Moving the goal posts to suit.....................

ethical

A teaching colleague has just informed me that her school has just appointed a new Principal and a New deputy Principal.There were upwards of 10 candidates interviewed for both positions,most had quite a lot of experience (eg,post holders for many years ,extra/postgraduate qualifications not to mention up to 25 years of experience in quite a number of cases).The 'new' incumbents were both from outside the school staff and one had a special duties post while the other had no post!When my colleague enquired with the employer she was told that if you had a post you got an interview!!!!,providing you applied that is. Is the horrible monkey of cronyism,politics in the room again with the most suitably qualified candidates(according to the employer) being overlooked due to 'outside' interference?

Moody_mona

This isn't your first outraged post on this forum.

One could have very easily written a post about someone who didn't get a job because they were the "outsider", they didn't have a previous post, or they had less experience, and instead it went to someone from the school advertising the position. And there would be claim that the candidate had pull, that they were only interviewing for the sake of it.

Can't have it every way.

Congratulations to the successful candidates. I hope they rise to you challenge of starting in a a new school.

Edit: re your title, what goal posts do you think were moved?

killbillvol2

Your post is gibberish. Hearsay and waffle. Great combination. What goalposts?

ethical

Oh we are a touchy lot on Boards today!!!..:D.( ever heard of the word:BULLYING?)
Being an observer of teachers and teaching (One of my parents was one!) I will always stand up for the profession but will never ever support blatant cronyism or political interference in getting a 'foot in' for anyone.I find that the Teaching Unions are damn all good at getting to the root of any 'misdemeanours' that are carried out by employers in the education system.

Edit: moving the goalposts,why tell someone that you had to have a post in order to be interviewed...............and then go ahead and appoint someone that did not have a post in the first place!

Moody_mona

Bullying? Where did that come from?

anfield liv

Interesting post to say the least but it it must be better than recruitment/promoting to schools teachers that are within 3 yrs of retiring to positions such as principals or deputy principals which was the case in the not too distant past.What is it people called it.....topping up pensions.

seavill

ethical wrote: »

will never ever support blatant cronyism or political interference in getting a 'foot in' for anyone.

Bullying??? difference of opinion more like (bullying and cronyism the two most thrown about words in my opinion)

You appear to refer to this case as "blatant cronyism" when in reality you know nothing about it only the hearsay from a friend.

I don't think you will find anyone here that supports cronyism or thinks that is doesn't go on to some SMALL amount but I think the problem you have encountered is that you like many many others here over the last while have thrown the word cronyism around with such ease with no proof or not even any first hand experience of what has gone on.
Obviously it goes on but not to the extent that 'disappointed applicants' seem to appease themselves with.
It is there yes, it is not widespread, it isn't cronyism just because someone new gets the job, or someone with no experience (all principals had no experience one day remember that)

rainbowtrout

I think I know the school you are on about, West of Ireland school ethical????

Because your description fits exactly what I heard about the appointees. If it's the same school and I suspect it is, I can tell you I know the new principal and I think they will do a damn fine job because I have worked with them on many occasions, as we both do a similar role in our respective schools, or rather they did before this appointment.

rainbowtrout

ethical wrote: »

A teaching colleague has just informed me that her school has just appointed a new Principal and a New deputy Principal.There were upwards of 10 candidates interviewed for both positions,most had quite a lot of experience (eg,post holders for many years ,extra/postgraduate qualifications not to mention up to 25 years of experience in quite a number of cases).The 'new' incumbents were both from outside the school staff and one had a special duties post while the other had no post!When my colleague enquired with the employer she was told that if you had a post you got an interview!!!!,providing you applied that is. Is the horrible monkey of cronyism,politics in the room again with the most suitably qualified candidates(according to the employer) being overlooked due to 'outside' interference?

To be honest I don't understand your latest gripe, a person in the school could have had a post for distribution of lockers which is not exactly difficult, while a person from outside could have had a post as exam secretary and year head - demonstrating a capability to do administrative work and disciplinary work.

Why do you say the most suitably qualified candidates according to the employer? How do you know who the employer thought were the most suitably qualified candidates?

km79

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I think I know the school you are on about, <MOD SNIP>

Because your description fits exactly what I heard about the appointees. If it's the same school and I suspect it is, I can tell you I know the principal and I think they will do a damn fine job because I have worked with them on many occasions, as we both do a similar role in our respective schools, or rather they did before this appointment.

