Conditions and Employment

What is the context?
Schools, colleges and trusts are facing serious financial pressures as rising costs continue to outstrip funding. The government’s own figures show that school costs rose by 3.4% in 2025-26, while funding increased by only 2.2%, leaving a national shortfall of around £700 million.  

Much of this pressure stems from unfunded pay awards and increasing staffing, energy, and National Insurance costs. The DfE acknowledges that many schools will be required to make further “efficiencies” to manage these rising costs.  

ASCL position: ASCL recognises that in certain circumstances employers may need to consider staffing restructures and, potentially, redundancies where this is unavoidable. Where this is required, we expect all employers to carry out full and meaningful consultation with staff and recognised trade unions. 

As a minimum, and in addition to any statutory legislative requirements, we expect that the process is carried out in line with ASCL’s restructure and redundancy principles, along with all national and any locally agreed terms and conditions. Where more favourable, this must also be within the parameters of the employer’s agreed policies and procedures and any contractual requirements. 

Why are we saying this?
As a trade union, ASCL’s view is that redundancies should only be a last resort. Employers should fully explore every alternative - such as non-staff savings, temporary measures, collaboration, or use of reserves - before proposing reductions in staffing. 

Whilst appreciating that the national funding crisis is placing schools in an extremely difficult position, we urge employers to do everything possible to protect jobs and maintain high-quality education for children and young people. 

Employers need to ensure they follow a fair process that involves meaningful consultation both collectively and individually, as well as respecting the terms of employment contracts with their employees. 

What is the context?
The Employment Rights Act 2025 will reduce the qualifying period for protection against ordinary unfair dismissal from two years to six months with effect from 1 January 2027. The reform represents a significant extension of employment protections and is intended to provide employees with greater job security at an earlier stage of their employment. 

ASCL position: ASCL is not supportive of probation periods for any staff. 

Where probationary periods do exist, they should not be longer than three months. We are opposed to extensions to probation periods unless specific performance issues have been identified, and not resolved, before the end of the initial probationary period and only to a maximum of nine months. 

Throughout any probationary period, all notice periods should match those stated in nationally agreed terms and conditions as a minimum.

Why are we saying it?
ASCL's position is informed by its commitment to fair employment practices, professional trust and workforce stability. We believe employers should be able to assess suitability for employment through effective recruitment processes, high-quality induction, appropriate support and clear appraisal arrangements, rather than relying on lengthy periods during which employees have reduced employment security

The education sector continues to face significant recruitment and retention challenges. Employment practices should support the attraction and retention of high-quality staff. Extended or routinely prolonged probationary arrangements can create unnecessary uncertainty for employees and may undermine these objectives.

What is the context?
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) is the UK adviser to the government on climate change.  Their report, A well-adapted UK was published on 20 May 2026.  It details three risks to the UK – overheating, flooding and drought.  The report sets out a recommendation to set maximum working temperatures.

Since the publication of the report in May, we have seen the impacts of overheating in educational settings in a landscape of multiple weather records broken and alerts in place, examples include:

• 2026 becoming the first on record in the UK to reach 35 degrees in three consecutive months – May, June and July.
• The warmest June on record in England – 37.7 degrees
• The UK Health Security Agency (in partnership with the Met office) issuing many health alerts over the summer, including a rare, red alert in June indicating that the weather could bring risk to life.  

All of this followed 2025, being the hottest year on record.  

The impact of this is members reporting teaching and working in 33-degree heat in some classrooms/workspaces.  

ASCL position: Schools and colleges are increasingly experiencing periods of extreme heat which make it difficult to maintain comfortable and productive learning and working environments. Rising temperatures can have a significant impact on the wellbeing, concentration and performance of staff and their pupils/students.

We call on the government to set a maximum workplace temperature and to provide the resources to ensure that all education settings can maintain reasonable working conditions.

Why are we saying it?
It is essential that working conditions are reasonable.  We know heatwaves will intensify in future years and it is necessary that government invest in the education estate to allow reasonable working conditions.

