When should school look to recruit a permanent replacement when teacher on long term sick?

[Readytomakechanges]

I was just wondering how long it is reasonable for a class to go without a qualified teacher.
DD's teacher has been off sick since the beginning of term and the class is being taken by the cover supervisor.
Obviously, we are all hoping that the teacher's health improves and they become well enough to return, but in the event that this does not happen, how long is it reasonable for the school to use a cover supervisor?
Thank you.

What did you think cover supervisors do? Seriously, that is what the job is. There is not any expectation that I plan or mark work. The class teacher sets and marks the work. I don't get to take the work away to mark it, even if it were my subject. And at the comparison with scouts.

What people ought to be worrying about is why tons of good, well-qualified teachers would rather go and do generic, lower-paid crowd control than have a proper teaching job.

Anyway, I'm derailing now, sorry. I'm out.

This thread makes me want to direct you all to the website www.fairfundingforallschools.org Which even so is only about making sure that school budgets are not cut even further than the already dire levels.

It is an absolute disgrace that children can be left for weeks or months with nobody teaching them because schools cannot afford supply cover. I am currently picking up the pieces of a class whose teacher was off for several weeks sick last year which was covered by the TA who had no qualifications and had only worked as a TA for a few months. She did her absolute best in the circumstances but it was taking advantage of her and doing the children a complete disservice.

Are you suggesting schools look for volunteers to do cover MumTryingHerBest? Not sure of your point...

In the case of shortage subjects in secondary, it isn't even reluctance to pay. It's a lack of specialist supply teachers. Or indeed teachers full stop.

TheFallenMadonna

Eolian - I'm not sure most childminders would be happy about supervising a classroom full of 32 rowdy 15 year-olds they've never met before.

Plenty of people do it on a volunatary basis

Mind you, I'm not sure you'll find many 15 year olds at primary school.

I left two years ago. I wouldn't go back to teaching at the moment if you paid me £500k a year. It still wouldn't be worth the effect on my health. And I know that applies to all my friends and colleagues who have left the profession recently. They were all teachers with 10 or more years experience, often rated outstanding. The kind of people we want teaching. But at the moment with all the ridiculous changes and stress, it's not worth it.

They are an academy so can employ an unqualified teacher, but in LA maintained schools you can also employ an unqualified teacher if you can demonstrate that you have made reasonable steps to fill the post with a qualified teacher. Schools probably wouldn't be able to afford to employ a permanent member of staff to cover the absence and it could be viewed as a hostile move against the sick employee.

In addition to the employment laws around absence/long term sick which will be followed, in a well led and financially stable primary, insurance will be in place to cover the absence of the class teacher. Cover can be 'from Day 1' ( quite expensive) from day 3 ( a bit cheaper)- you get the drift and would depend on who else the school has on its staff. As th HT I cover classes. It depends whether:
The school in question has paid for insurance
The school can find a decent supply teacher. I found it near impossible to find a supply teacher to take on a class full time. Many are doing supply because they want/choose/need to be part time/have a degree of flexibility. There is a genuine shortage of teachers.
As an academy whether the trust want to employ a qualified teacher to take the class. They don't have to and it is much cheaper not to....-and money will be needed to go towards the large salary of the CEO-

My suggestion would be to ask to speak with leaders in school, expressing your concern.

The salary of the CEO isn't always large - ours is not paid anymore than an exec head of the two schools he is currently overseeing. The money for his salary comes from the contribution the schools pay to the trust for central services and is a lot lower than the LA 'topslice'. Not all academies work this way, granted, but not all are taking money away from schools either. We oversee 7 schools and all but essential money to run a small trust team is pushed into school budgets.

And many have very large salaries. Can't work out the maths really given the small number of schools in some MATs, it just doesn't add up. CEO locally, for 5 schools, earns double the amount of the LA person who has the same job overseeing 350 schools. Just where does that money come from for that terrific wage?

One of the local academy chains near us, the CEO earns £240k. Which is eye watering.

Best to work full time and fund your child at private school I suggest where this is less likely to happen. You will also save hard pressed tax payers the cost of educating your child.

OHHHH! Really, £240,000 - Read above as ' 4 times as much as the LA person responsible for 350 schools' in that case!

The school is recently an academy

Oh dear!

Oldie2017 - I've read threads where this has happened in private schools. Teachers get sick there, too - and private schools have trouble finding and affording cover. Better not to spend so much time being a wage slave somthat you have more time to make up for the primary school's deficits at home. :-P