Recruitment in schools. The term alone is almost enough to send chills down internal teams’ spines. Whether it's finding quality teachers, securing reliable support staff, or covering unexpected absences, the challenges school leaders face have never been greater.
And to add the cherry on top, the education recruitment landscape is about to experience what is arguably the biggest shake-up the sector has ever seen.
The introduction of the Government Commercial Agreement (GCA) framework will fundamentally change how schools engage with recruitment agencies. While most schools are expected to use GCA-accredited agencies, it’s becoming a mandatory compliance step for academy trusts. It will establish a consistent standard across the sector and provide reassurance that due diligence, safeguarding requirements, compliance checks, and contractual standards have already been scrutinised.
That's undoubtedly a positive step.
However, accreditation alone doesn't guarantee quality service, strong relationships, or a genuine understanding of a school's individual needs.
As Multi-Academy Trusts continue to look for efficiencies and consistency across their schools, many are approached by Managed Service Providers (MSPs) promising streamlined processes and reduced costs. On paper, it can sound appealing. In reality, the long-term impact is often… lacking.
One of the biggest strengths of working directly with a Tier 1 supply agency is the relationship you build.
Every school is different. Every academy has its own culture, leadership style, pupil demographics, and staffing challenges. A good supply agency takes the time to understand those differences. They know which teachers will thrive in a particular environment, which support staff fit a school's ethos, and what challenges leaders are trying to solve beyond simply filling a vacancy.
That level of understanding is difficult to achieve through an MSP model, where agencies often become suppliers to the MSP rather than partners to the school.
The reality is that schools don't just buy candidates; they invest in a partner with industry expertise, local knowledge, safeguarding support, market intelligence, and responsiveness.
The best agencies add value far beyond recruitment. They advise on workforce planning, salary benchmarking, retention challenges, compliance, and local market trends.
When schools maintain direct relationships with their supply partners, they retain access to that expertise.
Another concern is what happens to quality over time.
Most MSP models are built around controlling supplier margins. While that may deliver short-term savings, it inevitably creates pressure throughout the supply chain. As margins reduce, agencies have less resource available to invest in candidate attraction, compliance, training, and relationship management.
Agencies naturally prioritise their strongest candidates for schools where they have direct relationships and where they can deliver the highest levels of service because their understanding of those schools is deeper than a basic job description. The schools and trusts operating solely through an MSP can find themselves receiving fewer of the most sought-after candidates, simply because the commercial model makes it harder for agencies to dedicate the same level of resource.
This isn't about agencies being difficult; it's about economic reality. And perhaps the biggest issue is dependency.
Over time, MSPs can effectively monopolise a school's supply recruitment process. As direct relationships with agencies disappear, schools lose visibility of the wider market. Communication becomes filtered through a single provider, and alternative routes to talent become increasingly limited.
What starts as a procurement exercise can eventually result in a situation where schools become heavily reliant on one organisation to access their entire temporary workforce.
For Multi-Academy Trusts, that's a risk worth considering.
The arrival of the GCA framework creates an alternative that many trusts should explore: Rather than outsourcing agency engagement to an MSP, MATs can use the framework as a quality assurance tool and undertake their own engagement with accredited agencies.
Yes, this requires some initial investment of time. Trusts need to evaluate suppliers, establish expectations, and build a preferred supplier list. However, because the GCA framework has already completed much of the compliance and due diligence work, that process becomes significantly more manageable than it has been historically.
Trusts retain direct relationships with agencies, maintain visibility of the market, create healthy competition between suppliers, and have far more influence over both service levels and spending. They can develop a carefully selected network of trusted partners that genuinely understand the unique needs of their schools, rather than relying on a single organisation to manage access to talent.
Done right, this approach can deliver many of the governance and compliance benefits associated with formal procurement while avoiding the dependency that often develops through MSP arrangements.
Competition drives quality. Relationships drive accountability. Direct engagement with trusted suppliers creates flexibility and ensures schools and trusts can adapt quickly when staffing challenges arise.
Schools need partners who understand their individual challenges, who can provide honest advice, and who are invested in long-term outcomes rather than simply processing bookings.
In our experience, the most successful staffing partnerships are built on trust, communication, and mutual understanding. When schools and agencies work closely together, everybody benefits - leaders, staff, pupils, and ultimately the wider trust.
As staffing challenges continue to evolve, MAT leaders should ask themselves a simple question: do we want a supplier network that understands our schools, or a system that simply manages transactions?
The answer may have a bigger impact on recruitment quality, cost control, and long-term workforce resilience than any procurement saving ever could.