Fair Pay and Better Value Can – and Must – Coexist in Supply Teaching
The debate about supply staffing is often presented as a choice: protect school budgets or improve conditions for supply teachers.
That is the wrong choice.
Schools should be able to secure reliable, quality-assured staff at a fair and transparent cost. Supply teachers should be treated as respected education professionals, paid fairly and given clarity about their employment. The two goals are not in conflict when unnecessary margin is removed from the system.
Supply teachers are part of the education workforce
Teaching unions have consistently emphasised the vital contribution supply teachers make to maintaining educational standards. They step into unfamiliar classrooms, establish relationships quickly, follow school policies and keep learning moving – often with very little notice.
Yet the experience of supply work can vary significantly depending on the route through which a teacher is engaged. Pay, pension access, employment status, deductions and expectations may all differ.
NASUWT guidance stresses that the employment relationship is critical in determining a supply teacher’s pay, pension and conditions. Where the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document applies, daily pay is calculated from the relevant annual salary on the basis of a 195-day working year.
This reinforces a wider principle: supply teaching should not be treated as a second-class version of the profession
Low candidate pay is not the same as good value
When school budgets are tight, it may be tempting to focus solely on the lowest charge rate. But an unsustainably low worker rate can make recruitment harder, increase turnover and drive experienced professionals away from supply work.
Equally, a high charge to the school offers no guarantee that the candidate is being paid well. The critical issue is transparency: how much goes to the worker, what legitimate employment costs are included and what margin is retained by the supplier?
A sustainable model should protect both sides:
schools should not pay excessive margins;
candidates should understand their pay and employment status;
safeguarding and compliance must remain rigorous;
successful placements should be encouraged to develop; and
permanent recruitment should not be blocked by punitive transfer fees.
Why the SMS model is different
Schools Mutual Services was created by schools to support education. We are not-for-profit, operate with a cap on margins and reinvest in the sector rather than distributing profit to shareholders.
For candidates, our approach includes PAYE-only engagement, national pay scales where applicable, enhanced pension provision, wellbeing support and clear communication. We do not use umbrella companies to obscure deductions or employment relationships.
For schools, this ethical model also delivers value. SMS rates can be up to 50% lower than the published GCA Framework rates, depending on the role and assignment. We can achieve this while supporting candidates properly because our purpose is not to maximise agency profit.
We also charge no permanent recruitment fee. When a placement develops into the right long-term appointment, our model supports the school and candidate in moving forward rather than placing an additional financial barrier in their way.
A stronger candidate experience supports retention
Recruitment and retention cannot be separated. A teacher who feels undervalued, unclear about deductions or unsupported between placements may leave supply work – or education altogether.
Conversely, fair treatment helps build loyalty, consistency and trust. Candidates are more likely to accept future work, understand partner schools and become part of a dependable local workforce bank.
This matters for pupils. Continuity is improved when schools can draw upon professionals who already understand their expectations, communities and ways of working.
Common ground for the sector
The DfE wants stronger value and transparency. Teaching unions want fair pay and decent conditions. Schools want dependable staff at sustainable rates. Supply teachers want professional respect and clarity.
These are not competing ambitions. They are the foundations of a healthier supply market.
The sector should expect a model in which public money is protected, candidates are valued and children continue to receive high-quality education. That is the model SMS was created to provide.
Talk to Schools Mutual Services about an ethical supply partnership that delivers fair treatment, quality and better value together.
