Disgraceful interview

therunaround

A relation of mine did a preliminary interview last week with 20 other candidates ( not near full hours). Got called back for a second interview with about 5 others and did it ( asked exactly the same questions but that's not my problem).

At the end of the interview the following was said:

"our plan has changed due to time tabling so we' ll be taking in two teachers and splitting the hours."

I don't complain much but I think this is a case of false advertising. My relation alone did 800 miles of driving and took two days off the summer job to go, and there were many others.

Can anything realistically be done. I think all of these people deserve to be compensated myself- these jobs would be paid less than the dole.

This was a disgusting piece of work by this school in my opinion.

Seanchai

therunaround wrote: »

A relation of mine did a preliminary interview last week with 20 other candidates ( not near full hours). Got called back for a second interview with about 5 others and did it ( asked exactly the same questions but that's not my problem).

At the end of the interview the following was said:

"our plan has changed due to time tabling so we' ll be taking in two teachers and splitting the hours."

I don't complain much but I think this is a case of false advertising. My relation alone did 800 miles of driving and took two days off the summer job to go, and there were many others.

Can anything realistically be done. I think all of these people deserve to be compensated myself- these jobs would be paid less than the dole.

This was a disgusting piece of work by this school in my opinion.

I agree. There is far too much unbridled arrogance shown by school managers in their (state-funded) fiefdoms. It could be worth contacting the local newspaper to highlight the behaviour of the school management in question. Indeed, no harm in marking the card of the principal in question with his/her Board of Management or governing authority. It's highly probable they already have opponents there. Obviously in terms of future opportunities, the candidate would be wiser to ask a friend to put her/his name to the letter.

doc_17

Unfortunately I'd say there is nothing you can do in this instance. When hiring staff you'd have to believe that the number one priority for the school is to deliver the time table. If there is a problem in that regard they need to solve it and in this case the solution is very annoying and inconvienent but it is their solution.

I'd think it would be dangerous to start sending letters to the BoM though. It would accomplish nothing.

therunaround

doc_17 wrote: »

Unfortunately I'd say there is nothing you can do in this instance. When hiring staff you'd have to believe that the number one priority for the school is to deliver the time table. If there is a problem in that regard they need to solve it and in this case the solution is very annoying and inconvienent but it is their solution.

I'd think it would be dangerous to start sending letters to the BoM though. It would accomplish nothing.

I understand that but it's not like they only decided to split into two jobs on the spot. They could have at minimum said this after the preliminaries. It's plain bad manners

whiteandlight

therunaround wrote: »

doc_17 wrote: »

Unfortunately I'd say there is nothing you can do in this instance. When hiring staff you'd have to believe that the number one priority for the school is to deliver the time table. If there is a problem in that regard they need to solve it and in this case the solution is very annoying and inconvienent but it is their solution.

I'd think it would be dangerous to start sending letters to the BoM though. It would accomplish nothing.

I understand that but it's not like they only decided to split into two jobs on the spot. They could have at minimum said this after the preliminaries. It's plain bad manners

At the very least I would be writing to both the teaching council and the minister. I know we don't want to rock the boat with school management but until things like this are highlighted, schools are just going to continue doing it.

It reminds me of something just mentioned on the VEC thread, where canvassing is supposed to disqualify. I know at least four teachers who have got recent jobs through contacts and not their interview (or maybe both if im being nice!) and I've been in the unenviable position of being in situ teaching in a school and having to sit another interview where short of my having lost the plot teaching the job was mine since I'd been doing it for two months!

There are huge problems with recruitment in second level schools in particular that really need to be addressed

doc_17

therunaround wrote: »

I understand that but it's not like they only decided to split into two jobs on the spot. They could have at minimum said this after the preliminaries. It's plain bad manners

Aside from sending an apology letter it's hard to see what they could have done! It must have been annoying but there is a huge oversupply of teachers at the minute and the reality is that the schools aren't the ones who have to jump through hoops.

I agree with you. It's an annoyingly poorly executed recruitment exercise

RealJohn

In fairness, it could simply be the case that during the interviews one of the candidates gave the school an option they hadn't anticipated (a relatively rare subject, possibly an interesting TY module that was particularly suitable for the school, something like that) which caused them to want to hire that candidate for that reason but as a result, they were left slightly short in the hours they were actually looking for, forcing them to reassess their timetable and move a few people around.

