NUT SUPPLY TEACHER SURVEY 2014 In June 2014, the NUT invited 20,000 supply teacher members to complete an online survey about supply teachers and the supply teacher market. Responses were received from 1,500 members (7.5%). This is, in practical terms, a good response rate for NUT email surveys. Subject to the caveat that the total survey sample comprises supply teachers in NUT membership, which means that some elements of the supply teacher workforce including younger members may be under-represented, it should on the whole be a representative sample of this workforce. This report looks at: why supply teachers are working in this role and how they principally gain supply teaching employment; how the supply teacher workforce and the agency supply teacher workforce compares to the overall teacher workforce in terms of age, gender, experience and other particulars; the current position on agency supply teachers pay, pensions and employment and their views on working for agencies; supply teachers views about how they are treated by the schools in which they work; the employment prospects for supply teachers and their current attitudes towards returning to permanent employment. Where appropriate, the report compares the findings of the 2014 NUT survey to a similar NUT survey conducted in 2010. The full tables for the results discussed in this report can be found in the Appendix. WORKING AS A SUPPLY TEACHER HOW AND WHY Routes to obtaining work as a supply teacher Table 1 Two-thirds of respondents now mainly obtain their supply teaching work through agencies. Only 8% now mainly obtain their work through employment in a local authority supply pool, administered either by the local authority or by an agency for the local authority. One quarter mainly obtain work directly with schools. Comparing the 2014 and 2010 surveys, the most significant trend was away from direct employment to agency employment, rather than away from supply pools to agencies. As noted above, in 2014 agencies accounted for the employment of 67% of respondents, a substantial rise from the 2010 figure of 50%. Pools accounted for 8.4% compared to the 2010 figure of 10.5%. Direct employment, however, which had accounted for 39% of respondents in 2010, had by 2014 fallen to only 25%. Respondents working with supply pools were concentrated in the North West and Yorkshire/Midlands Regions, although some responses were received from all regions.
2 The survey response demonstrates that the shift away from local authority pools, which is not a recent development, is by now an established pattern. Pressures on local authority funding will, regrettably, create obstacles to any campaign for the re-establishment of local authority supply pools. The survey also indicates, however, that fewer teachers are now obtaining work directly with schools - and consequently fewer teachers are able to secure work paid under the terms of the national pay structure and allowing access to the Teachers Pension Scheme. Main reason for working as a supply teacher Table 2 & 3 A surprising outcome in this section of the survey was a decline in the proportion of respondents who said that their main reason for working as a supply teacher is that they are unable to find permanent employment. In 2010, 23% of respondents had cited this reason, and a further group of respondents citing other reasons gave closely related answers. In 2014, the proportion of respondents citing this as their reason for working as a supply teacher had decreased to 21%. The largest categories of response were those citing lifestyle choice reasons - supply teaching fitting family or personal circumstances or other work/study commitments - and those who no longer wish to hold a permanent teaching job for various reasons. The former (answers 1&2 in the table 2) had been cited by 24% of respondents in 2010, but by 2014 had increased slightly to 26%. In 2010, the latter (answers 5&6) had been cited by 22% of respondents but by 2014 this had increased to 26%. In 2014, the survey allowed respondents to specify that they were retired; one in five (19%) said that they were. Other respondents had included a combination of reasons or said, for example, that they were undertaking supply teaching until they could find a part-time post as opposed to a full time post. For those employed through agencies, inability to find a permanent post was the largest single category, although still below 30%. There were many fewer retired teachers among agency supply teachers. Retired teachers, however, dominated the respondents who said that they mainly obtained their work directly from schools, making up almost 40% of that group, while those unable to find a permanent post comprised less than 10% of that group. Although only 21% said they were teaching on a supply basis because they could not find a permanent post, it should be noted that 42% of all respondents said that they would take a permanent post if offered one. That figure rose to 52% of respondents working mainly through agencies. The survey did not ask respondents how or why they had entered supply teaching. Respondents nevertheless supplied a lot of anecdotal evidence on this area, including on the circumstances of leaving their permanent employment. Any future NUT survey will look more closely at this area.
