26 minute read
Leadership pay - the debate
Leadership Focus journalist NIC PATON chairs a roundtable debate on leadership pay.
When I became a head, my wife asked me to double-check I was being paid properly because I was only getting £20 extra in my wages. Her response was ‘we can’t even buy a Chinese on a Friday night with that’.”
Clem Coady’s comments may be slightly historic, in that they relate to when he took up his role as head teacher of Stoneraise School in Carlisle in 2011. But they nevertheless illustrate all too starkly why pay (or more accurately the lack of it) – alongside workload, high-stakes accountability and funding – is so much at the heart of the profession’s continuing senior leadership recruitment and retention crisis.
There has been much focus in recent years on the general teacher recruitment and retention crisis across the profession, and rightly so. Along with the other teaching unions, NAHT has been at the forefront of hammering home to government (and anyone else who’ll listen) the parlous state of recruitment and retention within the profession. For example, NAHT’s 2017 The Leaky Pipeline report concluded that school leaders were struggling to recruit in eight out of 10 vacancies; two-thirds said they were waving goodbye to more and more colleagues well before retirement, and budget pressures were preventing a third of teaching roles from being filled even if candidates could be found.
The government has, to an extent, responded to these escalating ‘crisis’ headlines. Two years ago, the Department for Education (DfE) finally broke down and scrapped its long-standing 1% pay cap. Starting salaries for new teachers are due to rise to £30,000 by 2022 in a bid to make the profession more attractive to graduates.
But, while welcome enough, none of this is helping to abate the growing crisis further up the pay range, at middle and senior leader levels. Indeed, the government’s love of differentiated rather than across-the-board pay settlements has, if anything, exacerbated the situation.
Take the £30,000 ceiling – this represents a more than 23% uplift for those at the entry point of the main pay range. Yet, the government has also made it clear it has no intention of delivering a similar significant uplift for those on the upper pay or leadership pay ranges.
Or, take the inflation-busting 2018 3.5% settlement. Because it was differentiated, against the recommendation of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB), those on the upper pay range were awarded a much lower 2% rise while school leaders got even less, at 1.5%.
NAHT argues that the difference between the minimum salary for the leadership pay range and the maximum salary for the main pay range (excluding London) has been dramatically eroded in recent years, from 18.7% in 2014 to 14.2% in 2018. In cash terms, this equates to a fall in the differential from £6,028 to £4,957 in just four years.
All of which brings us back to Clem’s £20 ‘reward’ for being prepared to step up to the highstakes accountability, long hours and ‘heat and burden’ of a head teacher role. Clem was one of five head and deputy head teachers who, along with NAHT senior policy adviser Ian Hartwright, came together in London in October to discuss how a decade of real-terms pay cuts to leaders’ pay and the declining differentials between teachers’ and leaders’ pay are acting on the leadership ‘leaky pipeline’.
As well as being reported on for Leadership Focus, the discussion was intended to act as a means of gathering evidence, anecdotes and a compelling ‘narrative’ to feed into this year’s NAHT submission of evidence to the STRB’s 30th remit report.
As Ian, opening the debate, put it: “We need to press much harder, I think, as a union on leadership pay. We have kept together with the other unions, and we have asked for a 5% pay rise each time – and we haven’t got that. Therefore, we need at the very least a restorative pay rise that begins to undo some of the damage and provide protection against current inflation.
“If you come in [as a graduate] on £30,000 and your progression point is only going to go to £34,000-£35,000 in the classroom, nobody is going to stay because they won’t be able to see their career progressing. More widely, this is connected to a bigger picture that says ‘if we need to commit to a decades-long career in teaching, you need to provide them with an attractive starting salary, good pay and, just as importantly, career progression and prospects’.
“Pay is, of course, not the only key issue, but it has become one key issue alongside workload, funding and accountability. Our view is that when, as a head teacher or senior leader, you are being asked to take on such huge responsibility, pay can prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. ‘Why should I do that? And why should I put myself at so much risk and take on all of these other things to do that?’. And we think that is happening within middle leadership now as well.
