There is no deadline. NASUWT expects all employers to consult on any changes to pay policies.

When this process has been finalised, the 5.5% pay award MUST be backdated to 1 September 2024.

There is no requirement for employers to continue with PRP. The STPCD wording has been amended for 2024/25 to state:

The relevant body must decide how pay progression will be determined, subject to the following:

1. a written pay recommendation is required for every teacher following the outcome of the school or authority’s appraisal arrangements and, in making its decision, the relevant body must have regard to this recommendation;

2. pay progression must be awarded, subject to the following exceptions:

   1. any relevant body that chooses to retain performance related pay, as set out in their pay policy, may only decide to withhold progression for reasons related to poor performance

   2. any relevant body that chooses not to retain performance related pay (PRP), as set out in their pay policy, may only decide to withhold progression if a teacher is in capability proceedings.

There is therefore no requirement for the employer to retain PRP.

NASUWT’s position is that employers should remove PRP, which they are permitted to do in accordance with the STPCD.

NASUWT has campaigned for many years to have PRP removed. For more details, see our Ten Good Reasons to Break the Link Between Pay Progression and Performance Management.

All the other recognised trade unions for teachers - ASCL, NAHT, NEU and Community - are signed up to NASUWT’s position on the removal of PRP in every school.

In her statement to Parliament on 29 July 2024, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said the STPCD 2024/25 would:

‘remove the requirement for schools to use PRP to reduce the workload burdens that this can have on some schools.’

No, but as many as 96% are reported to do so.

As a result of proactive engagement by NASUWT, the overwhelming majority of academies continue to honour the national pay and conditions framework for teachers as set out in the SPTCD, as well as the Burgundy Book.

However, academy schools are free to develop their own terms and conditions for new staff.

Where a school has converted to academy status, teachers’ pay and conditions of service would remain the same because of the protections of the TUPE Regulations.

Therefore, if a TUPE transfer from a maintained school to an academy occurred before 10 November 2024, the 2024 STPCD would not be a TUPE-protected entitlement.

Where teachers agree to a change of contract following conversion to academy status, they will be bound by any new terms and conditions operated by the academy.

Always, in the first instance, contact your local NASUWT Representative for advice and support.

When contacting your Local Association, it will be helpful to provide the following information:

• your full name and NASUWT membership number;

• the details of the school you are employed at, including information about the local authority; and

• as much information as possible about why your school wants to retain PRP.

Where members wish to oppose continued use of PRP, NASUWT will seek to provide advice and support on the strategy to use.

NASUWT’s campaign for the removal of PRP was for all teacher grades, including leadership roles. The Union would strongly object to any group of teachers being treated differently to others.

Where members wish to oppose continued use of PRP, they should contact your Local Association for advice and support on the strategy to use.

It will be helpful to provide the following information:

• your full name and NASUWT membership number;

• the details of the school you are employed at, including information about the local authority; and

• as much information as possible about why your school wants to retain PRP.

Members are advised to contact your Local Association.

Sixth-form colleges usually follow the Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) terms and conditions and, therefore, changes to the STPCD do not apply. See our Sixth-form Teacher page.

In a few cases, sixth-form colleges that have become academies follow the STPCD. The SFCA terms and conditions currently include PRP.

Moving to the upper pay range is currently NOT automatic.

NASUWT continues to campaign for the removal of the threshold application process and to make the move to the higher salaries on the upper pay range automatic.

It remains the responsibility of individual teachers to decide whether or not they wish to apply to be paid on the upper pay range.
 
Schools MUST avoid confusing or conflating the criteria and factors for the award of TLR payments with the criteria for movement to the upper pay range, within the context of additional responsibilities, objective-setting and when making pay decisions.

No. Since September 2014, every teacher and leader should have their pay reviewed annually.

NASUWT expects all schools to now remove PRP.

As a result, all teachers on the upper pay range points UPS1 and 2 should progress annually unless they are subject to a capability procedure.

Where school pay policies still have a two-year period for progression, NASUWT members should seek to have this policy amended to reflect annual pay progression.

We have updated our checklists for NASUWT members to use when reviewing their school policies.

They can all be found on our Reps Resources page under Policy Checklists.

Yes. Schools have always been able to allow teachers to take their PPA time away from the school subject to agreement between the teacher and their employer.

In her statement to Parliament on 29 July 2024, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said that the STPCD would provide:

‘clarity (to) the position on PPA time, so schools are clear that teachers can use this time at home to provide greater flexibility for teachers.’

The STPCD 2024/25 now includes the following wording:

‘Where reasonably appropriate and agreed by both the individual teacher and the relevant body, PPA can be taken in one weekly unit and it can be taken away from the school site.’

NASUWT’s position is that teachers should not be contractually required to undertake any activity set out in the list of administrative tasks.

We successfully challenged the previous government in ensuring that the list of administrative tasks that teachers should not be expected to undertake possesses contractual force rather than possessing the status of mere guidance.

The whole purpose of agreeing a list of administrative tasks, which is now contractual, was to provide important clarity for both teachers and school leaders as to what tasks teachers could not be instructed to undertake as part of a package of measures to reduce workload.

It has been a longstanding principle that teachers should not ordinarily be required to carry out tasks that are largely administrative or clerical in nature and which do not require the professional expertise of a teacher.

The list in Annex 5 of the 2024/25 STPCD is an updated version of the ‘21 tasks list’ that was in this Document until 2013.

The key questions for any task must be:

1. Does it need to be done at all?

2. Is the task of an administrative or clerical nature?

3. Does it call for the exercise of a teacher’s professional skills or judgement?

If the answers to a and b are yes, but the answer to c is no, then the task should not routinely be carried out by a teacher.