Introduction

The supply teaching market in England has undergone significant transformation over recent decades. Since the late 1980s, when the current agency-dominated model emerged, commercial recruitment agencies have become the primary intermediaries between schools and supply teachers (Department for Education, 2024). However, the financial pressures facing English schools, combined with mounting evidence of substantial agency mark-ups, have prompted a growing number of local authorities to reclaim control of teacher recruitment by establishing in-house services.

The Financial Case for Change

The Cost of Commercial Agencies

Recent research commissioned by the Department for Education (2024) has revealed the substantial financial burden that commercial agency fees place on schools. The study found that schools are paying nearly 100% mark-ups on supply teacher services, with significant disparities between what schools pay agencies and what teachers actually receive (Schools Week, 2024).

The average daily costs charged by agencies to schools are:

• Primary schools: £218 per day
• Secondary schools: £291 per day
• Special schools: £270 per day

However, supply teachers report receiving considerably less:

• Primary teachers: £136 per day (37.6% less than schools pay)
• Secondary teachers: £150 per day (48.5% less than schools pay)
• Special teachers: £144 per day (46.7% less than schools pay)

These figures demonstrate that commercial agencies are retaining substantial margins, typically between 20% and 30% of the daily rate, plus additional finder’s fees for permanent placements (IRIS, 2024). For a school spending £150,000 annually on supply cover at an agency daily rate of £250 (with a £45 supplier fee), approximately £27,000 goes directly to agency fees rather than educational provision (IRIS, 2024).

Cumulative Impact on School Budgets

The cumulative impact across the education system is substantial. Multi-academy trusts can easily spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds on agency fees annually (IRIS, 2024). This represents funding diverted from direct educational provision, resources, and permanent staffing solutions. As one commentator noted, the supply teaching system “hasn’t evolved in decades” and continues to funnel millions of pounds away from schools whilst leaving teachers with less control over pay and job security (Teacher Toolkit, 2024).

The Decline of Local Authority Supply Pools

Historically, many local authorities operated their own supply teacher pools, providing in-house recruitment services to maintained schools within their areas. These pools typically offered better pay rates for teachers (often Main Pay Scale rates), lower costs for schools, greater quality assurance and consistency, and access to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.

However, the number of LA-run supply pools has diminished significantly in recent years due to several factors: the academisation of schools removing them from LA control, financial pressures on local authority budgets, lack of investment in technology infrastructure, and competition from well-resourced commercial agencies.

By 2022, only a handful of LA supply pools remained operational in England, including Sefton, East Riding, and Norfolk (National Supply Teachers Network, n.d.). The closure of Stockport Supply Pool in May 2022 marked another significant loss in LA provision. Those pools that have survived typically pay substantially more to teachers than commercial agencies, with Sefton supply pool paying up to M6 (£212 per day from September 2022).

Emerging Models: LA Investment in Modern Recruitment Solutions

The Technology-Enabled Approach

A new generation of LA-run teacher recruitment services is emerging, enabled by purpose-built digital platforms that modernise the traditional supply pool model. Several local authorities across England have partnered with technology providers such as Teacher Booker to establish efficient, cost-effective supply teacher management systems.

Case Study: Glasgow City Council (Scottish Example)

Whilst Glasgow City Council operates in Scotland, its implementation provides valuable insights for English local authorities. Glasgow City Council is the exclusive provider of supply teachers to all 200 schools across the city, managing approximately 1,000 registered short-term supply teachers and 650 permanent teachers available for long-term contracts.

Prior to 2021, the service relied heavily on manual processes, with supply teachers booking work via telephone calls and requiring substantial administrative support. In partnership with Teacher Booker, the council implemented a digital platform that enables schools to directly book supply teachers through an intuitive online system (Teacher Booker, 2023).

Results Achieved

• In the first month of operation (August 2021): 3,184 days of supply were booked across 138 schools
• During 2022-23: 168,498 days of supply were booked across 7,859 individual jobs
• Many supply jobs are now filled within one minute of being posted
• Minimal technical support requests despite 1,500+ regular users
• Streamlined processes for both short-term and long-term placements

According to Senior HR Manager Alison Allan, the system is “intuitive, therefore individuals require minimal support when the system is launched, and very quickly the benefits can be reaped” (Teacher Booker, 2023).

Norfolk Supply Register: An English Success Story

Norfolk represents one of the few English local authorities that has maintained and modernised its supply pool provision. The Norfolk Supply Register (NSR), run in-house by EducationHR Norfolk and powered by the Teacher Booker platform, offers schools a cost-effective, values-led approach to sourcing supply cover that prioritises quality, consistency, and fair compensation for teachers (Teacher Booker, 2025).

The Norfolk model demonstrates that with appropriate investment in technology and systems, LA supply pools can compete effectively with commercial agencies whilst delivering superior value for schools and better conditions for teachers.

Lancashire Teaching Agency Partnership

Lancashire County Council established the Lancashire Teaching Agency (LTA) in September 2002 in partnership with Reed, a major recruitment provider. This hybrid model combines the local authority’s oversight and relationships with schools with Reed’s recruitment infrastructure and expertise (Reed, n.d.). The LTA provides supply teachers and teaching assistants, tutors and whole school recruitment services, professional development opportunities, and web-based technology for efficient matching.

Whilst this model involves a private sector partner, it represents a middle ground between fully commercial agencies and entirely in-house provision, with the local authority maintaining strategic control.

Welsh National Supply Pool

In 2023, Teacher Booker secured a major contract with the Welsh Government to provide its supply staffing platform to all schools across Wales, creating a National Supply Pool (Teacher Booker, 2023). Whilst this is a devolved administration example, it demonstrates growing recognition at governmental level that centralised, not-for-profit approaches can deliver better outcomes than fragmented commercial agency provision.