3 COMPOSITION OF THE SUPPLY TEACHER WORKFORCE Gender of respondents Table 4 & 5 75% of the survey responses were from women. This figure for the supply teaching workforce is almost identical to the overall teaching workforce of which 74% is female. Among agency supply teachers, men formed a slightly higher percentage at 29%. This figure is higher than the proportion of men in the total teaching workforce. This increase in comparison to the overall supply teacher workforce figure corresponds to a higher proportion of agency teachers working in the secondary sector. Age of respondents - Table 6 & 7 The supply teacher workforce is considerably older than the teaching workforce generally. Well over half of respondents (55%) to this survey were over 50. This included, as noted above, a preponderance of retired teachers among those doing direct supply work. Among the agency supply teacher workforce, however, the age profile is not substantially different from the total supply workforce. Half of them (49%) are over 50, while 25% are aged between 41 and 50 and 16% between 31 and 40. For comparison purposes, 20% of the total teaching workforce is aged over 50, with 25% between 41 and 50 and 30% between 31 and 40. Anecdotally, it is commonly reported that many younger teachers, unable to find regular employment in schools, are taking up supply teaching work while they look for permanent employment. While this is clearly true, teachers aged 30 or under make up less than 10% of the total agency teacher workforce. This compares to 26% of the overall teacher workforce aged under 30. Experience in regular teaching employment Table 8 & 9 The response to this question suggests that the higher age profile of supply teachers in comparison to teachers generally is not necessarily matched by correspondingly greater experience in teaching. While over half (59%) of respondents had over 10 years experience in regular teaching, 28% of respondents had less than 5 years, of which 16% had less than 2 years. Among agency teachers, while 52% of respondents had over 10 years experience in regular teaching, 33% had less than 5 years, of which 20% had less than 2 years. Experience in supply teaching Table 10 & 11 Two thirds of all respondents said that they had less than 5 years experience in supply teaching, of which one third said they had less than 2 years. There is, however clearly a substantial group for which supply teaching has become long term employment, now having been working as supply teachers for 5 years or more.
4 Among agency teachers, there is a similar considerable group of long term supply teachers, although there is a slightly higher proportion who have been doing supply work for less than 2 years. Sector in which employed Table 12 & 13 The results showed that 60% of all respondents predominantly teach in the primary sector. However, the large group of retired teachers working directly for schools work disproportionately in primary. Among agency teachers, just over half work in primary and a larger proportion (one third) work predominantly in the secondary sector. These figures, however, still do not correspond to the regular teaching workforce where the split is close to 50-50 between the primary and secondary sectors. This may be due to greater use of cover supervisors in the secondary sector than in the primary sector, which would consequently impact on employment of supply teachers. The NUT will look more closely at schools and their decisions about engaging supply teachers in future work. AGENCY SUPPLY TEACHING Agencies which are the biggest? Table 14, 15 & 16 The survey showed that 47% of respondents were employed by the following ten agencies: Teaching Personnel Randstad Education Hays Education Protocol Education Capita Education Vision Monarch Supply Desk Reed New Directions When we include those respondents who cited working for more than one agency, the survey showed that just over half of all respondents are employed by those biggest 10 agencies. The size and breadth of the supply agency market, however, now goes far beyond a few large agencies. This is demonstrated by the fact that the respondents mentioned some 150 agencies in their responses. The total number of supply teacher agencies in England and Wales is estimated by some to be around 250 agencies, and this may in turn exclude many single person operations.
