Education, work & the budget
A percentage in a policy target can sound more precise than it really is. It depends on which average wage is used as the benchmark, the year from which the denominator comes, whether the figure is a plan or an actual outcome, and which employees the statistics include.
1. What can be substantiated
The IDEA study notes that relative teacher pay can be compared using different denominators: the wages of university-educated employees, wages across the whole economy or a statutory reference figure. Each choice answers a different question.[1]
In allocating funding for 2026, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports financial document uses an average monthly salary of 58,778 Czech korunas for teaching staff. This is a funding parameter, not a guarantee that every teacher will receive the same amount.[2]
The Czech Statistical Office publishes average wages in the national economy both quarterly and annually and subsequently refines the data. Any ratio must therefore always identify the period and the specific series used.[3]
2. How to interpret the claims in context
An average conceals length of service, contracted hours, allowances, school leadership roles and regional differences. A teacher may legitimately say that the declared average does not appear on their pay stub without the published aggregate necessarily being wrong.
A target tied to a past average wage can rise in nominal terms and still lag behind current price or wage growth. Conversely, a one-off adjustment to the average does not ensure stable career prospects.
A percentage alone is insufficient to assess the policy. Actual expenditure, pay distribution, overtime, vacancies and departures from the profession must also be monitored. Only together can they show whether the money changes schools' ability to recruit and retain staff.
- Several legitimate but non-interchangeable methods of comparison exist.
- A budgeted average is not an individual entitlement.
- The time period used for the denominator changes the resulting ratio.
- The final actual average for 2026 before the data are closed.
- How impacts are distributed by length of service, region and school type without detailed microdata.
- How much of any change in staff stability can be attributed specifically to pay.
3. Five questions to ask
- Is the figure a target, a budgeted amount or an average actually paid?
- Which year and which definition of average wage form the denominator?
- Are all full-time and part-time appointments and bonuses included using the same method?
- What do the median and distribution show, rather than just the average?
- Has the number of vacancies and departures changed?
4. Conclusion
One hundred and thirty percent can be a verifiable policy target only if it is precisely defined. Without a period, denominator and actual performance, it is a slogan; with them, it is one indicator, but still not the whole picture of teachers' work.
— Jiný Kontext