Final NEOST response to draft STPCD 2025 and STRBS 35th report - 8 July 2025

NEOST response to the consultation on the Government’s response to the School Teachers’ Review Body’s 35th Report and the draft School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document 2025.

1. The National Employers’ Organisation for School Teachers (NEOST) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the Government’s response to the School Teachers’ Review Body’s (STRB) 35th Report, the draft School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) 2025.

2. As the representative body for employers of Teachers, NEOST is a statutory consultee to the independent pay review (STRB) process. NEOST membership is drawn from the Local Government Association, the National Society (Church of England and Church in Wales) for the Promotion of Education, the Catholic Education Service, and the Confederation of School Trusts. The LGA provides the secretariat role.

3. Our headline responses to the consultation are as follows.

NEOST:

• Welcomes the earliest pay award announcement since 2015, confirming full implementation of the STRB’s recommendation for a four per cent pay increase in 2025/26. This is a positive step forward and aligns with NEOST’s long-standing advocacy on timing.
• On balance, NEOST considers the level of award is probably about right. We support the STRB’s view that this award must balance the need to improve recruitment and retention with delivering value for money for taxpayers in the current economic climate. This award maintains the value of the (recently achieved) starting salary and ensures a settlement that avoids escalating frustrations in the workforce that would increase industrial unrest.
• Broader work, outside of pay continues to be required. Our survey results show that almost three quarters (63 per cent) of school employers think the level of the pay award will support retention, although almost half (47 per cent) think this will only be to a small extent,  and 39 per cent predicting it would not help at all, this is despite the pay award figure comparing well with other public sector settlements in 2025. This highlights that while pay is an important factor, it is only part of the solution for addressing the recruitment and retention challenges faced by schools. Further work and support are needed to improve levels of workload and wellbeing across the profession.
• Welcomes the Government’s commitment of an additional £615 million, which the DfE estimates will cover 1.7 per cent of the pay award nationally. This funding goes beyond the 1.3 per cent headroom identified in schools’ existing budgets and contributes meaningfully to the overall cost of implementing the pay award for both teachers and support staff.
• Highlights the remaining significance of the funding gap, with schools expected to find the final one per cent (equivalent to 25 per cent of the total pay award) through further efficiencies. Employers (89 per cent) report that, after years of financial strain, there are no easy savings left to make. The majority are facing extremely difficult decisions, the most common of which is reductions in pupil-facing support staff (69 per cent), to balance their budgets.
• Calls on the Government to provide sufficient financial support to ensure all schools can implement the pay award in full without making significant detrimental adjustments. Our survey data indicates that without additional funding, schools may be forced to take measures that could negatively impact the quality of education.
• Reiterates employers’ request for the 2026 STRB remit to prioritise a review of the Upper Pay Range (UPR), the 1,265-hour directed time requirement, and salary safeguarding provisions. NEOST continue to be flexible and open to exploring elements of reform.
• Supports the Government’s intention to publish the 2026 STRB remit in July. We hope this will enable final decisions on next year’s pay award to again be brought forward i.e. the spring of 2026, allowing employers sufficient time to consult stakeholders and implement the award so that teachers receive their pay increase in their September 2025 pay.

4. As reported in the  2024 School Workforce Census , there were 468,258 full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers (a decrease of 435 FTE teachers since 2023) that are potentially in scope for this proposed pay award. There are 24,072 schools in England, according to data published by the Department for Education in June 2024. NEOST notes that while academies can currently determine pay and conditions outside of the STPCD, almost all still follow it to some extent and the Children's Wellbeing and Schools bill currently going through parliament will introduce a new responsibility for academies to have due regard. 

5. NEOST brings employers together from across the school system to speak as one voice, responding to proposed pay awards and changes to terms and conditions each year. To inform this year's response, the NEOST secretariat consulted all education authorities, Employer Link (the LGA subscription service for academy trusts) and all NEOST members.

6. Academy Trusts and LAs provided views based on a combination of their own knowledge and experience and feedback provided by schools where circumstances allowed. In addition, we have received feedback to inform this submission from ten regional school HR networks, whose members support both maintained and academy schools, and a national sounding board of LA school HR practitioners from every English region. We also took soundings via the Employer Link national network of HR leads in Multi Academy Trusts (MATs); this covers approximately 500 MATS and over 5,000 academies. Finally, this report is amended and agreed at the NEOST board which includes representatives from all named partner organisations. 