Further information
A Well-Adapted UK - Climate Change Committee
 

What is the context?
Abatement is a financial restriction placed on members of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme who continue to work after accessing their final salary pension at normal pension age.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that the abatement rule in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme should be removed. 

Why are we saying it?
The current provision does not reflect modern retirement and working patterns and penalises members who wish to continue to work after their normal pension age.

It can discourage experienced school and college leaders from remaining in or returning to the workforce at a time when the sector faces significant recruitment and retention challenges.
 

What is the context?
Schools, colleges and trusts are facing serious financial pressures as rising costs continue to outstrip funding. The government’s own figures show that school costs rose by 3.4% in 2025-26, while funding increased by only 2.2%, leaving a national shortfall of around £700 million.  

Much of this pressure stems from unfunded pay awards and increasing staffing, energy, and National Insurance costs. The DfE acknowledges that many schools will be required to make further “efficiencies” to manage these rising costs.  

ASCL position: ASCL recognises that in certain circumstances schools and trusts may need to consider staffing restructures and, potentially, redundancies where this is unavoidable. Where this is required, we expect all employers to carry out full and meaningful consultation with staff and recognised trade unions. 

As a minimum, and in addition to any statutory legislative requirements, we expect that the process is carried out in line with all national and any locally agreed terms and conditions. This must also be within the parameters of the employer’s agreed policies and procedures and any contractual requirements. 

Why are we saying this?
As a trade union, ASCL’s view is that redundancies should only be a last resort. Employers should fully explore every alternative - such as non-staff savings, temporary measures, collaboration, or use of reserves - before proposing reductions in staffing. 

Whilst appreciating that the national funding crisis is placing schools in an extremely difficult position, we urge employers to do everything possible to protect jobs and maintain high quality education for children and young people. 

Employers need to ensure they follow a fair process that involves meaningful consultation both collectively and individually, as well as respecting the terms of employment contracts with their employees. 

What is the context?
Flexible working is now a national priority, supported by strengthened statutory rights through the Employment Rights Act, including a day-one right to request flexible working, faster employer response times, and further reforms due in 2027. The School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) and the DfE continue to highlight its crucial role in supporting recruitment, retention, wellbeing, and equality. The School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) now includes an expectation for all schools to have a Flexible Working Policy. The DfE provides funded support and resources for schools and trusts through its Flexible Working Toolkit. Although operational challenges exist, evidence shows that collaborative and well-planned approaches can help schools and trusts to implement flexible working effectively and sustainably.

ASCL position: ASCL believes that all employers should take a proactive approach to flexible working opportunities for all staff. They should consider using the DfE support and guidance to seek to overcome any challenges that this may present. We encourage our members to embrace flexible working both for themselves and for their staff, and we will support them in making their own flexible working requests.

Why are we saying this?
Recruitment and retention challenges remain significant, and flexible working is one of the most effective strategies for sustaining a high-quality workforce. Strong evidence links flexibility with improved wellbeing, performance, and organisational resilience. Recent legislative reforms and national policy expectations reinforce the need for fair, transparent, and proactive approaches. Schools and trusts that embrace flexible working benefit from greater stability, improved staff morale, and a more inclusive workforce - all of which support better outcomes for pupils.
 

What is the context? 
There is no national pay framework that specifically recognises business leadership roles, and as a result there is a disparity in the level of pay and recognition in these roles. 

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that job profiles used by some local authorities were carried out many years ago, and do not always reflect how the responsibilities and accountabilities of these roles and the profession have evolved in that time. 

Local authorities operate their own job evaluation and grading framework, generally within the National Joint Council (NJC) pay scales, and this varies greatly between authorities. This has resulted in a fragmented position where some schools are denied access to higher pay scales which are warranted by these roles, and others are not. We do not believe that the introduction of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body (SSSNB) will resolve this issue, and so we continue to call for these roles to be brought into the scope of the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD).

