Sitting an exam paper at Teacher Job Interview!

Powerhouse

Boober Fraggle wrote: »

Whatever about asking for leaving cert results, I have recently heard of a number of schools asking teachers to sit a leaving cert higher level paper as part of their interview. An A1 was expected in each case from the candidates.

I've heard it all now. Did they ask them to wear a school unform as well? That sounds like some genius in the school heard this idea when on some course and or that it's done "in Finland" and decided that as power trips go it's not a bad one at all.

Maybe it's not a bad idea. But surely the obvious corollary to this would be that the Principal and other interview panel members also sit the same paper so as to determine their suitability to choose a teacher of the specific course in question. (That's after it has been established that their degree results are of sufficient quality and relevance to discuss the specific subject with an interviewee in the first place)

Presumably this wouldn't be a problem since they clearly have a fair bit of time on their hands.

Then, of course, there would be the small matter of determining the experience levels, expertise and impartiality of the person marking the papers.

Crazyteacher

The hdip isn't easy to get admitted to at all. People have to have a high standard to get on to the course. Surely this should be proof enough of their academic ability. Making them sit an exam at interview is beyond ridiculous . There are other ways of testing knowledge at interview, "how would you teach x to third years". Teachers have worked hard for their qualifications and should be treated as equals .

Boober Fraggle

Powerhouse wrote: »

Then, of course, there would be the small matter of determining the experience levels, expertise and impartiality of the person marking the papers.

This would be my biggest problem with this. Really, nothing short of an experienced sec examiner at higher level would be good enough for this task, if they are going to use it to determine the success or otherwise of applicants. As an experienced teacher, I know that I would not be able to mark accurately without havin been at a marking conference. Anyone who has been at one would know that there isn't conformity on day 1 of the marking conference, but by the end standards will have been set. I would hate to be subjected to another teachers humble subjective opinion of my work.

Aside from that, I know a particular poem or story very well for the week/fortnight I am teaching it. A month later, I will not have the same in depth knowledge of it that I would expect my students to have. That's not what teaching is about.

evolving_doors

Boober Fraggle wrote: »

This would be my biggest problem with this. Really, nothing short of an experienced sec examiner at higher level would be good enough for this task, if they are going to use it to determine the success or otherwise of applicants. As an experienced teacher, I know that I would not be able to mark accurately without havin been at a marking conference. Anyone who has been at one would know that there isn't conformity on day 1 of the marking conference, but by the end standards will have been set. I would hate to be subjected to another teachers humble subjective opinion of my work.

Aside from that, I know a particular poem or story very well for the week/fortnight I am teaching it. A month later, I will not have the same in depth knowledge of it that I would expect my students to have. That's not what teaching is about.

I think the reason behind the exam paper is not as a final decider (i.e. 95% score beats a 92% score so the 95% person gets the job). If it were me who gave the paper and was charged with correcting then I would give a cursory enough glance at the papers and that's all. If there were a large amount of blanks then it would cast serious doubt, but just from skimming the papers (not diligent correcting) I would be happy to find out what I want to find out and move onto the next part of the interview process. The exam part would just be a small part of the interview process, the same as technical questions asked in any other job i.e. engineering position etc.

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

I think the reason behind the exam paper is not as a final decider (i.e. 95% score beats a 92% score so the 95% person gets the job). If it were me who gave the paper and was charged with correcting then I would give a cursory enough glance at the papers and that's all. If there were a large amount of blanks then it would cast serious doubt, but just from skimming the papers (not diligent correcting) I would be happy to find out what I want to find out and move onto the next part of the interview process. The exam part would just be a small part of the interview process, the same as technical questions asked in any other job i.e. engineering position etc.

Just curious then as to what you would want to find out by setting an exam paper? Surely what you are testing by setting an exam paper is the person's ability to apply themselves in a Leaving Cert exam situation - no more no less? Not much point in identufying it as a criterion for selection and then not correcting the paper in the same (arguably necessary) pedantic spirit in which marking schemes are constructed.

If you simply wanted to find out that someone had a broad grasp of the subject in general and the Leaving Cert syllabus in particular, surely a perusal of their degree transcripts and some syllabus related questions (or 'technical questions' would do that job perfectly well? They will not be required as part of their job to sit a LC exam so testing their ability to do so seems pointless. Presumably a teacher could retrain themselves to regurgitate LC material as well and perhaps better than any student. Not sure what it means though.

The idea that someone who has obviously sat through countless exams to get to the stage of being called for an interview in the first place cannot have their examination technique bona fides accepted rather than having to sit a two and a half or three hour exam as part of an interview seems crazy.

Powerhouse

gaiscioch wrote: »

Despite all the hype, it was neither hard to get into, nor academically challenging when in it.