7. As is customary the LGA undertook an online survey to inform this response. A personalised invitation was sent to two named LA representatives, with an open link provided to ATs around the 23 May 2025, with a deadline for submitting a response by 12 June 2025.

8. One hundred and fifty-two LAs were invited to complete the consultation, of which eighty-five responded (56 per cent response rate) maintaining the same response rate achieved in 2024 and an increase from 49 per cent in 2023. Please refer to Appendix A for the full LA results of the survey.

9. The same survey was sent to the Confederation of School Trust members and Employer Link academy trust subscribers, which resulted in ninety-four academy trusts responding. It is worth noting that response rate demonstrates an almost fivefold increase in 3 years, as we had twenty responses in 2023 and 61 in 2024. Please refer to Appendix B for the full results.

10. Combining those two stakeholder groups, we achieved a total of 179 responses, up from 135 in 2024, demonstrating a very significant increase in the level of engagement from all schools, especially given the tight timescale again over the May half term holiday period. We hope this provides the department with some confidence about the integrity and consensus the NEOST report provides on behalf of employers. The combined survey results can be found in Appendix C.

11. Please note that throughout the report, percentages may not appear to add up to exactly one hundred per cent due to rounding.

12. We welcome the Government’s earliest pay award announcement since 2015, confirming acceptance of the STRB’s recommendations in their 35th report for the 2025/26 teacher pay award, which details a proposed four per cent uplift to all pay points and allowances for both teachers and school leaders applicable from 1 September 2025.

13. On balance NEOST considers that the level of award is probably about right. We support the STRB’s view that this award must balance the need to improve recruitment and retention with delivering value for money for taxpayers in the current extremely challenging economic climate. This award maintains the value of the (recently achieved) starting salary and ensures a settlement that avoids escalating frustrations in the work force that would increase industrial unrest.

14. We note the additional £615 million, is estimated to cover 1.7 per cent of the pay award nationally. This funding goes beyond the 1.3 per cent headroom identified in schools’ existing budgets and contributes meaningfully to the overall cost of implementing the pay award for both teachers and support staff.

15. Building on NEOST’s previous advocacy efforts and subsequent governments’ decisions, the continued funding of centrally employed teachers totalling £10 million (accounted for in the £615 million) is particularly welcome and will provide much needed funding to contribute to the implementation costs of this year’s pay award for schools.

16. We are aware that the funding detailed above is intended to contribute to covering the cost of the current 2025-26 pay offer for support staff as well, which is currently under negotiation by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services albeit a full and final offer of 3.2 per cent has been made by the National Employers.

17. However, it is clear that there remains a short fall of one per cent across both staff pay awards. That we understand is equivalent to about 0.8 per cent of a school’s overall budget, on average as illustrated in the slide below.

18. We note that all parts of the public sector are being asked to make efficiencies and that includes schools who will be expected to find approximately the first one percentage point of the pay awards through improved productivity and smarter spending. We understand the department is supporting schools through a suite of existing and new productivity initiatives, including a workforce modelling tool. NEOST recognises this is no easy task for our stakeholders. We ask that NEOST representatives continue to be actively involved in the development of this work, and any other relevant workforce initiatives to ensure that it works as intended for schools.

19. NEOST acknowledges that the government’s affordability estimates, as presented in the DfE’s evidence to the STRB, are based on national averages rather than school-level data. Last summer, NEOST representatives engaged with senior DfE officials to discuss the potential for reviewing the current methodology used to assess affordability. We welcomed and appreciated this discussion and continue to advocate for a review that takes into account the diverse circumstances of schools and the differing financial years of maintained schools and academies. While we recognise the complexity of aligning affordability assessments with these variables, national averages do not accurately reflect the challenging financial realities faced by many schools.

20. When asked whether this year’s pay award, was largely manageable within existing school budgets, even when supported by an additional £615 million in DfE funding, nearly nine in ten respondents (88 per cent) indicated that budget adjustments would be necessary to fully implement the proposed 2025 pay award. Of these, 48 per cent reported that ‘major’ adjustments would be required, while a further 40 per cent anticipated needing ‘minor’ adjustments. These figures underscore the ongoing financial strain faced by schools, even with supplementary funding, and highlight the need for a more nuanced and equitable approach to assessing and supporting affordability across the sector.
                                
