Nepotism

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

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

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

seavill

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

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

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

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

seavill

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

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

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

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

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

seavill

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

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

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

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

f3232

seavill wrote: »

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

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

seavill

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

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

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

f3232

seavill wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

seavill

seavill wrote: »

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

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

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

If you read my posts you will see that I do not assume it is always nepotism, and most probably these days it is not, boards of management would be too wary of being scrutinised. I do think there is a tad too much of the tinfoil lined hat thinking and gossip about who got what job in Ireland, I do think the public services is different simply because it is public money!.

RealJohn

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

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

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

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

derb12

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

RealJohn

derb12 wrote: »

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

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

whiteandlight

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

RealJohn

whiteandlight wrote: »

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

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

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

whiteandlight

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

seavill

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

whiteandlight

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

RealJohn

whiteandlight wrote: »

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

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

evolving_doors

Tell the principal to go home because HR will do it?? Thats like the cop shows when the FBI waltzes in and says "we'll take it from here guys!"...
Never gonna happen,
principal's school = principal's call
Always
(unless other favours are owed)

f3232

RealJohn wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Also in many VEC schools at second level the principal is the note taker in the interview process and is not directly involved in the candidate selection (from what I understand)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hootanany

seavill wrote: »

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

No just in Public sector jobs where its rive.

f3232

Armelodie wrote: »

Tell the principal to go home because HR will do it?? Thats like the cop shows when the FBI waltzes in and says "we'll take it from here guys!"...
Never gonna happen,
principal's school = principal's call
Always
(unless other favours are owed)

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

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

seavill

Hootanany wrote: »

No just in Public sector jobs where its rive.

Oh yea sorry you are right clearly never happens anywhere else

f3232

seavill wrote: »

Oh yea sorry you are right clearly never happens anywhere else

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

RealJohn

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

Also in many VEC schools at second level the principal is the note taker in the interview process and is not directly involved in the candidate selection (from what I understand)

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

f3232

RealJohn wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And according to you

was unqualified

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

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

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

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

RealJohn

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232 wrote: »

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

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

f3232

RealJohn wrote: »

How transparent do you want it?

Much more transparent than is the case now. With as I have said before, a detailed marking of the interview with reference/score as to how objective criteria have been met by each candidates. I think this is reasonable.

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

If the principal gives the job to one particular candidate on what the principal could term "subjective criteria" than the principal should at least make known what these subjective criteria were. Do you see what I mean?

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

Not necessarily so. Usually one candidate will meet these specifications more than others and with a transparent marking scheme they can be assessed objectively. These marks could then be referred to in the event of an appeal, within the context of an independent appeals tribunal etc.

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

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

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

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

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

I am sure that accountancy recruiters would say that this accountant would need to be more than just "qualified and experienced", is he or she ethical, is he or she good with clients etc.

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

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

If the principal is seeking "other things" rather than qualifications and experience why can't the principal set out this in the job spec? This gives every candidate a fair chance to match these "other things" the principal is looking for.

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

If there is something particular that a principal needs from potential employees which are specific to his school let him or her set those out before interview.

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

Lets keep it civil and be nice.

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

And all I can tell you is that in many interviews principals do not take an active part in the interview but are note takers. I assume on the basis of trying to show impartiality, maybe a DP or principal can clarify one way or another.

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

No not only if you had something to complain about-- in the context of your own story, again you admitted

There is the possibility that some indirect nepotism came into

And the rest of your story does substantiate that conclusion.

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

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

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

That is possible.

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

No basis? other that the guy in question did not have a teaching qualification?
I am sure the guy in question brought a specific set of skills that no other qualified teacher could possible have brought to the table.

I have the height of respect for teachers, they come in for a lot of unwarranted criticism and they are suppose to be able to solve every problem in society.

I doubt if nepotism is big problem in today society there is too much scrutiny, however a school is not the principle's personal kingdom, its a publicly funded institution.

I think in years to come just as we have looked at the church and industrial schools, mother and baby homes, and so on, society will look at schools in particular at primary school teaching as a career and its connection to the GAA and the kind of conservative rural mind set that it produced along with the part it played in the.. its the who you know not what you know culture we often have in Ireland.

killbillvol2

mariaalice wrote: »

I have the height of respect for teachers, they come in for a lot of unwarranted criticism and they are suppose to be able to solve every problem in society.

I doubt if nepotism is big problem in today society there is too much scrutiny, however a school is not the principle's personal kingdom, its a publicly funded institution.

I think in years to come just as we have looked at the church and industrial schools, mother and baby homes, and so on, society will look at schools in particular at primary school teaching as a career and its connection to the GAA and the kind of conservative rural mind set that it produced along with the part it played in the.. its the who you know not what you know culture we often have in Ireland.

There's some drivel on this thread but this takes the biscuit. What a crock!

f3232

killbillvol2 wrote: »

There's some drivel on this thread but this takes the biscuit. What a crock!

Probably better just to ignore the post then and maybe offer some opinion on the actual issues brought up in the thread?

RealJohn

f3232 wrote: »

Much more transparent than is the case now. With as I have said before, a detailed marking of the interview with reference/score as to how objective criteria have been met by each candidates. I think this is reasonable.

So candidates' qualifications and experience as well as any other information that could be used to differentiate them from other candidates should be available to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wants them? You don't think that might be a slight invasion of privacy.

f3232 wrote: »

If the principal gives the job to one particular candidate on what the principal could term "subjective criteria" than the principal should at least make known what these subjective criteria were. Do you see what I mean?

