E-ACT Teacher Pay Explained (2026/27)

Most academy trust pay pages have to be written around an absence. The trust does not publish a pay policy, its careers page says something warm and unfalsifiable about competitive salaries, and the honest answer to "what do they pay?" is that you cannot find out without asking. E-ACT is the exception. It has published a full Teacher Pay Policy — twenty-three numbered sections, a complete leadership scale, eight headteacher pay groups, TLR values, an appeals procedure and the application form for the Upper Pay Range — and that document turns out to contain a provision that genuinely matters to a working teacher.

It is not a higher salary. The interesting thing about E-ACT is not what it pays but how it decides who moves up.

What E-ACT actually is

E-ACT is one of the larger multi-academy trusts in England, running in the region of 38 academies — primary, secondary and all-through — across the country, educating around 25,000 pupils. It is geographically dispersed rather than concentrated in one region, with schools in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, the North West, the South West, the East Midlands and the South East.

That spread matters for pay in the ordinary way: an E-ACT teacher in a London academy and an E-ACT teacher in the Midlands are on different regional bands of the same national scale, and the gap between those bands is far larger than anything trust-specific. Regional weighting on the national pay scale remains the biggest single lever on most teachers' salaries, and no trust-level policy changes that.

The trust has also grown by absorbing other trusts' schools. Eight schools from the former Venturers Trust in Bristol joined E-ACT in 2024, which is directly relevant to the industrial relations section further down this page: inherited terms from a predecessor trust are a recurring source of pay disputes in the academy sector, and that is exactly what happened here.

The headline: national pay, unusual policy

Start with what E-ACT does not offer. Section 1.5 of the Teacher Pay Policy states that all teachers employed by E-ACT are employed on the Conditions of Service for School Teachers in England and Wales — the Burgundy Book, 2000 — and "paid in accordance with the provisions of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, as updated from time to time". Section 10.1 repeats it: E-ACT teachers are paid within the pay range determined in the current STPCD.

That is the opposite of the Ark Schools position. Ark sits outside the STPCD entirely, which is what lets it set a scale 2.5 per cent above the national one — and which also means the STPCD's conditions protections do not automatically apply. E-ACT has made the other choice: national scale, national conditions framework. On headline salary you should expect an E-ACT offer to match a maintained school in the same region, point for point.

E-ACT's careers page describes a "9-point teacher pay scale M1 – UP3". It is worth being clear that this is not a bespoke nine-point trust scale — it is the six main range points and the three upper range points of the national structure, described as one continuum. There is no uplift hiding in that phrasing.

Automatic progression, not linked to performance

This is the substance of the page. Section 1.8 of E-ACT's Teacher Pay Policy reads, in full:

"Annual pay progression is automatic and is not linked to performance."

It is not a one-off sentence buried in an introduction. The same formulation is repeated for headteachers at section 7.4, for deputy and assistant headteachers at 8.4, and for leading practitioners at 9.7 — with 9.2 adding that eligible leading practitioners "will automatically receive progression and no application will be necessary. It is automatic." Section 10.6 says the same for main pay range teachers, and 13.2 extends it to unqualified teachers. The policy's own summary of changes records that this came in as a "Trust wide move to automatic pay progression" in 2019.

To see why that is unusual, it helps to recall what the national position actually is. Since 2013 the STPCD has required schools to link teachers' pay progression to performance, assessed through appraisal. In practice that has meant an annual cycle in which a teacher sets objectives, gathers evidence, is assessed against the Teachers' Standards, and receives a pay recommendation that in principle can be withheld. In a great many schools the outcome is a formality and almost everyone progresses — but the mechanism is still there, the evidence-gathering still consumes time, and the possibility of a withheld increment still sits behind every appraisal conversation.

E-ACT's policy removes that mechanism from the pay decision. Section 5.1 states that E-ACT "will award a point for each year of employment as a classroom teacher, unless a teacher's performance has not been satisfactory and they are subject to a formal capability process". Section 5.2 spells out the consequence: where teaching or compliance with the Teachers' Standards is not meeting expectations, the headteacher determines support and if necessary uses the capability procedure, and "in this situation there would be no pay progression that year".

So the threshold for losing an increment is not a disappointing appraisal. It is formal capability — a procedurally heavy, documented process with its own safeguards, notice requirements and right of representation. Our guide to capability versus misconduct sets out what that process actually involves. Moving the trigger from "appraisal outcome" to "formal capability proceedings" is a meaningful shift in where the power sits, and it is stated in a document E-ACT has published rather than left to local discretion.

Two further provisions round this out and are worth knowing about. Section 4.3 states that the annual pay lift will be applied to all pay points and allowances — so the national award flows through to TLRs and allowances, not just base scale points. And section 16.1 states that employees who are absent long term, including on maternity leave and long-term sick leave due to a disability, remain eligible to receive pay progression, with 16.2 restating the legal position on maternity explicitly. That matters because progression decisions during long absences are a recurring source of grievances elsewhere; see our guide on teacher maternity pay and pension for the wider picture.