It is true to say that teaching is not exactly a business which contains academic high-flyers. I routinely come across people in the job who are almost defiantly unintellectual. One of the reasons that the jobs' market is flooded is that it is quite easy/far too easy to qualify as a teacher. You certainly don't need to be especially bright or hard-working.

That said, the original point to which you replied seems fair. It is difficult to see how a resit of an LC paper trumps three or four years studying a subject which you are going to teach in terms of judging your broad knowledge of subject.

On your suggestion that you should not have been allowed in - should a system be designed to protect people like you against yourself? Why does anyone with one minority subject as a teaching option apply in the first instance? It is easy talk about a central recruitment agency like the Garda Síochána but there are 700+ schools in the country. What happens when vacancies arise in a school if there is an on-demand system like you suggest? Schools need teachers when they need teachers. They cannot defer recruitment as would be required under the system you suggest. Which is not to suggest that the current situation is ideal either.

evolving_doors

Powerhouse wrote: »

Just curious then as to what you would want to find out by setting an exam paper? Surely what you are testing by setting an exam paper is the person's ability to apply themselves in a Leaving Cert exam situation - no more no less? Not much point in identufying it as a criterion for selection and then not correcting the paper in the same (arguably necessary) pedantic spirit in which marking schemes are constructed.

If you simply wanted to find out that someone had a broad grasp of the subject in general and the Leaving Cert syllabus in particular, surely a perusal of their degree transcripts and some syllabus related questions (or 'technical questions' would do that job perfectly well? They will not be required as part of their job to sit a LC exam so testing their ability to do so seems pointless. Presumably a teacher could retrain themselves to regurgitate LC material as well and perhaps better than any student. Not sure what it means though.

The idea that someone who has obviously sat through countless exams to get to the stage of being called for an interview in the first place cannot have their examination technique bona fides accepted rather than having to sit a two and a half or three hour exam as part of an interview seems crazy.

Powerhouse wrote: »

If you simply wanted to find out that someone had a broad grasp of the subject in general and the Leaving Cert syllabus in particular, surely a perusal of their degree transcripts and some syllabus related questions (or 'technical questions' would do that job perfectly well?

I think you have confused the connection with material learned in college and material that is on the curriculum. Just because you might have studied a little bit of maths physics in 1st year of university does not necessarily mean you are au fait with teaching applied maths as a subject. As we all know it does take a bit of re-revision on some topics before teaching them, but , if a school wants someone to be up to speed on day one and jump in to teach a LC class then familiarity with the syllabus isn;t too much to ask.

What is the best way to ensure this?
Have a look at the degree transcript or Sit a paper

My point was not to correct the paper to an exact LC standard with the intention of awarding CAO points. If you were to copy exactly this format then you would have to set up an appeals process (Viewing of scripts, rechecks etc) to make it Exactly the same.
If a lot of the answers were left blank or poorly answered then you could focus on another interviewee who showed a better grasp of the syllabus AND fulfilled all the other criteria. I could skim through an exam paper and find this out very quickly... why would I correct every single question if the candidate has left half the paper blank, whereas another candidate has completed the paper fully and everything looks in order?
AS I said this would just form part of the interview, but if you need to whittle interviewees down then why not!

evolving_doors

Powerhouse wrote: »

...
That said, the original point to which you replied seems fair. It is difficult to see how a resit of an LC paper trumps three or four years studying a subject which you are going to teach in terms of judging your broad knowledge of subject.
...

Nobody is claiming that LC trumps college degree, the two are very different animals. I have seen graduates offering grinds in a subject without ever having been in a classroom, fair enough they 'might' do a good job but my thoughts are that I would prefer an experienced teacher to take my son or daughter. What I'm talking about is teaching towards the exam pure and simple (as awful as it sounds), but if you are a school that wants your LC students to do well then you would expect some knowledge of 'working the paper'.

I think it is a bit unfair that a school would just shunt interviewees into a room and make them sit a paper unexpectantly, they should be given prior warning.

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

I think you have confused the connection with material learned in college and material that is on the curriculum. Just because you might have studied a little bit of maths physics in 1st year of university does not necessarily mean you are au fait with teaching applied maths as a subject. As we all know it does take a bit of re-revision on some topics before teaching them, but , if a school wants someone to be up to speed on day one and jump in to teach a LC class then familiarity with the syllabus isn;t too much to ask.

