Is this infatuation with an annual percentage pay award sustainable in a sector where increases in funding do not match the expenditure colleges are being asked to make? Is it realistic to lobby ministers who do not believe in giving something for nothing when many staff in FE claim that they cannot make efficiency gains due to their workload?

Ministers seem to want to invest in improving the performance of the 11 to 16 sector and may not see FE as a priority in the next spending round. The pay issue is compounded by comparisons with teachers’ pay. The roles of many lecturing staff cannot be compared with those who work in schools. Any similarity in conditions of service is historical rather than logical. Only those lecturers who teach the same subjects to similar students should compare themselves with those who work in school sixth forms.

Comparing the pay of lecturers with that of those in jobs outside education could be more beneficial. What does a good accountant or solicitor earn? A plumber in London commands pound;40,000 to pound;50,000 a year. So why do lecturers ask for the same pay as teachers when those who use similar skills outside the sector are much better paid?

The National Joint Forum appears to focus on pay and ignore the total reward package. Plumbers, solicitors or accountants may be paid more, but their overall package may not be as attractive. Staff in further education have more holiday, better sick-pay schemes and more generous personnel policies than their counterparts in industry and commerce. Continuing professional development in some FE colleges can cost as much as pound;1,500 per person per annum. Many private companies are doing away with the final salary payment pension option, so this must be seen as an extra benefit to those working in FE.

Many FE contracts provide up to four months’ notice in the event of redundancy, although FE lecturers are far less likely to be made redundant than those outside the sector. Job security needs to be taken into account.

Custom and practice is the reason the sector continues to approach the issue of rewards in the way it does. Teachers’ Pay Initiative (TPI) has provided the opportunity to think about how staff are rewarded in a way that contributes to the success of the organisation - improvements in the performance of students means that more stay on and gain a qualification. Some institutions have recognised that teams rather than individuals contribute to such success and TPI has been used to reward this effort. The possible replacement of TPI with the College Pay Initiative (CPI) provides an opportunity to think creatively about the rewards for FE staff. Deploying the limited resources available to the sector more creatively could mean that staff are given the right rewards package for the job. In some instances, this may mean paying more to those with skills that are difficult to attract and less to those where recruitment is not a problem.

Perhaps it is time for the National Joint Forum to design a new reward model. We do not want ministers to allocate an annual percentage to be passed on to all lecturers for basic pay. We should be lobbying for a proper funding regime that allows institutions to support and deliver the future success of the learning and skills sector, at the same time enabling colleges to recruit, retain and reward staff.

Ray Dowd is principalchief executive of Wirral Metropolitan College