P-05-805 Fair Deal for Supply Teachers, Correspondence – Interested third party to committee, 15.04.19
I watched this week's meeting of your committee speaking with Kirsty Williams and firstly wish to applaud the committee for their questions.
As a supply teacher who chooses to work part time due to family commitments, I have campaigned along with Sheila Jones the petitioner and other teachers against agencies since returning to teaching three years ago.
I wish to make one or two comments if I may. Kirsty Williams in this meeting outlined the benefits seen so far from her "pilot scheme". These benefits were exactly the benefits that used to exist from the former LA pool system where schools had closer links with regular supply teachers. It is scandalous that it has taken £2.7million plus the cost of the formal report and evaluation to "inform" her of these benefits.
I work for Teacher Active who are based in Birmingham and this company made £3.5million net profit in the last financial year according to companies house. I was recently booked in for a two day stint at a school- in one class - when another school had rung and asked for me by name to cover one of these days. The consultant who usually books me actually said to me over the phone, "I could put you in both schools for one day as the other school didn't actually specify continuity". These "consultants" do not care about continuity of cover at all, so long as they get their commission and they are paid a lot more than we supply teachers are able to earn in a year!
Basically the local authorities are complicit in this scandal because it all boils down to - in my opinion - PENSIONS. I was told by the Director of Education in Pembrokeshire that all LAs are against / not allowed to issue zero hours contracts, yet allowing agencies to operate within their local authority areas employing us on zero hours contracts is the ultimate in hypocrisy! Zero hours contracts should not be vilified in this way because people like myself WANT them. I used to work for my family business also which was seasonal and we had one or two part time employees as well as full timers on fixed hour contracts who were HAPPY with zero hours contracts. No, LAs know full well that by employing and paying supply teachers they will have to contribute to the Teachers Pension Scheme which as agency workers we are currently excluded from.
Finally, I wrote to ASCL Cymru last year to ask whether it was ethical for them to accept sponsorship from New Directions due to the shoddy treatment of supply teachers and large scale profiteering and I am pleased to say that they have now decided to end this arrangement.
I, too, have heard that New Directions are strengthening ties with schools with golf days and the like (presumably paying for Headteachers to play) but this is obviously unsubstantiated. However, a quick Google search will show you how they sponsor schools in Wales, such as the following:
New Directions sponsor school football kit : ND Education Recruitment - New Directions Recruitment Services New Directions Education has sponsored a new football kit for Arddlen Primary school in North Powys. Melissa Penlington, Account Manager for Powys and Shropshire along with Robert Ratcliffe, Business Development Manager visited the school to present the kit.
You only have to go to various schools and you will see items like mugs - ironically - and pencil pots etc with New Directions and Teacher Active around the offices and staff rooms.
I sincerely hope that you will take note of my comments and maybe further investigate these issues.
Nicola Lund
P-05-805 fair Deal for Supply Teachers, Correspondence – interested third party to Committee, 17.04.19
I watched with interest the discussion held on 2nd April regarding pay and conditions for Supply Teachers in Wales.
I am grateful to the Committee and the three AMs who spoke up in support of Supply Teachers, for allowing what have become long-standing and serious concerns to be raised.
I was, however, somewhat disappointed that in the Minister's responses, the needs of schools, learners and even the agencies were given far more emphasis than those of the many supply teachers who continue to be deprived of fair and equitable treatment.
If I may, I would like to share my own recent experience with you as an example.
I was on supply at the same school from the beginning of November last year until last Friday, 12th April. As a highly experienced teacher (27 years and at the top of the upper pay scale; 12 years as an ALNCo and part of the Leadership Team; secondment to the regional consortium for 3 years as an Advisor) I am routinely paid just £100 per day on supply, although this is more than the average agency pay of £85-£90 per day. For this long-term cover, the agency negotiated with the school and agreed, what I was told by the agency was the absolute maximum of £111 per day.
Under regulations covering agency working, I believed that after 12 weeks my pay would increase, based on my experience, in line with (or close to) what I would receive if employed by a Local Authority. In reality, the uplift in pay took me to just over M1 i.e. the level of a Newly Qualified Teacher, after agency fees. The difference between what I was being paid and what I should have been paid is at least £80 per day. This, I was told by the Head Teacher, was because she could not afford to pay me any more due to the situation with her budget. When I asked her what the situation would be if I was registered as a supply teacher with the Local Authority, she replied she would be obliged to pay me at the appropriate rate but that as she couldn't afford to do so, she would not be be able to keep me on after twelve weeks. I found myself between a rock and a hard place in terms of pay and workload, but mainly for the sake of the young children I was teaching, I agreed to stay on.
I feel there are several worrying issues here, the main one being the dire state of school budgets. If a school cannot afford to employ any experienced teachers (other than HT and DHT, as would appear to be the case in this particular school), this should sound an alarm bell, not only for the loss of experience and expertise but for recruitment and retention levels that are already cause for concern in some areas. I also feel that the widespread use of supply teaching agencies means that they and hard-pressed Head Teachers are (wittingly or not) complicit in devaluing, exploiting even, highly experienced and committed teachers.
Despite the Minister's assurances that the new framework she proposes will improve the situation, there was nothing to suggest it will be mandatory for agencies to sign up to it and it will still not address the huge shortfall in pay for experienced teachers on supply.
I have previously raised my concerns with my AM (email on 20th March) and am awaiting a response.
I sincerely hope that the Minister and the Welsh Government will continue to explore alternative ways to move in the direction of greater equality in the system.
Yours faithfully,
Karen Beeby