And what if those criteria are things like the candidate gave a good impression or seemed confident or even just gave a good handshake? We all know that things like those do come into an interviewer's decision making process but they'd be very easily argued by someone who wanted to cause trouble because they were sore about not getting a job.

f3232 wrote: »

Not necessarily so. Usually one candidate will meet these specifications more than others and with a transparent marking scheme they can be assessed objectively. These marks could then be referred to in the event of an appeal, within the context of an independent appeals tribunal etc.

Usually but often they won't or those differences will be so negligible that other, less easily documented factors will become deciding factors. Like I said already, most interview processes that I'm aware of already have a transparent marking scheme. I've never been refused feedback on any interview I've ever done since I started teaching ten years ago.

f3232 wrote: »

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

Yes, they can but it's still subjective and therefore still arguable.

f3232 wrote: »

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

Because he might not know what they are until he sees them.

f3232 wrote: »

I am sure that accountancy recruiters would say that this accountant would need to be more than just "qualified and experienced", is he or she ethical, is he or she good with clients etc.

Now you're just nit-picking. You know what I mean.

f3232 wrote: »

Personality can be judged at interview and on seeking references from previous employers.

Impressions of a person's personality can vary wildly from person to person and without having experience of the environment you're introducing the person to, it'd be very difficult to say if that person suits the school or not.

f3232 wrote: »

Background also on the above basis, although I am not sure what you mean by background?

The principal might not either until they meet the candidate.

f3232 wrote: »

If the principal is seeking "other things" rather than qualifications and experience why can't the principal set out this in the job spec? This gives every candidate a fair chance to match these "other things" the principal is looking for.

Because he might not know what those other things are until they come up.

f3232 wrote: »

If there is something particular that a principal needs from potential employees which are specific to his school let him or her set those out before interview.

No doubt he does. That doesn't mean that they're easily gauged by someone else.

f3232 wrote: »

Lets keep it civil and be nice.

I told you something I had experienced. You told me you weren't sure about it. I don't consider it civil when someone questions it when I tell them I've experienced something. I haven't accused you of lying or embellishing. I expect you to extend me the same courtesy or I will respond with the same respect you extend me.

f3232 wrote: »

And all I can tell you is that in many interviews principals do not take an active part in the interview but are note takers. I assume on the basis of trying to show impartiality, maybe a DP or principal can clarify one way or another.

The fact that they're there at all means they have some part in the process. Are you saying this from personal experience and/or that of people you actually know or just hearsay?

f3232 wrote: »

No not only if you had something to complain about-- in the context of your own story, again you admitted
There is the possibility that some indirect nepotism came into
And the rest of your story does substantiate that conclusion.

There's a possibility yes but there is also a possibility that there was none.

f3232 wrote: »

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

I didn't leave out the information. It was there for all to see in the previous post. You're right though, by not mentioning it it did make it easier to come to my conclusion (although it's not really my conclusion I suppose so much as a conclusion) but that's my point. If you look at all the things that point to possible nepotism then it's easy to see nepotism. If you leave it out, it's easy to see that it's just as likely that nepotism had little influence on the decision (and you would have to outlaw people from applying for any post that they have any connection with whatsoever in order to eliminate it entirely which even you must be willing to acknowledge just isn't reasonable).

f3232 wrote: »

No basis? other that the guy in question did not have a teaching qualification?
I am sure the guy in question brought a specific set of skills that no other qualified teacher could possible have brought to the table.

The lack of a qualification isn't a basis. I'm teaching with at least one teacher who hasn't qualified as a teacher but is excellent at his job (by all accounts - I suppose I've never sat in on one of his classes to have experienced it myself) and fits in very well in the school. Would you say there must have been better candidates for his job too, given that he wasn't qualified? If so, why didn't they get the job? The teacher I'm working with now had no connection to the school prior to getting the job as far as I know, other than having worked in another school in the same VEC the previous year.
I also never implied that that "no other qualified teacher could possible have brought to the table", just that it seems probable that he brought more to the table than the other candidates who applied given that he got the job.

f3232

RealJohn wrote: »

So candidates' qualifications and experience as well as any other information that could be used to differentiate them from other candidates should be available to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wants them? You don't think that might be a slight invasion of privacy.

No, only the candidates own score would be available to them (this score would be detailed and could be judged accross all candidates. All of the candidates scores could be kept on file in case of a dispute where an independent dispute panel could assess all aspects of the interview process, i.e answers to questions by each interviewee (where detailed notes could be made) and how/if the marking scheme was properly adhered to.

And what if those criteria are things like the candidate gave a good impression or seemed confident or even just gave a good handshake? We all know that things like those do come into an interviewer's decision making process but they'd be very easily argued by someone who wanted to cause trouble because they were sore about not getting a job.

If an manager of a school gives a job to someone on the basis of a good handshake or a levels of self confidence, let the manager specify that this was one of the reasons for giving the job over the other candidate . If that is the basis by which the decision is made.

Usually but often they won't or those differences will be so negligible that other, less easily documented factors will become deciding factors.

Yes usually there will not be an exact similarity and where there is a very transparent marking process of qualifications, levels of experience, etc etc I doubt there would ever be an exact score. In any event such instances could be sorted out by scoring on questions within the interview process.

I've never been refused feedback on any interview I've ever done since I started teaching ten years ago.

There is a big difference between general feedback and detailed analysis of how you preformed in interview and how you CV scores around a set range of criteria.

Yes, they can but it's still subjective and therefore still arguable.

