As the current round of HT performance management is over (or should be!), I have been pondering on the criteria for giving HT's a pay rise. The guidance is quite clear that such a rise is dependant on HT having delivered 'sustained high quality of performance' (often quoted as Sustained Outstanding Performance SOP, so that's the phrase I shall use), yet I hear of many HTs around the country being given automatic pay rises by their governors without having delivered SOP.
For me, sustained outstanding performance goes beyond both business as usual and PM - I expect them to deliver more than was asked and can be expected over the whole year. Having moved away from the automatic progression that has plagued the public sector for so long, we now need to recognise that increases in remuneration are properly awarded for delivering more than the day job and for developing one's capability more than might be expected each year. The pay rise will then be a recognition of this contribution and development rather than just occupying a post and delivering the minimum required.
Any governor who agrees to a rise in circumstances other than where SOP has been delivered is corrupting the system and weakening the position of those of us who operate within the guidelines that took so long and so much effort to thrash out at national level. Had they wished for a automatic rise, or one linked purely to PM then STPD/RIG could have said so - they chose a more difficult hurdle so what good do so many govs think they are doing by reducing the height of the hurdle? Would they let pupils get an A* for just delivering the basics?
How do your PM governors deal with this - are the submissive or are they holding your HT to account as rigorously as the HT should be holding their pupils to account?