21. Noting the clear direction on financial efficiency and smarter use of limited funds, our survey sought to identify the most common type of adjustments that employers are likely to need to make. We found of the 88 per cent that needed to make ‘adjustments’, just over two-thirds (69 per cent) reported that they were most likely to make reductions in pupil-facing support staff roles, which is likely to include Teaching Assistants that are not directly supporting a pupil’s Education and Health Care Plan.  As one respondent described, “we note the first one per cent is to come from 'improved productivity and smarter spending' but, where this is not possible, there are no further steps to take, and a deficit / further deficit will be incurred/ grow and potentially end up on the LA's books. School budgets in [council name] are already in a perilous position and the impact of a pay award that is not fully funded will simply add to the financial challenges and cuts that schools are already making.”. This illustrates the point that there are no easy ways for schools to find the level of efficiencies needed to fully implement this year’s pay awards without negatively impacting on workload and therefore, teacher retention as well as the quality of the educational offer.

22. The survey data on affordability gaps reveals a varied picture across schools. Notably, 28 per cent of respondents indicated uncertainty, selecting "Don't know" when asked about the size of their affordability gap which could be due to the lack of time to assess overall finances or consult the school(s) finance lead. Among those who did provide an estimate, the most common response was a gap of between one to just under three per cent, reported by 40 per cent of respondents. Just 15 per cent reported no affordability gap, while at the other end of that scale 11 per cent cited more significant shortfalls of three plus per cent or more. NEOST is concerned not only around the diversity of the financial pressures across schools and therefore the challenges in accurately assessing affordability at a national level, but most importantly about the size of the affordability gaps being reported across some schools and therefore the level of efficiencies (cuts) that will need to be made.
    
23. Last year the Government fully funded the pay award (6.5 per cent) which resulted in more than half (58 per cent) of respondents reporting that it was ‘manageable within existing budgets, compared to just seven per cent this year. 

24. Our stakeholders across both ATs and LAs indicated that, as shown in previous years, primary schools (73 per cent) continue to feel the financial challenges to the greatest extent compared to all other types of schools (See Table 1 below). We hear anecdotally that combined with the need for a higher pupil-to-staff ratio, one of the other difficulties that an increasing number of primary schools face, is the drop in the number of pupils due mainly to population trends in certain areas across England, as evidenced in the DfE’s schools dataset. This has a knock-on impact on the level of funding a school attracts whilst still needing to fund a good teacher in every classroom.

Q. To what extent, if at all, is financial challenge felt amongst the following types of educational providers?

25. Exploring the question of whether there might be any regional impact (on a school's ability to fund this award), our survey confirmed previous trends indicating that rural schools (35 per cent), remain the geographical places most likely to experience financial challenges to the greatest extent. These results (See Table 2) have been consistent over several years and suggest that the local economy and area surrounding a school will impact its financial health. This underlines our concern about the department using national average figures when exploring funding needs.

Q. Thinking about school location, to what extent, if at all, does geographical location exacerbate financial challenges for the following?

26. NEOST is concerned by this continued trend which is not helped by the fact that the National Funding Formula weights pupil led factors so highly (91.8 per cent in 2024/25) which continues to place a disproportionate financial pressure on smaller, predominantly primary schools and schools in rural arears. Our survey results are reflecting that these settings often operate with limited financial flexibility and are disproportionately impacted by ongoing rising staffing costs. With the DfE’s reported drop in pupil numbers in certain areas, combined with schools expected to find 25 per cent (one per cent) of the teachers’ pay award for 2025 and other significant pressures such as SEN, primary schools and schools in rural areas are being forced to make even more difficult decisions that could result in reduced provision or closure.

27. Such outcomes are likely to trigger a range of complex issues for pupil, parents/carers, and the local community, for example, diminished parental choice and local access to education, increased transport costs and potential negative impacts on pupil outcomes. There is also long-term financial risk, for example, should demographic changes require the reopening of closed schools, the associated capital and staffing costs will far exceed the short-term savings resulting from school closures adding to the pressure on the public purse. NEOST urges the government develop a sustainable funding model that protects essential local education provision and infrastructure now and into the future.

28. It is widely recognised that while pay is an important hygiene factor, it is not the sole driver of teacher and school leader recruitment and retention. Issues such as workload, wellbeing, and overall funding continue to play a significant role in shaping the attractiveness and sustainability of the profession.

