Meoir Shee

Apologies, I read your original post as claiming that Cover Supervisors aren’t “quite clever enough” and were not employed in the UK, “It doesn't happen in the UK and it shouldn't happen here.” I simply posted a link suggesting there are currently almost 200 UK Cover Supervisor jobs being advertised in the TES alone. You have accepted they are not teaching roles, which I would suggest no-one disputes due to the job titles, thus proving that Cover Supervisor roles do exist in the UK, countering your “It doesn't happen in the UK and it shouldn't happen here” statement. Whilst you claim this “proves nothing”, the evidence would suggest it proves you are wrong. Again, apologies.

That is very disrespectful. It does.

OK, I’ll try yet again. Schools are under pressure to reduce costs, staff make up 80% + of a school’s budget. In order to attempt to reduce this spending a new role has been created, Cover Supervisor. These staff are employed on a pro rata basis to be the first available cover on site. They are not qualified teachers, they are not paid to teach, they are paid to supervise the class. If a member of staff is absent due to short term illness, these will invariably be the first port of call. If a school is understaffed in terms of cover supervisors they may have to employ supply teachers to cover, inevitably at a higher rate. If teachers are absent for a longer period this may result in the employment of a teacher on a temporary contract, perhaps to cover maternity leave, this is very common as over half of teachers are women. If a suitable temporary teacher cannot be sourced from the existing local labour market, broadly doubtful, it may be necessary to contact an agency in the UK. An alternative may be to employ supply staff but this is on a zero hours basis and this flexibility cuts both ways. Furthermore, teaching staff might leave mid way through the year for a multitude of reasons. It is almost impossible to replace teaching staff during the school year, contracts require half a term as notice. This is not the role of a cover supervisor, this requires a teacher. In the short run, this could lead to the employment of agency staff or a supply teacher. However, such supply staff can simply take a week off whenever they like, they are on a zero hours contract. This is probably not ideal. Sometimes teaching staff may be on site but unavailable to deliver their lessons. The public exam period is a classic example, languages staff have to facilitate speaking tests, science staff have to facilitate practical exams, art and technology staff the same, often for a 2 or 3 day period. The school then has a decision, if teachers are unavailable for a few days do they utilise cover supervisors or supply staff? Taxpayers would probably prefer cover supervisors, parents probably supply staff. Furthermore, teaching staff are also members of the wider population. They may have long term medical issues. Their families may have medical issues. Teaching staff, tragically, die on the job, sometimes suddenly. Their classes need teaching, this may require the employment of supply teachers until a long term, permanent replacement can be sourced. This is not easy. Do some teachers swing the lead? Inevitably. Are all supply costs related to this swinging of the lead? No.

You are. I do. Thank you and yes. Correct, wrongly, not quite. Good on him. I do, end of thread?

Why are you insisting on making things up? I’ll explain for you. Teaching staff are no longer expected to cover for absent colleagues and cannot be compelled to do so. As a direct result, schools have actively recruited ‘Cover Supervisors’, these are non-teaching staff who simply supervise the pupils. The use of these staff is the first call as they are already employed and on site. Occasionally, for a variety of reasons, supply teachers may be required. Supply teachers are employed on a zero hours basis, being paid 195th of the equivalent annual salary per day. To suggest all supply is as a result of sickness absence is simply made up nonsense. Sometimes supply may be required on a more long term basis, again for a variety of reasons.

Hang on a minute, either teachers are picking up the slack or supply teachers are in at an alleged £1,200 per week, make your mind up. Are you categorically sure that no supply is as a result of agreed absence? That is a bet you would lose.

So, just to clarify, all supply costs are related to teachers being off sick? Are these sick teachers in the room with you now?

Correct, maybe DESC is getting a grip on absenteeism. Maybe the staff have subsequently (been) moved on, hence the need for supply?

So if the £1m hadn’t been spent on relocating teachers the situation would be even worse? The quoted figure is over a decade, c£2k per week, including housing costs to support 95 staff, hardly “blowing taxpayers cash willy nilly”. Teachers are just ordinary people, they can develop long term health conditions, be that physical or mental ill health. I am personally aware of 1 teacher who died from cancer and 2 teachers who committed suicide, all whilst employed at Island schools. You are only speculating this is on top of salaries being paid to sick teachers. They may have left, replacements not sourced as yet, supply brought in. They may have suffered a bereavement or be caring for a sick child at Alder Hey. Schools have employed Cover Supervisors, these are paid below supply rate, supply costs in schools have fallen significantly. Sometimes, rightly or wrongly, a specialist is required. Specialists cost money. I’ve had some building work done, the daily rate was above the teacher supply rate.

Just purely knowledge gaining, what % does the typical worker pay into a pension scheme, employee contribution?

Still making things up. Edge said every 1% salary rise costs £500k (nonsense anyway, that is gross not net cost). Average salary rise 8.3%, absolute maximum of £4.15m gross, in reality way less net. Even by the accounting standards of a banker, just over 4 can’t ever be described as the bulk of 47.

Surely the employee is paying something like 20% income tax, c11% NI and whatever pension contribution directly back to government at source, therefore it could well be the case that the government gets back towards 40p in every £1 it pays out in wages, before a penny is spent and taxed indirectly?

Wait until someone tells you about the taxpayer funded toilets, you will literally lose your sh*t.

I don’t know, £2k per day?

I was up at Ramsey today in the cafe, seemed quite busy. If the quoted figures are true, £798k, how on earth does a swimming pool cost c£2,000 per day in subsidies? I’m all for community facilities and accept they probably won’t break even, but over £2k per day? On what? Across the water in St Anne’s, the figure is £141k. Fylde Council Approves Vital Subsidy to Sustain YMCA St Annes Swimming Pool