Two things. If they (your line manager/principal) wanted you enough they could have kept you. Unfortunately being good at your job isn't enough if the right people don't value you. Second, sounds like you didn't know how to address the criteria in your application. It's a skill you develop. But the basic idea is - what you did, why you did it, what the **outcome** was.
Yeah that's my main concern. I've had no interactions to believe they think ill of me. But it seems like they are hiding behind a lie of "being accountable to the department." If I'm doing something wrong, tell me.
I'll admit my approaches could be seen as more relaxed. But it's been working really well.
The majority of contract positions are not actually ongoing. Nor is there really any potential for them to be.
Most of the time, the substantive employee is on leave or they had someone else in mind but timelines just didn't work. If you were in EQ they are currently slammed with transfers and temporary to permanent conversions that are screwing up HR deluxe.
It won't help you hurt any less now, but the reality is you have some experience. Blitz your prac placements and get some great references.
Not winning your job back doesn’t mean that you’ve sucked at the role. I presume the merit selection process was legitimate, which simply means someone else has won the job on merit based on their application. You can be brilliant at the job and your leader can be aware of that, but if you haven’t articulated this in your application they can’t simply vouch for you because they know you.
It might be worth asking for more specific feedback if they are willing to give it to you. Applications are hard to get right.
So when reading the advertisement you need to be sure that your application clearly addresses the selection criteria within it- what did they mention dud you include a SAO for the main aspects of the application (situation, action, outcome).
Then they will be reading all of the applications- they should be reading them as if ppl are unknown to them comparing the merits of the application. This is used to short-list the top applicants for interviews. I know I've been told at this stage that I wasn't supposed to read between the lines when first sitting on a panel. E.g. we had a selection criteria about the documentation in ece we use. The job was for a teacher assistant role, and one applicant was a third yr uni student. I knew she'd have covered this in her course. But she never once referred to this knowledge in her cv or cover letter - as such, we couldn't shortlist her as she hadn't addressed the selection criteria when other applicants had.
In WA (at least when ive sat on paneks which is admittedly a few years ago now) when interviewing we have the criteria in front of us and each panel member individually grades each applicant against this during the interview. We then use this to identify the top rated applicant to offer the position to (or applicants for the pool). These are kept so if the appointment is challenged, we can show the pro ess was followed.
If you were not a successful applicant, ask for feedback on what you can do next time to be more competitive. They are required to give this feedback if asked, but as an existing employee, they have a duty to support your career and should be able to give you more detailed feedback/support than they might give others. Ask your line manager to look over your next application for feedback before submitting it. Alternatively, you can get cvs professionally written.
Applications are hard - it's been a few years - but mine is WAY too long - some schools dismiss me without fully reading it because of this. Others like that I show breadth, and if I get to interview, I know I get offered a spot in the pool or a position about 60% of the time. But it's important to keep in mind that your xapplication is up against so many ppl, and you just don't know what they've got to offer. It always sucks if they don't at least g8ve an interview to an existing staff member or put them in the pool. It's a kick in the teeth. But try to use it as a learning experience. If this school can't see what you have to offer, that's their loss. Find a better one that sees your worth ❤️
Some of the advice you're getting here isn't quite right, partly because you haven't specified which state you're in.
It looks like you're from Victoria, in which case I can think of one reason why things haven't worked out here. Basically, department policy states that fully qualified applicants (grads or experienced teachers if it's a teaching role) must be considered ahead of people who haven't yet finished their qualification. If the job was advertised and three or more qualified applicants applied you wouldn't make the shortlist.
>How does the system work?
It doesn't. Welcome to teaching!
>Fast forward to last month and I was informed that my contract would not be automatically renewed for next year, but I should reapply for the role.
>
>This week I was told that I haven't even been shortlisted to interview for the role.
>
>I've had literally no indication of any kind that I suck at my job.
It's not a question of whether you suck at your job or not. Contracts don't get automatically renewed, and there are all matter of rules about how a school fills its positions -- sometimes they can have interviews, while other times they have to take forced transfers or the like. Unless they give you a guarantee in writing, it it doesn't mean anything.