Where "automatic" stops: the UPS threshold

A page that stopped there would be overselling. The automatic rule governs movement within a range. It does not carry you from the top of the main range onto the Upper Pay Range, and section 17 of the policy is entirely conventional on that point.

This is a normal, STPCD-shaped threshold process, and our upper pay scale threshold guide covers how to build a case for it. The honest summary of E-ACT's position is therefore narrower than the headline quote suggests: automatic within a range, application-based between ranges. That is still better than the common alternative of both being performance-gated, but it is not "you never have to make a case for your pay again".

TLRs, SEN and the part-time question

The policy sets out E-ACT's TLR structure in some detail, and a couple of provisions are worth pulling out.

Section 18.1 states that TLRs are attached to posts in the agreed academy staffing structure, that E-ACT reviews each structure annually and will consult recognised trade unions on proposed changes, and — the useful bit — that "teachers will not be expected to undertake permanent additional responsibilities without a permanent TLR1 or TLR2 payment". That is a written commitment against the very common practice of loading responsibility onto people without paying for it. Section 18.6 adds that TLRs "cannot be awarded for non-teaching duties", which closes off the other common workaround.

Section 19.1 provides for SEN allowances determined by the Regional Education Director in line with STPCD criteria, at a spot value within a stated band, taking into account whether mandatory qualifications are required, the teacher's relevant expertise and the relative demands of the post. Section 21 provides acting allowances where a teacher covers headteacher, deputy or assistant headteacher duties for at least four weeks, backdated to the date the responsibility was taken over — a detail worth knowing if you are asked to step up.

This matters more than it sounds. Pro-rating a TLR is one of the larger hidden costs of going part-time, and it is frequently misunderstood on both sides of the conversation. Our guide to part-time and job-share teacher pay covers how the arithmetic works, and the TLR calculator will show you what a given payment is worth pro-rated against full-time.

Directed hours: what the policy doesn't say

We looked specifically for E-ACT's position on directed time and the 1,265-hour annual limit, because that is the single most consequential conditions question about any academy trust. It is not addressed. The Teacher Pay Policy does not state a directed time budget, does not set out a directed time calendar, and does not reproduce or discuss the 1,265-hour cap. The only place directed time appears at all is section 20.1.1.2, in passing, providing for a discretionary payment where a teacher attends approved training "outside teachers directed time" — which implies the concept is in use without saying anything about its size.

The reasonable inference cuts in E-ACT's favour, and we will state it as an inference rather than a fact. Because section 1.5 places E-ACT teachers on Burgundy Book conditions and pays them in accordance with the STPCD, and because the 1,265-hour limit is an STPCD provision, the cap should ordinarily apply. That is a materially different starting point from a trust like Ark, which sits outside the STPCD altogether and whose contracts have been reported as not carrying the limit. But "should ordinarily apply" is not the same as a published commitment, and the pay policy is not the document that would settle it. Ask the question directly, about the specific academy, and ask whether a directed time calendar is issued and negotiated.

Related provisions in the policy do at least show a pay-for-extra-time principle at work. Section 20.1.1.1 says teachers who undertake voluntary CPD outside the academy day are entitled to an additional payment covering subsistence and travel. Section 20.1.3 provides that teachers who agree to run learning activities outside normal trust hours, where their salary range does not already account for it, are entitled to a payment relative to the activity — limited to lunchtime and evening activities approved in advance by the senior leadership team.

Unions, consultation and the Bristol dispute

The policy carries real evidence of union engagement, though not a single named recognition agreement of the kind Ark publishes. Page 2 of the document states that "Recognised Trade Unions have been consulted on this policy". Section 22.3 commits E-ACT to consulting recognised unions on any revisions. Section 24.1 says outcomes and impact will be monitored annually and discussed with the trade unions at trust level.

Section 24.4 goes further than most trusts do, and is worth quoting in substance: E-ACT's national team is to produce an annual written report on the operation of the pay policy, shared and discussed with the JNC at trust level, assessing the policy's impact by race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion and belief, age, part-time status, maternity and pregnancy, and caring responsibilities. An annual, union-facing equality impact report on pay is a genuine transparency commitment, and it confirms that a joint negotiating committee exists at trust level.

Two things follow from that, and they pull in opposite directions. It is a live industrial relations dispute at a significant number of the trust's schools, and inherited-terms problems of this kind tend to indicate a trust integrating acquisitions faster than it harmonises employment terms. But it is not evidence about teacher pay progression, and it would be sloppy to present it as though it were. If you are applying to a Bristol E-ACT school it is a reasonable thing to ask about; if you are applying in the Midlands it probably tells you very little.

The rest of the package

E-ACT lists a reasonably specific set of staff benefits on its careers page. Several are aimed at support staff rather than teachers, which is worth noticing when you read them.

