To think they could of at least given me an interview?

[taken4afool]

I have been volunteering at a school for 2 years while I completed my level 2 & level 3 teaching assistants course.

I qualified a few months ago and would love to work in the school, I have been working in reception year. On my course I needed to work 1 day a week in placement, but to get as much experience as possible I had been working 3, the teacher has been very vocal about how much she values me and that she would be lost without me, she has even asked (at least once a month) if I was not doing anything on a certain, if I could come in to help (which I always did willingly).

It is such a good school and due to my own children, working there would be perfect as no other school around for miles and I do not drive.

Jobs coming up are very rare, well one came up and my teacher told me about it, (it was in her class) I applied and the closing date was last Friday, and I have heard nothing. The post said that if the candidate has heard nothing by today, assume you have been unsuccessful. The teacher said that she would be a reference, but stated that the headteacher will make her own decision.

I am gutted as I have given a lot of time to the school, I have always helped extra when needed, I get on very well with the team and always being asked to help out in other classes.

My confidence has taken a real battering and I feel very low, my dh left me 3 months ago, but every time I went into school that was all forgotten as I loved what I was doing and built up good relationships with staff and the children. No one even suspected anything was wrong as I came alive in the classroom.

I appreciate there might have been better candidates for the job, but after giving 2 years volunteering, if I was not selected for an interview, I would of thought at least someone could of said to me, thanks for your application but you have not been selected.

Guess I am waffling now, sorry

Grammar aside, it may very well be that they are delayed in inviting people for interviews. This happened about half the time when I was searching for jobs in the Summer.

I applied for a job in a public sector org which said interviews will be on. X date. X date came and went so I went to visit my mum. When I got back there was a letter calling me to interview, but interview date had gone. So why not phone to check if they really sent out letters calling people to interview?

Agree with others - all is not lost. There are a million reasons why interviews have to be delayed or an appointment goes on the back burner.

Also, OP knows full well, TA positions are - whether you actually like the work or not - the job of choice for a lot of people with school-age children. In fact, there was actually a fight , well, a mum fight which involved some shoving and ruffled Boden Rainy Day Fun Macs, in the school playground because someone had applied for a TA job when she had said she wouldn't.

Moreover, there are really different types of TA jobs: there are the ones which are sub teachers, with the successful applicants often being former or aspirant (or is it aspiring? or perspiring even?!) teachers. Then there are the cleaning up/wiping noses/preparing paint pots TAs and then the TAs who work with a child with extra needs; in this case skills specialist skills are often essential (eg sign language).

There would be no harm in sending a brief very polite email enquiring as to whether interview decisions have been made yet.

I'm not sure why you feel that you would have felt better about being rejected after an interview. Surely if they knew that they had several better candidates it is much better not to waste your, and their, time in interviewing you.

As others have said, it isn't necessarily that they think you're not up to it, more that they have several who are better-they may have even worked with other applicants in other places-one of the TAs at the local infants had been a deputy head at another school and had worked with the class teacher there.
They could also have a policy of not wanting parents working. I do have sympathy with that stance, as I think it often causes problems.
I also wonder whether they might not like having a reference from someone already at the school. Also I suppose it would be possible that the reference might have said something along the lines of "I like working with taken very much, however I don't feel this role is right for her because XYZ". You could get on and be very valuable to the class teacher, but her still feel you would be unsuitable for the role that is needed.

I suppose it's possible that they're keeping you in reserve as another option. You know, have two candidates that are much better on paper, and will appoint one of them assuming they interview as well as they expect.
However, they then think that if both of them interview badly, then they know they can come back to you casually and invite you in for interview. So in that way they didn't feel that they needed to invite you in as a second reserve candidate in the way that they might have if they didn't know you.

I did an interview once as clearly the reserve candidate. They were interveiwing three, and I knew one had not only done the job before for a long time, but also had other things above me. It was fairly clear that I was above the third person.
I had a good interview, I suspect I would have got it easily against others similar to me. However the one who was vastly more experienced would have had to majorly slip up to not get offered. Probably to the point they doubted her CV. I didn't mind being interviewed, there was a very slim chance. However the person who was the clearly 3rd felt that they were there on almost false pretenses. They felt they'd organised child care, got themselves all set up for the interview and it was a waste of time.

What I would do.

1. Ask for feedback. Don't make it emotional, but just "so I can strengthen my application". "How can I make it better so I may get to interview next time"
2. Look at your application. As someone else said your OP comes very much as "this role is perfect for me" You need to make it "I am perfect for this role".