How people answers questions at an interview is not subjective. It is something that can be objectively measured, .i.e. their knowledge of the syllabus, their understanding of teaching methodology etc. With good note taking scores that candidates receive on being asked the same questions can be objectivity analysed.

Because he might not know what they are until he sees them.

If a principal wants something specific in his/her school why not set out what these criteria are before hand? As I have said before. These specific skills could be set out in the job spec? I am not sure what skill a potential candidate has that could not be picked up in a CV etc,

Impressions of a person's personality can vary wildly from person to person and without having experience of the environment you're introducing the person to, it'd be very difficult to say if that person suits the school or not.

With something so subjective as a "personality suited to the school" it would be easy for any principal to set that as criteria and to then basically hire as her or she pleases without any objective measure. But again if a principal did use this as a criteria let them set that out within a transparent process that could be viewed in the event of an appeal. I think many candidates who do not get a position on the grounds that their "personality was not suited to the school" would be happy to know that, and I think entitled to that information.

The principal might not either until they meet the candidate.

If a principal finds out information at interview that he or she thinks would be of benefit to the school and uses this information as the grounds to hire someone, that information could be noted within the marking process.

No doubt he does. That doesn't mean that they're easily gauged by someone else.

Set out to the interviewsees before the hiring process not the person doing the interviewing. If a principal wants certain skills for his/her school let those skills be put in the job specification.

I told you something I had experienced. You told me you weren't sure about it. I don't consider it civil when someone questions it when I tell them I've experienced something. I haven't accused you of lying or embellishing. I expect you to extend me the same courtesy or I will respond with the same respect you extend me.

The fact that they're there at all means they have some part in the process. Are you saying this from personal experience and/or that of people you actually know or just hearsay?

You were suggesting that in all cases you have seen the principal was directly involved in the interview process. That might be the case for you, but I am telling you that in a lot of cases the principal is not directly involved in the interview process.

There's a possibility yes but there is also a possibility that there was none.

And the objective evidence in to which you alluded to suggested that there seems to be some basis in your claim that nepotism could have been part of the hiring process.

If you look at all the things that point to possible nepotism then it's easy to see nepotism. If you leave it out, it's easy to see that it's just as likely that nepotism had little influence on the decision (and you would have to outlaw people from applying for any post that they have any connection with whatsoever in order to eliminate it entirely which even you must be willing to acknowledge just isn't reasonable).

If you leave out all parts of the story that point to nepotism then you are right its easy to argue is is not nepotism

The lack of a qualification isn't a basis. I'm teaching with at least one teacher who hasn't qualified as a teacher but is excellent at his job (by all accounts - I suppose I've never sat in on one of his classes to have experienced it myself) and fits in very well in the school. Would you say there must have been better candidates for his job too, given that he wasn't qualified? If so, why didn't they get the job? The teacher I'm working with now had no connection to the school prior to getting the job as far as I know, other than having worked in another school in the same VEC the previous year.
I also never implied that that "no other qualified teacher could possible have brought to the table", just that it seems probable that he brought more to the table than the other candidates who applied given that he got the job.

[/QUOTE]

And in a transparent interview process all of these questions could be analysed by those who did not get the job in the event of a dispute.

Why do you seem to so set against transparency? Why are you putting so much effort into arguing against a transparent interview application process? What is wrong with transparency? What is wrong with saying to a principal --"okay if you want to hire someone on such grounds that their "personality is more suited to the school" etc at least be prepared to defend that decision at a public level".

RealJohn

f3232 wrote: »

No, only the candidates own score would be available to them (this score would be detailed and could be judged accross all candidates. All of the candidates scores could be kept on file in case of a dispute where an independent dispute panel could assess all aspects of the interview process, i.e answers to questions by each interviewee (where detailed notes could be made) and how/if the marking scheme was properly adhered to.

I don't know how long this information is kept on file but like I've already said, this information was made available to me any time I've asked for it. Should it be made a rule that this information should be available to all interviewees for a certain period of time after the interview? Probably, yes but I imagine this is already the case in most schools.

f3232 wrote: »

If an manager of a school gives a job to someone on the basis of a good handshake or a levels of self confidence, let the manager specify that this was one of the reasons for giving the job over the other candidate . If that is the basis by which the decision is made.

While that's reasonable, don't you think that if could easily become the basis for an appeal? Not to mention that if you take any and all persons related to the school out of the interview as you seem to be advocating, this sort of decision is being by someone who doesn't know if their decision is in the best interests of the school.

f3232 wrote: »

Yes usually there will not be an exact similarity and where there is a very transparent marking process of qualifications, levels of experience, etc etc I doubt there would ever be an exact score. In any event such instances could be sorted out by scoring on questions within the interview process.

Ignoring the fact that given that it's a small country and a fairly limited number of qualifications recognised for teaching in most cases and that it's actually quite likely that exact similarity in qualifications and experience would crop up more often than than is reasonable to just dismiss, you're coming back into subjectivity here again. You can score a candidate's answers, yes but you can't guarantee that this scoring will be uniform across all the interviewers or indeed across all candidates.

f3232 wrote: »

There is a big difference between general feedback and detailed analysis of how you preformed in interview and how you CV scores around a set range of criteria.

Yes, you're right. You also need to take into consideration the resources required for such a system. Given the amount of money being cut from education as it is, it seems a pretty unnecessary waste of resources just to keep a few cranks happy and very occasionally, to give someone who has a genuine cause for concern peace of mind.

f3232 wrote: »

How people answers questions at an interview is not subjective. It is something that can be objectively measured, .i.e. their knowledge of the syllabus, their understanding of teaching methodology etc. With good note taking scores that candidates receive on being asked the same questions can be objectivity analysed.

