The border that still divides teachers: "Same work, same pay"

PalmaThere is a border within schools and institutes that is not visible in the classrooms. It does not separate teachers from professors, nor Primary and Vocational Training from Secondary. It is a letter and a number: A1 or A2. An administrative classification linked to the level of qualification required to access the different teaching bodies which, decades later, continues to determine the place each professional occupies within the civil service. An Infant or Primary school teacher and a Secondary school teacher have different functions, different specialties, and work with students of different ages. But they are all part of the same educational structure. The paradox is that the university reform that converted the old diplomas and degrees into undergraduate degrees was not accompanied by an equivalent revision of the teaching bodies, a fact that has generated an organizational and, above all, salary inequality.

Before the Bologna Process, the difference had an academic explanation: to be a teacher a diploma was required, while to access Secondary education a degree was needed in addition to pedagogical training. The former were classified in A2 and the latter in A1. With Bologna (applied mandatorily from the 2010-2011 academic year onwards) diplomas and degrees disappeared and were replaced by university degrees. The change in qualifications did not lead to a change in classification. "The idea that if you have a diploma you will be A2 and if you have a degree you will be A1 no longer makes any sense. Everyone should be A1,” maintains Joan Crespí, from the SIAU union. It is worth noting that there are still many teachers who are diploma holders, a fact that would force the Administration to perform a balancing act so as not to create a gap between teachers with these extinct titles and graduates: "Same work, same pay", declares Crespí.

Thousands of euros

The difference is not just classificatory. It has a price. According to the remuneration comparison with the 2026 amounts that serves as the basis for this report, an A1 teacher starts with 4,248 gross euros more per year than an A2 if salary, extraordinary payments, and the initial difference associated with the body are taken into account. The trienniums widen the gap. In a homogeneous simulation of 35 years of contributions, keeping the 2026 amounts constant and incorporating the trienniums every three years, the accumulated difference reaches 172,205 gross euros. It is not what a specific teacher will necessarily stop earning: professional careers are different and involve supplements, promotions, assignments, and salary updates. But the simulation allows us to dimension what it means to maintain a structural difference throughout an entire working life.

And there is yet another frontier: retirement. According to STEI data for 2026, the regulatory base is 51,311.65 euros per year for the A1 group and 40,383.55 euros for the A2 group. This is the reference amount for calculating the pensions of civil servants included in the Passive Classes regime. With 30 years or more of service, 100% of the regulatory base is applied, although the final pension is also subject to the maximum limit established by the State each year. For this reason, unions consider that putting a patch on the payroll does not resolve all the inequality. Miquel Àngel Santos, from Alternativa Docent, summarizes it from the perspective of retirement: “Supplements do not count when it comes to retiring." As he explains, a specific salary compensation could reduce the difference while the teacher is active, but it would have no effect on the pension.

The A2 claim has already tried to reach state institutions. Santos explains that several unions took the proposal to the Congress of Deputies. The initiative entered the Education Commission through Sumar. But when the time came to vote on it, it did not prosper. “The PSOE abstained and it did not go forward”, he states. In the Balearic Islands, meanwhile, the Ministry of Education places the limit outside the regional scope. Asked if it is in favor of moving towards a single body or maintaining the current situation, it does not take a position: “It is regulated by basic state law”, it says.

The precedent of Vocational Training (FP)

For Santos, the main obstacle to a general equalization is the cost. "Equalizing vocational training (VET) teachers is a small matter, but equalizing Primary and Preschool teachers is a lot of money," he states. It is not the same to assume the integration of a specific group as it is to modify the classification of thousands of teachers. Vocational Training is precisely the precedent that supporters of the reform use to argue that the system has already shown that it can be modified. A portion of the former technical VET teachers who met the qualification requirements moved to the Secondary education body (A1). But even today, there are specialties in which teachers with different classifications coexist.

Miquel Estarellas, coordinator of the Teachers' Association of the Balearic Islands and coming from the body of technical VET teachers, has experienced this firsthand. "Within the same VET qualification, there can be a teacher who comes from VET and is A2, and one who is an engineer and is A1, and they do the same job," he explains. The case of VET introduces, furthermore, a difficulty that goes beyond Primary education. There are technical specialties for which there traditionally did not exist a specific university degree. Estarellas gives as an example fields such as cooking and catering or personal image. The system, therefore, has been adapting the teaching bodies to a professional reality that does not always fit with the old academic hierarchy. "In the end, we are all teachers, regardless of the educational stage," defends Estarellas.

STEI proposes an intermediate path if direct integration into A1 is not considered legally possible. “We have already put it on the table several times. If they say normatively that it cannot be equated to A1: then they should pay a supplement so that there are no differences between A1 and A2,” says Catalina Bibiloni. For the union, the issue also has an educational policy dimension: making a profession that faces difficulties in incorporating professionals more attractive.

The debate would not necessarily force the creation of a single body. Jaume Bonet is the director of IES Cap de Llevant in Maó and advocates moving towards an integrated teaching structure, but without turning this formula into an indispensable condition. “We can come to consider an equivalent professional condition while maintaining various bodies, or create a common structure with specialties,” he suggests. Bonet introduces a distinction that may be key in a future reform: recognizing professionally in an equivalent way does not necessarily mean that all teachers must earn exactly the same. Responsibilities, seniority, or job conditions can justify different supplements. What he questions is that the civil service category should be, in itself, the element that establishes a hierarchy between stages. “A teacher's salary should not depend on a salary group, but on what they actually do,” he argues.

New access to the profession

The proposal to review the model also affects the competitive examinations. One of the arguments used to justify the difference between corps is that access to Secondary Education has a much more extensive syllabus. But Santos qualifies it: “Secondary Education competitive examinations are more demanding due to the number of topics, but not due to the difficulty”. And it is here that the debate ceases to be just a salary dispute and becomes a discussion about the profession model. What should determine a teacher's category? The degree with which they accessed the civil service decades ago? The current level of studies? The responsibilities of the position? The specialty? The experience?

For Crespí, the problem is deeper than the difference between two paychecks: “The system for accessing the civil service has become outdated. It is no longer just a matter of reviewing whether a single body is needed, but rather going much further. The competitive examination system needs to be reviewed, as it has become archaic and with syllabi that are much older than the active teachers,” he laments. Bonet agrees that the model needs a review, but rejects the idea that this review should become a competition between stages. “The debate should not be about whether it is more important to be a primary teacher or a secondary teacher, because we are all essential,” he states.

This is, deep down, the paradox of the A1 and A2. The difference was born to distinguish between qualifications that no longer exist. But the administrative difference does. And it translates into different salaries, a different salary trajectory, and, depending on the retirement scheme, different regulatory bases. The educational system has changed. Universities have changed. Qualifications have changed. Even some teaching bodies have done so. The question that remains on the table is whether this border still makes sense. If a classification linked to a university, certain qualifications, and a civil service that are no longer the same continues to be an appropriate way to organize the professionals who today support, stage after stage, the same educational system.