Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Nepotism
Options
Comments
-
mariaalice wrote: »I have the height of respect for teachers, they come in for a lot of unwarranted criticism and they are suppose to be able to solve every problem in society.
I doubt if nepotism is big problem in today society there is too much scrutiny, however a school is not the principle's personal kingdom, its a publicly funded institution.
I think in years to come just as we have looked at the church and industrial schools, mother and baby homes, and so on, society will look at schools in particular at primary school teaching as a career and its connection to the GAA and the kind of conservative rural mind set that it produced along with the part it played in the.. its the who you know not what you know culture we often have in Ireland.
There's some drivel on this thread but this takes the biscuit. What a crock!0 -
killbillvol2 wrote: »There's some drivel on this thread but this takes the biscuit. What a crock!
Probably better just to ignore the post then and maybe offer some opinion on the actual issues brought up in the thread?0 -
So candidates' qualifications and experience as well as any other information that could be used to differentiate them from other candidates should be available to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wants them? You don't think that might be a slight invasion of privacy.Much more transparent than is the case now. With as I have said before, a detailed marking of the interview with reference/score as to how objective criteria have been met by each candidates. I think this is reasonable.
And what if those criteria are things like the candidate gave a good impression or seemed confident or even just gave a good handshake? We all know that things like those do come into an interviewer's decision making process but they'd be very easily argued by someone who wanted to cause trouble because they were sore about not getting a job.If the principal gives the job to one particular candidate on what the principal could term "subjective criteria" than the principal should at least make known what these subjective criteria were. Do you see what I mean?
Usually but often they won't or those differences will be so negligible that other, less easily documented factors will become deciding factors. Like I said already, most interview processes that I'm aware of already have a transparent marking scheme. I've never been refused feedback on any interview I've ever done since I started teaching ten years ago.Not necessarily so. Usually one candidate will meet these specifications more than others and with a transparent marking scheme they can be assessed objectively. These marks could then be referred to in the event of an appeal, within the context of an independent appeals tribunal etc.
Yes, they can but it's still subjective and therefore still arguable.Which can be objectively measured by three or four experienced and one would hope impartial interviewers.
Because he might not know what they are until he sees them.Why could not a principal set out the criteria that would make potential candidates "suited to the school"? Is it a mystery?
Now you're just nit-picking. You know what I mean.I am sure that accountancy recruiters would say that this accountant would need to be more than just "qualified and experienced", is he or she ethical, is he or she good with clients etc.
Impressions of a person's personality can vary wildly from person to person and without having experience of the environment you're introducing the person to, it'd be very difficult to say if that person suits the school or not.Personality can be judged at interview and on seeking references from previous employers.
The principal might not either until they meet the candidate.Background also on the above basis, although I am not sure what you mean by background?
Because he might not know what those other things are until they come up.If the principal is seeking "other things" rather than qualifications and experience why can't the principal set out this in the job spec? This gives every candidate a fair chance to match these "other things" the principal is looking for.
No doubt he does. That doesn't mean that they're easily gauged by someone else.If there is something particular that a principal needs from potential employees which are specific to his school let him or her set those out before interview.
I told you something I had experienced. You told me you weren't sure about it. I don't consider it civil when someone questions it when I tell them I've experienced something. I haven't accused you of lying or embellishing. I expect you to extend me the same courtesy or I will respond with the same respect you extend me.Lets keep it civil and be nice.
The fact that they're there at all means they have some part in the process. Are you saying this from personal experience and/or that of people you actually know or just hearsay?And all I can tell you is that in many interviews principals do not take an active part in the interview but are note takers. I assume on the basis of trying to show impartiality, maybe a DP or principal can clarify one way or another.
There's a possibility yes but there is also a possibility that there was none.No not only if you had something to complain about-- in the context of your own story, again you admitted
There is the possibility that some indirect nepotism came into
And the rest of your story does substantiate that conclusion.
I didn't leave out the information. It was there for all to see in the previous post. You're right though, by not mentioning it it did make it easier to come to my conclusion (although it's not really my conclusion I suppose so much as a conclusion) but that's my point. If you look at all the things that point to possible nepotism then it's easy to see nepotism. If you leave it out, it's easy to see that it's just as likely that nepotism had little influence on the decision (and you would have to outlaw people from applying for any post that they have any connection with whatsoever in order to eliminate it entirely which even you must be willing to acknowledge just isn't reasonable).Yes and when you leave out that information the second time it makes it far easier for you to come to that conclusion.
The lack of a qualification isn't a basis. I'm teaching with at least one teacher who hasn't qualified as a teacher but is excellent at his job (by all accounts - I suppose I've never sat in on one of his classes to have experienced it myself) and fits in very well in the school. Would you say there must have been better candidates for his job too, given that he wasn't qualified? If so, why didn't they get the job? The teacher I'm working with now had no connection to the school prior to getting the job as far as I know, other than having worked in another school in the same VEC the previous year.No basis? other that the guy in question did not have a teaching qualification?
I am sure the guy in question brought a specific set of skills that no other qualified teacher could possible have brought to the table.
I also never implied that that "no other qualified teacher could possible have brought to the table", just that it seems probable that he brought more to the table than the other candidates who applied given that he got the job.0 -
So candidates' qualifications and experience as well as any other information that could be used to differentiate them from other candidates should be available to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wants them? You don't think that might be a slight invasion of privacy.
No, only the candidates own score would be available to them (this score would be detailed and could be judged accross all candidates. All of the candidates scores could be kept on file in case of a dispute where an independent dispute panel could assess all aspects of the interview process, i.e answers to questions by each interviewee (where detailed notes could be made) and how/if the marking scheme was properly adhered to.And what if those criteria are things like the candidate gave a good impression or seemed confident or even just gave a good handshake? We all know that things like those do come into an interviewer's decision making process but they'd be very easily argued by someone who wanted to cause trouble because they were sore about not getting a job.