ASCL position: Business or executive leaders who undertake whole school, college or trust responsibilities are an integral part of the leadership team. ASCL believes that this should be reflected in their status and remuneration by them being brought into the scope of the STPCD alongside their leadership colleagues.  

Why are we saying this? 
We believe that business or executive leaders who undertake whole school, college or trust responsibilities should be paid with parity to other leadership colleagues holding the same level of responsibility, regardless of any particular route into education leadership.

Where this isn’t the case, we ask employers to review the remuneration of their business leader to ensure that it truly reflects the seniority of their role and that they are paid in parity with, and receive the same recognition as, senior leadership colleagues who hold the same level of responsibility. Where possible they should be paid on the leadership pay range.


 

What is the context?
A large multi-academy trust is proposing to incentivise teachers and school leaders to leave the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) for an alternative private defined contribution pension scheme. They propose to do this by offering a higher salary at the expense of lower pension contributions, and a reduced pension provision.

ASCL position: ASCL is fundamentally opposed to the introduction of any private pension schemes in maintained schools and academies, as an alternative to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS).

Why are we saying this?
It is unacceptable that teachers’ and leaders’ pay can only be increased appropriately at the expense of future pension provision. ASCL’s position as a trade union remains that remuneration must be sufficient to provide for both an attractive salary and access to the TPS. Moreover, this proposal transfers all pension risk from the scheme to the individual teacher or leader, while also eroding complementary benefits such as death-in-service and ill health.  

The proposal has the potential to destabilise both the TPS itself and the local labour market. It paints teaching as such a poorly paid option that pension provision must be sacrificed for better pay.

Maintained schools and academies are funded for the employer contribution for the TPS, though the Teachers’ Pension Employer Contribution Grant. This proposal would divert significant amounts of public money into the private sector while worsening members’ pension provision.

 

What is the context?
The requirement for schools to operate performance-related pay (PRP) was removed from the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) in September 2024.  

ASCL position: ASCL believes that all employers should move away from performance-related pay, and develop an alternative approach to appraisal which is supportive and developmental, is not linked to pay, and applies to both teachers and leaders.

Why are we saying this?
There is currently no evidence that performance-related pay impacts positively on pupil outcomes. Research shows it does not work in schools and that it can be counterproductive and ineffective. We are concerned that PRP can also have a negative impact on retention.

The bureaucracy involved in linking performance to pay impacts on workload in a negative way for both the school leaders operating the system, and the staff being appraised.
 

What is the context? 
Until April 2023, pension savings above a specified threshold were subject to a lifetime allowance (LTA) tax charge. As ASCL members’ pensions are defined benefit schemes, (with no actual pot of money), this was calculated by an actuarial formula. Any subsequent LTA tax was deducted annually from pensions in payment. 

While this tax affected less than 1% of pensions nationally, it did impact on a number of ASCL members, primarily at headteacher and CEO level. 

The LTA tax charge was abolished in April 2023 for pensions thereafter. However, a prospective Labour government has pledged to reintroduce this charge. 

ASCL position: ASCL’s position is that, should the lifetime allowance (LTA) be reintroduced, there should be an exemption for school, trust and college leaders so as to retain them within the education workforce.

Why are we are saying this?
ASCL is concerned that the unintended consequence of a reintroduction of the charge would be a surge in retirement of its most senior and experienced members in the lead up to the general election, so as to avoid a considerable LTA impact on pensions. Any actuarial reduction as a consequence of retiring early will be more than offset by not being subject to LTA tax. 

This would be to the detriment of any future government’s ambitions for education, especially given the current recruitment and retention crisis. The Labour party has recognised this risk in the medical profession and specified an exemption for doctors. ASCL would wish for a similar exemption for school and college leaders, for the same reasons.

 
 

What is the context? 
The rapidly increasing rate of inflation has had the effect of exacerbating the nominal pension growth of our members over this tax year. Many are once again finding themselves in breach of the annual allowance on pension growth, resulting in considerable and unexpected tax liabilities. 

