In response to your article ’Cut spend on teaching assistants, says Randstad Education’ (recruiter.co.uk, 27 April), I’m not surprised Randstad are saying this, as they are losing money by placing fewer supply teachers.

However as an ex-teacher who has worked in the supply world, I have to disagree to the cost effective/efficient argument.

It is totally unjustifiable to misuse these cover supervisors (as they were known when I was teaching) as more full-time classroom teachers, but they are an invaluable resource for the ad-hoc emergency cover for which they were employed.

In my experience, the majority of cover lessons are not interactive. The work is prepared either by the absent teacher or the head of department who usually resort to worksheets, text books and videos, so all that is required, in effect, is a ’babysitter’ to keep behaviour in check.

Classroom assistants on payroll are much better placed to provide this care, as there is no real ’teaching’ involved. They know the pupils, have knowledge of the school’s discipline systems, exactly who to contact with different issues – most of this information is not available to a supply teacher, and as they are not linked to the school and don’t know the systems, behaviour is much worse, meaning that the meagre learning opportunity from the worksheets is disrupted.

What should happen for the longer-term absences is to have a qualified supply teacher (and I mean qualified in the subject area – my specialisation was French but I taught more Maths supply than anything else) and that person should be integrated into the school and its processes.

My experience as a supply teacher was that I never got an overview of discipline systems from the agency, and had to ask the schools in most cases – each school should prepare this and share with agencies and supply staff. Supply teachers should actually teach, plan lessons, lead
the learning, and not just babysit as per current practice.

It shouldn’t be a case of cutting back on classroom assistants/cover supervisers; more a case of using the right tool for the job, which has
to be a decision for the school. The focus should be on where the educational system could improve its practices, not on how a temp agency can make more money out of filling holes.

Claire P