NEOST written evidence for STRB October 2025

1. The National Employer’s Organisation for School Teachers (NEOST) welcomes the opportunity to submit views in response to the School Teachers Review Body’s (STRB) call for evidence in relation to its 36th remit report.

2. NEOST represents the voice of the national employers, member organisations are the Local Government Association (LGA), the National Society for Education, the Catholic Education Service, and the Confederation of School Trusts (CST).

3. NEOST acts as the single statutory employer representative body when submitting evidence to the STRB.

4. NEOST welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence on the affordability of proposed changes to teacher pay and conditions, including multi-year pay recommendations, safeguarding pay arrangements and non-consolidated payments as detailed in this year's remit.

5. We strongly support pay recommendations that cover a 2-year period. However, we have serious concerns regarding the lack of additional funding during the current spending review period, which will intensify financial pressures on schools. This may result in reduced staffing, increased workloads, and further challenges in recruitment and retention — particularly affecting pupil outcomes, and especially those where teaching assistants are vital to supporting growing SEND needs.

6. NEOST urges the Review Body to consider the sustainability of any pay recommendations within existing budgets, particularly without new funding, and ensure this is balanced against the ongoing recruitment and retention pressures and the impact of that on workforce capacity and educational outcomes.

7. NEOST notes existing financial pressures for schools, means many efficiencies have already been realised. NEOST is concerned that the affordability gap is compounding these pressures necessitating greater savings likely to be made in the future.

8. NEOST continues to reflect our stakeholder's preference for applying any future recommended pay award equally, across all pay ranges without differentiation.

9. We strongly support reform of the current salary safeguarding period, as our stakeholders suggest it should be reduced from three years, to enable more effective workforce deployment while maintaining core teacher protections. Respondents highlighted that prolonged safeguarding limits flexibility and absorbs potential savings from structural changes, often forcing employers with no alternative but to consider redundancies—ultimately impacting educational outcomes.

10. NEOST found that there was no consensus for an amendment to allow for non-consolidated award with serious concerns raised around the risk to perceived fairness amongst teachers and affordability for school employers, whilst underlining that some pay flexibilities already exist within the STPCD.

11. We cautiously welcome the review of working time and the emphasis on greater innovation and flexibility. However, stakeholders consistently identified workload and wellbeing challenges as the core drivers for debate over working time, not the working time structure itself. Without adequate financial investment and talent availability, reforms may yield limited impact.

12. NEOST supports amending the relevant STPCD paragraphs to allow greater flexibility in the use of the five additional non-teaching days (currently 190 teaching days plus five Inset Days). This would enable schools to adopt more innovative approaches—such as twilight sessions—enhancing workforce planning and professional development.

13. We would ask that future reviews of the STPCD, prioritise these top four ‘employer asks’ (in order of importance) 1. Greater clarity and consensus on equitable progression criteria from the Main Pay Range (MPR) into and through the Upper Pay Range (UPR); 2. Ability for teachers to voluntarily move from UPR to MPR; 3. Salary sacrifice; and 4. The formula for Executive Head pay.

14. To inform this evidence and response, local authorities (LAs), Employer Link subscribers, and CST members, were invited to complete an online survey. Appendix A shows the LA only responses; Appendix B, the academy trust (AT) responses; and combined results are in Appendix C. We will most frequently refer to the combined results as part of this evidence submission, while also highlighting significant differences between the two data sets where they appear and explore the reasons behind them. More secondary schools are represented in the AT data set (around 80 per cent of secondary schools are in ATs) and more primary schools are represented in the LA data (around 60 per cent of primaries are maintained primary schools). To that extent, we note that differences in the data set are as likely to be due to type of school as much as governance status. We received 186 responses to our survey this year, this includes 83 from LAs and 103 from ATs.

15. The chart below provides the full breakdown and a comparison of the response rate from last year (2024/25).  

16. Throughout the report, percentages may not appear to add up to exactly 100 per cent due to rounding.

17. This is the first multi-year remit letter for some years. NEOST stakeholders indicated strong support for that approach, with 94 per cent of respondents supporting a multi-year proposal to either a great or moderate extent. Stakeholders indicate the top three reasons for supporting multiyear settlements were to support longer term financial planning and provide greater certainty for all involved. Our survey suggests this stability and clarity will support better recruitment and retention and remove any ambiguity or debate around “pay” for this period.