If an manager of a school gives a job to someone on the basis of a good handshake or a levels of self confidence, let the manager specify that this was one of the reasons for giving the job over the other candidate . If that is the basis by which the decision is made.Usually but often they won't or those differences will be so negligible that other, less easily documented factors will become deciding factors.
Yes usually there will not be an exact similarity and where there is a very transparent marking process of qualifications, levels of experience, etc etc I doubt there would ever be an exact score. In any event such instances could be sorted out by scoring on questions within the interview process.I've never been refused feedback on any interview I've ever done since I started teaching ten years ago.
There is a big difference between general feedback and detailed analysis of how you preformed in interview and how you CV scores around a set range of criteria.Yes, they can but it's still subjective and therefore still arguable.
How people answers questions at an interview is not subjective. It is something that can be objectively measured, .i.e. their knowledge of the syllabus, their understanding of teaching methodology etc. With good note taking scores that candidates receive on being asked the same questions can be objectivity analysed.Because he might not know what they are until he sees them.
If a principal wants something specific in his/her school why not set out what these criteria are before hand? As I have said before. These specific skills could be set out in the job spec? I am not sure what skill a potential candidate has that could not be picked up in a CV etc,Impressions of a person's personality can vary wildly from person to person and without having experience of the environment you're introducing the person to, it'd be very difficult to say if that person suits the school or not.
With something so subjective as a "personality suited to the school" it would be easy for any principal to set that as criteria and to then basically hire as her or she pleases without any objective measure. But again if a principal did use this as a criteria let them set that out within a transparent process that could be viewed in the event of an appeal. I think many candidates who do not get a position on the grounds that their "personality was not suited to the school" would be happy to know that, and I think entitled to that information.The principal might not either until they meet the candidate.
If a principal finds out information at interview that he or she thinks would be of benefit to the school and uses this information as the grounds to hire someone, that information could be noted within the marking process.No doubt he does. That doesn't mean that they're easily gauged by someone else.
Set out to the interviewsees before the hiring process not the person doing the interviewing. If a principal wants certain skills for his/her school let those skills be put in the job specification.I told you something I had experienced. You told me you weren't sure about it. I don't consider it civil when someone questions it when I tell them I've experienced something. I haven't accused you of lying or embellishing. I expect you to extend me the same courtesy or I will respond with the same respect you extend me.The fact that they're there at all means they have some part in the process. Are you saying this from personal experience and/or that of people you actually know or just hearsay?
You were suggesting that in all cases you have seen the principal was directly involved in the interview process. That might be the case for you, but I am telling you that in a lot of cases the principal is not directly involved in the interview process.There's a possibility yes but there is also a possibility that there was none.
And the objective evidence in to which you alluded to suggested that there seems to be some basis in your claim that nepotism could have been part of the hiring process.If you look at all the things that point to possible nepotism then it's easy to see nepotism. If you leave it out, it's easy to see that it's just as likely that nepotism had little influence on the decision (and you would have to outlaw people from applying for any post that they have any connection with whatsoever in order to eliminate it entirely which even you must be willing to acknowledge just isn't reasonable).
If you leave out all parts of the story that point to nepotism then you are right its easy to argue is is not nepotism
[/QUOTE]The lack of a qualification isn't a basis. I'm teaching with at least one teacher who hasn't qualified as a teacher but is excellent at his job (by all accounts - I suppose I've never sat in on one of his classes to have experienced it myself) and fits in very well in the school. Would you say there must have been better candidates for his job too, given that he wasn't qualified? If so, why didn't they get the job? The teacher I'm working with now had no connection to the school prior to getting the job as far as I know, other than having worked in another school in the same VEC the previous year.
I also never implied that that "no other qualified teacher could possible have brought to the table", just that it seems probable that he brought more to the table than the other candidates who applied given that he got the job.
And in a transparent interview process all of these questions could be analysed by those who did not get the job in the event of a dispute.
Why do you seem to so set against transparency? Why are you putting so much effort into arguing against a transparent interview application process? What is wrong with transparency? What is wrong with saying to a principal --"okay if you want to hire someone on such grounds that their "personality is more suited to the school" etc at least be prepared to defend that decision at a public level".0 -
I don't know how long this information is kept on file but like I've already said, this information was made available to me any time I've asked for it. Should it be made a rule that this information should be available to all interviewees for a certain period of time after the interview? Probably, yes but I imagine this is already the case in most schools.No, only the candidates own score would be available to them (this score would be detailed and could be judged accross all candidates. All of the candidates scores could be kept on file in case of a dispute where an independent dispute panel could assess all aspects of the interview process, i.e answers to questions by each interviewee (where detailed notes could be made) and how/if the marking scheme was properly adhered to.
While that's reasonable, don't you think that if could easily become the basis for an appeal? Not to mention that if you take any and all persons related to the school out of the interview as you seem to be advocating, this sort of decision is being by someone who doesn't know if their decision is in the best interests of the school.If an manager of a school gives a job to someone on the basis of a good handshake or a levels of self confidence, let the manager specify that this was one of the reasons for giving the job over the other candidate . If that is the basis by which the decision is made.
Ignoring the fact that given that it's a small country and a fairly limited number of qualifications recognised for teaching in most cases and that it's actually quite likely that exact similarity in qualifications and experience would crop up more often than than is reasonable to just dismiss, you're coming back into subjectivity here again. You can score a candidate's answers, yes but you can't guarantee that this scoring will be uniform across all the interviewers or indeed across all candidates.Yes usually there will not be an exact similarity and where there is a very transparent marking process of qualifications, levels of experience, etc etc I doubt there would ever be an exact score. In any event such instances could be sorted out by scoring on questions within the interview process.
