The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), alongside other education unions, has welcomed the news that the country's largest multi-academy trust (MAT) will not implement a controversial proposal to give teachers the chance to opt out of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) this September.

The plan by the United Learning Trust (ULT) would have meant that teachers who opted out would instead be enrolled in the trust’s proposed alternative defined contribution (DC) scheme, under which pension contributions would be reduced in exchange for a higher salary.

NAHT and other education unions opposed the proposal, and although the government put the brakes on ULT’s move to implement the scheme in April, the trust had vowed to press ahead with its plans.

At the time, ULT CEO, Jon Coles, stressed that he was “confident in our legal position” and planned to proceed with the scheme, despite “threats” from government officials.

He also accused unions of “not representing their members” for opposing the scheme, citing the results of an internal survey showing “some 25 per cent of staff” had “expressed interest” in it.

However, in May, NAHT, along with fellow unions, lodged a joint collective dispute with ULT.

And on Tuesday last week, at a meeting of the Joint Consultative Committee between the unions and ULT, MAT confirmed that it would not be rolling out the proposal in September.

However, it is unclear whether this decision was a result of pressure from the Department for Education (DfE) or union backlash, and if the plans have just been put on hold or axed altogether.

Commenting on the announcement, NAHT general secretary, Paul Whiteman, said: “We
have opposed this divisive plan from the beginning and are pleased that common sense has prevailed.

“A good employer should not be asking dedicated teachers to give up part of their pension to make up for a shortfall in their salary.

“While we understand that teachers are not immune from cost-of-living pressures, what is needed is sustained government action to restore the attractiveness of teaching, including restoring real-terms pay to 2010 levels.

“These dangerous proposals would have undermined efforts to work with the government to do that, impacted sector-wide terms and conditions, and potentially destabilised the TPS, which is reliant on everyone’s contributions.

“We hope we have now seen the back of these ill-conceived plans, but stand ready to fight against them again in future should they ever re-emerge.”

Echoing this, National Education Union (NEU) general secretary, Daniel Kebede, claimed the plans were unpopular with NEU members in United Learning (UL) who were concerned that they would threaten “the entire landscape” of teacher pensions.

“We have been consistently clear with UL that the TPS is an excellent pension which all teachers should expect to receive as part of their remuneration.

“The solution to the teacher recruitment crisis or to teachers struggling to afford their pension contributions is not to offer a trade-off between pay and pensions.

“The solution is improving overall teacher pay - something for which the NEU has relentlessly campaigned.

“We remain open to working constructively with UL to explore other opportunities for improving their offer to teachers”.

However, Hymans Robertson head of DC corporate consulting, Hannah English, suggested that the announcement was likely to be “disappointing news” for other academies that might have been considering following UL’s lead.

“The UL proposals would have provided staff with the option to consider a fundamentally different reward package. They could have opted out of TPS and joined a DC scheme while also receiving higher pay.

“Had the proposal gone ahead, it would have been a first in the state sector and may have opened the floodgates for other schools to follow suit,” she continued.

“It might also be disappointing news for some teachers. While TPS benefits are very valuable, they come at a high price – not just for schools, but also for teachers, who must contribute an average of 9.6 per cent of their salary to the scheme.

“The number of teachers opting out of TPS in recent years has risen partly as a result of cost-of-living pressures.

“Preventing schools from offering an alternative pension means that those teachers who can’t afford TPS contributions will have to continue to forgo employer-supported pension saving completely,” English added.

She also highlighted the recent success of optional pension plans in independent schools.

“In response to rising costs, including TPS contributions, national insurance (NI) increases, VAT on school fees and the removal of business rate relief, many independent schools have taken action to reduce their pensions costs.

As of 23 April 2025, 401 independent schools across England and Wales had withdrawn from TPS since August 2019, and a further 282 independent schools had applied to become phased withdrawal schools since September 2021.

“Such actions were possible because participation in TPS is optional for independent schools,” she argued.

UL did not respond to a request for comment.

---