To think explaining the gaps is silly

[Thisismybeauty]

I know there's a few teachers on here!

I'm applying for (teaching) jobs and resent having to explain gaps in my employment.

The reason CANNOT come under safer recruitment as anything untoward would be flagged in the DBS check. So why on earth is this insisted upon?

When I was recruiting I asked about jobs and gaps as I was looking for a logical flow as to why someone's career had followed a particular path. The whole thing gave a basis for discussion and probing. (Lies would probably be uncovered anyway as it's hard to have a discussion about something that didn't happen!). It was standard to ask why someone had left one job and why they had chosen the next. Presumably your 'gaps' are the reason you left particular jobs.

It's fairly normal. It was on an application for a job I applied for recently. Not teaching. I think every job I've gone for in my field has asked questions about cv gaps.

My CV is a list of my greatest employment successes showing why I wood be great at the job I'm applying for.
It is not a complete record of everything I've been doing since I left school.
I've never been asked about "gaps".

I've also never interrogated the dates on any cv I've had to review. I just look for evidence of the competencies we need.

Makes absolutely bugger all difference to me if someone has been having a baby, meditating in Thailand, writing a novel or getting pissed in Magaluf between jobs.

Explaining the gaps just gives the interviewer an idea of what motivates the interviewee, what experiences may have shaped them as a person, and might hint at possible issues with previous employers that may need further investigating (particularly if previous employers' references seem deliberately vague). Defensiveness about gaps just gives the impression the person concerned has something to hide that may be of relevance to any future employer.

I'm not a teacher and don't even have what I would consider to be a 'career' but I thought it was entirely normal to be expected to account for gaps in your working life. I've never filled in an application form that didn't ask for gaps to be accounted for, even for the most junior of jobs. Sometimes they only want your history for the past ten years but mostly I've had to account for everything since I left university, which is almost 20 years ago. I've even had loads of forms that insist on every day being accounted for, they specify that you must provide start and finish dates for each job down to the very day. I just thought that's what was normal for job applications.

I'm an employment adviser - and explaining the gaps is common practice in nearly all jobs.

It helps the employer to build a picture of your life and what risk you are to their organisation. It also stops assumptions, so rather than assuming you are lazy and done nothing in that time - they can see that you have been raising a family/caring for relative/travelling/studying etc.

find another career. Teaching won't be worse off if you do.

Wow.
Because the only way to safeguard is to blindly follow all existing safeguarding practice? Even when you cannot understand or justify or defend it?
OP has made it clear she will comply with this, but she's asked a really valid question about what purpose it actually serves. I don't think anyone has answered that satisfactorily yet.

I agree that DBS isn't sufficient (only proves you haven't been caught yet).
I agree that safeguarding is of absolute importance.
I cannot see how being asked to explain gaps in one's career history helps this. No proof is required, so it's perfectly easy to lie (far easier than eg claiming to have gained a qualification you haven't, or to have worked somewhere you didn't). Genuinely I cannot see what purpose it serves. I'd love to be corrected on this, but just repeating that it's a safeguarding thing doesn't really explain much at all.

I have never seen a job application that doesn't require you to explain gaps.

With teaching/safeguarding etc - let's say that you were pimping in Thailand (not caught) and you have a gap in your CV. The application form doesn't ask, the interviewer doesn't ask, you get the job. You work with some pupils who you invite to your Thailand gig over the summer. When it gets found out and the shit hits the fan, all the investigators will go back over the hiring process and the school will be held responsible because they did not ask about your gap.

But had they asked and you obviously didn't declare it, they can "tick the box" to say they asked you. You are then responsible for lying. It wasn't their fault.

Sometimes this stuff is about box ticking and having been seen/recorded to be doing things by the book. Not actually keeping children safe.

It being ineffectual as a safeguarding issue would be reasonable if it was also harmless to the job applicant, but it's not. My current job (not as a teacher, but requiring DBS clearance) also asked this, and I duly complied, but it's not a field known for welcoming women or/especially those with caring responsibilities. I would far sooner not have had to declare myself a parent and therefore potentially "a risk" to the organisation - because that is absolutely the perception in many many jobs.

Of course, individual cases of gender discrimination in recruitment aren't as awful as the worst cases of safeguarding failures, but it's not unreasonable to care about them.

So supposing this 'spent 12 months pimping in Thailand' person agrees that they spent that year travelling. What then, when the shit hits the fan? The school are in trouble for not probing more deeply about what had happened during this 'travelling'? Or they've asked the question at the broadest possible level, so it's not their responsibility any more?

What if the applicant had only spent six weeks pimping in Thailand, during the summer holiday?

Wouldn't this strange transfer of responsibility for withheld information be better served by simply asking the applicant if there is anything in their past which would make them unsuitable for the post? Again, no one in their right mind is going to admit to anything if that's the sort of past they have, but it seems to do the same 'box ticking' function without also penalising people who want to work well without having to let their employers get a 'good idea of their life'?

It's not just a safeguarding issue - you can go for a job in any sector and be asked the same question.
It's so the employer can gauge how dedicated you are to the role and whether you will be prone to having prolonged periods of time out of work. It could flag up a health issue or problems in previous employment that may not have been declared in the application.
Of course it will (unfairly) eliminate against some people, as there will always be prejudices against mothers and people with disabilities - due to the perception that they will have more time off and not be so dedicated to the role. Employers will also worry about potential costs that could be incurred through maternity and sick pay.

