The Department for Education has said that its teacher pay deal would be affordable for schools “on average” but admitted that some could face financial pressure next year.
Heads were invited to a webinar this afternoon following controversy about whether schools could afford the new pay offer put forward by the government this week.
During the presentation, the audience was told that when the DfE says the offer is affordable, this was meant “on an average basis” and that the department was aware that schools will be in different circumstances.
Heads were also told that schools that find themselves in “challenging financial circumstances” should contact the Education and Skills Funding Agency or their local authority.
And department officials said they were “very conscious” that special schools were likely to rely more heavily on support staff than mainstream schools and they “are taking that into account”.
The webinar was organised by the department to explain the new pay offer being proposed for teachers for this year and next.
The offer proposes new DfE funding for a £1,000 non-consolidated payment for 2022-23 and an average 4.5 per cent rise for 2023-24.
But just 0.5 per cent of the overall 4.5 per cent pay award for next year will come through new funding and headteachers have since warned that the offer is the “worst possible” outcome as it could break school budgets while also failing to keep teachers in the profession.
The presentation was made by Tom Goldman, a DfE senior expert on school funding, and Graham Archer, director for disadvantage, international and sustainability.
Mr Goldman said the webinar had been organised because there had been “a lot of commentary about how the offer isn’t fully funded”.
The audience was told the department felt that some of the commentary was “based on some misunderstandings about the way in which school funding operates”.
He added: “So, we wanted to try to set out a pretty factual explanation of how the funding package has been sort of put together and assessed and why we as the department think that that does mean that it should be affordable for schools.
“When I say affordable, I’m saying that on an average basis, and I am conscious that no school is average and that different schools will be in different circumstances.”
He also said the department understands that school costs vary according to factors such as staffing, experience and energy deals.
He added: “So, when we say that and with the additional money that’s been promised, we think this pay offer is fully funded. That doesn’t mean that there will be no school at all facing pressures next year.
“There will always be some schools who are in a more comfortable position than the average and there will always be some schools who are finding things a bit more challenging.
“And where schools are finding themselves in challenging financial circumstances they should of course get in touch with the ESFA if it’s an academy trust or the local authority for a maintained school to see what support, guidance and help can be given as usual.”
Last night, education secretary Gillian Keegan wrote to heads, saying it was “critical” that the pay dispute with teachers is solved.
In a blog post published this week, the DfE said it would provide schools with further funding of around £620 million in 2023-24, including a grant of £530 million for the one-off payment.
In the email sent yesterday evening, Ms Keegan said the government would provide an extra £150 million to schools in 2024-25 to “cover the ongoing costs” of the proposed award.
She added that she understood it had been a “challenging time” for school leaders who have “worked hard to ensure children and young people are at the centre of everything [they] do”.
The NEU teaching union has recommended its members reject the proposals, while school leaders’ union the NAHT has called the pay offer “inadequate” and said it is “clear that industrial action will be necessary” if its members vote to reject the offer.
The NASUWT teaching union said the offer “falls short of what the union has demanded from the government, both for pay restoration and on non-pay improvements”.