I applied once for a role I knew I was underqualified, but looked perfect for me. Looking back at the application I did wince as Iyou could read so clearly into it that I was saying "yep, I'm not right, but please could you let me have it because I want it". I didn't get an interview.

Brenda at ruffled Boden Fun Macs

Very true - there are (or at least used to be, not sure about now, as I've not been one for quite a while) different levels of TA. I do remember my time as being the start of TAs having to take over entire class lessons. I did object to it, as I thought it a very lazy way of getting "cheap" teachers. After all - teachers have been to University to learn how to teach, TAs haven't, and should not have the shoulder the responsibility of taking an entire class for a lesson. Indeed, as a parent, I also objected when my own children were in a whole lesson conducted solely by a TA. Just thought it very unfair - both for TA and the students.

I did SN 1:1 and little groups of around six or seven of the lower ability classes, (as well as filling paint pots and collage, etc) but would not have been happy at having to teach an entire class. That is a very unfair situation, I feel.

As to those who say that command of the English language is a basic requirement. Of course it is - but surely that should apply to teachers too (I did allude to that point earlier). My own children had some teachers for whom English was their second or third language. The school did not do well during that period. Even some of the teachers where English was their first language were questionable. I often wonder how any of them managed to secure their positions.

Nice post, DeWee - constructive but without being overly critical. (Sorry, that sounds patronising, and it's really not meant to). I think OP might have had enough of criticism on her grammar.

I would have thought being granted an interview is at least an acknowledgement, but I see your point if it is a foregone conclusion that it might simply be a complete waste of time, and raising false hope.

On the other hand - if a person in OP's position could be called for the interview (most especially in the school in which she is already volunteering) and then given constructive feedback on where she might improve for future interviews, then that would be a positive move. All interviews are good experience, aren't they?

I've had some disastrous interviews in my day, truly awful - but I think I probably learned from them.

OP, if it is any comfort I fell for the line of "volunteer for us, it makes any application look so much stronger".

I also thought that after volunteering for a long time I stood a good chance, however, what none of us was not expecting was for this role to go to the daughter of one of the governors with no recruitment process whatsoever.

It stank frankly.

It reminds me of something that happened to me years ago, which I'd forgotten about. When I did my degree it was a sandwich course, we had to spend a year in industry. I was fortunate to have a year with a very prestigious company, I took to it like a duck to water, loved the work, got on well with everyone, ended up supervising new graduate recruits towards the end of the year and got a glowing report. Of course they were the first place I applied to once I had graduated. I thought they'd love to have me back. Nothing, not so much as an interview. I never did ask why, I suspect it was the fact that they didn't even need to consider people with 2:2s from Polytechnics when they could have their pick of the 1sts and 2:1s from proper universities. It was hard though.

However longer term that year has stood me in such good stead. I did find another good job, which led to another and another and I am still in a related career 25 years on and very happy with the way things worked out, I hope it works out for you too.

It's important to remember that the whole applying for a job thing is a point scoring exercise. They did not look at your application form based on what they know about you, but based on what you had put on your form. You have to evidence each aspect of the person spec. Recently, our organisation advertised a post, and a previous colleague applied. We knew he would be perfect for the position, but could not interview him, as he did not score highly enough on the form, compared to other candidates. He has vast experience, that we knew about, but he hadn't put it down!

Do speak to the HT and ask for constructive feedback.

The use of "could of" seems to be a new thing and imo is all about shortening speech and sounds horrible. It was even said on Coronation Street last night instead of could have and I did wince.

Why all this dumbing down? Why can't we all aspire to be well spoken and use grammar correctly. Could of will become the norm soon and I don't like it.

OP good luck in future with any applications and I would ask if there is anything you need to do which means you would be considered for an interview in future, though it might not be anything lacking in you that has meant you weren't seen this time.

It's a mishearing and consequent misunderstanding of the shortened version of "could have" which is "could've", Itsfab. There's nothing wrong with could've/should've/would've etc. I certainly don't think people should say "have" instead. I disagree with a PP who said saying "..... of" is a colloquiallism. It's not, it's a mistake.

Agree, Grunt - it is a mistake, as is "different to" compared with "different from". Many people make that error too. And the difference between "fewer" and "less". All very common mistakes. No-one gets it right all the time, not TAs, nor teachers; BBC commentators and politicians.

I'm pretty sure my prepositions are seldom correct, but I was a bloody fine TA.

We had a Deputy Head once who pronounced "th" as "f". Now how on earth did he slip through the pedantic net? I still puzzle over it, more than 10 years later.

PS - he is now a Headteacher in another, fairly prestigious school in this area. I have no doubt he still mispronounces his words . . .