Or if the post was for two subjects, they might have felt one candidate was outstanding and an obvious asset to the school for one subject but not what they were looking for in the other so they might have felt the school's interests were best served to split the post.

It isn't always as simple as "we need someone to teach english and geography so we'll hire someone with those subjects and it solves everything" (though obviously that would be the simplest way to do it).

I'm sure it's frustrating for your "friend" (and that's understandable) but at the end of the day, schools are there to provide the best education they can for students, not for providing the best jobs they can for teachers.

PhoenixParker

This isn't exactly unusual when you're job hunting, nor is it restricted to schools.
It's not unusual to go for interview somewhere and they decide that they don't need an extra person after all, or something else changes in the system.

At least there is still a job to apply for.

Your relation needs to put their big girl panties on and deal with it.

As for the 800miles driving, they should ask about reimbursement of interview expenses. That's standard practice.

therunaround

RealJohn wrote: »

In fairness, it could simply be the case that during the interviews one of the candidates gave the school an option they hadn't anticipated (a relatively rare subject, possibly an interesting TY module that was particularly suitable for the school, something like that) which caused them to want to hire that candidate for that reason but as a result, they were left slightly short in the hours they were actually looking for, forcing them to reassess their timetable and move a few people around.

Or if the post was for two subjects, they might have felt one candidate was outstanding and an obvious asset to the school for one subject but not what they were looking for in the other so they might have felt the school's interests were best served to split the post.

It isn't always as simple as "we need someone to teach english and geography so we'll hire someone with those subjects and it solves everything" (though obviously that would be the simplest way to do it).

I'm sure it's frustrating for your "friend" (and that's understandable) but at the end of the day, schools are there to provide the best education they can for students, not for providing the best jobs they can for teachers.

Sorry, job for a single stand alone subject that doesn't come as a combo. And not a "friend", a relative, not myself, I already have a job. Not that it ahould matter if it happened to a friend. None of the above apply situations apply.looks like nothing can be done really about the advert so time to move on, thanks for feedback

maynooth_rules

Your relation needs to put their big girl panties on and deal with it.

And i am sure you would feel exactly the same were you in this situation

therunaround

PhoenixParker wrote: »

This isn't exactly unusual when you're job hunting, nor is it restricted to schools.
It's not unusual to go for interview somewhere and they decide that they don't need an extra person after all, or something else changes in the system.

At least there is still a job to apply for.

Your relation needs to put their big girl panties on and deal with it.

As for the 800miles driving, they should ask about reimbursement of interview expenses. That's standard practice.

Sorry pal I was looking for advice from teachers, not engineers, seen some of the rubbish uv posted here before. You haven't a clue what your talking about.

Please ignore

therunaround

I just want to be clear, my gripe is not about a lack of jobs, it's about advertising a job worth around 400 a week, dragging 20 people across the country (some twice), then letting on at the very end it's a 200 euro job.
That's scandalous.

Seanchai

therunaround wrote: »

I just want to be clear, my gripe is not about a lack of jobs, it's about advertising a job worth around 400 a week, dragging 20 people across the country (some twice), then letting on at the very end it's a 200 euro job.
That's scandalous.

And when you get there they quite possibly/probably have somebody already "lined up for it" and the interview process is a sham. Don't get me wrong, real jobs do exist and the best performers on the day get them.

But there is an incredible number of jobs which are advertised which in reality are gone before they've even been advertised (usually to somebody in the school). Time wasting from start to finish.

seavill

therunaround wrote: »

Sorry pal I was looking for advice from teachers, not engineers, seen some of the rubbish uv posted here before. You haven't a clue what your talking about.

Please ignore

I really don't think there was any need for that response, for it not being you, you are taking this very personally.

The other person was correct a friend of mine is doing jobsbrige in the pharma area and has interviewed for two separate positions in the company over the last year or so. Numerous people interviewed for these jobs, were advertised properly and everything. Both jobs after interview failed to actually become anything. So all those people completely wasted their time (at least in this scenario 2 people are getting some hours, if they choose not to take them thats their own choice)

Yes it is a poor way of doing it, however as someone mentioned maybe it just came up between the first and second interview. (and before you jump down my throat as well I am agreeing with you that the people should have been informed beforehand, however..)
This year I am the only subject teacher in place for my subjects and had discussed the different scenarios with the principal as to how the timetable would work, she had to get someone in for a few hours to help to cover a few classes. It was all sorted and organised fully, however out of the blue end of June she rings and has to split one class between two teachers and wanted to see was this possible. She never in a million years saw this coming something just changed out of her control.