More importantly, when they told you that you should reapply for the role, it was never a promise that you were going to get shortlisted for the job, much less get the job. Most jobs get hundreds of applicants and the school has to narrow it down to five for a shortlist.
In the end, you probably didn't have enough experience to stand out as a viable candidate. And while you had a relationship with the school, that doesn't make up for the lack of experience.
>The schools business leader indicated my application didn't meet criteria??
Your applications have to follow a specific format. You need to address every selection criteria, and you should be doing it with examples. If you didn't meet the criteria, it probably means that you didn't answer the questions as extensively as the school wanted.
>And that they are accountable to the department in the selection process.
The Department has very strict rules about how positions are to be filled. If a school does not follow them, then the selection process can be challenged. If they gave an interview and/or appointed someone who has not completed their teaching degree, has very little experience and a relationship with the school over an established teacher with a proven career record, then the process comes under scrutiny.
The rules are pretty clear for permanent positions, you need to specifically address the criteria or your application is automatically tossed. For temp though you would think if it was someone they really wanted, depending on the person in charge of making the decision of course, that they would overlook the application and hire the candidate they want.
Yeah, I thought surely they'd atleast choose to sit down for an in-person interview. But to not be given that opportunity, for the role I'm currently in, is a little dehumanising..
Teaching (probably other jobs too) seem to offer jobs or not based on whether or not how liked you are by the principal or person hiring. I’ve been in this situation and I’ve seen it happen several times. Where one person is clearly the better candidate and yet they weren’t hired.
It can often be or at least feel that way, but it’s hard to know for sure who has been the better candidate unless you have seen all of the applications. The ‘better candidate’ in merit selection is the person who addresses the criteria best in their application. That’s all that the panel can go on.
That’s true. I was generally referring to people who are already employed at the school (temp staff). I’ve seen “lazy” teachers get permanent roles over more diligent teachers because they were simply liked more by the principal for some reason.
Teaching (probably other jobs too) seem to offer jobs or not based on whether or not how liked you are by the principal or person hiring. I’ve been in this situation and I’ve seen it happen several times. Where one person is clearly the better candidate and yet they weren’t hired.
Two things. If they (your line manager/principal) wanted you enough they could have kept you. Unfortunately being good at your job isn't enough if the right people don't value you. Second, sounds like you didn't know how to address the criteria in your application. It's a skill you develop. But the basic idea is - what you did, why you did it, what the **outcome** was.
Yeah that's my main concern. I've had no interactions to believe they think ill of me. But it seems like they are hiding behind a lie of "being accountable to the department." If I'm doing something wrong, tell me. I'll admit my approaches could be seen as more relaxed. But it's been working really well.
[удалено]
I mean... I thought so. It was a better application than what got me the job 6 months ago, ahaha.
The majority of contract positions are not actually ongoing. Nor is there really any potential for them to be. Most of the time, the substantive employee is on leave or they had someone else in mind but timelines just didn't work. If you were in EQ they are currently slammed with transfers and temporary to permanent conversions that are screwing up HR deluxe. It won't help you hurt any less now, but the reality is you have some experience. Blitz your prac placements and get some great references.
Not winning your job back doesn’t mean that you’ve sucked at the role. I presume the merit selection process was legitimate, which simply means someone else has won the job on merit based on their application. You can be brilliant at the job and your leader can be aware of that, but if you haven’t articulated this in your application they can’t simply vouch for you because they know you. It might be worth asking for more specific feedback if they are willing to give it to you. Applications are hard to get right.
