*to Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

Ontario School-Board Nepotism Addressed?

We'll see...
"But it’s not just a South Asian issue or even a racial issue — we had some white males say, ‘I’m not schmoozing with the right people, so I can’t get a permanent job,’” said company president Tana Turner.
This lady did her job!
Among the changes to start immediately:
- At least two people must conduct a job interview — the principal and someone else...
No. You have an HR department, who as bad as they are, is one central organization which can be audited for hiring-behaviour, and which 'doesn't have a horse in the race' of staffing a particular school. Assign teachers to schools from the central office.  Also doesn't let a principal control their little fief and opens a school to a wider variety of skills than one principal can conceive of in their bureaucratic mind.

'Aren't principals the best judge of their school's needs?'  No, quite otherwise.  They can judge their own needs, as they perceive them, which as for most people is someone who kisses ass.  I have had six principals in my school-board.  One I got along with well, but though it suited me, I do not think he was professional.  One was entirely fair and not overly friendly with me, and entirely professional.  The other four were all significantly unprofessional, and two were a problem for me - because I have a penis and because I don't kiss ass.  Everyone knows that many principals did the minimum number of years in the classroom and all the other steps to principal, and will do so in the position too, chasing the most perks and pay.  These types more often come from parents who did the same, of course.

Principals have been hiring each others' kids for ever. I only got an interview in an Ontario, Canada, school-board*, because there was a dire teacher shortage, AND my mother had a friend who'd been a principal. That connection wouldn't have been sufficient even two years later.

*And the job only because there was a dire shortage of teachers.


  1. This seemed to be a big issue in our district and it stemmed from the top up. Our old HR Director was basically using this place as a stepping stone to find another district to work in. Our current director seems to be an integral part in the hiring process and with HR issues with teachers as well as classified staff.

    He is very fair. Which recently annoyed me with the implementation of a mandatory hour lunch but that is neither here nor there. Fact remains, it was the fair thing to do. I am all for fairness. I will save my lunch hour rant for my soapbox.

    With the change in HR from the district office level I hope a certain school in our district will start hiring fairly instead of playing favorites as they have been.

    1. 'Who's watching the watchers?' or something like that. In my experience, the higher up someone's tried to get the more likely they were always corrupt, or have been corrupted. Not to say all of them, but far more of them. Nobody should be without effective and independent oversight in an organization.

    2. I suppose ultimately in our case, the watchers are being watched by the certificated and classified unions. Luckily our HR director actually works with them instead of our last person which hid everything from them.

      As per last night's board meeting... it has been brought to the board that the 'certain' school I mentioned may be facing hostile take over if parents agree to join up with the folks of parentrevolution.org *sigh* I feel like working in education is like living a soap opera. Bad things are afoot at the Circle K if this revolution goes through.

    3. I would never be a teacher in the US, Japan or the UK, from what I have heard. It's barely acceptable in Canada, and I encourage nobody to do it, especially men, given the climate of suspicion.

      I have had a run-in with a parent's false accusations, and little support from my union, and none from my cowardly principal. To give you an idea of the parent, they accused me of verbal bullying, not any kind of touching, in my opinion because they couldn't stand the investigation that would have brought, followed by my civil suit against them.

      It came to nothing, because it was based on nothing but the parent's need for attention, as these things are. I used it to my advantage. I'd give more details, but I use vagueness as 'plausible deniability' that this blog has anything to do with my real name.