Yes they should have told your relative but in a past school it was said directly to the staff by the principal she was there and the staff were there to cater for the students not to cater for the lives of the teachers.

As another poster has said numerous times particularly in teaching jobs are already gone. I also had a case where I was working in the school two months before the interview. Unless I had decided to slap the head off a student that morning the job was mine. The principal told me going out the door before the interview not to worry it was mine (he was also on the interview panel). In fairness it was mine as I had done a very good job in the past two months. People I know had travelled from Dublin and further taken a day or 2 off work to attend the interview. Wrong yes, not fair on them at all (I would not consider this canvassing though).

Although completely wrong, it happens, a lot worse happens than happened to your relative. She can take a positive from the whole experience that she firstly got an interview and was called back so at least she knows she is doing something right.

Toto Wolfcastle

therunaround wrote: »

PhoenixParker wrote: »

This isn't exactly unusual when you're job hunting, nor is it restricted to schools.
It's not unusual to go for interview somewhere and they decide that they don't need an extra person after all, or something else changes in the system.

At least there is still a job to apply for.

Your relation needs to put their big girl panties on and deal with it.

As for the 800miles driving, they should ask about reimbursement of interview expenses. That's standard practice.

Sorry pal I was looking for advice from teachers, not engineers, seen some of the rubbish uv posted here before. You haven't a clue what your talking about.

Please ignore

There's no need for that. He was only trying to help and being realistic at that. If you have a problem with a post report it.

Fuinseog

therunaround wrote: »

A relation of mine did a preliminary interview last week with 20 other candidates ( not near full hours). Got called back for a second interview with about 5 others and did it ( asked exactly the same questions but that's not my problem).

At the end of the interview the following was said:

"our plan has changed due to time tabling so we' ll be taking in two teachers and splitting the hours."

I don't complain much but I think this is a case of false advertising. My relation alone did 800 miles of driving and took two days off the summer job to go, and there were many others.

Can anything realistically be done. I think all of these people deserve to be compensated myself- these jobs would be paid less than the dole.

This was a disgusting piece of work by this school in my opinion.

this kind of thing happens all the time. I subbed in a school once for a fortnight and was then told I would have to sit an interview for the position. where else do you have a job where you start and then do an interview for it later?
I could live on the hours but at the interview I was informed that the hours would be fewer (the type of hours that earn you less than the dole) the missing hours had been given to another teacher who had just started. At the end they asked if I thought the interview had been fair.

Fuinseog

.

As for the 800miles driving, they should ask about reimbursement of interview expenses. That's standard practice.[/QUOTE]

since when do they reimburse you for expenses?

seavill

Fuinseog wrote: »

.

As for the 800miles driving, they should ask about reimbursement of interview expenses. That's standard practice.

since when do they reimburse you for expenses?[/QUOTE]

Some areas of industry do, never heard of it in teaching though, that person was not speaking about teaching I think

Miss Lockhart

seavill wrote: »

Some areas of industry do, never heard of it in teaching though, that person was not speaking about teaching I think

Yes, I don't think that was remotely helpful or realistic at all in the context of this discussion.

I doubt there's much can be done OP. If they continued with the interviews after they knew the hours offered would be less then that is very unprofessional. No way to prove it though.

seavill

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Yes, I don't think that was remotely helpful or realistic at all in the context of this discussion.
.

Yes but this person obviously thought it would be the same across sectors.

To be honest this case (and this is obviously not meant as any insult to anyone) is probably not one of the worst stories, or anywhere near it, that I have heard, experienced or read here.

It was not handled well alright but the situation is the situation and realistically there is nothing anyone can do about it. Hours were being offered to 2 people out of 5, if the hours were not acceptable to this person fair enough that's their choice. We all know once you are in the door generally there are bits of hours to be picked up including subbing.

Miss Lockhart

seavill wrote: »

Yes but this person obviously thought it would be the same across sectors.

Yes but that is the problem. The poster is pontificating about whether it is right to be upset about the conduct of the interview board, yet hasn't a clue about the reality of how teaching interviews work. If they were trying to be helpful they would be less confrontational and dismissive.

seavill

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Yes but that is the problem. The poster is pontificating about whether it is right to be upset about the conduct of the interview board, yet hasn't a clue about the reality of how teaching interviews work. If they were trying to be helpful they would be less confrontational and dismissive.

