Made a typo in an application and now I’m worried

[Ritakk]

I sent an email and I misspelt the word “for” as “fo” it wasn’t in any part of the application just for the email that I sent with everything attached. Have I messed up?

It is lying if you're asked and you choose to be dishonest.

As I said in my post:
There is a big difference between erring on the side of caution (what you suggested they said) and disclosing information at the appropriate times (what they actually said).
Basically don't lie in an application form (for example, ticking no on any questions about disabilities if you know you're going to expect adjustments for a disability later) and when you have a job offer and are completing the new starter paperwork, don't lie

There's nothing controversial in suggesting that people share information at the appropriate points and are honest.

No, LolaSmiles it's not lying and it's not dishonest not to disclose a disability the first time you are asked.

It's really important from a discrimination pov that people aren't accused of lying or being dishonest because they haven't previously shared information about their disability.

It's entirely up to the individual if or when they disclose a disability. It's absolutely fine, indeed protected by law, that people don't have to disclose a disability at application but to disclose once they've been offered a job.

The legal duty of the organisation is the same. Ditto if someone doesn't disclose their disability until performance management measures kick in (this obviously isn't ideal but it happens all the time).

@christinarossetti19 your advice is spot on actually. I wouldn’t really try to justify it on here though because it’s almost like they’re the OG Mumsnetters and god help you if you try and explain something that is actually extremely reasonable.

I’m in agreement with you. As I have been to work at other places outside of teaching whenever I’ve declared it work are automatically understanding. Same with placement school- they were also very understanding and if I’m honest it doesn’t really show through much at work. Only when I’m writing on the board and have to think about what I’m writing.

I don’t really need loads of adjustments at interview because I only found out i was dyslexic a few years ago mid way into my degree. So I actually just learned to function regardless and I did pretty well.

I actually genuinely appreciate your help @christinarossetti19 genuinely. Thank you for offering some really sound advice and being supportive on this forum.

Thanks Ritakk. I work in workplace mental health and it's really, really important for people to know that they are under no obligation to disclose a disability, and the law protects them if they disclose a disability at any point during their employment.

It's awful if people want to keep something private, but fear that they will be considered to have lied if they declare it later, so disclose it before they are ready or need to, or end up delaying and delaying declaring it (if at all).

Dyslexia may well be a useful thing to bring up in interview, not in terms of declaring a disability, but in terms of overcoming challenges, understanding the needs of children with dyslexia or other learning difference etc.

And it's always much better when someone declares a disability if they are able to immediately give some suggestions of what adjustments will help them, which people can't necessarily do until they're actually in post and have more understanding of what the role involves.

Best of luck with your job hunting. I too am job hunting at the moment - I fully understand the worry about every little thing. I have a disability that I would never put on an application form, nor disclose at interview and only will in a job role if I need an adjustment, which is very specific and may not be an issue depending on the role.

christinarossetti19
So it not being dishonest to state an answer knowing that is factually untrue? Someone may choose to give a factually untrue response for whatever reason, but it still makes is a false answer.

I do agree with you that the legal obligation is there once disclosed though.

Ritakk what are you on about with 'OG mumsnetters'?
You've been given lots of advice on lots of topics that you've posted under several usernames, and on countless threads you've been quite snippy with lots of posters.

No, it isn't being dishonest to choose not to declare a disability at a particular point, and then declare it later on.

At the point of application, questions are along the lines of 'do you require adjustments for the interview process?' If you do not, then it is not lying to say no.

Ditto 'do you wish to declare a disability?' - if you don't want to, the true and correct answer is 'no'.

People can also disclose a disability on an EO monitoring form, and not on the actual application form.

The law protects people disclosing a disability at whatever point they want to, or indeed if they don't.

Nowhere in disability law is there discourse around 'dishonesty' or 'lying'. Falsely declaring a disability could potentially be fraudulent, depending on the circumstances.

So after all this we come back to the same thing I said to start with about being honest on application forms. Both the situations you mention involve the applicant telling the truth.

Still not seeing how being honest in applications and sharing information at the appropriate times is controversial.

This is one of the things you said LolaSmiles - Or to put an even more blunt spin on it, if someone lies about having dyslexia to get a job and the then a school may be less likely to accept "but I'm dyslexic" as an excuse if issues arise because the candidate chose to lie to the school."

Once again, it is not 'lying about dyslexia' (or any other disability) not to declare it at any point during recruitment or being in post.

If the person chooses to disclose their dyslexia (or any other disability) at a later stage, including in the context of performance management, it is not 'making excuses' nor does the school have any legal right whatsoever to decide not to accept this. Their legal duties include reviewing the performance management issues in light of a subsequent disclosure of disability.