And if it's the school I'm thinking off the VP is a brilliant appointment and a massive loss to our school.
I don't understand what the problem is. For years these appointments always went internally. More suitable better qualified "outsiders" were overlooked.
Surely it's progress now that the best person for the job gets it.
The days of teachers getting posts , appointments etc based purely on seniority with in a school are almost at an end.
Quite rightly so in my opinion. Best person for the job gets it. Maybe I am being naive ?

rainbowtrout

ethical wrote: »

Oh we are a touchy lot on Boards today!!!..:D.( ever heard of the word:BULLYING?)
Being an observer of teachers and teaching (One of my parents was one!) I will always stand up for the profession but will never ever support blatant cronyism or political interference in getting a 'foot in' for anyone.I find that the Teaching Unions are damn all good at getting to the root of any 'misdemeanours' that are carried out by employers in the education system.

Edit: moving the goalposts,why tell someone that you had to have a post in order to be interviewed...............and then go ahead and appoint someone that did not have a post in the first place!

Maybe those that applied internally that had no posts did not have anything to offer when they were making the shortlist.

Maybe the person from outside who didn't have a post did.

Maybe the person with no post has a masters in management or spent 10 years working in management in the private sector. That would be worth 100 times any A or B post to me if I was interviewing.

rainbowtrout

km79 wrote: »

And if it's the school I'm thinking off the VP is a brilliant appointment and a massive loss to our school.
I don't understand what the problem is. For years these appointments always went internally. More suitable better qualified "outsiders" were overlooked.
Surely it's progress now that the best person for the job gets it.
The days of teachers getting posts , appointments etc based purely on seniority with in a school are almost at an end.
Quite rightly so in my opinion. Best person for the job gets it. Maybe I am being naive ?

Myself and km79 are indeed referring to the same school and appointees

Best of luck to them, they'll do a fine job.

km79

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Myself and km79 are indeed referring to the same school and appointees

Best of luck to them, they'll do a fine job.

The fact that we figured it out is because 2 external appointments are so UNUSUAL and the opposite of the usual cronyism .......

Caiseoipe19

ethical wrote: »

Edit: moving the goalposts,why tell someone that you had to have a post in order to be interviewed...

But that's not what you said in the first post.

ethical wrote: »

When my colleague enquired with the employer she was told that if you had a post you got an interview!!!!,providing you applied that is.

So anyone that applied for the job that had a post previously was guaranteed an interview.
That doesn't mean that people that did not have a post previously but perhaps had other relevant experience etc. would not also get an interview.

Qwerty?

ethical wrote: »

A teaching colleague has just informed me that her school has just appointed a new Principal and a New deputy Principal.There were upwards of 10 candidates interviewed for both positions,most had quite a lot of experience (eg,post holders for many years ,extra/postgraduate qualifications not to mention up to 25 years of experience in quite a number of cases).The 'new' incumbents were both from outside the school staff and one had a special duties post while the other had no post!When my colleague enquired with the employer she was told that if you had a post you got an interview!!!!,providing you applied that is. Is the horrible monkey of cronyism,politics in the room again with the most suitably qualified candidates(according to the employer) being overlooked due to 'outside' interference?

Pretty obvious what school this is. I would think appointing 2 external candidates is the opposite to cronyism/politics. Best of luck to both of them.

Noccy_Mondy

If it's the same school that ye are on about (beginning with MOD SNIP) then I know for a fact that both outgoing Principal and DP were very dedicated to the job and the search for replacements took some time to get finalised. I know in my own school, a new principal was appointed last September, the reason that I believe why, is because he was a fairly well established staff member. He's doing a superb job, but I hate to think that these jobs are given purely due to the fact of seniority in the staff. If this is changing then it's welcomed by me. A good principal and deputy is key to a smooth running school IMO and the appointees shouldn't be compromised.

And of course best of luck to them both, hopefully they can make the school grow and become better established.

anfield liv

If indeed what some of my favourite and knowledgeable posters here on Boards are saying that they have identified the school in question and that the two new recruits who are known to them is true, is it not great news for the school in question. As I said in my earlier post its much better than someone having their pension topped up.

Pinkycharm

If its the person I know who got DP, they are unreal and crazy dedicated to the cause! Especially discipline! a total loss to previous school!

Fair play to the two of them!!

TheDriver

If you think there is something amiss, appeal the result to the Dept. Then put it to rest. People with no posts get P and DP roles and why not once they are the best people for the job.

rainbowtrout

TheDriver wrote: »

If you think there is something amiss, appeal the result to the Dept. Then put it to rest. People with no posts get P and DP roles and why not once they are the best people for the job.

Ethical didn't go for the job. It's not a job in their school

doubleglaze

I have heard rumours of <MOD SNIP___ TMI> ...

TheDriver

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Ethical didn't go for the job. It's not a job in their school

then its just the usual staffroom chat with unfounded assumptions.....

evolving_doors

OK this is getting a bit like eye-spy (and i'm not winning)... There's a bit too much info and speculation being bandied about so I'll hope I'm forgiven for the 'sanitising'.

For fear of these new appointees reading this thread and having their heads explode with compliments....thread closed.

I know where the OP is coming from, but I think we just don't know what goes on in the interview room.

MOD