18. The STRB has also been asked to make an indicative pay recommendation for a third year. Although there is still strong support for this proposal (87 per cent supported this to a great or moderate extent – see Table 2), the proportion indicating support to a great extent dropped to 48 per cent (see Table 2) compared to 69 per cent (see Table 1) offering the same strength of support for a pay recommendation covering the next two years, suggesting a degree of hesitancy on the part of stakeholders.

Q1. The STRB have been asked to make recommendations for two years (2026/27 – 2027/28). To what extent, if at all, do you support this proposal for a 2-year settlement?

Q2. The STRB have been asked to make an indicative recommendation for year 3 (2028/29). To what extent, if at all, would it be useful to have a third, indicative year?  

19. The three primary reasons identified for that hesitation on the benefit of an indicative third year pay recommendation, were: the practical difficulty of formulating a recommendation with sufficient precision so far in advance; concerns about the potential implications for the newly established Schools Support Staff Negotiating Body, which would need to be carefully considered; and  the prevailing view among respondents that the current economic climate remains too volatile to support confident decision-making, which underpins the other two concerns.

20. We asked respondents to indicate which factors/caveats should be considered that could affect the viability of an indicative third year pay recommendation. Respondents told us that affordability of school budgets was the number one consideration, followed by trends in both the wider economy (inflation) and other public sector pay awards.

21. While there has been some differential in pay awards in previous years (particularly for the lower end of the main pay scale when moving towards the £30k starting salary) NEOST surveys have consistently reflected a preference for applying any pay award equally, across all pay ranges without differentiation. That view remains the majority view from this survey too, with 78 per cent of respondents agreeing, and 12 per cent disagreeing. (Table 3 below). Were a cohort to be prioritised in the event of a non-equally applied pay award, a majority (55 per cent) felt it should be early career teachers, perhaps reflecting ongoing recruitment challenges in the sector. There was also some support for experienced teachers (18 per cent), followed by school leaders (14 per cent).

22. It may be worth noting that there was a small variation between our two data sets, with the proportion of ATs disagreeing with the principle of an equal pay award ten-points higher than the proportion of LA schools. Similarly, while the AT and LA returns identified the same preference order when it comes to prioritisation, a third of LA schools (33 per cent) responded “don’t know”, compared to just 6 per cent of ATs.

Q6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the principle of applying the pay award equally across all pay ranges, without differentiation between early careers teachers, experienced teachers, and those on leadership scales?

23. The Government confirmed in the recent Spending Review, that no additional funding will be made available for pay awards in any year of the multi-year Spending Review period. Schools have been advised that they will need to cover costs of future pay awards from their existing budgets. This was highlighted in the STRB remit with a reminder that any STRB recommended pay settlements would need to be funded, based on schools managing pay costs through improved value and smarter spending, rather than new funding from Government.

24. Our survey provided space for our stakeholders to add some context where they felt it was important in getting across their message.  A large number of respondents raised concerns about the fragile financial position of schools and trusts. Many described budgets that are already under severe pressure, with a significant proportion of them either currently in deficit or projecting to fall into deficit within the next three years. Alongside this, several respondents explained that they had already undertaken restructures and, in some cases, had become increasingly reliant on reduced staffing complements to remain viable.

25. It is clear from what our stakeholders tell us that pressure on school budgets remains acute across the school system and this continues to be a key issue for the STRB to consider. As has become customary, we have asked our survey respondents to first look at what percentage uplift their schools are forecasting in their medium-term financial plans in relation to the teachers’ pay award. We then asked what they understand to be “affordable” for schools to highlight any disparity between their expectations and what schools can actually afford.  The gap between these two data points has been a concern for NEOST over recent years.

26. As can be seen in the Table 4 below, forecasting for 1 Sept 2026 shows the majority of schools (41 per cent) are anticipating a pay award between two and 2.99 per cent, with a further 29 per cent forecasting the award will be between three and 3.99 per cent. However, the proportion of schools indicating an award of that size is affordable drops significantly (particularly the three per cent pay award option, which falls from 29 per cent in forecasting to just 8 per cent of respondents indicating that would be affordable. What is perhaps more concerning, is the growth of smaller awards (1.99 per cent or below) showing as unaffordable (total of 49 per cent). 18 per cent of respondents say they could not afford a pay award of one – 1.99 per cent, 16 per cent of respondents say they could not afford a pay award of less than one per cent, and 15 per cent tell us that zero per cent (no pay award) is affordable. This indicates a significant number of schools have no funds available to allocate to any future pay award, as they are likely to be in or predicting a budget in deficit from 2026.

