Nepotism

mariaalice · 08-07-2014 9:29am #1

Re yesterdays thread I have the solation, if a first degree relative of anyone working in the school is selected for interview then neither the principal of the said school nor the board of management should be involved in interviewing that person, the interviewing should be conducted by a professional HR company, using a competency based system which would be the only selection criteria.

The principal could include competencies that they want such as for example a higher standard of Irish than the minimum requirement and so on.

How applicants were scored would be automatically sent back to them, making the whole processes open and above board would that work.

seavill · 08-07-2014 10:11am

Should that be implemented outside the public sector in family businesses or us it just teachers that shouldn't follow in their parents footsteps

mariaalice · 08-07-2014 10:28am

I am not saying anyone should not follow their parents in to the same career why should they not, it is the nepotism issue and the perceived unfairness to other applicants most especially in public services appointments.

This is just my opinion there is a big difference between a brother and sister or two sisters or two brother working in a primary school together and a parent and child working together in a primary school, The former is grand but the latter because of the parent child relationship is not such a good idea, teaching is different than most career because a lot of competency at the job is based on the relationship between the child and the teacher at primary school ( not so much at second level ). Adults need to grow, develop, and make mistakes in private and without being watched or saved by their parents.

Most family business don't have the same dynamic as teaching.

seavill · 08-07-2014 10:33am

Can the same not be said for every type of job. Saying teaching is so special that way is ridiculous.
What about the family run shop where the son is trained in from late teens to take over but is never given any real responsibility. Never gets a chance to develop personally. Isn't up for the job as they are always in fathers shadow. No respect from employees as they are poor at job but there because of daddy.

I'm not saying nepotism doesn't happen or I'm not saying it's right but these silly arguments that some people seem to think they have a right to dictate just because it's the "public service" and sure we pay the wages so we deserve an opinion on this despite the fact it happens in all walks of life. It's either wrong or it's not. Where it happens should be irrelevant

mariaalice · 08-07-2014 10:45am

It does happen in all walks of life, but it is different in teaching (1) it is paid for by public money.

(2) The dynamic of the development of the person does have an impact on the job of a teacher. I would take a guess and say confidence and being secure in your opinion and methods helps a lot with the job.

Another simple cost effective idea all teachers who are called for interview should be automatically sent the information on how they scored at the interview, be the school private, primary or VEC.

seavill · 08-07-2014 10:54am

Have you honestly an experience of this non development of a person in a school with their parent? Because after 10 years in teaching I don't. I have worked twice with a parent/child combination.

Should this feedback not be in all jobs so everyone knows that every job is appointed fairly. Surely that should be the case regardless of it being teaching job or not

mariaalice · 08-07-2014 11:03am

Yes of course it should go to the best person regardless, this is more about the perceived nepotism issue, and how to solve it by openness and transparency while still giving the child of an existing staff member the same rights to apply for the job as anyone else.

I will add a caveat to my original opinion, if the persons concerned has done their teaching practise in another school and had had other teaching experience's and is a little bit older then that might be different.

f3232 · 08-07-2014 11:08am

seavill wrote: »

Should that be implemented outside the public sector in family businesses or us it just teachers that shouldn't follow in their parents footsteps

This is not comparable. While it may be acceptable for business owner to employ their kids (essentially the business owner puts in his/her own money takes the risks and can do what they want with this money) it is a completely different scenario for a public sector school which is receipt of tax payers funds to do so. A solution would be for all candidates to going through a very transparent, independent and competency based assessment. This actually happens in other parts of the public sector. I cannot see why it can not happen in education.

seavill · 08-07-2014 11:12am

So to clarify you have no experience if this lack of personal development due to a parent it is just purely your opinion if what might happen.
I never mentioned about going to the best person I said shouldn't this openness happen across all sectors not just teaching.
With the public purse argument if I go into my local mechanic I pay for the service so I pay their wages as the public pay towards public service pay. Where's the difference? If the mechanics son isn't up to it because he hasn't developed properly that's my safety at risk. Nepotism can cause issues across life you still havnt pointed out why you feel teaching is so special.