What is the best way to ensure this?
Have a look at the degree transcript or Sit a paper

My point was not to correct the paper to an exact LC standard with the intention of awarding CAO points. If you were to copy exactly this format then you would have to set up an appeals process (Viewing of scripts, rechecks etc) to make it Exactly the same.
If a lot of the answers were left blank or poorly answered then you could focus on another interviewee who showed a better grasp of the syllabus AND fulfilled all the other criteria. I could skim through an exam paper and find this out very quickly... why would I correct every single question if the candidate has left half the paper blank, whereas another candidate has completed the paper fully and everything looks in order?
AS I said this would just form part of the interview, but if you need to whittle interviewees down then why not!

Why rely on degree transcript vs LC resit? Why not interview the person and get someone who knows what they are talking about in the subject area to assess them? What is the point of interviewing them otherwise? Would it not be useful to see them actually discuss and orally develop and defend their opinions as they might actually be doing in a classroom?

The corollary to this is that if such madness go out of hand, potentially teachers applying for jobs could end up sitting a series of LC papers across the summer - none of which would be marked properly because the school authorities could not be bothered setting up an appeals process. What a waste of everyone's time.

If a candidate is likely to leave half an exam paper blank then that will beome apparent in about thirty seconds in an interview. How difficult can it be to expose lack of subject knowledge? The answer to 'What is your opinion of the poetry on the English LC syllabus?' would probably tell someone who understands the topic quite a lot about the candidate, and that's even before they get to the supplementary questions.

And, frankly, a degree transcript would probably give you a good idea of the likely response too given that the holder of a strong degree will probably be into their subject and a hard worker and far more likely to get up to speed with the subject matter.

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

I have seen graduates offering grinds in a subject without ever having been in a classroom, fair enough they 'might' do a good job but my thoughts are that I would prefer an experienced teacher to take my son or daughter. What I'm talking about is teaching towards the exam pure and simple (as awful as it sounds), but if you are a school that wants your LC students to do well then you would expect some knowledge of 'working the paper'.

But you are contradicting yourself. In fact a recent graduate (a good one anyway) should excel at 'working the paper'. If that's what school is about why bother with an experienced teacher? Just hire an experienced 'paper-worker' and frankly the likes of the Biology student in Trinity with A1s in everything that you see advertising in the local supermarket as willing to do grinds in any subject is probably best placed if such a premium is being placed on working an exam paper.

Of course, the ability to sit an exam paper, as you acknowledge, tells nothing (necessarily anyway) about potential classroom performance. Yet, you propose to get classroom practitioners to sit an exam? Makes little sense to me to be honest.

evolving_doors

Powerhouse wrote: »

Why rely on degree transcript vs LC resit? Why not interview the person and get someone who knows what they are talking about in the subject area to assess them? What is the point of interviewing them otherwise? Would it not be useful to see them actually discuss and orally develop and defend their opinions as they might actually be doing in a classroom?

The corollary to this is that if such madness go out of hand, potentially teachers applying for jobs could end up sitting a series of LC papers across the summer - none of which would be marked properly because the school authorities could not be bothered setting up an appeals process. What a waste of everyone's time.

If a candidate is likely to leave half an exam paper blank then that will beome apparent in about thirty seconds in an interview. How difficult can it be to expose lack of subject knowledge? The answer to 'What is your opinion of the poetry on the English LC syllabus?' would probably tell someone who understands the topic quite a lot about the candidate, and that's even before they get to the supplementary questions.

And, frankly, a degree transcript would probably give you a good idea of the likely response too given that the holder of a strong degree will probably be into their subject and a hard worker and far more likely to get up to speed with the subject matter.

Depends on the candidate they are looking for. they might want someone who could get up to speed given prior knowledge and investigation skills (as per the degree transcript)...or they might want a candidate who IS up to speed in all areas of the course. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all of an interview but I think it could help form a better picture. As peterflynt mentioned earlier a degree and subject knowledge will only get a teacher so far (and it its a good starting point obviously)....but if an interviewer was faced with the choice of a phd graduate with no experience vs a hdip candidate who has marked exams and taught previously then I know which one they would choose. There is actually a lot of knowledge required in how to work an exam paper and teach towards an exam such as the JC or LC. It isnt just about subject knowledge.

Sure you could get an impression from the strength of the first handshake too! Or the CV, or the eye contact, or the responses to verbal questions, or questions asked by the candidate at the end, or references, or extra curricular stuff....... or a written test!!! My point is that it's not one versus the other,, Exam Vs. Interview,, it's might only form a part of it!

Dare I say it but lots of organisations have different stages to the job application process. Results analysis/CV vetting/Interview/psychometric tests/group interactions/problem solving.

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

Depends on the candidate they are looking for. they might want someone who could get up to speed given prior knowledge and investigation skills (as per the degree transcript)...or they might want a candidate who IS up to speed in all areas of the course. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all of an interview but I think it could help form a better picture. As peterflynt mentioned earlier a degree and subject knowledge will only get a teacher so far (and it its a good starting point obviously)....but if an interviewer was faced with the choice of a phd graduate with no experience vs a hdip candidate who has marked exams and taught previously then I know which one they would choose. There is actually a lot of knowledge required in how to work an exam paper and teach towards an exam such as the JC or LC. It isnt just about subject knowledge.

