 | | Comment: Dear Joan, in your recent answer (here) to a question on when governors are allowed to see references when shortlisting or interviewing for a teaching post, you replied:
"The law does not give specific guidance on this but, in my experience over a long period, the practice is to open the references only at the end of the interviewing process, and for the head and any governors involved to read them then as a final contribution to their thinking. I say 'any governors' because, as you know, although governors are responsible for all appointments (important if anything later goes wrong), heads are not required to include them in the process. If any are included I would expect the head to share the references with them at the time they are opened.
I don't know of any written guidance on this, I'm afraid, but the principle is that a reference should not be allowed to influence those making the decision until they have formed their own unprejudiced opinions of the candidate. Of course a reference may change the outcome, but only in extreme cases, for example where there is only a hair's breadth between two candidates."
Just a note to let you know that in fact the Safer Recruitment training course (available online through NCSL and introduced post-Bichard report), which at least the headteacher and one other governor are required to have completed, actually requires that references are taken up prior to shortlisting and that they form a key part of the interview process. Further, it advocates the use of reference pro formas and strict follow-up where queries to referees have not been fully and clearly answered.
Having interviewed for some years it is good to see this area now being tightened up and such things as compromise agreements or 'to whom it might concern' type references brought out into the open. References have been more of an afterthought instead of being the very useful tool that they are. There is also absolutely no reason why all the panel should not view references, especially where they raise any issues.
Joan Sallis replies: Thank you for the information about changes in the pipeline. I am especially interested in the pro forma recommendation which does ease some of my concerns, though I do not necessarily share your full enthusiasm about the changes. In terms of fairness to the candidates concerned they are undoubtedly an improvement, but if the primary objective is to get the best person for the school there is something to be said for the procedure I described which is fairly common.
We all know that the attitude towards references varies enormously among writers of them. Some will be comprehensive and truthful in so far as the risks allow, some will be uninformative, few in my experience (which is very extensive, a regular occurrence in fact over 33 unbroken years) have contributed significantly to what has by then been observed. They are occasionally less than frank and not primarily written in the spirit of ‘treat this school as you would like yours to be treated’, which is what the receiving school would like. It could even be argued that seeing them in advance prejudices the investigation, especially if they are selective to the point of being misleading in extreme cases. However I am all for greater uniformity and clear guidance, just differing on the time in the process when they should be read.
Anyway don’t take too much notice of me. I am merely a cheeky outsider!
| | |
