development.

Position of teaching as a graduate career choice

1

2

3

4

5

62001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

an examination of teachers’ pay · graduate progression over the first five years of a career,...

Documents