Sure you could get an impression from the strength of the first handshake too! Or the CV, or the eye contact, or the responses to verbal questions, or questions asked by the candidate at the end, or references, or extra curricular stuff....... or a written test!!! My point is that it's not one versus the other,, Exam Vs. Interview,, it's might only form a part of it!

Dare I say it but lots of organisations have different stages to the job application process. Results analysis/CV vetting/Interview/psychometric tests/group interactions/problem solving.

I understand your argument and have never said that degree results trump all else - just that they do give a strong indication of knowledge and work ethic even though it can be fashionable to make light of them.

I just think it's actually a relatively straightforward practical on-the-job task for any teacher to get up to speed with marking schemes and nuances of exam papers. Not so easy maybe to claw back lack of an real basic understanding of a subject. Certainly that would be the way I'd be thinking anyway. Countless teachers operate very effectively having never marked a state exam paper - and often have easy access to colleague who have done so anyway.

It just that someone sitting maybe a three-hour exam paper seems such an utterly over-the-top way of assessing their knowledge of exam technique.

Consider it in the context of the other factors you mention:

the CV - three minutes?

eye contact - 1 second?

responses to verbal questions - 20 mins?

questions asked by the candidate at the end - 2 mins?

references - I min?

extra curricular stuff - 1 mins?

....... or a written test!!! - 6 hours 10 minutes? (e.g English LC paper)

I have no difficulty with the notion that organisations have can use multi-faceted ways of choosing candidates. Thats' not my argument. My point is that there has to be a more time-efficient way of choosing candidates without ignoring the all-important ability to 'teach to the exam'. It seems utterly utterly mad the more I think about it. Teachers are potentially being tested in an aspect of their job they will not be required to do. They will teching others to sit the exam. There must be a more efficient method to determine their ability/personality to do that without resorting having them sit to an exam of several hours themselves.

evolving_doors

Powerhouse wrote: »

[...]
I just think it's actually a relatively straightforward practical on-the-job task for any teacher to get up to speed with marking schemes and nuances of exam papers.

It's not, having corrected papers it was a real eye-opener as to how the marks were actually allocated. There were certain nuances within the marking schemes and language used in the questions also. After teaching the subject for years, attending subject association conferences, talking to other teachers, reading all the study notes written by correctors, doing indepth research into the topics myself, creating tailored made notes based on previous marking schemes, analysing trends in the questions... etc... it wasn't until I started correcting that I understood exactly what the 'exam paper' required. I know it's not fair and implies ambiguities in the system but that's just the way it is and talking to other teachers who mark they agree with this position.

The phrase 'getting up to speed' was mentioned a few times and learning on the job etc... What if a Principal wants a candidate already up to speed and not learning on the job. True, this will come through in the interview and the data on the CV but if you really want to see if someone is up to speed on the 'exam' end of things then getting someone to sit a paper could be a valuable part of the process.

Powerhouse wrote: »

Not so easy maybe to claw back lack of an real basic understanding of a subject. Certainly that would be the way I'd be thinking anyway. Countless teachers operate very effectively having never marked a state exam paper - and often have easy access to colleague who have done so anyway.

Sure, but the teachers i've talked to have said that they have honed their teaching because of correcting the exam. I can appreciate accusations of throwing the curriculum out the window in favour of the exam but again they are not mutually exclusive.

Powerhouse wrote: »

and often have easy access to colleague who have done so anyway

Which is better second hand knowledge or first hand?

Powerhouse wrote: »

It just that someone sitting maybe a three-hour exam paper seems such an utterly over-the-top way of assessing their knowledge of exam technique.

Interesting you picked the longest of the exams

Powerhouse wrote: »

....... or a written test!!! - 6 hours 10 minutes? (e.g English LC paper)

i think it does depend on the subject alright... say for english.. how about just a question on one of the Shakespere plays and maybe a poet... Or 2 questions from a maths paper(40 mins max!). Which would give you a better understanding of a teacher's knowledge ... a general question (which in all fairness could only last about max 15 mins without becoming like an interrogation) OR part of an exam paper.

Powerhouse wrote: »

I have no difficulty with the notion that organisations have can use multi-faceted ways of choosing candidates. Thats' not my argument. My point is that there has to be a more time-efficient way of choosing candidates without ignoring the all-important ability to 'teach to the exam'. It seems utterly utterly mad the more I think about it. Teachers are potentially being tested in an aspect of their job they will not be required to do. They will teching others to sit the exam. There must be a more efficient method to determine their ability/personality to do that without resorting having them sit to an exam of several hours themselves.

