Alarm over costly loss of stability for pupils

This equates to spending of more than £100,000 per school, according to an analysis of Government figures by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

Schools in poorer areas are more likely to use supply teachers, the pressure group claimed, suggesting that pupils most in need of stable teaching are not getting it.

The report analysed Government figures on school spending, published last month. The findings show that England’s state secondary schools, excluding academies, spent £293m on supply teachers in 2009/10, over £100,000 per school. But schools in deprived areas, with more than 30 per cent of pupils on free schools meals, a measure of poverty, spent an average of over £140,000 on supply teachers, the report says.

It concludes: “It is clear that, although spending on both types of teachers (regular and supply) increases with deprivation, the increase is far greater with respect to supply teachers. There may be any number of reasons for this, for example: schools in deprived areas find it harder to fill full-time positions; and there is increased time off for sickness. But the simple conclusion is that the children who need good, stable teaching most, are the most likely to have instability in their teachers.”

Matthew Sinclair, director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Many parents are very concerned when they see their children being taught by a series of different supply teachers, rather than enjoying a stable learning environment with a regular teacher.

“At the same time, we have just seen a decade in which Britain has spent more and more on education but slid down international league tables for performance.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Education said: “It is down to schools and local authorities to decide on their use of supply staff and ensure that taxpayers get value for money.

“Supply staff play a valuable role in providing schools with the cover they need, but it is important for children to have consistency in their learning.”