Listen to this story Members can listen to an AI-generated audio version of this article. 1.0x Audio narration uses an AI-generated voice. 0:00 0:00 Become a member to listen to this article Subscribe College staff risk a real-terms pay cut next year unless ministers provide significant funding, college leaders and unions have warned in a joint letter. In a rare show of unity, the Association of Colleges (AoC), University and College Union (UCU) and UNISON told education secretary Bridget Phillipson that a zero per cent pay rise recommendation could trigger “further disruption” and “inevitable consequences”. The letter revealed that employers told unions at the first National Joint Forum meeting for the 2026-27 pay round that, without a “material change” to college funding, “a very low pay award, possibly zero, may be the limit of affordability”. It came with a warning from union leaders that teachers will not tolerate another disappointing below-inflation or zero pay offer, hinting at future strikes. The AoC last made a zero per cent pay recommendation in 2015-16, which triggered a national one-day strike by teachers across more than 200 colleges. The representative body made low pay recommendations of 1 per cent (or £250) between 2016 and 2021. But in 2023-24 it delivered an exceptional 6.5 per cent proposal after the government facilitated additional 16-to-18 funding to all providers. A 2.5 per cent pay rise was recommended in 2024-25, followed by a 4 per cent proposal last year. The AoC and unions last joined forces seven years ago to march on parliament to demand fairer college funding. ‘Wholly insufficient’ FE funding The government pledged “significant investment” in October’s post-16 white paper to respond to a demographic increase in 16 to 19-year-olds. Ministers were accused in March of breaking their promise of a 16-to-19 real-terms funding increase after the DfE revealed core funding rates would only rise by 0.5 per cent, equating to a real-terms cut. Consumer price inflation currently stands at 2.8 per cent. The joint letter slammed the “piecemeal and wholly insufficient” 16-to-19 rate real-terms cut and recent freezes to adult and apprenticeships funding. “If current funding levels were sufficient, colleges would be able to recruit and retain the staff they need and employers would be in a position to make a meaningful pay recommendation,” the letter said. “The fact that neither is true demonstrates the scale of the challenge facing the sector.” The letter added it was “inexcusable” that funding-strapped colleges are forced to turn away learners, particularly following the recent news that the number of young people not in education, employment, or training had surpassed one million. Colleges of Further Efficiencies Last week, the AoC met with sector unions to discuss the 2026-27 pay round. Five trade unions representing FE staff have demanded a 10 per cent, or £3,000, pay rise next year, as well as a mirroring of starting salaries with schoolteachers and binding national pay agreements in FE. College bosses are free to set their own staff pay, unlike in schools and sixth form colleges which have binding national pay negotiations. All parties at the meeting agreed colleges were “hamstrung” by funding, and the widening pay gap between FE lecturers and schoolteachers, which is currently estimated at £12,500, was causing impossible recruitment and retention issues. The AoC’s employment policy committee chair, New City College CEO Gerry McDonald, said his committee “absolutely does not want” to make a very low pay recommendation, or possibly a zero pay award, but it could be their “only option” with the current funding landscape. “In many colleges, efficiencies will have to be made,” the letter warned. The UCU and Unison also gave a stark warning of the “inevitable consequences” of a lack of meaningful pay awards. UCU members at 17 colleges walked out in January over disputes with college employers who refused to meet the AoC’s 4 per cent recommendation, but some union branches settled their rows ahead of the strike. The joint letter urges the Department for Education to commit to funding colleges so ministers’ priorities for economic growth can be met. “Despite the injustice of college funding, and therefore pay, the sector is committed to work with you and deliver on your and the nation’s priorities,” it said. The letter added that FE teachers hear conflicting messages from the government on the importance of a trained workforce to build more homes, grow digital capability and hit net-zero targets, but it “does not match the reality in their pay packets”. “Until the government backs up its warm words about colleges with investment, the pay gap will only widen,” said AoC chief executive David Hughes. “It’s quite simple, really: without extra funding, the government will fail to deliver on its own priorities.” Jo Grady, UCU general secretary, said: “This government continues to highlight the importance of further education but the time has come to put its money where its mouth is and provide proper funding for colleges and fair pay for staff.” Andrea Egan, general secretary of UNISON, added: “Further education is crucial for delivering the skills needed to help meet ministers’ growth ambitions, yet colleges are hamstrung by a lack of funding.” The DfE was contacted for comment.
Helen 19 June 2026 Here’s an idea: let’s stop paying college principals excessively high salaries and redirect those funds to teaching staff.
Gary 21 June 2026 100% Gerry McDonald earns £300k + and claims he can’t afford a pay rise? Absolute nonsense
Katie Allen 19 June 2026 In addition there is the threat of cutting employer contributions to FE Teachers pensions but not schools or Sixth forms! There is a significant non- appreciation for FE Colleges it appears – Labour used to be the supporters of skills for all!!
Shane Chowen 20 June 2026 Contribution cuts will apply across the board, Katie https://schoolsweek.co.uk/treasury-could-claw-back-savings-from-reduced-teacher-pension-contributions/
A broken FE teacher 20 June 2026 I work in a large FE college in the Midlands. We have millions in reserves and our financial rating is outstanding. There’s enough in reserves for the college to make an above 4% offer. It can also make efficiency changes to managerial contracts. For example, there are too managers not fulfilling their basic contracts. There’s a particular head of department who boasts that they never do anything in their department if they can help it. However, they do the work which is visible to senior managers giving the impression they are hard working. If these managers, were held to account then public money would be better spent. I know this is endemic in several colleges in my region. Furthermore, executive pay seems immune to any cuts the government announced. Management get richer and all the risk is put on staff. The system is broken. Education should never have been marketised.
Dave Spart 22 June 2026 Is there any chance that FE Week can stop colluding with the fiction that cuts are “efficiencies”? In most cases the result is precisely the opposite.
Anon 1 July 2026 I’m a bit late to the party here – but concerns over pension contributions being reduced are probably misplaced, if anything they could free up funds for pay rises. As I understand it, the regular assessment of the teacher pension pot happens every four years. It sets the employer contribution rate to ensure the fund can cover the demands placed on it. If contributions are going down it is one or a combination of these main reasons; the fund has over-performed, life expectancy is going down (people won’t draw on it as long), fewer people are drawing on it (the rise in zero hours and subcontracted teaching staff), plus depressed wages over time means lower career averages than previously modelled. The amount you get from your pension isn’t affected, it’s now a career average. The Er contributions change is just to ensure the pot is sufficient to pay out. The Er contributions going down means that employers will actually have lower pension costs and, all else being equal, should have more surplus to plough into wage increases. The irony being that as wages rise, in turn it increases career average earnings and increases pressure on the pension fund, so it’s part cyclical in nature. The second slice of irony is that schools, which have c£10k higher wages than FE, stand to save much more in Er contributions than colleges and will theoretically be in a stronger position to use any surplus on staff pay, potentially widening the pay gap. You’d think that AOC, who drain a fair bit of funding from the system for representing its interests, would want to ensure that teaching staff are well informed about things like this. Without teachers, there is no FE. (and perhaps throwing a bone to the support staff might not go a miss either)