When teachers at a north London school walked out over pay and conditions earlier this year, pupils might have expected lessons to grind to a halt. Rather, classes carried on almost as normal. Behind the scenes, the school’s leadership had quietly turned to a controversial new tool: a recent change in UK law allowing employers to draft in agency staff to cover for striking workers.
The move,revealed in a Guardian investigation,has ignited a fierce debate about the future of industrial action in education. Supporters argue it keeps children in classrooms and minimises disruption for families. Critics warn it undermines the right to strike, risks lowering standards, and sets a precedent that could reshape the balance of power between staff and management across the public sector.
As ministers defend the reform as a pragmatic response to widespread walkouts, unions are preparing legal and political challenges. At the center of this national dispute is a single London school, now a test case for how far employers will go – and are allowed to go – in curbing the impact of strikes.
Legal loopholes and classroom consequences in the use of agency staff during strikes
For headteachers under pressure to keep classrooms open, the post-2022 legal tweak allowing agency staff to cover for striking teachers looks like a lifeline. In practice, it opens a maze of grey areas: who carries legal liability if a hastily contracted supply teacher mismanages a safeguarding issue? Are agency tutors, often hired at short notice, being drawn into an industrial dispute they never signed up for? Unions argue that the change effectively weakens the right to strike by stealth, allowing schools to sidestep picket lines while still claiming to respect staff grievances. Meanwhile, agencies are quietly recalibrating their risk assessments and fee structures, wary of reputational damage if they’re seen as strike‑breaking rather than simply filling gaps.
Inside classrooms, the impact is felt in subtle but meaningful ways. Core routines are disrupted as pupils cycle through unfamiliar faces, and workload falls unevenly on non-striking staff who remain on site. Teachers speak of a “double substitution effect”: pupils lose continuity with their usual teacher and then again when short-term agency cover changes from day to day. The result is a patchwork of provision that can leave students confused about expectations and parents uncertain about who is actually teaching their children.These tensions play out across staffrooms and corridors, where the distinction between legal compliance and educational responsibility becomes increasingly blurred:
- Fragmented learning – short-term cover makes it harder to sustain schemes of work.
- Strained staff relations – tension between striking staff, leadership and agency workers.
- Uneven behavior standards – temporary teachers struggle to enforce unfamiliar policies.
- Parental distrust – families question consistency and quality of teaching.
| Issue | School Leaders | Agency Staff | Pupils |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal risk | Balancing duty of care with strike law | Unclear obligations in disputes | Limited say, high impact |
| Classroom stability | Prioritise timetables | Adapt to new schools fast | Cope with constant change |
| Industrial relations | Avoid full closures | Risk “strike-breaker” label | See staff divisions first-hand |
Impact on teacher morale student learning and the integrity of industrial action
The decision to draft in agency staff during a strike reverberates far beyond a single day’s timetable. For many teachers, it signals a chilling message about how replaceable their expertise and commitment have become, undermining a sense of professional respect that is already strained by workload and pay disputes. Staff describe corridors where solidarity feels fragile and trust in leadership erodes, as colleagues who stand on picket lines watch unfamiliar faces slip through the school gates. This dynamic can fuel a culture of quiet resentment: mentoring dries up, discretionary effort shrinks and experienced teachers, already eyeing the exit, feel one step closer to leaving the profession altogether.
Inside classrooms, the short-term appearance of “business as usual” masks a more complex impact on learning and on the public’s understanding of what industrial action is meant to achieve. Pupils quickly sense the tension when core teachers are absent and temporary staff rotate through lessons, even if basic supervision is maintained. In such conditions:
- Continuity of learning is weakened, with schemes of work paused or diluted.
- Pastoral relationships suffer when pupils’ key adults are missing at critical moments.
- Student perceptions of teachers’ authority and value can be subtly eroded.
| Stakeholder | Short-Term Gain | Long-Term Risk |
|---|---|---|
| School leadership | Open classrooms | Damaged staff trust |
| Students | Timetable preserved | Fragmented learning |
| Teaching staff | Issue spotlighted | Weakened collective power |
By softening the immediate disruption, the use of agency workers blunts the visibility and leverage of strikes themselves, raising questions about whether the legal right to withdraw labour retains its force when it can be so easily circumvented. The result is an uneasy paradox: classrooms may look full, but the underlying social contract that sustains education – trust between staff, students and society – is left conspicuously depleted.
What the law permits what unions contest and how regulators are responding
The legal backdrop to the school’s decision is a recent change allowing employers in England to bring in agency staff to cover the work of striking employees, a move that effectively neutralises one of unions’ most powerful leverage points. While ministers argue this restores “continuity of education” and offers headteachers more flexibility, union leaders say it weaponises precarious labour against organised staff, undermining the right to strike enshrined in international conventions. In practice, this means agencies can now supply temporary teachers and support staff at short notice, turning classrooms into a testing ground for a policy many unions describe as a direct attack on collective bargaining and the integrity of the profession.
Regulators and oversight bodies are being pulled into the dispute as they navigate a narrow path between enforcing the law and safeguarding standards. Education watchdogs have begun asking whether short-term agency cover can realistically match the safeguarding, continuity and quality thresholds expected in permanent teaching posts, while labour inspectors monitor compliance with working time and health and safety rules. Key points under scrutiny include:
- Safeguarding checks on rapidly deployed agency staff
- Training and induction for temporary teachers unfamiliar with school policies
- Impact on pupil progress when classes see frequent staff turnover
- Pressure on agencies to fill roles at very short notice
| Issue | Unions’ View | Regulators’ Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Use of agency cover | Undermines right to strike | Lawful deployment and oversight |
| Classroom standards | Risks a “two-tier” workforce | Quality of teaching and outcomes |
| Safeguarding | Fears rushed vetting | Rigour of background checks |
Policy options to protect pupils uphold labour rights and guide schools in future disputes
Lawmakers and education authorities face mounting pressure to close loopholes that allow schools to sidestep industrial action while keeping classrooms open at any cost. One route is to strengthen statutory guidance so that any use of agency staff during disputes is tightly regulated, with clear safeguards for safeguarding, continuity of learning and union recognition. This could include mandatory consultation with recognised unions,impact assessments on pupils,and publicly available risk reports when temporary staff are brought in during a strike. Sector-wide frameworks negotiated between government, unions and employer bodies could set non‑binding but influential standards on what constitutes responsible contingency planning, creating political and reputational costs for schools that opt for more aggressive tactics.
At the same time, policymakers can promote more constructive conflict resolution by linking funding and inspection regimes to fair employment practices.For example:
- Enhanced mediation before escalation to strikes, brokered by an independent body.
- Clarity rules requiring schools to publish workforce stability and dispute data.
- Safeguarding thresholds that limit the use of unfamiliar agency staff with vulnerable pupils.
- Good‑faith bargaining duties on governing bodies and academy trusts.
| Policy lever | Main focus | Who it binds |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory guidance | Pupil safety, minimum standards | All state-funded schools |
| Funding conditions | Respect for labour rights | Academy trusts & MATs |
| Inspection criteria | Workforce relations, stability | School leadership |
| Collective agreements | Dispute procedures | Unions & employers |
In Summary
As schools, unions and policymakers brace for further industrial disputes, the situation in London offers a stark glimpse of the choices now available to headteachers – and the profound questions those choices raise.
Whether the use of agency staff during strikes becomes an isolated response to acute disruption or a turning point in the balance of power between employers and educators will depend on what happens next: in the courts, in Westminster and, crucially, in classrooms. For now, one thing is clear – the legal tools introduced to keep schools open are testing not just the resilience of the education system, but its values.
