The Australian Education Union has planned state-wide strikes beginning March 24, 2026, marking the first major industrial action by Victorian teachers in 13 years. This is not simply about wage arithmetic; it reflects a fundamental choice about how Victoria values its public education system.
Recent data projects Victorian teachers can be $15,359 worse off than their counterparts in NSW. The disparity grows sharper for experienced staff: by late 2026, experienced teachers in New South Wales are expected to earn more than 13 per cent more than those in Victoria. Graduate teachers face similar barriers to financial stability, starting at a lower rung on the national ladder.
The state government offered an 18.5 percent pay rise last week. On the surface, this sounds substantial. Yet the union points to a harder truth: Victorian teachers have suffered a real pay cut of 11 percent since 2021. When inflation is factored in, the latest offer fails to restore lost ground. The deal proposes eight percent for teachers and principals immediately, followed by three percent each year for three years. The union's log of claims includes a 35 per cent pay increase over three years and sweeping changes to working conditions.
That gap between what has been offered and what is demanded reflects genuine disagreement about the profession's value. The government appears to be anchoring its position to wage growth and inflation forecasts. The union, by contrast, is framing this as restitution for years of erosion. Both interpretations carry weight. Public sector wage growth should be sustainable; equally, professions that cannot retain talent and must operate on chronic overwork face structural collapse.
The workload dimensions matter as much as base pay. The government's latest offer would increase excessive workloads and exacerbate the more than 12 hours of unpaid overtime public school employees do each week. Studies estimate up to 50% of new teachers leave the profession within the first five years. This is not burnout; this is workforce haemorrhaging. If schools cannot hold teachers past five years, the entire system destabilises.
Funding is the underlying constraint. Victoria's public schools remain the lowest funded in Australia, with 2026 funding frozen at 2023 levels and a further $2.4 billion shortfall projected by 2031. Victoria has the lowest per-student public school funding in the country, with families and teachers increasingly forced to cover basic costs. Meanwhile, investment by private schools in Victoria has outpaced public schools by $10.8 billion over the past decade. These are policy choices, not inevitable constraints.
The government argues schools will remain open on March 24, using retired teachers and casual staff where needed. If the strike goes ahead, a normal curriculum will not be run. Parents will face disruption. This creates genuine tension: industrial action by public servants imposes costs on families who depend on those services.
Yet the government's own position is vulnerable to scrutiny. If Victoria genuinely values public education, why has it allowed competitive pay to fall so far behind neighbouring states? If school funding is genuinely adequate, why are teachers and families buying supplies out of pocket? These questions sit at the heart of the dispute. The union is asking whether the state is committed to the public system or simply managing its decline.
Neither side has incentive to strike indefinitely. But the Fair Work Commission has authorised the industrial action, allowing teachers to legally stop work for 24 hours. The immediate test is whether a 24-hour action concentrates minds, or whether both sides calcify in their positions.
The stakes extend beyond salaries and hours. Investment by private schools in Victoria has outpaced public schools by $10.8 billion over the past decade. The AEU argues this difference contributes to widening gaps in resources, facilities and student outcomes between sectors. If Victoria's best teachers migrate to private schools or other states, the equity implications for students in struggling public systems become severe.
A rational government would ask itself whether accepting the union's claim—costly in the immediate budget—is less expensive than the costs of sustained teacher attrition, falling student outcomes, and the need to recruit and train replacements at a larger scale. This is fiscal analysis, not ideology.