1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

AWR Week 1 - "our sole agents" (think about it)

Discussion in 'Supply teaching' started by magic surf bus, Feb 9, 2012.

  1. <font size="2">That&rsquo;s an interesting point Jubilee, but there are fewer and fewer
    LA supply lists in operation not more. The reality is that LA's can reduce
    their costs significantly by letting agencies pick up the slack. One LA
    recently boasted that since cutting their supply list, they have save &pound;800'000
    in back office costs (i.e. people, pensions and other staff related costs) this
    is the cost of running central schemes which the schools never paid for in the
    first place. So it is not in the interest of the LA to save money for schools
    because ultimately the LA see no benefit to the savings. The savings are
    greater through not running a service and letting agencies deal with schools. </font>
    <font size="2">I don&rsquo;t know if
    you were ever on supply in the &ldquo;good old days&rdquo; but the LAs were never very
    effective at running the supply list in the first place. Teachers who had no
    police checks were working in schools for years, and no one knew who they were,
    where they were working etc. timesheets were processed weeks after you worked
    and as a result if you were not suitable, it was too late. </font>
    <font size="2">There were several cases of teachers who had been banned from working with children walking in to schools and telling the
    head that they were free to come in and teach as required, they would leave a phone number and that&rsquo;s it. Job
    done. </font>
    <font size="2">I</font><font size="2">n one of these cases there was an incident and the whole thing kicked
    off and an urgent review took place. Some years later the Soham murders happened
    and the end was insight for unreliable supply lists. The LAs were happy not be
    responsible for safeguarding anymore and agencies were happy to manage that
    instead - at a cost. </font>
    <font size="2">There you have it, a potted history of the beloved supply agency. </font>

  2. This is extremely <u>crooked</u> thinking! Look at the BIGGER PICTURE!
    In the UK schools are actually paying huge amounts of taxpayers' money to huge numbers of unscrupulous, profiteering agencies charging huge commission rates to schools. In the old days when LEAs were carrying registered supply teacher lists the actual back office costs were truly minimal eg a whole county would have one list whereas now we have dozens of supply teacher agencies all out to make a big profit for themselves![​IMG]
    A member of the SLT at the school would work from 0700h - 0900h and operate the supply teacher requirements for the day very successfully...now we have all manner of cover supervisors, cover managers, HLTAs etc etc at huge cost to any school. Ridiculous!
  3. Let's not tell lies. The Soham murders were committed by the school caretaker who was not PROPERLY checked by the Criminal Records Burea who were at fault at the time!!!!!!
    Not LA, agency, school etc etc etcthe former do not do the checking!

    Get your facts right!

  4. What an utter liar and mischief maker this so called Agency_Worker is?[​IMG]

Share This Page