CONCERNS have been raised that cash-strapped Powys schools have spent over £11 million on supply teacher agencies over the last four years.
Last month, Cllr Graham Breeze (Powys Independents – Welshpool Llanerchyddol) tabled a number of questions seeking clarity on the issue from Powys County Council’s education portfolio holder Cllr James Gibson-Watt.
Cllr Breeze has now obtained figure that show schools spent £1.5 million on supply teacher agencies in 2022/2023, then £3.5 million in £2023/2024, £3.1 million in 2024/2025 and £3.3 million in 2025/2026.
Cllr Breeze said that over £2 million had been paid to two agencies last year.
Cllr Breeze said: “These figures, are deeply concerning — both from a financial perspective and in terms of the potential impact on educational outcomes, given the well-documented importance of continuity in teaching.”
He asked for a breakdown of the spending, as well as why the expenditure has not reduced. He also wanted outline a clear strategy for reducing these costs.
Cllr Breeze asked for clarity on the extent to which this level of expenditure is contributing to school budget deficits across Powys, and whether reducing agency spend forms part of the Council’s wider financial recovery plan for schools.
Cllr Gibson-Watt (Liberal Democrat – Glasbury) replied: “In the short term, the deployment of supply teachers is largely reactive and designed to maintain the immediate continuity of learning.
“Schools face a range of unpredictable staff absences, most commonly due to short-term illness, emergency leave or compassionate circumstances.
“In these situations, supply teachers provide essential cover that enables the school to sustain its timetable and ensure that pupils remain supervised and engaged in learning.
“It is important to note that the council does not hold complete, centrally verified data on all agency spend, as schools procure supply staff directly under delegated budgets and this is not recorded consistently at authority level.
“A full breakdown of agency versus direct employment, and spend by agency, is not currently available centrally.”
Cllr Gibson-Watt explained that expenditure “remains high” due to: “national workforce pressures and rural recruitment challenges, increased demand for cover including absence and Additional Learning Need pressures and a sector-wide shift towards agency supply, with the majority of supply teachers now agency-based.”
He explained that the council is reviewing the supply pool model, is working with schools to reduce long-term reliance on agency staff and has been promoting alternative approaches such as employing “cover supervisors.”
Cllr Gibson-Watt said: “Supply costs contribute to wider financial pressures in schools.
“While supply expenditure remains a significant challenge, it reflects wider national workforce issues and the current delegated model.
“The council is actively strengthening oversight, improving data, and taking targeted action to reduce costs while maintaining safe and effective provision in schools.”
Following the response Cllr Breeze has tabled further questions.
Cllr Breeze said: “I must express my considerable disappointment at both the lack of detail provided and the failure to address a number of the specific questions that were asked.
“The question was not seeking a general explanation of why schools may use supply teachers.
“Rather, the purpose was to obtain transparency and accountability regarding what appears to be a very substantial and increasing level of expenditure on supply teacher agencies, together with evidence of what action has been taken to control these costs.”
Under the rules, answers to supplementary questions should be received in 10 days, which gives a due date of July 31.
Share