ASCL position: ASCL recognises the government’s proposal to fix the unintended annual allowance breaches in the NHS pension scheme. ASCL calls on the government to extend the proposed NHS pension scheme amendment to both the Teachers’ Pension Scheme and Local Government Pension Scheme by removing the effect of inflation from the annual allowance calculation.

Why are we are saying this?
The government has recognised the extent of the impact of increasing inflation on nominal pension growth within the NHS. This is seen as a disincentive to retention within the service. Consequently, it has consulted on removing the effect of inflation entirely from the calculation and considering in-year growth only. ASCL believes that the same principle must apply to school and college leaders. 
 

What is the context? 
We recognise that when certain legislation is introduced, it can entail the introduction of additional compliance-related requirements. Such legislation is likely to lead to an increase in workload for those responsible for implementing the legislation. In the education sector this invariably falls on school and college leaders.

ASCL position: As a point of principle, ASCL is opposed to the introduction of legislation which further adds to the already excessive workload burdens placed on school and college leaders.

Why are we are saying this?
Numerous pieces of research and survey results show that workload is a huge issue for school and college leaders, and that this is a major contributory factor to the current recruitment and retention crisis in schools and colleges. It is not reasonable for legislation to be introduced with no consideration given to the additional workload it creates. The relevant government departments should carry out workload impact assessments for all legislation and initiatives being considered. Where these assessments show that they will result in additional workload, additional resources should be provided to schools and colleges to enable them to comply with the legislation. Where this is not possible, the government must seek to reduce workload by other means to compensate for this.
 

What is the context? 
ASCL is a trade union and professional association, and as such strongly opposes any changes to trade union law which reduce or restrict workers’ rights and their ability to participate in industrial action.

ASCL position:
ASCL is fundamentally opposed to the introduction of any legislation under which trade unions would be required to ensure that a ‘minimum service’ is maintained during periods of industrial action.

Why are we are saying this?
Our members must have the right to participate in industrial action over disputes around their pay and employment terms and conditions. Furthermore, as a significant number of our members also act as the agent of the employer, this change could place them in an invidious position of not only being unable to participate in industrial action themselves, but also having to restrict the actions of staff and fellow union members, potentially damaging working relations as a result. This would also create additional and unnecessary burdens on their already excessive workloads.
 
 

What is the context? 
Local authorities have the option to introduce a levy on workplace parking spaces. Where introduced, such a levy would cover education facilities including schools, colleges and academy trusts. So far (as of June 2022), only Nottingham City Council has introduced such a scheme, but a number of local authorities are actively looking at doing so. 

Employers are liable for paying the Workplace Parking Levy. It is then up to them to decide whether to absorb the costs themselves or whether, and how, to pass it on to employees. 

80% of employers in Nottingham pass on the levy to their employees. Money raised by the levy is ringfenced for improvements in transport.

ASCL position: Where local authorities introduce workplace parking levies, employers must not pass these costs on to employees. 

Why are we are saying this?
ASCL does not think it is appropriate to take a position on the merits or demerits of the Workplace Parking Levy. As a trade union however, we seek to protect our members’ terms and conditions of employment and see passing on the levy to individual employees as an avoidable detriment. 

As public sector employees, education staff have been subject to public sector pay restraint for over a decade and, as a result, the sector is facing a recruitment and retention crisis. Passing on additional costs such as this will simply serve to worsen this situation. 

Employers are at liberty to absorb the cost of the levy without burdening individual employees and ASCL believes this should be the default position.

 

(updated from June 2018)

What is the context? 
In recent years, the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) has included recommendations for differentiated pay awards.

ASCL position: As a fundamental principle, all national pay awards should be fully funded by central government. The impact of not fully funding the pay award will bring schools to crisis point and place our members in an invidious position, making it necessary to set deficit budgets and leading to schools becoming insolvent.

In order to maintain competitiveness in the labour market, ASCL believes that the annual uplift should at least keep pace with inflation* and should apply to all points within all pay ranges and allowances. It is important that employers ensure that their pay policies reflect this principle.

