Appealing asst principal position

MrJones1973

Appealing asst principal position
I recently did an interview for an A post. I did not get the job even though I feel like I'm more qualified. I have post grads which the successful applicant does not have among other things.

I also have more management experience

I do not wish to get into particulars for obvious reasons but do people have experience of such appeals and are they successful ever?

Icsics

Get ur scores & you'll also get the scores of the successful applicant. Put everything you can think of into the appeal. Seems people who served on BOMs count it as mgt exp, so they may have that & you wouldn't necessarily know

km79

Icsics wrote: »

Get ur scores & you'll also get the scores of the successful applicant. Put everything you can think of into the appeal. Seems people who served on BOMs count it as mgt exp, so they may have that & you wouldn't necessarily know

The appeal must be based on a procedural error
It can't just be appealed because you feel you should have gotten it
Get the scores and feedback BUT to appeal there has to have been a procedural error as I said
It's on Asti website I believe from some circular

ethical

Its a joke the way the appeals process work,expect certain ETBs to be "outed" soon regarding their procedures.

MrJones1973

km79 wrote: »

The appeal must be based on a procedural error
It can't just be appealed because you feel you should have gotten it
Get the scores and feedback BUT to appeal there has to have been a procedural error as I said
It's on Asti website I believe from some circular

That's incorrect. Doesn't just have to be procedural

km79

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

That's incorrect. Doesn't just have to be procedural

Really ?
It can be just appealed for the sake of it ?
I suppose it could but it won't be successful .....

killbillvol2

In my experience, (I've represented/advised a number of people with appeals), your appeal may well succeed if their paperwork is sloppy. The problem is they just do it all again, appoint the same person and make sure all their boxes are ticked the second time.

TheDriver

Talk to someone independent on staff if possible and get the truth, everyone feels they deserve it and the competition doesn't. If you feel after reflection that you should have gotten it, then best wishes with your appeal

Exiled1

You will always be told by your colleagues that you should have been appointed...... that is how politics works and nobody wishes to be offensive to you personally.
You will not have access to the other candidates marks.
Under recent rules, asfaik the appeal can only be procedural, but check in any case.
It can be frustrating but in the vast majority of situations the school / etb wishes to appoint the best candidate in their eyes.
Don't be disheartened. Perhaps you should do a bit of work on interview technique / skills. Many disappointed candidates think they have done well at interview whereas the opposite is often the case..... I can speak confidently about that from personal experience.

Icsics

Exiled1 wrote: »

You will always be told by your colleagues that you should have been appointed...... that is how politics works and nobody wishes to be offensive to you personally.
You will not have access to the other candidates marks.
Under recent rules, asfaik the appeal can only be procedural, but check in any case.
It can be frustrating but in the vast majority of situations the school / etb wishes to appoint the best candidate in their eyes.
Don't be disheartened. Perhaps you should do a bit of work on interview technique / skills. Many disappointed candidates think they have done well at interview whereas the opposite is often the case..... I can speak confidently about that from personal experience.

You are entitled to see your marks and the successful applicants. You also get your own notes but not the others notes.

RealJohn

To be fair, these things are not all about letters after your name, nor should they be. It's isn't as black and white as simply who the most qualified is on paper. If it was, there'd be no reason to have interviews at all.

For example, I have a colleague who is quite clearly gathering management experience and, although I haven't actually asked him about it, it seems obvious to me that his goal is to get out of the classroom and into management as soon as possible. I also know that no matter how many qualifications he gets and no matter how much experience he gathers, few members of the staff would be happy to work under him. He just doesn't have the personality for it (in my opinion) and wouldn't be able to retain a staff because he rubs everyone the wrong way.

Now I have no idea if the OP is similar to my colleague (it would be difficult to be as bad in fairness) but obviously, it's not simply a matter of bad and good either. You might be more qualified on paper but if the interview board, taking your qualifications into account, still thinks that the other candidate is the better choice, they might well have good reason for their decision and you might simply have to accept that.

MrJones1973

Thank you for all that. I fully understand its more than qualifications but qualifications should be noted. I just know the type who mainly applies in my school-all bull and out the door at 4pm. Meanwhile our academic standards are dreadful and the school becomes a therapy center. This is not the case with every applicant.

