Supply vs permanent: which route is right for you?

If you're a teacher considering agency work — or moving from agency back to permanent — there are real trade-offs in each direction that don't always get talked about openly. Here's an honest breakdown from our perspective as recruiters.

Daily supply

Daily supply gives you the most control. You can decline any day. You can change schools week to week. You're not invested in long-term outcomes you can't control. And the day rate is often higher than the equivalent permanent salary, hour-for-hour.

What you give up: stability, deep relationships with students, the satisfaction of seeing a class progress over a year, and pension/benefits.

Long-term temp

Long-term temp (3 weeks to a full term) is often the sweet spot. You get the relationships and progress-tracking of permanent work, with the flexibility to walk away at the end of a placement. Many of our candidates use long-term temp to test schools before deciding to convert to permanent.

Permanent

Permanent gives you the most professional growth — observations, CPD, pay progression, pension contributions, and the satisfaction of building something with a school over years. The trade-off is reduced flexibility and a longer commitment if a school turns out to be the wrong fit.

We're upfront with candidates: if you're early in your career, getting permanent experience matters more than maximising day rate. If you're late-career, recovering from burnout, or transitioning, supply or long-term temp can be exactly the right tool.

What to ask any agency

If you're choosing between agencies, ask about: pay rates and bands (transparent, or hidden?), invoicing terms (weekly? umbrella?), temp-to-perm fees (do they have hidden clauses?), and consultant continuity (will I deal with the same person?). The answers tell you a lot about how the agency treats candidates.