Why are we saying this? 
The STPCD no longer includes mandatory national scales for each pay range; only a minimum and maximum value for each range, and advisory pay scales for the Unqualified Teacher Pay Range, Main Pay Range and Upper Pay Range. It is for employers to decide whether or not to include scales and if so what values to apportion. The STRB recommendation can therefore only ever be to uplift the minima and maxima points. ASCL’s view is that annual uplifts should apply to any pay point or allowance that has been adopted by the employer within their policy.

The pressure on school finances is caused by the lack of government funding for these increases, and ASCL believes it is essential that the government provides the necessary funding so that schools can afford to pay their staff appropriately.

* ASCL believes that the Retail Prices Index (RPI) is the most appropriate inflation rate to be used for pay awards.

(updated from July 2016)

What is the context?
In 1975, the Employment Protection Act was introduced, which included a statutory right to paid time off for trade union representatives to undertake training and trade union “duties”. The Act also gave Acas the responsibility for publishing Codes of Practice containing practical guidance for the purpose of promoting positive industrial relations. The statutory right to paid time off, and various editions of the Code of Practice have been in place ever since.

In addition to guidance around the provision of facility time, the Acas Code of Practice contains guidance around the provision of certain other facilities intended to assist trade union representatives in discharging their duties. These might include accommodation, access to a telephone, secure storage, the use of noticeboards, confidential space to speak with members, and access to members working at another location. Generally, the details of all facilities (including facility time) are contained within a “Facilities Agreement” or a “Trade Union Recognition Agreement.

The statutory obligation to provide facility time to trade union representatives sits with the employer, whether in a maintained school setting, an Academy Trust setting, or a free school.

Trade union representatives and members also have a statutory right to reasonable unpaid time off for undertaking TU activities. 

ASCL position: ASCL recognises that facility time is a statutory responsibility and advises strongly that members’ employers buy into local authority pooled arrangements where they are available.

Why are we saying it?
Managing industrial relations can be one of the most rewarding elements of management and members are likely to find that pooled arrangements are the simplest, most effective, and most efficient way to manage these. All trade unions recognise pooled arrangements as the least disruptive way of providing facility time.

Pooled arrangements mean that multiple schools can share the cost of trade union representatives between themselves. Without such arrangements, each employer must allow paid time off for representatives from every teaching and support staff union, including training time, meaning that the cost can escalate rapidly. For some unions, training can take around ten days each year and potentially there could be up to eight workplace representatives of the various recognised unions in every school and academy. The cost of providing this would self-evidently surpass the per-pupil cost of contributing to pooled arrangements.

Schools will also generally find that the more experienced local trade union representatives they will have access to may help to resolve issues at an early stage and often informally.

Most importantly, schools should remember that if they opt out of pooled arrangements, they must agree an alternative way to discharge this statutory obligation with all of the recognised trade unions.
 

(updated from October 2016) 

What is the context?
Since the introduction of the Academies Programme in 2010, the sector has seen the conversion of almost 40% of schools into academy trusts.  The government’s vision for every school to be part of a family of schools in strong academy trusts will undoubtedly see this proportion increasing. 

ASCL position: A school system based on academies is best served by the retention of the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document and Burgundy Book as a minimum national benchmark. This would ensure stability within the system and allow school leaders and governing bodies to focus on raising standards in schools.

Why are we saying it?
The STPCD and Burgundy Book set out nationally agreed terms and conditions for teachers and school leaders.  We believe that these should be adhered to as a minimum entitlement for all teachers and leaders to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on individual terms and conditions.  Whilst TUPE protections exist for staff employed at the point of conversion, these do not cover staff who may join an academy trust after conversion.  If terms and conditions were less favourable this would cause recruitment and retention issues, which would exacerbate the ongoing crisis in the profession.
 

What is the context? 
We are aware that some employers are starting to request the COVID-19 vaccination status of their employees. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is clear that a person’s COVID-19 status is special category data, as it is their health information.

