Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Supply teaching' started by supply-agency, May 13, 2011.
Can I ask who has done the safeguarding checks on you on the schools behalf ????
Does it not occur to you that if the agency were able to offer the OP supply work they already had a CRB?
How you paying tax on that? have you already set up as self employed?
<font size="2">But that’s not correct, when a CRB is issued additional information can be sent to the agency and not to the teacher. The school would have no idea what other information could have been sent along with the CRB.</font> Would you be happy allowing unchecked people teaching your own children.
Are you an utterly, dimwitted pro CRB **** talker? ECRBs are referrable by quoting the reference number..
What makes you think it's not a CRB via an LA or LA agency, is it entirely beyond your ken that an individual teacher can be employed by a school directly for supply cover? I am and have been for many years.
You exaggerate the importance of agencies, you are not there providing a public service or even a particularly challenging one, you are in a business to make money. Ofsted ask for the CRB number.
You clearly know between little and nothing about Ofsted or special meaures or the fact that a school is perfectly able to make phonecalls to check up on staff.
They may eb referring to this
"The CRB no longer supports portable CRB checks and says that any organisation that accepts an existing CRB check does so at its own risk. The CRB wants to minimise the risk to children. The CRB says that organisations must verify any existing check to see if there was any information held by local police forces provided with the check, and make sure that the proper identity checks were done by the organisation that got the CRB check."
The school may fail on this aspect
"tried to contact the person who requested the original check, to confirm if any other information was released through a separate letter."
And if they did, they would be letting the agency know they may perhaps be due a finders fee. If they did not, then it will be taken into consideration when an inspection comes around.
<font size="2">You silly person, you need to read up on you facts before commenting on somebody else. ECRB's are not referable just by quoting a number. A letter has to be sent with the teachers written consent by the school/LA to the issuing body. The issuing body is under no obligation to reply.</font><font size="2"> </font><font size="2">Portability is not a common practice by la's due to the increased risk. </font>
I guess you should read "safeguarding children and safer recruitment in education" policy.
Yet again a reference to an agency. A school can get a CRB check which is then portable throughout the LA with the details centrally held. I know this to be true as I have personal experience of it.
There are also other organisations apart from supply agencies that can apply for CRBs, known as umbrella companies.
Schools are surprisingly enough not stupid, and know how to ensure their safeguarding procedures and in place and applied. They are more than capable of making their own decisions without the benefit of (only for profit) agencies.
The original poster made mention to the fact it was an agency. I would have assumed from the post their CRB was done with them. The LA type CRBs are sually for those employed by the LA or on te LA supply pool.
Which CRB did the original poster take, for clarification? if it was one by the supply agency and no further request for the additional info was made, then I can assure you that Inspectors will take it into consideration, as will the auditors.
<font size="2">I have never once said a schools can't employ a teacher direct, I asked the question who done the safeguarding checks required. As the teacher says he was cancelled last minute this give me the idea there was not enough time to complete them by the school/la. </font>
<font size="2">If clearing teachers was as easy as you make out, why do agencies and LA's employ people just for this role. </font>
I accept this could of been a LA CRB but look again at the question I asked 1st. I only asked who preformed the checks. the answer could quite simply of been that the teacher was already known to the LA.
You may think badly of agencies but you will find that if the school take a supply teacher through the LA supply bank 99% of times will be charged an admin fee which is very similer to the margin made by agencies.
Sorry for the slow follow up, but this is how it works:
Step 1: Register with the LA, who do all checks and add you to their list.
Step 2: Contact schools via email that you are available.
Step 3: Register with teacher agencies.
Step 4: Use the teaching agencies just as introduction agencies.
Step 5: Check out the schools and make a big impression in the good ones.
Step 6: Mention to the schools the bad practise by agencies - no imagination needed here!
Step 7: Mention that these don't happen to the schools who contact you direct.
Step 8: Emphasise either the 3 days for 4 or 4 days for 5 to match the agency cost.
Step 9: Inform the schools they can also book online via your Google calendar.
Step 10: Get Google calendar on your smartphone to be notified of automated bookings.
Very strange to hear an agency worker concerned about child safety, as my only experience of corner cutting was by an agency who told me not to worry about the red tape!
Well maybe you shouldn't tie all agecnies with the same brush. It does annoy me greatly the actions of some agecnies but whilst the schools are allowing them to behave the way they do what can we do.
I take my safeguarding <font size="3">responsibilities very serious but to be fair schools are just a lax as some agencies with thier checks. </font>
It would be interesting to see what the unions would think of your 3 for 4 offer. You say you do this to match the agencies rate, but in my area the amount schools pay would mean that if you were an M5 you would have to offer 3 for 5.
Alot of teachers seem to blame agencies for the low pay but again schools are just as much to blame. I have a number of schools that I call and they tell me stright they wont pay over £130 and one wont pay over £125 per day, they also say like like experienced teachers. What teachers also fail to realise is that if your LEA runs its own supply bank then its run as a business and makes just as much money from schools as agecnies. I supply to one LEA bank who we charge £150 per day, I have seen invoices sent to schools for £235 so thats a £85 mark up. Thats far more than what we would ever make (this doesnt mean working directly for a school).
There are some good agecnies that offer a good and vital service to schools and teachers, I would hope we were one of them.
My comment referred to one agency that cut corners, it's your response that admitted other agencies are just as bad, but your honesty is appreciated
Market forces and not unions should decide the pay levels, and it's done by offering the 4th or 5th day free. But schools sould call in only qualified teachers to teach a lesson that is set by the absent teacher, or the HoD if it's a sickness absence. Schools who don't do this are not fit for purpose and should be closed down.
I charge the full M6 if the school want the full monty including parents evenings or even a school inspection. But day to day supply teaching is roughly 3/4 of the workload so I have no problem adjusting it down to this, especially when it's the level that just undercuts what the agencies charge the schools.
Technology is going to take an increasing role in all aspects of education and its provision, so any middleman asking for a 1/3 cut for menial admin and a couple of phone calls is just asking to be cut out.