Former teachers have turned campaigners to call out the misuse of support plans which they say are being “weaponised” to “force out” staff from schools.
Silence by Support, a campaign group they have founded, wants the government to collect data on the use of support plans and capability procedures, fearing they are “disproportionately” used against older teachers and those on higher pay.
Plans should be used to help under-performing teachers improve, but the group says they are too often “weaponised for workforce management”.
They have collected testimony from 100 teachers who say they’ve been “driven out” through the “deliberate misuse” of plans, leaving staff experiencing “grief, trauma, betrayal, and broken identity”. Many do not return to the classroom.
Campaign co-founder Nick Smart, a primary teacher, said: “We urgently need transparency, oversight and reform. The overuse and abuse of support plans must end.
“The profession cannot afford to keep discarding those who still have so much to offer.”
101 testimonials
He launched the campaign alongside former teachers Sarah Dunwood and Sharon Cawley, who set up the Facebook group Life After Teaching: Exit the Classroom and Thrive. It now has 175,000 members.
Dunwood says they noticed “more and more people…almost on a daily basis” posting about support plans. They created Silenced by Support after writing to the education secretary last year.
Government guidance for schools says capability procedures should apply “only to teachers and school leaders where there are concerns, which the appraisal process has been unable to address, of not meeting the required standards of work performance”.
“Except in the most serious cases”, formal capability procedures should only be used after “a period of informal suppor
Support plans ‘out of the blue’
But testimonies collected by the group suggest otherwise.
One teacher says all middle leaders at their “struggling” academy were placed on informal support plans for just two weeks following an ‘unsatisfactory’ Ofsted judgment.
They had no prior warning about performance, but were scapegoated for the inspection outcome.
“Obviously, we all ‘failed’ to improve in two weeks and were essentially given a choice of resign before being put on formal plans or fight. Most of us left. One stayed and fought, and was managed out as they failed their formal plan.”
Another “dedicated” primary teacher of 33 years was placed on a support plan at 55. The school had recently been academised, and she says “many” teachers were “driven out” this way.
“That one brutal meeting changed my life”
She recalled her “shock and heartbreak” at being summoned for a “brutal” meeting with her headteacher out the blue.
“To say I was subjected to a character and professional assassination is an understatement. It was so traumatic that I broke down, drove home and was then off with WRS (work-related stress) for four months.”
Her union helped her to negotiate a redundancy payout and she left.
“Teaching has always been my true vocation. However, that one brutal meeting changed my life.”
Others also claim government guidance that says informal support plans should have “clear objectives, timelines and goals” are not followed.
NDAs used as part of settlements
Many of the testimonies end in “resignation under duress, often accompanied by a settlement agreement, an agreed reference, and a non-disclosure clause”, he says.
NDAs preserve “a misleading narrative” that staff turnover is natural, when it was often driven by a system that prioritised budgets over people.
One teacher says they were “bullied out of post with a settlement and an NDA” after they challenged the way support plans were used to “manage out” other staff.
Another said they were an upper pay scale 3 teacher “with a great career spanning 23 years” when they were “suddenly” placed on an informal support plan involving hourly observations.
They took leave due to WRS and came to a settlement involving an NDA.
Another senior leader had been teaching for more than 30 years when they were placed on a support plan “with no warning”.
“I was devastated and went off with WRS…My union said they dealt with two a week. I accepted a pay-off and signed an NDA but never recovered.”
Testimonies collected by the group span a decade, but campaigners say many relate to recent years – and unions say they have encountered recent examples too.
It comes as the government this week promised to “ban” NDAs – but only when they were used to “silence employees subjected to harassment and abuse”.
“What unites these stories is not failure, incompetence, or misconduct. It is the quiet, creeping removal of experienced, often older and more expensive professionals through the mechanism of the support plan,” says Smart.
Higher pay scales targeted?
A lack of national data makes understanding trends difficult.
A survey by Teacher Tapp this month, commissioned by Edapt, suggests older teachers are less affected.
It shows 7 per cent of teachers and leaders in their 20s had been put on a support plan in the past year – up from 5 per cent the previous year.
This dropped to 4 per cent for those in their 30s and 40s, and to 3 per cent once teachers were in their 50s.
NASUWT’s 2024 Big Question survey, involving more than 10,000 teachers, also found teachers with fewer than five years’ experience had the highest rate of being put on support plans in the past year (7.6 per cent), compared with 3.7 per cent among those with 25 years or more experience.
But a union review of casework between 2008 and 2010 found 46 per cent of teachers receiving capability or competence support were aged over 50.
Matt Wrack, the union’s acting general secretary, says older teachers at the top of pay scales are being “threatened with capability procedures. This is increasingly seen as a cheaper alternative to redundancy by some employers”.
National data shows teachers over 50 made up a quarter of England’s workforce in 2010, but this dropped to a low of 18.4 per cent in 2017 and has since nudged up to 21.1 per cent.
But the UK’s teacher workforce remains the youngest across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data from 2020 shows 28 per cent of UK primary teachers were under 30, compared with 13 per cent across the OECD.
Lack of data on support plans
Campaigners say more data is needed to gauge the scale of the issue and uncover whether support plans are being disproportionately used.
NASUWT’s survey suggests staff with a disability are more than twice as likely to be threatened with a support plan or put on one.
Meanwhile, black teachers are almost three times as likely as white staff to be threatened with capability procedures, and more than 2.5 times as likely to have them put in place.
Dunwood acknowledges there will always be circumstances where it is right and proper for somebody to go through capability [procedures].
“But the scale of it, anecdotally, feels like that’s not what is happening all of the time.”
Alistair Wood, Edapt’s chief executive, says that without national data on suspensions or support plans, “we’re flying blind”.