5 The survey asked whether any respondents are paid at a rate which matches that which they would receive if employed directly by the school or governing body the national rate and, if not, what rate of pay they do receive. National rates are currently as follows: maximum of the Main Pay Range - 165 nationally, rising to 190 in Inner London; and maximum of the Upper Pay Range - 192 nationally, rising to 235 in Inner London. Only 10% of respondents said that they were paid the same as the "national rate". However, 38% answered that they didn t know. This perhaps suggests that, increasingly, those working as supply teachers may not know the rate of pay which they would receive if employed directly or in regular employment. This problem will be exacerbated by the recent changes to the national pay structure and the removal of pay portability. In the NUT s 2010 survey, 23% of respondents had said that they were paid the national rate. This was, however, in part due to the fact that more supply teachers responding to that survey worked directly with schools. The survey then asked those who had answered No to that question to specify their current standard daily rate of pay. The survey offered a number of pay bands: below 100, 100-124, 125-149, and 150 and above. Half of respondents said their daily rate of pay was 100-124. Another 22% had said it was 125-149. Only 33 respondents - less than 4% - said that they were paid 150 (which is still 10% below the national rate for a teacher with 5 years experience) or above. One in six, however, said that they were paid less than 100. A significant group - 10% of respondents said that their pay rates varied between placements. Many of these said that the pay rate varied according to whether the placement was for one day or for a longer period, or was in their specific area of specialism. The higher rates available for longer term placements ranged from an additional 10% of pay to up to 50% more from some agencies, but rarely reached national rates. (We exclude from this the higher pay entitlement for long term placements under the Agency Workers Regulations.) Respondents were asked to compare their current pay rate with the pay rate they were getting if they were doing supply teaching via agencies three years before. Excluding those who didn t know, 50% said that they were receiving about the same amount of pay; and 10% said they were getting more (this might possibly be due to experience). However, 40% of respondents said that they were getting lower or significantly lower pay than three years before. Agencies and pensions Table 17 & 18 One third of respondents told us that they could build up pension provision through their agency supply teaching work. Just under half said no, with one fifth answering don t know. This compares to the 2010 survey when only 3% of all respondents said yes.
6 Supply teacher agencies are not at present able to offer teachers membership of the Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS). Since 2012, however, the law requires that all employers, starting with the largest first, must enrol eligible workers into a workplace pension if they are at least 22 years old and have not reached state pension age and earn more than a minimum annual amount (currently 10,000). Employers must provide a contribution of a minimum of 1% (although it can of course be higher), which will rise over time to a minimum of 3%, matching a minimum employee contribution of 1% rising over time to 5%. Almost 60% of respondents who said that they could build up pension provision, however, said that the agency did not contribute. Where contributions were made by the employer, they were very low and commonly 1%, usually matching the teacher contribution. The TPS now requires contributions from teachers averaging 9.6% (although teachers working on a part time basis, including supply teachers, may pay lower contributions under a tiering system). Employer contributions will, in September 2015, rise to 16.4%, indicating that agencies might well resist joining the TPS, even if allowed. Agencies and umbrella companies Table 19 When asked Does your agency pay you through an umbrella company / offshore payroll company?, 42% of respondents said Yes a figures which rises to just over half when excluding Don t Knows. This may well be an under-estimate and another recent survey estimates a figure of almost two thirds. Cover supervisor work Table 20 This question asked whether teachers had accepted work offered to them as cover supervisor work ie classroom supervision, not teaching work - which had turned out actually to require teaching. Four fifths (82%) said No. The 2010 survey had asked whether teachers had been offered such work and 17% had said Yes. The two questions are clearly not the same but the two answers suggest firstly that the amount of work offered on this basis may have increased but, more importantly, teachers are extremely reluctant to accept such work. Satisfaction with agencies the advantages and disadvantages Table 21 & 22 The survey asked those working for agencies about the advantages and disadvantages of seeking supply teaching work in this way. The survey responses showed, unsurprisingly, that the perceived disadvantages were low pay, pay not reflecting experience and lack of entitlement to pensions. There was also a growing issue with excessive finders fees which respondents believe place a considerable obstacle in the path of schools offering them permanent employment after a successful period of supply teaching. Again unsurprisingly, the survey showed that the main perceived advantage of seeking work through a supply agency was the access which this gave to more regular supply teaching work.
