Recruiting teachers of Computer Science: schools losing the “best and brightest graduates” to corporations

As it is the first week of the school year, many new trainee teachers will be starting out in their future career. One of the things that brought them to teaching was recruitment. It is interesting to think about how recruitment differs within different sectors. Interestingly, my partner and I were discussing our days at work. He stated that a new Junior Software Developer had started and that he used to be a Chemistry teacher up until last academic year. He added that this teacher was well into his 30s and was evidently a “career changer”. This made me think about the state of recruitment of Computer Science teachers within the English state education system.

Jones starts the second chapter in his book, The Establishment (2015); retelling a conversation he had after an interview with a senior lobbyist for a banking company. He states his view on politician’s salary: Jones states that there is a case for reducing MP’s salaries as MP’s are “comfortably placed in the top 5% of earners” (2015, p. 46). This leads the lobbyist to argue that “such a move would deter the most talented people, particularly from the private sector, from entering politics”. This led me to think about the current recruitment context of teachers. In fact, doesn’t this argument resonate with all employment sectors? Don’t all employers wish to recruit “the most talented people”?

Indeed, the school I work at is aiming to recruit English, Math, Science and MFL teachers, a glance at the job advert shows that the salary is “competitive”. So why is there is shortage of teachers if schools are trying to attract the most talented people with these “competitive” salaries? Of course, I cannot provide a sweeping answer as this would be too generalised. But what I can do is speculate. I am currently employed as a Computer Science teacher whilst my partner, is employed as a Junior Software Developer. We’re both at the very beginnings of our careers having started our jobs at the same time. Although the subject knowledge required is relatively the same, the salary is not. My starting salary as a teacher is £10,000 less than my partner’s starting salary. Obviously financial reward is not, in isolation, the reason to enter a specific field of work but if we apply this senior lobbyist’s logic why is there not a similar recruitment incentive for teachers? Does our society not want “the most talented people” teaching our future generations?

The current financial incentives are clearly not enough, at the moment in order to attract the “best and brightest graduates” that could teach any subject within the English Baccalaureate are up to £30,000 tax free bursaries and scholarships. This clearly matches the starting salaries of some graduate jobs. But, what about after they have trained, will schools who employ the “Best and brightest graduates” be able to afford them as an NQT? Will those schools who are too poor to even afford a printing budget, be able to afford these “talented” classroom teachers? I have heard a lot of stories already from ex-classroom teachers who have found jobs in other sectors such as banking because their schools “could not afford them” as simply just classroom teachers without giving them more responsibility such as a middle/senior leader.  Although helpful, the financial incentive during the recruitment of teachers is not enough. If we want to recruit and keep, the “most talented people” as teachers, it is important to adopt a similar stance as the senior lobbyist within Jones (2015), more money needs to be put into the salary of classroom teachers.