“Therefore, we need a louder voice on this; we need to turn the volume up and be harder-edged, tougher. The government, I think, doesn’t understand how angry people are,” he added.
Jon Parsons, deputy head teacher at White Meadows Primary Academy in Littlehampton, West Sussex, strongly agreed the erosion of pay and pay differentials was a growing concern. “We have a big leadership team, and we also have a big middle leadership team. This idea of flattening pay progression while trying to keep good teachers, good leaders, in the profession really resonates with us. We are looking at leakage at that top end.”
Issues such as the affordability of housing or cost of living, especially in more expensive parts of the country, do naturally play into these discussions, highlighted Patrick Foley, head teacher at Southborough Primary School in Bromley, south east London.
“Bromley is one of the most expensive places to live in the country, and there is a lot of pressure on that with recruiting teachers. If I ask my senior and middle leadership teams ‘do you want to become a head teacher, or how can I encourage you to become a head teacher or make that next step in your career?’, very, very few of them want to. I think currently there is only one person who is interested,” he said. “It is not all about pay, but I think pay is a bit of it. I think there are lots of things that are interlinked with this,” he added.
“St Albans is another extremely expensive area to live in,” agreed Tim Bowen, head teacher, at Maple Primary School in the Hertfordshire city. “I am somebody who is not that far off, in the grand scheme of things, from the end of my career. But I am deeply concerned about the number of middle leaders not going up to senior positions.
“Very few people, certainly in Hertfordshire, are applying for headships. So, I am deeply concerned about the future of the profession because, obviously, without strong leadership, schools are not going to be so successful,” he said.
L-R: Patrick Foley, Tim Bowen and Marijke Miles
“In Hampshire, we have similar issues with the supply of leaders, good leaders, and I think special schools are particularly hard hit,” said Marijke Miles, head teacher at Baycroft School, a special school in the county.
“We are an ageing profession, although we’re young demographically. I am also intrigued by the massive demographic shift we have seen in leadership; I don't think the DfE has taken that on board. For example, 11 years ago – when my twins were born –no one had ever seen a pregnant head; it was so unusual. All the heads were males aged 50+ generally.
“But rapidly, within a decade, leaders are now really young; there are more family pressures and co-dependency pressures. Heads and leaders are the sandwich generation whereas before, more classically, they had ‘done’ their families. It was ‘the kids are at university; now I can be a head’, male or female. But that is not the case anymore. I don’t think we understand those other drivers and how they are impacting on the flow and supply of succession.”
“A lot of our schools in Cumbria and other rural areas are small schools, and we all teach,” said Clem.
“My head teacher colleagues teach four days a week, have half a day planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) and have half a day headship time. And so, when they see their other classroom colleagues getting a 3.5% pay rise and they’re getting 1.5-2%, it is gut-wrenching for them.
“The other aspect is that to become a head in Cumbria, you need to cut your teeth in a small school. No big school will look at you unless you have had experience in a small school. But the small schools will only recruit deputies from large schools. So there is no actual pay differential. They are going to become a head on equal pay, or very similar, to what they were on as a deputy head.”
Clem then made his telling £20 observation, prompting Patrick to add: “And that would be worse now.”
“It is iniquitous that the leadership ranges are determined by pupil numbers because, quite frankly, heads in small schools are doing far more. They have no one to delegate to and a far wider range of responsibilities. It is really anachronistic,” agreed Marijke.
Our panellists were then asked to highlight any examples they had experienced in their schools of rising stars, or middle or senior leaders who had called it a day and left the profession early, ahead of their time, whether because of pay or for other reasons.
“A colleague and friend of mine quit the profession in August,” said Clem. “She had fewer than 50 pupils in her school –that is the size of quite a few schools in Cumbria, but they can’t close them because there are no other schools near enough to send the kids to instead. She was a full-time head and taught four days a week. She had a part-time staff member who did two days a week.
