Like much of the public sector, teachers’ wages in Scotland have been severely affected by austerity. Between 2010 and 2024, teachers’ real pay in Scotland fell by over 17.9%, with experienced teachers facing even greater losses (NASUWT, 2025). It’s no surprise, then, that a report from the review body tasked with advising the government on teachers’ pay concluded:
“There is a broad consensus… that action on teachers’ pay… is necessary to urgently improve teacher recruitment and retention… there are severe and persistent problems with teacher supply.” (Rice, 2023)
There must be a limit to how far we can reduce what we pay our teachers – both in absolute terms and relative to similar professions – before the system breaks down.
What’s more, because teacher pay varies little depending on where they work or what subject they teach, recruitment and retention issues are most severe in the least desirable areas, in more challenging schools, and in subjects where external job opportunities are most attractive. It’s in more deprived areas that recruitment, especially in subjects like maths, physics and computing, has been most difficult.
For instance, while around 80 per cent of National 5 teachers in subjects like music, art, biology and general science hold relevant qualifications, that figure falls to around 50 per cent for teachers of modern languages, maths and physics (Johnson, 2023). And these teachers are not evenly distributed: pupils in more disadvantaged schools are less likely to be taught by teachers with relevant degrees. We end up with the most vacancies, the least well-qualified and least effective teachers in the most economically valuable subjects, in schools where pupils have the greatest needs.
There is increasingly clear evidence that resources matter. One study found that an additional £1,000 per primary pupil per year led to four to five months of additional educational progress (Gibbons, 2018). Extra funding also seems to deliver the largest benefits in schools with a more disadvantaged student body (Jackson, 2016).
Of course, how the money is spent also matters. Reducing class sizes is a popular option. A 2019 poll of teachers found it was the top priority for around a third of respondents, and it regularly ranks high among parents’ priorities for education (Reid, 2015). Making classes much smaller can indeed bring substantial benefits. One American study found that students in very small classes (13–17 pupils) had test scores about four percentage points higher than those in classes of 22–25 pupils (Kreuger, 1999)
However, research on more modest reductions in class size – those more realistic given tight budgets and teacher shortages – tends to find much smaller benefits, if any.
Larger reductions in class size would be extremely costly. For example, in 2019, the average primary school class in England had just over 27 pupils. Reducing this to 17 would require creating around 60 per cent more classes. With 4.7 million primary school pupils in England, this would mean hiring approximately 100,000 new teachers – at a salary cost of nearly £4 billion, before even accounting for the additional expense of classrooms and support staff (Johnson, 2023). The same logic applies to the Scottish Government. While reducing class sizes may seem like a silver bullet, given the current financial situation, it appears extremely unlikely.
What does make a clear difference is having more effective teachers. They significantly impact exam results, future earnings, and even general wellbeing (Jackson, 2016).
But how do we identify and recruit high-quality teachers? It turns out that academic records or success in teacher training are often poor predictors of future effectiveness. Effectiveness generally increases with experience, though ironically, the most effective teachers tend to leave the profession sooner (Wiswall 2017).
One thing is clear: reducing teachers’ wages, especially relative to other graduate jobs, leads to fewer high-aptitude candidates choosing the profession. This is particularly true in STEM subjects, where attractive opportunities outside teaching make recruitment even harder.
The irony is that these very subjects open the door to some of the highest-paid jobs. Equipping the next generation with strong skills in them would lead to higher earnings, greater tax revenues, and a more innovative, competitive economy. The long-term economic gains from acting now would far outweigh the short-term costs that worry the Treasury. But those benefits would not be visible for another 10 to 15 years. And we have been here before with education. After the First World War, plans to establish proper secondary schools were abandoned over affordability concerns. An increase in the school leaving age to sixteen was delayed from the late 1940s to 1973 for the same reason. We risk repeating the same mistake. Yet, as so often in a political system that changes hands every five years, it seems likely that short-term point-scoring will be given priority over long-term prosperity.
Bibliography
Gibbons, S., McNally, S. and Viarengo, M., 2018. Does additional spending help urban schools? An evaluation using boundary discontinuities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 16(5), pp.1618–1662.
Jackson, C.K., 2016. What do test scores miss? The importance of teacher effects on non-test score outcomes. NBER Working Paper No. 22226. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Jackson, C.K., Johnson, R.C. and Persico, C., 2016. The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), pp.157–218.
Johnson, P., 2023. Follow the Money: How Much Does Britain Cost?. London: Abacus.
Krueger, A.B., 1999. Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2), pp.497–532.
Ladd, H.F. and Sorensen, L.C., 2017. Returns to teacher experience: Student achievement and motivation in middle school. Education Finance and Policy, 12(2), pp.241–279.
NASUWT, n.d. How much pay have teachers in Scotland lost? [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f16a372e90e075e928c159d/STRB_30th_report_July_2020.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com [Accessed 14 Aug. 2025].
Reid, J.G., 2015. Small class sizes “top priority for 2 in 5 parents”. The Telegraph, 14 April.
Rice, P. (Chair), 2020. School Teachers’ Review Body 30th Report: 2023. [online] London: UK Government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-teachers-review-body-30th-report-2020 [Accessed 14 Aug. 2025].
Wiswall, M., 2013. The dynamics of teacher quality. Journal of Public Economics, 100, pp.61–78.