Ok I'll have to agree to disagree on this one rather than discuss it or else you know who will be giving out to me again for "back seat modding"

Fuinseog

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Yes, I don't think that was remotely helpful or realistic at all in the context of this discussion.

I doubt there's much can be done OP. If they continued with the interviews after they knew the hours offered would be less then that is very unprofessional. No way to prove it though.

and that last sentence is probably what infuriates a lot of interviewees.

byhookorbycrook

800 miles??Where were they driving from?Germany?No re-embursement for lots of stuff in teaching.

therunaround

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

800 miles??Where were they driving from?Germany?No re-embursement for lots of stuff in teaching.

200 there and then home again, twice.

bdoo

The plan changed as happens so often what solution would you use OP?

Cancel second round of interviews, then re-advertise and wait another few weeks to start all over again? Surely that wouldn't be right either.

It is very unfortunate that jobs are being broken into 'hours'.

For all you know the job was split to give a start to your friend and another young teacher who shone at the interview - maybe they couldn't call the best person so split it? Who knows?

I interviewed for an A post this year which was advertised as permanent but was then only sanctioned as TWT, we were informed at the interview that the job had changed. If I didn't like it I could have left the interview, I didn't.

Miss Lockhart

bdoo wrote: »

The plan changed as happens so often what solution would you use OP?

Cancel second round of interviews, then re-advertise and wait another few weeks to start all over again? Surely that wouldn't be right either.

It is very unfortunate that jobs are being broken into 'hours'.

For all you know the job was split to give a start to your friend and another young teacher who shone at the interview - maybe they couldn't call the best person so split it? Who knows?

I interviewed for an A post this year which was advertised as permanent but was then only sanctioned as TWT, we were informed at the interview that the job had changed. If I didn't like it I could have left the interview, I didn't.

If they knew they should have notified candidates of the change and allowed them to decide if they were still interested in attending second round.

therunaround

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

bdoo wrote: »

The plan changed as happens so often what solution would you use OP?

Cancel second round of interviews, then re-advertise and wait another few weeks to start all over again? Surely that wouldn't be right either.

It is very unfortunate that jobs are being broken into 'hours'.

For all you know the job was split to give a start to your friend and another young teacher who shone at the interview - maybe they couldn't call the best person so split it? Who knows?

I interviewed for an A post this year which was advertised as permanent but was then only sanctioned as TWT, we were informed at the interview that the job had changed. If I didn't like it I could have left the interview, I didn't.

If they knew they should have notified candidates of the change and allowed them to decide if they were still interested in attending second round.

Thats it, nothing can be done but they should have been notified, splitting 13 or 14 hours up is a load of crap

seavill

therunaround wrote: »

Thats it, nothing can be done but they should have been notified, splitting 13 or 14 hours up is a load of crap

13/14 is nearly what you would consider an excellent contract these days, 7-10 is the norm nearly

RealJohn

therunaround wrote: »

Sorry, job for a single stand alone subject that doesn't come as a combo. And not a "friend", a relative, not myself, I already have a job. Not that it ahould matter if it happened to a friend. None of the above apply situations apply.looks like nothing can be done really about the advert so time to move on, thanks for feedback

Still doesn't rule out a good TY module or something extra-curricular. No matter though. It's just a possibility.

I'd also suggest that those of you that have decided to start criticising people for giving their opinions in good faith, teachers or not should consider how constructive that attitude is before you post. (not directed at you therunaround)

mockingjay

This happens quite often in schools for many reasons as outlined above. However, usually the teachers with shorter hours will be offered supervision before anyone else to fill up their timetable. Schools always like to have teachers on site & ready to go for supervision in the mornings rather than having to wait for someone to arrive, so as we all say its a foot in the door. I wouldn't particularly worry about this because timetables change quickly in September when maternity/sick/unexpected parental leaves become more obvious and sometimes you can pick up a TY module that a permanent teacher or year head has been timetabled for and doesn't want. In this market I would take any amount hours to get my foot in the door. As far as writing or asking the school to reimburse interview expenses, I'd let it go - just in case they ring you in the future or that you might apply to them again - its not worth been seen as a hassle. Good luck to your cousin.

Fuinseog

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

800 miles??Where were they driving from?Germany?No re-embursement for lots of stuff in teaching.

which is interesting given that the diameter of the country does not exceed more than 350 miles.