If you can leave gaps unexplained, you can wipe any employment history you wish to conceal- could be really worrying in some jobs. Perhaps not in all but in teaching a gap of 5 years could cover a teacher having a prohibition order and it runnng out. Or them leaving a school with an agreed reference under concerns about the quality of their work. Or them working in a /school/private school/academy/free school that has been closed because of significant safeguarding concerns.
You can't be allowed to leave unexplained gaps in some applications- you could leave out anything you fancy. Yes there will be liars but they risk being caught as liars after appointment - which is gross misconduct, a sackable offence, a reportable offence and would probably end up in a prohibition order.

It is how it is. Makes no difference who it suits. They are the safeguarding procedures in teaching - as I explained along with a raft of other procedure They have to be followed. No choice. Not about individuals- no one gives a toss if you were a SAHM, wrote a novel, travelled. The time has to be accounted for. If you lie and your integrity comes into question you will lose the job. If you refuse, you won't be appointed. It is how it is.

DBS only shows stuff you've been caught doing!

This! DBSs are sometimes discussed as though they are magical devices.

Do employers really think professional fraudsters would reveal themselves with a gap on the CV to which they said 'just wasn't working' banks already employ fraudsters with impeccable CVS all within the same bank. I have worked for more untrustworthy unethical people with consistent 'service' than those with gaps, so it's just not sensible to assume gaps = something bad..

Oh, ffs. The more questions you ask, the more information you get. What's all this trying to argue a potential employer shouldn't be allowed to ask questions about holes in the information given? Why shouldn't you ask about what was going on in someone's life when they have provided absolutely no information about themselves?

I hate this too, tbh. I have several long periods where I was too unwell to work. They can't ask about my health in the interview to prevent them discriminating against me due to my disability (which is not visible, so if I say nothing, they don't know). But suddenly I do have to put it on the form to explain myself? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of not asking in the interview? I put 'unemployed, looking for work' instead. Doesn't look good either, but is at least true, I was looking for something I was capable of doing (ie couldn't just take any job going, hence extended time off). Both shit options though.

No one is saying gaps=bad. There are perfectly valid reasons for gaps. Caring, Parenting, big house build, travelling, writing, starting a solo business. None of these are bad. None would bar you from being employed.

What is bad are unexplained gaps. Someone not happy to say what they were doing for 5 months. 3 years. Whatever the gap. If they are not going to explain it you will question whether you would want to employ them...cagey may mean something dodgy has happened. And without explanation that possible but unknown dodgy period would, for a lot of recruiters, put you in the no pile.

And yes you could lie. But if you are caught.. Dismissal. (Oh and most people are not very good at lying)

None would bar you from being employed.

None should. Plenty would - and undoubtedly often do. Motherhood and past health issues, to name two of the easiest. (And as a pp noted, interview panels are usually not supposed to ask about these things precisely because this is a recognised problem.)

I once had to explain a gap of 6m. I said I was evaluating my life, which was a sort of truth. No problems, interviewers were interested and we chatted on the theme for a few minutes. I got the job.

It's an opportunity to have a more relaxed chat, giving you all a chance to check each other out - how well would you fit in, and from your pov, are they the sort of people you would be able to work with/for. It works both ways.

Its still weird to.me that the whole recruitment game is about how you cover up shit jobs, gaps and bad experiences. Of the people I know ALL the good personable efficient ones have got terrible stories of bullying, bad management and weirdness, where all the slightly sinister bullies who love pointing fingers at 'the other' have all.been in continuous employment and game played like buggery and are the ones I would be least likely to employ- mainly because the are either the type who daredn't move because they have no transferability, or who are embedded in toxic and political environments, or people who are incompetent and cling on like desperate limpets during redundancy periods dropping all their colleagues in it.

One of my friends who is a business development director, also thinks that people who change jobs and has gaps aren't team players, yet they are the most versatile at joining new teams, and he is the most expert power player and destabilise of colleagues I know, so go figure...

Lanark- that is certainly not the case in teaching and it is teaching that was being referred to.

Recruitment in teachng is taken extremely seriously because of the unsuitable people around who do try to find ways to be in contact with children and because, on the occasions when schools have not followed those struct safer recruitment processes it has resulted in the deaths of children. The school that employed Ian Huntley did not follow any of the safer recruitment processes with the result that a man who lied on his form, fixed his references and changed his name then killed two girls in the school which employed him. They missed every opportunity to weed him out by being lax. Recruitment is no game in schools although it may be in your employment area.

Oh yeah. Point taken.

This is common practice for all jobs and has been for years.

I am an employer. If every employed stint of, say two years is followed by a 6 or 9 month break I want to know if the person is a flake who will cost me thousands in recruitment and induction after two years to 'travel' I will be interested in interrogating that further. If those gaps are maternity or parental leave I will think 'good for them they have the commitment to career development and are good at juggling and managing themselves ' .

Or the reason might make me shrug and go 'oh, ok',

OP you sound as if you have some particular reason to feel unwilling to fill in your gaps. Maybe start another thread asking how best to present these in a way that builds your credibility and does notes be you feeling exposed?

It's common practice in most professions. Mine certainly, and I'm not a teacher.

I don't have any issues about it and can see why interviewers would probe into gaps, especially of more than a couple of months.

However, I do think blindly answering 'safeguarding' isn't a good explanation in and of itself.

It's becoming the new 'health and safety' which is mocked yet continues to be parroted as an alternative to 'computer says no' obstructiveness. Safeguarding important and it's to everyone's detriment of it becomes a bureaucrats hiding place for dodgy thinking and ridiculous systems.

Rant over.

My caveat to that post being that answering safeguarding and then going on to explaining it is of course a valid answer, as a lot of posters have done on here (and heres my don't lynch me smile! :) )