Today’s story is written by Leon Roberts, a former supply teacher.

“No matter how bad things get, don’t go on supply pal: you’re better off on a permanent contract with proper conditions and so is the school,” Pete, my colleague, said as we stood marveling at the length of the cover list in the staffroom one morning. I had just started my first teaching job and he – an old-school union rep – was predictably scathing about private companies making a profit from state education. Pointing to the names of staff who were off sick, he shook his head, “Look at all this cover, the supply agencies are making a killing and we’re already in debt.” 

Ten years later, tired of working flat out and ignoring his advice, I left a permanent contract and signed up with a few local supply agencies. After a brief spell of day-to-day work, I worked through a few longer assignments. It was a strange experience going from an established member of staff to working as a supply teacher, and sometimes it was a lonely one. It was tough having no relationship with classes and behaviour could be difficult, but much of the teaching was still enjoyable. I also had the variety of working in different schools and because I worked part-time, a better work-life balance. 

Working as a supply teacher meant less pay and job insecurity, but that wasn’t the main problem. It was the dubious practices of some of the recruitment agencies I worked with that ultimately pushed me back to working on a permanent contract.  

There was one agonising example that still sticks with me: “There’s been a mix-up. I don’t teach Health and Social Care. I’ve been sent to teach psychology,” I said to the Head of Humanities at one school I was sent to. “The agency said they were sending us a specialist, it’s on your CV…” she replied.

She handed me the CV she had been sent. Sure enough, it was mine, but it had been altered. I was now a teacher of Health and Social Care: I had been turned into one by my recruitment consultant. I’m not sure how the amender thought this would all work out, perhaps I would just play along and, hopefully, the students wouldn’t notice and we’d all be paid. I filled in for a day and left a job I wasn’t qualified to do. The agency denied making any changes to the CV, suggesting that my ‘other agency’ (who also served the same school) must have sent the amended version. The Head of Humanities was very annoyed. The school hadn’t been able to find anyone to steer year thirteen through to the end of their A-level course and they had been without a specialist teacher for weeks. 

Another agency sent me to do a month's work in a school at my previously agreed daily rate. Two weeks in, I noticed I was being paid considerably less and assumed it was an error. I was then told that the school in question refused to pay the amount I’d agreed with my agency. Between them, they had negotiated a lower rate for my services. A lower rate for me, not for the agency, and all arranged without my knowledge.   

Around the same time another agency called me with the offer of a job that seemed ideal and not far from home. The school needed someone urgently. I’d have to sign up with them to secure the position. I did, but heard nothing more and when I called a few weeks later a manager informed me that the trainee consultant I’d spoken to had left the company and that they could find no record of the alleged job. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, and assuming nobody actually recruited me on false pretenses, it was apparent there was outright dishonesty, at least within this recruitment agency and a select few agencies across Leicestershire and the wider East Midlands.

As recruitment agencies have multiplied, competition to sign teachers up has inevitably intensified. When I left my permanent job I put my CV on a couple of popular job sites. I had no idea I would be bombarded with calls and emails every day from agencies around the country. At first I believed that I really was an ‘exceptional candidate’, with an ‘outstanding CV’, until it started to get ridiculous and I took my CV down. Most of these agencies promised me pay and other perks, that I’ve never actually received on supply.

The marketing employed by some agencies is also questionable. Some recruiters’ sites attempt to woo permanent teaching staff, suggesting that they would be ‘better off’ if they quit permanent jobs and ‘liberated’ themselves from their contracts. One local agency has a homepage stating ‘don’t put your happiness on hold’ and ‘choose to change your life today with supply teaching’ next to images of a happy family. Perhaps that has been the experience of some teachers who have switched to supply, but they would also have accepted lower pay overall, poorer conditions of service, and far less job security.

Supply teaching can bring greater freedom if you work on a day-to-day basis, but then the pay is considerably less than working on a contract. According to the The Teachers’ Union (NASUWT) , the average day-to-day supply rate across the UK is between £100 and £149 per day, compared with £207 per day for a contracted teacher. Long-term supply contracts pay better, but you end up with the same responsibilities as a contracted member of staff. Teachers are not traditionally commercially minded and have to get used to negotiating firmly to minimise the cut the agency takes from their pay. A permanent contract, for all its demands, does at least guarantee national pay and conditions.

In the past, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) provided a pool of teachers for schools, with private recruiters playing a much smaller role. However, the number of agencies has grown dramatically in recent years as power has devolved to academy chains from greatly diminished LEAs and agencies have filled the recruitment gap. Additionally, there’s been an acute shortage of teaching staff, providing even more opportunity for an ever expanding number of recruiters. As a result, in most areas of the country, private agencies are now the only option for supply teachers to find work. 

Private recruitment, whilst making huge profits from state education, often claims to be the solution to the teacher shortage. But schools that rely most on supply teachers are often the ones in the most deprived areas, facing multiple challenges: schools that need the stability of permanent staff the most. 

Our society holds teachers to the highest ethical standards. Of course, there are progressive  recruitment agencies who conduct themselves with integrity. But I certainly encountered some who have a different interpretation of the rules.

My short-lived supply teaching career  taught me that Pete was right: a teacher is better off on a contract, working directly for their school and students, and benefiting from national conditions of service. There’s nothing wrong with being a supply teacher and schools will always need short-term teachers to cover for absence. If private recruitment companies can provide them, whilst conducting themselves with integrity and in the spirit of public service that we expect from teachers, that’s fine. But where they fail to do so, for the good of teachers and students, we need an alternative: a non-profit way to plug the gaps and supply teachers to schools across the county.