'Set up' at interview,is this true?

anfield liv

Please tell me this is NOT true!

Recently I've noticed a number of board members have been complaining about interviews and how schools go about recruiting staff.

In some parts of this island the practice would seem to follow this procedure:Vacancy is notified by advert or in-house in the school.Secretary to Board of Management (Principal) rounds up a number of very well qualified and retired educationalists,tells them who to give the job to and proceeds to have an interview day where the candidates attend (unknowing to them that the decision has already been made!).
What a waste of peoples time!I was somewhat taken aback that this was the procedure but then again its a throwback to the cronyism that our political representative deal in and this carry-on is what has got our country into such a mess.

tony81

anfield liv wrote: »

What a waste of peoples time!I was somewhat taken aback that this was the procedure but then again its a throwback to the cronyism that our political representative deal in and this carry-on is what has got our country into such a mess.

Of course it's true. Don't forget the country is run by school teachers.

bdoo

Unfortunately it seems to be true in some cases. I have no experience of it personally. I'm in the VEC sector so all recruitment is done through head office, principal is involved in shortlisting and is on the panel.

I don't think it is unreasonable for the principal to make a final call on who to hire after the interviews, picking beforehand is very unfair

Miss Lockhart

It is definitely true - happened in my school only last week, and we are a VEC school. Three teachers teaching in the school for over a year were interviewed for pro-rata contracts, so candidates with no hope had to be invited also. One of the people doesn't even have a dip, but the outside candidates all did.

TheDriver

but the other side of the coin is that each of the 3 insiders are known regarding their experience and capabilities which means a lot. Good recommendations are important in this day, especially with CIDs and people getting their foot in the door.
However I do believe all should be interviewed and remember good subbing work is usually filled from those interviews.

Miss Lockhart

I agree to a point TheDriver - the people in question have been doing a good job. Teaching training should be a minimum requirement for employment though. There's plenty of fully qualified teachers who also have excellent experience and recommendations - why settle for less?

We have discussed the "getting the foot in the door " re CIDs before and I still say it's poor management not to deal with teachers not up to scratch before they get that far. I see it happen in my school and in my VEC as whole - principals here have no problem refusing to sign off on probation or not renewing contracts.

Juniorhurler

anfield liv wrote: »

Please tell me this is NOT true!

Recently I've noticed a number of board members have been complaining about interviews and how schools go about recruiting staff.

In some parts of this island the practice would seem to follow this procedure:Vacancy is notified by advert or in-house in the school.Secretary to Board of Management (Principal) rounds up a number of very well qualified and retired educationalists,tells them who to give the job to and proceeds to have an interview day where the candidates attend (unknowing to them that the decision has already been made!).
What a waste of peoples time!I was somewhat taken aback that this was the procedure but then again its a throwback to the cronyism that our political representative deal in and this carry-on is what has got our country into such a mess.

When I got my permanent job ( I was in a permanent post in another school, 8 years ago, but was a past pupil of the school advertising the permanent job) I got a phone call out of the blue from the principal of my current school telling me that the job would be advertised in THE TRIBUNE. I thought this was a highly irregular place to advertise teaching jobs, so I took it that a nod was as good as a wink. Mind you at the time woodwork teachers were as scarce as hens teeth and he had just had one leave in mid October. He still should have advertised it through more regular channels though.

That principal has retired since and I would be fairly sure that our new guy does things more by the book.

Seanchai

Of course interviews are often just a sham. I went for a position, which I was already in on a temporary basis, and before the interview the principal and deputy principal were able to give me the low-down on what was happening and the "formality" of the interview. Indeed, in front of me they rang their relevant contact in the VEC to ask them about the details when I dropped into their office to ask them. The VEC had to advertise the position, but it was "in the bag".

Just to be safe, however, I decided to accept a friend's offer of getting in touch with a politician friend of his who was on the VEC board in question. He rang me back an hour of so later saying "the call has been made; you'll be grand". When I went into the interview, therefore, we just went through the motions.

Needless to say I felt embarrassed for my fellow interviewees whom I spoke with before the interview. If a decision is in reality made beforehand, it's a complete waste of everybody's time just to give the pretence of fairness. It's wrong, just wrong to make good people jump through these loops and then feel crap when they don't get the job, as if it's their fault that the employment system is corrupt. Many, many times I have wasted my time going to interviews the result of which have been a foregone conclusion. It's utterly infuriating that this system continues to be operated with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink attitude by everybody with power within the system.

anfield liv

Is it not a rather sad and sick society that we live in.....does anyone 'in-power' have any morals at all now..............and some of the buffoons on interview panels would not know a maths book from a metalwork book.....but the expenses are so good!!!! I personally think that anyone that has left the education sector should just go away and enjoy their big fat pensions and not aid and abet the corrupt system....or could it be that they may need the money to pay their legal expenses when someone will take a case some day very soon to 'out' this sham once and for all?

derb12

I have been on both ends of this situation. I'd had hours in one school for a few years but did interviews in 3 schools for permanent positions none of which I got. I know that in two of those schools there was an "incumbent" who got the job. A couple of years later when a job came up in my school, I was the "incumbent" and I got the job while the other interviewees were wasting their time.