Yes I agree several hours sounds a bit ridiculous and pedantic, how about 1 hour (max) with part of a paper? Still seems a better idea than an oral examination in an interview.

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

1) The phrase 'getting up to speed' was mentioned a few times and learning on the job etc... What if a Principal wants a candidate already up to speed and not learning on the job. True, this will come through in the interview and the data on the CV but if you really want to see if someone is up to speed on the 'exam' end of things then getting someone to sit a paper could be a valuable part of the process.

2)Interesting you picked the longest of the exams

3) Yes I agree several hours sounds a bit ridiculous and pedantic, how about 1 hour (max) with part of a paper? Still seems a better idea than an oral examination in an interview.

1) What if? Well, I'd say that a Principal who wants this is depriving themselves of many young energetic teachers who by dint of sheer chronology will not have had the chance to spend years correcting papers. That seems a shame.

2) This comment suggests you might be in 'win the argument at all costs' mode rather than just dealing with the substantive issue. What difference otherwise what subject I chose? As it happens I chose English because every student in the country sits the exam and presumably it has the highest number of teachers in the country too. Consequently the likelihood is that the scenario you envisage would affect English teachers more than any others. For the record, I think forcing a candidate to sit a three-hour Latin exam would be equally futile.

3) Yes, I agree that it sounds a bit ridiculous and pedantic, but I'm not the one defending the practice. I think the fact that you are now suggesting that they instead sit only one part of the paper says a lot. The lunacy of the idea is gradually becoming apparent.

Young teachers looking for work have enough stresses without this pointless power-trip bullsh1t being foisted on them as well which forces them to go back to Leaving Cert study at the end of it all. I have seen a fair few barmy ideas in teaching down the years but this one takes the biscuit.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

Yes I agree several hours sounds a bit ridiculous and pedantic,

The whole idea sounds plain daft. Serious overkill.

evolving_doors

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) What if? Well, I'd say that a Principal who wants this is depriving themselves of many young energetic teachers who by dint of sheer chronology will not have had the chance to spend years correcting papers. That seems a shame.

Yes I think you've hit the nail on the head so it depends on the candidate they are looking for. I know in our school we have one teacher who is taking a career break and they are/were looking for someone who is ready to hit the ground running. Essentially a permanent teacher with years of experience would fit the bill, but they know they are not going to get this for a temporary position. So they would need someone who HAS TO BE up to speed with the ins and outs of the exam paper. Sure, a previous reference from a principal will go on about good student results etc But there is always a risk that the students could have gotten these from grinds esp if it's a high stakes subject.
In the interview it mightn't be so easy to do in-depth probing by viva voce. If candidates were told that they would be tested on parts of a LC paper then I could take a good guess that a lot of 'unsuitable candidates' would be put off.
"Many young energetic teachers" just wont fit the bill of what the school needs in this case. If the job is just for a few hours for junior certs then I don;t think the interview process needs to be as intensive.
Young energetic teachers doesn;t really mean anything though.. There are such things as Old energetic teachers too... and young lethargic teachers.

A message to prospective energetic teachers... use that energy to get yourself familiar with the exam paper, you might have to teach it some day.

Powerhouse wrote: »

2) This comment suggests you might be in 'win the argument at all costs' mode rather than just dealing with the substantive issue. What difference otherwise what subject I chose? As it happens I chose English because every student in the country sits the exam and presumably it has the highest number of teachers in the country too. Consequently the likelihood is that the scenario you envisage would affect English teachers more than any others. For the record, I think forcing a candidate to sit a three-hour Latin exam would be equally futile.

The substantive issue is that if you've nothing to fear then why not just sit the test. I'm not talking about 'forcing' anyone to take a test. You advertise the job and state that a written test based on LC material lasting 40mins will form part of the interview process. Same as any other job. Written test, big deal, just go in and do it like every LC/JC student does this june (they have it far worse BTW)

Powerhouse wrote: »

3) Yes, I agree that it sounds a bit ridiculous and pedantic, but I'm not the one defending the practice. I think the fact that you are now suggesting that they instead sit only one part of the paper says a lot. The lunacy of the idea is gradually becoming apparent.

I think you could garner as much from a 40 min written test as a 3 hr exam but the substantive issue of the benefits of a written part to the interview isn;t negated any less.

Powerhouse wrote: »

Young teachers looking for work have enough stresses without this pointless power-trip bullsh1t being foisted on them as well which forces them to go back to Leaving Cert study at the end of it all. I have seen a fair few barmy ideas in teaching down the years but this one takes the biscuit.

