Schools in Leicester are spending £4.7m on supply teachers - new figures show
Schools in Leicester are spending nearly £5 million a year on supply teachers, figures have shown.
Unions have criticised the cost, labelling it unjustified, and say it uses up cash which could be spent on books and resources. But head teachers feel it is money well spent.
-
Schools in Leicester are spending £4.7m on supply teachers - new figures show
Last year eight city primary schools spent more than £90,000 each on agency supply staff, while four secondary schools paid more than £100,000 each.
Leicester's education boss Coun Vi Dempster has called for a permanent bank of supply staff to be employed to provide cheaper, regular cover.
The biggest-spending primary school in the 2009/10 financial year was Forest Lodge in New Parks which spent £135,000.
Forest Lodge head Karen Cane defended their spend, saying stand-ins were needed so she could send teachers on training courses.
She said: "We mainly deal with one agency and have a good relationship with it.
"When you're talking about best value for money, you have to pay to get good quality staff – and yes, I think it's money well spent."
Mrs Cane said the school did not experience especially high levels of staff sickness.
Hope Hamilton Primary in Hamilton, Leicester, spent £145.
A school spokesman said: "We don't tend to use supply teachers very often, mainly because of the cost.
"Sometimes with supply teachers coming in and out it can be a bit unsettling."
Across the city 103 primary, secondary and special schools spent £4.7 million last year. In Leicester it can cost between £90 and £200 a day for agency supply staff. The average spend for primaries was £40,000, with £80,000 for secondaries.
St Paul's Catholic School in Evington spent £12,212, the least for a secondary school. Fullhurst Community College in Braunstone spent the most, £179,674.
Fullhurst executive principal David Kershaw explained: "Last academic year the school couldn't recruit teachers. At the time the school wasn't very stable, it was in special measures but at the end of that year there was new leadership in the school and it quickly improved. We have therefore this year dramatically reduced the number of supply teachers, by about 60-70 per cent."
Peter Flack, assistant secretary of the Leicester National Union of Teachers, said the spending diverted cash away from other areas.
He said: "If you say a medium-sized primary is probably pulling in something over a million pounds – £100,000 is about 10 per cent of its budget. I imagine it would have an impact on its ability to do other things in the school. This kind of spending is not economically sound."
Councillor Vi Dempster said: "My aim in the future would be to see if we, as a local authority, could actually have a permanent group of teaching staff that schools could purchase from us.
"Not only would this be cheaper but it would be more consistent and that's important for children."
5 Comments
by CGLee, near Melton
Monday, July 26 2010, 5:14PM
“I used to be critical of teachers but have recently become a school governor and now realise how much work teachers, particularly the head teacher, put in outside the classroom.
Yes, they do appear to have long holidays, but they cannot take advantage of cheap deals off season and they do spend part of their holidays preparing for the next term.
Also they have to "perform" in the classroom regardless of how they are feeling.
I imagine that supply teachers get a raw deal. They are expected to walk into a classroom full of pupils they don't know and not knowing who are the troublemakers and what they are likely to have to deal with.
Would I do it? Not on your nelly!”
by West End Girl, Leicester
Monday, July 26 2010, 1:22PM
“Cover for planning time is built in during timetabling at the beginning of the year. It is not done by supply teachers but by other permanent teaching staff as it is part of their timetable. This is not cover but part of the normal teaching week. Not sure how it works in primary though.”
by miss a, leicester
Monday, July 26 2010, 12:16PM
“what this article fails to point out is that all teachers are required to have 10% of their contracted time for planning and preparation. Some schools choose to use teaching assistants to cover this whilst others use qualified teachers's hence high supply costs.”
by West End Girl, Leicester
Monday, July 26 2010, 11:00AM
“Supply teachers do a very hard job with no job security, pension and unpaid holiday so earn well below a full time teacher. We often don't know if we have a job or where until you get a phone call at 7.00 am the morning you have to be there.The pupils and students usually try it on and behave more badly than usual for a supply teacher to the point it can be a life of hell but we always teach and ensure safety in the classroom. There is less work available now because many schools use unqualified 'cover supervisors' to look after classes during teacher absence. This is counter to the NUT's demand that children should be taught by qualified teachers.
Supply teaching is an important source of qualified staff for schools who need to cover for absence. We are professionals and well qualified. I resent any attempt to cut our jobs by saying we are too expensive. Supply teachers don't show up on redundancy lists or count as job losses so can be a stealthy cut.
NUT should be defending our jobs. We are union members too.”
by Kulgan, Crydee
Monday, July 26 2010, 10:46AM
“Why not put the teachers on training courses on the 'Teacher Training Days' that are so kindly added to the start or end of holidays? You could also put them on courses during the long Summer holidays when they still receive their salary. There is a significant cost saving to be made here.”