The Rationale for Local Authority Investment

Financial Benefits

Local authorities establishing in-house recruitment services can deliver substantial savings to schools by:

• Eliminating commercial agency mark-ups of 20-30%
• Removing finder’s fees for permanent placements
• Reducing administrative costs through automation
• Creating economies of scale across multiple schools

IRIS (2024) calculates that schools spending £150,000 annually on supply cover could save approximately £27,000 in agency fees alone by using direct engagement models.

Quality and Consistency

LA-run services offer advantages in quality assurance:

• Rigorous vetting processes aligned with Safer Recruitment standards
• Consistent safeguarding checks
• Regular professional development opportunities
• Better matching of teachers to schools based on local knowledge
• Continuity of supply teachers familiar with local schools

Teacher Welfare and Retention

In-house LA services can improve conditions for supply teachers:

• Fair pay at Main Pay Scale rates rather than deflated agency rates
• Access to Teachers’ Pension Scheme (as demonstrated in Northern Ireland’s NISTR model)
• More transparent and dignified working conditions
• Greater job security through regular relationships with schools
• Reduced exploitation by commercial entities

The Department for Education research (2024) found growing dissatisfaction among supply teachers regarding pay and working conditions, with many considering leaving the profession. LA-run services that offer better terms can help retain experienced teachers in the supply pool.

Strategic Workforce Planning

Direct management of supply provision enables local authorities to:

• Gather better data on supply teacher demand and availability
• Identify skills gaps and training needs
• Support strategic workforce planning across the LA area
• Coordinate responses to teacher shortage subjects
• Facilitate collaboration between schools

Barriers and Challenges

Initial Investment Requirements

Establishing an LA-run recruitment service requires:

• Investment in digital platform technology (typically £20,000-£50,000+ annually)
• Staff resources for administration and candidate vetting
• Marketing to attract supply teachers and encourage school participation
• Change management to shift schools from established agency relationships

Academisation and Fragmentation

The academisation of English schools presents challenges:

• Academies are not obligated to use LA services
• Some multi-academy trusts operate their own supply arrangements
• Fragmentation reduces economies of scale
• Mixed-market landscapes with both LA and academy schools

Technology and Operational Capacity

Successful LA services require:

• Modern, user-friendly booking platforms
• Robust payroll systems
• Compliance and vetting infrastructure
• Responsive customer service
• Continuous system development and maintenance

Competition from Established Agencies

Commercial agencies present competitive challenges through:

• Established relationships with schools
• 24/7 availability and rapid response
• Large databases of candidates
• Sophisticated marketing
• Resistance to change from schools comfortable with current arrangements

Conclusion

The establishment of LA-run teacher recruitment services represents a pragmatic response to the substantial financial burden imposed on schools by commercial agency fees. With evidence showing that agencies are retaining mark-ups of up to 100%, and with schools under unprecedented financial pressure, the case for alternative models is compelling.

The success of services such as Glasgow City Council’s digitally-enabled supply booking system, and the persistence of Norfolk’s supply register, demonstrates that LA-run provision can deliver efficiency, quality, and value. Modern technology platforms have largely overcome the operational barriers that previously limited LA supply pools, enabling streamlined processes with minimal administrative burden.

However, significant challenges remain. The fragmentation of the school system through academisation, the initial investment requirements, and the competitive advantages held by established commercial agencies all present obstacles. Success requires not only technological investment but also strategic coordination, effective marketing, and sustained commitment from local authorities and schools.

As the education sector grapples with recruitment challenges and budget constraints, the trend toward LA-run and not-for-profit recruitment services is likely to accelerate. These models offer the promise of keeping more funding within education, improving conditions for supply teachers, and ensuring that resources are directed toward children’s learning rather than commercial profit margins.

The evidence suggests that where local authorities have invested in modern, well-designed recruitment services, they can compete effectively with commercial agencies whilst delivering superior outcomes for schools, teachers, and ultimately pupils. As more authorities follow this path, the decades-long dominance of commercial agencies in the supply teaching market may finally begin to recede.

References

Department for Education. (2024). Use of supply teachers in schools research report. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66f2b45966439d663cf12bb0/Use_of_supply_teachers_in_schools_research_report.pdf

IRIS. (2024). Overspending on school supply cover: Is there another way? https://www.iris.co.uk/blog/education/overspending-on-school-supply-cover-is-there-another-way/

National Supply Teachers Network. (n.d.). Proxi – The agency alternative. https://nstn.whitefuse.net/articles/proxi-the-agency-alternative

Reed. (n.d.). Lancashire Teaching Agency. https://www.reed.com/lancashire-teaching-agency

Schools Week. (2024). Why do supply agencies charge so much for supply teachers? Cited in Elevate Supply. https://elevatesupply.co.uk/blog/the-true-cost-of-supply-teachers-what-schools-and-educators-need-to-know/

Teacher Booker. (2023). Glasgow City Council Teacher Booker implementation & results. https://teacherbooker.com/glasgow-city-council-case-study/

Teacher Booker. (2025). Norfolk Supply Register deep dive. https://teacherbooker.com/norfolk-supply-register-deep-dive/

Teacher Toolkit. (2024). Why the supply teaching industry needs a dramatic change! https://www.teachertoolkit.co.uk/2024/10/23/eteach-suppy-teaching/

Tes. (n.d.). Supply teacher pay – A special report for schools and supply teachers. https://www.tes.com/jobs/careers-advice/supply-teaching/supply-teacher-pay-special-report-schools-and-supply-teachers