• Life cover at 3× pensionable pay. Stated on the careers page. Teachers in the Teachers' Pension Scheme already have death-in-service cover through the scheme, so check whether this is in addition or a description of existing provision.
• Local Government Pension Scheme for support staff, averaging 18% employer contribution. This is explicitly the support staff scheme. Teachers should be in the Teachers' Pension Scheme — confirm that at offer stage.
• 31 days holiday for year-round employees. Again a support staff benefit; teachers' leave follows the school year under Burgundy Book terms.
• Employee Assistance Programme offering free confidential counselling, financial advice and other support, plus a "Wisdom Wellbeing" app.
• Cycle to work scheme and trust-wide INSET and development, including a stated partnership with ISBL for business leadership staff.
• Recruitment and retention incentives are provided for in policy. Section 20.1.4 allows cash sums, travel or housing cost support, and payments structured as a "golden hello" at the start of a contract or "golden handcuffs" at the end — determined case by case where E-ACT anticipates recruitment difficulty. Worth asking about for shortage subjects.

On the pension point specifically: the Teachers' Pension Scheme is a very large part of total teacher remuneration, and any arrangement substituting a different scheme is almost always worse over a career even when monthly take-home looks better. Our guide to the 2015 scheme explains why. There is no suggestion E-ACT does anything unusual here — its pay policy places teachers squarely on national terms — but the careers page's pension figure is an LGPS support-staff figure, and the two should not be confused.

On reputation, E-ACT was named Multi Academy Trust of the Year 2026, and was shortlisted for Inclusive Trust of the Year at the 2025 Tes Awards. Sector awards are a weak signal about what a particular school is like to work in, and we would not weight them heavily against the Bristol dispute above — but they are part of the public record and it would be selective to omit them.

What's verified and what isn't

E-ACT sits in the middle of our evidence range. The policy document is unusually good; its currency is unusually uncertain. Here is the split.

• Well evidenced: that E-ACT's published pay policy places teachers on Burgundy Book conditions and pays them in accordance with the STPCD, i.e. on the national scale (sections 1.5 and 10.1).
• Well evidenced: that the policy states annual pay progression is automatic and not linked to performance, in five separate sections covering classroom teachers, unqualified teachers, leading practitioners, deputy/assistant heads and headteachers.
• Well evidenced: that a pay point is awarded for each year served unless the teacher is subject to formal capability proceedings (5.1, 5.2).
• Well evidenced: that UPS progression remains an application-based threshold with a two-stage appeal (section 17, section 25).
• Well evidenced: that recognised trade unions were consulted on the policy, that revisions are subject to consultation, and that an annual equality impact report on pay goes to a trust-level JNC (22.3, 24.1, 24.4).
• Well evidenced: that the trust publishes the full L1–L43 leadership scale and eight headteacher pay groups in the policy — a level of published detail very few trusts match.

• Not verified: whether the September 2020 policy is still the operative version. Its own review date was July 2021, it no longer appears on E-ACT's main policies index, and we found no newer trust-level version published.
• Not verified: whether the automatic progression rule applies within the Upper Pay Range as well as within the main range. The policy states the principle generally at 1.8 but spells out "no application necessary" only for main range, unqualified, leading practitioner and leadership posts.
• Not verified: the careers-page claim that TLRs are awarded in full to part-time workers generally. The policy supports this only for TLR3, which mirrors the national position.
• Not found at all: any statement of E-ACT's directed time position or the 1,265-hour cap. The STPCD reference at 1.5 implies it applies; nothing confirms it.
• Not found: a single named union recognition agreement of the kind Ark publishes, despite clear evidence of consultation machinery.
• Reported but not independently re-verified by us: the Bristol support staff strike detail, including the ballot figures and the nine-year backpay claim.

How to verify E-ACT's position yourself

Because the strongest evidence on this page is a five-year-old PDF, verification matters more here than it would for a trust whose claims sit on a live careers page.

• Ask for the current Teacher Pay Policy in writing, and check the approval date on page 2. The provenance table at the front of E-ACT's policy gives approver, date of approval and date of review. If the version you are given still says September 2020, that is itself the answer to your question.
• Ask the automatic progression question directly, in those words. "Is annual pay progression automatic and not linked to performance, as section 1.8 of the published policy says?" A trust that stands behind its policy will confirm it in one sentence.
• Ask what happens at the UPS threshold. Confirm the application window (the policy says 1 September to 31 October), what evidence is expected, who decides, and what the appeal route is.
• Ask about directed time explicitly. Is a directed time calendar issued? Is it 1,265 hours? Is it negotiated with the recognised unions at the academy? The policy is silent on all three.
• If you are part-time or going part-time, ask about TLR1 and TLR2 pro-rating in writing. Do not rely on the careers-page wording.
• Confirm the pension scheme is the Teachers' Pension Scheme. The 18% figure on the careers page is the LGPS support staff scheme and does not apply to you as a teacher.
• Check the academy-level policy too. E-ACT academies publish their own versions — The Crest Academy's is online, for example — and the local document is the one that governs your post.
• Ask whether there is a union rep at the academy, and talk to them. The policy confirms a trust-level JNC exists; a local rep will know whether the automatic rule is applied as written.

None of these questions is awkward, and E-ACT is better placed than almost any trust to answer them, because it has already written the answers down once. The only genuinely open issue is whether what it wrote down in 2020 is still what it does.