Schools are paying almost a 100% mark-up on the pay of supply teachers, with cover staff “largely dissatisfied” with their pay, a government research report suggests.
The CFE Research paper, commissioned by the Department for Education, found the average daily cost of supply teachers was £218 for primary schools, £291 for secondary schools and £270 for special schools.
However, the average pay rate reported by the supply teachers surveyed was £136 for primary, £150 for secondary and £144 for special schools.
The “mark up” charged by supply agencies “varies considerably”, the report warned.
It comes after a Schools Week investigation found teacher supply agencies are making millions of pounds while sending schools unqualified and inexperienced staff.
The report concluded that supply teachers were “largely dissatisfied with their pay, terms and conditions and these are major contributing factors for those who are considering leaving the market”.
“Most leaders disagree that the system represents good value for money based on their experience of the quality and cost of supply teachers.
“Schools and supply teachers would welcome regulation of the supply market in order to ensure greater parity in pay, terms and conditions for those working in the sector and to deliver better value for money for schools.”
Government framework has ‘limited impact’
The government’s Crown Commercial Service operates a Supply Teacher and Temporary Staff (CCS STaTS) framework.
The report said this was designed “to ensure greater parity and transparency in rates of pay for supply workers and the costs and charges incurred by education providers.
However, “to date, this has had limited impact on the market rate for supply teachers, primarily due to the low take-up”.
The research found some leaders and supply teachers consulted “are in support of greater regulation of supply providers to address inequalities in the pay, terms and conditions of employment for supply teachers, as well as the quality of provision”.
The seven providers consulted were not “against greater regulation in principle”.
“However, the private agencies emphasise the impact it could have on their costs and the subsequent implications for schools and the supply workforce.”
Staff absences drive rise in supply
A nationally representative survey of schools found leaders reported an “upward trend in the use of supply teachers over recent years, and a significant increase since the Covid-19 pandemic”.
Demand for supply teachers increased in around three-fifths of schools.
Key drivers of this change “are an increase in the number of staff absences due to sickness (physical illness and mental ill health), an increase in the volume of long-term staff absences, and difficulties recruiting and retaining permanent teaching staff”.
A “minority of providers report that there has been a steep rise in the demand for supply teachers who have qualifications and/or experience of working with pupils with SEND, possibly due to higher turnover of staff within these particular roles, but also because the number of pupils with SEND is increasing”.
The report also looked at motivations for becoming supply teachers, noting that teachers leave permanent positions and enter supply “for a variety of reasons, both personal and professional”.
Some believe it will be less stressful than a permanent role. However, “a desire for greater flexibility is the primary motivation for around half of supply teachers and many work part-time”.
Supply teachers also regard it as a “route to achieving their longer-term goals”.
“Encouragingly, around half of survey respondents wishing to leave supply want to enter (or re-enter) the permanent workforce.”
I left a permanent role and took up supply work after teaching for 30 years but was tempted back to permanent after 6 months. It proved a disastrous move- an appalling run academy with staff on their last legs. No wonder they were keen I join them. I lasted 3 months and re-entered Supply where I’ve remained for the last 3 years: It can be utterly exhausting but I don’t have the endless tedium of pointless staff meetings, ridiculous SEN paperwork to complete nor a subject to lead.
So what can be done about this? In order to make permanent positions more appealing, the workload and amount of “directed time” needs to be reduced.
In supply positions, teachers should be paid to the experience point and not the bare minimum. This will only drive skilled teachers out of the profession altogether.
Teaching is a vocational profession, requiring a range of skills, some of which cannot be taught. It should be treated as such and not downgraded to be the kind of job nobody wants to do. This is our children’s future we are talking about. It should be invested in. As a nation we need to stop wanting something for nothing and start investing in the future.
Surprise, surprise! The additional mark up has been known for decades upon decades. Many schools have their own local and direct contacts, however supply teachers (and others like home hospital teachers) are tremendously under valued, under appreciated and underpaid. Having seen the system from both ends and every angle in a wide variety of schools supply teachers often get little support and a pretty raw deal being expected to seamlessly fly when parachuted into often quite challenging classes. The high level of skill of supply teachers doing this successfully everyday often isn’t appreciated by colleagues, students pick up on this and that can be a problem. Things need to change. There are the exceptions like being snapped up by the school and rapidly promoted! A situation that perhaps points to the need to improve the processes that are traditionally employed for recruiting staff.
An increasing number of lessons are covered by TAs who don’t get any pay uplift to do this.
I’ve been doing supply for 10 years and am earning a mere £30 a day more now than when I started, and I’ve had to ask for an increase e try time. One school I work at regularly uses a lot of ‘instructors’ – some of whom are very good – because of the lack of qualified staff available. But it’s a zero hours job – no work, no pay, and while staff in some schools are great to work with, others treat you like something they scraped off their shoe that morning.
On average, supply teachers are paid 40% less than their full-time colleagues and it is worse for older, experienced teachers. And what does this report point to? That the supply workforce is predominantly older and more experienced, which is why they are increasingly leaving education and going where they are appreciated. And it is worse for young teachers, who are fed lies by agencies that they are not qualified and so must accept wages that are less than I earned from an agency as an NQT back in 1997!
That is why WILLOW WOOD SUPPLY is the best way forward for schools. The mark-up is only 23% on average. In General, they charge £180 for Supply or £135 for general cover and the teacher salaries are £150 for supply and £100 for cover.