Who is teaching your child? You'd be surprised...

[MissCynic]

I'd like to spread the word about what is going on with private teaching agencies in Wales. In a nutshell they are concerned only with profit and not with continuity of cover for your child. In secondary schools, they are even sending out often unqualified staff as "Cover Supervisors" (Google this) who are paid less and who basically just babysit. Cover Supervisors are not meant to undertake any teaching or even mark work. They could be untrained LSAs or people who have a degree but no qualified teacher status. They may know absolutely nothing about Maths, Science, Spanish or whatever they are covering. Schools are complicit in this, unfortunately, but for obvious reasons will not want this to be widely known. As much as 10% of your child's education will be taken by supply teachers or "not" teachers (as the case may be) so please start asking questions about who exactly IS supervising your child at school and write to your Assembly member or Welsh Government. Any comments from supply teachers in England would be most welcomed as I'd like to know if it's the same over the border. I know school budgets are limited but the fact also that 45% of schools' supply teacher budgets is being creamed off by agencies in commission is absolutely obscene. Agencies care only about profit; they have no qualms about sending three or four teachers in one week to one class rather than provide continuity of cover. They will also send teachers anywhere without matching their skills and experience to that setting eg autistic units, sending FE trained teachers/lecturers to cover early years classes. I worked for over two years without even basic safeguarding training. I eventually discovered that I was able to do this free of charge via my local authority, which I did. Finally, as these agencies also provide LSAs to schools, some are even recruiting using the streamline, "Never worked in education? Not a problem..."

Cover supervisors have been very common here in England for maybe 15 years? A bit more?

They are definitely not teachers.

I’m in London and there are a lot of cover supervisors around and many on permanent contracts with schools. I’ve also been seeing increasing numbers of TA covering PPA time on a regular in primaries.

I’ve also been seeing increasing numbers of TA covering PPA time on a regular in primaries

That's more of a worry right now I think

Same in England. We have just employed a new cover supervisor with absolutely no experience to teach a 50% timetable of regular classes science maths and music. People need to realise that funding cuts mean anyone who passes crb checks could be teaching their kid.

Cover lessons for one off absence has very rarely been done by a qualified subject specialist for years. There's no need for it. I've covered Spanish, Science, RE and Maths in recent years.

Agencies and their profits are a different issue as they make a fortune from schools that the cover staff don't see. Agencies in themselves should have the spotlight shone on them.

I’ve also been seeing increasing numbers of TA covering PPA time on a regular in primaries
This concerns me much more than cover supervisors as well.

You all sound like you are in education yourselves; are any of you parents? Do you not worry about the implications for your children? Also, have any of you complained to your MPs?

No not either. Just averagely well informed

Also, have any of you complained to your MPs?

I don't see what contacting my MPS is going to achieve they all voted for the cuts in education with no thought of how children's educations would be affected. I honestly doubt they care about the use of cover supervisors.

A lot of schools employ permanent cover supervisors who are unqualified teachers to cover lessons. Much cheaper than supply agencies. There aren't enough teachers to cover a lot of key subjects let alone having a surplus then available to provide subject specific supply teacher lessons.

@HeadsDownThumbsUpEveryone

This exactly.

That's a shame; in my experience they (Mps and AMs - Welsh assembly members ) don't really know the ins and outs of what really goes on at all. I have found myself having to explain terminology to THEM! They also do not know how much of a percentage is being kept by the agencies for making two phone calls and sending two emails! As Martin Luther King once said "Your life begins to end the moment you start being silent about the things that matter".

in my experience they (Mps and AMs - Welsh assembly members ) don't really know the ins and outs of what really goes on at all.

In the nicest possible way it is not up to me to be educating MPs and AMs on the consequences of decisions they have taken part in.

I'm too preoccupied being the one to cover your child's class last minute when their teacher is sick.

I got very worried about the state of Primary teaching a few years ago when a close relative applied to be a teacher. I looked over his shoulder at some of the student forums - exchanging chat on getting onto teacher training courses. I was horrified. A great many of them were no more educated than the children they were potentially going to teach. Many of them were waiting for their own GCSE results having re-taken Maths for the umpteenth time, and, in many cases, English too. Most were petrified about numeracy tests on selection days, and being "found out."

It's not just for sickness though. My point is unqualified inexperienced teachers have regular timetabled classes and lessons. This is just another symptom of the cuts to funding. It's always been there but it is much much worse now. Of course teachers care. We've been trying to get people to take this seriously for a long time but we just get labelled whinging/overpaid etc. Can't win. In the mean time your children are being taught science and maths by site staff and lab technicians and admin who have no real desire to be there but are being forced to take on additional cover supervisor roles to keep their jobs.

I agree about some teachers not being qualified enough; however that is a separate issue and one which has not been addressed since I trained in the 1990s. My main argument is that it is truly obscene for agencies to profit in the way they do when they are not even providing qualified and consistent cover for OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. If nobody speaks out, nothing will ever change.

Thank Christ this isn't a thing in U.K. if I left my PSA to run to the toilet for 4 mins I'd be in trouble

When PPA was brought in, it was funded. We had 2 qualified teachers covering everyone's PPA.