Personally, I would not travel more than 100km for an interview.

Fuinseog

I went for a interview which was supposed to be 12 hours and then was told at the interview that it would be eight. they asked me what extra curricular activities I would promote in the school, which I found cheeky.

you can get supervision, but that is very hit and miss.

therunaround

Fuinseog wrote: »

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

800 miles??Where were they driving from?Germany?No re-embursement for lots of stuff in teaching.

which is interesting given that the diameter of the country does not exceed more than 350 miles.

Personally, I would not travel more than 100km for an interview.

Again, 200 miles there, then home.
And repeat.

therunaround

Fuinseog wrote: »

I went for a interview which was supposed to be 12 hours and then was told at the interview that it would be eight. they asked me what extra curricular activities I would promote in the school, which I found cheeky.

you can get supervision, but that is very hit and miss.

That's the same thing, that's terrible, would you have gone if you had known it was 8 hours?

Fuinseog

therunaround wrote: »

That's the same thing, that's terrible, would you have gone if you had known it was 8 hours?

no, cos yo would make more on the dole and the hours they would have you working meant that you could not work at another school.

having said that if you had zero teaching experience and living at home it would be okay as you would get less stressed than if you had 22. the kids were also lovely.I was the fourth teacher they had in as many months.

vamos!

Fuinseog wrote: »

I went for a interview which was supposed to be 12 hours and then was told at the interview that it would be eight. they asked me what extra curricular activities I would promote in the school, which I found cheeky.

you can get supervision, but that is very hit and miss.

I have been asked this in every interview I have ever done. This is the norm. 8 hours is also fairly normal to be honest, especially if one is newly qualified. I spent last year doing under 10 and am a few years out. 22 hour contracts are dead and gone. Yes the interview process was wrong, it was wrong to split the job after the interview but a job is a job and the princess attitude will have to go if the OP's cousin wants any chance of getting into teaching at all!

vamos!

Fuinseog wrote: »

no, cos yo would make more on the dole and the hours they would have you working meant that you could not work at another school.

having said that if you had zero teaching experience and living at home it would be okay as you would get less stressed than if you had 22. the kids were also lovely.I was the fourth teacher they had in as many months.

This is the essence of what is wrong with this country. Getting hours as opposed to a job sucks but a foot in the door is better than the dole. I wish the years of crappy hours counted towards some kind of primary-school like panel system so that NQTs or unqualifieds with a bit of pull could't jump to the good jobs over those who have paid their crap hours penance.

aunt aggie

Fuinseog wrote: »

having said that if you had zero teaching experience and living at home it would be okay as you would get less stressed than if you had 22. the kids were also lovely.I was the fourth teacher they had in as many months.

Thats the real problem with all these part time and temporary positions. I have taught JC classes where I was the third or fourth teacher they had had in two years. It was an absolute joke - every teacher has a different way of doing things - and the kids were so frustrated. It wasnt a full year position, the hours were crap and I wasnt lucky enuf to be taken back the following year. It took ages for some of those kids to trust the new teacher cos they (rightly) assumed they would never see me again!!

therunaround

vamos! wrote: »

Fuinseog wrote: »

I went for a interview which was supposed to be 12 hours and then was told at the interview that it would be eight. they asked me what extra curricular activities I would promote in the school, which I found cheeky.

you can get supervision, but that is very hit and miss.

I have been asked this in every interview I have ever done. This is the norm. 8 hours is also fairly normal to be honest, especially if one is newly qualified. I spent last year doing under 10 and am a few years out. 22 hour contracts are dead and gone. Yes the interview process was wrong, it was wrong to split the job after the interview but a job is a job and the princess attitude will have to go if the OP's cousin wants any chance of getting into teaching at all!

I would just like to point out that the princess attitude is mine and not his! The brother was delighted to get through and was disappointed when told but took it on the chin and moves on.
I went the ranting and raving route!

With regards to jobs already being set aside for someone beforehands, I have been at the butt end of this many times, and luckily at the receiving end of it once. It's impossible to prove, and a matter of waiting your turn. I have seen where they will bring in 2 or 3 people from maybe 30 miles away and interview them too. It's time wasting as well and only track- covering, although a major point is that they do bring the others in for a reason; they very often get the next job that comes up.