27. It is a similar picture for 2027 pay, the second part of the two-year remit, where the shape of both tables 6 and 7 are relatively similar to 2026 (Tables 4 and 5).  Table 5 below demonstrates the same trend, with higher pay awards forecast than schools believe they can afford.

Q7. What percentage uplift are your schools forecasting in their medium-term financial plans in relation to the teachers’ pay award for each of the following years: 2026/27

Q8. What overall percentage uplift would you generally consider affordable for your schools in relation to the teachers’ pay award for the following years: 2026/27

Q7. What percentage uplift are your schools forecasting in their medium-term financial plans in relation to the teachers’ pay award for each of the following years: 2027/28  

Q8. What overall percentage uplift would you generally consider affordable for your schools in relation to the teachers’ pay award for the following years: 2027/28

28. In the indicative third year, our respondents told us that the most commonly anticipated pay award was again somewhere between two and 2.99 per cent (see Table 8) with marginally more responses falling into the three per cent bracket at that time. In terms of differentiation between LA and AT responses on the results regarding anticipated budget, there are some variations in the overall table distribution, but the top two choices are the same for each sector. So, the overarching message is consistent between both data sets.

Q7. What percentage uplift are your schools forecasting in their medium-term financial plans in relation to the teachers’ pay award for each of the following years: indicative 2028/29?  

29. The affordability Table 9 below, captures quite settled concern, with an indication that schools are not confident that budgets are going to feel much healthier. While the table below shows the combined results, there was some marginal differences between LA and AT responses to the survey. The top two most affordable pay awards for AT schools were increases of between two to 2.99 per cent and one to 1.99 per cent increases, whereas LA schools most commonly choose two to 2.99 per cent followed by zero to 0.99 per cent, suggesting a slight differential and concerning picture in relation to overall affordability. Once you get into the indicative year of 1 Sept 2028, LA schools are overly represented in the “don’t know” category, with 22 per cent of respondents selecting that option. This suggests that over a fifth of LA schools feel that the financial situation makes that judgement simply too hard to call at this stage, particularly noting growing demands on budgets in relation to SEND for example.

Q8. What overall percentage uplift would you generally consider affordable for your schools in relation to the teachers’ pay award for the following years: indicative 2028/29?

30. NEOST notes with continued concern that 87 per cent of respondents (which is up slightly from last year when that figure was at 82 per cent) indicated that any uplift in relation to the teachers’ pay award for 2025/26 that was higher than that estimated would have a “significant” impact on their budget. This demonstrates the affordability gap our research identifies with employers planning for an award that is already higher than they can afford, in order to set a balanced budget. An even bigger gap will require more significant action, if commensurate additional funding is not forthcoming.

Q9. In the context of your answer to the previous question, how significant an impact on your budgets, if at all, would any higher percentage uplift in relation to the teachers’ pay award for 2026/27 and 2027/28 be?

31. Affordability of future pay awards was also a frequent theme in the free text that our stakeholders were able to add as part of the survey design. Respondents consistently emphasised that uplifts could only be sustainable if they were fully funded by government. They warned that any unfunded increases would almost certainly translate into further staffing cuts or reductions in the range and quality of services they can provide. A number of responses also highlighted that funding increases are not keeping up with rising costs, including inflation, demand pressures and the actual cost of pay awards, describing this as an unsustainable trajectory with the annual affordability gap compounding these pressures, necessitating even greater savings to be made.

32. Schools cannot set deficit budgets, so school employers have little choice but to consider organisational changes to support affordability challenges like staffing costs, which make up on average, around 80 per cent of a school's total costs. NEOST welcomes offers by the DfE to support schools to be as efficient organisations as is possible, whilst noting that financial pressures of schools has meant many efficiencies have already been realised and making significant savings without impacting on staffing costs is both extremely challenging and increasingly unlikely. This point was emphasised by stakeholders in the free text comments, as staffing costs were frequently cited as the single largest element of expenditure, meaning even modest pay uplifts have an outsized effect on overall finances. Some comments highlighted the number of long-serving teachers at the top of their pay scales, who represent a higher-cost group that exacerbates affordability challenges. Respondents reported that these pressures are already forcing schools to reduce staff numbers, including teachers, teaching assistants and wider support staff. These staffing reductions are also having to be made at a time of a national crisis in SEND and therefore are likely to impact heavily on the most vulnerable pupils and place another barrier to schools delivering inclusive practice.  Some also expressed concern that this environment risks damaging staff morale and undermining retention at a time when recruitment is already difficult.

