EDUCATORS
5.2 Findings from Educators' Questionnaires
5.3.7 The selection process (i) What caused the disputes?
Graph 7: Lodging ofDisputes
17%
50%
IiiIYes .No o Maybe
The graph illustrates that 50% of the interviewees perceived the disputes to have arisen from Selection Committees not being adequately trained. These respondents felt that lack one (17%) interviewee was not sure as to whether these mechanisms were good or bad as he felt that they were the closest things to identifying the best candidate.
Although all the interviewees agreed that the interview stage is important, they felt that it does not convincingly allow for the selection of the best person. They added that it does not do justice to the candidates who are very nervous and the time allocated to answer each question is too short. Hence, candidates are unable to express themselves as
intended. Findings in a study by McPherson (1999) similarly indicated that there was too much emphasis placed on the interview process and that the interviews were conducted in a very tense atmosphere. This made the interviewees very uncomfortable. Furthermore, the time allocated for each interview was too short for the interviewee to answer the questions adequately.
5.3.7 The selection process (i) What caused the disputes?
Graph 7: Lodging of Disputes
17%
50%
IiiIYes
.No o Maybe
The graph illustrates that 50% of the interviewees perceived the disputes to have arisen from Selection Committees not being adequately trained. These respondents felt that lack
of training led to committees making mistakes during the selection process and not following proper procedures. One interviewee stated that Selection Committees were also not well versed with all the necessary documents, especially National Policies.
Another interviewee stated that since his committee was not fully equipped to handle the selection process, they had to rely on his school's educators for guidance and this led to the educators being biased towards applicants from their school. These issues are in line with the educators' claim (on p46: 5.2.6.6) that more than half (52.6%) ofthe disputes were lodged due to procedures not being followed and/or the selection process being unfair and flawed.
The perceptions of 33% of the interviewees were that disputes arose when certain committee members dominated the process and influenced others to select a particular candidate for a post. One interviewee recalled a dispute that was lodged against his committee. The principal of his school had a strained relationship with a particular candidate from within the staff and he influenced the Selection Committee not to shortlist this candidate. However, the candidate lodged a dispute and won. This helped confirm Thurlow's (2003: 60) claim that there are 'widespread perceptions that non-job-related factors had been allowed to influence selection decisions'.
(ii) Opinions of the current selection process.
The perception of five (83%) of the interviewees was that the selection process is a big farce, flawed or chaotic. Their claim was that their recommendations were not well received by the educators and that their hard work was in vain. This was exacerbated by of training led to committees making mistakes during the selection process and not following proper procedures. One interviewee stated that Selection Committees were also not well versed with all the necessary documents, especially National Policies.
Another interviewee stated that since his committee was not fully equipped to handle the selection process, they had to rely on his school's educators for guidance and this led to the educators being biased towards applicants from their school. These issues are in line with the educators' claim (on p46: 5.2.6.6) that more than half (52.6%) of the disputes were lodged due to procedures not being followed and/or the selection process being unfair and flawed.
The perceptions of 33% of the interviewees were that disputes arose when certain committee members dominated the process and influenced others to select a particular candidate for a post. One interviewee recalled a dispute that was lodged against his committee. The principal of his school had a strained relationship with a particular candidate from within the staff and he influenced the Selection Committee not to shortlist this candidate. However, the candidate lodged a dispute and won. This helped confirm Thurlow's (2003: 60) claim that there are 'widespread perceptions that non-job-related factors had been allowed to influence selection decisions'.
(ii) Opinions of the current selection process.
The perception of five (83%) of the interviewees was that the selection process is a big farce, flawed or chaotic. Their claim was that their recommendations were not well received by the educators and that their hard work was in vain. This was exacerbated by
1 (17%)
disputes being lodged and the finalisation and appointments being delayed over long periods, which then required them to spend many additional hours sitting at hearings.
However, one (17%) interviewee had no problems with the selection process.
(iii) Suggestions to improve the selection process.
A suggestion by three (50%) of the interviewees was that workshops should be conducted by educators who had practical experience in the selection process as well as by Selection Committees who were successful in implementing the process. People who are fully aufait with the Education Labour Relation Council document, labour relations, arbitration and interview skills should also be present. The other three (50%) interviewees
suggested that training should involve all the members in the committees instead of the chairpersons only.
(iv) Should School Governing Bodies or the Department of Education handle the Selection Process?
Table 8: Handling the Selection Process
School Governing Body
Department of Education 5(83%)
The table shows that five (83%) of the interviewees felt that the Department of Education should handle the selection process as it was considered to be a nerve racking,
painstaking and time consuming job. They claimed that many evenings and days were spent on the process especially when the appointments were not made due to disputes being lodged and where hearings were always being adjourned.
disputes being lodged and the finalisation and appointments being delayed over long periods, which then required them to spend many additional hours sitting at hearings.
However, one (17%) interviewee had no problems with the selection process.
(iii) Suggestions to improve the selection process.
A suggestion by three (50%) of the interviewees was that workshops should be conducted by educators who had practical experience in the selection process as well as by Selection Committees who were successful in implementing the process. People who are fully aufait with the Education Labour Relation Council document, labour relations, arbitration and interview skills should also be present. The other three (50%) interviewees
suggested that training should involve all the members in the committees instead of the chairpersons only.
(iv) Should School Governing Bodies or the Department of Education handle the Selection Process?
Table 8: Handling the Selection Process
School Governing Body 1 (17%) Department of Education 5 (83%)
The table shows that five (83%) of the interviewees felt that the Department of Education should handle the selection process as it was considered to be a nerve racking,
painstaking and time consuming job. They claimed that many evenings and days were spent on the process especially when the appointments were not made due to disputes being lodged and where hearings were always being adjourned.
Only one (17%) interviewee felt that the School Governing Bodies should handle the selection process, as she did not trust the Department of Education to select an appropriate person for the posts at her school. She, did however, concede that some School Governing Bodies areillequipped to successfully conduct the selection process which tends to prejudice applicants.