It is an advertisement under false pretences though, but hard to prove e.g. 22 hours advertised and duly delivered. My point is, advertising say 12 and offering 8 means they get applicants who wouldn't apply otherwise, and try to coax them in.

Time tabling is a massive undertaking, but with effort it keeps everyone happy. My bosses spend 2 months at it, and do not advertise for less than 18 hours. It is possible.

Thanks to everyone who replied, to be honest I'm not interested in compensation or making enemies. I just had not heard of this EXACT practice happening before.

Sorry if I was short with anyone ( except the previous troll on the first page), was a bit upset yesterday.

I still believe that if "a teacher is required for x hours for x time" is advertised on a national newspaper then it should be honoured or the applicants informed in writing immediately if it changes.

ResearchWill

therunaround wrote: »

I would just like to point out that the princess attitude is mine and not his! The brother was delighted to get through and was disappointed when told but took it on the chin and moves on.
I went the ranting and raving route!

With regards to jobs already being set aside for someone beforehands, I have been at the butt end of this many times, and luckily at the receiving end of it once. It's impossible to prove, and a matter of waiting your turn. I have seen where they will bring in 2 or 3 people from maybe 30 miles away and interview them too. It's time wasting as well and only track- covering, although a major point is that they do bring the others in for a reason; they very often get the next job that comes up.

It is an advertisement under false pretences though, but hard to prove e.g. 22 hours advertised and duly delivered. My point is, advertising say 12 and offering 8 means they get applicants who wouldn't apply otherwise, and try to coax them in.

Time tabling is a massive undertaking, but with effort it keeps everyone happy. My bosses spend 2 months at it, and do not advertise for less than 18 hours. It is possible.

Thanks to everyone who replied, to be honest I'm not interested in compensation or making enemies. I just had not heard of this EXACT practice happening before.

Sorry if I was short with anyone ( except the previous troll on the first page), was a bit upset yesterday.

I still believe that if "a teacher is required for x hours for x time" is advertised on a national newspaper then it should be honoured or the applicants informed in writing immediately if it changes.

Yes you are correct in a perfect world, they should have adevertised the job correctly or at least informed people promptly. But sadly its not a perfect world. If your family member has decided to take it on the chin then great. I wish him luck with his job, and hope he has full time hours as soon as possible.

In relation to this practice, it happens every day of the week sadly, but such is life. Another way to look at it was they are so happy with 2 people they split the hours the only other option was to give only one of them the job, maybe the BOM thought they did the right thing to give 2 new teachers a break, while it will be tough to make a living for a while at least he is getting a start in the job he has worked hard to get into for a number of years. Again well done to him, and maybe a little thank you to the BOM who have made a decision to give him and the other teacher a start.

therunaround

ResearchWill wrote: »

therunaround wrote: »

I would just like to point out that the princess attitude is mine and not his! The brother was delighted to get through and was disappointed when told but took it on the chin and moves on.
I went the ranting and raving route!

With regards to jobs already being set aside for someone beforehands, I have been at the butt end of this many times, and luckily at the receiving end of it once. It's impossible to prove, and a matter of waiting your turn. I have seen where they will bring in 2 or 3 people from maybe 30 miles away and interview them too. It's time wasting as well and only track- covering, although a major point is that they do bring the others in for a reason; they very often get the next job that comes up.

It is an advertisement under false pretences though, but hard to prove e.g. 22 hours advertised and duly delivered. My point is, advertising say 12 and offering 8 means they get applicants who wouldn't apply otherwise, and try to coax them in.

Time tabling is a massive undertaking, but with effort it keeps everyone happy. My bosses spend 2 months at it, and do not advertise for less than 18 hours. It is possible.

Thanks to everyone who replied, to be honest I'm not interested in compensation or making enemies. I just had not heard of this EXACT practice happening before.

Sorry if I was short with anyone ( except the previous troll on the first page), was a bit upset yesterday.

I still believe that if "a teacher is required for x hours for x time" is advertised on a national newspaper then it should be honoured or the applicants informed in writing immediately if it changes.

Yes you are correct in a perfect world, they should have adevertised the job correctly or at least informed people promptly. But sadly its not a perfect world. If your family member has decided to take it on the chin then great. I wish him luck with his job, and hope he has full time hours as soon as possible.