33. We asked our stakeholders what changes, if any, would their schools, likely, consider implementing to achieve a balanced budget (see Table 11). NEOST is extremely concerned that the top response (69 per cent) was to explore the reduction of non-teaching staff that are pupil-facing. In reality, this means teaching assistants. Reductions there put pressure on remaining teachers, and on SEND support. The second most popular answer was the reduction of non-teaching staff who are non-pupil facing, and the third most commonly chosen option was to look at restructuring leadership teams (45 per cent). It should be noted that within the AT responses alone, reduction of teaching staff is the third most popular response. There is a stark difference there between AT and LA responses, 79 per cent compared to 29 per cent, respectively. The reason for this could be that there is more scope to reduce the number of teachers e.g. merge classes and reduce the curriculum in a secondary school, which the majority are in ATs, compared to primary schools, which make up the majority of LA maintained schools, where you need a teacher in front of each classroom to lead the teaching within each form/key stage.

Q9b. What changes, if any, would your schools likely consider implementing to achieve a balance budget?        

34. The Secretary of State has said there is unlikely to be additional funding available for pay awards and that schools need to ensure spending is maximised. Therefore, we asked our survey respondents “what additional steps, if any, are your schools taking to mitigate against rising costs and to drive financial efficiency?” (see Table 12) It is clear that schools are considering how to respond to these pressures, with significant numbers indicating they are reviewing ways of working (83 per cent) and procurement/contract management (73 per cent). NEOST is interested to see greater collaboration between schools being the third most commonly cited response to this question (72 per cent) which indicates a drive for sharing and supporting within the sector, finding efficiencies where possible. However, as captured in paragraph 31 above, these saving may not deliver quickly enough or significantly enough to avoid reductions in staff, especially if the pay award is higher than their current forecasts. Schools continue to face extremely difficult and challenging dilemmas. There is a little nuance here between AT and LA responses, for example, income generation features higher in the LA returns and that response is the fourth most commonly returned answer within both sets of responses: more research would be needed to understand the underlying reasons for these differences.

Q10. The Secretary of State has said there is unlikely to be additional funding available for pay awards and that schools need to ensure spending is maximised. What additional steps, if any, are your schools taking to mitigate against rising costs and to drive financial efficiency?

35. The STRB asked whether the current salary safeguarding period should be reduced to enable employers to deploy their workforce and resources most effectively, whilst maintaining core teacher protections. This question has featured as part of the NEOST evidence for some years, with school employers regularly asking for a review.

36. When we asked stakeholders if they felt the current STPCD arrangements on pay safeguarding should be reviewed (see Table 13), an overwhelming majority agreed they should, with 64 per cent and 24 per cent (88 per cent in total) respectively indicated they strongly agreed or tended to agree.

Q11. To what extent do you agree, or not, that the current School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions document (STPCD), salary safeguarding period should be reviewed?

We explored what the ideal outcome would be, for amending the current arrangements (see Table 14). The majority of our respondents indicated they felt one year of safeguarding was appropriate (53 per cent), with two years being the second choice at 19 per cent. Fourteen per cent felt safeguarding should be removed altogether.

Q11a. If the current salary safeguarding period was therefore reviewed, what would be the ideal outcome for your school employers?

37. There is a clear preference shown in our survey results, (reflected in Table 14) for reducing the salary safeguarding (pay protection) period to one year. This aligns with the feedback from employers in relation to support staff, where a one-year safeguarding period is already commonly applied (31 per cent – see Table 15). The variation in responses likely reflects the flexibility schools have to set these terms locally.  

Q12. What pay protection time period, if any, do your school employers apply for support staff?  

38. In acknowledging, as NEOST always has, that reviewing salary safeguarding arrangements would not be welcomed by our trade union colleagues, it may be important to set out why the issue gets raised. Our stakeholders tell us that restructuring and/or reorganising, which is a common organisational tool when cost savings are required, just doesn’t work in schools. Any savings that might be found from alternative organisational structures are lost in salary safeguarding and therefore render attempts ineffective. So, we asked, “in your experience, do the current salary safeguarding rules prevent your school employers from securing timely financial efficiencies from restructuring?” (see Table 16) and 96 per cent of respondents told us it did, with 54 per cent saying, “to a great extent”. In other words, in the context of needing to find greater efficiency to mitigate against rising costs, or in the context of the STRB recommending an award that is higher than is affordable, employers need to consider making efficiencies such as job losses (as stated in paragraph 31) to ensure a balanced budget.