So you feel if someone is older it's not nepotism (although it could just as easily be so).
Where their teaching practice took place is irrelevant both teachers in this example have the same experience done the same degree etc.

Like I said I'm all for fairness and transparency but it annoys me when people fail to see that this should apply across all sectors teaching is not special to this regard.
It also annoys me that people straight away jump to nepotism regardless of any proof as with the other thread

f3232 · 08-07-2014 11:25am

seavill wrote: »

I never mentioned about going to the best person I said shouldn't this openness happen across all sectors not just teaching.

You would hope that all businesses act ethically when it comes to recruitment. However ones in receipt of tax payers funds have a public duty to do so.

With the public purse argument if I go into my local mechanic I pay for the service so I pay their wages as the public pay towards public service pay. Where's the difference? If the mechanics son isn't up to it because he hasn't developed properly that's my safety at risk. Nepotism can cause issues across life you still haven't pointed out why you feel teaching is so special.

You choose to go to this mechanic you can go somewhere else you are not paying tax to this mechanic.

If the mechanic son is not up to it the owner of the business takes on that risk. If he does a bad job on your car, you wont go back and the business owner and his son loose out. Not the tax payer.

mariaalice · 08-07-2014 11:35am

seavill wrote: »

So to clarify you have no experience if this lack of personal development due to a parent it is just purely your opinion if what might happen.
I never mentioned about going to the best person I said shouldn't this openness happen across all sectors not just teaching.
With the public purse argument if I go into my local mechanic I pay for the service so I pay their wages as the public pay towards public service pay. Where's the difference? If the mechanics son isn't up to it because he hasn't developed properly that's my safety at risk. Nepotism can cause issues across life you still havnt pointed out why you feel teaching is so special.

So you feel if someone is older it's not nepotism (although it could just as easily be so).
Where their teaching practice took place is irrelevant both teachers in this example have the same experience done the same degree etc.

Like I said I'm all for fairness and transparency but it annoys me when people fail to see that this should apply across all sectors teaching is not special to this regard.
It also annoys me that people straight away jump to nepotism regardless of any proof as with the other thread

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. I do think there is a tad too much of the tinfoil lined hat thinking and gossip about who got what job in Ireland, I do think the public services is different simply because it is public money!.

RealJohn · 08-07-2014 12:44pm

The fact is that there's no way around this nepotism issue. The idea that a principal can't be directly involved in the selection of his own staff just because they have a relative already working in the school is ludicrous but if the principal does have the final say (which he should) then there's no way around the possibility of nepotism.

Also, how far would it go? A former principal of mine employed a teacher in part because the teacher had a younger sister in the school so by extension, his parents were involved in the school but not in any official capacity. He was from the local area and the principal already knew him well. I'm not for a second saying that he wasn't a perfectly good candidate for the job but there is the possibility that some indirect nepotism came into it and it would have gone completely undetected by the OP's proposal. Would it be any better?
The teacher in question had no experience either by the way, beyond having recently qualified and having done some subbing in the school the year prior to being hired.

Another local was also hired the following year who wasn't even qualified as a teacher. VEC school so technically, he didn't have to be but his subjects were already covered so there was little reason to hire him unqualified other than that the principal probably thought that he was a good fit for the school and worth giving him a foot in the door. As far as I know, he's still in the school.

Nobody likes to feel like they've been unfairly overlooked but I doubt it's as widespread as it's made out to be and I very much doubt that it can be eliminated entirely so we're just going to have to put up with it.

derb12 · 08-07-2014 2:37pm

I can't understand why there is such resistance to the idea that a principal of a school should not be able to provide his/her children with a job for life at the expense of the tax payer without any outside scrutiny. It doesn't matter if it is widespread or not - it should never happen. Ever. Wife of caesar and all that.
If someone in private business hires their own offspring, that is absolutely their own business. If tax payers money is involved it is a completely different scenario.

RealJohn · 08-07-2014 3:13pm

derb12 wrote: »

I can't understand why there is such resistance to the idea that a principal of a school should not be able to provide his/her children with a job for life at the expense of the tax payer without any outside scrutiny. It doesn't matter if it is widespread or not - it should never happen. Ever. Wife of caesar and all that.
If someone in private business hires their own offspring, that is absolutely their own business. If tax payers money is involved it is a completely different scenario.