ASCL position: It is ASCL’s view that any employer who wishes to check and/or record the COVID-19 status of their employees must adhere to the ICO requirements, and that employees must be informed of the purpose for the collection and how the data will be used.

Why are we saying this? 
In line with the information from the ICO, we believe that, if employers wish to check the COVID status of their employees, they must ensure that they have a clear, necessary and transparent reason for doing so, and this must not be on a ‘just in case’ basis.  

Furthermore, the use of this information must be fair, relevant and necessary for a specific purpose and must not result in any unfair or unjustified treatment of employees.
 

What is the context? 
National agreements for school staff include provision for contracting or being in contact with infectious diseases. Changes to COVID-19 self-isolation rules mean that fully vaccinated individuals no longer need to self-isolate as a result of close contact. 

ASCL position: It is ASCL’s view that, where staff are instructed to self-isolate due to contracting COVID-19 or due to close contact, they should be paid as usual.

Why are we saying this? 
The national agreements make no reference to vaccination status, so we believe that employers should follow these provisions and ensure staff are either enabled to work from home or paid as normal if they are instructed to self-isolate. Where employers do not follow national agreements, we believe that they should also follow these provisions, due to the extenuating circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

What is the context? 
From 11 November 2021, the government mandated that all care home workers must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they are exempt under the regulations. This decision has prompted some employers in other sectors to follow suit and mandate vaccinations for employees.

ASCL position: There is no legal requirement for people to be vaccinated against COVID-19.  Therefore, we believe that having the vaccine must be a personal choice based on individual circumstances and not mandated by employers.

Why are we saying this? 
We believe that any medical treatment, including vaccinations for COVID-19 and other illnesses, must be a personal choice. People may have reasons relating to their health or religion that mean that they do not want to be vaccinated. ACAS advises that it is best for employers to support staff to get the vaccine without forcing them to do so. We believe that the decision should lie with the individual, not employers.
 

What is the context?
The NHS says that for some people, coronavirus (Covid-19) can cause symptoms that last weeks or months after the infection has gone. This is sometimes called post-Covid-19 syndrome or 'long Covid'.

National agreements on terms and conditions for teachers and support staff include arrangements for absences relating to infectious diseases or contact with infectious diseases which prevent an employee from attending their workplace, these are applicable to Covid-19 and self-isolation.

Due to the unprecedented situation created by the pandemic, ASCL encourages all employers to adopt the principles of these arrangements even where they do not ordinarily follow the national agreements, and to exclude these absences from any absence monitoring/triggers. 

The national agreements do not cover arrangements for managing absences related to long Covid, with the exception to some circumstances in the Burgundy Book (para 10.1) and Red Book (para 88).

ASCL position: ASCL believes that employers should apply the principles of managing disability related absences to employees who have been diagnosed by a medical practitioner to be suffering with symptoms of long Covid.

Employers should use a flexible and sympathetic approach to managing these absences and consider flexible working opportunities when making reasonable adjustments to assist employees in returning to work.

Why are we saying it?
Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published in April 2021 covering the four-week period to 6 March 2021 estimates that 1.1 million people in the UK (932,000 England) were suffering from ongoing symptoms after contracting the virus at least three months beforehand. Of the 1.1 million, 114,000 of these were in the teaching and education sector, the second highest employment sector after health and social care at 122,000.

Of the people with self-reported long Covid, 697,000 first had Covid-19 at least 12 weeks previously, 70,000 first had it at least one year previously.

There is the potential for long Covid to be classified as a disability under the Equality Act 2010 if it is deemed to meet the criteria of a 'physical or mental impairment' that has a 'substantial' (more than minor) and 'long-term' (lasted for 12 months or likely to last for at least 12 months) negative effect on an individual’s ability to do normal daily activities.

Guidance from ACAS published on 30 April 2021 states: "It's a good idea for the employer to focus on the reasonable adjustments they can make rather than trying to work out if an employee's condition is a disability."