Some of it is not subjective. Some of it is.

f3232 wrote: »

If a principal wants something specific in his/her school why not set out what these criteria are before hand? As I have said before. These specific skills could be set out in the job spec? I am not sure what skill a potential candidate has that could not be picked up in a CV etc,

Specific skills can be and probably are set out as criteria beforehand. Things that the principal wasn't expecting but still crop up in the interview can't be, can they?

f3232 wrote: »

With something so subjective as a "personality suited to the school" it would be easy for any principal to set that as criteria and to then basically hire as her or she pleases without any objective measure. But again if a principal did use this as a criteria let them set that out within a transparent process that could be viewed in the event of an appeal. I think many candidates who do not get a position on the grounds that their "personality was not suited to the school" would be happy to know that, and I think entitled to that information.

I think that the majority of candidates whose personality was not deemed suited to the school would be more likely to be unhappy about not getting the job if they weren't hired on such a subjective basis and that someone who might not otherwise have had a grievance and just requested feedback to see where they went wrong might suddenly want to complain about it. Again, it's just courting extra expense in a frivolous appeal.

f3232 wrote: »

If a principal finds out information at interview that he or she thinks would be of benefit to the school and uses this information as the grounds to hire someone, that information could be noted within the marking process.

It should, yes.

f3232 wrote: »

Set out to the interviewsees before the hiring process not the person doing the interviewing. If a principal wants certain skills for his/her school let those skills be put in the job specification.

If he knows what that is ahead of time, which he might not.

f3232 wrote: »

You were suggesting that in all cases you have seen the principal was directly involved in the interview process. That might be the case for you, but I am telling you that in a lot of cases the principal is not directly involved in the interview process.

I asked if that was your experience or something you've heard. I also didn't dispute that some principals don't take active part in the process but that should be their own choice given that they're the ones who know most about the school and what it needs in the majority of cases. If the principal was recently hired and doesn't know the school well yet, there's probably less reason for him to be part of the process but in that case, the DP or an assistant principal probably should be and again, that doesn't solve the problem of potential accusations of nepotism.
And I wasn't suggesting that that was how it was in all cases I've experienced. I was stating it as fact and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop implying that there's some ambiguity there. There isn't. That's how it was.

f3232 wrote: »

And the objective evidence in to which you alluded to suggested that there seems to be some basis in your claim that nepotism could have been part of the hiring process.

I'm not denying that there's some basis for the claim that nepotism could have been part of the hiring process. My contention from the start has been that there often will but that that is unavoidable. The fact that there is some basis for thinking that it could happen doesn't mean that it does (and again, I'm not claiming that is doesn't, merely that there's probably a perfectly good explanation in the vast majority of cases).

f3232 wrote: »

Why do you seem to so set against transparency? Why are you putting so much effort into arguing against a transparent interview application process? What is wrong with transparency? What is wrong with saying to a principal --"okay if you want to hire someone on such grounds that their "personality is more suited to the school" etc at least be prepared to defend that decision at a public level".

Oh, here it is. Make out that I'm against something that I have said nothing about. I never said that I'm against transparency and making out that I have is a cowardly tactic designed to make me hesitant to continue my argument.

What I'm against is wasting resources on a problem that won't be solved no matter how much money and red tape you throw at it. I'm fully in favour of the interview/hiring process being as transparent as is reasonable but that does not mean that schools should have to waste time and resources providing candidates with dossiers of information on what they scored for every small detail of the process and that any and all persons associated with the school should be removed from the process to prevent accusations of bias. If we don't trust school managers to make decisions in the best interests of the school they're supposed to be managing, where does that leave us?

f3232

RealJohn wrote: »

I don't know how long this information is kept on file but like I've already said, this information was made available to me any time I've asked for it. Should it be made a rule that this information should be available to all interviewees for a certain period of time after the interview? Probably, yes but I imagine this is already the case in most schools.

Standardized information retention processes/policies should be developed that makes it mandatory that interview boards keep detailed and comparable notes and marking schemes, which could then be refered to by an independent appeals process.

Until schools are forced to do this, the very ones engaging in nepotism will not, can you not get that?

While that's reasonable, don't you think that if could easily become the basis for an appeal?

You mean do I think making a decision on hiring a person solely on the basis of the "candidate made a good impression" or he had a "good handshake" would be grounds for an appeal, then yes it could easily become the grounds for an appeal and rightly too. However if detailed comparable records about responses to questions, educational details and qualifications levels of experience were kept then I doubt that would ever happen.

Also the candidates would not be given this detail until the appeals process was in train, it would be up to the candidate and their advisers at that point to argue their case of the fairness or otherwise of that decision within the appeals process. Do you get it??

Not to mention that if you take any and all persons related to the school out of the interview as you seem to be advocating, this sort of decision is being by someone who doesn't know if their decision is in the best interests of the school.

There is a conflict of interest if a relative of a principal is going of a job in a school and the principal is on the interview board. By having a very transparent hiring system that would allow for that relative to compete with the other candidates on a fair basis. Then if they did get the job there would be no murmurings of nepotism. Until a more transparent system is developed these murmurings will persist.

Ignoring the fact that given that it's a small country and a fairly limited number of qualifications recognised for teaching in most cases and that it's actually quite likely that exact similarity in qualifications and experience would crop up more often than than is reasonable to just dismiss, you're coming back into subjectivity here again. You can score a candidate's answers, yes but you can't guarantee that this scoring will be uniform across all the interviewers or indeed across all candidates.