You realise that the only way around it is to take the person most likely to know what's in the best interests of the school (the principal) and anyone else directly involved in the running of the school (other staff members) who are the next most likely to know, and people indirectly involved with the running of the school but could be influenced by those involved in the school (board of management etc.) out of the decision making process? Do you really think that that's the best way to go about it? Would there even be a need for an interview under those circumstances or should they just put the qualifications and experience of the various applicants into a computer and let the computer decide?
If you think there's a reasonable way around this I'd love to hear it but I very much doubt you have one that would both serve the school and completely eliminate bias in the selection process.

whiteandlight · 08-07-2014 5:00pm

You could make the highly controversial call (particularly in rural areas) that parents and children should not be teaching in the same school.... I think that'd cause consternation though and be very unwieldy in country areas. Its fine in the greater dublin area/leinster when there are tons of schools and it shouldn't be necessary to HAVE to work in the same school as your parents

RealJohn · 08-07-2014 5:07pm

whiteandlight wrote: »

You could make the highly controversial call (particularly in rural areas) that parents and children should not be teaching in the same school.... I think that'd cause consternation though and be very unwieldy in country areas. Its fine in the greater dublin area/leinster when there are tons of schools and it shouldn't be necessary to HAVE to work in the same school as your parents

I don't think it's reasonable to make that kind of rule at all. It seems to imply that nepotism is the only way the offspring of a teacher could get a job in the same school as their parent(s) which is ridiculous.

*please note, I am not accusing whiteandlight of saying this, only that a rule like that would strongly imply that that is the case*

whiteandlight · 08-07-2014 5:09pm

Oh I'm actually taking the p*ss a little bit, its completely unworkable. Thats the problem with nepotism in general (and lets be honest the country is rife with "who you know" culture), it is extremely difficult to prove and while it might leave a bad taste thats really all that can be done

seavill · 08-07-2014 5:22pm

And its so easy to throw it out as a simple excuse (that everyone will jump on the bandwagon of) when you don't get a job because you weren't the best candidate for a job and can't accept this fact. However whatever makes you feel better (and I don't personally mean you whiteandlight)

whiteandlight · 08-07-2014 5:23pm

lol nepotism definitely doesn't apply to my job-I knew no one! I do know of a couple of cases, one in particular caused waves out outrage in the community (to be honest I actually believe a case could have been made on that one!), the other cases as you say its an easy excuse for not getting the job

RealJohn · 08-07-2014 5:30pm

whiteandlight wrote: »

Thats the problem with nepotism in general (and lets be honest the country is rife with "who you know" culture), it is extremely difficult to prove and while it might leave a bad taste thats really all that can be done

That's pretty much the point I was making earlier on which someone took issue with. Obviously it should be reduced as much as possible but in our profession (and indeed probably in many professions) it would be impossible to eliminate it entirely so getting overly worked up about it is a waste of time, energy and, if some people had their way, resources.

evolving_doors · 08-07-2014 7:40pm

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)

f3232 · 08-07-2014 9:58pm

RealJohn wrote: »

The fact is that there's no way around this nepotism issue.

Sure that makes it okay then. Of course in all seriousness if the overall culture exists within the teaching profession that sure "there is no way around the nepotism issue" you can be sure there will never be a way around it.

If the culture within the teaching profession sees nepotism as something abhorrent (which it is) I think this would limit it significantly.

The idea that a principal can't be directly involved in the selection of his own staff just because they have a relative already working in the school is ludicrous but if the principal does have the final say (which he should) then there's no way around the possibility of nepotism.

I am not so sure it is ludicrous that a principal is not directly involved in the selection of his or HER staff (especially if it is know that one of the candidates is a family member). In many other industries the manager sets the criteria/job specs for the position and the HR department make the choice of candidate. Seems reasonable. In many other areas of the public sector too panels are formed from a interview process with line managers having no direct input into the hiring of staff except to set the overall job spec.

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)

I think it is possible for a principal in a primary school to set certain criteria that is school specific to which an independent interview panel can assess if the candidates in front of them fulfill. A transparent marking process to which all candidates have access to can also lessen the chance of nepotism taking place.