Consequently, we believe it to be a sensible and fair approach for employers apply the principles of managing disability related absences to diagnosed cases of long Covid.  This will also ensure that employers do not treat employees suffering from long Covid more favourably than employees who may have other recognised disability related absence, and inadvertently discriminating against them.
 

What is the context? The employer pension contribution to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) is valued every four years. From September 2019, the rate was increased from 16.48% to 23.6%. This rise currently is fully funded in state-funded schools, FE, sixth form colleges and other training providers. 

The government does not intend to fund the rise in independent schools (or HE). Short notice meant that independent schools were unable to plan for it. The additional financial burden resulted in some independent school employers considering opting out completely from the TPS, and instead looking for alternative pension provision for their employees. Consequently, the government is now proposing to allow independent schools a phased opt-out from the TPS, whereby existing members are kept in the scheme which would then be closed to new recruits at whatever level.  

ASCL position: Where a teacher or school or college leader in an independent school meets the eligibility requirements for the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) and wishes to enrol or remain in the scheme, then their employer should make this provision available.

Why are we saying it? Whilst we recognise the financial burden of employer pension contributions, the answer cannot be to withdraw or partially withdraw from the TPS. Instead, employers should make every effort to make savings elsewhere in order to continue to offer access to the TPS for our members.

Access to a high-quality pension scheme is a fundamental benefit which all eligible teachers and school leaders should receive. We are concerned that phased or blanket withdrawal from the TPS will be of detriment to teachers and leaders working in the independent sector, on recruitment and retention in the sector, on mobility between schools and sectors, and on the financial cost of the TPS. 

(NB This is an update to the position statement from June 2019)

 

What is the context?
Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, significant numbers of school staff have been classified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) by the Government/NHS.  This means that they are at very high risk of severe illness from Covid-19.  In areas where there are high infection rates or during periods of increasing cases nationally, the relevant local authority or the government may issue guidance for these staff not to attend the workplace.

ASCL position:
It is ASCL’s position that all CEV staff should be supported to work from home where government guidance advises this. Where this is not possible and guidance is that they should not attend work, they should be supported to stay at home.  In both cases it is ASCL’s firm view that any affected employees should receive full pay and not suffer any financial detriment.

Why are we saying it?
As part of an employer’s duty of care and the related risk assessments, every effort should be made to protect the most vulnerable staff.  Where it is deemed safest, or there is strong official advice for them not to attend the workplace then employers should support staff to work from home. It is also important that any staff affected by this guidance do not suffer any financial detriment as a result of being unable to attend the workplace, if they are not able to carry out their role from home.
 

What is the context? The employer pension contribution to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) is valued every four years. At the most recent valuation it was decided to increase the rate from 16.48% to 23.6% from this September because of a lower than anticipated economic growth forecast.

The government has said that it will fully fund this rise for state-funded schools (£830m) and FE, sixth form colleges and other training providers (£80m) in the 2019/20 financial year. It will then be a matter for the government spending review.

The government does not intend to fund the rise in HE (£80m) or independent schools (£110m). The lack of notice of this change means that independent schools have not been able to plan for it. The additional financial burden this will impose means that some independent schools are considering no longer offering access to the TPS, and instead looking for alternative pension provision for their employees.

ASCL position: Where a teacher or school or college leader meets the eligibility requirements for the Teachers’ Pension Scheme and wishes to enrol or remain in the scheme, then their employer should make this provision available.

Why are we saying it? Whilst we recognise the financial burden the increase in employer contributions will have on schools, and the disproportionate impact this will have on smaller institutions, the answer cannot be to withdraw from the TPS. Instead, employers should make every effort to make savings elsewhere in order to continue to offer access to the TPS.

Access to a high-quality pension scheme is a fundamental benefit which teachers expect to receive, regardless of the sector in which they work. Were independent schools to withdraw from the TPS, we are concerned that this would negatively impact on teachers and leaders working in the independent sector, on recruitment and retention in the sector, and on ease of movement between the state and independent sectors.

(NB The section 'Why are we saying this' was updated December 2020)