What is controversial in the context of you offering advice to an inexperienced teacher worrying about not getting a job because of their dyslexia though, is telling them they they should tick a box about disabilities in their application form if they know they may need adjustments later, as doing anything else would be 'lying'.

It's not true.

It doesn't matter whether someone knows that they will need adjustments once in post - it is not lying to not disclose this at the point of application.

christinarossetti19
There's nothing controversial about people being honest and disclosing at appropriate points in the process.

Adjustments can be put in place at any point once the disclosure is made. There are ample opportunities for people to state that they need reasonable adjustments and to ensure workplaces put them in place.

If you honestly think people who have lots of additional workload given to them dealing with performance issues that could have easily been avoided had the person specified they need adjustments at the appropriate time are going to be super accepting then you're living in another world. They may do what is legally required, but that's different to being accepting.

I said legally required. Nothing at all about accepting.

I said legally required. Nothing at all about accepting

And yet I said earlier in the thread (including the bit you've just quoted me saying)
If they'd be somewhere unlikely to appoint based on someone accurately disclosing dyslexia at the right time in the process, they're not going to he an understanding workplace.

Or to put an even more blunt spin on it, if someone lies about having dyslexia to get a job and the then a school may be less likely to accept "but I'm dyslexic" as an excuse if issues arise because the candidate chose to lie to the school

See the word ACCEPT there.

As I've said countless times, once declared there has to be reasonable adjustments, but people aren't likely to accept lots of entirely unavoidable additional work landing on their plate because someone chose to say they didn't need adjustments.

Being honest is important.

But you weren't talking about people accepting additional workload.

You've added that in later on.

You were talking about not accepting dyslexia 'as an excuse' if issues arise.

And not disclosing a disability is not lying. And declaring a disability isn't 'making excuses'.

This is really important for people to know. If people are told that their disability won't be 'accepted' unless they declare it at the first opportunity, it's effectively telling people that they have to disclose before they might want to and, if they don't, they can't later for fear of it being seen as an excuse.

This is terrible advice.

Yeah alright lolasmiles I forgot you owned Mumsnet and there’s no such thing as freedom of speech. I think it’s evident you’re wrong on this one and creating silly threads like you have before about positivity and what not is clearly a load of old rubbish because you’re just presenting yourself as someone who can’t stand to be corrected and bitter when you’re being corrected. You’re also spreading incorrect information.

You are wrong. No one is obliged to state anything they do not want to. If I tell my employer at the start or at the end of the process it makes no difference. Because a lot of employees can just go down the discrimination route if an employer decides they suddenly have an issue with an employees disability. Why do you think that you HAVE to be right.

Accept you’re wrong and just leave it, imo you’re just adding 0 value to the other post because clearly christinarosetti19 is correct. Maybe just get over it and stop being a spoilt so and so about it.

I’m in total agreement with you Christinarosetti19. Thanks for being so helpful on this thread unlike others.

I'm not helpful on plenty of other threads Ritakk [grin}.

But I do know about equality law, and it's really important that people have clear, accurate information about their rights.

What a nice rant there ritakk.

But you weren't talking about people accepting additional workload.
You've added that in later on.
You were talking about not accepting dyslexia 'as an excuse' if issues arise.

Again, see the word accept and again, the whole post that you selectively quoted from and the follow up post explaining the issues.

If they'd be somewhere unlikely to appoint based on someone accurately disclosing dyslexia at the right time in the process, they're not going to he an understanding workplace.
Or to put an even more blunt spin on it, if someone lies about having dyslexia to get a job and the then a school may be less likely to accept "but I'm dyslexic" as an excuse if issues arise because the candidate chose to lie to the school.

Picture this hypothetical situation:
Candidate lies to get a job, then after getting the job downplays or lies on their new starter forms. Teacher is now in post and finds they're being picked up for literacy errors in their marking, their lesson materials are regularly full of errors and parents have started to call the HoD. Reports are due and they are also full of mistakes because the teacher hasn't had time to proof read them all. Over the course of a term or two, there are concerns building about the teacher's capability. The HoD has to have a meeting with the teacher to raise performance issues. The teacher then says "but I've got dyslexia and I don't have time to check my materials and the reports were too much for me to proof read. I really need someone else in the team to proof read my reports for me". This is the first the HoD or SLT have heard about this teacher's dyslexia.

And my post after it:
I'm not saying they shouldn't make reasonable adjustments, just that there's space in the process to declare disability that requires adjustments.
For my current job I declared mine on the new starter forms after I had a job offer, and had a discussion with occupational health before starting.