Q14. In your experience, do the current salary safeguarding rules prevent your school employers from securing timely financial efficiencies from restructuring?

39. Regardless of any structural change to the time period, we had an overwhelming response that, if nothing else, the safeguarding rules should be clarified (see Table 17). NEOST understands that stakeholders would welcome a simplified, and clearer set of guidelines and rules around salary safeguarding, which would at least take some of the heat out of local debates on these issues.

Q15. Regardless of any changes, to what extent, if at all, would your school employers welcome a review that includes reviewing the clarity of the STPCD rules relevant to safeguarding.

40. Just by way of additional context, we asked our AT stakeholders whether they had already moved away from the STPCD terms with regards to salary safeguarding, noting of course that they do not have to follow the STPCD in quite the same way. The responses captured that the vast majority have not (see Table 18). Fairness between academies and maintained schools in relation to the statuary requirement to follow the STPCD was a recurring concern expressed by our stakeholders, with some stressing that current arrangements create inequities and calling for a more consistent, level approach across the sector. As NEOST has highlighted before, there remains a high level of consistency in the application of most national terms between AT and LA schools with only a minority of ATs not following the STPCD to the letter.

Q14. Have you moved away from the STPCD in relation to salary safeguarding?

41. NEOST understands why the STRB would ask about non-consolidated awards (or bonuses) and welcomes the government commitment and drive to ensure the STPCD is flexible and innovative. That said, we found little appetite for an amendment to allow the general payment of non-consolidated awards, and anecdotally our HR experts warned that absolute care must be taken to ensure clarity around what this is for, and what it is not for, should it be introduced. When we explored the positive benefits with our respondents, they could see a use in relation to making an award without a longer-term implication for finances (81 per cent) and also that this could support targeted retention (70 per cent) as shown in Table 19 below.

Q17a. Which of the following reasons, if any, best explain why you support the inclusion of non-consolidated payments (such as bonuses) in a future version of the STPCD?

42. However, there are already terms within the STPCD which would allow for various additional payments/awards, so there is some confusion about why this amendment would be necessary. In addition, affordability issues in school budgets continue to underline that such flexibilities are hard to use, even where they exist. To that extent, there wasn’t a positive consensus to introduce new payments like this into the STPCD.

43. Table 20 shows 43 per cent oppose and 20 per cent support the idea of allowing for non-consolidated bonuses. These results capture the wide variation of views from respondents about the need for non-consolidated payments to be introduced into the STPCD.

Q17. To what extent do your school employers support, or not, the inclusion of non-consolidated payments (such as bonuses) in a future version of the STPCD (alongside existing provisions of pay progression and the annual pay award)?

44. Concerns in relation to the potential flexibility to pay non-consolidated bonuses within the STPCD are clearly captured in Table 21 below. Perceived fairness is the top concern (84 per cent) with, as anticipated, budgetary concerns (affordability) being cited as the second most frequently chosen response (80 per cent). When you consider the serious concerns reflected by the majority of responses, in relation to the affordability of funding future pay awards over the next two to three years, NEOST would advise STRB to be cautious in introducing flexibilities that a significant number of schools are unlikely to be able to afford and may have other unintended consequences e.g. negative impact on employee/industrial relations and the impact on recruitment and retention across local labour markets prior to more robust research and testing with the sector.

Q18. If the option of non-consolidated payments were available, what concerns, if any, would your school employers have regarding its adoption by school employers?

45. At a discussion of NEOST advisors, it was noted  that, although the STPCD has moved away from performance-related pay, this award process may rely on similar local policies (in the absence of detailed national guidance), raising the risk of local disputes. NEOST therefore advises that such schemes be implemented with caution and sensitivity.

46. If there is further development of the STPCD to allow flexibility for non-consolidated payments to be made, in continuation of the theme around fairness, NEOST survey responders underlined that all staff should have the ability to receive such payments. 61 per cent said it should apply to leaders as well as teachers, if it is to be introduced. (See Table 22 where the combination of strongly agree 23 per cent and tend to agree is 38 per cent). This is not withstanding the concerns already stated about such a policy.

