A history of the Upper Pay Range

Published: 30/01/2026

Introduction

With the possibility that performance-related progression for teachers could be ended soon, a critical point has been reached in the history of the pay structure as a whole, and particularly its division into two scales – main and upper. As we show in this history, the establishment of the upper scale and its rare and unusual performance-related entry ‘threshold’ was the precursor to the phased spread of performance-related progression throughout the structure. However, while the Government achieved its aims in this respect, it failed to achieve other key aims, especially the use of ranges rather than scales and therefore the transition to a fully-fledged ‘all-merit’ pay system, with only one, performance-based, pay increase for teachers.

In addition and crucially, performance-related pay was never welcomed by a majority of teachers, though this did not prevent the Government’s imposition of it, via the School Teachers’ Review Body. The current incarnation of this body is due to consider the future for performance-related progression. We hope that this history will contribute to development of next steps for the teachers’ pay structure in England.

Key points

The initial proposal promised higher pay for teachers but with access to it based on performance appraisal. The stated rationale for this was ‘modernisation’ but managerial ideology (especially but not only via consultants) and cost control considerations were also important. A spat with the STRB over funding for progression shows how important the latter was for the Government1
The establishment of a performance-based ‘threshold’ for access to another part of the pay structure for classroom teachers was rare and unusual, especially in that classroom teachers are in effect a single grade of employee
The Government initially said that criteria for progression would be agreed, but later switched to imposition. This was successfully contested in the High Court by the NUT, after which the Government changed tack and reached an agreement with some unions (but not the NUT) over progression criteria. This agreement was a key influence on the STRB’s recommendations in this regard
Although later termed a ‘range’, the new upper portion of the pay structure still looked very much like a scale, with a series of points – and indeed was characterised as a scale in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document. Although the Government wanted it to be treated in practice as a series of ranges, this never happened. And when a subsequent administration attempted to do the same with the main scale, the result was identical
Nevertheless, the upper pay scale acted as a kind of ‘Trojan horse’ for the cascading downwards of performance-related progression through the structure as a whole
The cascading down of performance-related progression took place under a Labour administration while the attempt to remove the scales and move to an ‘all-merit’ approach took place under a Conservative-led administration
The role of the review body as a creation of government was key. At various points, despite evidence that teachers disliked the system, the STRB pressed on with the imposition of performance-related progression (even if it disagreed with government over some of the detail)
By contrast, other areas of the public sector where pay increases are recommended by review bodies assign discussions over structural issues to negotiating bodies. The NHS is notable in this regard and may form a model for teachers in future
The artificial division of the pay structure for classroom teachers was a way of levying progressively greater expectations on them in return for pay progression. Other pay systems work in similar ways but at times it must have felt to teachers that the balance of the wage-effort bargain was tilted too far in favour of the employers
The need for teachers’ support and expertise during the Covid crisis played a key role in unwinding many of the changes described above, especially the restoration of scales in principle (they had always remained in use in practice) but now too the potential ending of the link between performance appraisal and pay progression
The division of the scale into ‘main’ and ‘upper’ is widely seen by teachers as completely anachronistic.
In Wales, the Minister has directed the Review Body there to examine the removal of the threshold and the ending of the distinction between ‘main’ and ‘upper’ pay scales.