If they are told before hand then how is it foisted/forced? Just face facts, if you want to get the job then get yourself familiar with the exams papers. There's just no way you can discount experience over youth.

I agree that you have to take a holistic approach also. Balance a new graduate who oozes potential with great interpersonal skills, versus a nutjob examfreek who can't relate to people. Both could get 100% on the exam paper but the personality will come out in the interview etc..

Anyhow we'll have to agree to disagree as I think I'm way off topic. Although no harm for prospective candidates to have a look at some exam papers for the future.

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

1) Young energetic teachers doesn;t really mean anything though.. There are such things as Old energetic teachers too... and young lethargic teachers.

2) The substantive issue is that if you've nothing to fear then why not just sit the test.

3) I think you could garner as much from a 40 min written test as a 3 hr exam but the substantive issue of the benefits of a written part to the interview isn;t negated any less.

I accept that the discussion serves no purpose at this stage but I'll respond to these points if I may.

1) Young energetic teacher does mean something - exactly what it says. And it is relevant as an old energetic teacher will presumably have channelled that energy at some stage towards correcting exam papers. A young teacher will not have had such a chance. As for the young lethargic teacher.......presumably they are not the ones you want to attract anyway?

2) The 'if you've nothing to fear then do it' line is a weak argument that can be used to justify anything to be honest and seeks to deflect any justification for the task and imply weakness in anyone who challenges the practice. The main fear I see in this instance is the fear of the school management to actually trust their own judgement and make a decision the same way most schools do.

3) Surely part of doing an exam to the exacting A1 standard is timing yourself, and being strong across all sections, and jumping through all the hoops? How can a 40 minutes test cover all that? Even though it's a looney pointless exercise in the first instance you're either testing their ability to do an exam or you're not. Part of that is dealing with the amount of writing and time involved. You have to be sure that they will be quite well able to sit any other LC exams they will be required to do during their time in your school.

Quite how you measure their ability to teach others - including those who wouldn't ever aspire to an A1 - exam technique is another matter of course.

P.S. You seem to assume that the verb 'foist' implies lack of foreknowledge. It doesn't. Here's one definition from the merriam-webster dictionary: to force someone to accept (something that is not good or not wanted)

Of course you'll argue that you're not forcing them as you are not bring them by gun-point to the interview but of course that is to miss the point. Nobody, but nobody here has suggested that you should be unfamiliar with exam papers. Having someone resit a LC paper is merely a nutty way of establishing it that's all and frankly reflects very badly on the confidence the school management has it it own judgement.

evolving_doors

Powerhouse wrote: »

I accept that the discussion serves no purpose at this stage but I'll respond to these points if I may.

1) Young energetic teacher does mean something - exactly what it says. And it is relevant as an old energetic teacher will presumably have channelled that energy at some stage towards correcting exam papers. A young teacher will not have had such a chance. As for the young lethargic teacher.......presumably they are not the ones you want to attract anyway?

I suppose I should qualify that there are two criteria we are talking about (but not mutually exclusive). Having familiarity with teaching to an exam and having familiarity of having corrected exams at a state level, this may be the purpose of having candidates sitting an exam paper.
I would accept that a young energetic teacher may not have marked exams, but wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that every candidate would be familiar with the syllabus and as a consequence the exam process. This is what you are testing by having candidates sit a paper.. familiarity with an exam process. Brining in the quote ...

Powerhouse wrote: »

As for the young lethargic teacher.......presumably they are not the ones you want to attract anyway?

I agree they are not the ones you want to attract, but wanting and getting are two different things, you may not want them but you may end up with them..... again take 2 candidates of relatively equal experience;
College results could be all fine and equal
References from previous employers all fine and equal
CV all fine and roughly the same
Both candidates sit a LC paper (or part of one!).. one candidate 50% and the other 95%. Do you just hope that the person who gets 50% will get themselves up to speed?
Also, as I mentioned previously, a teacher might have been so bad that the majority of the class got grinds (for whatever reason the principal/referee didn't know about it or disclose to the new employer). The "young lethargic teacher" might have escaped close scrutiny from a subject teacher . IMO an exam script could catch this.

Powerhouse wrote: »

2) The 'if you've nothing to fear then do it' line is a weak argument that can be used to justify anything to be honest and seeks to deflect any justification for the task and imply weakness in anyone who challenges the practice. The main fear I see in this instance is the fear of the school management to actually trust their own judgement and make a decision the same way most schools do.

Firstly.. saying something is a weak argument is IMO also a weak argument and can be used to dismiss anything etc....

