THE LAW requires that all vacancies for heads or deputy heads must be publicly advertised. The governors would be acting improperly if they failed to advertise the post.
Equally, although the law does not require them to do so, they would be open to challenge if they did not give consideration to any applications which were received as a result of the advert.
The law does not, however, oblige them to interview all, or any, of the applicants and, if they are fully satisfied that the internal applicant really is the person best qualified for the post, then they may appoint him or her.
I have never been persuaded of the rightness of inviting people for interview, when the oucome has already been decided: one should only do so if the process is genuinely open.
I am also inclined to think that the internal candidate would feel far more comfortable in the post, if they were assured that it
had been gained in a fair and open contest.
* SPURIOUS PAY BID
A TEACHER employed on a temporary contract was given a formal warning for unprofessional conduct. Although he has since left us, he has lodged an appeal against the warning and is claiming that he is entitled to be paid until it is heard. Is there any basis for this?
I DO not believe so. Such a claim flies in the face of common sense, in that it suggests that someone who has behaved badly would gain something which is denied to someone who is innocent.
The teacher's right to payment ceased when his contract ended. While he has the right to challenge the action against him, he is not entitled to something he would not have received anyway.