Yes, you're right. You also need to take into consideration the resources required for such a system. Given the amount of money being cut from education as it is, it seems a pretty unnecessary waste of resources just to keep a few cranks happy and very occasionally, to give someone who has a genuine cause for concern peace of mind.There is a big difference between general feedback and detailed analysis of how you preformed in interview and how you CV scores around a set range of criteria.
Some of it is not subjective. Some of it is.How people answers questions at an interview is not subjective. It is something that can be objectively measured, .i.e. their knowledge of the syllabus, their understanding of teaching methodology etc. With good note taking scores that candidates receive on being asked the same questions can be objectivity analysed.
Specific skills can be and probably are set out as criteria beforehand. Things that the principal wasn't expecting but still crop up in the interview can't be, can they?If a principal wants something specific in his/her school why not set out what these criteria are before hand? As I have said before. These specific skills could be set out in the job spec? I am not sure what skill a potential candidate has that could not be picked up in a CV etc,
I think that the majority of candidates whose personality was not deemed suited to the school would be more likely to be unhappy about not getting the job if they weren't hired on such a subjective basis and that someone who might not otherwise have had a grievance and just requested feedback to see where they went wrong might suddenly want to complain about it. Again, it's just courting extra expense in a frivolous appeal.With something so subjective as a "personality suited to the school" it would be easy for any principal to set that as criteria and to then basically hire as her or she pleases without any objective measure. But again if a principal did use this as a criteria let them set that out within a transparent process that could be viewed in the event of an appeal. I think many candidates who do not get a position on the grounds that their "personality was not suited to the school" would be happy to know that, and I think entitled to that information.
It should, yes.If a principal finds out information at interview that he or she thinks would be of benefit to the school and uses this information as the grounds to hire someone, that information could be noted within the marking process.
If he knows what that is ahead of time, which he might not.Set out to the interviewsees before the hiring process not the person doing the interviewing. If a principal wants certain skills for his/her school let those skills be put in the job specification.
I asked if that was your experience or something you've heard. I also didn't dispute that some principals don't take active part in the process but that should be their own choice given that they're the ones who know most about the school and what it needs in the majority of cases. If the principal was recently hired and doesn't know the school well yet, there's probably less reason for him to be part of the process but in that case, the DP or an assistant principal probably should be and again, that doesn't solve the problem of potential accusations of nepotism.You were suggesting that in all cases you have seen the principal was directly involved in the interview process. That might be the case for you, but I am telling you that in a lot of cases the principal is not directly involved in the interview process.
And I wasn't suggesting that that was how it was in all cases I've experienced. I was stating it as fact and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that there's some ambiguity there. There isn't. That's how it was.
I'm not denying that there's some basis for the claim that nepotism could have been part of the hiring process. My contention from the start has been that there often will but that that is unavoidable. The fact that there is some basis for thinking that it could happen doesn't mean that it does (and again, I'm not claiming that is doesn't, merely that there's probably a perfectly good explanation in the vast majority of cases).And the objective evidence in to which you alluded to suggested that there seems to be some basis in your claim that nepotism could have been part of the hiring process.
Oh, here it is. Make out that I'm against something that I have said nothing about. I never said that I'm against transparency and making out that I have is a cowardly tactic designed to make me hesitant to continue my argument.Why do you seem to so set against transparency? Why are you putting so much effort into arguing against a transparent interview application process? What is wrong with transparency? What is wrong with saying to a principal --"okay if you want to hire someone on such grounds that their "personality is more suited to the school" etc at least be prepared to defend that decision at a public level".
What I'm against is wasting resources on a problem that won't be solved no matter how much money and red tape you throw at it. I'm fully in favour of the interview/hiring process being as transparent as is reasonable but that does not mean that schools should have to waste time and resources providing candidates with dossiers of information on what they scored for every small detail of the process and that any and all persons associated with the school should be removed from the process to prevent accusations of bias. If we don't trust school managers to make decisions in the best interests of the school they're supposed to be managing, where does that leave us?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't know how long this information is kept on file but like I've already said, this information was made available to me any time I've asked for it. Should it be made a rule that this information should be available to all interviewees for a certain period of time after the interview? Probably, yes but I imagine this is already the case in most schools.
Standardized information retention processes/policies should be developed that makes it mandatory that interview boards keep detailed and comparable notes and marking schemes, which could then be refered to by an independent appeals process.
Until schools are forced to do this, the very ones engaging in nepotism will not, can you not get that?While that's reasonable, don't you think that if could easily become the basis for an appeal?
You mean do I think making a decision on hiring a person solely on the basis of the "candidate made a good impression" or he had a "good handshake" would be grounds for an appeal, then yes it could easily become the grounds for an appeal and rightly too. However if detailed comparable records about responses to questions, educational details and qualifications levels of experience were kept then I doubt that would ever happen.
Also the candidates would not be given this detail until the appeals process was in train, it would be up to the candidate and their advisers at that point to argue their case of the fairness or otherwise of that decision within the appeals process. Do you get it??Not to mention that if you take any and all persons related to the school out of the interview as you seem to be advocating, this sort of decision is being by someone who doesn't know if their decision is in the best interests of the school.
There is a conflict of interest if a relative of a principal is going of a job in a school and the principal is on the interview board. By having a very transparent hiring system that would allow for that relative to compete with the other candidates on a fair basis. Then if they did get the job there would be no murmurings of nepotism. Until a more transparent system is developed these murmurings will persist.Ignoring the fact that given that it's a small country and a fairly limited number of qualifications recognised for teaching in most cases and that it's actually quite likely that exact similarity in qualifications and experience would crop up more often than than is reasonable to just dismiss, you're coming back into subjectivity here again. You can score a candidate's answers, yes but you can't guarantee that this scoring will be uniform across all the interviewers or indeed across all candidates.
