School Budgets Are for Education – not Excessive Agency Margins
Every pound in a school budget has a purpose. It supports teaching, pastoral care, SEND provision, resources, buildings and the people who make education possible.
The Department for Education has confirmed an additional £700 million for schools in 2026–27 to support increased costs, including teacher and support-staff pay. That investment is welcome. So too is the decision to ensure that the teacher pay award can be met without creating the previously anticipated gap in school budgets.
However, additional funding does not remove the need for scrutiny. School leaders are still balancing competing pressures, and teaching unions continue to warn that repeated cuts or so-called efficiencies ultimately affect staffing, provision and pupils.
In that environment, schools cannot afford for money intended for education to be lost through unnecessary recruitment costs or excessive agency margins.
Supply staff are essential – but high margins are not
Supply teachers and support staff make an essential contribution to education. They protect continuity when permanent colleagues are absent, provide specialist expertise and help schools respond quickly to changing pupil needs.
The problem is not the use of supply staff. The question is whether the way they are sourced, delivers fair value for schools and fair treatment for workers.
National media reporting, based on Department for Education data and union analysis, highlighted that schools in England spend approximately £1.25 billion on supply teaching each year. It also raised concerns about the difference between what some schools were charged and what individual supply teachers received.
That gap matters. A high charge rate does not necessarily mean high candidate pay, better vetting or stronger service. Without transparency, schools may have no clear view of how much of their money reaches the person working with their pupils and how much is retained elsewhere.
The GCA Framework is a ceiling – not a spending target
The Government Commercial Agency’s Supply Teachers and Education Recruitment Framework, RM6376, is designed to improve compliance, transparency and value. From September 2026, academy trusts must procure agency supply staff through the framework or use a compliant alternative that does not exceed the framework rates.
This is an important safeguard, but the published figures are maximum rates. The DfE guidance explicitly encourages schools and trusts to review individual supplier rates to ensure they are lower than the permitted ceiling.
The right question is therefore not simply, “Are we compliant?” It is:
Are we paying a fair and competitive rate?
What is the candidate receiving?
What margin is being retained?
Are rates consistent across our schools?
What measurable service and workforce value are we receiving?
Better value should not mean lower standards
Schools Mutual Services offers a different model. We are the UK’s only not-for-profit supply agency dedicated to education, owned by schools and built around the needs of the sector.
Our rates can be up to 50% lower than published GCA Framework rates, depending on the role and assignment. That saving is achieved through a cap on margins and a not-for-profit structure – not by reducing safeguarding standards or treating candidates unfairly.
SMS provides transparent pricing, PAYE-only engagement, robust compliance, quality-assured candidates and no permanent recruitment fees. We also work with schools and trusts to review patterns of demand and reduce avoidable expenditure over time.
Turn transparency into action
The DfE, teaching unions and school leaders may approach the funding debate from different perspectives, but there should be common ground on one principle: money allocated to education should deliver the greatest possible benefit for pupils and staff.
That requires schools to challenge unclear pricing, compare actual rates rather than maximum rates and understand the full value delivered by each supplier.
SMS offers a free, no-obligation Supply Costing Review to help schools and trusts compare current charge rates, candidate pay, agency margins and wider workforce arrangements.
Protecting a school budget is not about choosing the cheapest person. It is about removing unnecessary cost while protecting quality, fairness and continuity.
