Nepotism

back on topic folks!
Mod

man_no_plan wrote: »

Sorry I must have been out that day!

I can take all of your points and can agree that its not good to get a job just because you're related to the boss, in any walk of life. Still doesn't equate to money being siphoned off. I'm sorry but that's nonsense.

Well we will have to agree to differ. If a person gets a job because of nepotism i see that as a form of embezzlement. You dont and that fine.

As for being qualified or not qualified, there should be no teacher employed if they are not qualified (except maybe short term stop gap) and the teaching council is the gate keeper there.

Yes okay, and your point is? (That is a rhetorical question btw)

As for being "more qualified" what the hell does that mean?

More qualified means more suitable based on educational, experience, etc etc. It is the way that candidates are selected on a fair selection procedure. The more or most qualified candidate is successful for the position. That "what the hell that means"

A masters? A doctorate? Some who knows an awful lot about very little! We have had doctors come and go, some excellent some woeful. Bottom line, a higher qualification does not a better teacher make.

I am not talking solely about qualifications but that, as well as teaching experience, previous track record etc etc. In a situation where one candidate has a proven track record and references etc, excellent qualifications, and the job is then given to for example the principals nqtd daughter (due to nepotism) I see that as well something a little rotten, and its endemic in the system at the moment.

Equally being related to someone wont make them a bad teacher! Can we agree on that? The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

No but nepotism is a bad thing. Even if the daughter or son that has been hired turns out to be the best teacher in the world, they secured the position on the basis of their relationship to the employer over a more qualified candidate. Do you get that? That is called corruption and is what has fcked this little banana republic up for the last 70 years.

So to recap.... Nepotism for its own sake = bad.

Good teacher getting a job = good.

I honestly have absolutely no clue what your point is here.

We have to realise that not everyone who thinks they are a great teacher is a great teacher. We also have to know that sometimes good teachers do bad interviews, poor teachers do good interviews and often things don't go the way we'd like.

Absolutely nothing got to do with the point I am making. Of course the above is banally true but I am specifically talking about times when nepotism does occur. I am not discounting there is also occasions where the above is true. QED It is not always the case where the more qualified candidate does not get the job due to nepotism, but again that is not what I am talking about.

And sometimes some people get a bit shafted ot seems, though I haven't witnessed it myself. I thought it happened to me once. But it turned out that arrogance was my downfall. But I'm great now so that wont happen again

Absolutely nothing got to do with the point I am making. Of course the above is banally true as I am specifically talking about times when nepotism occurs. I am not discounting there is also occasions where the above is true. QED It is not always the case where the more qualified candidate does not get the job due to nepotism, but again that is not what I am talking about.

There's no point in even responding to all of that. Brick wall, banging and head all come to mind.

Yes there will always be some form of corruption in all walks of life no matter what processes are to be put in place.

I don't think you will find anyone here that would protest against a fully transparent system, however I would still stand over my view that even if such a system were in place there would still be accusations of this that and the other thing, especially in Ireland.
As I have discussed with you on this very thread earlier in the year people can get their grades and there is an appeals system as far as I know.
I think the view that NQTs can't be better for a particular situation over someone with experience is incorrect, I have already outlined why I believe this from a past experience. It was mentioned that these people need mentoring but how can they get it if they are not given jobs.
We were all NQTs looking for that first job at one stage.

I think the problem we have is that if a relation of someone in the school is given a job it will always be called nepotism which is wrong. People cannot comment with 100% certainty whether or not it was actually a case of nepotism unless they sat on that interview board where they heard the discussions saying sure we are going to have to give it to X because they are the principals daughter or the English teachers son. Unless that was the case the opinions and views of nepotism are all just hearsay no matter how many times you say it, that is all they are. I am not saying you are wrong you could be 100% right but it is still just opinion without actually being there.

The ethos issue that seems to me to be getting brushed aside is an interesting one. Having been on a BOM the ethos issue is a massive one from the Trustees point of view and one that should be at the forefront of all decisions. There was a particular reference to appointments at one of our days with the trustees which surprised me as when I look at the make up of our staff, it doesn't fully fit the line they were spinning, however the BOM have a responsibility to follow and promote the ethos on behalf of their boss (the trustees) in every decision they make. Rightly or wrongly this is the case. The legalities of the appointments/ethos issue is a different conversation but where the law currently stands it is something that is supposed to be followed and thought about in all decisions.

Yes if it is happening it is wrong and it should be stopped but this blanket view that any relation appointed anywhere was a result of nepotism doesn't help the argument. I don't really have a massive interest in debating it all again line by line as if we go back to page 1,2 and 3 of this thread the same points are being made again. I just wanted to add my 2 cents again.

seavill wrote: »

There's no point in even responding to all of that. Brick wall, banging and head all come to mind.

Yet you go on to do the very thing!

Yes there will always be some form of corruption in all walks of life no matter what processes are to be put in place.

That may be so, but it is no reason not to accept thatr the processes at the moment are not robust enough to minimize the amount of nepotism that does go on.

I don't think you will find anyone here that would protest against a fully transparent system, however I would still stand over my view that even if such a system were in place there would still be accusations of this that and the other thing, especially in Ireland.

Not a reason not to make the system more transparent. Cant you see the very reason we have such unfair claims of nepotism at times is because of the lack of transparency.

I think the view that NQTs can't be better for a particular situation over someone with experience is incorrect, I have already outlined why I believe this from a past experience. It was mentioned that these people need mentoring but how can they get it if they are not given jobs.
We were all NQTs looking for that first job at one stage.

