Being charged a fee to hire our teaching room is a contentious issue for self-employed VMTs. Are we seriously expected to pay for the privilege of providing a service from which the school benefits?
Some years ago, at a private school where I worked, the bursar (from his plush office which the school provided for him free of charge) announced to the VMTs that he was going to charge us a ‘commercial’ rate to rent our rooms (which he deemed to be worth £5 per hour). I was aghast and a tetchy email exchange ensued.
The idea of a commercial rate was problematic. The teaching rooms were assorted sizes. Would those of us in a smaller room pay a smaller fee? Would we pay less if we didn’t use a piano? Presumably the percussion teacher would have to pay a small fortune to hire the huge battery of school percussion instruments he used for his teaching.
If our relationship with the school was to be reduced to an overtly commercial transaction, how would we be recompensed for the value we brought to the school? Without us, it would be a poorer place, both culturally and financially, so we must have a monetary value. The presence of a talented and inspirational group of VMTs gave the school a competitive edge, helping to increase the school’s public profile and attract pupils. Just look at open days, where music performances played such a prominent role in showing off the school (on these occasions, music was more in the spotlight than, say, maths or English).
And what about preparing pupils for their GCSE performances? Weren’t we delivering part of the school curriculum? Surely the school should be paying us for this service, not vice versa.
Did the school charge other self-employed people who came to provide a service to the school? Was the ex-premier league footballer, who provided coaching services, charged to hire the school playing field? Perhaps the school billed the plumber for the hire of the toilets he was there to fix? Or was it just VMTs who were singled out for the ignominy of having to pay for our workplace? (Admittedly, it is a slightly different relationship between a school hiring someone directly and facilitating a transaction between a VMT and a parent.)
Schools do, of course, provide a service from which VMTs benefit: in addition to providing us with (hopefully) a steady stream of pupils and a comfortable room to teach them, they often provide administrative support, perhaps helping with timetabling or even chasing up unpaid fees (even though that falls outside their remit if the VMT is self-employed). There are often additional perks, such as paid performing opportunities – playing for school concerts and the like. It should also be remembered that employed VMTs are generally paid considerably less than the amount the school charges parents. The difference ostensibly covers the extra administration of collecting the fees, plus holiday pay and employer’s pension and NI contributions. But in reality, schools usually pocket an extra cut.
Charging VMTs is one of a number of ways in which schools can justify our self-employed status and thus avoid a claim that we are de facto employees. It should be noted that the MU endorses the principle of a room charge in their consultancy document, drawn up with the ISBA (Independent Schools’ Bursars Association). However, this is not a legal necessity. Many schools don’t impose a room charge, and those that do often charge only a nominal amount. I have paid as little as a flat rate of £1 per term, regardless of the number of pupils I taught. On the other hand, I have heard of schools charging VMTs an extortionate 20% of their income. Room charges can be passed directly on to parents on top of our lesson fees and can be itemised on invoices for full transparency. Parents at private schools might justifiably ask whether the use of school facilities isn’t already included in their school fees. Why are they being charged twice? But that’s a question for the school to answer, not us.
I do understand the reasons for a room charge and have come to begrudgingly accept it, but I consider that my value to a school is worth at least the cost of a room: the arrangement should be quid pro quo. Everything has a positive or negative value according to its perceived worth. The greater someone’s value in the workplace, the more they will get paid. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that a school considers my value to be negative if I have to pay to work there.