We were matched on seniority just as an aside.

ah sure once this agreement passes-its posts galore:rolleyes:

2011abc

It's not passed yet .Dont be promoting a Yes vote whether intentionally or not .Icsics post #10 has the important info .You can appeal but one aspect of the super 'new' deal is you will only be able to appeal on procedural grounds .Theres an 'accepted wisdom' that if you appeal and fail you won't get any subsequent post.I mean this in the nicest possible way , you're clearly outspoken and alas in my experience ( been there, done that,someone less experienced than me got the t-shirt ) principals only want to be surrounded by 'Yes men' and are increasingly facilitated by 'new rules '.On my staff many of the senior ( definitely MOST SUITABLE ) staff have stepped aside rather than waste their time competing for posts that are pencilled in for 'junior licks ' .Guess whether the running of the school by middle management is flourishing or in decline ?!

MrJones1973

2011abc wrote: »

It's not passed yet .Dont be promoting a Yes vote whether intentionally or not .Icsics post #10 has the important info .You can appeal but one aspect of the super 'new' deal is you will only be able to appeal on procedural grounds .Theres an 'accepted wisdom' that if you appeal and fail you won't get any subsequent post.I mean this in the nicest possible way , you're clearly outspoken and alas in my experience ( been there, done that,someone less experienced than me got the t-shirt ) principals only want to be surrounded by 'Yes men' and are increasingly facilitated by 'new rules '.On my staff many of the senior ( definitely MOST SUITABLE ) staff have stepped aside rather than waste their time competing for posts that are pencilled in for 'junior licks ' .Guess whether the running of the school by middle management is flourishing or in decline ?!

Great post. I don't think I will appeal but won't apply again internally but will look outside the school or go back into grinds.
It came up recently in our school - why should anyone be a subject co-ordinator ?

ethical

Exiled1 wrote: »

You will always be told by your colleagues that you should have been appointed...... that is how politics works and nobody wishes to be offensive to you personally.
You will not have access to the other candidates marks.
Under recent rules, asfaik the appeal can only be procedural, but check in any case.
It can be frustrating but in the vast majority of situations the school / etb wishes to appoint the best candidate in their eyes.
Don't be disheartened. Perhaps you should do a bit of work on interview technique / skills. Many disappointed candidates think they have done well at interview whereas the opposite is often the case..... I can speak confidently about that from personal experience.

What a <MOD SNIP> statement to make,look at some of the recent appointments and you will see the "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" culture that exists ......and <MOD SNIP>the school and its community in the process.Anthony and Mary will do as they are told on the panel,and so would you if you were a white collar crook! they even get a few "top" union guys to sit on these panels also to make them "legitimate",(the 500-1000 cash/voucher comes in handy also for the "inconvenience" of sitting on this "unbiased" panel to "make" a decision that can kill a school never mind the future prospects of a "straight" candidate.

implausible

ethical wrote:

What a fcukin statement to make,look at some of the recent appointments and you will see the "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" culture that exists ......and fcuk the school and its community in the process.Anthony and Mary will do as they are told on the panel,and so would you if you were a white collar crook! they even get a few "top" union guys to sit on these panels also to make them "legitimate",(the 500-1000 cash/voucher comes in handy also for the "inconvenience" of sitting on this "unbiased" panel to "make" a decision that can kill a school never mind the future prospects of a "straight" candidate.

So anyone on a panel is a white collar crook and union nominees on a panel get money to sit on it?!

Change the record, Ethical, if you have evidence of misconduct, share it with the appropriate authority and/or expose it. Posting here with the same old vague, unfounded, tabloid, clichéd accusations is boring and paints you as extremely bitter.

Icsics

implausible wrote: »

So anyone on a panel is a white collar crook and union nominees on a panel get money to sit on it?!

Change the record, Ethical, if you have evidence of misconduct, share it with the appropriate authority and/or expose it. Posting here with the same old vague, unfounded, tabloid, clichéd accusations is boring and paints you as extremely bitter.

Yes, Ethical is correct. Nominees on these interview panels are there because they tow the line, they are 'yes people' & if you add to the mix an unprincipled Principal, good at paperwork....the Principal will appoint exactly who he wants & the 'independent' panel will sign off on it.
The new system for posts is the most divisive thing to come into the staffrom. And Principals will have the pick.

implausible

Icsics wrote:

Yes, Ethical is correct. Nominees on these interview panels are there because they tow the line, they are 'yes people' & if you add to the mix an unprincipled Principal, good at paperwork....the Principal will appoint exactly who he wants & the 'independent' panel will sign off on it. The new system for posts is the most divisive thing to come into the staffrom. And Principals will have the pick.