SO what is your answer to that? ignore trying to develop a transparent system and allow a principal to hire someone on a whim of "he had a better handshake" or she "is more suited to the school"? That allows principals to hire who ever the hell they like without any accountability.

Also although scoring on interview questions is broadly subjective I dare say if clear records were kept of individual answers which could be made available to an independent appeals process, those of the interview board would think long and hard before being overly subjective in a positive way towards the principals relative.

Yes, you're right. You also need to take into consideration the resources required for such a system. Given the amount of money being cut from education as it is, it seems a pretty unnecessary waste of resources just to keep a few cranks happy and very occasionally, to give someone who has a genuine cause for concern peace of mind.

The money would be well spent if we had a fair and transparent hiring system which the public could have faith in and to which we could stop the scourge of nepotism/cute hoorism and dodgy dealings that goes on in Irish society.

People who cant get a job because of corruption and the blight of nepotism are certainly not cranks. Those who have the courage to stand up against it they are brave. Characterizing people as cranks does suit your agenda though.

Specific skills can be and probably are set out as criteria beforehand. Things that the principal wasn't expecting but still crop up in the interview can't be, can they?

If something pops up at a interview and that specific thing swings it in the balance of a candidate then let the principal/selection committee set that reason out in their scoring mechanism. As long as this reason is articulated in this scoring mechanism and can be seen in cases of appeals I have no problem with it. Can you get that yet?

I think that the majority of candidates whose personality was not deemed suited to the school would be more likely to be unhappy about not getting the job if they weren't hired on such a subjective basis and that someone who might not otherwise have had a grievance and just requested feedback to see where they went wrong might suddenly want to complain about it. Again, it's just courting extra expense in a frivolous appeal.

If a principal was to use "personality" as the grounds for hiring someone than he should be accountable for that decision. Any less and a principal could hire who ever the hell the liked on that basis (which they do). Don't you see that is where the problem is at the moment? The arbitrary nature of the decision process, the lack of transparency. If the system was more transparent and accountable, in the event of a appeals process the principal would have to justify his decision on awarding a job on the basis of "personality" i.e that one candidate had a personality more suited to the school. If he makes his decision on that basis than yes let him/her be accountable for it.

Only where an appeal process would be fully worked through would it come to light that the principal used the "personality" of the candidates as the reason to hire one over the other, so the issue would not come to light until then. Do you get it yet?

Oh, here it is. Make out that I'm against something that I have said nothing about. I never said that I'm against transparency and making out that I have is a cowardly tactic designed to make me hesitant to continue my argument.

You insinuate that fellow teachers who may be victims nepotism who might take cases of nepotism against an employer crackpots

You say it is a waste of money looking for transparency and a fair system, not understanding that fairer transparent systems ultimately save money to the tax payer and more importantly stop corruption. That is worth the money.

What I'm against is wasting resources on a problem that won't be solved no matter how much money and red tape you throw at it.

See above- excuse to allow nepotism

I'm fully in favour of the interview/hiring process being as transparent as is reasonable but that does not mean that schools should have to waste time and resources providing candidates with dossiers of information on what they scored for every small detail of the process and that any and all persons associated with the school should be removed from the process to prevent accusations of bias

.

Keeping fair and detailed information on file to which candidates have access is not a waste of time it is a absolute central duty within an interview process. Dont you see its the lack of such record keeping that is a causes in the problem?

If we don't trust school managers to make decisions in the best interests of the school they're supposed to be managing, where does that leave us?

I am all for trusting managers to make decisions as long as they are fully accountable for their decision. That is what they are payed to do. Trust without this associated accountability spells disaster.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here Realjohn

seavill

f3232 wrote: »

There is a conflict of interest if a relative of a principal is going of a job in a school and the principal is on the interview board. By having a very transparent hiring system that would allow for that relative to compete with the other candidates on a fair basis. Then if they did get the job there would be no murmurings of nepotism. Until a more transparent system is developed these murmurings will persist.

I think you know yourself that even if there are interview notes and scores to go back on which there are in most cases now anyway, if the son or daughter gets the job without the principal on the interview panel, this is Ireland people will still say that it was nepotism.
I have seen this happen where a principal was not involved in the interview process in a VEC job but I still heard people say "sure the panel will do what the principal wants anyway" despite them not being involved and scores being available on request.
People are small minded and will look for an easy excuse anywhere they find one.

I think repeatedly saying "do you get it yet" belittles your points somewhat, both of you have differing opinions and are putting them across quite well and ye are not going to agree but putting that in 3 times in one post comes across as mocking the other persons point of view rather than just making your own point.

f3232

seavill wrote: »

I think you know yourself that even if there are interview notes and scores to go back on which there are in most cases now anyway, if the son or daughter gets the job without the principal on the interview panel, this is Ireland people will still say that it was nepotism.

If the process was rigorously fair and seen to be fair and absolutely transparent with a transparent/standardized process from the selection of interview board right through to appointment and appeal process, then I do think the unwarranted claims of nepotism would diminish significantly.

However the system at present is too ad hoc, to open to being subjective and lacks any real transparancy.

I have seen this happen where a principal was not involved in the interview process in a VEC job but I still heard people say "sure the panel will do what the principal wants anyway" despite them not being involved and scores being available on request.
People are small minded and will look for an easy excuse anywhere they find one.

Yes I agree (within the present system), but in a reformed system which I have mentioned, I think this problem would not be as significant. Its precisely because we do not have any real accountability that these rumors will persist. In a system with real openness and transparency these rumors would not stand up to scrutiny.