Q19. If non-consolidated payment awards are introduced into the STPCD, to what extent do you agree, or not, that they should also be applicable to school leaders as well as teachers?

47. As with salary safeguarding, we asked our AT stakeholders if they had moved away from the STPCD to introduce additional non-consolidated payments (see Table 23), the majority (89 per cent) said they had not, but 10 per cent indicated they had done so.

Q17. Academies have greater freedoms around teacher terms and conditions, although most do follow the STPCD. The following questions are designed to understand what changes, if any, employers would like to see. 

Have you moved away from the STPCD and offer non-consolidated payments?

48.The STRB asked about the current working hours arrangements in the STPCD for teachers and current working hours arrangement for leaders. This is an issue of current interest and of sectoral discussion. NEOST is clear that the existing structure of working time in the STPCD is directly linked to the law in terms of the expected delivery of education to children. DfE guidance on the minimum school week (non-statutory guidance) provides a neat summary which is reproduced here:

49. NEOST reminds the STRB that meeting these requirements brings a limit to the sort of innovation that maintained schools, in particular, can introduce. The STPCD terms can only be flexed so far unless there is significant additional resource, in order to keep on meeting the legal requirements specified above in paragraph 47. 

50. NEOST also reminds the STRB that the wellbeing of teachers is of great importance and has (rightly) come under scrutiny in recent years, including the commonly accepted negative impact poor wellbeing has on the retention of teachers and leaders. DfE has worked with all stakeholders to explore ways of managing teacher workload more effectively and accepts there is more to do to get this right. Tracking tools such as the teacher wellbeing index from Education Support provide helpful clarity of the issues. However, NEOST would argue that workload and wellbeing challenges are the core drivers for debate over working time, not the working time structure itself, which may have limited scope for review without significant additional investment into teaching resource. There may be some changes that can help in part, with the most common response (34 per cent) of respondents indicating that workload concerns would only be alleviated to a small extent through a review of directed time procedures in isolation (see Table 24). It is worth noting that 12 per cent of AT respondents indicated this would help “to a great extent". There were additional indications that change would be supported, but our feedback does underline this has to be part of a much wider picture (of funding and workload concerns).

Q20. To what extent, if at all, do you believe workload concerns would be alleviated through a review of directed time procedures (in isolation)?

51. In response to the STRB’s question on the benefits and drawbacks of current working time arrangements, NEOST stakeholders generally view the STPCD as providing a clear and established framework, specifically the commitment to 380 sessions over 190 days. Table 25 below captures the overwhelming response to keep directed time the same, but simplify the STPCD guidance (especially regarding roles and responsibilities) so it is clearer and more accessible. However, 15 per cent of AT respondents did indicate a preference for complete removal and it may be interesting to watch if that trends upwards over time and into both data sets.

Q22. Regarding directed time, which of the following would you most be in favour of?

52. During our participation in the Secretary of State’s initiative (Improving Education Together) working to bring greater stakeholder collaboration to the education sector, many of our colleagues in teaching trade unions have made the case for increasing PPA (planning, preparation, and assessment time). There remains resistance from some employers to PPA being taken at home and proposals for remote working, with concerns that this could undermine important collaboration and reduce collective planning opportunities.

53. NEOST cautiously welcomed the amendment to STPCD last year to allow PPA time to be taken at home, inserting some flexibility into how teachers can manage the work. However, our respondents are quite clear that they are not currently in favour of increasing PPA time (69 per cent said keep it the same, (see Table 26). We suspect that this is directly linked to available capacity/resource. Conversely, others pointed to innovative approaches already in place, such as altered term dates, as evidence that more flexible models can work well in practice.

54. Many survey respondents highlighted that some of these examples in Table 26 were already common practice. Some respondents said that they widely disaggregate INSET days into twilight sessions, meaning that, for many, the suggested changes would not represent a meaningful shift. At the same time, there were warnings that flexibility must not come at the expense of continued professional development (CDP) quality. Some felt twilight sessions risk being less effective as staff are tired at the end of the day, and that without clear safeguards schools could end up delivering less training overall.

55. Generally, there was also a strong appetite from stakeholders for even greater flexibility. Respondents felt that allowing more freedom in how continuous professional development (CPD) time is organised (whether through twilights, staggered sessions, or other arrangements) could support workload management, improve staff wellbeing, and help attract and retain staff.

Q21. Regarding PPA time, which of the following would be your preferred option?

