Unions have criticised the remit laid out by the education secretary for this year’s review of teacher pay and conditions as “disappointingly unambitious”. Each year, the education secretary writes to the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) setting out what they should consider and deliver recommendations on their annual report. Powell today asked the STRB advice on how the DfE should implement changes to teacher and leader pay that laid out during the schools bill process – including removing leader pay ceilings and introducing new minimum teacher pay for academies. But Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said the changes Powell is seeking recommendations on “do little to address the fundamental challenges facing education employers”. National Education Union general secretary Daniel Kebede blasted “the narrowness of the new STRB remit” as “shocking”. He criticised the fact it included no mechanism to review the 3 per cent pay increase the government has already approved for 2027-28 – something multiple unions have called for. This summer’s STRB report gave multi-year recommendations on pay – including a 3.5 per cent pay rise for September 2026, and a 3 per cent rise from September 2027. With next year’s pay increase already decided, Powell said the STRB’s 2027 report should “focus on matters relating to teachers’ and leaders’ working conditions”. Minimum pay for academies In her letter, Powell asked the STRB to make recommendations on how a new minimum pay floor for academy teachers should be introduced. Currently only maintained schools must follow minimum pay floors set out in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document (STPCD). The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act (CWSA) expands this to teachers working in academies and alternative provision. “We welcome the STRB’s recommendations on how best to implement this,” said Powell. It is thought this will include how the changes should appear in the STPCD. She said recommendations should take “into account the fact that some academies operate different pay ranges to those set out in the STPCD”. She also she wanted the STRB’s guidance on whether individual pay ranges in the STPCD “each require their own pay floor, or whether one pay floor for all teachers…is a better approach”. Pay ceiling removal Powell also asked the STRB for “an assessment of how the ceiling on pay should be removed for maintained schools”. The DfE “committed to removing the ceiling on pay” set out in the STPCD, during the CWS bill process. Powell said pay ranges set out in the STPCD “should remain the benchmark” and the DfE does not intend to change the its current thresholds. “However, we recognise that additional flexibility to pay above those ranges may be useful for some schools to attract and retain the best teaching talent.” The leadership pay range currently allows headteachers to be paid up to 25 per cent above the maximum for their group – and above that, in exceptional circumstances. Powell asked the STRB to consider if that constitutes “sufficient flexibility” or whether the pay ceiling for leaders “should be removed entirely”. She also asked the STRB to consider whether the 25 per cent flexibility should be extended to assistant and deputy heads. Working hours Powell has also asked for the STRB’s views on how working hours arrangements are described in the STPCD. The document currently says “a teacher employed full-time must be available for work on 195 days each year” and “must be available to perform such duties… for 1,265 hours”. But Powell said this has led to “ambiguity” about schools’ ability to offer flexible working patterns. The DfE is proposing an amendment to clarify teachers may be available to work their directed hours “up to” 195 days. She said she would “welcome the STRB’s recommendations on how the provision could be amended to support schools to respond to local workforce needs”. Any recommendations must not affect pupil time in schools, nor should the number of “directed hours” increase from 1,265 per school year, she added. Powell asked STRB to deliver its report by April. She also urged the body to “have regard” when making its considerations, of “the cost pressures that schools are already facing and may face over the coming years”, and the need to make sure proposals “are not too difficult or onerous” for schools or staff. ‘Unambitious remit’ NAHT general secretary Whiteman described it as “a disappointingly unambitious remit” and “on the face of it there is very little here that is likely to make a meaningful difference to recruitment, retention or workload”. “The profession needs a pay and conditions framework fit for the future,” he said. “Instead, the focus appears to be on a handful of marginal changes which do little to address the fundamental challenges facing education employers.” He said it “is difficult to see” how the proposals would help make teaching and leadership “more attractive careers”, arguing they could “create fresh challenges for schools”. “This feels like a missed opportunity to deal with the bigger issues the profession has been raising for many years,” he said. NEU general secretary Kebede said: “At a time when we desperately need the government to step up and deliver the properly funded education system our children and young people deserve, the narrowness of the new STRB remit is shocking.” He criticised the fact the STRB remit “does not include a review mechanism on the proposed 3 per cent pay increase for September 2027”. “Unfair blocks to pay progression, often due to school funding issues, remain in place and drive experienced teachers out of the profession,” he continued. “Yet there is nothing in the remit about the fair, mandatory and transparent national teacher pay structure needed to support recruitment and retention.