Recruiting a new Head, part 2
Apologies for the delay in posting - due to summer holidays etc. Also this replicates the gap left between putting the advert in TES and getting the responses. The rest of the process was faster, so I shall try to post in simulated "real time".
A week before the meeting to shortlist candidates, I received copies of all the applications in the post, along with a matrix on which to score them ahead of the meeting.
There were a handful of applicants; quite a typical response from what the LEA told us. The matrix reminded us of the criteria we had set down, and which we had wanted to see demonstrated in the application form. We had to mark them from 1 (no evidence or very weak evidence) to 5 (extremely strong evidence) in each category.
At the meeting we went over our scores. In fact some of the panel had scored them, some had only ticked yes or no for evidence shown or not shown, and one hadn't received the paperwork in time to prepare. We considered each application in turn, against the matrix one point at a time, and took an average of our scores. In fact what I had thought was "strong evidence" was often wrong; luckily the LEA were there to guide us with the benefit of their experience, to explain what they would like to see in the ideal answer, so in many cases I revised my mark as we went along, to something more realistic.
Some candidates had written their application out addressing each of the criteria in turn with a brief paragraph (e.g. 1. Strong Leadership: My experience of this is...) which had seemed more time consuming and dull to read when first faced with the forms, but which made it much easier to score when it came to it. Others had written in more general prose, which seemed easier to read and often came across as far more inspirational, but was harder to score as we had to go through it with a toothcomb looking for evidence on each point.
Anyway, when the scores were totted up at the end of the meeting, it was agreed we would send the strongest candidates to an assessment centre the following week, with a trainer from the assessment centre coming to provide us with feedback the next day.
More soon...
A week before the meeting to shortlist candidates, I received copies of all the applications in the post, along with a matrix on which to score them ahead of the meeting.
There were a handful of applicants; quite a typical response from what the LEA told us. The matrix reminded us of the criteria we had set down, and which we had wanted to see demonstrated in the application form. We had to mark them from 1 (no evidence or very weak evidence) to 5 (extremely strong evidence) in each category.
At the meeting we went over our scores. In fact some of the panel had scored them, some had only ticked yes or no for evidence shown or not shown, and one hadn't received the paperwork in time to prepare. We considered each application in turn, against the matrix one point at a time, and took an average of our scores. In fact what I had thought was "strong evidence" was often wrong; luckily the LEA were there to guide us with the benefit of their experience, to explain what they would like to see in the ideal answer, so in many cases I revised my mark as we went along, to something more realistic.
Some candidates had written their application out addressing each of the criteria in turn with a brief paragraph (e.g. 1. Strong Leadership: My experience of this is...) which had seemed more time consuming and dull to read when first faced with the forms, but which made it much easier to score when it came to it. Others had written in more general prose, which seemed easier to read and often came across as far more inspirational, but was harder to score as we had to go through it with a toothcomb looking for evidence on each point.
Anyway, when the scores were totted up at the end of the meeting, it was agreed we would send the strongest candidates to an assessment centre the following week, with a trainer from the assessment centre coming to provide us with feedback the next day.
More soon...
posted by An inner-city school governor at
Friday, July 01, 2005
2 Comments:
Very strange way to interview a headteacher (I have done 3 head's panels)! What on earth was the assessment centre going to tell you that you couldn't have worked out yourself. Reading all your comments on this, I suspect that the panel allowed the LEA more influence and decision making than is usual in my authority and was particularly concerned to see how your thoughts were changed by the adviser's comments on what they would look for. Also any paperwork actually filled in (including your matrix grid) is required to be kept in case of a challenge from an unsuccessful candidate regarding the interview process and for that very reason, most panels keep paperwork to a minimum.
Strikes me that you are highly likely to be a London borough with a history of political manouevering by your authority and no real independance for governors.
By
Anonymous, at August 11, 2005
The assessment centre was a new initiative, but the feedback was very useful. However, I don't feel we allowed the LEA to change our minds at any stage or to exert any bad influence; simply that they have experience and we don't, so we seek their advice. Of course we made our own decision - and it's one I stand by.
You're quite right about keeping the paperwork, we were required to hand it in for safe keeping by the LEA.
I honestly haven't noticed any political manoeuvring - and sincerely hope you are wrong on that count, in that it won't rear its head, because that would indeed make it hard to do our jobs as governors.
By
An inner-city school governor, at August 11, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home