Secondly in terms of 'challenging the practice' what if an interviewer asked a LC question orally during an interview... do you think that it would ok for a candidate to say "well seriously I object to this so I won;t answer .." What interviewer would take that as a strength. Why even ask a candidate technical questions relating to an exam paper in the first place? Does this imply that if school management has such technical questions then it is because they are "afraid to trust their own judgement"... So what's the difference in transferring this onto paper... Is it practicle for a candidate to speak a 4 FC page essay answer in an interview? Is it practical for a candidate to explain in detail their workings or thought process for say a maths question?

IMO a written paper could be given to all of the candidates, this would only take 40mins.. Here's another bonus.... you may not have to bring in a subject teacher into each interview session during the summer esp. if it runs over a few days. Just ask them to come in for a few hours one day, skim the responses (and it is very easy to do this) and sort the quality of the answers.

I genuinely think that I would like the prospect of showing my subject knowledge in an exam paper setting, especially if the interview didn;t go too well in other aspects. It would be no big deal to me, just sit down and do what you expect your students to do. If I didn;t get the job then fair enough, the last thing I would be doing is expecting to ask for a recheck of my paper!!

Powerhouse wrote: »

3) Surely part of doing an exam to the exacting A1 standard is timing yourself, and being strong across all sections, and jumping through all the hoops? How can a 40 minutes test cover all that?

It can;t, but hey, how would asking 1 or 2 technical questions in an interview cover ALL those things either. As I said above it would form part of the process. It is very possible for someone to 'interview well' and fluff on the very few technical questions that are answered. Even one or two exam questions could catch this.

Powerhouse wrote: »

Even though it's a looney pointless exercise in the first instance

That is obviously your opinion so restating it doesn't make it any more factual.

Powerhouse wrote: »

you're either testing their ability to do an exam or you're not.

As I mentioned above, you are testing a depth of knowledge specifically targeted towards the LC/JC (in terms of quantity and quality) ... For example a question on King Lear on an exam paper... ah well I studied most of the other plays in college so It's no problem for me to 'get up to speed' once I start teaching it, I'll just stay a page ahead... VS' a teacher who has familiarised themselves with the syllabus and papers even though they have never even taught this topic.. Which one would you chose?

Powerhouse wrote: »

Part of that is dealing with the amount of writing and time involved. You have to be sure that they will be quite well able to sit any other LC exams they will be required to do during their time in your school.

i don;t really think you would re-sit any teacher once they have started teaching.. now that is "a looney pointless exercise ". However yes you would have to be sure of their ability and the time to find that out is during the interview... ability... not aptitude or ability to 'get up to speed'

Powerhouse wrote: »

Quite how you measure their ability to teach others - including those who wouldn't ever aspire to an A1 - exam technique is another matter of course.

This is always a question in Ireland. In the UK you are observed actually teaching a class as part of the interview process, is that "a looney pointless exercise' too?.
Maybe ask about differentiation during the interview. I.e. give a topic and ask how they would teach it (long term and short term)

Powerhouse wrote: »

P.S. You seem to assume that the verb 'foist' implies lack of foreknowledge. It doesn't. Here's one definition from the merriam-webster dictionary: to force someone to accept (something that is not good or not wanted)

If you accept to go for the interview then how are you forced to do certain tasks. Is not a reference check also foisted upon you ?

Powerhouse wrote: »

Of course you'll argue that you're not forcing them as you are not bring them by gun-point to the interview but of course that is to miss the point. Nobody, but nobody here has suggested that you should be unfamiliar with exam papers. Having someone resit a LC paper is merely a nutty way of establishing it that's all ...

Firstly re-sit implies that you have done the same syllabus/course yourself in the first place. As we have seen courses change so it would be imperative to check if people are up to speed i.e. the project maths syllabus.

Powerhouse wrote: »

[...]and frankly reflects very badly on the confidence the school management has it it own judgement.

You make judgement on what you can SEE on paper also. This would form part of the schools judgement, why should it be a separate thing, no big hoohaw

interview processes change, 'previously' a lot of bad teachers walked into jobs simply because they were related or had pull.. you could argue that this type of school who would accept such a candidate was using their own judgement and had confidence in it.. "Ah shur I knew her father she'll be grand" why should we even bother looking at her CV or ringing for references, or testing on their exam knowledge.

Powerhouse

Armelodie wrote: »

That is obviously your opinion so restating it doesn't make it any more factual.

Your previous post ended with "Anyhow we'll have to agree to disagree as I think I'm way off topic". My reply to that began with "I accept that the discussion serves no purpose at this stage". I assumed those words actually meant something,

In light of those comments and also in light of your own observation (above) I can't see why this warranted the creation of a new thread given that discussion on the substantive issue has been exhausted already. Maybe three days ago...........?