If we're thinking about professional relationships then someone choosing to tick 'no' to a disability, not give work an opportunity to put appropriate adjustments and support in place isn't going to promote positive working relationships if their actions cause lots of additional workload for colleagues, and has an impact on the quality of their teaching (which also creates additionalwork for colleagues).
The amount of additional work when there's parental concerns about a teacher can be huge, and can easily be avoided if someone mentions they need adjustments at the numerous times given instead of saying nothing until concerns about their performance are raised.

At the end of the day, there's ample opportunity for people to disclose at appropriate times in the process, honesty at appropriate times is best, and (as I said) a workplace that would be poor when disclosures are made at appropriate times is also not likely to be the sort of workplace to be accepting should performance issues arise later.

As I said, you added that bit in later on.

You spoke about a workplace being less likely to accept dyslexia 'as an excuse' if it transpired that it was affecting someone's performance and they hadn't previously declared it.

That's the reality though! A workplace may tick the required boxes but that doesn't make them accepting.

There are some schools and academy chains I wouldn't touch with a bargepole because their reputation regarding staff goes before them. They're not going to be any more accepting based on whether someone applied and denied having a disability out of concern they'd discriminate or whether they were in post and disclosed 6 months in when called into a formal meeting. There are people I know who have taken compromise agreements/settlement agreements after some terrible experiences in some schools that ended up being bad for their health.

Much as it would be great to sit here and pretend that somewhere will be more inclusive and accepting if cards are held close to chests, the reality is that the places who'd be less likely to appoint if they know of a disability are less likely to be accepting when there are performance issues.

Then you're left with supportive environments who are accepting. They'll tick the right boxes and be an inclusive environment. It doesn't help professional relationships if colleagues are having entirely avoidable extra workload placed on them dealing with the impact of someone else not requesting the reasonable adjustments that they need to do their job effectively.

Lolasmiles I don’t really understand how you’re arguing with another user that’s explaining equality laws. I just can’t understand you.

Also LolaSmiles. If I choose not to declare something it’s my choice, not yours. Yes I can declare early but if I don’t want to. Then I don’t have to.

What does that have to do with you telling OP that she shouldn't 'lie' on an application form ie tick a box saying that she doesn't have a disability even if she knows that she may need adjustments later on?

That's why I posted on this thread - because this is dreadful advice.

Yeah pretty much what I was trying to say aswell christinarisetti19. A workplace the doesn’t accept you from the off when I declare my disability may not actually be linked to that but I’ll always thing it will be. That’s why I’m happier to go through the process then explain if and when I get the job “I’m dyslexic. It’s well managed and I know how to cope as it was a late diagnosis. Sometimes when I’m writing on thr board I may make small errors but I’ll always correct them and make sure I have a paper with me that has correct spellings on”

As for things like reports that Lolasmiles mentioned there’s spellcheck on software. Most reports won’t be hand written and even if they are I’ll spell check a word that I can’t correctly spell. Also during my training when I’ve been marking I sit in a quiet place and mark and usually I’m fine at picking out errors. I just don’t see why you’re tying to prove a point that’s not really right?

Because as I've said, somewhere that is unlikely to appoint if they take an issue with the appropriate disclosure of a disability is not the sort of employer who is likely to be accepting later should performance issues arise.

Being honest at the appropriate stages in the process means the right adjustments can be made for the situations.

Thinking that an intolerant workplace is going to suddenly become a tolerant and accepting workplace based on if and when someone shares they need adjustments seems silly. The right boxes might get ticked, but it doesn't make them accepting.

It’s dyslexia. If I misspell a word I’ll always correct myself. You’re being ridiculous and your advice is all wrong. We clearly know now that you’re not accepting of someone declaring a disability later on.

@Ritakk do you realise that @LolaSmiles interviews and recruits staff? I think she’s even in the same subject as you. Telling someone in that position that “You’re being ridiculous and your advice is all wrong” is, well, ridiculous and wrong. She might not be giving the advice you want to hear, but she is trying to help, here and on many of your other threads. It’s not ‘mumsnet OG’; it’s experienced teachers repeatedly trying to help you.

Anyway, did you hear back from the school? Have you got an interview?

AttaGirrrrl
I give up. We're now at the point where me disclosing a disability on new starter forms whilst pointing out the reality of some workplaces is proof that I personally am unaccepting.

They seem to be struggling to distinguish someone's personal opinions are with someone explaining that an unacceping workplace isn't going to become more accepting if someone doesn't disclose a disability until much later should performance issues arise.

I'm probably imagining the friends and colleagues I've known who've had awful experiences in schools, and imagining the 'supportive' measures put in place for people I know who have had health issues, and imagining the trend of (more expensive) staff disappearing from schools under unsupportive procedures that ticked the right boxes but were part of an unsupportive culture. All the right legal boxes were ticked so the environment must have been wonderful, right?