“She went off ill earlier in the academic year, and the person who did the two days a week couldn’t take any more days because she had childcare issues. So the school was being run by a supply teacher, with the supply teacher changing frequently. The school had no designated safeguard lead. It is clear the stress of leading a school, the pressures of running it and the finances, especially when margins are so tight –it is easy to see colleagues becoming ill and ultimately walking away from the profession.
“Heads of small schools are often paid on L4, as they are grade 1 schools. Yet, in schools that are a similar size to mine, deputy and assistant heads can be on the same salary. So, they have all that pressure for that financial reward. What kind of system are we in where that is the reality? She left saying ‘why am I doing this? It is not worth the stress and the pressure for what I’m getting’.”
“I had a teacher who was a class teacher for four years and had gone to MPS5,” said Patrick. “He wanted to get married and start a family. He was in his late-20s/early-30s and was looking at where he could go in terms of pay progression. Did he want to try and get a TLR, get a management post? We had invested a massive amount in him; he’d spent two years, perhaps three, with us. But no, he decided just to go to Thailand to an international school, tax-free, for two years.
“I had another colleague who was actually in management, about the same age, again wanted to start a family. She was my head of early years foundation stage (EYFS) and could have moved from middle management into assistant headship if she’d wanted to; she was very, very good. Again, there was the choice to become an assistant head and a professional teaching career and all of that. But it just wasn’t very attractive. She decided to stop teaching and travel around the world.
“OK, both of those were about taking life chances. But if they had been paid more and had an opportunity, say, to buy a house, settle down and do all of that kind of stuff, I’m sure the decision to do those things would have been much better. Buying a house, in Bromley, you’re looking approximately at £240,000 minimum for a two/three-bedroom flat; £30,000 isn’t enough to get a mortgage,” he added.
“We’ve had two newly qualified teachers (NQTs) in the last four years - one left after their NQT year to go to India to work over there. No amount of money would have kept her at the school; you could have paid her £30,000 or £35,000, but it wouldn’t have mattered,” said Jon.
“For her, the pressures of doing the job were something she didn’t want to carry on with anymore. She said ‘you know what, if this is what it is going to be like after just my NQT year, I don't want to do it; there are other options that will make my life more enjoyable than doing this’, which is really sad.
Was pay – both take-home pay erosion and the erosion in terms of differentials – acting as a disincentive to people stepping up, our panellists were asked.
“I think it is the huge pressure and accountability of head teacher leadership,” said Tim. “If I were a decade into my career now, having been a class teacher and a deputy, I would have to think incredibly carefully about whether I took that next step to headship.
“The high-risk accountability, the pressures of the job and with a young family –would you take the risk? While it is by no means just about pay, if there were a significant rise in pay when you move into headship, it might persuade you. With the differential being so small for somebody on a deputy or assistant headship and the risks to your career –you’re only one bad Ofsted inspection away from getting the sack – would I now, after 23 years, have gone on to be ahead? Part of me would love to say ‘yes I would’ because I still value the job immensely. But turn the clock back, would I do it, would I have the nerve to without the financial incentive as well? That is a huge question mark.”
“I’m in that position,” agreed Jon. “I’m doing my national professional qualification for headship (NPQH) this year. I get paid at L11 as a deputy head, which I am happy with at the moment. We have a new head of school who is a few points ahead of me on the pay scale. Fundamentally, why would I want to do that job for just a few extra points?
“By the time I’ve been taxed on it and had pension contributions come off it, why would I bother? Because now, yes, I make decisions, but I don’t have to make ultimate decisions. If I get it wrong, somebody will come and say ‘yes you got it wrong, but it’s OK. We’ll work to get it right’. If she gets it wrong, she’s got it wrong, and for that differential, is it worth it?
“Also, going back to what Clem was saying about small schools, I’m fundamentally stuck where I am because it is pretty much that I have to move into a two or three-form entry school. I can't go into a one-form entry; I can't take a £5,000- £6,000 pay cut to go and be a head of school, and fundamentally, why would I want to? My family is also an issue; I live 25 miles away from the school, and I want to see my daughter, who is five years old. For an extra £2,000-£3,000, it is just not worth it,” he added.