SO what is your answer to that? ignore trying to develop a transparent system and allow a principal to hire someone on a whim of "he had a better handshake" or she "is more suited to the school"? That allows principals to hire who ever the hell they like without any accountability.
Also although scoring on interview questions is broadly subjective I dare say if clear records were kept of individual answers which could be made available to an independent appeals process, those of the interview board would think long and hard before being overly subjective in a positive way towards the principals relative.Yes, you're right. You also need to take into consideration the resources required for such a system. Given the amount of money being cut from education as it is, it seems a pretty unnecessary waste of resources just to keep a few cranks happy and very occasionally, to give someone who has a genuine cause for concern peace of mind.
The money would be well spent if we had a fair and transparent hiring system which the public could have faith in and to which we could stop the scourge of nepotism/cute hoorism and dodgy dealings that goes on in Irish society.
People who cant get a job because of corruption and the blight of nepotism are certainly not cranks. Those who have the courage to stand up against it they are brave. Characterizing people as cranks does suit your agenda though.Specific skills can be and probably are set out as criteria beforehand. Things that the principal wasn't expecting but still crop up in the interview can't be, can they?
If something pops up at a interview and that specific thing swings it in the balance of a candidate then let the principal/selection committee set that reason out in their scoring mechanism. As long as this reason is articulated in this scoring mechanism and can be seen in cases of appeals I have no problem with it. Can you get that yet?I think that the majority of candidates whose personality was not deemed suited to the school would be more likely to be unhappy about not getting the job if they weren't hired on such a subjective basis and that someone who might not otherwise have had a grievance and just requested feedback to see where they went wrong might suddenly want to complain about it. Again, it's just courting extra expense in a frivolous appeal.
If a principal was to use "personality" as the grounds for hiring someone than he should be accountable for that decision. Any less and a principal could hire who ever the hell the liked on that basis (which they do). Don't you see that is where the problem is at the moment? The arbitrary nature of the decision process, the lack of transparency. If the system was more transparent and accountable, in the event of a appeals process the principal would have to justify his decision on awarding a job on the basis of "personality" i.e that one candidate had a personality more suited to the school. If he makes his decision on that basis than yes let him/her be accountable for it.
Only where an appeal process would be fully worked through would it come to light that the principal used the "personality" of the candidates as the reason to hire one over the other, so the issue would not come to light until then. Do you get it yet?Oh, here it is. Make out that I'm against something that I have said nothing about. I never said that I'm against transparency and making out that I have is a cowardly tactic designed to make me hesitant to continue my argument.
You insinuate that fellow teachers who may be victims nepotism who might take cases of nepotism against an employer crackpots
You say it is a waste of money looking for transparency and a fair system, not understanding that fairer transparent systems ultimately save money to the tax payer and more importantly stop corruption. That is worth the money.What I'm against is wasting resources on a problem that won't be solved no matter how much money and red tape you throw at it.
See above- excuse to allow nepotism
.I'm fully in favour of the interview/hiring process being as transparent as is reasonable but that does not mean that schools should have to waste time and resources providing candidates with dossiers of information on what they scored for every small detail of the process and that any and all persons associated with the school should be removed from the process to prevent accusations of bias
Keeping fair and detailed information on file to which candidates have access is not a waste of time it is a absolute central duty within an interview process. Dont you see its the lack of such record keeping that is a causes in the problem?If we don't trust school managers to make decisions in the best interests of the school they're supposed to be managing, where does that leave us?
I am all for trusting managers to make decisions as long as they are fully accountable for their decision. That is what they are payed to do. Trust without this associated accountability spells disaster.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here Realjohn0 -
There is a conflict of interest if a relative of a principal is going of a job in a school and the principal is on the interview board. By having a very transparent hiring system that would allow for that relative to compete with the other candidates on a fair basis. Then if they did get the job there would be no murmurings of nepotism. Until a more transparent system is developed these murmurings will persist.
I think you know yourself that even if there are interview notes and scores to go back on which there are in most cases now anyway, if the son or daughter gets the job without the principal on the interview panel, this is Ireland people will still say that it was nepotism.
I have seen this happen where a principal was not involved in the interview process in a VEC job but I still heard people say "sure the panel will do what the principal wants anyway" despite them not being involved and scores being available on request.
People are small minded and will look for an easy excuse anywhere they find one.
I think repeatedly saying "do you get it yet" belittles your points somewhat, both of you have differing opinions and are putting them across quite well and ye are not going to agree but putting that in 3 times in one post comes across as mocking the other persons point of view rather than just making your own point.0 -
I think you know yourself that even if there are interview notes and scores to go back on which there are in most cases now anyway, if the son or daughter gets the job without the principal on the interview panel, this is Ireland people will still say that it was nepotism.
If the process was rigorously fair and seen to be fair and absolutely transparent with a transparent/standardized process from the selection of interview board right through to appointment and appeal process, then I do think the unwarranted claims of nepotism would diminish significantly.
However the system at present is too ad hoc, to open to being subjective and lacks any real transparancy.I have seen this happen where a principal was not involved in the interview process in a VEC job but I still heard people say "sure the panel will do what the principal wants anyway" despite them not being involved and scores being available on request.
People are small minded and will look for an easy excuse anywhere they find one.
Yes I agree (within the present system), but in a reformed system which I have mentioned, I think this problem would not be as significant. Its precisely because we do not have any real accountability that these rumors will persist. In a system with real openness and transparency these rumors would not stand up to scrutiny.I think repeatedly saying "do you get it yet" belittles your points somewhat, both of you have differing opinions and are putting them across quite well and ye are not going to agree but putting that in 3 times in one post comes across as mocking the other persons point of view rather than just making your own point.
Okay I take back the "do you get it" line.0 -
I would have to disagree with you, the current system in the VEC I mentioned (3 years ago) was very open and transparent, the case was reviewed that I mentioned and people asked for their scores etc. and despite everything being proven there is still to this day a cloud hanging over the person that got the job, you would still hear the odd snide comment.