I never said NQTs should not be given jobs. I talked about NQTs in the context of being the daughter or son of a principal been given a job in a primary school just out of college in the context of which 20-30 more experienced primary teachers apply. I am talking about examples of nepotism

I think the problem we have is that if a relation of someone in the school is given a job it will always be called nepotism which is wrong.

I have never said that all relatives who are employed is due to nepotism. If the relative is most qualified I would have no problem with it. That is not nepotism.

People cannot comment with 100% certainty whether or not it was actually a case of nepotism unless they sat on that interview board where they heard the discussions saying sure we are going to have to give it to X because they are the principals daughter or the English teachers son. Unless that was the case the opinions and views of nepotism are all just hearsay no matter how many times you say it, that is all they are. I am not saying you are wrong you could be 100% right but it is still just opinion without actually being there.

Yes but if the system was more transparent and uniform and the appeals mechanism was not so laborious and designed to stop people appealing then I think we could minimize the problem. I agree it will never be stopped completely but it can be lessenned considerably.

The ethos issue that seems to me to be getting brushed aside is an interesting one. Having been on a BOM the ethos issue is a massive one from the Trustees point of view and one that should be at the forefront of all decisions. There was a particular reference to appointments at one of our days with the trustees which surprised me as when I look at the make up of our staff, it doesn't fully fit the line they were spinning, however the BOM have a responsibility to follow and promote the ethos on behalf of their boss (the trustees) in every decision they make. Rightly or wrongly this is the case. The legalities of the appointments/ethos issue is a different conversation but where the law currently stands it is something that is supposed to be followed and thought about in all decisions.

I agree the ethos question is a difficult one and if its used as the basis to hire a relative then its even more questionable.

Yes if it is happening it is wrong and it should be stopped but this blanket view that any relation appointed anywhere was a result of nepotism doesn't help the argument.

An argument I have never made??

f3232 wrote: »

I never said NQTs should not be given jobs. I talked about NQTs in the context of being the daughter or son of a principal been given a job in a primary school just out of college in the context of which 20-30 more experienced primary teachers apply. I am talking about examples of nepotism

You haven't given any though.

If you knew anything about the primary school system you'd know that the majority of jobs now are through redeployment panels and that will remain the case while we have a surplus of teachers.

Don't you get that?

killbillvol2 wrote: »

You haven't given any though.

If you knew anything about the primary school system you'd know that the majority of jobs now are through redeployment panels and that will remain the case while we have a surplus of teachers.

Don't you get that?

I have given one example that was edited (correctly so in hindsight) by mod. It was a very clear example. I also know of one example where a nqt is obviously being groomed to take over from her mum in a local primary school. Another poster has given an example of nepotism also.

But I will say it again. Using a more uniform and transparent system of interview would put to bed a lot of these issues.

The redeployment issue is Absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about as in those cases interviews are not in question. So nepotism is not relevant.

Do you get that?

That's me out of this debate. To many red herrings being introduced by some posters. Who knew calls for transparency, fairness a more uniform and open interview system would be met with such hostility.

The refrain seems to be- sure it's impossible to prove, there's nothing that can be done. I don't think that's good enough really.

Why are some people so resistant to greater transparency accountability of hiring decisions and impartiality I will never know???

If someone's relation is redeployed in is it still nepotism so?

You seem to be missing my point. There is a system now where people can request their marks from an interview. Someone doesn't agree with the points they got so they blame nepotism. That is my point.

I don't see how it can be any more transparent without you sitting in on the discussions following the interview. And even if that happened someone would still blame nepotism.

People believe what they want to believe no matter how right or wrong those opinions might be.

Just because someone has s relation in a school that does not make it nepotism. Just because the previous poster can tell one story, true or not, does not make their claims of nepotism true. Just because that person can tell one story does not make it an epidemic around the country.

If that case actually happened it should nd reported to the department. Crying sbout it here over and over will make no difference. And as I suggested previously if it has been reported and is in the process of being investigated it should not be discussed here

RainyDay wrote: »

Ok, let me help you. You say that 'you don't see how it could be any more transparent'.

So here's three things that would make it more transparent:

1) Chairpersons selecting independent people to sit in on interview panels when their family are involved, instead of selecting an old family friend.
2) Chairpersons complying with the Dept Ed guidelines to leave the room when the BoM is discussion the interview panel results when a family member is involved.
3) Dept Ed guidelines being updated to take control of recruitment back from the Patro

Those three things would make it a lot more transparent. Yes, I know that lots of people look for excuses or someone to blame when they don't get the job. But likewise, nepotism does occur, and there are plenty of steps the dept could take to minimise it.

Suggesting that cases 'should be reported to the Dept' has no value. The Dept will not investigate the decision of a patron or BoM. The BoM is independent in running the school, and is not subordinate to the Dept. The Dept does not deal with complaints about recruitment.

So your 3suggestions are things that are already rules just not being enforced.

1. The chairperson is supposed to be independent on a panel.
2. Follow the rules already set out
3. The dept will never take control and force the hands of the patrons. The bom act on behalf of the patron so they already control just a matter of how much they monitor it

Apologies I meant to say report to the patron. They are the ones in full control of the board. They have in the past disbanded boards not running schools properly and removed principals. Rarely but it does happen if cases are brought to their attention. Despite what people think the patrons are in control boards must report back to them.