56. NEOST would suggest that amending the current STPCD paragraph (51) to enable greater flexibility in relation to the additional five specified days (to the 190 teaching days) would be welcomed by schools for example allowing twilight sessions. Many of our stakeholders told us they were already organising those days in a slightly different way such as adopting sessions that could be tagged onto the school day and incorporated more obviously into term time. Such changes are perceived to give the sense greater personal flexibility. NEOST welcomes this suggestion, whilst emphasising the words of caution in paragraph 50, that this must not undermine the point of those five days, CPD. NEOST underlines the importance of ensuring that training does not fall by the wayside as an unintended consequence. To evidence this point we asked: “the teaching year is structured around 190 (+five) inset days. To what extent, if at all, would you like the STPCD to allow for greater flexibility around the use of the five non-teaching days, for example, twilight sessions, working from home etc?”  Table 27   shows how welcome that flexibility would be, with 43 per cent saying, “to a great extent”, and 38 per cent saying, “to a moderate extent”.

57. Respondents highlighted that many of these examples were already common practice. Some respondents said that they widely disaggregate INSET days into twilight sessions, meaning that, for many, the suggested changes would not represent a meaningful shift. While this practice is embedded for some, there was also a strong appetite for even greater flexibility. Respondents felt that allowing more freedom in how CPD time is organised (whether through twilights, staggered sessions, or other arrangements) could support workload management, improve staff wellbeing, and help attract and retain staff.

58. Respondents also noted the increasing demands of statutory and compliance training (e.g., safeguarding, GDPR, Prevent), which already put pressure on the limited number of INSET days. Several argued that the five days currently available are insufficient given these requirements. Alongside this, some comments pushed for more fundamental reform of teacher contracts, including scrapping the 195/1265 model, simplifying terms, and moving towards more standardised or annualised working hours

Q23. The teaching year is structured around 190 (+5) inset days. To what extent, if at all, would you like the STPCD to allow for greater flexibility around the use of the five non-teaching days, for example, twilight sessions, working from home etc?

59. NEOST strongly welcomes the review of working time and the push for greater innovation and flexibility, but there is a note of caution about whether the resources and size of the current staffing population allow for the sort of flexibility that teaching might otherwise adopt. As with any public service and with pressure on the public purse, this is going to be a tricky objective for employers. Our respondents told us that affordability was the number one consideration (74 per cent) followed by the impact on pupils (61 per cent, which is an important reminder about what these structures are ultimately about) followed by expected teacher requirement/capacity at 51 per cent. In short, have we got enough teaching capacity to review the STPCD in this way, can we afford to do it, and are we confident about the implication for pupils and carers/parents? NEOST is not arguing that we should avoid reviewing current working time arrangements, but we are highlighting that these factors must also stay front and centre.

Q24. If there were amendments made to the current working time arrangements, which of the following factors, if any, should be considered before recommendations are made?

60. In the final part of our consultation with stakeholders, we asked if there were any other topics they thought the STRB should explore as part of longer-term planning or be included in future remits. The number one issue that respondents flagged (see Table 29) to us was the need for greater clarity and consensus on equitable progression criteria from the Main Pay Range (MPR) into and through the Upper Pay Range (UPR), which we know does become a local headache (both at a school/academy level and the labour market level in terms of recruitment and retention) and causes debate which many employers feel is unnecessary and could better be resolved with national clarity.

61. The second most commonly selected item was an issue NEOST has raised many times with the STRB, which is to create the ability for a teacher to voluntarily move from UPR back to MPR. NEOST underlines that we propose this as a way to support career flexibility in different stages of life. Our schools tell us they are often dealing with requests where teachers may want to step back from the additional pressures of UPR requirement for a variety of reasons (including wanting to see out their careers with less responsibility). Our stakeholders are clear that where a teacher voluntarily requests to do so, they should be able to make that choice, but the STPCD does not currently allow for that option.

62. The third most popular option was to look at salary sacrifice schemes, NEOST regularly hears that this is a source of frustration that electric vehicles for example are not allowed under the current rules and this does not sit well with the ambition of net zero and individuals trying to play their part.

63. One response which featured more significantly in the AT submissions was the inclusion of Executive Head Teachers pay formula, indicating that some additional clarity and guidance on that issue, noting the changing nature of the role in relation to the STPCD criteria is also a growing concern that school employers would welcome reviewing.

Q25. In addition to the specific remit issues, are there any other topics you think should receive attention as part of longer-term planning or be included in future remits.