L-R: Jon Parsons and Nic Paton
Patrick then highlighted the lack of opacity around headship and leadership roles and, in turn, what roles are now ‘worth’. For example, a school might now have a head teacher, heads of school, and deputy and assistant heads. “A lot of academies seem to me to have lots and lots of levels of management, and the head of school role is paid at a low level but with a hell of a lot of expectations of that role,” he said.
“Speaking to deputies at our Assistant and Deputy Head Teachers’ Conference, the majority don’t want to step up,” agreed Clem. “They don’t want to be in that seat when they could lose their job, when they perhaps have a young family.
“Even if they do the NPQH training, there needs to be something beyond that because you don’t learn how to deal with staffing or capability issues on the course; you don’t learn how to manage a budget and make cuts. There needs to be an added-on, joined-up picture if headship or leadership is going to be attractive. Pay is obviously one part of that step-up, so there is a financial incentive. The reduction in accountability pressures is the second incentive. The third incentive is high-quality training to ensure you are fully equipped for the role ahead. If I were in charge, that’s what I would do,” he emphasised.
Jon highlighted that his school had been advertising for a new assistant head recently. “We’ve had one applicant, and she had taken voluntary redundancy from her previous school. We got nobody from within the school wanting to look at the job. It is all ‘is that next stage going to be worth the extra money and what I want?’.”
“In Hertfordshire, again made worse with the high cost of living, it is almost standard that any deputy head teacher job will be re-advertised, often twice,” agreed Tim. “In the old days, when I was first applying for headships, there was longlisting; that is like something from fiction now. Many governing bodies are delighted if they can even shortlist.
“Back in the day, it used to be that you would step up to become a head for the last eight-to-10 years of your career, in part to boost your pension; it was worth doing under the old final salary scheme. You could take the risk because you knew if you did headship for six to eight years, you would end up with a significantly better pension.
“Now, under the career-average scheme, that really is not going to make a massive difference. I can't see them ever going back to the final salary scheme, but again, it is all related to pay because it is being eroded not just in the pay we’re getting now but also in the benefits at the end. This cumulative effect is why we’re in the crisis that we are now,” he added.
The role of pensions in this debate – with lower or eroded pay having a potentially significant knock-on effect on retirement income over time – was an important issue that we need to consider as part of this conversation, our panel agreed.
“I think it will become a driver,” said Marijke. “For me, for example, in five years’ time, I’ll be head of a very large school, the top of where I’m likely to go in my career earnings. By that time, I won't need the holidays, which I have lived for as a mum and that have been the pay-off. And my pension will be stagnant.
“I’ll be 50, and there will be absolutely no reason for me to stay in teaching. I will have accumulated the best of what I’m going to get, if the pension goes the way we think, and I won’t really have any choice but to leave –at 50as a really experienced head, taking that out of the system.”
For those mid-career, too, making these future projections and calculations can become much less attractive without the lure of a final salary pension at the end of it, conceded Patrick.
“If they’re going to think ‘I’m 55. Will I have a better life when I’m 60 if I step up from senior leadership to being a head teacher? Will I have a better pension? Will my life chances be better?’. They’re going to think ‘right now if I stay on as a deputy or assistant head, my pension will be a little bit lower, but it’s not going to be a big impact. But, actually, my life now and in the future will be better’. I think there is definitely a weighing of that; looking at what head teachers have to do and what they’d be doing. I think that is definitely a driver. It is not only about salary now but also pensions in the future.”
At the other end of the scale, the government could be looking at much more creative solutions to attracting – and keeping – graduates than just throwing higher starting salaries at them, argued Clem.
“If you removed new teachers from their tuition fees and student loans contributions, that would give them £200 a month extra. If you waived or wrote that off for the first 10 years of their career, they are likely not only to carry on contributing to the teachers’ pension pot but also stay in the profession longer,” he pointed out.
