Additional settings for Safari Browser.
Q1: How does the criteria of selecting applicants for interviews change based on the number of applicants?
P1:
Less pool, adjust criteria, look for more detail; sometimes must "piece it around" but learned not to fill a position just to have someone.
P2:
With 50 applicants, narrow down using experience first; December criteria might differ from May criteria.
P3:
Use experience, especially for head coach jobs; criteria changed from five years ago when the school was underperforming.
P4:
Set criteria beforehand and stick to it; might reopen the position if no good fit is found; early season allows pickiness, late season might force taking what's available.
P5:
Large number of applicants means prioritizing experience; slim pickings means looking for straight licensure.
P6:
Applicant numbers drastically decreased over 14 years; focus shifts from "most qualified" to "most coachable" and cultural fit for small schools.
P7:
Limited applicants means looking for people to train or coach up, even from elementary to secondary if adaptable.
P8:
Criteria set based on job description; adjust expectations or "reboot" if applicant pool doesn't meet them; time of year matters.
📌 Most Prevalent Themes:
- Experience Priority: 5/8 participants prioritize experience with large pools
- Flexibility/Adaptation: 5/8 participants adjust criteria based on pool size
- Seasonal Variation: 4/8 participants note timing affects criteria
- Cultural Fit: 2/8 emphasize finding right fit over just filling positions
Q2: What criteria do you use to narrow down applicants?
P1:
Endorsement needs, degree level, community vs. non-community person, experience with proven track record and data; important to find people who want to be at a rural school.
P2:
Experience (but balance older folks with newbies); pool size determines whether to interview all or narrow down.
P3:
Experience is key; asks for work samples with evidence of effective things; checks social media initially.
P4:
Certification in the area, prior successful teaching experience with documentation; references are key tie-breaker.
P5:
Experience and license are primary filters before formal discussion; references are checked.
P8:
Experience in the specific grade/subject; endorsements on license are a plus; goal to diversify staff age ranges.
📌 Most Prevalent Themes:
- Experience: 6/6 responding participants cite experience as primary criterion
- Qualifications/Credentials: 4/6 mention certifications, endorsements, or degrees
- References: 3/6 specifically mention checking references
- Cultural Fit: 1/6 emphasizes desire to work in specific school context
Q3: Are current interview formats accomplishing the task of selecting effective teachers, and how do you judge effectiveness?
P1:
Yes, current process has helped hire better teachers, reflected in improved retention rates.
P2:
Yes, based on results and data.
P3:
Effectiveness determined by reference calls and observing professional development; can tell quickly if a mistake was made after hiring.
P4:
Interview alone isn't enough (30 mins won't tell you); effectiveness determined by references, student teacher observations, holding to high standards, classroom observations, student success/growth, state tests/data.
P5:
Yes, multi-step process with superintendent involvement is effective; effectiveness measured by School District Evaluation Instrument, professional development engagement, and student performance.
P6:
Effectiveness measured by "being in the hallways" watching teachers, looking at student learning data, constant assessment.
P7:
Sometimes you don't know until after they're hired; measure effectiveness via classroom observations, teacher questions/communication, watching for engagement, listening from outside the door, student reactions.
P8:
Yes, effective because criteria was consistent; effectiveness measured by evaluation system, checklist for new teachers, observation of interactions, and ultimately, student outcomes.
📌 Most Prevalent Themes:
- Classroom Observations: 6/8 participants use direct observation to measure effectiveness
- Student Data/Outcomes: 5/8 cite student performance, growth, or test data
- Evaluation Systems: 3/8 mention formal evaluation instruments
- References: 2/8 use reference checks as effectiveness predictor
Q4: Do modified interview formats (tasks, projects, data discussions) give better understanding of candidate ability?
P1:
Absolutely; had applicants teach a lesson and video themselves for the committee to review and critique.
P2:
No (currently), but thinking about having them teach lessons in the future as candidate pools get smaller.
P3:
Yes, 100%; now asks people to bring work samples (evidence of effective things).
P4:
Yes, throwing out off-topic questions or concepts (e.g., in math) helped see personality and how they handle unexpected situations (genuineness/adaptability).
P5:
Give them a children's book or math lesson concept and ask how they'd teach it (part of multi-step process). Does not use live student lessons (unfair) but uses scenario questions (curriculum, scaffolding, differentiation discussions).
P6:
Sticks to traditional model; doesn't use modified formats like tasks/projects; uses unique questions (e.g., candy choice) to see how they think on their feet.
P7:
Uses material in office (trade book) to ask how they'd teach a lesson/design a lesson; does not use live student lessons (horse and pony show).
P8:
Used live student lesson teaching when candidates were equally qualified; also uses informal walk-around discussions to observe interactions.
📌 Most Prevalent Themes:
- Scenario-Based Questions: 5/8 use hypothetical teaching scenarios or materials
- Work Samples/Evidence: 2/8 request portfolio or work sample evidence
- Live Teaching: 2/8 use actual teaching demonstrations (1 video, 1 live)
- Unique/Unexpected Questions: 2/8 use off-script questions to assess adaptability
- Mixed Opinions: Most (7/8) support modifications; 1 prefers traditional format
Q5: Do you have frustrations with the current interview format?
P1:
Technology glitches and applicants that don't meet criteria being included in the pool (time-waster).
P2:
Constraints are sometimes frustrating (e.g., specific requirements for checking references, time restraints for hiring), leading to loss of good candidates to smaller districts.
P3:
No frustrations now, but used to have them; current superintendent requirement of proof of reference contact is a great idea.
P4:
Frustration with policy constraints that prevent deeper digging for information, but understands policy is for legal protection.
P5:
Not with current district, but had frustrations with previous district's guidelines.
P6:
No real frustrations with district policy; had issue with school board wanting to hire specific person over their choice, but was allowed to make final decision.
P7:
Given a lot of autonomy, so no major frustrations; had to call supervisors once to go easy on a candidate the coach really wanted.
P8:
Frustrations with standardized questions that don't show true results; preferred informal conversations; learned from "working interviews" used in other industries/family business.
📌 Most Prevalent Themes:
- Policy/Process Constraints: 4/8 frustrated by district requirements or procedures
- Limited/No Frustrations: 3/8 report minimal or no current frustrations
- Autonomy Valued: 2/8 note that decision-making power reduces frustration
- Standardized Format Limitations: 2/8 frustrated with rigid question formats
Q6: Do interviews or hiring practices differ significantly between early and late hiring season?
P1:
Early season allows for pickiness/more selective process; end of season requires caution as remaining pool might have non-renewed teachers or problem individuals; due diligence is vital.
P2:
Criteria may be different in December than in May based on need.
P4:
Early season allows more selectivity/time; late in season might have to take what you can find, work harder with them to make them better.
P5:
Top picks are gone late in season; often left with people to just fill a space vs. highly qualified candidates; can suffer all year for late, bad hires.
P6:
Sometimes have to hire people the second day of school; might have to "ride it out for a year" if they have no criminal record; value is in early hiring.
P7:
Have to accept limitations if you wait late; top picks (specific endorsements) are gone; proactive early scouting/recruiting is important.
📌 Most Prevalent Themes:
- Universal Agreement: 6/6 responding participants note significant seasonal differences
- Early = Selectivity: All cite ability to be more selective early in season
- Late = Compromise: All note late season means lower quality candidates and necessity hiring
- Consequences: 3/6 mention suffering consequences of late, poor-quality hires
- Risk Management: 2/6 emphasize increased due diligence for late hires