Here we are at that time of year when due to publication of academy trust accounts, chief executive pay is examined and becomes a news story. In this year鈥檚 coverage I haven鈥檛 spotted any mention of the decision makers, or certainly not in a positive light: the board of trustees.聽 Once again governance is invisible.聽 As the experts in multi academy trust (MAT) governance, 海角社区 has been writing on this tricky topic for years: 鈥Onwards and upwards? The rise of executive pay鈥 was the title of an 海角社区 blog in 2016, and a year ago we produced聽detailed and well received guidance on the subject. So over the past week there鈥檚 been understandable noise in the press about the outliers, but actually our take is that overall there鈥檚 been a gradual change of attitude in the MAT sector, with more attention and more exploration of this issue, undoubtedly in large part because of greater scrutiny from the DfE and ministers, but I like to think that the focus provided by our comprehensive guidance and the Framework for Ethical Leadership in Education has helped too!
For the last couple of years ESFA鈥檚 Academies Financial Handbook had advised that 鈥渢he board of trustees must ensure its decisions about levels of executive pay follow a robust evidence-based process and are reflective of the individual鈥檚 roles and responsibilities鈥. It emphasises that the board鈥檚 approach to pay and benefits must be independent, objective, transparent, proportionate and justifiable. So given I am claiming there is more consideration of pay in this way, why hasn鈥檛 there been much movement in executive pay over this time?聽
One very significant reason is of course contracts of employment: once someone is in post, you can鈥檛 unilaterally amend their terms and conditions. Occasionally employees will refuse pay rises or even take a reduction, usually when the organisation is in funding difficulties, but this can鈥檛 be imposed by the employer, the trust, unless it鈥檚 contained in the contract. Therefore any recalibration which needs to be done is most likely going to happen once the postholder is leaving and a new lead executive recruited.聽
Second, while benchmarking has a role, there is a risk that it prompts a race to the top. 聽Most discussions around reward for MAT executives start from headteacher pay, and some seem to make an assumption there needs to be of some sort of multiplier - a racheting up - as the trust takes on more schools. Being a chief executive of a MAT is a very different role from being a headteacher.聽 So why not look which to public sector and charity for chief executive 聽benchmarks. As we set out in our guidance, 聽the remuneration packages for the chief executives of the NSPCC (income 拢118.3m) and Barnardo鈥檚 (income 拢312.8m) are circa 拢190,000. These are complex, sizeable charitable organisations in the children鈥檚 sector with multiple income streams. Alternatively the median pay of chief executives of small (up to 拢200m turnover) NHS trusts was 拢167,500 and in trusts with 拢200-400m turnover 拢182,500 with the upper quartile 拢202,500. The salary range of Director of Children鈥檚 Services with responsibility for the leadership, strategy and effectiveness of a local authority children鈥檚 services was between 拢90,000 and 拢166,000.
We all want to reward our leaders properly, while remembering that this is public money and consequently, leadership positions do not attract the same premiums as those in the corporate sector. Those who choose to work in public services do so because they have exactly that: a sense of service to the public. They have a wish to make a difference or and are motivated by duty, the organisation鈥檚 mission.聽 Compared with four years ago there is much more open consideration of mission, values, ethos, helped in part by the Framework for Ethical Leadership in Education, which had it its first birthday summit at the end of last month.
Many MAT leaders enthusiastically promoting ethical leadership are embarrassed by the pay of some others in the sector.聽 It is in fact only a small fraction of MATs involved in astronomical pay; yet the coverage tarnishes all who lead MATs. It is not helping academies in the PR battles, playing into the 鈥榩rivitisation鈥 critique. 海角社区 has for years pointed out that academy trusts are part of the third sector, the charitable sector. However offering and taking remuneration which is reminiscent of the private sector suggests otherwise. The Department for Education knows this, hence the ministerial correspondence which 海角社区 has supported. Yet the DfE is currently unable to insist on remuneration restraint by trust boards: our publication Moving MATs forward: the power of governance聽explains further. If they begin to be frustrated by their lack of influence, perhaps ministers will begin to look to other levers, such as more prescriptive funding agreements or a framework for executive pay as exists in the NHS. However that wouldn鈥檛 fit well with the rhetoric of autonomy for trusts and their boards. As always, our message to trusts is use your power wisely and fairly.
Former Chief Executive
After 14 years with 海角社区, Emma has departed from her role as Chief Executive. During her tenure, Emma was a strong advocate for the school governance community, engaging with legislators, policymakers, education sector organisations, and the media on a national level.