On 30 October 2025, the Department for Education (DfE) published its evidence to the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB), setting out proposals for teacher and leader pay awards for 2026–27 and 2027–28, with an indicative view towards 2028–29.

​

Read the full DfE submission here Government evidence to the STRB 2026

​

As Chair of NEDex, I invited our Advisory Board of education leaders to review the publication and share their reflections on what the proposals mean for school leadership, workforce planning, and financial sustainability across the sector.

​​

Key Points from the DfE Submission

​

The DfE’s evidence outlines:

​

• Ongoing challenges in teacher recruitment and retention.

• The fiscal constraints faced by schools and trusts.

• A proposed three-year approach to pay awards (2026–27 to 2028–29).

• Comparative data on teacher pay trends and affordability analysis.

​

While the DfE recognises that pay is a critical lever for retention and morale, the proposed increases are to be delivered within existing funding limits, with schools expected to “realise better value from existing spend.”

​​​

Advisory Board Commentary

​

Carla Whelan – CEO, Empower Multi-Academy Trust

​

“I have to say, the proposed percentage is a bit disappointing, especially given the ongoing financial pressures people are under. That said, having the figures set out over a three-year period is definitely helpful. It gives us some much-needed certainty and means we can potentially plan our budgets with a lot more confidence.`

​

Having this confirmed over a longer period will really help to:
• Forecast staffing costs more accurately and reduce unexpected pressures.
• Plan budgets and resource allocation with greater stability.
• Align recruitment and retention strategies around a clearer picture of future pay.
• Make more strategic decisions about other priorities, knowing salary costs are more predictable.

 

So while it’s not the uplift we might have hoped for, the stability over the next few years is at least a positive step.”

​

Sash Hamidi – CEO, The Pegasus Partnership Trust

​

“I agree with Carla. Financially, the proposal is not sufficient and should be fully funded. However, the certainty it provides will help us budget more carefully, which is appreciated.

​

I still find the funding mechanisms to be the main issue. We are funded the same regardless of having 80% of teachers on UPS3 or 80% on MPS1. There’s already a school workforce census that could be used to give accurate data and better inform the funding schools need, year on year.

​

Using this data would also help retain more experienced teachers who currently feel disadvantaged, schools are too often forced to appoint “cheaper” teachers just to balance the books.  It will be interesting to hear more on how this develops.”

​​

Howard Nelson – Chief Finance and Operating Officer, The Keys Academies Trust

​

“I agree too with much of what has been written. A three-year proposal would give certainty, but I’m not sure it’s actually helpful.

 

The Government’s written evidence to the STRB makes clear that the pay award is to be delivered within the existing funding envelope for schools, with schools expected to implement ‘plans to realise and sustain better value from existing spend.’ In short, any funding for the 4% pay rise will only be covered in part by future allocations, meaning we’ll need to absorb a portion of the uplift from our trust’s base budget or reserves unless further funding becomes available.

 

For example, if teacher pay accounts for around 75% of total salary costs, a 4% uplift could increase total salary expenditure by 2–3%. If DfE funding only covers ~1.7% of that, we may need to find the remaining 1–1.3% through internal savings, restructuring, reserves, efficiencies, or non-pay reductions. I had hoped the reductions in LGPS contributions might help offset this, but the gap remains significant.

 

The DfE’s evidence argues that the uplift will aid recruitment and retention - but I would caution that it’s unlikely to reverse a decade of real-terms pay decline or address current workforce shortages. With inflation above 5%, this still represents a below-inflation settlement.

 

We must also consider support staff pay rises and the uncertain future of SEND funding post-review, both of which are likely to place further strain on school budgets.”

​

Paul Evry – Chief Finance and Operations Officer, Mosaic Partnership Trust

DfE Accredited School Resource Management Adviser & SBP Mentor

​

“Equally - I agree with the discussion points made by others.

​

I think 6.5% over 3 years provides an element of clarity that we have not had previously. I would have liked the evidence to have stated if it is to be 1.5%, 2.5%, 2.5% (or however) so we don’t need to further guess how the 6.5% will be split.

 

My larger concern is the same as Howard’s, funding, particularly SEND, with the upcoming reviews. Our Local Authority is the lowest funded in the South-West, so to add further cost pressures only increases financial pressures on our schools.”

​

Nick Osborne – Chief Executive, Maritime Academy Trust

​

“I’ll admit my initial response was a little more emotional than everyone else’s, but honestly, it’s utterly ridiculous. Based on current inflation, what’s being proposed amounts to a real-terms pay cut for staff, and a pay cut for schools by failing to fund it properly.

 

The idea that schools will simply ‘have fewer leaders’ is nonsense. We’re already being asked to deliver more and more with fewer people, and this will only make things worse.”

​

Summary

 

Across the NEDex Advisory Board, there is broad agreement that while the three-year pay framework provides welcome clarity, it does little to address the real-terms funding gap faced by schools and trusts.

​

The feedback from leaders highlights that without fully funded pay awards and reformed funding mechanisms, ones that reflect workforce composition, experience levels, and regional variation, the sector will continue to face mounting financial pressures.

​

The message from our Board is clear: certainty helps, but sustainability is essential.​

​