Teachers pay and progression survey 2024

The impact of real-terms pay cuts since 2010 can be seen throughout the survey responses, with members still reporting very high levels of dissatisfaction with both pay and progression.  

Schools are using prohibitive criteria to block progression, demanding ever-greater workloads and responsibilities in return for movement onto the upper pay range. Allowances are often not paid for the responsibilities they were designed to reflect, but instead this extra work becomes the heavy price for teachers who wish to progress through the scales. This is the result of a funding crisis that incentivises schools to treat staff not as their greatest asset but as a cost to be managed. 

Key findings

Teachers’ view on pay and progression

Among all respondents:

• 71% have considered leaving teaching because of low pay or the unfairness of PR
• 75% of teachers feel underpaid given their job role, responsibilities and workload

Pay progression for September 2024

Among all teachers:

• 47% said they were eligible for pay progression;
• 32% said they were ineligible due to being at their scale maximum;
• 6% said they were ineligible due to being new entrants to teaching;
• 9% said they were ineligible for “other reasons”, many of which also amounted to progression denial;
• 5% said they were eligible for progression but did not apply.

Among teachers eligible to be considered for pay progression (47% of the total response):

• 80% received progression;
• 5% were denied progression;
• 15% still did not know their employer’s decision when completing the survey;
• overall, 6% of those who knew the outcome of their pay progression were denied.

Teachers were more likely to be denied progression if they were:

• In older age groups
• Working part-time
• Black
• Working in primary schools

Among those turned down for progression:

• 18% were explicitly told that the decision was due to funding or budgetary constraints;
• 97% were given no indication during the year that they were failing to meet the required standards, including 50% who had no mid-year review;
• 91% felt that the decision was unfair but 82% chose not to appeal the decision.

Combining all responses including those who progressed and those who were turned down, did not apply, believed themselves to be ineligible, or did not know outcomes:

• Progression rates through the MPR were roughly three out of four;
• Progression rates onto and through the UPR were roughly one in three
• 47% of secondary teachers at the MPR maximum progressed, compared to just 27% of primary teachers at the MPR maximum

Progression onto and through the UPR

Among those currently on the MPR:

• 7% said their school allows teachers to progress onto the UPR before reaching the top of the MPR;
• 7% said earlier progression is possible but never happens in practice;
• 35% said teachers have to reach the top of the MPR first.
• 18% said teachers have to spend two years at the MPR maximum before progressing;
• 10% said in theory teachers can apply after one year but this never happens in practice;
• 10% said there are no restrictions on progression onto the UPR.
• 29% said their school makes them submit supplementary evidence to progress onto the UPR but a reasonable amount that would/did not discourage them from applying;
• 23% said they require an unreasonable amount of supplementary evidence that would/did discourage them from applying;
• 4% said no supplementary evidence is required.

Among those currently on the UPR:

• 54% said teachers must formally apply for pay progression to the next point on the UPR;
• 10% said the school will progress teachers automatically;
• 19% said the school will progress teachers subject to an appraisal.
• 50% said progression on the UPR is only available every two years;
• 5% said progression on the UPR can occur annually but it never happens in practice;
• 11% said progression on the UPR can occur on an annual basis.
• 63% said their school expects teachers on the UPR to undertake specific additional responsibilities which are not recognised with a TLR payment.

Teaching and Learning Responsibility (TLR) payments

Among all respondents:

• 30% currently receive a TLR payment;
• 69% do not currently receive a TLR payment.

Of those in receipt of a TLR payment:

• 37% said the payment was about what they would expect, given the responsibility;
• 62% said the payment was lower than they would expect, given the responsibility.

Among part-timers who receive TLR payments:

• 25% perform the full responsibilities of the TLR role, and are paid the TLR in full;
• 8% perform part of the responsibilities of the TLR role, and receive a pro-rated TLR amount in line with their part-time salary;
• 61% perform the full responsibilities of the TLR role, but are only paid a pro-rated TLR amount, in line with their part-time salary.

