To wonder why I didn't even get an interview for this post?

[Runny]

I work as a supply TA through an agency. Just before the summer term I worked in a lovely school for several weeks covering sick leave, before I finished the placement they told me that if a vacancy ever came up that I should apply for it.

Fast forward to last week. A part time job had come available at the school. I didn't see the advert, but the head teacher made a point of hunting me down via my agency and asking me to apply for it ASAP. I emailed the head and told her who I was and she messaged straight back saying yes she still wanted me to apply for it, and so I did immediately.

This was the Friday, the interviews were this Wednesday just gone. On Monday afternoon I got a really short, curt email from the head thanking me for my application but saying they were not going to pursue it this time.

To say it was a punch in the gut was an understatement. Why make a point of tracking me down and asking me to apply if they weren't even going to give me an interview? I really got along well with everyone at the school, and you'll know if you do supply, there are some places you just gel with straight away, and that's why I really don't get it? No one in my family can understand it either. Obviously if I'd been interviewed and not got it that would have been different, but this has left me scratching my head...

I have anxiety and poor self esteem and this was such a confidence boost, and now I'm back at square one. The only thing I can think of is that my agency have put them off me somehow, but why would they do that?

Can anyone help me shed any light on what may have happened here? I feel so low right now.

Do you know if there were other internal applicants? Sometimes managers have an internal applicant in mind, but are required to interview rather than just give them the job. Shit for you or anyone else brought in to make up the numbers, but often a reality.

I used to be involved in school recruitment (As a school governor - I chaired the personnel committee). We would draw up very clear person spec (which we sent out with the application forms) and then would shortlist against it. If the application didn't meet the person spec then we wouldn't shortlist that applicant.

You might have proofread your application, but did you cross check it against the job description and person spec? Just because the school knows you and knows you can do the job doesn't mean your application reached the required standard.

I certainly think it's worth asking the HT for feedback on why you didn't get shortlisted. The curt email might be a standard one they send to all unsuccessful candidates, and feedback wouldn't be included unless someone asked for it.

My first thought was also the agency wanting to charge a fee. It can make it difficult to move from supply to a job.

It could well be the agency fee although that doesn't explain why they wanted you to apply in the first place!

I suspect it may have been vanity - wanting to get as many applications in as possible.

Another point to consider is that it is becoming increasingly common for HR to remove names/gender/age from applications before submitting them for shortlisting. Manager's tend not to like this but it makes for a fairer process. I suspect that the school received more applications than they were expecting and that there were stronger candidates e.g better qualified, more experienced etc. Ask for feedback, don't be embarrassed about it, it is quite acceptable to do so and you it will help with future applications for other jobs. You need to map the application to the person spec/competencies listed so you specifically address how you meet those requirements.

Ask why. It sounds like you had a good relationship with this place so I think it's ok to ask.

The days of being able to employ someone because you know they would be excellent at the job are long gone. I don't know much about the private sector but for a long time in the public sector the process has to be 'formulaic' to prove publically it is fair. just means people who are wither good at interview or good at blagging application forms get the job rather than people that can actually do the job

There will probably have been lots of applicants, and, unfortunately on the application forms, there will be others who scored more highly than you.
As others have said, this is the opportunity to ask her to let you know what you can do to your application to make you look a stronger applicant on paper, so you can get on to the shortlist next time.

I agree with a previous poster, don't make it personal or about them/you but make it about your CV. Ask how your CV did not meet the criteria for interview this time. It makes the rejection less direct & less personal.

Then forget about it & have a gin & move on!

Yes the school were astonishingly naïve to ask the agency for your address. The agency will have sent them a letter immediately reminding them that the smallprint of the contract they signed states that if any temp supplied by the agency later gets offered a permanent role the agency shall be due a fee of x% of the annual salary (15-25% depending on the agency)

We were asked for nearly £10 000 when we recruited a teacher who had originally come to us as a long term supply teacher!

We said that in that case we would not use the agency again. They backed down!

I think it's perfectly reasonable to pay an agency a release fee if they made the initial introduction, providing it's within a reasonable time limit.

Did you meet the person spec with your application form? If not this could be a reason you may not have got an interview.

Go direct to the head and ask for feedback. She owes it to you.

The school probably were naive to contact me via the agency, but they are a very small village school and I can't imagine they'd ever be able to afford to pay any kind of realise fee, especially if it ran into the thousands