Also, how far would it go? A former principal of mine employed a teacher in part because the teacher had a younger sister in the school so by extension, his parents were involved in the school but not in any official capacity. He was from the local area and the principal already knew him well. I'm not for a second saying that he wasn't a perfectly good candidate for the job but there is the possibility that some indirect nepotism came into it and it would have gone completely undetected by the OP's proposal. Would it be any better?
The teacher in question had no experience either by the way, beyond having recently qualified and having done some subbing in the school the year prior to being hired.

A reason why there should be a general culture of not accepting practice such as this.

Another local was also hired the following year who wasn't even qualified as a teacher. VEC school so technically, he didn't have to be but his subjects were already covered so there was little reason to hire him unqualified other than that the principal probably thought that he was a good fit for the school and worth giving him a foot in the door. As far as I know, he's still in the school.

A reason why there should be a general culture of not accepting practice such as this.

Nobody likes to feel like they've been unfairly overlooked but I doubt it's as widespread as it's made out to be

Having just given two very clear examples from your own experience.

and I very much doubt that it can be eliminated entirely so we're just going to have to put up with it.

I suppose we will just have to put up with it then.

Hootanany · 08-07-2014 10:00pm

seavill wrote: »

Should that be implemented outside the public sector in family businesses or us it just teachers that shouldn't follow in their parents footsteps

No just in Public sector jobs where its rive.

f3232 · 08-07-2014 10:10pm

Armelodie wrote: »

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)

It is not the principal's school though is it?

I am also shocked as to why so many argue from the starting point that sure "it happens but there is nothing that can be done?" rather from the starting point of it happens so what can we all do about making sure it does not?

seavill · 08-07-2014 10:34pm

Hootanany wrote: »

No just in Public sector jobs where its rive.

Oh yea sorry you are right clearly never happens anywhere else

f3232 · 08-07-2014 10:38pm

seavill wrote: »

Oh yea sorry you are right clearly never happens anywhere else

Lets stick to as to why it happens in the public sector where public monies are spent. Specifically in teaching.

RealJohn · 08-07-2014 11:12pm

f3232 wrote: »

Sure that makes it okay then. Of course in all seriousness if the overall culture exists within the teaching profession that sure "there is no way around the nepotism issue" you can be sure there will never be a way around it.

If the culture within the teaching profession sees nepotism as something abhorrent (which it is) I think this would limit it significantly.

I should rephrase. There's already as much done as there can be by insisting that the person must actually be qualified.

f3232 wrote: »

I am not so sure it is ludicrous that a principal is not directly involved in the selection of his or HER staff (especially if it is know that one of the candidates is a family member). In many other industries the manager sets the criteria/job specs for the position and the HR department make the choice of candidate. Seems reasonable. In many other areas of the public sector too panels are formed from a interview process with line managers having no direct input into the hiring of staff except to set the overall job spec.

Not comparing like with like at all. In many industries/professions, all the manager needs to know is that the person is qualified and has a certain amount of experience. That isn't the case in teaching. There are many other criteria that a principal will very likely want to assess for himself since they're not necessarily something that can be certified and cross-checked.

f3232 wrote: »

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)

Not the case in the VEC schools I've worked in unless my colleagues were lying to me. The only case I've heard of of a principal not being directly involved in the interview process for his own school was in the selection of the vice-principal of my current school.

f3232 wrote: »

Having just given two very clear examples from your own experience.

That's the point though. They're not examples (though I might not have stated my case very clearly) of nepotism, either technically or in practical terms. The first was a case where the teacher's sister was a student in the school (having reread my post, I didn't say that the sister was a student but I think it should have been clear from the context). Students don't tend to have much clout when it comes to hiring teachers. The teacher in question was fully qualified. He was a good teacher and he fit in well at the school and being local, he was unlikely to leave for another job (and he is also still there as far as I know).

The second was another example of the principal picking someone who he thought would be of benefit to the school and again, since that teacher is still there (as far as I know) it was obviously a good call but he wasn't qualified at the time so it could look suspicious to someone on the outside looking in.