I think repeatedly saying "do you get it yet" belittles your points somewhat, both of you have differing opinions and are putting them across quite well and ye are not going to agree but putting that in 3 times in one post comes across as mocking the other persons point of view rather than just making your own point.

Okay I take back the "do you get it" line.

seavill

I would have to disagree with you, the current system in the VEC I mentioned (3 years ago) was very open and transparent, the case was reviewed that I mentioned and people asked for their scores etc. and despite everything being proven there is still to this day a cloud hanging over the person that got the job, you would still hear the odd snide comment.
I think your Utopian world where everyone will accept it and move on is not in Ireland. People will still gripe and moan and use nepotism as an easy excuse whether it is warranted/proven or not

f3232

seavill wrote: »

I would have to disagree with you, the current system in the VEC I mentioned (3 years ago) was very open and transparent, the case was reviewed that I mentioned and people asked for their scores etc. and despite everything being proven there is still to this day a cloud hanging over the person that got the job, you would still hear the odd snide comment.

I cant comment on individual situations other than to take your word for it.

seavill wrote: »

I think your Utopian world where everyone will accept it and move on is not in Ireland. People will still gripe and moan and use nepotism as an easy excuse whether it is warranted/proven or not

Now your putting words in my mouth, I never mentioned utopia or "everyone will accept it and move on" And because people do grip and moan (and I know they do) it is no reason for not perusing a fairer and more transparent system.

Has there ever been a known case of nepotism in the teaching profession been proven? Probably not. Does it happen to a fairly significant degree? Probably yes. Is that right?

seavill

I know you never mentioned utopia but your constant references to the fact that if there is a transparent new system then everything will be ok and there won't be any nepotism or people complaining about it basically refers to the same thing.

You are also now putting words in my mouth, I never said there shouldn't be a fair, transparent system, if you look back on my previous posts I have said that I am all for a transparent system.
However I have given you an example of where there is a fair system in place where an appeal was lodged and all that goes with it and even though proven right people still said the same thing.
You seem to be of the impression that there isn't an appeals process currently? or at least that is what I am getting from your posts.
Apart from the example I gave above in a secondary school I was in there was an appeal after the appointment of a principal, and also I have experienced an appeal internally based on an assistant principals post in a school. There is an open and transparent process where people get to see their scores, people have to stand over their decisions and prove it, people are entitled to appeal something they feel where they have been wronged. In the last 6 years I have experienced it 3 times. It does happen everything is done above board, maybe not 10-20 years ago I don't know I wasn't around then but I know now in the examples I have experienced it does happen.
Each time appeals were unsuccessful so that straight away meant, in all 3 instances, that there was still underhanded things going on. As I said to this day these people that got rejected and appealed are still not happy.
The point is there is an open process currently do you thing that there isn't?

f3232

seavill wrote: »

I know you never mentioned utopia but your constant references to the fact that if there is a transparent new system then everything will be ok and there won't be any nepotism or people complaining about it basically refers to the same thing.

I never said that it would be okay or there would never be any nepotism again???????? I said it would be better than it is now. Again you are puttign words in my mouth.

However I have given you an example of where there is a fair system in place where an appeal was lodged and all that goes with it and even though proven right people still said the same thing.

Yes but that VEC system is not universal it is not in place in every primary and secondary school in Ireland. Even taking your account that the VEC you talk about was a fair system.

Yes it will always be the case that some people will still complain and still whisper nepotism but it this a reason not to make the system as transparant and accountable as possible?

You seem to be of the impression that there isn't an appeals process currently? or at least that is what I am getting from your posts.

I know there is an appeals process but the way interviews are conducted at present and the reluctance of VECs to give scores in interviews as opposed to feedback- and the general ad hoc nature of the recruitment process across the education sectors- it does make things like favoritism and nepotism easeier to go unchecked.

Apart from the example I gave above in a secondary school I was in there was an appeal after the appointment of a principal, and also I have experienced an appeal internally based on an assistant principals post in a school. There is an open and transparent process where people get to see their scores, people have to stand over their decisions and prove it, people are entitled to appeal something they feel where they have been wronged.

Yet when people do what they are entitled to do and use this appeals process they are vivified and called cranks and crackpots? Why is that do you think that is.

You are speaking from your own experience, that is fine but to extrapolate from this that this is how the system works in general is something else.

The point is there is an open process currently do you thing that there isn't?

I would say that the process today has the veneer of openness it is designed to be vague and ambiguous (and I am talking about the best systems)

There should be mandatory feedback of interview results and far more uniformity of selection procedures across the sectors as a start.

Again people who make an appeal and are unsuccessful will always be bitter about it, but in system that is truly transparent at least everyone else could have a bit more faith in the system.

seavill

The other 2 examples were from voluntary secondary schools. One was VEC.

Appeals and scores were available in all examples.

I'll leave it there with you. You keep coming back with the same points despite examples to the contrary in various sectors. You have your opinion that is fine. I have given proof of an appeals and scores situation which is available currently but you still seem to think this is unacceptable. I'll leave it there

RealJohn

f3232 wrote: »

Standardized information retention processes/policies should be developed that makes it mandatory that interview boards keep detailed and comparable notes and marking schemes, which could then be refered to by an independent appeals process.

Until schools are forced to do this, the very ones engaging in nepotism will not, can you not get that?