I think your Utopian world where everyone will accept it and move on is not in Ireland. People will still gripe and moan and use nepotism as an easy excuse whether it is warranted/proven or not0 -
I would have to disagree with you, the current system in the VEC I mentioned (3 years ago) was very open and transparent, the case was reviewed that I mentioned and people asked for their scores etc. and despite everything being proven there is still to this day a cloud hanging over the person that got the job, you would still hear the odd snide comment.
I cant comment on individual situations other than to take your word for it.I think your Utopian world where everyone will accept it and move on is not in Ireland. People will still gripe and moan and use nepotism as an easy excuse whether it is warranted/proven or not
Now your putting words in my mouth, I never mentioned utopia or "everyone will accept it and move on" And because people do grip and moan (and I know they do) it is no reason for not perusing a fairer and more transparent system.
Has there ever been a known case of nepotism in the teaching profession been proven? Probably not. Does it happen to a fairly significant degree? Probably yes. Is that right?0 -
Advertisement
-
I know you never mentioned utopia but your constant references to the fact that if there is a transparent new system then everything will be ok and there won't be any nepotism or people complaining about it basically refers to the same thing.
You are also now putting words in my mouth, I never said there shouldn't be a fair, transparent system, if you look back on my previous posts I have said that I am all for a transparent system.
However I have given you an example of where there is a fair system in place where an appeal was lodged and all that goes with it and even though proven right people still said the same thing.
You seem to be of the impression that there isn't an appeals process currently? or at least that is what I am getting from your posts.
Apart from the example I gave above in a secondary school I was in there was an appeal after the appointment of a principal, and also I have experienced an appeal internally based on an assistant principals post in a school. There is an open and transparent process where people get to see their scores, people have to stand over their decisions and prove it, people are entitled to appeal something they feel where they have been wronged. In the last 6 years I have experienced it 3 times. It does happen everything is done above board, maybe not 10-20 years ago I don't know I wasn't around then but I know now in the examples I have experienced it does happen.
Each time appeals were unsuccessful so that straight away meant, in all 3 instances, that there was still underhanded things going on. As I said to this day these people that got rejected and appealed are still not happy.
The point is there is an open process currently do you thing that there isn't?0 -
I know you never mentioned utopia but your constant references to the fact that if there is a transparent new system then everything will be ok and there won't be any nepotism or people complaining about it basically refers to the same thing.
I never said that it would be okay or there would never be any nepotism again???????? I said it would be better than it is now. Again you are puttign words in my mouth.However I have given you an example of where there is a fair system in place where an appeal was lodged and all that goes with it and even though proven right people still said the same thing.
Yes but that VEC system is not universal it is not in place in every primary and secondary school in Ireland. Even taking your account that the VEC you talk about was a fair system.
Yes it will always be the case that some people will still complain and still whisper nepotism but it this a reason not to make the system as transparant and accountable as possible?You seem to be of the impression that there isn't an appeals process currently? or at least that is what I am getting from your posts.
I know there is an appeals process but the way interviews are conducted at present and the reluctance of VECs to give scores in interviews as opposed to feedback- and the general ad hoc nature of the recruitment process across the education sectors- it does make things like favoritism and nepotism easeier to go unchecked.Apart from the example I gave above in a secondary school I was in there was an appeal after the appointment of a principal, and also I have experienced an appeal internally based on an assistant principals post in a school. There is an open and transparent process where people get to see their scores, people have to stand over their decisions and prove it, people are entitled to appeal something they feel where they have been wronged.
Yet when people do what they are entitled to do and use this appeals process they are vivified and called cranks and crackpots? Why is that do you think that is.
You are speaking from your own experience, that is fine but to extrapolate from this that this is how the system works in general is something else.The point is there is an open process currently do you thing that there isn't?
I would say that the process today has the veneer of openness it is designed to be vague and ambiguous (and I am talking about the best systems)
There should be mandatory feedback of interview results and far more uniformity of selection procedures across the sectors as a start.
Again people who make an appeal and are unsuccessful will always be bitter about it, but in system that is truly transparent at least everyone else could have a bit more faith in the system.0 -
The other 2 examples were from voluntary secondary schools. One was VEC.
Appeals and scores were available in all examples.
I'll leave it there with you. You keep coming back with the same points despite examples to the contrary in various sectors. You have your opinion that is fine. I have given proof of an appeals and scores situation which is available currently but you still seem to think this is unacceptable. I'll leave it there0 -
The ones engaging in nepotism? You make it sound like some schools have it as an unofficial policy.Standardized information retention processes/policies should be developed that makes it mandatory that interview boards keep detailed and comparable notes and marking schemes, which could then be refered to by an independent appeals process.
Until schools are forced to do this, the very ones engaging in nepotism will not, can you not get that?
You can doubt it all you like but it would happen any time something subjective was used to differentiate candidates when the unsuccessful candidate felt that they should have got the job, justified or (more likely) not.You mean do I think making a decision on hiring a person solely on the basis of the "candidate made a good impression" or he had a "good handshake" would be grounds for an appeal, then yes it could easily become the grounds for an appeal and rightly too. However if detailed comparable records about responses to questions, educational details and qualifications levels of experience were kept then I doubt that would ever happen.
Well a few posts later you've said that being given these details ought to be something that's done automatically (which again, would be a serious expense for schools to take on in a time when schools don't have much money).Also the candidates would not be given this detail until the appeals process was in train, it would be up to the candidate and their advisers at that point to argue their case of the fairness or otherwise of that decision within the appeals process. Do you get it??