29. Our survey results show that just under half (47 per cent) of school employers think the level of the pay award will support recruitment, one per cent to a great extent,10 per cent to a moderate extent 36 per cent to a small extent. A cause of some concern, 39 per cent predict it will not help at all. That is not to say however, that the level of pay award makes no difference, this is likely to be reflecting a wider picture, rather than commenting that the number itself is irrelevant.

Underinvestment in that figure can easily lead to frustration of teachers as articulated via their national unions and has been the experience of some previous years. What this suggests, therefore, is that the award may fall short of addressing the recruitment challenges faced by schools without further support to improve levels of workload and wellbeing across the profession. Those broader challenges are not solved via the pay award on its own.

30. The outlook for retention indicates a marginally more optimistic picture. Although only 16 per cent of respondents believe the proposed pay award will improve retention to a 'moderate' or 'great' extent, nearly half (47 per cent) say it will help to a small extent, nevertheless.  The number of respondents predicting it won’t help at all is 27 per cent. This reinforces the view that while pay is an important factor especially in retaining teachers (and there is certainly a narrative from some that the pay award can be seen as an indicator of how much the Government value teachers and school leaders) but again not the only factor to drive the retention of experienced teachers and school leaders. For that broader understanding it is well documented that workload, wellbeing, and school funding are also important factors.

31. As pay is not the biggest long term motivating factor in terms of recruitment and retention of teachers and school leaders, NEOST is committed to continuing to allocate significant resources to continue working at pace as members of the ‘Improving Education Together’ board with the Government and education unions in working towards co-designing and implementing interventions that support improvements in reducing workload and improving the wellbeing of teachers and school leaders. We recognise that improvements in those complex issues are likely to have a significant positive impact on the recruitment and retention of good teachers and leaders.

32. The NEOST board understands the rationale behind the proposed change to Teaching and Learning Responsibility allowances and welcomes the principle that these payments are more readily reflecting the role. However, when we asked respondents to what extent, if at all, they anticipated challenges arising from the requirement for employers to determine the value of any existing or new TLR1 and TLR2 payments based on the proportion of the TLR work being undertaken by the teacher,  the results suggest that this may present moderate challenges for schools, as shown in Table 3 below. It may be that we need to carefully consider the wording and guidance associated with this change to help alleviate some of those concerns.

Q. From 1 September 2026, it will become an STPCD requirement that relevant bodies determine the value of any existing or new TLR1 and TLR2 based on the proportion of the TLR of the teacher is undertaking i.e. the proportion of the full-time equivalent duty. To what extent, if at all, is this likely to cause significant issues in your schools?

36. The draft STPCD 2026 now sets out the legal framework and expectations of schools to have a flexible working policy that balances the needs of ‘staff’ and employers. Whilst NEOST supports the overall policy aim of encouraging employers to offer more flexible working that balances the needs of all staff, employers and pupils, we think using the term ‘staff’ in a statutory document which sets out the terms and conditions of teachers and school leaders may lead to confusion and set a precedent for other overall ‘staff’ related conditions.

37. Our survey question sought to understand what gets in the way of school employers implementing more flexible ways of working. Our responses (see Table 5 below) identified timetable constraints (68 per cent), teaching staff capacity (61 per cent), lack of funding (49 per cent), and inability to meet pupil needs (48 per cent) as the top four barriers to offering increased flexible working practices for teachers and school leaders. These findings highlight the structural and resource-based challenges schools face.  NEOST remains committed to increasing flexible working and understands the role a better offer for teachers around flexible working could play in relation to recruitment and retention.   However, the honest reflection of stakeholders suggests that increased flexibility requires additional support i.e. more good flexible teachers in the system, additional funding and practical timetabling tools.

Q. Which of the following, if any, do the schools in your area identify as barriers to offering increased flexible working practices to teachers and school leaders? Please select up to three options which you would most likely identify as barriers.

38. As part of NEOST’s ongoing collaboration with Government and union colleagues through the Improving Education Together (IET) partnership working, one of our key improvement priorities is to identify affordable and practical interventions that support the sector in improving the diversity profile of school teachers and leaders. To inform this work, we asked school employers which initiatives they would be most likely to adopt. Nearly half (44 per cent) indicated a strong preference for partnering with universities to build a more diverse teacher pipeline. Additionally, around one-third of respondents highlighted professional development focused on diversity and inclusion, as well as targeted recruitment programmes, (See Table 6 below).  NEOST suggests that these are the areas that the Government should consider allocating resources to.

