The Impact of Ending Performance Related Pay: Sustaining Excellence in Schools
The removal of mandatory performance-related pay (PRP) for teachers marks a significant shift in education policy and school management. As of September 2024, schools in England are no longer required to link teacher pay progression to performance outcomes, a change formalised in the latest School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) and supported by non-statutory guidance from the Department for Education.
Why Was PRP Removed?
PRP has long been criticised for its administrative burden, questionable impact on teaching quality, and the stress it places on staff. The Workload Reduction Taskforce and subsequent government reviews concluded that PRP often failed to deliver its intended outcomes and contributed to teacher dissatisfaction and attrition.
What Changes Now?
While PRP is no longer mandatory, schools still have the discretion to retain it in full or in part. Crucially, the statutory requirement to appraise teachers remains. Pay decisions must still follow the completion of the annual appraisal cycle, and schools must ensure that their pay policies clearly outline how progression decisions will be made - whether or not they are linked to performance.
Risks and Opportunities
Removing PRP does not mean abandoning accountability. In fact, it presents an opportunity to reimagine performance management in a way that is more supportive, developmental, and equitable. However, without careful planning, schools risk creating systems that are either too lax, leading to automatic pay progression without merit, or too opaque, which could invite challenges from staff and unions.
What Should Schools Be Thinking About?
- Redefining Appraisal Systems
Schools must ensure their appraisal processes remain robust, fair, and focused on professional growth. This includes:
- Setting clear, measurable objectives aligned with school priorities.
- Ensuring appraisals are evidence-informed but not overly bureaucratic.
- Maintaining a consistent process across departments and roles.
- Clarifying Pay Progression Criteria
Even without PRP, schools must define how teachers move through pay scales. This could include:
- Annual progression unless performance concerns are documented.
- Use of half-points or staggered increments to manage budget and reward sustained excellence.
- Transparent criteria for upper pay range applications and progression.
- Strengthening Professional Development
With the shift away from PRP, schools should double down on:
- Continuous Professional Development (CPD) tailored to individual and school needs.
- Peer reviews, coaching, and mentoring to foster a culture of collaboration and improvement.
- Maintaining Accountability Without Punishment
Schools should avoid replacing PRP with punitive systems. Instead, they should:
- Use appraisal outcomes to identify support needs early.
- Ensure capability procedures are a last resort, not a default.
- Engaging Stakeholders
Policy changes must be communicated clearly to staff and unions. Schools should:
- Consult on changes to pay policies.
- Provide training for appraisers and governors on the new framework.
Conclusion
The end of mandatory PRP is not the end of performance management. Rather, it is a chance to build systems that are fairer, more supportive, and better aligned with the realities of teaching. By focusing on clarity, consistency, and development, schools can ensure that high standards are maintained, and even enhanced, in this new era.