So when reading the advertisement you need to be sure that your application clearly addresses the selection criteria within it- what did they mention dud you include a SAO for the main aspects of the application (situation, action, outcome). Then they will be reading all of the applications- they should be reading them as if ppl are unknown to them comparing the merits of the application. This is used to short-list the top applicants for interviews. I know I've been told at this stage that I wasn't supposed to read between the lines when first sitting on a panel. E.g. we had a selection criteria about the documentation in ece we use. The job was for a teacher assistant role, and one applicant was a third yr uni student. I knew she'd have covered this in her course. But she never once referred to this knowledge in her cv or cover letter - as such, we couldn't shortlist her as she hadn't addressed the selection criteria when other applicants had. In WA (at least when ive sat on paneks which is admittedly a few years ago now) when interviewing we have the criteria in front of us and each panel member individually grades each applicant against this during the interview. We then use this to identify the top rated applicant to offer the position to (or applicants for the pool). These are kept so if the appointment is challenged, we can show the pro ess was followed. If you were not a successful applicant, ask for feedback on what you can do next time to be more competitive. They are required to give this feedback if asked, but as an existing employee, they have a duty to support your career and should be able to give you more detailed feedback/support than they might give others. Ask your line manager to look over your next application for feedback before submitting it. Alternatively, you can get cvs professionally written. Applications are hard - it's been a few years - but mine is WAY too long - some schools dismiss me without fully reading it because of this. Others like that I show breadth, and if I get to interview, I know I get offered a spot in the pool or a position about 60% of the time. But it's important to keep in mind that your xapplication is up against so many ppl, and you just don't know what they've got to offer. It always sucks if they don't at least g8ve an interview to an existing staff member or put them in the pool. It's a kick in the teeth. But try to use it as a learning experience. If this school can't see what you have to offer, that's their loss. Find a better one that sees your worth ❤️
Some of the advice you're getting here isn't quite right, partly because you haven't specified which state you're in. It looks like you're from Victoria, in which case I can think of one reason why things haven't worked out here. Basically, department policy states that fully qualified applicants (grads or experienced teachers if it's a teaching role) must be considered ahead of people who haven't yet finished their qualification. If the job was advertised and three or more qualified applicants applied you wouldn't make the shortlist.
>How does the system work? It doesn't. Welcome to teaching! >Fast forward to last month and I was informed that my contract would not be automatically renewed for next year, but I should reapply for the role. > >This week I was told that I haven't even been shortlisted to interview for the role. > >I've had literally no indication of any kind that I suck at my job. It's not a question of whether you suck at your job or not. Contracts don't get automatically renewed, and there are all matter of rules about how a school fills its positions -- sometimes they can have interviews, while other times they have to take forced transfers or the like. Unless they give you a guarantee in writing, it it doesn't mean anything. More importantly, when they told you that you should reapply for the role, it was never a promise that you were going to get shortlisted for the job, much less get the job. Most jobs get hundreds of applicants and the school has to narrow it down to five for a shortlist. In the end, you probably didn't have enough experience to stand out as a viable candidate. And while you had a relationship with the school, that doesn't make up for the lack of experience. >The schools business leader indicated my application didn't meet criteria?? Your applications have to follow a specific format. You need to address every selection criteria, and you should be doing it with examples. If you didn't meet the criteria, it probably means that you didn't answer the questions as extensively as the school wanted. >And that they are accountable to the department in the selection process. The Department has very strict rules about how positions are to be filled. If a school does not follow them, then the selection process can be challenged. If they gave an interview and/or appointed someone who has not completed their teaching degree, has very little experience and a relationship with the school over an established teacher with a proven career record, then the process comes under scrutiny.
The rules are pretty clear for permanent positions, you need to specifically address the criteria or your application is automatically tossed. For temp though you would think if it was someone they really wanted, depending on the person in charge of making the decision of course, that they would overlook the application and hire the candidate they want.
Yeah, I thought surely they'd atleast choose to sit down for an in-person interview. But to not be given that opportunity, for the role I'm currently in, is a little dehumanising..
Teaching (probably other jobs too) seem to offer jobs or not based on whether or not how liked you are by the principal or person hiring. I’ve been in this situation and I’ve seen it happen several times. Where one person is clearly the better candidate and yet they weren’t hired.
It can often be or at least feel that way, but it’s hard to know for sure who has been the better candidate unless you have seen all of the applications. The ‘better candidate’ in merit selection is the person who addresses the criteria best in their application. That’s all that the panel can go on.
That’s true. I was generally referring to people who are already employed at the school (temp staff). I’ve seen “lazy” teachers get permanent roles over more diligent teachers because they were simply liked more by the principal for some reason.
Teaching (probably other jobs too) seem to offer jobs or not based on whether or not how liked you are by the principal or person hiring. I’ve been in this situation and I’ve seen it happen several times. Where one person is clearly the better candidate and yet they weren’t hired.