Of those not currently in receipt of a TLR payment:

• 41% said their current responsibilities should qualify them for a TLR.

Teachers were more likely to receive a TLR payment if they were:

• Male
• Working full-time
• Working in secondary schools
• Working in London

Among teachers who receive a TLR payment, median levels were often below the minima set out in the STPCD:

Special Educational Needs (SEN) allowances

Among all teachers:

• Only 7% of teachers receive an SEN allowance;
• In special schools and PRUs 86% receive an SEN allowance, but 13% still do not. 

Of those in receipt of an SEN allowance:

• 25% said the payment was about what they would expect, given the responsibility;
• 75% said the payment was lower than they would expect, given the responsibility;
• The median SEN allowance level is £2,570 in primary schools, £2,539 in secondaries and £2,679 in special schools and PRUs.

Of those not currently in receipt of an SEN allowance:

• 17% say the responsibilities they currently undertake should qualify them for an SEN allowance.

Recruitment and retention payments

• Only 3% of teachers say they currently receive a recruitment and retention payment;
• Median recruitment and retention bonuses are as follows:

Pay structures

Among all respondents:

• 87% say their school retains a six-point MPR scale and a three-point UPR scale;
• 3% say their school does not use this type of structure.

Among those who say their school retains a six-point MPR and three-point UPR scale:

• 81% say they are in line with STPCD;
• 5% say they are lower at some or all points;
• 1% say they are higher at some or all points.

Cost-of-living pay increases

Among all respondents:

• 82% said they had received a pay increase in line with the national increase;
• 2% said they had received a pay increase but that it was less than the national increase; 
• 1% said their school told them that teachers would not receive any cost-of-living increase;
• 5% said no decision had yet been taken.

Working time

Among all respondents:

• 77% have kept the same contracted hours as last year;
• 6% reduced their hours in the past year due to excessive workload and its impact on life;
• 4% increased their hours in the past year due to concerns over rising living costs;
• 4% changed their contracted hours in the past year for a different reason.

Among part-time teachers:

• 54% kept the same contracted hours as last year;
• 22% reduced hours in the past year due to excessive workload and its impact on life;
• 7% increased their hours in the past year due to concerns over rising living costs;
• 14% changed their contracted hours in the past year for a different reason.

Flexible working

• 10% have ever requested flexible working and had it agreed entirely;
• 6% have requested flexible working and had it turned down;
• 8% have requested flexible working and had it agreed in part or with negotiation;
• 76% have never requested flexible working.
• 20% have considered leaving due to problems in accessing flexible working;
• 26% say colleagues have left due to problems accessing flexible working;
• 29% say colleagues have considered leaving due to problems accessing flexible working

PRP

Asked about whether their school had said it would end the use of PRP:

• 13% said PRP was dropped for their last appraisal and not used for their September 2024 pay award;
• 6% said their employer has announced it will no longer use PRP, starting from the September 2025 pay award;
• 7% said their employer has said PRP will continue to be used in the future;
• 8% work in an academy that was not using PRP anyway;
• 30% said their employer had not made any announcement;

Among those who said PRP would be dropped:

• 29% said they had announced new criteria for pay progression;
• 45% said they had not.
• 10% said teachers who are subject to capability proceedings excluded from progression;
• 7% said they are not.

Among those who said PRP would be retained, only 5% said their employer had made other changes to progression criteria.

Pay policy and appraisals

Among all respondents:

• 23% say pupil performance is the main driver of appraisal outcomes;
• 36% say pupil performance is partly used to determine appraisal outcomes;
• 41% say pupil performance does not form part of appraisal objectives.

Among all respondents:

• 58% say their school made them aware of the school’s pay policy and where to find it;
• 36% think their school’s pay policy is fair;
• 12% think it is unfair;
• 52% do not know what is in their school’s pay policy.