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

It's official: Supply teachers cost £293 million .

Discussion in 'Supply teaching' started by littleguide, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. bbc.co.uk today reports UK Taxpayers' Alliance findings on cost of supply teachers.
    No mention of how much of that figure is down to agency costs.
    No where on the site (that I could find) to comment.
    Supply teachers: now just another target ,without a voice, for the right wing to shame and cut.
  2. bbc.co.uk today reports UK Taxpayers' Alliance findings on cost of supply teachers.
    No mention of how much of that figure is down to agency costs.
    No where on the site (that I could find) to comment.
    Supply teachers: now just another target ,without a voice, for the right wing to shame and cut.
  3. Was that the cost of supply teachers or the cost of all forms of supply cover?
  4. It wasn't broken down, Bronco. But have a look yourself at bbc.co.uk news.
    The impression given to readers is that this is the cost of supply teachers.
  5. BelleDuJour

    BelleDuJour Star commenter

    Perhaps instead of slagging off supply teachers (which is how it comes across) they should look at why there are so many absences in teaching.
    I think we all know the answer to that.
  6. historygrump

    historygrump Lead commenter Forum guide

    The story was also in the Daily Express and it implied that using supply teachers was bad for the kids education, because the supply teacher was unfamiliar to the kids. It the paper suggesting that we use unqualified support staff, without the training instead. We have seen the result of this process with the status of English falling internationally year by year. The rag also stated that it worked out at around £100,000 per school, if that is the case why do schools not recruit 3 cover teachers on up to £25,000 a year each. Because the schools prefer to use unqualified staff to save money.
    I am off to email the rag in a soon, when I have calmed down.
  7. Daily Wail of course reported this in a "children should be taught by their PROPER teacher" (with a side order of "supply teachers can't hack it").
    I love the wooshing sound a point makes as it flies overhead.
  8. No, every lesson for every pupil, for every class should be taught by a fully registered and GTCE qualified teacher which is the FAIR and PROPER way forward! Their "normal" teacher if absent should and must be covered ideally by a similarly qualified, secondary specialist if that is the situation; not any unqualified person e.g. a teaching assistant who is not trained, qualified OR registered to actually teach! What we are witnessing in schools is totally unacceptable.

  9. podilato

    podilato New commenter

    The Tax Payers Alliance is a very suspicious business lobby group who argue for lower taxes. Some of the people who run it are serial tax avoiders themselves. Have a look at their website to see how truly 'representative' of the wider community they are. I would also recommend another group who call themselves The 'Real' Taxpayers Alliance who are very insightful critics of the TPA's bold statements.
  10. Does the figure relate to cover supervisors or supply teachers? More often than not, the two terms are used interchangeably.
  11. sounds like a bargain & money well spent to me!
  12. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    Why no mention of how much permanent teachers cost schools?
    Why no mention of the fact that schools take out insurance to cover against staff absences and then use the payouts to buy in unqualified staff instead?
    Why no mention of the fact that the longer-term supply teacher may be providing far more continuity than the permanent postholder? I was once at a school f/t for 11 months and the teacher I was covering had never done any parents' evenings or reports in 5 years at the school as she was off for short and long periods every year. I was even called back for a day to meet parents the following year as I knew the pupils better than the form teacher and she was still not deemed fit to undertake the 'stress' of the task.
    Why no mention of the fact that supply teachers have undergone the same degrees and teacher training as contracted teachers, may have held contra ct posts for years before turning to supply teaching, may have been Heads or Deputy Heads or HODs?
    Why no mention of the extra transport costs incurred by supply teachers as they travel around one or more counties answering the SOS if schools in need?
    What about the multiple CRB costs incurred as supply teachers are forced to register with several agencies to get enough work?
    What about the lack of pension provision for agency employed supply teachers?
    What about the lack of financial security for supply teachers as their work is offered to unqualified staff?
    What about the increased verbal and physical abuse of supply teachers by pupils who consider us fair game because of their relative anonymity and the lax response from SMT?
    No-one seems to have an employer's Duty of Care for supply teachers. Agencies are in businesss to serve the needs of the schools.
    Give it 5 or 10 years , when qualified supply staff have given up through lack of work, and shout "I told you so!" when the headlines start reporting the dearth of supply teachers to fill matenity leave positions.

  13. These figures only apply to Secondary schools and I doubt if this money was just spent on supply teachers but rather included supply cover supervisors as well.
    What about the situation in Primary schools. All the children there deserve to have the services of a qualified teacher all the time but only about 33% of the children actually get this. 67% of children have unqualified teachers, HLTAs and TAs during PPA time instead of having qualified teachers for cover during PPA release time.
    This percentage figure of 67% is probably on the low side since no account has been taken of cover for teacher absence. So why are so many children being denied the services of a qualified teacher for so much of their time in school?
    The other factor that should be considered would be the core subject time that the children would be without a teacher - 20% plus of some subject time lost.
  14. A no brainer article, with us lot used as the patsy.

  15. And anyway the issue is how much money is lost by perm teachers not being in school and taking lessons. More likely in difficult and challenging schools.
    Compared to how much is spent on supply teaching cover.
    However if this think tank wants to make a comment. Then comment on both figures.
    Then add them together, to shock us taxpayers even more.
    CS's were invented as non of the powers that be, wanted to address the issue of.
    Why is the teacher not in class?

  16. jubilee

    jubilee Star commenter

    The cost is incurred in order to continue to provide an educational service to those children whose regular teacher is away.
    The alternative is to double up classes in halls and gyms (as some schools that are bursting at the seams as it is with 30 or more in rooms designedfor about 20 - I have bruised hips and legs every year from squeezing between chairs and tables to check work) or to send classes home.
    Supply pay is hard earned and many regular teachers visibly pale at the thought of losing their jobs and having to tackle teaching as a supply teacher instead.
  17. Some of the new build secondary schools have cover centres designed into them.
    The cover centre is purpose built, big room with loads of computers, You collapse three secondary classes who are without their regular teacher that day.
    Throw in a TA a Cs and a teacher (could be supply) a whiteboard and projector, loads of photocopies and away you go. (don't forget the datastick) and good instructions to access the hardrives on the school system!
    This is not fantasy I have been to these school this school year!

  18. 60 kids and you can't access the hardrive! now that is what I call a challenge!
    Parents go and see for yourself and do not believe school managers at open days and parents evenings.
    School managers are very sweet on these days
  19. My error 3 collapsed classes could be up to 90 kids.
    This ain't a class it is a small 'assembly'
    So we could call it a 'cover learning assembly'
    You have to be up for a challenge to tackle this!
  20. magic surf bus

    magic surf bus Star commenter

    Damn. Does that mean my £292 million a year earnings from Supply teaching will be under threat? Jeeves, hand me my quill and vellum, I shall have to write to my MP.

Share This Page