The future of teachers’ pay

The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024, presents schools in England with a significant crossroads regarding teacher pay.

The removal of the statutory requirement linking objectives and appraisal to performance-related pay (PRP) for the 2024/25 academic year has opened a space for thoughtful consideration: should schools retain PRP, a mechanism often associated with driving up standards and managing costs, or should they revert to a more straightforward system of automatic pay progression?

This isn't a simple binary choice. The allure of PRP lies in its potential to differentiate between teachers based on their performance, offering a financial incentive for excellence. The logic is compelling: by rewarding those who demonstrably contribute more, schools can foster a culture of high achievement and ensure that resources are directed towards those making the biggest impact. Furthermore, in an era of tight budgets, PRP can act as a lever to manage salary costs, ensuring that increases are linked to tangible outcomes. Schools that have invested time and resources in developing PRP frameworks may find it pragmatic to maintain these systems.

However, the path of PRP is not without its complexities and potential pitfalls. Teaching unions have long been opposed to PRP and, with the NASUWT, welcoming the removal of the PRP requirement, signalling a widespread sentiment amongst the profession that the system may not always be fair or transparent. Concerns have been raised around the objectivity and consistency of performance assessments, the potential for bias amongst line managers, and the demotivating effect of highly competitive reward schemes. Moreover, the time-consuming nature of performance reviews and the risk that linking pay to appraisals might inhibit open discussions about teachers' development needs are significant drawbacks.

The alternative, automatic pay progression, offers a different set of advantages. Without the need for complex performance assessments tied to pay, workload for teachers, line managers, and school leaders could be reduced. This aligns with the general principle of minimising workload impacts when making pay decisions. Automatic progression provides a clear and predictable path for teachers' career advancement, potentially boosting morale and fostering a sense of stability. It also shifts the focus of appraisal more towards professional development and support, rather than solely on performance evaluation for pay purposes. In essence, it treats progression as an expected part of professional growth, until concerns about capability arise.

Even before this change some academy trusts had re-adopted automatic pay progression, much to the delight of the teaching unions they work with, and have made the change to continuous assessment, doing away altogether with annual performance management discussions, instead focussing on coaching and mentoring their staff to boost performance and encourage excellence.

Adopting such an approach can aid as a recruitment and retention tool, with employers referencing the opportunities for career development and as part of their employer branding.

The decision for schools will likely hinge on their individual contexts, cultures, and priorities.

Schools with a strong track record of fair and effective PRP implementation might see little reason to abandon a system they believe works. Conversely, schools that have experienced challenges with PRP, or those seeking to reduce workload and foster a more collaborative environment, might find the simplicity and transparency of automatic progression more appealing.

It is crucial that whatever path is chosen, the school's pay policy is clear, transparent, and fair. For those retaining elements of PRP, the criteria for assessing performance and its link to pay must be clearly defined and consistently applied, mitigating the risks of discrimination and perceptions of unfairness. For those moving towards automatic progression, clear guidelines on when pay progression might be withheld (e.g., in cases of formal capability procedures) will be necessary to maintain accountability.

Ultimately, the shift away from mandatory PRP offers an opportunity for schools to re-evaluate their philosophies on teacher motivation, reward, and professional development. The choices made now will not only shape the pay packets of teachers but also influence the culture and effectiveness of schools across the country. It requires a considered reflection on what best serves the needs of students and the well-being of the teaching profession.