Q. Which of the following initiatives, if any, do you think the majority of your schools would sign up to enhance diversity amongst schoolteachers and school leaders (for example to increase representation from minority ethnic and other groups)? Please select up to two initiatives.

39. A key priority of the sector is to identify ways of meaningfully increasing the wellbeing levels of teachers and school leaders, not only to improve retention and productivity rates, but as an essential part of being a good employer. We are aware that this is one of the key priorities for employers, who are investing in a wide range of initiatives including culture change programs to address the underlying issues e.g. high levels of workload. IET members agree that the Education Staff Wellbeing Charter could be a useful tool for all key stakeholders in helping to make the improvements we all want to see.

40. However, our survey results show a majority of respondents (62 per cent) were unsure what proportion of their schools, at the current time, were signed up to the Education Staff Wellbeing Charter. Only one in 10 (11 per cent) responded confirming all their schools had signed up. These results support the current commitment of NEOST and all IET members to work with the Department to further improve the charter and to raise its profile and adoption within schools. 

Planning, preparation and assessment time

41. NEOST notes that the teaching unions have been making the case to Government for an increase in Planning, Preparation and Assessment (PPA) time for teachers. While there is no formal proposal on this issue, we therefore thought it might be useful to explore that issue. We asked our employers to identify any barriers. Clearly, if teachers are available for less direct teaching time, this would need to be covered. Almost nine out of ten (89 per cent) respondents agreed that ‘difficulty funding additional teaching staff’ would be the main implementation barrier if future consideration was given to increasing PPA time for teachers (see Table 7 below). The results show that affordability is a significant barrier for almost all schools, even before you look at the challenge of providing the numbers of additional qualified teachers you would need in the system (36 per cent), which is of serious concern given the current extremely challenging economic environment the public sector and beyond is facing.

Q. Which of the following, if any, are likely to be implementation barriers for the majority of your schools if future consideration was given to increasing Planning, Preparation and Assessment (PPA) time with future STRB remits/ Please select up to three barriers.

42. When we asked what changes employers would want to see in future STRB remits, respondents identified four key priorities areas for changes to the STPCD). The most frequently cited was a review of UPR assessment and progression criteria (53 per cent), reflecting concerns about clarity and consistency in pay/career progression across schools. This was followed by pay safeguarding (45 per cent), highlighting the need for a review of pay protection so that it is more in line with other professional/sector norms including school support staff to enable efficiencies to be balanced alongside pay protections within an appropriate timescale.  A review of the 1265 directed hours (37 per cent) was also a significant priority and one that would want to understand the desired outcomes ahead of any review. Lastly, enabling a voluntary move from UPR to MPR (36 per cent) was seen as important, suggesting a desire for more flexible career pathways that NEOST believe would support improvements in retention rates (see table 8 below).

Q. Which changes would you consider most important to prioritise for inclusion in a future STRB remit? Please select up to three issues.

43. NEOST accepts that elements of these changes may be controversial with some stakeholders (in particular teaching trade unions), however, they have repeatedly been identified as issues on which Employers would welcome review. NEOST therefore invites DfE to discuss this in more detail, to inform the prioritisation of the above reviews, to explore ways of reaching wider consensus, and to be actively involved in early discussions involving careful consideration of the phasing, timing and desired outcomes of any agreed review. Any agreed future reforms/changes will likely involve system-wide changes that LAs and ATs will need adequate time to plan, cost, consult and implement any proposed new arrangements, so, again, we ask that this is a factor in any future remit timescales.

44. NEOST supports the Government’s intention to publish the 2026 STRB remit in July, significantly earlier than in previous years. We ask that the consultation period takes into account the school closure period and our governance arrangements. Ultimately, we hope this early publication of the remit will enable Government to make final decisions on next year’s pay award along with the publication of the draft STPCD 2026, to again be brought forward i.e. the spring of 2026.

45. This will enable employers sufficient time to consult stakeholders on their proposed budget plan and use their flexibilities to set effective workforce development programmes that align with organisational priorities and affordability as well as managing the implementation of the award so that teachers receive their pay increase in their September 2026 pay.

46. NEOST acknowledges the efforts of the Government in bringing the annual determination of teachers and school leaders pay back to an effective and workable timetable. 

• Appendix A - Local authority results - July 2025
• Appendix B - MAT results - July 2025
• Appendix C - Combined LA employers (LGA) and Academy - July 2025