The only thing I would suggest is that the necessity to sit a Leaving Cert exam should be specified openly in the job advertisment given how unusual a departure it is. If an interview process is likely to take the whole day people should be made aware at the outset. Many do more than one interview in a day and have multiple applications going on at the same time. At least then the ones with a smidgen of self-respect can give the process the swerve.

SunshineSteve

Whats the issue here?

Throughout the IT and Engineering industries, there is a requirement to re-certify and keep sharp on a regular basis.
If someone is either not comfortable enough to take the exam as part of the process or not able to excel, I wouldn't expect them to teach it.

Rosita

Armelodie wrote: »

interview processes change, 'previously' a lot of bad teachers walked into jobs simply because they were related or had pull.. you could argue that this type of school who would accept such a candidate was using their own judgement and had confidence in it.. "Ah shur I knew her father she'll be grand" why should we even bother looking at her CV or ringing for references, or testing on their exam knowledge.

No you couldn't argue "this type of school who would accept such a candidate was using their own judgement and had confidence in it". The type of school that accepted teachers "simply because they were related or had pull" are the type of schools that accepted teachers simply because they were related or had pull.

The easy way around this is simply to have an uncorrupt interview process.

spurious

SunshineSteve wrote: »

Whats the issue here?

Throughout the IT and Engineering industries, there is a requirement to re-certify and keep sharp on a regular basis.
If someone is either not comfortable enough to take the exam as part of the process or not able to excel, I wouldn't expect them to teach it.

I am delighted I got out of teaching if teaching for the exam is what it's officially about now.

Rosita

SunshineSteve wrote: »

Throughout the IT and Engineering industries, there is a requirement to re-certify and keep sharp on a regular basis.

I realise that Engineers think they are Gods but strangely enough this is a requirement is probably every job.

chippers

Would it not be more beneficial to have the applicant teach a lesson as part of the interview as they do in the UK. Does it not make more sense to test them on what they will actually be doing? demonstrating sound use of teaching methologies etc.

whiteandlight

This is exactly my feeling. This is completely un-necessary and a bit of a waste of time. Let the qualification, references and targeted subject specific questions at interview check subject knowledge. If you want to truly test a teacher then test them on the teaching. I'd have no problem teaching a class as part of an interview. It would be a proper chance to show off in what my job truly is.

SunshineSteve

chippers wrote: »

Would it not be more beneficial to have the applicant teach a lesson as part of the interview as they do in the UK. Does it not make more sense to test them on what they will actually be doing? demonstrating sound use of teaching methologies etc.

I would absolutely agree with this IF this was also how students were assessed.
Unfortunately that is not the case.

chippers

SunshineSteve wrote: »

I would absolutely agree with this IF this was also how students were assessed.
Unfortunately that is not the case.

I don't understand your point. Why would a student ever be assessed on how to teach a class?

Rosita

SunshineSteve wrote: »

I would absolutely agree with this IF this was also how students were assessed.
Unfortunately that is not the case.

But the school is employing a teacher not a student? The means of assessment of students is another matter for the SEC to decide upon surely?

This is like asking a prospective coach of a football team to demonstrate his free-kick taking technique. Even if he nails every one of them he still won't be playing on the team.

SunshineSteve

Rosita wrote: »

But the school is employing a teacher not a student? The means of assessment of students is another matter for the SEC to decide upon surely?

This is like asking a prospective coach of a football team to demonstrate his free-kick taking technique. Even if he nails every one of them he still won't be playing on the team.

Reasonable point I suppose.
I certainly don't think that your wrong.
I would have been of the opinion that it would work out in a candidates favour to sit the exam as part of the process. I'm not a teacher so I don't have the full picture I suppose.

Then again, if there is no incentive to do it theres probably no point - e.g. Fixed payscales, limited progression within the industry etc. I suppose your lucky in that, as long as the positions are there the market is all yours

gaiscioch

Frankly I think some of the information school management is looking for on application forms brings into question their judgement. Leaving Cert results being the more obvious example of this. LC results are not relevant; degree results are relevant simply because they indicate a deeper knowledge of the subject you're teaching. I would have no problem with having to give a class as part of the interview - and I have done this before (I was phoned a few days beforehand and given some random topic I knew nothing of and two teachers assessed my class). That's a relevant form of assessment.

In a good interview they should get the measure of an applicant and, importantly, whether they are suited to the school and management style.

More importantly still for teachers, in a good interview a perceptive teacher will get the measure of them and assess whether they are up to the job. Never go into an interview thinking you need a job, any job. You should ask them questions about how the school is run because you would be better off not working in some schools - no matter what you might think about how much you need the money. Some schools are awfully managed and as a young teacher starting out you will realise that there are more important things than money. Far too many teachers of all ages realise that and leave the profession early.