In relation to this practice, it happens every day of the week sadly, but such is life. Another way to look at it was they are so happy with 2 people they split the hours the only other option was to give only one of them the job, maybe the BOM thought they did the right thing to give 2 new teachers a break, while it will be tough to make a living for a while at least he is getting a start in the job he has worked hard to get into for a number of years. Again well done to him, and maybe a little thank you to the BOM who have made a decision to give him and the other teacher a start.

Thanks for the reply, but as I said in the first post, it wasn't because they liked both, they told him they were splitting it to make timetabling for the subject easier, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. He hasn't been offered it yet, they just said it to each at the end of the interview( they all went to college together).

I'm sorry though, expecting people to move the far side of the country for a 7 hour contract, and informing applicants of this after two interview rounds, with "possible" subbing, is not something I would be commending a bom for doing, in fact its the last thing i'd think of doing. I would like to see their reactions if the same thing happened to their kids applying- because then the time tabling definitely would be sorted.

seavill

therunaround wrote: »

Time tabling is a massive undertaking, but with effort it keeps everyone happy. My bosses spend 2 months at it, and do not advertise for less than 18 hours. It is possible.

Sorry if I was short with anyone ( except the previous troll on the first page), was a bit upset yesterday.
.

I have never seen nor heard of a school where timetable keeps everyone happy, ever. I guarantee you in your school not everyone is completely happy come September. Most principals try their best but no way to keep everyone happy. Size of the school has a lot to do with it also, smaller schools much easier to do than larger I would imagine.

You came on a public forum (although it being the teaching section) and asked a question, you got an answer that wasn't specifically relevant but you took offence to it with you being so "upset". If you don't want various people's opinions there is not much point in posting here. I thought in fairness to the chap although a different section there was no malice or insults to teachers in what they posted. I'm sure he wont bother offering his opinion ever again.

implausible

Is it right? No. Is it common? Yes, very.

As far as I can see, there has always been differences between what is advertised and the actual job. I applied for an English & Irish position and got it, walked into the school to discover that my timetable was English, no Irish classes and co-ordinating a PLC course (I had never taught PLCs before and had no idea of what FETAC entailed).

The case you're talking about does suck, OP, but your brother has the right attitude - chalk it down to experience and move on. There is always the chance he made an impression and may be remembered for future hours.

2011abc

seavill wrote: »

You came on a public forum (although it being the teaching section) and asked a question, you got an answer that wasn't specifically relevant but you took offence to it with you being so "upset". If you don't want various people's opinions there is not much point in posting here. I thought in fairness to the chap although a different section there was no malice or insults to teachers in what they posted. I'm sure he wont bother offering his opinion ever again.

I dont know why you insist in defencing this poster ,they were obvioulsy out to 'rile' the OP with , "Your relation needs to put their big girl panties on and deal with it.

As for the 800miles driving, they should ask about reimbursement of interview expenses. That's standard practice."

The first comment is juvenile and provocative and the second shows no understanding whatsoever of the prevailling financial conditions in teaching -claim for interview expenses indeed!

seavill

2011abc wrote: »

I dont know why you insist in defencing this poster ,they were obvioulsy out to 'rile' the OP with , "Your relation needs to put their big girl panties on and deal with it.

As for the 800miles driving, they should ask about reimbursement of interview expenses. That's standard practice."

The first comment is juvenile and provocative and the second shows no understanding whatsoever of the prevailling financial conditions in teaching -claim for interview expenses indeed!

There is no point in dragging this off topic discussing my opinion on the matter.

I've expressed my opinion on the post and on the issue u don't like it or don't agree fair enough that's your opinion. Arguing over it isn't going to help this discussion.

We are all entitled to our differing view

Fuinseog

what is all this about a second interview? does this only happen for PWT positions. After the interview I have always been either declined by post or received that lucky phone call but never have I been called back for a second interview.

TheDriver

Fuinseog wrote: »

what is all this about a second interview? does this only happen for PWT positions. After the interview I have always been either declined by post or received that lucky phone call but never have I been called back for a second interview.

in the VEcs for example, everyone get a shortlisting interview if its any sort of contract for the year or part there of.

OP, I indeed agree they shouldn't go changing the specs of the job in the interview

Naaoise

TheDriver wrote: »

in the VEcs for example, everyone get a shortlisting interview if its any sort of contract for the year or part there of.

OP, I indeed agree they shouldn't go changing the specs of the job in the interview

Driver, do you mean that anyone who has applied for a VEC position will get an interview if it's an actual contract and not a maternity leave or the likes?