The ones engaging in nepotism? You make it sound like some schools have it as an unofficial policy.

f3232 wrote: »

You mean do I think making a decision on hiring a person solely on the basis of the "candidate made a good impression" or he had a "good handshake" would be grounds for an appeal, then yes it could easily become the grounds for an appeal and rightly too. However if detailed comparable records about responses to questions, educational details and qualifications levels of experience were kept then I doubt that would ever happen.

You can doubt it all you like but it would happen any time something subjective was used to differentiate candidates when the unsuccessful candidate felt that they should have got the job, justified or (more likely) not.

f3232 wrote: »

Also the candidates would not be given this detail until the appeals process was in train, it would be up to the candidate and their advisers at that point to argue their case of the fairness or otherwise of that decision within the appeals process. Do you get it??

Well a few posts later you've said that being given these details ought to be something that's done automatically (which again, would be a serious expense for schools to take on in a time when schools don't have much money).

f3232 wrote: »

There is a conflict of interest if a relative of a principal is going of a job in a school and the principal is on the interview board. By having a very transparent hiring system that would allow for that relative to compete with the other candidates on a fair basis. Then if they did get the job there would be no murmurings of nepotism. Until a more transparent system is developed these murmurings will persist.

Like seavill said, murmurings will persist no matter what. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "there's no smoke without fire" so as soon as someone makes an accusation of bias, the teacher who got hired will have that stain for the rest of their career or at least for as long as they're in the school, regardless of what any appeal finds. Also, we're not just talking about a relative of the principal here. This thread was started because of a situation mentioned in another thread where a teacher was hired and the OP of that thread made out that it was because they had a parent teaching in the school. The parent had no part in the interview process (as far as was mentioned in the thread), just that she was in a permanent job in the school already and that was enough to question why her son/daughter (I forget which) was hired. Like I've said several times already, those kind of "murmurings" will never, ever be eliminated completely and unless the attitude of the average Irish person changes, they won't even be reduced significantly, even if they televised the interviews live and published every qualification every candidate had in national newspapers.

f3232 wrote: »

SO what is your answer to that? ignore trying to develop a transparent system and allow a principal to hire someone on a whim of "he had a better handshake" or she "is more suited to the school"? That allows principals to hire who ever the hell they like without any accountability.

The principal can't hire anyone "without any accountability". They're even accountable if they have nothing to do with the hiring process because ultimately, a principal is judged on how the school performs, not on who he hires. If he hires someone who isn't up to the task, it reflects on him. If some faceless board hire someone who isn't up to the task, parents don't start pointing fingers at the board of management, they point fingers at the principal. The principal is always accountable, regardless of whether the hiring process is transparent or a closely guarded secret, known only to him and the parish priest.

f3232 wrote: »

Also although scoring on interview questions is broadly subjective I dare say if clear records were kept of individual answers which could be made available to an independent appeals process, those of the interview board would think long and hard before being overly subjective in a positive way towards the principals relative.

How clear do you want the records to be? Should there be an exact written record of every question and a verbatim transcript of what each candidate said, followed by a report on how each sentence was scored? Even then, there would be an element of subjectivity and we're entering the realms of ridiculousness now.

f3232 wrote: »

The money would be well spent if we had a fair and transparent hiring system which the public could have faith in and to which we could stop the scourge of nepotism/cute hoorism and dodgy dealings that goes on in Irish society.

No it wouldn't. The money would be well spent on another SNA or a resource teacher or a classroom assistant or new computers or any number of other things schools are sorely lacking and would be of benefit to students.

f3232 wrote: »

People who cant get a job because of corruption and the blight of nepotism are certainly not cranks. Those who have the courage to stand up against it they are brave. Characterizing people as cranks does suit your agenda though.

People who can't get a job because of corruption and the blight of nepotism don't exist in this country for a start. Maybe they don't always get the job they want but who says everyone's supposed to get what they want?
And you're employing your tactic again of making out that I've said something I haven't. What I said was:

... it seems a pretty unnecessary waste of resources just to keep a few cranks happy and very occasionally, to give someone who has a genuine cause for concern peace of mind.

Didn't you accuse me of leaving out things to serve my point (even though I'd already stated them quite clearly) and now you're failing to mention something that was vital to the context of what I was saying? The cranks are the people who bang on about corruption and nepotism without having a good reason to complain. Those who have a "genuine cause for concern" are not cranks and I've never made them out to be (hence my use of the words "genuine cause for concern").
I'd also thank you not to accuse me of having an agenda here (though I hope you appreciate the irony of you accusing me of doing something to suit my supposed agenda and needing to misrepresent what I said in order to illustrate it).

f3232 wrote: »

If something pops up at a interview and that specific thing swings it in the balance of a candidate then let the principal/selection committee set that reason out in their scoring mechanism. As long as this reason is articulated in this scoring mechanism and can be seen in cases of appeals I have no problem with it. Can you get that yet?

I agree. I never said that shouldn't be the case.

f3232 wrote: »

If a principal was to use "personality" as the grounds for hiring someone than he should be accountable for that decision. Any less and a principal could hire who ever the hell the liked on that basis (which they do). Don't you see that is where the problem is at the moment? The arbitrary nature of the decision process, the lack of transparency. If the system was more transparent and accountable, in the event of a appeals process the principal would have to justify his decision on awarding a job on the basis of "personality" i.e that one candidate had a personality more suited to the school. If he makes his decision on that basis than yes let him/her be accountable for it.

