England's academy trusts must get the government's sign-off from Thursday before advertising a chief executive job paying more than £174,000. A trust does not have to ask at all if its current chief executive reaches that same salary through ordinary annual raises.
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
In short. From 1 October 2026, an academy trust needs the Department for Education's approval before advertising a new executive post paying more than £174,000, or before any executive's pay rises faster than teachers' pay, a test the guidance says applies "regardless of the remuneration value" [3]. Nothing in the new guidance, or the companion document published the day before it, applies an equivalent check to a sitting executive whose pay reaches that same £174,000 line through ordinary raises that do not outpace teachers. "Clear justification" for a faster rise is never defined in either document, and neither names what happens to a trust that does not ask. Four documented mistakes: three stars.
A gate that only opens for the newly hired
The Department for Education updated "Setting executive salaries: guidance for academy trusts" on 29 September 2026, "to align with the executive pay sections of the Academy Trust Handbook 2026 and to add new information on senior pay controls" [1]. The same day it published a brand new companion document, "Senior pay controls for academy trusts," which "should be read in conjunction with" the first [3]. Both describe a regime that takes legal effect under the trusts' own funding agreements from 1 October 2026, the day after this piece is published [4].
The Academy Trust Handbook sets out the rule in two adjacent paragraphs. The first is an appointment gate: "From 1 October 2026, for new appointments within academy trusts where remuneration exceeds £174,000, or the pro rata equivalent for part-time staff, or performance-related pay above £25,000, approval from DfE must be obtained before the post is advertised" (para 2.34) [4]. The second is a rate test that applies to any executive, new or sitting: "Executive remuneration must not increase at a faster rate than that of the academy trust's teachers, unless there is a clear justification for it to do so. Where the academy trust considers there is a justification, it must seek approval in advance from DfE" (para 2.33) [4].
The Senior Pay Controls guidance spells out that the rate test has no floor: DfE approval is required "where, based on clear justification, academy trusts want to increase executive remuneration at a faster rate than that of the trust's teachers, regardless of the remuneration value" [3]. Read the two paragraphs together and a gap opens up. A candidate proposed for a brand new post at £180,000 cannot be advertised without DfE's sign-off, whatever the trust's justification. A sitting chief executive already on £165,000 whose board gives them raises each year that track, or fall marginally below, the average increase awarded to the trust's teachers, will cross the same £174,000 line with no sign-off required at any point, because the only test that applies to their pay is the relative one, and they have not exceeded it. The absolute £174,000 threshold that triggers scrutiny for a newcomer has no equivalent trigger for an incumbent who gets there gradually.
"Clear justification" is never defined
Both documents use the phrase "clear justification" as the entire test for whether an above-teacher-rate rise is permitted, and neither defines it. The closest either comes to a worked example is a single illustration in the Senior Pay Controls guidance: "Where there has been a significant change to executives' roles, for example the responsibilities have increased substantially as a result of a large expansion, our policy allows for an application to be made in exceptional cases" [3]. That is one scenario, not a definition, and the guidance is explicit that meeting its own published checklist does not settle the question: applications are tested against five evidence categories, but "providing evidence against each factor will not automatically result in approval. DfE will assess the strength of the evidence provided as a whole, and decide whether the trust has made a sufficiently robust case for the proposed pay" [3]. A trust preparing an application has a checklist to work through and no stated bar it needs to clear.
A duty the handbook's own enforcement power never mentions
Neither pay document says what happens to a trust that increases executive pay faster than teacher pay without seeking approval, or that advertises an over-threshold post without clearing it first. The only consequence either names is process, not penalty: DfE "may request evidence to demonstrate that decisions are proportionate and justifiable" and, where it is not satisfied, "will engage with trusts, challenging as appropriate, to resolve the issue" [2]. Neither document mentions the handbook's own general enforcement power. Paragraph 6.17 of the same Academy Trust Handbook, a new provision this site examined when the 2026 edition was published, gives the Secretary of State a specific route for any breach of "any duty imposed under" a trust's funding agreement: "the Secretary of State may issue a direction to the trust specifying the required action to rectify the situation and the required timeframe. The trust must comply with the direction. If a trust does not comply with the direction, the Secretary of State may seek enforcement by a court order" (para 6.17) [4]. Whether a breach of the pay-control duties in paragraphs 2.33 and 2.34 would ever trigger that mechanism is not stated anywhere in either pay document. A trust board reading the guidance on its own terms has no way to know whether ignoring the process carries the force of a legally enforceable direction or amounts to nothing firmer than a conversation.