Did you have to write any sort of personal statement on the job application that mirrors what you have written in your op? If so, I think this is perhaps why you weren't shortlisted. All your education sounds great but your written English isn't great. There are so many errors beyond what could be typos. So many commas! And would of/could of are pretty basic mistakes.

Just bear in mind, though, Disco - a hastily-typed post on an internet forum has not formed part of a poster's job application. Written English on here hasn't been great, but auto-correct can have a great deal to do with that. I think we all, at times, type things correctly, then post, then re-read and find all kinds of silly little errors. Errors that we know we are not actively responsible for.

And just, sometimes, typing very quickly and making silly mistakes is easily done. But we are not potential employers - are we? Too many commas? Maybe - but primary school children are often criticised for not using commas enough.

I noted that a full stop was positioned outside of a bracket - which is the perfect place for it to be.

I do hope you mean "discriminate between" candidates, Ici, and not "discriminate against"

No, DrankSangria. "Discriminate against" is an entirely correct construction.

If a school were to employ the latter in choosing their teachers, they really would be in hot water.

No they wouldn't. In legal terms, there is nothing wrong with discriminating against people who have demonstrated that they are not able to satisfy the requirements of the job in question. If a job requires a professional qualification, for example, there is nothing wrong with discriminating against applicants who don't have that qualification.

Goodness, prepositions are being quite pesky on this thread, aren't they?

Not in the least. However, the law seems to be causing problems for one or two contributors.

Nothing wrong with "different to" as opposed to "different from". Or even "different than" (although that wouldn't be my first choice.

www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/different-from-than-or-to

Re: commas- I was actually reading another post on this thread (one heavily critical of the OP's use of English as it happens) and thinking "do you not have a bloody comma key on your computer/phone?"

Oh, I know it's a correct construction Icky.

I am just querying the semantics.

Believe me, you meant discriminate between.

Would a linky convince you?

www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discriminate

Can't be bothered to read thread, so apologies if already mentioned, but maybe it was your grammar that let you down.

We don't say 'could of' it's could have! Schools these days expect a high standard of literacy and numeracy, even from TAs.

We had a Deputy Head once who pronounced "th" as "f". Now how on earth did he slip through the pedantic net? I still puzzle over it, more than 10 years later.

I was once on an Governors' interview panel for Deputy Heads and we appointed someone who did this. As probably the most pedantic person on the panel, I fully supported the appointment, because he was easily the most able candidate. The decision was fully justified, as he proved to be an excellent Deputy Head.

And that's all well and good, Ici - but if a DH or HT can hold such a position when he/she is not able to speak properly, then why would a candidate be refused an interview because he/she says 'of' instead of 'have'. That was the point of my post. Yes, it is wrong, but can be corrected.

If OP had been granted an interview, the panel/interviewer may have found her to be the best person for the post, despite any grammatical errors in her application. This is something that can be rectified, and OP should not have been discriminated against if this was the only reason (as many posters appear to think).

We had teachers pronouncing yoghurt as yowghurt (as in the US/S.African pronunciation). They weren't turned down for the job because of it. They were hired, because they were good candidates, but taught how to pronounce various words according to British standards. (Sorry - that sounds pompous, not intended, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to convey)

Wouldn't it have been nice if someone in the school could have taken OP aside and helped her with the grammar inconsistencies before the point of job application?

I've been told by more than one speech and language therapist that f instead of th is so common in this part of the country that it is considered dialect.

"All very common mistakes. No-one gets it right all the time, not TAs, nor teachers; BBC commentators and politicians."

I was once working with a group of civil servants on designing an application form. The civil servant in charge had his own rules - God knows what they were - for deciding when you wrote "dependent" and when you wrote "dependant". I told him several times and put it to him in writing that the latter was a noun and the former an adjective, and that by the way there was no such word as "independant"; and that my markup of his draft was correct on that basis. But his view was that he "was a Grade 7" and therefore what he said went, no matter that it were bollocks. In the end he overruled my advice and printed a million forms with "dependent" and "dependant" written interchangeably at random with a good few "independant" in there for good measure.

He got paid about four times what a teaching assistant gets. And his portfolio was education. He ended up having most of the volume reprinted, in the interests neither of efficiency nor, as the civil servants are fond of saying, of forestry conservation. In the meantime he had forwarded to me to answer (!) a healthy wodge of Ministerial correspondence generated by the fiasco.

I say f instead of th. I have a lisp and never had speech therapy as a child. I didn't realise this would stop me being a teacher. Just as well I didn't want to be one anyway.