Like I said, the principal is always accountable and frankly, if he wants to hire "whoever the hell the liked" then he should do that as long as he thinks he's acting in the best interests of the school. His job is to act in the best interests in the school and like I've already said, the buck stops with him. If we don't trust principals to hire their staff, how can we trust our children's education to them?

f3232 wrote: »

Only where an appeal process would be fully worked through would it come to light that the principal used the "personality" of the candidates as the reason to hire one over the other, so the issue would not come to light until then. Do you get it yet?

Stuff about accountability etc. Only quoting this for the bit on bold.

f3232 wrote: »

You insinuate that fellow teachers who may be victims nepotism who might take cases of nepotism against an employer crackpots

No I didn't, as I've already explained, and you're the only one to use the word "crackpots" in this thread and you've used it at least twice now that I can remember. Would it be ok if I started using offensive words and imply that you said them (or insinuated them, if you prefer)? It seems only fair.

f3232 wrote: »

You say it is a waste of money looking for transparency and a fair system, not understanding that fairer transparent systems ultimately save money to the tax payer and more importantly stop corruption. That is worth the money.

I said that it's a waste of money when we don't have it to spend, which is currently the case and when it won't make any significant improvement to the situation, which it won't (as seavill has already pointed out).

f3232 wrote: »

Keeping fair and detailed information on file to which candidates have access is not a waste of time it is a absolute central duty within an interview process. Dont you see its the lack of such record keeping that is a causes in the problem?

It is when paid man hours are at a premium in the education system, as is currently the case. Fair? Yes. Detailed? As much as is reasonable. No matter how much you keep though, some people are still going to accuse people of bias. Also, it's not the lack of record keeping is the problem. Nepotism is (allegedly) the problem and no amount of records will eliminate it entirely unless those records state explicitly "Well I hired him because he's me nephew like. You know how it is hi."

f3232 wrote: »

I am all for trusting managers to make decisions as long as they are fully accountable for their decision. That is what they are payed to do. Trust without this associated accountability spells disaster.

You certainly don't appear to be and have said that you don't think they should be part of the process. I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing.

f3232 wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here Realjohn

I never agree to disagree. If I disagree, it's because I think you're wrong and that hasn't changed and the fact that you've resorted to childish badgering ("Do you get it??", "Can you get that yet?", "Do you get it yet?" Did I get them all?) and misrepresenting me gives me the impression that you've realised you are too and are hoping to shut me up. Your utopia will never exist (and I know you didn't use the word utopia. I'm not saying you did) unless the Irish people change their attitude. No amount of transparency will change it. Nepotism will probably never be eliminated entirely but ultimately, the principal is accountable either way and if he chooses a relative or a friend or whoever in favour of a better alternative, that better alternative is going to get a job in another school, improving that school which is bad for the principal who didn't hire him. I think we can rely on the vast majority of principals to put the school first and over-legislating all of them so as to hinder a small minority in a practice which isn't necessarily even detrimental (because let's face it, sometimes a principal probably hires their buddy because they're pals when it turns out that they're the best for the job anyway) and only rarely comes up (given that the number of friends or relatives a principal will ever get the chance to hire is likely to be a tiny fraction of the overall teaching population).

This is very much a case of a small number making a big noise and you're right, if a teacher gets a job due to nepotism when there was a better candidate for the job, that's bad but it will always happen to some degree so if we're going to agree to disagree (which we won't), I think it should be on the fact that while nepotism and cronyism are bad, they're also not the biggest problem in the education system by a long, long way.

CrookedIsland1

The last two schools I worked in are run by Principals who are perfectly willing to direct tax payers money into the pockets of their friends, neighbours and fellow golf club members without interviews or even subject need in the first place. They relish their power, position and influence in their small communities and they continue to lord it without any oversight from anyone, however I must admit that those hired are doing powerful work in up-holding their schools' ethos !

Previous to the above experiences in Voluntary Secondary Schools I was in a VEC and despite the embargo and plenty of ex-quota staff knocking around, 3 new jobs were created in a centre that was due to close so that 3 very important young graduates could be sheltered from the worse effects of the recession.

Everybody now say Ahhhh, isn't that lovely.

3 Balls...............3 strikes..............your a nobody...........Your out !

TheQuietFella

mariaalice wrote: »

I have the height of respect for teachers, they come in for a lot of unwarranted criticism and they are suppose to be able to solve every problem in society.

I can only assume that you're a teacher finding it difficult acquiring work, without having read through much of this thread. No school principal that I know will give employment just on account of a relation working within the same school but that's not saying that it doesn't happen but IF the parent of the sibling is a quality teacher I would only 'assume' that they also would be a good quality teacher & surely their final results would reflect this.

Pinkycharm

It happens, there is a school I know of with a parent and 2 of their children teaching in it, with a third of the parent on TP there. And its a school that very rarely takes TP students.

CrookedIsland1

It's not so much that it can happen here and there, it has been a feature of the last 3 employers I have worked for.............does anyone care about tax payers money being siphoned off by these people ?

man_no_plan

CrookedIsland1 wrote: »

It's not so much that it can happen here and there, it has been a feature of the last 3 employers I have worked for.............does anyone care about tax payers money being siphoned off by these people ?

Money being siphoned off?

I assume these people are teaching classes and getting paid for them?

If there is an allocation that money will be spent on some teacher, maybe not the one you'd pick but it would still be spent.

Siphoning off money is a different story entirely. You're talking about embezzlement with language like that.

CrookedIsland1

well when tax payers money is consistently being salaried out to friends, neighbours and connections of a Principal and outsiders don't even get a fair and open opportunity to compete for it what would you call it ? and does anybody care that this kind of stuff is going on. Please advise