Reconsideration is for the trust, not the public
The Senior Pay Controls guidance does include a named route to challenge a decision, and it deserves stating plainly: it exists at all. But it runs one way. "Where an academy trust wishes to request reconsideration of DfE's decision, a request must be submitted... within two-calendar months of notice of the decision being given" [3], and it is available only to the trust that applied, on two grounds: new evidence that was not available at the time, or the trust itself wanting to revise its own proposal down [3]. There is no route for a parent, a member of staff or a taxpayer to question an approval after it is granted, and neither document commits DfE to publishing its decisions, its reasoning, or even how many applications it receives and approves each year. The only public trace of an approved above-rate rise is the trust's own subsequent disclosure of pay bandings above £100,000 under paragraph 2.35 of the handbook, published up to a year later with no reasoning attached [4].
The claims, tested
| The claim | What the text shows | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| A £174,000 threshold controls executive pay from 1 October 2026 (para 2.34) [4] | The threshold applies only to new appointments before the post is advertised; a sitting executive's pay is tested only against the teacher-pay rate, with no absolute-value check as it crosses the same line [3] [4] | Real for new hires, absent for incumbents |
| Above-rate pay rises need "clear justification" (para 2.33) [4] | The phrase is used repeatedly and never defined; DfE states meeting its own evidence checklist "will not automatically result in approval" [3] | Undefined test, DfE discretion |
| DfE "will engage with trusts, challenging as appropriate" over non-compliant decisions [2] | The handbook's own para 6.17 gives the Secretary of State a direction-and-court-enforcement power for breach of any funding-agreement duty; neither pay document says whether it applies here [4] | Named power exists elsewhere, not linked to this duty |
| A reconsideration process gives trusts recourse [3] | True, but available only to the applicant trust, not to staff, parents or the public, and DfE names no commitment to publish its decisions [3] | Recourse exists, one-sided |
Credit where due
The regime is a genuine tightening, not a paper exercise. It sets a specific, published figure rather than a vague instruction to be "reasonable," and aligns that figure deliberately with the threshold HM Treasury already applies to senior appointments in central government and further education colleges [3]. The relative-rate test has no lower bound, so it catches a fast-rising pay package at any salary level, not only the highest earners. The handbook is unambiguous that "no individual can be involved in deciding their own remuneration" (para 2.31) [4], and the Senior Pay Controls guidance commits to a working timescale, telling trusts to "allow a minimum of 20 working days for a decision" [3]. A named reconsideration route, even a narrow one, is more than several of the frameworks this site has examined provide at all.
Four documented mistakes. (1) The £174,000 threshold that triggers mandatory DfE pre-approval applies only to new appointments; a sitting executive's pay is tested only against the rate of teacher pay, with no equivalent absolute-value check as it crosses the same £174,000 line through ordinary raises. (2) "Clear justification," the entire test for an above-teacher-rate pay rise, is never defined in either document, and DfE states that satisfying its own five-factor evidence checklist "will not automatically result in approval." (3) Neither document names any consequence for a trust that does not seek approval, and neither cross-references paragraph 6.17 of the same Academy Trust Handbook, which gives the Secretary of State a direction-and-court-enforcement power for breach of any funding-agreement duty. (4) The reconsideration process is available only to the trust that applied, not to staff, parents or the public, and neither document commits DfE to publishing its approval decisions or reasoning. Rated three stars out of five.