I think it makes my point that you saw two examples of nepotism where I saw two examples of a principal picking people he knew who turned out to be good picks for the school.

f3232 · 09-07-2014 12:00am

RealJohn wrote: »

I should rephrase. There's already as much done as there can be by insisting that the person must actually be qualified.

No so, for example, insisting on a transparent interview process where, as others have said, there is mandatory detailed feedback to all interviewees.

Also insisting that there is clear job specification to which all candidates and interview panel can then judge if the candidate meet these specifications according to their qualification etc.

Not comparing like with like at all. In many industries/professions, all the manager needs to know is that the person is qualified and has a certain amount of experience.

Again, not so, why do you think that managers in other industries are not as interested in the kind of soft skills to which I think you seem to believe are only needed in the teaching profession?

That isn't the case in teaching. There are many other criteria that a principal will very likely want to assess for himself since they're not necessarily something that can be certified and cross-checked.

What criteria? Why can the principal not show transparency as to this criteria that he or SHE seeks? If the principal is looking for certain criteria let him/her make these known in the job spec/advertisement, thus highlighting to potential applicants what these criteria are?

Not the case in the VEC schools I've worked in unless my colleagues were lying to me. The only case I've heard of of a principal not being directly involved in the interview process for his own school was in the selection of the vice-principal of my current school.

Not sure about that, in many interviews the principal acts as the note taker and is not directly involved in the interview process.

That's the point though. They're not examples (though I might not have stated my case very clearly) of nepotism, either technically or in practical terms. The first was a case where the teacher's sister was a student in the school (having reread my post, I didn't say that the sister was a student but I think it should have been clear from the context). Students don't tend to have much clout when it comes to hiring teachers. The teacher in question was fully qualified. He was a good teacher and he fit in well at the school and being local, he was unlikely to leave for another job (and he is also still there as far as I know).

Although in the above version of the story you leave out the following

so by extension, his parents were involved in the school but not in any official capacity.
The principal already knew him well.
There is the possibility that some indirect nepotism came into
The teacher in question had no experience either by the way.

And if its not direct nepotism is does look like pretty shoddy recruitment practice.

The second was another example of the principal picking someone who he thought would be of benefit to the school and again.

And according to you

was unqualified

...............in a country that has been awash with qualified teachers for the last 20 years.

I think it makes my point that you saw two examples of nepotism where I saw two examples of a principal picking people he knew who turned out to be good picks for the school.

Did these two "good picks" go through a transparent recruitment system where they were the best two people for the job?

Were there other qualified teachers who could have done better job in both cases ignored because the principal had carte blanche do hire in any way he/she pleased? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know- the principal got his "good picks"

RealJohn · 09-07-2014 12:24am

f3232 wrote: »

No so, for example, insisting on a transparent interview process where, as others have said, there is mandatory feedback to all interviewees.

How transparent do you want it? Should the principal have to justify his decision with reference to the person who got the job? What about subjective criteria that candidates might decide to argue?

f3232 wrote: »

also insisting that there is clear job specification to which all candidates and interview panel can then judge if they meet these specifications according to their qualification etc.

There already is clear job specification to which all candidates and interview panel can then judge if they meet these specifications but as you no doubt realise, those specifications will get you a bunch of near identical candidates who must then be differentiated by criteria such as how they perform in the interview itself and whether or not they appear to be suited to the school, something a principal would know and an interview panel wouldn't.

f3232 wrote: »

Again, not so, why do you think that managers in other industries are not as interested in the kind of soft skills to which I think you seem to believe are only needed in the teaching profession?

Trying to put words in my mouth isn't going to make your case. I never said anything was only required in the teaching profession. I said comparing the teaching profession to other professions isn't comparing like with like. If you need an accountant, all you need to know is that he's qualified and experienced. If you need an accountancy teacher, personality and background comes into it as well as whether or not he has other things he might bring to the school besides qualifications and experience.

f3232 wrote: »

What criteria? Why can the principal not show transparency as to this criteria that he or SHE seeks? If the principal is looking for certain criteria let him/her make these known in the job spec/advertisement, thus highlighting to potential applicants what these criteria are?