Like seavill said, murmurings will persist no matter what. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "there's no smoke without fire" so as soon as someone makes an accusation of bias, the teacher who got hired will have that stain for the rest of their career or at least for as long as they're in the school, regardless of what any appeal finds. Also, we're not just talking about a relative of the principal here. This thread was started because of a situation mentioned in another thread where a teacher was hired and the OP of that thread made out that it was because they had a parent teaching in the school. The parent had no part in the interview process (as far as was mentioned in the thread), just that she was in a permanent job in the school already and that was enough to question why her son/daughter (I forget which) was hired. Like I've said several times already, those kind of "murmurings" will never, ever be eliminated completely and unless the attitude of the average Irish person changes, they won't even be reduced significantly, even if they televised the interviews live and published every qualification every candidate had in national newspapers.There is a conflict of interest if a relative of a principal is going of a job in a school and the principal is on the interview board. By having a very transparent hiring system that would allow for that relative to compete with the other candidates on a fair basis. Then if they did get the job there would be no murmurings of nepotism. Until a more transparent system is developed these murmurings will persist.
The principal can't hire anyone "without any accountability". They're even accountable if they have nothing to do with the hiring process because ultimately, a principal is judged on how the school performs, not on who he hires. If he hires someone who isn't up to the task, it reflects on him. If some faceless board hire someone who isn't up to the task, parents don't start pointing fingers at the board of management, they point fingers at the principal. The principal is always accountable, regardless of whether the hiring process is transparent or a closely guarded secret, known only to him and the parish priest.SO what is your answer to that? ignore trying to develop a transparent system and allow a principal to hire someone on a whim of "he had a better handshake" or she "is more suited to the school"? That allows principals to hire who ever the hell they like without any accountability.
How clear do you want the records to be? Should there be an exact written record of every question and a verbatim transcript of what each candidate said, followed by a report on how each sentence was scored? Even then, there would be an element of subjectivity and we're entering the realms of ridiculousness now.Also although scoring on interview questions is broadly subjective I dare say if clear records were kept of individual answers which could be made available to an independent appeals process, those of the interview board would think long and hard before being overly subjective in a positive way towards the principals relative.
No it wouldn't. The money would be well spent on another SNA or a resource teacher or a classroom assistant or new computers or any number of other things schools are sorely lacking and would be of benefit to students.The money would be well spent if we had a fair and transparent hiring system which the public could have faith in and to which we could stop the scourge of nepotism/cute hoorism and dodgy dealings that goes on in Irish society.
People who can't get a job because of corruption and the blight of nepotism don't exist in this country for a start. Maybe they don't always get the job they want but who says everyone's supposed to get what they want?People who cant get a job because of corruption and the blight of nepotism are certainly not cranks. Those who have the courage to stand up against it they are brave. Characterizing people as cranks does suit your agenda though.
And you're employing your tactic again of making out that I've said something I haven't. What I said was:
Didn't you accuse me of leaving out things to serve my point (even though I'd already stated them quite clearly) and now you're failing to mention something that was vital to the context of what I was saying? The cranks are the people who bang on about corruption and nepotism without having a good reason to complain. Those who have a "genuine cause for concern" are not cranks and I've never made them out to be (hence my use of the words "genuine cause for concern").... it seems a pretty unnecessary waste of resources just to keep a few cranks happy and very occasionally, to give someone who has a genuine cause for concern peace of mind.
I'd also thank you not to accuse me of having an agenda here (though I hope you appreciate the irony of you accusing me of doing something to suit my supposed agenda and needing to misrepresent what I said in order to illustrate it).
I agree. I never said that shouldn't be the case.If something pops up at a interview and that specific thing swings it in the balance of a candidate then let the principal/selection committee set that reason out in their scoring mechanism. As long as this reason is articulated in this scoring mechanism and can be seen in cases of appeals I have no problem with it. Can you get that yet?
Like I said, the principal is always accountable and frankly, if he wants to hire "whoever the hell the liked" then he should do that as long as he thinks he's acting in the best interests of the school. His job is to act in the best interests in the school and like I've already said, the buck stops with him. If we don't trust principals to hire their staff, how can we trust our children's education to them?If a principal was to use "personality" as the grounds for hiring someone than he should be accountable for that decision. Any less and a principal could hire who ever the hell the liked on that basis (which they do). Don't you see that is where the problem is at the moment? The arbitrary nature of the decision process, the lack of transparency. If the system was more transparent and accountable, in the event of a appeals process the principal would have to justify his decision on awarding a job on the basis of "personality" i.e that one candidate had a personality more suited to the school. If he makes his decision on that basis than yes let him/her be accountable for it.
Stuff about accountability etc. Only quoting this for the bit on bold.Only where an appeal process would be fully worked through would it come to light that the principal used the "personality" of the candidates as the reason to hire one over the other, so the issue would not come to light until then. Do you get it yet?
No I didn't, as I've already explained, and you're the only one to use the word "crackpots" in this thread and you've used it at least twice now that I can remember. Would it be ok if I started using offensive words and imply that you said them (or insinuated them, if you prefer)? It seems only fair.You insinuate that fellow teachers who may be victims nepotism who might take cases of nepotism against an employer crackpots
I said that it's a waste of money when we don't have it to spend, which is currently the case and when it won't make any significant improvement to the situation, which it won't (as seavill has already pointed out).You say it is a waste of money looking for transparency and a fair system, not understanding that fairer transparent systems ultimately save money to the tax payer and more importantly stop corruption. That is worth the money.
It is when paid man hours are at a premium in the education system, as is currently the case. Fair? Yes. Detailed? As much as is reasonable. No matter how much you keep though, some people are still going to accuse people of bias. Also, it's not the lack of record keeping is the problem. Nepotism is (allegedly) the problem and no amount of records will eliminate it entirely unless those records state explicitly "Well I hired him because he's me nephew like. You know how it is hi."Keeping fair and detailed information on file to which candidates have access is not a waste of time it is a absolute central duty within an interview process. Dont you see its the lack of such record keeping that is a causes in the problem?