“You can’t fix a system you’re not measuring, though any move towards better data must avoid placing unnecessary burdens on schools.”
The DfE did not directly respond to queries on whether it would consider collecting data on support plans. It said: “Recruiting and keeping great teachers in our classrooms is vital for our Plan for Change.”
It’s hard enough already to get a useless teacher out. Be careful what you wish for!
I have witnessed this many times and fell victim to this myself, although I did not let it get to a support plan but it was following a pattern my school used. Her is the irony though…the government tell us we cannot retire until we are 68, yet these support plans have been used against those in the mid 50’s. It is all down to affordability. Trusts take a top slice of a schools budget meaning less for teaching staff, CEO’s get pay rises and expensive staff get forced out. The bottom line…money
Yes, I too was targeted for criticism even though my work was officially graded as good or very good by inspectors.
The headteacher regularly referred to teachers ‘of a certain age’ advising them to consider their options in public and in the staff room.
I was picked on to come into school early for one to one’s during planning time, had my planning spotlighted for being not specific enough even the plans were for my purpose, I was frozen out of staff meetings and regularly ridiculed.
I sought counselling.
I eventually sought union help for being bullied and the union acknowledged the head was known for this in other schools.
I was quietly led out of the door and over the years all of those teachers of that certain age followed. The experience broke me for life and I have nt really been able to hold down a job ever since.
I was bullied out by a horrible man .He suspended me for an allegation from a pupil that I ‘picked on them ‘ Following an investigation in which I felt like a criminal there was no case to answer and I returned to work for a few years .Retired early and it literally wrecked my life in every way .
I would strongly suspect the numbers of teachers being managed out: with support plans, encouraged sick leave and then given NDAs is much higher than will ever be openly shared by schools, DfE and Government.
Some of the management strategies to cull experienced staff are beyond shocking. The Leave teaching and thrive Facebook group is testament to this.
Sadly, there are too many personally ambitious leaders who will roll out these ‘support plans’, leaving very talented, experienced and quality teachers kicked to the kerb.
It is a disgrace!
I have worked at 2 schools which have used support plans to dismantle and get rid of staff. Non of the staff were unfit, they were all on the upper pay scale or in SLT and didn’t fit the bill or were active union members or people that spoke out against new leadership/ new trust.
This has happened to me twice. The heads did it in a secretive way and made me feel useless.
This tactic was used on me.
I was on UPS-2, and ‘all of a sudden’ there was an issue with my book marking / pupil feedback.
Union told me that I was NOT to attend the ‘informal’ meeting with the Deputy Head & Business Manager, otherwise it would start the process.
Took the school to a tribunal for constructive dismissal and won, and of course they demanded a signed NDA.
Also used on 3 other colleagues in the same school.
I also experience the support plan tactic with a new head. I was judged outstanding by Ofsted in October 2013 and failing by a new head in September 2016 when I was 58.
My school was Philip Southcote.
Nearly two decades of service in a school wherein I was well regarded by Head, colleagues and parents alike. No performance issues. Change at the top. New Head/Deputy. Began a slow micro-managing/gaslighting campaign which at the time I internalised and worked tirelessly to prove myself to them… Over several exhaustive months, this led to my becoming suicidal and having a breakdown…. It was through the recovery process, I pieced together what had happened and reasons behind my breakdown (no previous history of mental ill health)… I take responsibility for my naivety. Most people, would have just ‘walked out’. A protracted battle followed ending in a settlement and NDA on advice of lawyers just prior to my tribunal starting. (Legally they had not broken any employment laws: race/discrimination and quote “there is no law for a manager/Head being an ar**hole.”). Whilst fully recovered and working in another setting where I’m valued/well regarded, the whole episode grates me deeply to this day as the perpetrators remain in post.
I would not sign an NDA now – as we all know, they simply exist to hide dodgy shit… It takes verve and courage, but I would advise people ‘call out’ any such behaviour at the very first sign… Sadly, such practice is common place in the corporate world* and with schools seemingly becoming increasingly corporate in orientation and approach with each passing year, a stand needs to be taken!
*Friends though in senior positions in the corporate environment acknowledge bad managers/apples exist, but culturally many corporate environments are trying to clean-up their practices with regard to such behaviours.
This happened to me and a number of other very good but expensive teachers. Hollybush Prinary in leeds
Been there, bought the t shirt. Went on supply after, cracking feedback for per much all of the last 12 years, wider experience than many. I’d never take a permanent contract again-the shortages are huge and there’s no real need. The flapping around trying to develop a pedagogy to deal with the mess that is society today makes commitment pointless-survival until you can retire is the goal.
This has been happening for decades once driven by inadequate funding and now accelerated by the business model of the Academy and Multi Academy Trust system where schools are encouraged to chase a downward spiral of competition rather than collaboration. I worked at a good successful happy comprehensive school on the tougher part of a London Borough. New governors had the bright idea by similar tactics to reduce costs by “encouraging” the most expensive and experienced staff to leave. It was a nasty process. About three years later the school went into special measures and not long after was closed. That was nearly 30 years ago.
The practice in one form or another, has never gone away.
There are always two sides to a story and whilst there may be cases such as you suggest there are also those who will use this as an excuse to cover up incompetence
As someone who experienced this firsthand, I can say the emotional fallout is devastating. Being placed on a support plan without warning — especially when there’s been no history of underperformance — strips you of your professional identity and confidence. It feels less like development and more like punishment. The lack of transparency, care, or meaningful support leaves lasting damage. You’re left questioning everything: your decisions, your worth, even your future in education. Moving on becomes incredibly hard when you’re forced out quietly, but broken loudly.