I would hate to be a principal faced with this moral dilemma of leading people on this way. Personally, I would prefer if there was some sort of tick-box where the principal could simply say "we have an existing employee who is qualified and has proven themselves" and just give them the job and avoid all the farce. Not to mention the expense.

bootybouncer

Same in universities chaps, shafted recently twice on interviews in well known colleges , two month drawn out processes only for the positions to be chairy picked already...........farce

RealJohn

I can see why people wouldn't like how that sort of thing looks but the real issue here in my opinion is that schools are being forced to advertise and interview for posts they can fill with "in house" candidates, purely in the name of "fairness". If the school has someone doing the job on a temporary basis already and they're doing a good job, why would the school take a risk on someone else? Good references and qualifications do not mean that someone will just slot straight in, not to mention the potential ill feeling there might be to a new person who's just been given the job of a perfectly competent friend and colleague.

I certainly agree that it's hard on those who are called to interview when they have no chance of getting the job but the schools' hands are being forced on that one. They have to advertise jobs and the have to interview at least some of the qualified applicants. That doesn't mean that it's cronyism to give it to someone who's already doing the job. In many (most?) ways, it makes sense not to disrupt things by bringing in someone new.

whiteandlight

I have a major issue with the way many VEC schools in particular (several that I know of) are hiring candidates as I feel they are completely taking advantage of the system. Jobs are advertised in the summer by the principal as RPT positions, interviews are held within the school for the job and then at the end of the interview the person being hired is told that actually you won't get your contract until the end of October when you have to reapply for the job you thought you just got. The job advertisements are misleading in the summer for the applicants and misleading in October since 99% of the time the job goes to the candidate from the summer interview. The VEC has a way out if they decide they don't like the person by hiring someone else in October (which has happened) instead of using the correct method which would be the probationary period built into all the contracts. It's an utter farce. Why can't they get themselves properly organised in July and be done with it?!

2011abc

RealJohn wrote: »

That doesn't mean that it's cronyism to give it to someone who's already doing the job.

Im sure many would disagree!

RealJohn

2011abc wrote: »

Im sure many would disagree!

It doesn't matter if they disagree or not. If someone is already in the school, knows the students, is qualified to teach what they're teaching, gets on with the other staff, why would you replace that person?

evolving_doors

RealJohn wrote: »

. That doesn't mean that it's cronyism to give it to someone who's already doing the job. In many (most?) ways, it makes sense not to disrupt things by bringing in someone new.

,Maybe, but wouldn't it make sense to 'improve' things by bringing in someone ' better'...

RealJohn

Armelodie wrote: »

,Maybe, but wouldn't it make sense to 'improve' things by bringing in someone ' better'...

Of course but who's in a better position to assess whether someone is "better" or will "improve" the situation than the principal? Not to mention that if they already have someone in place who's doing a good job, does it really make sense to bring someone new in just because their qualifications are better? We all know better qualified doesn't mean better teacher, assuming of course that the person already in place isn't unqualified.

(and in theory, even if they were unqualified, they might still be the best for the job)

seavill

Armelodie wrote: »

,Maybe, but wouldn't it make sense to 'improve' things by bringing in someone ' better'...

And how do you know that it will improve things?

Maybe the person does a fantastic interview but falls apart on day 1, maybe they have no classroom control, maybe they have fantastic references but have never taught in a challenging school and will be pure useless once in the job, maybe taking in a new person after 2 months disrupts all the classes for another few weeks until they get used to the new teacher. Parents complaining about changing teacher mid year.

Maybe they will be fantastic and fit in perfectly.

That's a whole lot of maybes for a principal to think about considering they already have a person in the position doing a great job. If the current person was not suitable fair enough then they have nothing to worry about but considering all I have said above why would you change it if you were them if you were happy with the current person.

Yes schools sometimes have sham interviews, however 99% of the time the principal has no interest in having them I know any principal I have ever had has much better things to be doing but correct me if I am wrong but they are legally obliged to have them. It's not the principal's fault.

I am personally sick of hearing people give out that they didn't get the job just because someone must surely know someone. Maybe the other person was just a better candidate than you. Yes there are still some cases where who you know counts but I have probably worked in 10 schools including all subbing and this is not the case in any one of those 10.
I have got every job on merit I am not from my current county and knew no one before coming here.
Take some personal responsibility and stop blaming everyone else for once. This may be overly harsh but it annoys me every time I hear the fact that ah I must know someone to get my job how else would I have gotten it.

Equality

This has been going on for decades.

Where I live they advertise a job, which is to go to a local person. They then call for interview a few people who live as far away as possible (think of it in terms of calling someone who lives in Sligo to an interview in Cork) because they don't want to interview locals.

A local is only interviewed if they have the job.

Non-locals travel long distances for these interviews, at considerable expense. It is not fair to them.

wingnut

+1 In so many cases interviews are only held to tick the box, the decision is made well in advance.

Wasn't the case for me fortunately but I've been privy to this processes in a good number of schools.