You certainly don't appear to be and have said that you don't think they should be part of the process. I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing.I am all for trusting managers to make decisions as long as they are fully accountable for their decision. That is what they are payed to do. Trust without this associated accountability spells disaster.
I never agree to disagree. If I disagree, it's because I think you're wrong and that hasn't changed and the fact that you've resorted to childish badgering ("Do you get it??", "Can you get that yet?", "Do you get it yet?" Did I get them all?) and misrepresenting me gives me the impression that you've realised you are too and are hoping to shut me up. Your utopia will never exist (and I know you didn't use the word utopia. I'm not saying you did) unless the Irish people change their attitude. No amount of transparency will change it. Nepotism will probably never be eliminated entirely but ultimately, the principal is accountable either way and if he chooses a relative or a friend or whoever in favour of a better alternative, that better alternative is going to get a job in another school, improving that school which is bad for the principal who didn't hire him. I think we can rely on the vast majority of principals to put the school first and over-legislating all of them so as to hinder a small minority in a practice which isn't necessarily even detrimental (because let's face it, sometimes a principal probably hires their buddy because they're pals when it turns out that they're the best for the job anyway) and only rarely comes up (given that the number of friends or relatives a principal will ever get the chance to hire is likely to be a tiny fraction of the overall teaching population).I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here Realjohn
This is very much a case of a small number making a big noise and you're right, if a teacher gets a job due to nepotism when there was a better candidate for the job, that's bad but it will always happen to some degree so if we're going to agree to disagree (which we won't), I think it should be on the fact that while nepotism and cronyism are bad, they're also not the biggest problem in the education system by a long, long way.0 -
The last two schools I worked in are run by Principals who are perfectly willing to direct tax payers money into the pockets of their friends, neighbours and fellow golf club members without interviews or even subject need in the first place. They relish their power, position and influence in their small communities and they continue to lord it without any oversight from anyone, however I must admit that those hired are doing powerful work in up-holding their schools' ethos !
Previous to the above experiences in Voluntary Secondary Schools I was in a VEC and despite the embargo and plenty of ex-quota staff knocking around, 3 new jobs were created in a centre that was due to close so that 3 very important young graduates could be sheltered from the worse effects of the recession.
Everybody now say Ahhhh, isn't that lovely.
3 Balls...............3 strikes..............your a nobody...........Your out !0 -
mariaalice wrote: »I have the height of respect for teachers, they come in for a lot of unwarranted criticism and they are suppose to be able to solve every problem in society.
I can only assume that you're a teacher finding it difficult acquiring work, without having read through much of this thread. No school principal that I know will give employment just on account of a relation working within the same school but that's not saying that it doesn't happen but IF the parent of the sibling is a quality teacher I would only 'assume' that they also would be a good quality teacher & surely their final results would reflect this.0 -
It happens, there is a school I know of with a parent and 2 of their children teaching in it, with a third of the parent on TP there. And its a school that very rarely takes TP students.0
-
It's not so much that it can happen here and there, it has been a feature of the last 3 employers I have worked for.............does anyone care about tax payers money being siphoned off by these people ?0
-
CrookedIsland1 wrote: »It's not so much that it can happen here and there, it has been a feature of the last 3 employers I have worked for.............does anyone care about tax payers money being siphoned off by these people ?
Money being siphoned off?
I assume these people are teaching classes and getting paid for them?
If there is an allocation that money will be spent on some teacher, maybe not the one you'd pick but it would still be spent.
Siphoning off money is a different story entirely. You're talking about embezzlement with language like that.0 -
well when tax payers money is consistently being salaried out to friends, neighbours and connections of a Principal and outsiders don't even get a fair and open opportunity to compete for it what would you call it ? and does anybody care that this kind of stuff is going on. Please advise0
-
Advertisement
-
If this is taking place, then the BOM is supporting it. If there is something unsatisfactory, teacher reps can question it at board level as they ratify employment. If ETB school, HR should be made aware of it.0
-
The latest one is not an ETB and the BOM are getting rings ran around them. As for the teachers Rep they have a debt of gratitude to repay. I was thinking more of an outside body that might be concerned about how the paymasters money is apportioned out as opposed to siphoned out as I mis-spoke earlier ?0
-
Who do you think is going to scrutinise the BOM? The BOM would want to be running a meth-lab in the basement before the Dept Ed will get involved.mariaalice wrote: »If you read my posts you will see that I do not assume it is always nepotism, and most probably these days it is not, boards of management would be too wary of being scrutinised.
Apart from the very unusual case of the mad school in Tipp where the Principal owned the school, there is no school that is the 'principals school'. The principal does not own the school. The principal does not actually make any recruitment discussions - that is down to the Patron (usually working through the Chairperson), with the BoM rubber stamping the decisions.Tell the principal to go home because HR will do it?? Thats like the cop shows when the FBI waltzes in and says "we'll take it from here guys!"...
Never gonna happen,
principal's school = principal's call
Always
(unless other favours are owed)
Seems like an awful waste of a Principal's time to me? I'd be very suspicious of why a Principal would want to spend time sitting in on every interview, but not actually participating, other than as a note taker.Also in many VEC schools at second level the principal is the note taker in the interview process and is not directly involved in the candidate selection (from what I understand)
The BOM has zero control over recruitment, at primary level at least. All the work of setting the criteria and selecting the panel is done by the Patron, usually working through the Chairperson. The panel submits a report to the BoM, and the Dept's rules explicitly state that the "BoM shall accept the decision of the panel unless they know of information that was not known to the panel". So the role of the BoM is limited to rubber-stamping, literally. A good Chairman might look for more involvement from the Board, but they don't have to do this. A BoM faced with a Chairman who does his own thing on recruitment is literally powerless.If this is taking place, then the BOM is supporting it. If there is something unsatisfactory, teacher reps can question it at board level as they ratify employment. If ETB school, HR should be made aware of it.0 -
The driver is secondary as far as I know which is a different set up to the primary panel0
-
man_no_plan wrote: »Money being siphoned off?