7 EXPERIENCE WITH SCHOOLS The survey asked supply teachers about their experience with schools and in particular the support they received from schools on arrival and during their teaching engagement. Most agency teachers were satisfied with the help and support they received from schools - 71% responded that they were usually satisfied and 6% that they were always satisfied. Almost a quarter, however, responded that they were rarely or never satisfied. Among those working directly with schools or via LA pools, 90% responded that they were usually or always happy, presumably due to the fact that the latter group are generally more familiar with the schools in which they work. Where problems had been encountered, however, they had been similar for both groups. The mostly frequently cited issue was lack of information about individual pupils, which had been a concern for 75% of agency respondents and 73% of others reporting problems. Others in descending order were lack of access to teaching resources (68% and 66%); lack of access to planned work (58% and 54%); and lack of a named manager/contact (52% and 58%). CURRENT EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS Current levels of access to work Table 27, 28, 29 & 30 Encouragingly (for those seeking supply teaching work), over half of respondents who work through agencies say that they can get work when they want it. One third say they can obtain work over 50% of the time, while only just under one in six say they are offered no work for weeks at a time. Among those directly employed, the picture is slightly worse. Just under half say they can get work when they want it. Around one quarter can get work over 50% of the time, but almost a third - twice as many as among teachers working through agencies - say they can obtain no work for weeks at a time. The price of direct employment, with its better pay and pensions entitlement, is that it is less reliable as a means of regular employment. Trends in access to work Among those working via agencies, less than one third said that getting work is increasingly hard. However, the responses to other questions demonstrate that the work available is in many cases paid less than previously. A slightly higher proportion of those working directly with schools are finding work increasingly hard to find, corresponding to the apparent decline in the number who now find their supply work mainly via that route. Desire for permanent employment Table 31 & 32 Although, as we saw earlier, only 27% of respondents say they are working as supply teachers because they cannot find a permanent job, many more would accept a permanent job if
8 offered one. Among agency teachers, in fact, a majority (52%) say they would accept a permanent job. Unsurprisingly the figure is lower among those working directly with schools, of whom only 20% would take a permanent job and over two thirds specifically say they would not - but we know that over one third of this category are retired already. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NUT S WORK Most supply teachers still choose to work part time. Fewer told us that they are doing so because they cannot find a permanent job than did so in 2010. However, as we also found, just over half of agency teachers say they would take a permanent job if one became available. The preponderance among the overall supply teaching workforce of teachers who are older, already retired and not seeking permanent employment will potentially place obstacles in the way of campaigning for better terms and conditions. Pay and pensions are clearly the major issues identified for further discussion with politicians, the DfE and agencies themselves. Although only a small minority of supply teachers reported regularly experiencing difficulties with schools, the survey set out a range of issues to be raised with schools and included in the revision of the NUT s Charter for supply teachers. Finally, respondents raised a number of issues which had not been specifically addressed in the survey questions and which in hindsight could have been, such as differences in how short term and long term supply work is handled by schools. There is scope for further work in this area, including with schools themselves. National Union of Teachers July 2014
9 TABLES FOR SURVEY APPENDIX 1 Table 1: Routes to obtaining work as a supply teacher Table 2: Reasons for Working Supply All
10 Table 3: Reasons for Working Supply Agencies Table 4: Gender All Table 5: Gender Agencies
11 Table 6: Age All Table 7: Age Agencies Table 8: Experience in Regular Teaching All
12 Table 9: Experience in Regular Teaching Agencies Table 10: Experience in Supply Teaching All Table 11: Experience in Supply Teaching Agencies
13 Table 12: Sector All Table 13: Sector Agencies Table 14: Agencies Pay (1)
14 Table 15: Agencies Pay (2) Table 16: Agencies Pay (3) Table 17: Agencies Pensions (1)
15 Table 18: Agencies Pensions (2) Table 19: Agencies Umbrella Companies Table 20: Agencies Cover Supervisor Work
16 Table 21: Agencies Satisfaction (1) Table 22: Agencies Satisfaction (2)
17 Table 23: Support from Schools Agencies Table 24: Support from Schools Others Table 25: Support from Schools Agencies
Table 26: Support from Schools Others 18
19 Table 27: Access to Work (1) Agencies Table 28: Access to Work (2) Others Table 29: Access to Work (3) Agencies Table 30: Access to Work (4) Others
20 Table 31: Seeking Permanent Work (1) Agencies Table 32: Seeking Permanent Work (2) Others