He probably can but what if those criteria are subjective? Will the principal of another school know what's likely to work best if they don't know an awful lot about the day to day running of the school they're interviewing for? Or some member of the board of management who only sets foot in the school for meetings? Or anyone else who has no connection to the school?

f3232 wrote: »

Not sure about that, in many interviews the principal acts as the note taker and is not directly involved in the interview process.

I'm not particularly interested in what you're sure about. All I can tell you is what my colleagues have told me about their interviews and I can assure you that in all VEC interviews I've had, the principal of the school in question (and in several cases, another member of staff from the school) took active part in the interview.

f3232 wrote: »

Although in the above version of the story you leave out the following
so by extension, his parents were involved in the school but not in any official capacity.

He was from the local area

The principal already knew him well.

There is the possibility that some indirect nepotism came into

The teacher in question had no experience either by the way.

And if its not direct nepotism is does look like pretty shoddy recruitment practice.

Only if you're looking for something to complain about.
And I know what I left out. I felt it was relevant the first time I said it and not so relevant in pointing out that what could easily be seen as nepotism could just as easily have been the principal picking who he saw was the right man for the job.
Also you're leaving things out to suit yourself. I said that the teacher had some experience (in the school itself) as a sub.

f3232 wrote: »

And was unqualified...............in a country that has been awash with qualified teachers for the last 20 years.

But being qualified wasn't a requirement in VEC schools at the time so it's quite possible that the teacher in question brought something to the table that the principal felt was more valuable than what the alternative candidates brought.

f3232 wrote: »

Did these two "good picks" go through a transparent recruitment system where they were the best two people for the job?

I don't know. I had no reason to check that sort of thing. I have no reason to think that they didn't.

f3232 wrote: »

Were there other qualified teachers who could have done better job in both cases ignored because the principal had carte blanche do hire in any way he/she pleased? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know the principal got his "good picks"

You're right, we will never know but once of us is making out that there probably were with absolutely no basis for that implication.

f3232 · 09-07-2014 1:10am

RealJohn wrote: »

How transparent do you want it?

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.

Should the principal have to justify his decision with reference to the person who got the job? What about subjective criteria that candidates might decide to argue?

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?

There already is clear job specification to which all candidates and interview panel can then judge if they meet these specifications but as you no doubt realise, those specifications will get you a bunch of near identical candidates.

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.

Who must then be differentiated by criteria such as how they perform in the interview itself

Which can be objectively measured by three or four experienced and one would hope impartial interviewers.

and whether or not they appear to be suited to the school, something a principal would know and an interview panel wouldn't.

Why could not a principal set out the criteria that would make potential candidates "suited to the school"? Is it a mystery?

If you need an accountant, all you need to know is that he's qualified and experienced.

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.

If you need an accountancy teacher, personality and background comes into it as well as whether or not he has other things he might bring to the school besides qualifications and experience.

Personality can be judged at interview and on seeking references from previous employers.
Background also on the above basis, although I am not sure what you mean by background?

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.

Will the principal of another school know what's likely to work best if they don't know an awful lot about the day to day running of the school they're interviewing for? Or some member of the board of management who only sets foot in the school for meetings? Or anyone else who has no connection to the school?

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'm not particularly interested in what you're sure about.

Lets keep it civil and be nice.

All I can tell you is what my colleagues have told me about their interviews and I can assure you that in all VEC interviews I've had, the principal of the school in question (and in several cases, another member of staff from the school) took active part in the interview.

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.

Only if you're looking for something to complain about.

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.

And I know what I left out. I felt it was relevant the first time I said it and not so relevant in pointing out that what could easily be seen as nepotism could just as easily have been the principal picking who he saw was the right man for the job.

Yes and when you leave out that information the second time it makes it far easier for you to come to that conclusion.

But being qualified wasn't a requirement in VEC schools at the time so it's quite possible that the teacher in question brought something to the table that the principal felt was more valuable than what the alternative candidates brought.

That is possible.

You're right, we will never know but once of us is making out that there probably were with absolutely no basis for that implication.

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.

mariaalice · 09-07-2014 9:55am

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.

Nepotism

Comments