ETBs have very strict rules for the composition of interview panels.

Do you think that promotion based solely on seniority is the way to go?

km79

Icsics wrote: »

Yes, Ethical is correct. Nominees on these interview panels are there because they tow the line, they are 'yes people' & if you add to the mix an unprincipled Principal, good at paperwork....the Principal will appoint exactly who he wants & the 'independent' panel will sign off on it.
The new system for posts is the most divisive thing to come into the staffrom. And Principals will have the pick.

The new system whereby the next in line doesn't automatically get the job even if they are completely unsuitable and maybe much less qualified for a middle management position ?
That's the way it's done in almost ever other position right ?
An interview and best person gets the job?
It's time to get real !
The seniority and entitlement culture has been prevalent for FAR too long .
Best person for the job. Yes people will piss and moan and accuse people of favourtism etc etc
That's life .
The old system was archaic and downright ridiculous

RealJohn

Principals should "have the pick" anyway. Ultimately, they're the ones who have to live and die by their decisions. If the school starts going downhill, the board of management and the interview panels aren't the ones who'll get the blame, nor are they the ones in the school every day, interacting with students and staff.

Of course there should be others involved in the process but ultimately, the principal has to have the final say because they're the ones who are most likely to know what's needed and what suits the school best.

ethical

implausible wrote: »

ETBs have very strict rules for the composition of interview panels.

Please,please,take a number of ETBs around where you live and check out the personnel that appear on the interview panels all the time and then reconsider your statement.

Aufbau

RealJohn wrote: »

Principals should "have the pick" anyway. Ultimately, they're the ones who have to live and die by their decisions. If the school starts going downhill, the board of management and the interview panels aren't the ones who'll get the blame, nor are they the ones in the school every day, interacting with students and staff.

Of course there should be others involved in the process but ultimately, the principal has to have the final say because they're the ones who are most likely to know what's needed and what suits the school best.

So if the principal knows best and has to carry the can, why should others be involved in the process? Please answer this.

And in all this, what's available for teachers who want promotion and a say in how their school is run but aren't 'yes' men?

For those who shout loudest about meritocracy, it leaves the field open for 'friends' and 'supporters', and closed for those who very professional but don't smile sweetly at how the school is currently run.

Also, not all principals who did a wonderful interview are wonderful principals, even if they are great friends themselves with the people on the interview panel, who they may meet and socialise with on a regular basis.

MrJones1973

To be fair the above applies to a lot of private sector as well. My dad used to work in the bank . Retired long before crash. Said place full of bull ****ters who got promoted through dodgy selling. They were well promoted before bad debts turned up or people looking after people's careers.
It's the nature of things but private sector better at weeding out such wasters.

evolving_doors

Mrwhite1970 wrote: »

To be fair the above applies to a lot of private sector as well. My dad used to work in the bank . Retired long before crash. Said place full of bull ****ters who got promoted through dodgy selling. They were well promoted before bad debts turned up or people looking after people's careers.
It's the nature of things but private sector better at weeding out such wasters.

Dunno about that, given the turn of events you described above.

implausible

ethical wrote:

Please,please,take a number of ETBs around where you live and check out the personnel that appear on the interview panels all the time and then reconsider your statement.

I can only speak for my own large ETB where the interview panel members state their background and the local TUI branch have insisted upon rotation of people on boards. In the last while, I have heard of a variety of people being on them.

If you are so convinced of wrongdoing, why not do something about it? I'm sure the local union branch would be interested in any money changing hands for sitting on a panel or consistent pattern of unfair decisions.

I didn't get the last post I went for (or any for that matter) and I knew I had a good chance, but instead of muttering about corruption in dark corners, I got on with my job. Nobody wants to listen to someone with a chip on their shoulder about promotion and ultimately, it's that person who ends up looking bitter, while the successful candidate gets accepted into their new role and life goes on.

implausible

Aufbau wrote:

For those who shout loudest about meritocracy, it leaves the field open for 'friends' and 'supporters', and closed for those who very professional but don't smile sweetly at how the school is currently run.

And the alternative leaves the gate firmly shut to those who haven't 20 years experience. A promotion should not be a reward for long service.

Aufbau wrote:

Also, not all principals who did a wonderful interview are wonderful principals, even if they are great friends themselves with the people on the interview panel, who they may meet and socialise with on a regular basis.

Sure you can say that about anyone in any job, there are teachers who do great interviews who are incompetent.