“That would obviously cost in terms of the government writing off or waiving this money. But, actually, they would be saving because they wouldn’t be paying out more for teachers’ pensions, and it would make the profession more attractive for graduates.
“It would not cost in terms of adding to teachers’ pay, but in real terms, it would incentivise people to stay in the profession for 10 years. Or perhaps you could say ‘if after eight years you take on a leadership role, we’ll waive it at seven years’ - or whenever. And then there is an added incentive to stay,” he added.
“That would be massive; that actually would,” enthused Jon.
Alongside this, a better or more structured career framework could be valuable, argued Patrick, one that covers the formative first years post-NQT/qualified teacher status (QTS) through to your progression as a class teacher, into management or whole-school roles, into middle and senior leadership and right the way up to headship.
“There is an argument for having a framework throughout your career as a teacher. There is an issue in that the DfE does not have the levers to make that happen with so many schools, certainly secondary, now being academies,” he said.
“But there is definitely an argument for having a new career framework, a three to seven-year framework, a moving-into-leadership framework, then a senior framework and finally a moving-into-headship framework. There is a real argument for that.
“One would not necessarily want the DfE training all those people, but it is about giving teaching that ‘career’ status. Medicine has that –medicine has a really good, pedagogical framework of ongoing training throughout your career, whether you’re a new doctor or a consultant. And it needs to be linked with accountability, but where the nature of that accountability is really good; it is less threatening,” Patrick added.
With the discussion drawing to a close, Ian asked the panel for any final thoughts.
“From everything we’ve said, I don’t think increasing pay is going to be a huge contributing factor to helping teachers. But not increasing pay will be a massive detrimental factor,” emphasised Jon.
“The pay differential issue is really, really important,” said Patrick. “To keep teachers in the profession, to enable them to become better teachers, to get them into middle and senior leadership, and then to encourage and enable senior leaders to stay in the profession. The acknowledgement that experience is gold for teaching and the teaching profession, and we need to pay for that.”
“In Hertfordshire, the system of leadership in schools is facing significant difficulties because there are so many schools that do not have a permanent head teacher,” agreed Tim. “The number of heads who have recently retired but are now coming back out and working part-time, or those who have an adviser coming in – it cannot go on for much longer.
“We have been saying this for a number of years, but I honestly think we are almost at that tipping point, at least in Hertfordshire and quite possibly nationally, where we are soon going to have so many schools without a designated leader, and there won’t be people who are prepared to step up or cover it on a temporary basis. While the DfE may be starting to recognise recruitment and retention, is it really? The word ‘crisis’ is overused, but I do think this is an impending crisis, and I am going to see it within my time left in the profession. It truly is close to breaking point,” he added.
“What today has really made me think about is the leadership pay scale,” said Marijke. “There are a number of quite demeaning presumptions made around the way it operates, and one of those is ‘smaller schools are easier to run, and bigger schools are harder’.
“I have moved to a bigger school, and it is definitely a tough life, but it is much easier in some ways because it has a life of its own and there are people to actually do that role rather than you being, as a colleague used to call it, the flywheel. As a head of a smaller school, albeit a special, you are literally providing the momentum for every single activity and juggling many roles. So, I think that needs rethinking,” she added.
“One of the big things that will remain with me is if teachers are given a pay rise of this much [raises hand high], but leaders are given apay rise of this much [lowers hand down], it doesn’t do very well for members across Cumbria,” said Clem. “We’ve got more than 140 NAHT members that have a teaching commitment. They are getting small pay rises, but the person next door is getting a massive one. That is a huge thing that will stay with me.”
For Ian, bringing the debate to a conclusion, the innovative thinking flying around the table had underlined an important point. It had highlighted how the discussion – not only narrowly in terms of NAHT’s evidence to the STRB but also more widely in terms of its ongoing advocacy and lobbying around pay, progression, recruitment and retention –needed to clearly convey the broader message. Pay reveals systemic issues with the profession. It is much more than simply ‘please, sir, I want some more’.
