Yep, agree. How many nurses, and in particular soldiers, who put their life on the line for us can ever earn this sort of money - even if they get to the very top of their particular ladder. No head teacher, however good they are at their job should earn this money in the public sector. If he was this exceptional wouldn't he have moved into the private sector long ago, would he not have been head hunted by many a private school? No doubt he is a good head, but £150K plus good is questionable. How long before every "good" head demands these sort of wages and it becomes the norm'?

These teacher salaries are fine in the private sector, where by the way, I bet their standards are far higher and Mr D would probably look very average.

I think basically that parents have a right to expect a £50k head and £30k teachers to be up to the job. If they are not get rid of them (as would happen in the private sector) and replace with someone who can do the job for the money. Why is Mr D getting so much more than say the head of St.Barts or Park House, let's face it he is only part time at two schools, not full time at both (unless one is a night school ) so should just get one full time wage, or two part time wages, in line with the going rate in West Berkshire.

Excellent!
Well put - my thoughts exactly.

I find this argument tedious. People in life are motivated by many things, and not all is money. The remuneration in these jobs is well known and people should consider this when embarking on these careers. How many nurses and soldiers are CEO (headteacher) material?


The subtext to this is the public schools shouldn't have headteachers that are as good as private schools.


Surely this is easy to measure. Would they not have had KPIs?


Like I said, I would have thought KPIs and results would determine this.


In a country with a diverse cost of living, having a fixed fee would benefit some and cost others. 50k ain't that much money. Average sales men can pull that quite comfortably.


I nearly agree, but this should happen through the whole profession, not just at the senior level..


At senior level, people tend to have targets and if he hits them then fine. Perhaps the others haven't been so impressive?

I will admit though, there is always a smell of 'jobs for the boys' in all this, but hopefully, transparent remunerations of senior public servants is a step in the right direction, but don't discount the likelihood that other methods of paying in a more 'discrete' way are explored.

Still agree with DrPepper!
He is paid too much! - Otherwise why the outcry and this debate in the first place?

That is your prerogative, but did I not at least give you pause for thought?


You're 'guilty' of begging the question.

We first have to establish if he is being paid too much, and I have not seen anyone prove this yet.

I think that £175k along with all the perks, the gold plated pension and the social life he seems to enjoy through the week is too much for a headteacher. I don't question Mr ***** record, he's an excellent teacher but there are many others out there also. I don't understand why the public sector has to pay more than the private sector all the time.

Perhaps it's just a case of failure is an option in the public sector, if a head fails they are moved on to another job, keeping pensions etc, then a "super head" - who is really just a capable head - is moved in on this sort of money, probably being paid so much to try and justify "a normal head can't possibly run this school" (what will happen when Mr D moves on?).

Now in the private sector, if you fail, quite rightly you loose your job altogether, and probably didn't have a pension anyway. And once you failed at this level you would find it difficult to get a similar job. Good luck to Mr D and I hope he enjoys the ride as long at it lasts, at our expense.

This might be the case, but all the while, we are playing with children's futures. In any case, yours is presumably, speculation?


The private sector has its fair share of incompetence, but there is such thing as loss of office, which in some cases can be quite lucrative. Some chiefs make a career out of being sacked, but of course, it is shareholders that pay, rather than tax payers. Unless you are a failed bank of course.

But I'll keep saying until someone acknowledges it. let's worry what we are paying incompetence, before we get concerned about the remuneration of the successful. That is costing the country dear.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the 'super head' question is to ask why they are so successful and why this knowledge can't be passed on to the others. I'm pretty certain the head concerned locally isn't in it for the money - so its about method. Does this suggest that the management of our education servixce need a radical shake up so that best practice is detected and then implemented eleswhere very quickly? What ever the rights and wrongs of the individual case, and this goes for the excesses in the preivate sector board rooms as well - its generally not the recipient at fault - but those who authorised the arrangements.

Yep, total speculation. Speculating on how this absurd situation arose in the first place. Newbury is not a deprived (or depraved - much!) area so it's hard to see why special needs are required here when they are not in far worse off areas. It just doesn't add up on the finances or practicalities. Break it down - we are paying this guy in excess of £75k per annum as a part time head of one school (twice). You can get a perfectly capable head for £50k (looking at the classified this is the going rate) full time. I can't see why these schools needed a "super head" at this money. One capable head, replace the failing teachers - job done.

Never been in teaching myself so perhaps this is just to simplistic

You did.





OK - IN MY OPINION as a £1850 a year ratepayer he is paid too much!

I think you might be right, but I also think that £50k sounds too cheap. To give an informed opinion, we'd need to know more about his circumstances. Perhaps we undervalue the the cost of some of our most important civil servants. We would probably be horrified if we found out the full extent of the cost of the 'old boys club'. I think, for example, we pay too much for the West Berkshire Council's CEO.

Before all this though, lets weed-out all the crap first. 5% incompetence is very expensive and I suspect this is a modest estimate and is a figure that is pervasive amongst the public sector.

Yes, lets hope that these wages are a temporary measure so the very best heads can go into a "failing" school and weed out the underachieving teachers, after which a capable head can be employed. If this is the case it could well be money well spent. Will Mr D go back to a normal wage when his job is done though?

Also agree that there are very many public sector workers paid far to much for doing far to little - I guess Mr D is just much more visible than others, and we probably all have a pretty good idea of what his job entails and what minimal academic qualifications are needed to do the job. Actually re-reading the piece in the NWN he's not even a "superhead" just the head of Kennett for eleven years who was given Trinity as well. In 2006 Kennet was the 101st rated school, that means there are 100 other heads more qualified than Mr D for the job, unless of course than are all being paid/employed in the same manner now.

So you think "minimal academic qualifications" are needed to do a headmaster's job? Let alone run two schools?

Compared to the academic qualifications that are required for say, off the top of my head, a doctor or vet (that as a rule don't earn this sort of money), then yes the requirements to teach and "head" are minimal.

Clearly its also underachieving heads that need weeding out as well. Why is it necessary to spread this skill so thinly? Can't we train more Head Teachers to be like these superheads? If he is able to manage two schools exceptionally well together with putting in extra effort to lift the failing one does that mean he was underemployed before? Think about it, can you do two jobs at the same time ?

Two part time jobs? Yes.

Aaah - perhaps its just that. WBC often advertise part time jobs (ironically often for school support staff) at the full rate and when you read the text, it mentions the hours and says the pay will be pro rata. So I'm sure we've all misunderstood and under the Council rules Mr D only gets one Head Teachers salary.......sorry, I drifted off for a moment!

I think the LA has made a good call seconding Mr D to Trinity. There is a national shortage of headteachers - many jobs are readvertised and some very inexperienced people have been given headships. And let's face it, locally there seem to have been some poor appointments (look at how many schools have been in special measures). Better to have an excellent HT in charge (albeit part time) than appoint another who is incapable of changing things.

This is no doubt the whole problem, not enough capable heads, and by virtue not enough capable teachers that can take on the role of head. This may just suggest that the whole teaching profession isn't up to scratch - probably something most of us have suspected for a long time. Re-train the teachers to teach, rather than trying to be "mates" with the kids, get the teachers some "real life experience (maybe a "proper" job for a year before you can teach) and that just may be a start.