Lobby Priorities

1

NUT Supply Teacher Lobby of Parliament

28 October 2014

Lobby priorities

These are the NUT's five key lobbying points which lobbyists should emphasise to their MPs. Lobbyists should ask their MP to bring these concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education in writing and ask to see her response.

• Supply teacher agencies siphon off massive amounts of public funding for education into their own profits, while driving down the pay and conditions of employment of supply teachers.

• Supply teachers employed by agencies are increasingly employed under “umbrella company” arrangements which are causing growing concerns about both employment and tax status.

• Supply teachers working for agencies are not entitled to the same pay and conditions of service as teachers in regular employment or supply teachers directly employed by schools - and pay is getting worse.

• Supply teachers employed by agencies are not entitled to membership of the Teachers Pension Scheme (unlike even teachers employed in independent schools), not least because agencies themselves are unable to offer their teachers membership of the TPS.

• The result of all this is that while supply teachers are increasingly suffering poverty pay, school children are increasingly likely to be taught by poorly motivated supply teachers or, even worse, unqualified non-teaching staff when their regular teacher is absent for whatever reason.

Lobbying has its greatest impact when the lobbyist can demonstrate the Union’s concerns by reference to their own experiences. Lobbyists are therefore encouraged to refer to the issues and problems which they have personally encountered as a supply teacher, including any points not on the list below that are important to them.

Detailed briefing

Supply teacher agencies siphon off massive amounts of public funding

An NUT supply teacher survey conducted in June 2014 found that 67% of respondents now find work solely or mainly via agencies, up from 50% in 2010. The number of agencies now operating in England and Wales could be over 250 – and this figure may exclude many single person operations.

Supply agencies rake off scarce funds from schools (and therefore the taxpayer) directly into their profit margins - whilst cutting (or at least freezing) the pay they offer to their supply teachers. The average daily charge to schools by a supply agency for a teacher can be as much as £100 higher than the actual daily pay rate for that teacher. This goes into the agency’s coffers and out of the education sector.

Another cost imposed by agencies is due to “finder’s fees”charged to schools wishing to take on a supply teacher as a permanent employee. It is not unusual for such fees to be as much as 20% to 25% of the worker’s first year’s salary, a sum likely to be unaffordable for many schools. Such fees are only legally enforceable if agencies allow schools the option of continuing to employ the teacher via the agency for a set period of time, instead of paying the agency’s fee. However, the school incurs a cost in any event, whether by paying the finder’s fee straight away or by continuing to pay high rates of agency commission over a longer timescale.

Supply teacher “umbrella company” arrangements are causing concerns

Umbrella companiesare companies that act as employers to agency workers, includingagency supply teachers. The NUT is deeply concerned about practices adopted by some umbrella companies, including advice regarding tax matters or the implication that teachers can be compelled by the umbrella company to accept work.

Umbrella companies largely sell themselves on the basis that supply teachers can reduce their tax billand increase their take-home pay by claiming tax-deductible business expenses for travel etc. HMRC rules are complex and ultimately, it is the teacher – not the umbrella company - who bears the liability if HMRC finds any non-allowable expenses. Also, any tax gain may be cancelled out by the teacher’s liability to pay the umbrella company fee andboth employee and employer National Insurance contributions.

Agency pay and conditions are getting worse

A June 2014 NUT supply teacher survey asked respondents to compare their current pay rate with the pay rate they were getting from agencies three years ago. Just over 40% (excluding “don’t knows”) said that they were getting lower or significantly lower pay than three years ago.

Agency supply teachers are paid massively less than the rates of pay for teachers employed in schools under the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD). The NUT survey found that:

• Half of respondents said their daily rate of pay was £100 - £124;
• 22% said it was between £125 and £149;
• Less than 4% said that they were paid £150; and
• One in six said that they were paid less than £100.

The STPCD by contrast provides for £165 per day at the Main Pay Range maximum or £192 per day at the Upper Pay Range maximum (England and Wales excluding London).

Until relatively recently, local authorities routinely ran ‘supply pools’ which provided schools with supply teachers, while many schools had regular supply teachers “on call”. Only 8% ofNUT survey respondents still get supply work from LA pools, and only 25% get work directly from schools compared to 11% and 39% in 2010.

The Agency Worker Regulations (AWR) in 2011 should have offered some protection for agency teachers. After 12 weeks in the same role and with the same hirer, they should get the same basic pay and conditions as if employed direct. However, some agencies and schools try to avoid the legislation to avoid incurring extra payroll costs - in particular by dispensing with the teacher before the 12 week period is up. Often, the same teacher is then re-engaged with the ‘clock’ having returned to Week One.

Furthermore, it is very difficult for supply teachers employed by an agency to access continuous professional development opportunities compared with other teachers. All teachers, regardless of the context in which they are employed, shouldbe offered such training so they can keep up to date with educational developments and enhance their professional skills.

Agency supply teachers aren’t entitled to teachers’ pensions

Employment by or through supply agencies is not pensionable under the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS), partly because supply agencies are not currently permitted to participate in the TPS.

The NUT is pursuing this issue with the DfE in order to secure equal access to the TPS for all teachers working in state funded schools.

Although supply teachers can now be covered by access to workplace pensions, the low level of employer and employee contributions and the hurdles to qualification mean that this is far less valuable than the right of accessto the TPS.If supply teachers who are working directly for schools or for local authority supply pools- and teachers working at Eton and other independent schools are entitled to join the TPS, then so should agency supply teachers whose employment is funded by the state.

Impact on children

The current situation in schools - and in particular the pressure on schools budgets,the increasing dominance of agenciesandthe increasing cost to schools -means that the use of the supply teacher is under threat.

All too often schools are resorting to cheaper alternatives such as higher level teaching assistants or cover supervisors. Despite the undoubted professionalism of such staff, they lack the necessary training and qualifications to deliver the lessons of the quality and consistency which our children deserve.

The NUT is committed to the principle that schools should only employ qualified teachers in all schools, whatever the context. When a member of school staff is away, the response should invariably be to call upon a qualified supply teacher to deliver high quality learning experiences for the pupils concerned. Any other option is simply not good enough.

National Union of Teachers

October 2014