AIBU to think Supply Teachers Should be Paid WAY More?

[LoveSkaMusic]

In any other job where a contractor is required, their day rate is massive compared to permanent staff. This is because they have to pay their own tax, get no holiday pay or any other benefits and are taking the risk of not finding their next contract particularly quickly.

So, why is supply teaching paid at less than the normal teaching rate (at least in the area in which I live)? It doesn't make any sense at all. Because supply teaching doesn't include pay for any of the school holidays, annually, it works out at minimum wage (give or take).

AIBU to think that supply teachers pay should be at least 50% higher?

Supply teachers don't have any where near the same workload and responsibility as permanent teachers with their own class. They don't have to (or at least shouldn't have to) do planning, marking, assessments, staff meetings, wall displays, report cards, parents nights.....

Do agency nurses/doctors/pharmacists etc have the same workload and responsibility of permanent equivalents? How does the pay compare?

I have no idea 🤷🏼‍♀️

That's beyond crap, shocking and makes me so sad. I used to get £117 per day as an NQT supply teacher 9 years ago.

Pre supply agencies, pay was the same. Annual salary divided by 195 days, meant the 'day rate' appears higher, but, if you worked every day, then you would earn the same (as no pay in the holidays).
Agencies ruined that.

However, it is a valid point that the 6 hours of actual teaching is a tiny fraction of the work a teacher does.
But then, there is supply and then there is supply. Some people take on regular days at the same school and are much more part of the team, or even cover a long term sickness or maternity leave, whereas others drop in, do one day and walk away again. Longer contracts do tend to involve more involvement / picking up some of the extra work.

I'm a qualified teacher with 21 years' experience who has just started supply so flexibility with a poorly husband and three kids of my own.
Just did a full day supply (8.30-3.30) and came out with £112 net.
Hubby thinks decent wage, I think piss-take!
Opinions please!

So, if you multiply that by 190 days (as if you were teaching FT) then divide by 12 (as a contracted teacher would get their money spread over 12 months) your net income would be £1773.33, which is not great, and certainly doesn't recognise the skills and experience needed.

OTOH, the idea of walking away at 3.30 sounds very attractive to a lot of teachers right now.
£16 an hour (net) wouldn't be seen as being so bad for the benefit of not having to do any of the pointless crap teacher generally are forced to do, or any of the social work / mental health support, conflict resolution, etc, etc.
It sounds as if the other things going on in your life mean you need the benefit of a) being able to turn down work, and b) only working just a little more than the teaching hours.
I guess it depends on how much prep you need to do, to be able to deliver days like that.

@NewName24 I agree with all of that. I also teach 2.5 days as a Yr 6 Class Teacher. But obviously I work a lot more than that from home.

At schools where I have worked there have been three rates.

1/ turn up, 'teach' prepared stuff and leave, no prep, no marking, no feedback, no parents evenings or meetings.(day rate)
2/ turn up, 'teach' prepared stuff, mark work, no prep, some feedback, no parents evenings or meetings unless requested and then paid for (short term)
3/ Prepare lessons, mark feedback, parents evenings and meetings. (long term)

@FrippEnos Three rates for who? Qualified teachers? Never heard of this.

Three rates for supply teachers.
At least as far as the agency offered.
And as the supply often stated what they were paid for I have no reason to disbelieve them.

Because usually they are shit ineffective teachers who have been managed out of permanent work....

@90yomakeuproom Or teachers who are sick to death of working hour after hour after after hour, not being respected, and having their MH ripped to pieces by being told to "suck it up" and that whatever they do is not good enough.

i used to book supply. Some do get paid more. Some negotiate a much higher rate to do longer term and to take on some responsibility, they still walk out when the bell sounds though.
They’re not bad teachers, I mean some are! Sometimes they’ve taken early retirement, or just qualified and can’t take a post or teach a popular subject and use that to their advantage. One was in a band and just worked around that, he was very good too.
We used to have a banned list of terrible supply and the agencies were always trying to sneak them back in.

There are some very good supply teachers out there.
Most of those that I known do it because they value their own mental health and CBA to put up with views like yours.

@FrippEnos This.
I was ft when my boys were tiny (single mum) and I massively regret working 7.30-5.30 pm then again every evening and at weekends and throughout the holidays. I just couldn't be present because I had to pay the bills. I regret not being at one sports day, one nativity, one assembly.
I vowed never to make the same mistake with my little girl.

Of point a bit but do the SLT cover some sickness absence in your experiences? Generally interested how this all works. Is it possible for the managers to cover or is this just too much for them to do and also keep on top of their own work load?
My childrens primary seems to have so many teachers off sick at the moment it must be extremely difficult to find good cover.

@juggleit Rarely I would say. Much cover is now done by support staff (not qualified teachers).

Because usually they are shit ineffective teachers who have been managed out of permanent work

erm......work life balance, caring responsibilities, no desperate need for the money attached to a permanent role, ill health (both physical and mental) preventing someone from taking on the a permanent role, illness or condition that requires multiple appointments, keeping a hand in whilst caring for small children, keeping a hand in post-retirement.....all reasons someone might be in supply teaching.

I don't think supply teachers should get paid more, but I do think there should be compulsary contributions into their pensions by agencies. Currently supply teachers can't add to their teacher pensions, which is stupid.

@notbelieved This. Teaching is not really conducive with parenting children of your own. No flexibility for school runs, very long working days etc

You need to set some boundaries and not work hour after hour then? Maybe you've been in the wrong schools because I've never been made to feel like that. You can't deny that there's some supply teachers out there like I described.

Daily supply you get less because you are not planning and not responsible for progress. Long term should get the same as MPS.

As somebody up-thread said: supply teachers get paid very little because schools pay agencies - a lot - & the actual teachers get a fraction of that.

For the agency, it's a kind of sales job. Lots of young people, in their first job, trying to fill as many vacancies as possible, and get that bonus/promotion.

Lots of agencies competing to get to be the first call for as many schools as possible & thus make as much money as possible.

Profit isn't made by passing in the money to the actual supply teachers.

It has nothing to do with stuff about whether they set planning or not. It's a business. And, ironically, it's not making schools or teachers rich.

This thread has really surprised me. I'm a teacher and I genuinely thought supply teachers were paid well above what would be a daily rate for an employed teacher. With the reasoning that they don't get paid in the holidays.

A couple of people from my PGCE course went into supply once they'd got their QTS for that reason, or at least I thought that's what they said. But that was 18 yaers ago, things have probably changed.

But that was 18 yaers ago, things have probably changed

Yep!