I assume these people are teaching classes and getting paid for them?
If there is an allocation that money will be spent on some teacher, maybe not the one you'd pick but it would still be spent.
Siphoning off money is a different story entirely. You're talking about embezzlement with language like that.
Money is being effectively siphoned off and embezzled if there is nepotism involved don't you get that?0 -
No it isn't.Money is being effectively siphoned off and embezzled if there is nepotism involved don't you get that?
It isn't being siphoned off it it was going to be spent anyway.
It isn't being embezzled unless those in receipt of it are either grossly incompetent or simply not performing their duties for whatever reason.
That's not to say that it's an acceptable situation but you lose the moral high ground if you have to throw misleading if not downright false accusations around in order to make your point.
I haven't reread the thread (I read it the first time it appeared) but from what I can recall, there were plenty of perfectly good reasons given that could justify supposed nepotism, aside from straight nepotism. There is probably no way of knowing or at least proving that nepotism is the actual reason for hiring someone except in the case that a person who was completely unqualified was hired over someone who was qualified and even then, there are potentially circumstances that could justify it in practical terms even if they wouldn't justify it legally.
This whole thread has been an exercise in begrudgery from the very start, moaning about something that probably does happen but only in a tiny minority of cases and probably even more rarely to the obvious detriment of the students. We have far bigger fish to fry at the moment.0 -
Accountability is becoming everything for any organisation receiving government funding.
There appears to be an oversupply of teachers at the moment ( that might change ) that means some teachers are going to be unemployed its as simple as that, and that means you either have to emigrate or retrain to do something else, sprouting spleen and malice is not going to advance your cause.
I think it should be make more clear to student thinking of doing teaching that the employment situation for certain subjects is poor and which subjects have a higher employment rate, before their parents spent a fortune on fees. There is also an obligation on any one retraining as a mature student to look at the employment situation re the course they are doing.0 -
mariaalice wrote: »There appears to be an oversupply of teachers at the moment ( that might change ) that means some teachers are going to be unemployed its as simple as that, and that means you either have to emigrate or retrain to do something else
All the more reason for ensuring open transparent and accountable interview processes????sprouting spleen and malice is not going to advance your cause.
It is for all of our benefit, those of us in employment and those that are not that transparent hiring processes are in place. Characterizing those who are fed up with the underhanded sneaky cronyism and nepotism that does exist in the system as people "sprouting spleen and malice" is unbelievable. As I have said before- no one has anything to fear about openness and transparency.0 -
Apart from the very unusual case of the mad school in Tipp where the Principal owned the school, there is no school that is the 'principals school'. The principal does not own the school. The principal does not actually make any recruitment discussions - that is down to the Patron (usually working through the Chairperson), with the BoM rubber stamping the decisions.
i take your point about that in certain respects. Although in secondary the one thing that a principal has remit over is the timetable. To me then that is a very powerful tool. You get to advise/decide that a school needs x,y,z combination of subjects and what areas of qualification/experience are required to fulfill ;the needs of the school'. Also the CV's are sent to the principal in a lot of cases so they decide who gets called (or doesn't!).
And ya sure in most cases the principal wants to get the best person for the job.. but at the same time I would imagine cases whereby a principal might want to surround themselves by loyal teachers to 'tow the party line'.
Even for permanent teachers, the subject/timetabling allocation every year can be a very tentative time for some.
To my mind the timetable dictates the job description.0 -
Advertisement
-
No it isn't.
It isn't being siphoned off it it was going to be spent anyway.
If a teacher gets a job above someone who is more qualified etc because the teacher knows the principal or who has influence or knows someone on the ETB interview board, that is unethical. The person getting this job has done so under false pretences. They are not only getting money under these pretenses they are stopping qualified people from getting these jobs.It isn't being embezzled unless those in receipt of it are either grossly incompetent or simply not performing their duties for whatever reason.
It is irrelevant if the person in the job has the required level of competence. The person who has the greatest level of competence should be awarded the position. If that does not happen the person in reciept of state funds (the person who got the job because of nepotism is in my opinion getting money under false pretenses. I call that a form of embezzlement.That's not to say that it's an acceptable situation but you lose the moral high ground if you have to throw misleading if not downright false accusations around in order to make your point.
I am not throwing false accusations around. Its not MY point, its a overall ethic of transparency accountability and fairness. Its the lack of such principals that have lead to the gross corruption in the public service in Ireland up till today.I haven't reread the thread (I read it the first time it appeared) but from what I can recall, there were plenty of perfectly good reasons given that could justify supposed nepotism, aside from straight nepotism.
You can never justify nepotism. It is not nepotism if the person in question gets the job for the right reasons/There is probably no way of knowing or at least proving that nepotism is the actual reason for hiring someone except in the case that a person who was completely unqualified was hired over someone who was qualified and even then, there are potentially circumstances that could justify it in practical terms even if they wouldn't justify it legally.
But there is more robust systems that could be put in place to minimize it.This whole thread has been an exercise in begrudgery from the very start,
It is never begrudgery to look for accountability, transparency and fairness.moaning about something that probably does happen but only in a tiny minority of cases and probably even more rarely to the obvious detriment of the students. We have far bigger fish to fry at the moment.
Rooting out corruption and ensuring it does not happen benefits everyone and needs to be a number 1 priority in all aspects of the public sector. When you ignore it you get what happens in the guards, the banks, leas cross, and the recent nursing home scandal to name just a few off the top of my head.
Curuption is like a cancer that infects the whole system.
Ah sure it will be grand RealJohn0
Advertisement