The Titanic, an Approaching Crisis and Supply Teachers

When it comes to problems in education, the present government reminds me sometimes of Captain E. J. Smith, captain of the Titanic, who is supposed to have said, after his doomed ship struck the iceberg: "Don't worry; we're only stopping to take on a little ice". Whether he said this or not, the same complacency and disregard for the facts is typical of government ministers and the DFE when confronted with evidence of an approaching crisis in education: a growing teacher shortage.
Today's BBC website spells out the best indicator of the problem, which is the amount of money schools are spending on supply staff:

"Primary and secondary schools in England struggling to recruit teachers spent £821m on supply staff last year, it has emerged.

Analysis by BBC News shows the equivalent of £168 was spent on each child in order to hire in extra staff to cover vacancies and absences.
Teachers unions say the amount of money spent reflects a "serious teacher recruitment and retention crisis".
Yet, a DFE spokesman says:
"The number and quality of teachers is at a record high, with over 1,000 more graduates training to teach secondary subjects now than a year ago. The overall teacher vacancy rate is 0.3% and has remained around or below 1% for the past 15 years."
Oh, so that's all right then. Of course, it is not; only by willfully ignoring and distorting the facts can the anonymous DFE spokesman be so complacent. Five months ago, the Labour Party shadow education secretary, Lucy Powell, told the Guardian:
"...half of all schools had unfilled positions at the start of this year and are being forced to turn to unqualified staff, temporary supply teachers, non-specialists and larger class sizes to try and plug the gaps".
The BBC quotes the head of a supply teacher agency:
"Becca Morgan, who set up the supply agency Principal Teachers in Catterick 16 years ago, said her company was currently experiencing its busiest ever period.
"We start dealing with schools looking for supply teachers at 6.30 in the morning and I often stop answering calls at midnight. To put it bluntly: without companies like mine the reality is that the education system would grind to a halt."
If Ms Morgan sounds a tad defensive, that is because supply agencies have been accused of putting profit before the provision of suitable staff. There is some justification for this charge. When supply teaching was farmed out to private tender, some agencies were providing some highly unsuitable staff, but this is not relevant here. Perhaps more relevant is to point out that the figures for the cost of supply teaching would be even higher were it not for the fact that Headteachers use Teaching Assistants to cover teaching absences and vacancies, which they are not supposed to do. This is borne out by the example of the Robert Clack School in Dagenham who, says the BBC:
 "... spent the most on supply teachers in England. According to the government's data the school spent £953,807 on extra staff - the equivalent of £526 per child.
Dr Neil Geach, the school's chair of governors, said:
"The figures as reported do not reflect reality... We do not use unqualified staff or cover supervisors to cover teaching groups - our children's education is too important."
It follows, then, that the reason most schools do not spend as much money as this is due to their deployment of Teaching Assistants (and others!) to plug the gaps.
One category of people being left out of this discussion is one to which I so recently belonged: the supply teachers. The figures quoted by the BBC might give the impression that supply teaching is a highly lucrative occupation. For the individual supply teacher, this is not the case, and I can attest to this from personal experience. In 2000, I worked as a local education authority (LEA) supply teacher for two terms. After stoppages, I received £120 a day. When I retired in 2011 and went to work as a supply teacher for an agency, I eventually received, after stoppages, £110 a day. This drop in income is explained by the fact that the agency takes a large cut out of what the supply teacher would once have been paid by the LEA. Whoever is doing well out of the present crisis, it is not the ordinary supply teacher.
What of the future? I think it depends on teacher recruitment. If the recession recedes, the government improves teacher pay and conditions and sufficient teachers are recruited and retained, supply agencies might be much less busy. If things continue to deteriorate, thanks to government complacency, the agencies could be busier than ever.They might even improve the pay of the teachers who work for them.