Then budgets were cut and then cut again.

Now we have one HLTA covering 4 teachers' PPA - fine. She's very qualified and is excellent with the children.

In other classes we have level 3 (I think) TAs covering 2 afternoons each. They are paid a pittance and have had no training re teaching/managing a full class. And never went into the job to do anyhting other than work with small groups, which was what their role was when they were employed.

It's shoddy.

I got very worried about the state of Primary teaching a few years ago when a close relative applied to be a teacher. I looked over his shoulder at some of the student forums - exchanging chat on getting onto teacher training courses. I was horrified. A great many of them were no more educated than the children they were potentially going to teach. Many of them were waiting for their own GCSE results having re-taken Maths for the umpteenth time, and, in many cases, English too. Most were petrified about numeracy tests on selection days, and being "found out."

And now they are scrapping the skills tests altogether!

Thank Christ this isn't a thing in U.K. if I left my PSA to run to the toilet for 4 mins I'd be in trouble

I don’t understand this post. Cover supervisors very much are a thing.

We have TAs jobsharing with part time teachers as it’s so much cheaper-the parents aren’t told they aren’t teachers! The head would claim they are HLTAs, but they are only HLTAs because the head decided it would sound better to call them that-they don’t have any special qualifications.

They are used for all PPA and sickness cover as well-we can’t afford supply.

Why are you so concerned about the agencies profiting? They are providing a service. A service that schools could provide themselves, by employing appropriately trained staff directly. But they choose not to.
A cover supervisor is not actually teaching at all, and school managers are choosing this option. The children are just babysat and they are not getting the education they should.
But I think the bar is set pretty low - anecdotally it seems to be the case that many secondary schools require their teachers to teach ( not merely cover) subjects in which they have no training or qualifications. I know of several primary schools where teachers are expected to teach subjects about which they know absolutely nothing, and it is common for primary teachers to be expected to teach a foreign language that they don't speak, and geography, history, art, music and PE when they have not even a GCSE in those subjects.
Education is not treated seriously here, and content is apparently not as important as ticking boxes. The latest Ofsted framework seems to be addressing some of this, but in the absence of proper funding schools are having to ask staff to multi- task beyond what is realistic or even achievable.
So I'm not sure why cover supervisors and agencies are coming in for particular criticism - this is just part and parcel of a chronically underfunded and undervalued education system.

@DelphiniumBlue Can you not see that the money creamed off by agencies is coming from public funds and it is immoral to charge 45-50% in commission for making two telephone calls and sending two emails? The schools do not "choose"; in some instances local authorities have CLOSED payroll facilities for supply teachers. Heads are also labouring under the misapprehension that they must use agencies. It is not mandatory. Also, as I said previously the agencies are not providing a satisfactory service, sending several teachers in one week to a class, not providing continuity and not matching the skillset of individual teachers to their assignments. They are simply getting "bums on seats" so to speak, just to get their commission. This is money that could be spent locally were it paid to the teachers that are often very experienced and deserve it! Agencies are not even providing SAFEGUARDING training in some instances; I tell you this from experience. What sort of a service is this to our children?

Hopefully teachers who know how to use paragraphs! Your OP is making my eyes hurt!

I was a cover supervisor before becoming a teacher. I was expected to support as much as possible. In the same way if I cover a maths lesson I really struggle as I teach English and am pretty rubbish at maths. Ditto if I cover a German class.

I was a cover supervisor in 2004 - they are not new.

Unfortunately costs are what causes this. It’s not right but that’s what it is.

I’m a cover supervisor in a large inner city comprehensive school.... I am qualified:... I actually have 15 years experience teaching but couldn’t be arsed commuting 3+ hrs to my former job any more as well as having two young children.... I am permanently employed by my school to cover lessons and occasionally take on my own classes.... my other cover colleagues are all qualified teachers who just don’t want the shit that a full time teaching post brings! I deliver the lessons which have been prepared by my subject colleagues and when they are not in am experienced enough to do something meaningful in the lesson wether it’s revision skills, dirt time or using a text book if necessary. Yes agencies who cream off money are crap but not all cover supervisors are!

Why are you so concerned about the agencies profiting? They are providing a service. A service that schools could provide themselves, by employing appropriately trained staff directly. But they choose not to.
It's not about profiting to me, it's about the scale of the profit usually when not paying the actual staff a decent wage and expecting experienced teachers to work for cover supervisor rates to get work (because the school can't afford to pay double the cost of a teacher so the agency can rake it in).

Many secondary schools do have a cover team internally. There's usually 2 or 3 cover supervisors in every school I've worked in. Schools have also over staffed some departments so there's multiple members of staff who have an hour free most weeks but can be deployed for cover.

Unfortunately, there is a shortage of teachers, lots of teachers are off ill and in all of this there's companies raking it in at a time when school budgets are already being cut right back. If you'd rather companies profited excessively instead of money going on children's education thrn great, but many of us aren't happy with that.

my other cover colleagues are all qualified teachers who just don’t want the shit that a full time teaching post brings!

I have to admit within my experience of supply/cover agency work this statement covers approx. 98% of those who I have been fortunate enough to meet and or work with.