Teachers awarded above-inflation pay increases

In January 2002, a report by the School Teachers' Review Body recommended an increase of 3.5% in pay and allowances for teachers in England and Wales, effective from April 2002, together with changes enabling faster progression through the main pay scale.

On 24 January 2002, the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) recommended an increase of 3.5% on pay scales and allowances for 495,000 teachers in England and Wales, as from April 2002. It also recommended that the main pay scale should be reduced from nine to six points in September 2002, enabling newly-qualified entrants to apply to pass the 'performance threshold' (UK0011100F) and move onto the upper pay scale after five years.

The government accepted the main recommendations of the review body, and estimated that the total growth in teachers' pay would be 5% in 2002-3. The general pay increase of 3.5% was, predictably, close to the previously announced increase of 3.6% for nurses and midwives (UK0201172F) which effectively set a target for negotiations in other parts of the public services. All of the teachers' trade unions welcomed the shortening of the main pay scale, but they argued that the overall pay increase would be insufficient to overcome serious recruitment and retention problems, and criticised other features of the STRB report and the government's response.

As in the past, however, the teachers' unions are not wholly united in their tactics in pursuing specific grievances. The two head teachers' associations abandoned their usual moderation, proposing to ballot their members in May 2002 on industrial action to secure additional funding for performance-related pay. Moreover, one of the three main teachers' unions, the National Union of Teachers (NUT), held a one-day strike of their London members on 14 March. The strike, in support of a substantial increase in the cost-of-living allowance paid to teachers working in London and surrounding areas, disrupted teaching in an estimated 2,000 schools. The issues at stake in these disputes, as well as the widely recognised problem of the excessive workload of teachers, are explored in considerable detail in the review body report, and the key points are set out below.

Recruitment and retention

The STRB reported that there was a fairly broad consensus on teacher supply difficulties in the evidence submitted by the government, employers and trade unions, but much less agreement on their causes and appropriate remedies. It argued that although there were 12,000 more classroom teachers in England in 2001 than three years earlier, 'teacher recruitment problems have increased over the past year ... and there are particular difficulties of teacher supply in certain secondary subjects and geographical areas.'

The report noted that an increased demand for teachers in secondary schools arising from the projected growth in pupil numbers, and the failure to reach targets for initial teacher training in some subjects, meant that 'the gap between supply and demand is likely to remain'. It argued that its recommendations to increase pay scales and allowances by 3.5%, and for changes in the pay and career structure enabling a faster progression through the main pay scale, provided an appropriate response to recruitment and retention problems. In particular, shortening the main pay scale was designed to reduce the large number of teachers leaving the profession within three to five years after entering it.

In response to the trade unions' claim for a substantial increase in London allowances, the STRB noted that it had recommended large increases a year previously, and that the cost-of-living allowances for teachers were broadly comparable to those of employees in the public sector as a whole. It encouraged head teachers in London schools to make full use of their discretion to award recruitment and retention allowances 'as circumstances demand'. Given the constraints on school budgets, and 2001's rise in London allowances for police officers to nearly twice the level available to teachers, it is not surprising that these arguments did not impress the trade unions, as the subsequent strike of London NUT members demonstrated.

Pay structure and performance management of classroom teachers

The STRB report broadly supported the government's case for increased flexibility and a simplification of the teachers' pay structure. This could be achieved by increasing local discretion, which could be exercised fairly if linked to performance, to the local teacher employment market, or to the content of the job. The review body was unsympathetic to the arguments of the trade unions that frequent changes had produced complicated structures that lacked transparency, and that too much discretion could lead to 'a lottery of inequality'. It accepted that a difficult balance had to be struck between basic and discretionary pay, and noted that it would keep this under close review.

The most contentious issue considered by the STRB focused on government funding proposals covering progression on the upper pay scale. The trade unions believed that most teachers who passed the performance threshold and moved onto the upper scale should expect continued progression. They argued that advancement through the upper pay scale should be fully funded and demand-led, whereas the GBP 100 million made available by government to support performance pay in 2002-3 (and GBP 150 million in 2003-4) would pay for the progression of only 40%-50% of the teachers who had passed the threshold. The government argued that it had never intended that progression on the upper scale should be fully funded by special grant. The latter was a 'contribution towards transitional costs', and if progression was funded fully, 'head teachers would be reluctant to make the difficult decisions inherent in performance management.'

The STRB report provided some support for the government's position in arguing that 'progression should be based on continued substantial and sustained performance and contribution to the school', and that 'teachers would not normally progress more quickly than at two-yearly intervals'. The review body, however, expected that 'a substantial majority of those who so recently passed the threshold will meet the criteria for progression'. It warned that if progression was constrained by inadequate funding, 'the morale of the teaching profession will be seriously impaired, with consequent implications for teacher recruitment and retention.' It is against this background that the two head teachers' trade unions - the Secondary Heads' Association and the National Association of Head Teachers- have decided to ballot their members on whether they should refuse to take part in performance assessment unless the government increases the funding for this purpose.

Workload and morale

The review body reported that all the parties accepted that heavy workload pressures had lowered the morale of teachers and contributed significantly to recruitment and retention problems. After the threat of industrial action from the trade unions in 2000 (UK0007181N), the government, employers and trade unions established a review group, and commissioned a study of the workload of teachers by PricewaterhouseCoopers (UK0105130N). An interim report, published in August 2001, identified a number of key issues:

• very long hours and the intensive nature of the teachers' working week;

• the fact that teachers undertook tasks that could be carried out by other staff;

• the need for more non-teaching time for planning and professional development;

• wide variations in the management of workload at school level; and

• the need for national agencies to take more account of the impact of new initiatives and programmes on teachers' workload.

The final report of PricewaterhouseCoopers was published too late to be considered in the annual report of the pay review body, but the STRB will produce another report with recommendations to government in the near future. Expectations have been raised by the secretary of state for education and skills, Estelle Morris, that this may contribute to a 'remodelling'' of the teaching profession, staffing and school management over the next decade. Agreement on such radical change, however, will not be achieved easily. In their joint submission to the STRB, the main teachers' trade unions emphasised the need for contractual limits to teachers' overall working hours, and statutory guidance on hours allocated for teaching, marking and preparation, and other professional duties. They also rejected the view that there should be a trade-off between additional funding for teachers' pay and for measures that help achieve manageable workloads, arguing that significant additional and new funding would be required.

Commentary

It is a little surprising that the first teachers' pay strike in London for 30 years, and the unusual threat of industrial action by head teachers, should occur during a period of rising public expenditure in education, and following several years of substantial pay increases for teachers. As in other parts of the public services, the pent-up grievances from the Labour Party government's first four years in office, and the uncertainty provoked by the government's insistence that increased expenditure must be accompanied by radical reform, provide part of the explanation for the uneasy current relationship between trade unions and government (UK0201172F).

More specifically, the STRB noted that there has been 'a period of major change in which the emphasis is moving away from applying prescriptive rules on pay to the imaginative and responsible use of flexibilities'. Despite trade union opposition (UK0011100F), the implementation of the performance threshold for teachers has been relatively successful, with 97% of the applicants receiving a large additional pay increase and moving onto the upper pay scale. Not surprisingly, trade unions have focused their attention on the level of funding necessary to facilitate progression through the upper pay scale, and to reduce workloads and deal with widespread recruitment and retention problems. Also, they are trying to raise expectations of the need for continuing high levels of investment in education in the few months before the government announces its public expenditure plans for the period until 2005-6. (David Winchester, IRRU)