From this term, PRP is no longer obligatory in schools after the previous government accepted the recommendations of the Workload Reduction Taskforce earlier this year.
An investigation by the taskforce – which is aiming to reduce average working hours for teachers and schools leaders by five hours a week – ruled that PRP was a “significant workload burden”.
As a result, the previous government had promised “a less bureaucratic way to manage performance fairly and transparently” from September.
Since the election, the new Department for Education (DfE) has published updated guidance on appraisals and capability “to support those schools that choose not to use PRP to inform their pay progression decisions”.
However, it is uncertain just how many schools will jettison PRP – and to what extent and how quickly – especially with academy schools continuing to have freedom over their pay and conditions.
In late July, the DfE accepted in full the recommendations of the School Teachers’ Review Body and granted teachers a 5.5% pay rise for this school year. In addition, schools will get around £1.2bn in “additional funding” to cover the costs of this award.
The 5.5% award applies from September 1. It applies to maintained schools but not academies – although many academies do follow national pay and conditions.
A DfE blog in July said that expects changes to PRP practice to have an impact on teacher workload: “From September, schools will no longer be required to use the PRP system, which can lead to schools and teachers going through an overly bureaucratic process to agree individual teachers’ pay rises. This will help improve teacher workload.” (DfE, 2024a).
The DfE’s updated appraisal guidance, published in July (DfE, 2024b), adds: “The removal of the requirement is to allow schools to have a greater opportunity to focus on professional development in objectives and appraisals.”
Responding to the announcements, the National Association of Head Teachers said that pay still remained below 2010 levels in real-terms, but welcomed the “above-inflation” rise and the additional funding.
However, general secretary Paul Whiteman urged schools to throw out PRP: “The NAHT has long called for the end of PRP – it has been proven to be ineffective in education and is a bureaucratic burden on schools, so we are pleased that the obligation to use it will be removed from this September.
“Given the timing, schools may need to think carefully about how they implement this change, but we will be encouraging them to do so as soon as possible.”
Recently the Education Endowment Foundation concluded that PRP had “low impact for low cost based on very limited evidence” (EEF, 2021). Key findings included that the impact of PRP approaches is low. The EEF advised that schools might consider other more cost-effective ways to improve teacher performance, such as high-quality CPD. Its review also found that implementing PRP can narrow the focus of teachers to particular groups or particular measures.
The NASUWT has also urged schools to act quickly. General secretary Dr Patrick Roach said: “PRP was discriminatory, divisive and deeply damaging to teacher morale and collegiate working in schools, and it is high time to consign it to the dustbin of history.”
The National Education Union, meanwhile, added: “Removal of PRP will make a material difference to the workload of teachers. Allowing teachers to take the time needed to plan, prepare and assess at home will inject some flexibility into teachers’ working lives, as in other professions. This flexibility is badly needed.”
Meanwhile, there has been a warning about the number of teachers quitting the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS).
Freedom of Information data shows that in the 12 months to May 2024, 13,112 teachers opted out of the TPS – an increase of more than 1,600 year-on-year.
The single biggest reason for leaving the TPS was affordability. In the 12 months to May 2024, 9,010 teachers withdrew from the scheme citing personal finance reasons – 69% of the total withdrawals.
Meanwhile, a further 1,240 teachers withdrew from the TPS because they were joining a private pension scheme.
The FoI data has been obtained by Wesleyan. Separate FOI data shows that 34% of all independent schools in England and Wales have withdrawn, or plan to withdraw, from the TPS, amid rising employer contribution rates.
In fact, more schools left the pension scheme in the first six months of 2024 than in the entirety of 2023.
Darren Mills, specialist financial adviser at Wesleyan Financial Services, said: “While circumstances may mean that more teachers are struggling to keep contributing, leaving the TPS should be a last resort. The TPS is inflation-proofed, guaranteed by the UK government and provides retirement income tied directly to a teacher’s salary. Leaving the scheme can therefore have a significant impact on a teacher’s retirement plans.”
- DfE: Teacher pay: Everything you need to know about the 2024 pay award (blog), 2024a: https://buff.ly/3Wk6Qmc
- DfE: Teacher appraisal and capability, 2024b: https://buff.ly/3MvSCdm
- EEF: Performance pay: Evidence summary, 2021: https://buff.ly/3AyNFOl