“We’re getting confirmation here that says ‘actually what we need is to rethink the whole structure of teaching’. We need to rethink the salary structure; we need to review it entirely. And it comes back to accountability, too,” he said
“We have been pressing the STRB and saying ‘you need to take a completely new view of what the pay structure in teaching looks like to reflect how the whole of the education world has changed since 2010’. It doesn’t really fit anymore. That is the message, I think, that’s coming through here.”
PARTICIPANTS
• Tim Bowen, head teacher, Maple Primary School, St Albans
• Clem Coady, head teacher, Stoneraise School, Carlisle, Cumbria
• Patrick Foley, head teacher, Southborough Primary School, Bromley
• Ian Hartwright, senior policy adviser, NAHT
• Marijke Miles, head teacher, Baycroft School, Hampshire
• Jon Parsons, deputy head teacher, White Meadows Primary Academy, Littlehampton.
‘TO MOVE ONTO A LOW LEADERSHIP SCALE YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE TAKING A PAY CUT’
As well as the roundtable discussion, and again as part of the evidence-gathering for its submission to the STRB, NAHT went out to members to see what their experiences were around this area.
The reluctance of many middle leaders to want to step into school leader roles along with the barriers created by pay and workload pressures were consistent talking points and worries.
“For some, it is the reduction in teaching commitment; I still miss having my own class as a leader even though I still teach it. It is not the same as having a class of my own, but I know it would be impossible to be a senior leader and teach full time,” one deputy head teacher, who wished to remain anonymous, told NAHT for example.
“Where deputies are teaching more, they find it hard to balance. I have a friend who is a deputy in a one-form entry school. She is responsible for a class, has three afternoons out of class (which she has to plan for because a teaching assistant covers them) and is also the designated safeguarding lead, SENCo and key stage one leader.
“Some people don’t want the extra responsibility. We have an excellent middle leader in school who just doesn’t want to go any further.
“Pay is an issue for some. If you are on the upper pay scale (UPS) with a teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) or even just UPS, to move on to a low leadership scale you might actually be taking a pay cut. This happened to a SENCo I know who wanted to be an assistant head teacher.
“The difference in pay is often not beneficial when you consider the increase of responsibility. As a deputy, I know there is someone else above me for support. But as a head, you are ultimately responsible. As a deputy across two schools, I am paid more than some heads of small schools, so it is not worth amove,” the deputy head teacher added.
BACKDROP TO THIS YEAR’S PAY ROUND
As most head teachers will undoubtedly be aware, after years of capped 1% pay rises, the government in 2018 finally awarded a3.5% rise to teachers on the main and unqualified teacher pay ranges.
However, while broadly welcome in itself (if well below the 5% that NAHT and other teaching unions had been pushing for), there was dismay among many school leaders that, in doing so, then education secretary Damian Hinds ignored the recommendation of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) that a 3.5% above-inflation pay rise was needed for all teachers and school leaders rather than one that was differentiated.
To add insult to injury, those on the upper pay range were awarded a 2%pay rise while school leaders got a measly 1.5%.
NAHT does argue that the STRB is listening (to an extent). And since 2016, the STRB has been cognisant of the recruitment and retention crisis facing the profession, and the role of pay capping and differentials within that.
For example, while the STRB’s recommendation last year for a 2.75% uplift again fell well short of the 5% NAHT wanted, we welcomed the STRB’s “robust recognition that the decline in the competitiveness of the teachers’ pay framework is a significant contributor to the shortfall in teacher supply”. Equally positive was the STRB’s recognition in its 2019 report that “more will be necessary over the period of the next spending review”.
However, once again, the stumbling block in 2019 was the government which, although accepting the STRB’s 2.75% recommendation in full, said it was not prepared to fund it fully.
This sets the tone and backdrop for what could yet be a further challenging pay round this year. But it is one, NAHT argues, that will be critical if the profession’s recruitment, retention and progression challenges, particularly at middle and senior leadership levels, are to be addressed.
